[Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project

[Sanford Forte]

> Sanford Forte wrote:
> > Again, I have no quarrel with keeping the State form being a publisher,
> > other than that it would cost taxpayers and school districts more money,
> > otherwise.
>
> I see no reason to suppose that the state doing something directly
> would be cheaper than having private enterprises compete to do
> the same thing.
----------- 
Jimbo,

The States *are* the source for the published materials. The states *create*
the frameworks for the textbooks. They had given over the right to publish
to commercial publishers when the baby boom made it impractible to
self-publish. This has become an untenable situation, because private
publishers control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form
competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up the
prices again.

If *anything*, what you are proposing is that states buy GNU-licensed
content that will be "taken over" by commercial publishers (who will realize
great economies from your free content), and take even *larger* profits as
they compete for state business. Sure, the commercial publishers won't be
able to "charge-up" for the content - do you think they'll care? Do you
think that the very low rent publishers who do ultra-cheap print versions of
these books will stand a snowballs chance in hell to get their books
adopted? Think again. I've been there.

Please, Jimbo, don't come back with ad hominums about how I don't understand
economics. From a *microeconomic* standpoint (we can get into the fine
points of disequilibriums caused by imperfect competition, if you like) that
inefficiencies are created in this system.

The cost of textbooks has risen at 3x the rate of inflation since 1992,
Jimbo. Is that 'efficiency'?

I have no problem with commercial publishers doing the books; I just stated
that. I'm saying that the cost *in the current system* will not be as low as
otherwise.

> > Consider that commercial publishers, even if they access GNU content
> > - would have to *compete* for the state's business. That will drive
> > costs up, not down. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's how the
> > system works, in textbook publishing. I spent 15 years in that
> > business.
>
> No, it will drive costs down, not up.  Simply hand-waving and saying
> that it would be cheaper, in complete ignorance of all economics and
> all historical precedent, is not an argument.
-----------
I was initially trained as an economist. I spent 15 years (another career
ago, for me) in the textbook industry? I know how that business
works, and I know it cold. I know the state side. I know what dostricts are
clamoring for.

Again, has competition in this sector led to lower textbook costs? I can
walk into Barnes and Noble today and purchase a trade version of a geometry
text for $25. The very same (or similar) content in a commercial textbook
will cost *three to four times* that amount. Soo where's your commercial
'efficiency'?


> Shall the state take over the grocery stores, too?  Do away with all
> that wasteful competition and marketing?  Why do we need so many
> different car manufacturers, surely one firm could do a better job
> without all that wasteful competition driving costs up?
-----------
You ar completely misunderstanding my proposition. Would you like to turn
over the highways to private enterprise? How about medical care (look what a
great job private enterprise has done there)? How about pharma (there's a
really cool example of private enterprise creating something that only the
wealthy can afford).

Education is a public service. You may be philosophically opposed to public
education. We probably share a lot of opinions about the real problems that
effect the education sector. However, public education isn't going to go
away, not anytime soon. There's a way to help school districts get more
money to pay teachers, to help with school lunch programs, etc. One way is
to reduce to cost of books. That's what COSTP is about.

> > I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the intention of COSTP. In
> > the model I forwarded to the list, it's pretty clear that the
> > primary savings realized from a state-sponsored textbook publishing
> > 'business' would be marketing, royalties, and carried inventory.
>
> Then I'm going to be completely and totally opposed to you at every
> step of the way.  This aspect of your project is not one which I can
> in good conscience support, period.
----------------
Did I not say that if Wickipedia started a project, that any state choosing
to use your materials would have to abide by the licenses you mandate? The
COSTP idea is to get the books out there, cheaply. My original model was
contrived because I didn't have the funds to lobby many states at one time.

Did I not say that my original model was contrived in this way because of
the above set of constraints, and that if it *had* to change (due to the
states not having the vision to fund their own publishing ventures), that
that would be OK with me?

btw, the states currently *are* publishers. They have long relationships
with the R.R. Donnelly's of the world. They publish all kinds of material
themselves, and they do it *cheaper* that it would cost to outsource. Please
don't tell me about government inefficiency.

Yes, government is inefficient, often; however, that doesn't mean that it
*has* to be that way. You, as a change agent, someone who wants to make
things better for people, should surely understand that.


> > Let's say that Wickipedia finishes a pre-algebra book, shows that
> > book to the California board, and the board approves it. *Then*
> > (under the GNU license) California could decide to publish itself
> > (if it so chose), or commercial publishers could enter the fray, use
> > the Wickipedia content, and compete on price for the end product
> > (the textbook).
> >
> > That certainly alters the original intentions of the COSTP model,
> > but I have no problem at all with it.
>
> If you abandon the idea of a socialistic takeover of the textbook
> business, then we can work together.  Otherwise, I'm going to be
> butting heads with you at every opportunity I can get.
-------------
This is *not* about a "state takeover" of the textbook business. I'll say it
again; if the material coming from Wickipedia is under the licenses you
state, the states cannot own the material. Period. Case closed. I don't have
a problem with that. What I am saying, is that we will see
(counterintuitively), some price inefficiencies rising from that.

Now, there might be ways to deal with those inefficiencies. Maybe we help
the adopting states by finding our own publishers, who are willing to state
(via contract) up front that they will not charge over a certain raw cost
percentage of the content. There are many (hypothetical, at present) ways to
deal with this.

> > Why? Under the original COSTP model, the state had to publish in
> > order to remove the commercial publishers from the scene. The
> > commercial publishers, currently 'owning' the model of textbook
> > production, create cost and content inefficiencies. Why should thi
> > sbe allowed to happen? Isn't it important for taxpayers to get their
> > money's worth?
>
> It *is* important that taxpayers get their money's worth which is
> precisely why I'm so horrified with your idea of a state run
> publishing company.  What a monumentally bad idea!
--------------
Again, for all intents and purposes, the current situation *is* 'owned and
operated' by the states. Don't you see that? They create the standards, they
create the frameworks, they decide what content goes into the books, they
decide which books to approve (depending on how hard the commercial
publishers wine and dine the selection committees). I've been there.

COSTP's intent was to put *hard* restraints on a **public/private**
cooperative that would publish books economically. That is *not*  - as you
put it - "a state run publishing company".

> > Competitive biding on the print side - internationally, if
> > necessary, would bring the print cost way down.
>
> You're not making any sense.  You can't just pick and choose
> *outcomes*, you have to choose a *policy*.  And you've set down a
> policy that would result in horrible inefficiences.  You claim to be
> opposed to competitive publishers, but you're in favor of competitive
> 'printers'.  Same thing.
----------
With due respect (and I mean that), you are illustrating a complete
ignorance of the textbook publishing business. The "print" side of the
business is very competitive, because the barriers to entry are very low
(more economics).

The content side is *not* competitive, because there is essentially a
private content publishing cartel, owned by just a few publishing giants.
Surely, you're aware of the economic convergence that has taken place in
textbook publishing over the last few decades. Thonpson, Pearson, etc. These
are massive companies that price their goods in a cartel-like fashion. They
pass nothing on to their customers except what the non-cometitive market for
their goods will bear. Again, I"ve been there, Jimbo.


> > the model I posted - what advantages would lie in state ownership
> > (don't flip, I'm not proposing a state-run content collective...it's
> > *anything* but that!)
>
> But you *are* proposing a state-run content collective.  You've said
> so quite explicitly.  You want the state to take over the content
> production process from private firms.
------------
Read what I stated above, if you still think that after digesting what I've
written, then there isn't much hope for us working together.

> There's no surer way to corrupt and destroy the GNU-free process than
> this.
-----------
What? Again, read what I wrote. The states would *not* own the content, they
would *not* publish the books - *if* Wickipedia gets one finished, or proves
it can be done.

Do you think the states want COSTP? No way. Why? Because (and the devil is
in the details, I've invited a phone call to explain those details, but so
far, nothing but attacks and invective). OK, Why do the states not want to
take on COSTP?

Because the whole sick business of how content is selected, dumbed-down,
limited, etc. would be up to public view. Because there would actually be
*oversight* - private, citizen-oversight* applied to the process. This is
*anything but* the "state-run" balderdash that you're dishing out.

It's offensive, based on incomplete information, and not worthy of the hard
work that you and I both are trying to do.

> > The books coming from COSTP/Wickipedia would *not* be owned by
> > anyone.  That's a difference in the original model, but be warned
> > that it will cost students and taxpayers more money than a program
> > owned by one (or more) states, designed to create content
> > efficiencies in K-12 curriculum. It will still save money, and
> > create better content, and cost less than current books - but the
> > price efficiencies won't be as dramatic
>
> That's wrong, and it's not only wrong, it's stupid.  I'm sorry, but
> this sort of nonsense really and truely upsets me greatly.
-----------
Jimbo, calling what I wrote above 'stupid', won't make it that. You can say
it, but that doesn't make it true. I've done my level best to answer your
queries. Why the ad hominums? At this point, I'm mostly disappointed that
you would go into this forum, trash a project that is itwo hard years in the
making, etc. *without* the benefit of a phone call to have me answer deep
reservations that you have.

Instead, I find COSTP attacked as something *it isn't*. Labeled as
'socialist', and so on. What purpose does that serve?

> > You asked me what I had been lobbying for, and I told you. The parts
> > of the model that had the state 'owning' the content are alterable,
> > depending on where the money to publish comes from.
>
> If you are willing to abandon the parts of your model than involve
> cutting out private publishers via a state takeover, then I can
> support what you're doing.
------------
I said that from the beginning. I've also said that the cost efficiencies
won't be as great. (we might be able to find ways to help that out, going
forward).

> > Again, under the original tenets of the COSTP model, the state would
> > own the content, and reverse license for a tiny fee. Under the
> > Wickipedia operation, the state would not own the content, but would
> > (as I understand it) realize *some* of the pricing benefits (but not
> > all of them), because come of the "cost-of-goods-sold" would be
> > removed by the fact that the content originates in open source.
>
> No, they will realize *much greater* cost savings under the open
> source model than under the 'state owned and controlled' model.
> Socialism doesn't work -- there is a virtual certainty that a state
> produced textbook would, open source or not, be extremely biased,
> shoddy in quality, and vastly more expensive than the free
> alternative.
----------------
Call me, because you're repeating yourself in the face of my statements to
the contrary. Look, many, many people who are "open source" supporters have
seen, and support COSTP. They took the time to discuss the fine details. Not
a *single* person of the dozens who have taken the time to learn the details
thinks this is a bad idea.

> Freedom works.
---------
Right, if you give it a chance.

"freedom is participation in power" - Cicero

Sanford
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l