[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Information Today letter
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Information Today letter
- From: Irvin Muchnick <irvmuch@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:53:26 EDT
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Dear Friends, Below is my letter to the editor reprinted in its entirety from the September 2001 issue of Information Today, with the permission of Information Today, Inc., 143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, NJ 08055, 609/654-6266, http://www.infotoday.com. *************** Barbara Quint's NewsBreak, "Stop the Trash Trucks: A *Tasini* Case Damage-Control Proposal" [see http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb010716-1.htm as well as Quint's Online on page 8], is characteristically thorough and sensible. As a former assistant director of the National Writers Union and consultant to the plaintiffs' attorneys in *Ryan v. CARL* -- a class action whose $7.25 million settlement similarly turned on Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act -- I have only one point to add. Ms. Quint is right to insist that the information community hold database aggregators' feet to the fire by demanding an accounting of deleted content. This, however, is not a new problem brought about by the latest round of litigation results. As long ago as 1994, I was part of a writers union campaign called "Operation Magazine Index," through which we confronted, among others, Information Access Company (now Gale Group). Our experience was that when authors, individually or collectively, questioned the offering of their works in for-profit products, the operator simply deleted those articles. Sometimes the person registering the complaint was so informed; however, users never were. Indeed, this was a source of some frustration for us, since our objective was to spur comprehensive negotiations, not to turn databases into undisclosed Swiss cheese. We overestimated the conscience of the putative keepers of the historical record when it came to maintaining its integrity. In the wake of *Tasini*, information consumers need to know that writers are not the enemy. There was a new revenue stream from which only publishers profited, without the permission of the rights holders. We thought that was wrong, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and five other justices agreed. As the American Library Association recognized, there is ultimately an overall benefit to public access in giving individual creators, as well as large corporations, the right to exploit previously published works in new media. Far from feeling compelled to charge every kind of user for "every bit and byte," we are now simply free to choose to give our stuff away in appropriate circumstances -- but from a foundation of dignity and respect. Irvin Muchnick Berkeley, CA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com
- Prev by Date: REPOST/DEADLINE REMINDER: How Does Your Library Handle ElectronicSerials? A General Survey
- Next by Date: Newsletter Excerpts: IDEALWorld, 2001 - Issue 3
- Prev by thread: Newsletter Excerpts: IDEALWorld, 2001 - Issue 3
- Next by thread: REPOST/DEADLINE REMINDER: How Does Your Library Handle ElectronicSerials? A General Survey
- Index(es):