Re: Who Should Own Scientific Papers?

["anthony.watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@BTinternet.com>]

I have recently spent quite a lot of time reading literature in this area
preparing a background paper for a Royal Society workshop and I was
particularly interested in this message which has come just too late for
me.

I would like to make a number of very tentative points which I think are
relevant. I do however know this field well enough to appreciate that I
shall be jumped on from a number of directions :

1. Most publishers do not insist on copyright but they mostly do not agree
to PUBLIC posting. They are concerned with the commercial value of the
knowledge they are selling. If the knowledge is easily available elsewhere,
why pay for it.  Is it WRONG for companies or non-profits to make money out
of knowledge?  This is a rather general question but it seems to me
fundamental. To a foreigner it seems strange that many in the home of
capitalism should be so worried about the idea of making money.

2. The publishers may be mistaken in worrying so much. Maybe it is only
systematic gathering together and selling of the knowledge that will harm
them. This was an argument put forward (to my mind sensibly) a few years ago
when everyone seemed so worried about web-security and "leakage".

3. On the other hand (and it may not be connected) why is it that, whereas
expert commentators projected a rapid growth in document delivery
(commercial and by libraries) as journal subscriptions were cancelled, this
does not seem to have happened. Has informal exchange taken over and filled
the information vacuum.

4. Even non-profits have to make money and experience is that electronic
publishing is a much more expensive business than anyone ever visualised.
Bloom explains why. I wonder how much HighWire charges AAAS or is that a
naughty question? If paper is discontinued, doing all that Science does
would still cost a great deal.

5. It does seem that few scientists wish to get rid of paper, although the
research does not seem to be very intensive or even visible in this area.

6. If paper does not go, a lot of Odlyzko's arguments fall to the ground or,
at least, become less compelling.

7. If journals do not become modes of making available dependent on payments
by the authors (page charges or submission charges) rather than payment by
the users through the subscriptions paid by libraries serving them, it seems
to me that publishers are bound to want to make restrictions, to protect
what they sell. It would not matter if the journal was made available for
anyone. Harnad is clear on that.

8. Do US scientists really want to be told what to do with their papers by
the Federal government or by their universities?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Okerson <aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>;
cni-copyright@cni.org <cni-copyright@cni.org>; IFLA List
<IFLA-L@INFOSERV.NLC-BNC.CA>
Date: 04 September 1998 16:27
Subject: Who Should Own Scientific Papers?


>If you have been interested in numerous recent discussions about who
>should own articles published in scholarly journals, whether copyright
>should be transferred or publishers instead be licensed by authors, or
>just how we should manage IP ownership in a new-tech era -- you will be
>interested in two pieces in the brand new September 4th issue of SCIENCE.
>It contains a Policy Forum written by a Working Group of the American
>Academy of Arts & Sciences (Transition From Paper)*. The Working Group
>advances a cogent argument that authors of scholarly works should retain
>their copyrights (leaving them free to post and distribute their work as
>they need and want to) while broadly licensing publishers to add value to
>those works and distribute them in the value-added mode.  They further
>argue that the U.S. federal government, when granting funds for scientific
>research, mandate the authors to retain copyright as a public service --
>rather than transfer all rights to publishers.  The group calls for
>national discussion on these matters.  The Policy Forum is illustrated by
>a pointed cartoon drawn by Thelma Pickell of AT&T Bell Labs.
>
>SCIENCE's editor, Dr. Floyd Bloom, replies to these arguments to deny
>publishers full copyright transfer, in an editorial in the same issue.
>
>For online versions, see:
>
>1.  SCIENCE online.  Go to the URL below to register.  You should thereby
>be able to retrieve both the Forum and the Editorial; however, you may be
>blocked from the latter. If your library has a subscription to SCIENCE
>online, you can get at the editorial that way.  Otherwise -- consult a
>print copy.
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org
>
>2.  The LIBLICENSE web site contains a copy of the Policy Forum.
>
>http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/POLICYF.HTM
>
>
>Ann Okerson, Associate University Librarian
>Yale University
>LIBLICENSE Co-owner and
>Member of the American Academy Working Group
>Ann.Okerson@yale.edu