RE: Monopolies in publishing, multiple copies

[Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>]

Dear Heather, I'm not sure if I understand your question about multiple
copies correctly (it may be a rhetorical question), but open access *is*
multiple copies, by definition (see below). Security of access and
preservation is much higher in an open access model with the built-in
redundancy (safety in numbers) than closed, subscription-based models with
the archive under the sole control of the publisher. It is *different*
copies that may cause problems.

The definition of Open Access:

An Open Access Publication is one that meets the following two conditions:

� The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free,
irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to
copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make
and distribute derivative works, in any medium for any legitimate purpose,
subject to proper attribution of authorship.

� A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including
a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard
electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at
least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution,
scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established
organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,
interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences,
PubMed Central is such a repository).

Best, Jan Velterop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heather Morrison [mailto:hmorrison@ola.bc.ca]
> Sent: 14 July 2003 22:51
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Monopolies in publishing
> 
> Why not multiple copies?

[SNIP]