Different kinds of Open Access

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@worldnet.att.net>]

>The question I'm trying to answer for myself is whether publishing under
>the OA model _does_ mean that an author must abdicate her copyright by, 
>in essence, transferring it to the whole world. I didn't think so, but 
>the Bethesda Principles do make such a renunciation explicit; an author 
>who publishes according to those principles retains none of the exclusive
>rights that are integral to the concept of copyright.  (And make no
>mistake, it is the exclusiveness of those rights, not just the rights
>themselves, that makes copyright what it is.  If everyone in the world 
>has the right to copy and distribute my work, then to say that I retain
>copyright in that work is meaningless.)  Obviously, the Bethesda
>Principles are not the only OA protocol, though, so I guess the answer to
>my original question is "it depends."  Maybe we don't need (and shouldn't
>pursue) a single universal OA definition or model.

JE:  Purists, of course, will settle for nothing less than the elimination
of all exclusivity, with the important exception of crediting the author.
In such a world, incentives to do something with all that OA content will
diminish, if not disappear.  If all (and only) complete articles were OA,
one could imagine someone creating new products based on compilations,
distillations, etc. Eliminating capital from the entire scholarly
publishing enterprise is likely to have unintended consequences that some
OA advocates will not be thrilled about.

Now, when do we *really* break away from the hardcopy mindset and get rid
of the idea that authors must be cited?  That's the bugaboo that stands in
the way of community-based content creation.

Joe Esposito