5 messages:
On 9 Sep 1998, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > You left out ARL's rise of interlibrary borrowing --
> > mostly photocopies -- up 132%! (p. 10) And, at some
> > institutions like LSU, the largely undocumented rise
> > of "document delivery."
> >
> > Would you prefer ketsup or mustard?
>
> Before I choose between ketsup and mustard (no relish?:-), I am still
> waiting to hear and understand why the spread of photocopying machines
> (used in great nos. by undergraduates, who would not otherwise be
> subscribing to journals - as I have noted in an earlier posting) has
> any bearing on these issues. Mr. Henderson has claimed a correlation
> in an earlier posting, but the mere coincidental alignment of
> statistics does not explain the link. The shift from ownership to
> access is principally for use by undergraduates, but it is when cost
> per use rises well beyond all reasonable levels (in the case of top
> research journals of interest to faculty and researchers/grad
> students) that this strategy is applied such journals.
Use by undergraduates has little bearing on the question of library photocopying as a substitute for collection development. Interlibrary borrowing may even be unavailable to undergraduates or limited in many places according to a study published by the American Library Assocation*.
Concurrent with the commercialization of the plain paper copier, libraries fought very hard for the legislative exemption for library photocopying found in the Copyright Act of 1976. Repeated amendments were offered to copyright bills starting in 1965, according to the Report of the Register of Copyrights on Library Reproduction (1988). This was no coincidence. Photostat technology had been around for decades, but it was cumbersome, costly, and not economically as compelling as the Xerox model 914.
Law suits are expensive. If it were not for photocopying of journals -- and the devestating effect on the market for subscriptions -- we would not have seen Williams and Wilkins v. United States (420 U.S. 176. 1975) or American Geophysical Union et al v. Texaco (S.D.N.Y. filed May 6, 1985). Science publishers would not have organized the Copyright Clearance Center as a legal alternative to infringement.
What brand of relish do you prefer?
Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>
*Bustos, Roxann. 1993. Interlibrary Loan in College Libraries. Compiled by Roxann Bustos. Chicago, American Library Assn. Clip Note #16.
On 9 Sep 1998, Bernard Katz <bkatz[_at_]uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>
> I continue to disagree with Mr. Henderson about the absolute parallels
> he claims between real property and IP.
Let me clarify, it is parity in ownership rather than absolute parallels between real property and IP. I see more benefits than harm in extending copyright terms and protecting authors' exclusive rights in the marketplace.
As a more highly developed investment model, commercial real estate provides a useful way to understand longer and shorter terms, the bundle of rights and other aspects of ownership.
Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>
On 09 Sep 1998, Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Are you genuinely defending the interests of copyright owner's or using
> their interests as a ruse to defend the interests of publishers?
Anyone can self-publish their work these days. Many do. I am not convinced that self-publishing often results in successful dissemination and recognition. Even professional publishers who are also authors seek a separate publisher for their own work.
What separates the wheat from the chaff is an investment protected by the exclusive rights of the author under the law. To the extent those rights are adulterated legally or through common infringment, publishers' investments are discouraged. That has translated to smaller advances, smaller printings, higher prices, less advertising, fewer sales, less royalties to the author. Investors tend to abandon opportunities that are sullied by piracy and a hostile market. We have seen many research publishers abandon the publication of monographs and discourage the development of niche journals serving new specialties.
As an investor, any publisher can easily go into another business or put all money in stocks and bonds. Many trade publishers have given up, actually, on handling intellectually challenging books that depend on academic libraries for sales.
Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>
On 9 Sep 1998, Michael Scarpitti <MScarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> On 08, Sep 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 03 Sep 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 31 Aug 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I want to see some sort of "linkage". After five years OOP,
> > > > > it becomes public domain. Keep it in print, up to some rational
> > > > > maximum, it keeps the copyright. This means a book need be
> > > > > printed only once every five years, which should be ample.
> > > >
> > > > This is very unfair to authors.
> > > >
> > > > The decision to keep a work in print is made by
> > > > the publisher and not by the owner of the copyright.
> > >
> > > How so? If the book isn't selling, he's not making money anyway.
> > > If it can't be printed at least once every five years... how can
> > > he be said to be in a commanding position?
> >
> > The author has an exclusive right.
>
The author has an exclusive right to negotiate the terms of publication, whether it be first publication, reprint, excerpt, overseas, translation, dramatization, etc.
> I say, if it cannot support itself (printed at least every five years)
> then away with copying restrictions!
Every publisher is not the same. What's good for "Press A" may not work for "Press B." The author-publisher match must be right.
> This would not apply to periodicals, although one could argue that
> collections of them should be available on a long-term basis.
Do you mean complete back issues including advertising?
Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>
On 9 Sep 1998, "Joseph P. Riolo" <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps this is why the "exclusive right"
> > of authors described by the Constitution was
> > so neatly compromised by the 1976 law without
> > an Amendment.
>
> Are you saying that the longer term the copyright has, the better it
> is for the creators? The more protection the copyright can provide,
> the better it is for the creators? The more exclusivity the copyright
> can grant, the better it is for the creators? The more control the
> copyright can grant, the better it is for the creators? And so on.
>
> Is that what you are really saying?
This is indeed what I am really saying. I am also saying the less protection, the less control, the less exclusivity, etc., the worse it is for authors who wish to attract the investment of publishers. For writers who write strictly for their own amusement or as required by their employers, it is probably not an issue. For the latter, however, the employer is the author, so the question remains.
Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>
=0=
Received on Mon Sep 14 1998 - 15:00:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:32 GMT