They do.

The ability to further knowledge itself depends on continued existence.

I also respectfully take issue with some of the other assertions made in comment 41 as well.

You say “for societies, when the need to raise money conflicts with their values, all I can think is … do we need scholarly societies anymore if their values are worth so little and their business so much? ”

That’s all you can think? How about thinking of this:

The hotels and convention centers where societies hold their conferences, the utility companies who provide energy for their offices, and all the other businesses who want money for the services on which societies depend all charge an increasing amount for those services. So if a scholarly society – in this case the SMH – wrestles with the increasing cost of its work – then does that make them devoid of values? It is one thing to question the particular choices they make to deal with the problem with increasing costs. I agree with that line of questioning. It’s another thing to say that they lack in values just because they recognize that the costs go up while their income stays the same. I that assertion is unfair.

I too question the Society for Military History’s decision in the particular case of the EBSCO agreement, but to assert they lack in basic values just because the cost of their operations went up is not, in my opinion, either constructive or helpful.

I have worked with several members of the SMH board over the years and can attest to their sense of values and their sincere committment to the pursuit of knowledge.

Debate whether they made the right decision on how to keep the lights on, but don’t say THEY lack imagination or values just because it is, in fact, a lot harder to keep the lights on nowadays.

Scholars and scholarly societies should not count on library subscriptions (directly or through these contracts) to provide cash flow for their operations. There’s less need for the cash, now, since there’s a rather low barrier to publishing online. Those who want to work with print could print their own. Societies are not willing to rethink how to fund themselves without this income, though, and most scholars don’t seem to have the imagination to overcome their self-interest in traditional publishing, but if they want to communicate their findings, hiding them behind a tollgate is not helpful. As for societies, when the need to raise money conflicts with their values, all I can think is … do we need scholarly societies anymore if their values are worth so little and their business so much? They should exist to further knowledge, not their own continued existence.

Hear that clanking sound? It’s the system, breaking down.