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

Re: Monopolies and copyright (RE: Wellcome Trust report)

I think it's a mistake to get hung up on copyright per se.  Copyright is
not really one thing, it's a bundle of rights which is most useful to all
concerned if unpacked.  Once you've done that, it is easy to allocate the
different components to those who need them.  Authors need to be able to
protect their association with their work, and the integrity of that work.
So, if they have invested time and money in selection, collection and
improvement, do publishers.  Authors wish to be able to reuse their work
in a variety of contexts, but actually don't (as far as I can tell)
generally want to undermine the publisher's ability to market and sell it.

The Zwolle Group has done a lot of useful work predicated on the idea of
'unpacking' copyright - see http://www.surf.nl/copyright


Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
E-mail:  chief-exec@alpsp.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Morrison" <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: Monopolies and copyright (RE: Wellcome Trust report)

> Copyright is consistent with monopoly, but they are not inevitably
> intertwined.
> I can retain copyright in the sense of integrity of my work and right of
> attribution, while at the same time freely distributing my work to anyone
> who might like to read it.
> Even in the commercial sector, there is nothing to stop me from selling
> redistribution rights to as many different companies as I like, provided
> of course that they are agreeable to these terms.
> In some of the aggregated databases, we see this happening now - the same
> magazine, with all its copyrighted articles, is available in several
> products.  This is an illustration of how copyright can be just as
> consistent with a competitive market as with monopoly.
> cheers,
> Heather Morrison