I have written multiple posts concerning copyright and the publishing industry. I certainly don’t have the answers, but as both a producer and consumer I at least understand the frustrations experienced by the multiple parties involved.
The NYTimes Review of Books offers an interesting editorial on such topics prompted by Google’s efforts to digitize and offer as much published content as possible. I learned some new things – e.g., libraries must pay $25,910 to offer access to the Journal of Comparative Neurology. I was curious and tried to access this journal. UND does have it and I could access online. I took a look at the first title – Deletion of the citron kinase gene selectively affects the number and distribution of interneurons in barrelfield cortex (p spc1) –and decided that I would stick to reading the Journal of Educational Psychology. I wonder what the library budget for the College of Education is.
BTW – the editorial does not come down on the side of open source:
Libraries exist to promote a public good: “the encouragement of learning,” learning “Free To All.” Businesses exist in order to make money for their shareholders—and a good thing, too, for the public good depends on a profitable economy.
I offer this resource as another comment on this complex issue. The article describes the present agreement between copy-right holders and Google (students don’t count on legal online access to your textbooks) and also expresses some concern that the present agreement is limited to Google.
