By the title I mean the dev/publisher relationship. The publisher puts up the cash they then makes sure the work is getting done and finally market it, in return they get the IP and the lion's share of the profits. This model is a tad unpopular (I admit I'm not a fan) due to publisher's being rather restrictive on what gets funded.
However this afternoon I had a revelation. I am a physicist and I work for a research lab, they put up the cash for my research and survival (some call it a salary) and I get to do research on pieces of equipment I could never dream of being able to afford.
Here's the thing though:
I have to pitch research proposals and only ones that have a reasonable chance of succeeding are accepted, there are tones of crazy things I could be doing but I personally can't afford it and I can see why the directors are against such wild flights into fantasy.
Any IP I generate belongs to the company not to me, so sayeth my contract. If I come up with a really good IP my company will develop it and market it, I get a (very) small fraction of any profits generated.
If I was failing to meet any research goals or the peer reviewed output from my research was widly panned I'd be unlikely to be trusted with a big project or budget again and probably, eventually got rid of.
All these things are the dev/publisher relationship. I am the dev doing my research with hopefully good products (research papers) and my company are the publishers paying for the research, judging the risks and holding any/all IP.
With this revelation I kinda can't hate publishers for a lot of what I have in the past, hell I'm very happy in the same arrangement as the devs. I'd be nowhere in my chosen field without the vast budget of the lab behind me, they add extra credit to my work also with the paper coming from a well respected lab. I could try "indie" science but that wouldn't get me far because I have no money for equipment. Even theoretical physics research is generally done on huge, expensive super computers.
I still get to hate publishers for all the DRM and crap though, none of that is forced upon me and thank god forjim that!
However this afternoon I had a revelation. I am a physicist and I work for a research lab, they put up the cash for my research and survival (some call it a salary) and I get to do research on pieces of equipment I could never dream of being able to afford.
Here's the thing though:
I have to pitch research proposals and only ones that have a reasonable chance of succeeding are accepted, there are tones of crazy things I could be doing but I personally can't afford it and I can see why the directors are against such wild flights into fantasy.
Any IP I generate belongs to the company not to me, so sayeth my contract. If I come up with a really good IP my company will develop it and market it, I get a (very) small fraction of any profits generated.
If I was failing to meet any research goals or the peer reviewed output from my research was widly panned I'd be unlikely to be trusted with a big project or budget again and probably, eventually got rid of.
All these things are the dev/publisher relationship. I am the dev doing my research with hopefully good products (research papers) and my company are the publishers paying for the research, judging the risks and holding any/all IP.
With this revelation I kinda can't hate publishers for a lot of what I have in the past, hell I'm very happy in the same arrangement as the devs. I'd be nowhere in my chosen field without the vast budget of the lab behind me, they add extra credit to my work also with the paper coming from a well respected lab. I could try "indie" science but that wouldn't get me far because I have no money for equipment. Even theoretical physics research is generally done on huge, expensive super computers.
I still get to hate publishers for all the DRM and crap though, none of that is forced upon me and thank god for