[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: PsycArticles License


Then why do they sell electronic access at all?  There's a whole lot more
opportunity for mass redistribution, if anyone wants to do that, by the
1000s of users who have legit access to their own campus electronic
subscriptions, than via the relatively small number of ILL'd articles on
obviously scattered subjects.

It's clear to me that restricting ILL is just another point at which
publishers can squeeze every institution in the academic community toward
*subscribing* to every journal from which that institution might need an
article now and then.  And every place they can squeeze, they will
squeeze.  It is not in the interests of the people we serve, who are the
people who write these same articles, to simply accept these restrictions
without response.

Tom Murray
Director, Wendt Engineering Library
University of Wisconsin-Madison

On 29 Nov 2001, at 23:20, Rick Anderson wrote:

> At the risk of reigniting an old argument:
> > The only possible
> > reason for greater restrictions on ILL from e-journals than print was the
> > possibility of the copies multiplying due to the ease of reproduction.
> > Since a print article can be scanned and then multiplied similarly, this
> > distinction is obsolete.
> Not true.  Send me an article as an e-mail attachment, and I can forward
> it to several thousand people in a matter of five mouseclicks and ten
> seconds. Fax or snail-mail the article to me and I'd have to go to the
> considerably greater effort of scanning, formatting and saving each page
> first.  That's more than enough effort to prevent casual or accidental
> wholesale redistribution.  No, it won't stop someone who is determined and
> highly motivated.  But the question isn't whether print-only ILL policies
> are failsafe; the question is whether they erect a reasonable barrier that
> makes piracy less likely.  We can argue about whether they do those
> things, but let's not pretend that the mass redistribution of print is as
> easy as the mass forwarding of e-mail.
> > What prevents copies being re-published in the
> > electronic era is the law abiding nature of librarians, who, if anything,
> > are too over-cautious to make full use of the rights they do have.  I know
> > of no case where academic librarians have ever deliberately and
> > systematically violated copyright on a substantial scale for any material,
> > print or electronic, for text or other media.
> Publishers are not, I believe, worried that librarians are going to widely
> redistribute their materials.  They're worried that end users will.  By no
> means is this a foolish worry, especially if the end user is a
> Napster-minded undergrad who equates intellectual property with fascism.
> -------------
> Rick Anderson
> Director of Resource Acquisition
> The University Libraries
> University of Nevada, Reno        "The only thing worse than a
> 1664 No. Virginia St.              silly politician analyzing
> Reno, NV  89557                    art is a silly artist
> PH  (775) 784-6500 x273            analyzing politics."
> FX  (775) 784-1328                     -- Jonathan Alter
> rickand@unr.edu