Re: Snooze/lose (Was: Academics and coursepacks)

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> >
> > What if an author has changed her mind/views on a subject and does not
> > authorize any re-publication of a work because it no longer represents
> > her current thinking on that topic and she specifically does not want
> > the older viewpoint to be presented as current through a new printing?
>
> I might be interested in her old view. She can always publish
> additional works outlining her changed view point but I fail to see why,
> once an author has decided to release a work to the public, they should
> have the right to recall it (unless the publication is illegal in some
> way -- defamatory, breaching someone else's copyright, etc). Our
> European friends, will probably disagree ;-)
>
> The current copyright regime gives copyright owners purports to give
> absolute control over the availability of the works they own. But there
> are already significant exceptions: the most significant are the second
> hand book market, and libraries. If a work can be lent from a library,
> it is still available, and if out of print, libraries can make legal
> copies in many circumstances. Bottom line, I can obtain a legal copy
> now whether the author wants me to or not but I have to track down a
> copy at a library, convince the librarian that the necessary statutory
> requirements for the library making a copy are satisfied, and then pay
> the library to do the copying for me (or simply borrow the book and copy
> it myself assuming the fair use arguments proferred on this list are
> correct).
>
> The owner does not get to prevent me from reading her old views and she
> gets no compensation for any copy created.
>
> With a compulsary licensing scheme, the rights societies or 3rd party
> repositories would make the work available probably far more easily than
> at present (I bet Amazon would be onto this like a flash), and at least
> the owner would get some financial compensation.

Nevertheless, the author (if still the copyright holder) could see a new printing as promulgating her defunct views as *current* (as I've already suggested) - quite a different proposition from having them represented by old publications in libraries and used book stores, and in private hands. I don't think you've addressed this concern. The "right to recall", as you put it, isn't what's in question here, nor is there any attempt to prevent anyone from reading what has already been made public. An author who felt this way (per my scenario) likely would not want royalties from a reprint that she opposed.

Cheers,

Bernard Katz, Head, Special Collections and Library Development McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph, Guelph ON Canada N1G 2W1

   and Chair, Ontario Library Association Copyright Action Committee bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca // (519) 824-4120 X2089 // FAX: (519) 824-6931 Received on Thu Sep 03 1998 - 01:37:01 GMT