Thanks for the great discussion of e-pricing!

Oh, yes. Google and MS are not at all about an open flow of information. 
They are about profit, period. It's necessary to go around them. But one 
can (and must) go around them. Google academic sources are strictly for 
the academy: controllable and billable. In China, Google simply pretends 
that Tibet never existed.

Information has at all times in history been controlled by the powers 
that be. It will not be easy for them to completely control the world 
wide web, though, even with their proposals of a two-tiered system 
favoring the owners, due to the very nature of tcp/ip: given an address 
and a tunnel, you can get there.


Michael Edmunds wrote:
> Real Unreal and Realer etc.
>
> It's not clear that ejournals are cheaper or ebooks for that matter. 
> While the open source journal is finding its place, the traditional 
> journal publishers still maintain a lock down on refereed activities 
> particularly in the sciences. The pricing for these e-publications is 
> more expensive for larger institutions than the paper. (Another way to 
> look at that is to say the larger places had an advantage in the past 
> times paper medium.) The costing tends to be made in terms of head 
> count for e-materials. Even with consortiums larger places find 
> library budgets strained with e-costs. I am told that the situation of 
> "free access" is precarious with corporate control of information ever 
> looming. I for one don't believe that Google's or MS's digitalization 
> plans for out of and in copyright materials include free access. 
> Launch a browser now from a non-unversity server and see how far you 
> get with many of the academic sources.
>
> Anyway it would seem that Poundians and McLuhanians might converge on 
> the goal of down with the dialectic and up with the ideogramic.
>
> " The American mind is not even close to being amenable to the 
> ideogram principle as yet. The reason is simply this. America is 100% 
> 18th Century. The 18th century had chucked out the principle of 
> metaphor and analogy — the basic fact that as A is to B so is C to D. 
> AB:CD. It can see AB relations. But relations in four terms are still 
> verboten. This amounts to deep occultation of nearly all human thought 
> for the U.S.A."
>
> McLuhan to Pound Dec., 1948
>
>
> At 01:33 PM 11/20/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>> Carrol:
>> I agree, I agree! And Pound deserved every dime he got from royalties
>> while alive. It's the mortmain effect I quarrel with. Tom
>>
>> On Nov 20, 2006, at 1:16 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>>
>>> Tom White wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have to a little object to Professors Kibler's implication that an
>>>> ejournal is not real. I fear it's realer than a paper one, because it
>>>> at once comes under the omniverous maw of Google etc. and is
>>>> retrievable at will all over the world, it appears without fee.
>>>> Imagine how long it would have taken me, if all there were today were
>>>> paper journals, to read (note: FREE) Peter Dale Scott's extraordinary
>>>> history poem, "A Ballad of Drugs and 9/11." I just googled for
>>>> "flashpoint Scott" and got 300,000 hits; Peter's poem in flashpoint
>>>> was at the top of the first page. Woweee. Tom White
>>>
>>> What is "real" depends to some extent on context. I'm retired and can
>>> afford to agree with Tom here. But I can imagine that for an untenured
>>> assistant professor (perhaps with a couple of kids already) "real"
>>> would
>>> mean whatever gave him/her a chance to survive!
>>>
>>> Carrol
>