[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Monopolies and copyright (RE: Wellcome Trust report)
- To: "'Rick Anderson '" <rickand@unr.edu>, "'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu '" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Monopolies and copyright (RE: Wellcome Trust report)
- From: Jan Velterop <velterop@biomedcentral.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:00:20 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
OK. You got me there. But I do think that a monopoly in a free market is somewhat of an oxymoronic notion. If monopolies are inevitable, they only work if they are well-regulated. One could indeed argue if copyright does have a place in reporting research results. In an article I wrote in 1995 I called reporting these results 'keeping the minutes of science'. They have the kind of quality of a witness account, an affidavit. Are witness accounts copyrighted? Maybe they are. The law gives every author copyright whether they want it or not. So every author has to decide whether using copyright to limit the distribution of his or her article is appropriate, or whether using copyright to ensure maximum distribution and use is the thing to do. The power (and responsibility) is theirs. Authors may be 'helped' in coming to a decision by their funders, particularly public funders, whose objectives usually include adding knowledge, insight and understanding to the world's knowledge pool, for the benefit of all. I may be entirely wrong about monopolies and free markets. Perhaps it's a fair trade: I transfer my copyright to a publisher in order to get my article published and exploited (and saddle academia with the cost of it all), and accept sub-optimal dissemination as a price to pay. But another fair trade, fairer, might be: I transfer some money (from my research budget) to the publisher in order to get my article published and made available to the whole world for free. It's up to authors and funders. Jan Velterop -----Original Message----- From: Rick Anderson To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Sent: 6/8/04 12:09 AM Subject: Monopolies and copyright (RE: Wellcome Trust report) > The issue is not that commercial publishing has no place in science; > the issue is that monopoly has no place in science (or in a true free > market, for that matter). Whoa there, Jan. Copyright is, by definition, a monopoly right. Are you intentionally saying that copyright has no place in science (or in a free market)? Rick Anderson rickand@unr.edu ___
- Prev by Date: Re: copyright question
- Next by Date: RE: Monopolies
- Previous by thread: Monopolies and copyright (RE: Wellcome Trust report)
- Next by thread: RE: Monopolies and copyright (RE: Wellcome Trust report)
- Index(es):