Letters to the Editor
-
Here we go again
There is a tremendous amount of money made by the largest medical publishers, and they make this money by selling the findings of research that WE pay for with our tax dollars.
(1) "Tremendous"? How tremendous? How tremendous is tremendous? how much profit should be made? None? Please present us with a business model that omits profit.
This is like the lobbying question itself. It's highly relative. Yes, of course the publishing industry has firms representing it in Washington. EVERY INDUSTRY DOES. Do you think they don't have a legitimate interest in copyright legislation? Of course they do. It's an "industry." Industries are for-profit. That means they exist because they make money. Money is their lifeline. Copyright is their lifeline. Is further explanation needed?
I sense a certain unexamined prejudice at work here. The fact that you think a very, very large international publisher's hiring of a DC law firm is news says a lot. Would you consider it news that the oil industry has lobbyists? Do you think there is a full-time "publishing lobby" in DC, like the extraction and vice industries have?
OMG, even the teachers have a lobby! It's a scandal!
And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't agree with the shift in this country toward overly-aggressive copyright protection. This industry does not make "tremendous" amounts of money, and does not spend "tremendous" amounts bribing members of Congress. Others do. Let's not get confused in our self-righteousness.
(2) No, they don't make money "selling" research to the public, as though they are nothing more than a middleman on a street corner. They PUBLISH the research. That means ... they review and edit it and make it fit for publication, then publish the result. Sometimes they even do it on paper and mail the result to subscribers. Are these things free in your universe? Not in mine.
Sorry, this enrages me. No one has a clue any more that publishing involves professionalism, hard work, and significant investment. As though there aren't enough stupid stereotypes in the world---let's invent another one.
I used to work for a DC association. Their journal LOST money. The association LOST money publishing their journal. It was paid for by member dues. For-profit publishers are no heroes of mine---but I wonder, does the president of Elsevier live in a palace like Rupert Murdoch? Better google it right now.
Let's screw them all even more---let's force them to cut their standards and fire their workers and outsource even more of their production to India than they already do. The public will benefit.
As I said before: wrong hate model.
-
@Sally
You're exactly correct. On the publishing side, having authors "pay" for publication (or for some other service not rigidly tied to publication) is seen more as a way to recover SOME of the costs of publication, in the full (although unfortunate) knowledge that most authors simply charge that fee to their institutions. No one can afford to do research in the first place who isn't funded anyway. Sadly.
And yes, copyright law and copyright ownership would affect both nonprofit and for-profit publishers. They are not the same and will not suffer the same.
All I'm saying here, people, is that there are other issues involved here besides sinister Republican conspiracies and the theft of every American's natural birthright to free research by cigar-smoking fat cats in alligator shoes. Issues that we should perhaps be encouraged to think about, not just rant and knee-jerk about.
-
Not about global warming
Whatever motive lies behind Inhofe's actions, it isn't about trying to protect global warming naysayers...the NIH doesn't do climatological or atmospheric research. There are topics that are vry indirectly linked such as tropical disease incidence, but I think in this case, follow the money. And, as pointed out earlier, if it's good for the general public, Inhofe is automatically against it.
-
Help Oklahoma defeat Inhofe
How could Oklahomans possibly re elect Sen Inhofe?..We have a wonderful person trying to get the Dem nomination to run against Inhofe.. Andrew Rice,a first term state Senator..His brother was killed 9/11.Andrew helped start Peaceful Tomorrows,the group that from day one asked for a non violent response to 9/11..He is just a great guy..It would be sooo bad if Inhofe were to be re elected..it is possible....Any one who understands the possibility of the end of Nature should help defeat Inhofe..