[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with, profits - or too high a price?

[Ross Mounce]

Dear Frank

In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell
> them on amazon,


Yes. Anyone can do this because wikipedia articles are openly licenced.
This is a good thing. People are happy with paying for a hard (paper) copy
of something. Printing on real paper, with real ink, and real delivery
costs money. This is no bad thing.



> why wouldn't there be a market for commercial OA reprints?
>

Indeed there probably is a market for paper copy OA reprints. There is
nothing wrong with this. But instead of one company having a monopoly over
the provision of these hard-copy reprints, perhaps it is fairer that the
customer can choose which company prints a paper copy of this open
material? They can choose the quality of print, the weight of the paper,
and print-on-demand companies can compete to provide this service.



>
> (And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least
> it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...)
>

Why? I don't understand this? I think anyone should be allowed to provide
the service (printing). I don't see why one publisher, who may be very
expensive, and poor quality, should be allowed a monopoly over printing
academic material that is openly available on the internet.

my $0.02

Ross



-- 
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
Ross Mounce
PhD Student & Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow
Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group
University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07
http://about.me/rossmounce
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130129/e93ff9ec/attachment.html