Re: MPS and PLoS Sign Agreement

["atanu garai" <atanugarai.lists@gmail.com>]

Dear Sandy Thatcher:

2008/8/23 Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>:

> Just curious, what exactly is the value of the copyright that 
> the author retains under this CC license since users can do 
> practically everything with it except remove the author's name? 
> There is no residual commercial value here, is there? Under 
> European copyright law, with its moral rights" provisions, 
> "attribution" already is a moral right ensured by law, so there 
> would be no need even for this kind of CC license, would there? 
> One could simply grant to users free use of the article for any 
> purpose with no need to protect attribution, since that right 
> is inalienable in "moral rights" systems.

The major difference in the essence of copyright and CC License 
is the legal right given by the copyright-owner to reproduce the 
content in commercial manner. A CC Licenses, on the other hand, 
will allow us to do everything, excluding selling the content. 
This means CC License, in turn, poses a restriction on the author 
herself not to be able to change her mind to sell the content. 
This is applicable for the service providers who may be 
interested in reproducing and disseminating the content.

As far as the ordinary author is concerned, the original CC 
Attribution licenses insists on attributing the name of the 
author, besides the URI. In general, you have citation standards 
to follow for writing scholarly pieces, wherein the source 
publication name is also given.

Regards,
Atanu Garai
Globethics.net