On 15 Sep 1998, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 1998, Daniel J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
> >
> > For what it's worth, I don't recall Mr. Henderson ever advocating
> > perpetual copyright protection with no fair use exception to
> > infringement. He seems to be questioning whether copyright needs
> > to be treated differently from other forms of property, but I have
> > yet to see him advocate an infinite term or the erasure of the fair
> > use doctrine.
>
> Mr. Henderson is, I believe, an advocate of longer copyright terms.
>
> He believes this is necessary to offset the losses due to copying
> (whether fair use or infringing).
>
> Would you agree, Mr. Henderson?
That is a good question. Thanks for asking.
The Copyright Act of 1976 embraced fair use and library
photocopying, diluting the authors' exclusive rights
mentioned in the Constitution. It also extended the
copyright term from 28 years plus a possible renewal
totalling 56 years to meet the European standard of
author's life + 50 years. It also limited the protection
of unpublished works.
Great anguish has been expressed by authors and publishers
of intellectually challenging works, the type of material
that depends on research libraries as the core of its market.
The decline of this market, prompted by a combination of
resource sharing (library photocopying and packing patrons
off to some other collection) and the cannibalization of
library allocations to promote administrative bloat,
has had a tremendous impact.
- Many trade publishers have been affected (Basic Books, Addison
Wesley Longman, Pantheon, Rfoutledge, CRC Press, American
University Press, AIP Press, Elsevier books, HarperCollins, etc.)
- Ken Auletta of the New Yorker convened a conference
on The State of the Publishing Industry. It focused on the
problem of midlist books but never got to the bottom of the
problem as I describe it here.
- All university presses have been affected. Some have
compromised their academic mission. Many are picking up
nonacademic books that have identifiable markets too small
to interest trade publishers. Many are asking authors to pay
(rather than pay authors royalties) to see their work in print,
like a vanity press with peer review and a respected trademark.
- Print runs have dropped from 2000 to as low as 200 copies
for new monographs. (No wonder you can't find a copy of that
book!)
- Fewer copies must bear fixed costs to return publishers'
investments. That means higher prices to the consumer.
- Everyone complains about higher prices.
- The academically oriented bibliographical databases -- even Math
Reviews -- have capped their editorial coverage. (Without the
databases, resource sharing won't work!)
- University administrators are attacking tenure and publication of
research as a requirement for tenure so they can cut the cost of
instruction as well as libraries.
- Since 1945, administrators have increased their share of university
spending 40% while cutting instruction and libraries each about 15%
- Between 1960 and 1995 academic R&D in the US increased 7 times
while the largest academic libraries increased only 4 times. (Both
based on constant dollars spent. Sources: National Science Board and
Association of Research Libraries)
- Interlibrary borrowing (mostly photocopying)skyrocketed.
Commercial document delivery, which presumably pays royalties
was born as a separate industry.
When it comes to copyright protection, I think that the
promotion of progress ... has been poorly served by fair
use and photocopying.
- It excused the sacrifice of collection development and
knowledge by university managers.
- Federal agencies and scientific societies have done
nothing to assure the conservation of knowledge and the
effectiveness of education and research (i.e. library
collection quality).
- Publishers are discouraged from investing in the
dissemination of new knowledge.
- Publishers are discouraged from investing in technology
(for example, the American Institute of Physics was
neatly scooped by Paul Ginsparg and his preprint server
even though they had organized a committee to study
electronic publishing.)
So, yes, I am for stronger and longer protection of authors'
exclusive rights and publishers' opportunities. I also am
for investing in library resources measured by the growth
of research and the production of new knowledge.
See my article in the current (Sept Oct) issue of SOCIETY for
a discussion of the incoherence of modern science. The impact
on non-science knowledge is also alarming, 'tho a separate
analysis.
Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>
Received on Thu Sep 17 1998 - 02:01:13 GMT