[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Obsolete legal concepts? (RE: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...)
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: Obsolete legal concepts? (RE: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...)
- From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:54:43 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Rick Anderson wrote:
Sure. And I am referring specifically to the OA debate, and the 2.5M annual peer-reviewed journal articles that are OA's target content. (I have no imperial designs or interests insofar as the digital domain Writ Large is concerned.)No, Sandy, in science I would not; but in the case of these legal terms and concepts -- applied to a new medium that lawyers neither understand, nor one to which their obsolescent terms and concepts are even coherently applicable -- it is the "technical terms" that are the confused ones, and what is needed is some common sense in their stead, to dispel the confusion they create in the public mind.Stevan, could you give us, say, five examples of legal terms and concepts that are currently being used in this debate, and whose meanings are obsolete or otherwise inapplicable in the new medium?
(1) Fair Use
(2) Intellectual Property
(3) Copyright
(4) Copy
(5) Publish
There may eventually be ways to squeeze sense out of these terms again, in the online era, for the specific case of OA's target content. But no one I've heard so far (legal or lay) is coming anywhere near finding those sensible, defensible reconstruals. It's all mostly incoherent, anachronistic, pedantic, Procrustean prattle, often alarmingly, even grotesquely, arbitrary, and transparently dysfunctional. The only reason it gets any credence at all is because no one has any deeper ideas.
So I just steer clear of the juridical jargon altogether, taking it to be moot until and unless someone comes up with something sensible that really fits the new (online) medium as well as the needs of the new (online) research community.
But I will definitely continue to use "Fair Use" as the descriptor for "the Button." Not because I think there is a crisp legal issue at issue, but simply because people *understand* what the button is for, and how to use it, when it is put that way. ("Eprint Request Button" was not nearly as effective or comprehensible.)
Just pragmatism, not jurisprudence...
Chrs, Stevan
- Prev by Date: Another editorial endorsement of NIH mandate
- Next by Date: Haworth Press, Inc. to be Acquired by Taylor & Francis
- Previous by thread: Obsolete legal concepts? (RE: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...)
- Next by thread: RE: Obsolete legal concepts? (RE: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...)
- Index(es):