On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 Alan Story <a.c.story_at_ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
> On your second strand, breaking publishers' monopoly and the question of
> assignment of copyright ( which as Stevan points out is
> complementary).....and here speaking from the perspective of the UK. >
...
> The "assignment as a condition of publication" contracts that publishers
> require academic authors to sign are "unreasonable", defining "unreasonable"
Such contracts are not at all unreasonable if you consider that
the author asks the publisher to invest over $1000 (1977
dollars) in average pre-press costs per article. (Distribution
costs averaged an additional 9 cents.) The publisher provides
to the author a recognition that is invaluable in establishing
competence, intelligence, and even vision in the sense of being
the first to 'publish' insightful ideas and discoveries.
The reader should view such agreements as reasonable because
the reader benefits by bona fides accorded 'published' claims
that are locatable by browsing in credible sources.
In short, these copyright transfer agreements, used by the
publishers to secure their investments, are hardly
'unreasonable' in any sense of the word. They benefit the
author and the reader as well as the publisher. Moreover,
publishers have exploited the new technology for the benefit of
authors and readers so that any qualified researcher does have
free access through membership in a library. What is
unreasonable is the proposition that the reader who relies
exclusively on self-published 'archives' gets equal value.
The implication that libraries need not provide
services to students, faculty, and others because
copies of articles can be obtained through labor-
intensive efforts is far more 'unreasonable' than
publishers' contracts with authors.
> Not only is this a rather questionable business model for universities--- to
> understate the absurdity of this situation --- for the production and
> distribution of knowledge, but it also dramatically decreases access toand
> use of that knowledge. And it is the signing of an "unreasonable" contract
> that lies at the centre of this tangled and inequitable web of copyright
> power relations and limitations on access.
By 'business model' you must mean profitability.
Yes, universities would be much more profitable if library
spending were eliminated and the burden of dissemination were
shifted entirely to authors and readers. The increased gap
between spending on research and on libraries, 1970 to date,
demonstrates the business plan: universities' interests in
profits. It is only equaled by their disdain for the work
product of research and the quality of education.
It is not, as you claim, the copyright agreement that
'dramatically decreases access to and use of that knowledge.'
It is that universities have cut library spending, canceled
journal subscriptions, stopped buying books, and laid off
librarians. The evidence of this is in 40 years of skyrocketing
'just too late' interlibrary photocopy and document delivery
statistics. The evidence to support Harnad's utopian promises
and your argumentative claims is nowhere to be found.
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532_at_compuserve.com>
.
Received on Mon Dec 10 2001 - 22:38:36 GMT