Robert, you have a point. I should have said 'published research'. Your
second point I don't quite get. I don't think I've argued for privately
funded research to be openly available to anyone, much less other privately
funded IPRs such as patents. Especially not if it's not published. If
private money contributes to research that is published, doesn't that make
the research public, in a sense (though difficult to access due to high
prices)?
But if research carried out with public funds is published, it should be
freely accessible to the public. I'm not arguing that publishers should be
driven out of business, far from it. I'm saying that, in science (in pure
science at any rate), publishing models need to be reversed to provide open
access. Whatever it costs to publish should be paid to a publisher by the
author, and be part of the cost of research (it is often no more than a tiny
fraction anyway). Ideally, it would be part of the research grant and
earmarked as such. After all, the ideal copyright line for most scientists
goes like this:
(c)The Author. Copy this article as many times and as often as you can.
Jan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert F. Bodi [mailto:lawlists[_at_]bodi.com]
> Sent: 19 April 2003 04:00
> To: CNI-COPYRIGHT Mail List
> Subject: [CNI-COPYRIGHT] Re: Public vs. Private (was: Central vs.
> Distributed Archives)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Velterop" <jan[_at_]biomedcentral.com>
> To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT Mail List" <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:39 AM
> Subject: [CNI-COPYRIGHT] Re: Public vs. Private (was: Central vs.
> Distributed Archives)
>
>
> > The potential charge against open archives of using public money to
> compete
> > with private enterprise is an interesting one in the
> context of science
> > publishing.
> >
> > A major proportion of scientific research (most, actually)
> is funded out
> of
> > the public purse.
>
> I question this assertion. Do you have any numbers to back
> it up? It may
> be true that public money funds most PURE research, but if
> one considers
> applied research and new product development, which very well
> might lead to
> new science, I am not sure that you are correct.
>
> > Shouldn't the results be made available to the very public
> > that paid for it? What intrinsic exclusive right does any private
> enterprise
> > have to the material? It has only been granted that right
> by the author,
> by
> > means of transferring copyright or granting an exclusive licence to
> publish.
> > Should authors not be prevented from thus 'locking up'
> research results
> > obtained by scientific experiments with the help of public money?
> Shouldn't
> > publication of results be seen as an intrinsic and
> inseparable part of the
> > research itself? After all, the research is probably not
> even deemed to
> have
> > taken place if the results are not published.
>
> The problem is that turning research into product typically requires
> additional funding and additional R&D. Thus, a major
> incentive to market
> new products is lost of the rights go to anybody who wants
> them. Further,
> the private actor often contributes some of its own money too. How to
> separate that out? However, I do disagree with public funding of drug
> research, for example, without some public right to cheaper drugs.
>
> -Bodi
>
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Vist the e-mail list web archive at
<https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:48 GMT