Re: Academics and coursepacks

Michael A. Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Michael 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
>
> Somehow this original statement of mine (which has generated a lot of
> comment) has become twisted in the replies. What I meant by "academic
> types" was professors and teachers, (especially those who are
> anti-business), who somehow find uncomfortable the notion that one
> should pay for the products and services one receives from the sweat of
> another's brow or the investment of another's capital. The "educational"
> exemptions are badly abused in the schemes proposed in the original
> (coursepack) inquiry. If the instructor for the class himself edited and
> wrote all the material, (and it is unpublished otherwise) he need not
> ask anyone's permission to assemble a coursepack, because it's all his
> own property.
>
> If the professor is teaching a Shakespeare class, and he has copies of
> the original folios, from which he makes a new text containing his own
> emendations, there is no problem with copyright as the original material
> is in the public domain. If, however, he uses the new Oxford
> Shakespeare (ed. by Wells?) and simply photocopies (or asks the students
> to do so; or has Kinko's do so) a play or two for a class of 200, we
> have a serious problem, regardless of who does the copying. For the
> prof to refuse to ask permission is outright arrogant thievery. That's
> why the CCC was established: so those who need to can obtain clearance
> without suffering unnecessary delays and going through elaborate
> procedures.
>
> The analogy to national parks is all wet; these copyrighted works are
> hardly "natural" creations: They are the handiwork of men and women who
> deserve to be compensated for the use of their property.

   I absolutely agree with this analysis, but it's not entirely complete. "Academic types" are not directly paid for their writings; instead the (inaccurate) perception is that they are purloined by rapacious publishers and sold back to the academic community at a huge cost. The fault lies not with copyright but - if at all - with the failure of "academic types" to exact reasonable terms for the stuff that they (or their community) own in the first place.

   From the European perspective, it seems that the argument is somewhat distorted in the US by the (purely economic) constitutional justification for intellectual property. There is a much deeper justification in terms of human rights: I have the right to things I make with my hands, and so should I have the right to things that I make with my head.

-- 
Edward Barrow
<edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk>