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

Re: NEJM editorial on open access

If it is private capital seeking profit, I would indeed say that this
hypothetical flight of capital would be an excellent thing.


Jean-Claude Gu�don

On Tue October 19 2004 06:13 pm, Joseph Esposito wrote:
> The "this" is the distinction between having no copyright at all and
> having the limited copyright that is implicit in the NIH proposal, at
> least as I understand it.  The NIH apparently is insisting that for
> articles based on NIH-funded research, the authors are free to assign only
> NONEXCLUSIVE rights to a publisher after six months have elapsed (but six
> months from when?  That is not clear to me).  There is a distinction in
> this formulation between this limited copyright and no copyright.  But
> there is no practical difference in that libraries and some individuals
> will begin cancelling subscriptions when they see more and more articles
> becoming available at no charge after six months, accessible to anyone who
> can Google for them.  Hence a distinction without a difference.
> This is not an argument, incidentally, against either Open Access (of
> whatever flavor) or the NIH proposal.  It simply is a plea that we accept
> the consequences of our actions, which in this case will be the flight of
> capital from scholarly publishing.  Some would say that this is a good
> thing.
> Joe Esposito
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:38:12 EDT, Michael Carroll wrote:
> > Joe Esposito wrote:
> > <<This is what is known as a distinction without a difference.>>
> >
> > What is the "this" to which you refer.  The distinction between having a
> > copyright and not having one?