[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Thomas Krichel]

  Stevan Harnad writes

> >  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
> >  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.
> 
> That’s about as useful as saying that "I know why there is poverty:
> because the rich are rich and the poor are poor."

  No. I theorise about the source of the non-transition to open access. Your
  statement describes a fact. 

> Not only is it not possible to treat “libraries” as if they were a monolith
> any more than it is possible to treat “authors” as a monolith, 

  Yes, I should have mentioned "libraries" as research libraries
  meaning engaged in procurement of documents that we commonly think
  as potential subjects to open access. I did not have prison
  libraries providing a copy of the bible in mind. But I thought it
  would be commonly understood here.
 
> it is completely out of the question for a university library
> to cancel subscriptions while its users have no other means to
> access that content.

  I completely reject that argument but let's even for a moment assume
  it were correct.

  Current subscriptions concern papers written by current authors that
  are likely to be alive. The authors can always send a version of the
  paper to a reader upon her request. Therefore readers always have a
  different means to access the paper. Therefore your argument can not
  support the subscription expense.

  And even if the authors of a paper were all to die shortly after
  publication. Then yes, it may be reasonable to ask the library to
  purchase a copy of the paper from the non-OA publisher. But there
  rare instances should not be used to justify the expense of
  subscriptions.

-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel                  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                              skype:thomaskrichel