Re: Snooze/lose (Was: Academics and coursepacks)

On 24 Aug 1998, Thomas Workman <tworkman[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> >
> > In business, everything has a cost. Retailers, for example, can
> > always expect a certain amount of theft. Which would you favor:
> >
> > 1) Paying higher prices to pay for additional surveillance
> > equipment and security people? (Deterrent)
> >
> > 2) Paying higher prices to pay for losses sustained from theft?
> > (Loss compensation)
> >
> > It's the same here.
>
> As I understand the argument, the fact that business expects and
> plans for some event (in this case theft of their product), then that
> theft is justified? Surely you had some other intent in your statement.
> If I draw the analogy to copying from an out of print book, then I
> conclude that it is OK to copy because photocopy machines are expected
> to copy. Where does that put the author who wrote something before the
> advent of photocopy machines??

The trend of academic books and journals since the proliferation of the Xerox 914 in the 1960s has been falling sales balanced by rising prices. Typical printings of learned monographs once ranged between 1500 and 2500 copies sold primarily to libraries. Today editions are half or less that number in spite of a doubling of people with advanced degrees. Interlibrary (photocopying)loan, coursepacks, individuals substituting copies for purchases, and loss of library purchasing power all contribute. Underlying the degenerative cycle is the administrative preference for copy machines over books.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Wed Aug 26 1998 - 14:03:58 GMT