Re: Coursepacks

Fredrick Rea O'Keefe, "Rick" <fredrick[_at_]tech-center.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, June 27, 1998, Bert Boyce <lsboyc[_at_]lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/25/98, Michael A Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > It surprises me to no end that so many academic types find it
> > > "inconvenient" to pay for rights to works.
> >
> > It may have something to do with the fact that the same academics
> > that want to use these papers are the people who collectively wrote
> > them and assigned the copyright to a publisher without receiving
> > payment (in fact sometimes paying the publisher for the privlidge), had
> > them refereed for quality by other academics who were not paid for their
> > efforts, and edited by other academics who sometimes get a few travel
> > dollars to solicit more papers.
>
> It's pitiful that academia seems to view the writings of their employees
> as worthless, hence not worth paying the authors for. As a professional
> writer, I wouldn't give my work away for free - it's part of my living.
> Of course, it is strange that the colleges who won't pay academic
> "types" for their writing will gladly charge a small fortune to students
> for the privilege of reading those writings (as in mandatory text
> books).

I "can't" just let this go. Academia does not view the writings of employees as worthless, in fact, writing is crucial to things like rank advancement and tenure. But unless the writings bring in extra funds (research grants, etc.) the employees do not get direct financial rewards for writing, they just get to keep their jobs. Journal publishers take advantage of the "publish or perish" environment to acquire articles at a minimum of cost (usually for free, occasionally for a charge which the writer has to pay). Academics are stuck in the middle, and especially the ones just starting out who are under the greatest pressure to publish have very little leverage with which to negotiate contracts (and yet most are probably eeking by on subsistence wages). Any wonder why the system is perceived by many as unjust? People seem to think that academic institutions are brimming with money, and while some few may be ... most are pretty strapped.

In addition, academic libraries effectively subsidize research by providing researchers with access to their large collections, and then they are expected to pay higher-than-normal journal subscription prices to acquire the very research they made possible in the first place. And "then" they are supposed to turn around and pay high permission fees to those same publishers who gouged the professors and libraries in the first place?!? Pretty much the whole system is rigged to favor publishers, who are now pushing for legislation that will curtail academic activities even further. Small wonder academics look for "fair use loopholes"!

And, btw, the people who profit from textbook sales aren't schools but the publishers who use high textbook prices to subsidize their other, less reliably profitable ventures. And you're right, it IS strange that the same entities who don't pay academic authors for their work gladly charge students a small fortune for those same writings, but you've misidentified the "villains".

Laureen C. Urquiaga
Hunter Law Library
J. Reuben Clark Law School
<urquiagal[_at_]lawgate.byu.edu>

PLEASE NOTE: I do know that not all publishers are villains and that they play a crucial role in the academic process. But I think the system is seriously out of whack and it needs to be corrected. Academic institutions are arguably at least partially at fault for letting things get so skewed in the first place. But placing additional restrictions on fair use or making it even more difficult to obtain access to information will benefit neither academia nor the public. Received on Tue Jun 30 1998 - 22:43:57 GMT