Let's not be obtuse about this. If the number of people (N) who are interested in a product P in version V1 are presented with a new option: the same product P in version V2, then some might reasonably prefer V2 to V1. Acquisition of M1 versions will drop. (If you prefer a neutral example away from books substitute P = toothbrush, and V1 and V2 as manual and electric versions.) This is the null hypothesis. The number of customers doesn't change, the product doesn't change - the only change is the version.
Of course, there may be price differentials, there may be advertising differentials, the number N may increase as a result of the new option, some people may want to acquire both V1 and V2 versions, etc. But this is what needs proof, as Stevan writes. A priori version 2 will damage version V1 sales. Arthur Sale > -----Original Message----- > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN- > access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Klaus Graf > Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2008 1:40 PM > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Open Access to Books? > > 2008/1/20, Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>: > > > The default or null hypothesis -- not just in this instance, but in > > the much more general one, of which books are just a special case -- is > > that, ceteris paribus, yes, if you make a digital version of a product > > free for all online, you will hurt its sales (digital and analogue). There > > may be exceptions, but they have to be demonstrated. > > Is there any empirical proof for this default hypothesis? There is > only empirical evidence for the contrary. It's purely nonsense to > state a "default hypothesis" if empirical facts should be given. > > Klaus Graf