Re: Electronic libraries (Was: Re: copyright expiration ...)

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Dan Lee <dlee[_at_]alex.lib.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that if universities had not abused the advantage
> > given by "library photocopying" in the Copyright Act of 1976 --
> > cancelling thousands of subscriptions, reducing purchases of
> > monographs, falsely accusing publishers of profiteering,
>
> When publishers publically make this latter claim, that
> accusations of excessive profiteering is false, and then
> brag of record profits in their annual reports to
> shareholders and in the pages of the Wall Street Journal,
> it is difficult to grant consistency of argument elsewhere.

There is a difference between record profits and profiteering.

Xerox Corporation, according to WSJ, was the most profitable company ever -- far more profitable I might add than any publisher. According to XEROX: AMERICAN SAMURAI, by Gary Jacobson and J Hillkirk (NY: Macmillan 1986), Xerox sold whatever they made at whatever price they wanted to charge until foreign competititors entered the market. The founders, Carlson and Wilson made over $200 million and $100 million respectively.

In contrast, a profiteer operates during war or some other emergency. The Serials Prices Project report issued by the Association of Research Libraries (1989) assumed conclusions about publishers' profits from its anonymous economist report that were not possible. (The economist acknowledged the lack of essential circulation data.) Roger Noll and W. Edward Steinmueller confirmed the quixotic nature of the analysis. [Serials Review. Spring and summer. 1992:32-37] The added accusation leveled at researchers without even the charade of spurious evidence, of excessive publishing, was IMHO shameful.

In addition, ARL kept unpublished data that would suggest that the serials crisis was precipitated by cuts in libraries' share of university spending. The 1989 report failed to mention the statistics that it had collected for a decade on their declining budget share. Not until I revealed the existence of such data showing 19 universities that cut their libraries' share 20 to 56 percent between 1981/82 - 1989/90 (PRQ 8,3:72-91, 1992) did ARL decide to disclose a similar sampling. (University Libraries & Scholarly Communication, published six months later) I yet to hear a reasonable excuse why ARL continues to exclude these data from its annual statistical compilation and press release.

> This difficulty is backed up by Mr. Henderson's recent
> article in Society in which he attempts to argue for
> increased library support (a very welcome idea), not so
> that universities can enjoy appropriate research
> collections, but rather so that funds can more readily
> go from taxpayer to publisher. Taxpayers have made it
> clear that they will not support this. If extending the
> term of copyright results in even greater profits for these
> same publishers (Mr.Henderson's phrase is "return on
> investment") at the expense of "free distribution of
> learned communications," then it is bad public policy
> indeed.

I'm glad you read the article. Let me clarify. I think I argued that more library support and library research would help increase the coherence of science and other research. Publishers who assume risk, including nonprofit associations, have established a 300+ year track record of innovations the contribute to improving science communications. That is what I aimed to convey.

The profit motive has had a positive effect on science communications ever since Henry Oldenberg decided to start the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the 1665 startup that has had a record success. It was not until long after his death that the Royal Society assumed ownership. Association publishers have made profits from publishing ever since (although they call such profits "retained earnings" and give their managers raises and perqs rather than distribute dividends). Such entrepreneurialism -- and I would include Xerox Corporation -- has made all the difference.

In short, I don't think you can inject "profits" as a bad thing and then praise photocopying and the Internet. Such technology returns major profits to private investors with the blessing of public policy. Nothing could be more American.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Thu Sep 24 1998 - 23:13:03 GMT