Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

On 13 Aug 1998, Bert Boyce <lsboyc[_at_]lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 8/11/98, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think you can foster creativity without commercial investment
> > and viability -- unless you pay the creators from some other source.
> > Then you unleash the anti-free speech demons as demonstrated by Sen.
> > Helms and the Soviets who historically demanded full control. In short,
> > the non-commercial alternative risks stifling creativity and free
> > speech...
>
> Academics are paid from another source and get almost no
> compensation form publishing. Tenure provides protection from the "free
> speach demons" In fact, while I would not say that there are no free
> speach problems on campus, it is a far more free place than most. If we
> could only get academics to use non-commercial alternatives, or at least
> not give their total copyright to the publishers, we might be able to
> save the communication system that has fostered big science in the U.S.

My frame of reference was far broader than academic research. Why should works with social content be vulnerable to political attacks? Look what happened at SUNY New Paltz (was it?) with a controversial conference. Politicians hated it but I understand private donations are up.

I'm not so sure the communication system "has fostered big science in the U.S. My article on The Incoherence of the New Science Policy in SOCIETY (S/O 98) quotes Newt Gingerich. He observes that modern science is, "so indundated with its owh technical knowledge, that it's almost impossible for it to become coherent." In short, we have encouraged sponsored research and forgotten to promulgate the findings.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com Received on Tue Aug 18 1998 - 18:34:33 GMT