RE: A thought about H.R. 2281

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

This particular argument, that scholars don't need to get paid for
articles they write since they get tenure, is really amazing. 

We could just as easily argue that publishers don't need to get paid for
articles delivered by document delivery services, since they already got
paid the first time they published the article. 

Telling a producer of something that "someone else, sometime, if you have
faith in the system"  will pay you for what you are giving me, isn't
economics, it's magic! 

So, now we have publishers talking about "magic" as justification for not
paying authors, nor permitting them any say in how the work they create is
distributed past the first publication. 

I think we've hit a tender point, when rational producers talk with
romanticism about where there product comes from.  Have you asked authors
if they think they are compensated for their intellectual product through
tenure and promotion?

P.S. Pat Schroeder, at NASIG last week made the same argument.

Self-serving is the nicest thing I can say about a position that says
scholars should be in there making sure fair use disappears in the
electronic environment, so publishers can exercise more control over the
sweat of their brow because someday somewhere, they might get recompensed
by somebody else.  hocus pocus.  

Chuck Hamaker


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	David Davis [SMTP:ddavis@copyright.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:23 PM
> To:	'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'
> Subject:	RE: A thought about H.R. 2281 
> 
> A fascinating thread! I'm not an economist- and I don't play one on
> the
> 'net! ;-) 
> 
> Laurel Jamtgaard writes, 
> 
> If you are facing a market with high-concentration (few providers) I
> think you are more likely to see higher prices and per-use fees.  
> 
> Even in strictly economic terms (and I think there are other factors
> at work in published communication), there are other ways of gaining
> remuneration besides cash. For one, the reality behind 'publish or
> perish' implies that job security for some authors is linked to
> (possibly unpaid) publication. There are also the more intangible
> factors such as reputation and 'scholarly communication' (involving
> such questions as : Who's reading my stuff?; Who's citing my stuff?;
> Who's arguing with my stuff?)
> 
> In a future situation where the author/creator/aggregator can
> require/impose payment for each access, the same party could waive
> that option, or set the rate at $0.000, could simply collect the number
> 'reads' or skip the whole business. 
> 
> Cheers. 
> 
> >Dave Davis
> >CCC Project Manager   http://www.copyright.com/
> >ddavis@copyright.com       Voice: (978) 750-4283 x-2217
> 
> PS: Anyone else going to ALA? I'll be there Saturday and Sunday.