RE: copyright protection paper

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

Responding to Sally below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sally Morris [mailto:sec-gen@alpsp.org]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 7:53 AM
To: Liblicense
Subject: Re: copyright protection paper

"I don't see that publishers have no right to collect payment for articles
they have published, irrespective of their copyright status. "

	Interesting point, but If you are REALLY saying publishers can 
	charge copyright fees for articles by government employees where 
	they do not own the copyright, -based on alternative USES I.e. 
	ILL, classroom handouts, etc., of that material then I think you 
	have proven my point that publishers are abusing the system.

"As Ann Okerson points out, they have done work and expended money on all
the processes leading to publication - if they didn't get paid for this,
how would they continue to perform that function?"

	Publishers do get paid for the overall subscription. so the "if 
	they didn't get paid" is a chestnut. 

"And I don't think the issue is really whether or not the reader knows
that the work is in the public domain (in the USA, at least - I agree with
comments that the same works may not in fact be public domain for users in
other countries).  The author knows - or should know - and, to me, the
question is whether they (or their employer) actually do anything about
it. Are Govt works habitually openly deposited anywhere?  Not that I know
of"

	This is about USERS rights, not publishers rights. THAT IS THE 
	POINT.. Denial isn't going to help. 

	I thought that was part of your original challenge-is USE different 
	for those items publishers don't hold coypright and whether the 
	use of non-copyrightable material is significantly different than 
	the use of copyrighted material.

	Maybe that's another part of the answer, mandate open deposit of 
	government empoyee written and funded research articles published 
	or approved for publication by journals.  That wouldn't even 
	require a change of law, just a change of practice.

"From this and your previous post, it looks like you think that may be a
reasonable solution too."

	Perhaps I mis-understood. I think my point is clear. 
	Publishers do not indicate what they do not hold copyright on. 
	That is not only misleading, but limiting of the legitimate and 
	legal uses that material can be put to. Its another example of why 
	profit maximizing publishers are not always the best way to make 
	sure research is disseminated.

	Our present system doesn't do enough for information that we all 
	AGREE is not owned by publishers, but is published by them,
	Federally funded research by federal mployees is buried in research 
	journals and is  relatively unaccessible. It should be widely, 
	easily accessible. that is the intent of EXISTING laws. 

	If you are supporting the dissemination function, then find ways 
	to make sure the stuff you don't own but publish, is easily 
	available-easily recognized easy to use or, I think, publishers 
	run some significant risks of being shown to be inefficient in 
	promoting access to public funded and government employeer written 
	research

	In Sally's scenario, its impossible for the USER to know, and she's
	not worried about it. If I were a publisher, I would be very 
	worried, that even in an area I KNOW I don't own copyright, I act 
	as if I did. 

	As RIAA will learn ultimately, you can't take on your customers 
	and win, so find ways to make it a win-win.

	That little bitty bit of change might help turn this tide --instead 
	of continuing to be seen as an  ostrich-or as others would have 
	it, an anachronism the STM publishing community could be seen as 
	vibrantly reacting to customers and libraries demans, and get free 
	promotions for putting out all the free stuff they can. 

	Of course that presupposes publishers KNOW which articles they 
	really don't have rights to. I suspect they do not. 

	I know of at least one article where ONLY first rights of 
	publication were signed over, sitting in three or four full text 
	databases right now. The publisher ignoring its contract with the 
	author, is the American Library Association. 

	Maybe there is another class action lawsuit in there. Anyone 
	interested?? I've already tried once to get ALA to pay attention 
	to author's rights, to pay attention to their contracts, but this 
	behavior is as far as I can tell, systemic. 

	Publishers claim more rights than they have with published 
	articles. (as ALA is doing with articles they ONLY have first 
	right of publication for)

	Haven't publishers learned anything from napster and AAP's posturing,
	and the RIAA. And now the collapse of the price of a music CD in 
	the US?

	o Keep treating those who use your material like thieves, guard 
	the piggy bank, extract the last penny, then as a friend of mine 
	likedd to say, hide and watch. 

	o Change rules regularly on access. Make your  archive available 
	one year, then change to "latest two years only"  charge extra for 
	that backfile you provided "free" last year, or create a rolling 
	backfile; keep it up, please, make it as impossible as possible 
	for libraries to predict, for libraries to accept that your 
	contracts are stable, take a state and give them consortial
	rights in one contract,(oh, i'm sorry those were just non binding 
	verbal entitlements-) and 3 years later tell them there are no 
	constorial rights, each ship on its own  bottom.

	o Make it really really difficult for the bottom line users to 
	figure out what they can and can't legitimately use on your site. 

	o Make it impossible to move through the literature seamlessly. 

	o Don't cooperate on the open URL structures, Don't consider or 
	implement z39.50 where appropriate  ignore DOI's (Is your new 
	service including them.  Maybe DOI's should have a "this article 
	is not owned by us feature.)

	o Oh yes, and please continue to raise prices 2 to three times the 
	rate of inflation, maybe even more this year since the US dollar 
	is weak. Do continue, please. 

	o Keep it up  and you will force those who pay the bills to find 
	other ways to support access to research. Publishers are forcing 
	change-and are surprised that there is a rising tide promoting 
	change?

	o Right now, ignore the fact that most of the US states are 
	enacting budget cuts or miniscule increases, and keep on playing 
	the how do we extract more money (rents in the classic langauge of 
	economics//).

	Publishing's believability, and particularly that of commercial 
	publishers, is tattered and close to shreds. The king has no 
	clothes. If publisher behavior's don't change significantly, .. .. 
	sooner or later something like SABO will force change, no matter 
	how many lobbyists are hired against it. And if the US mandates 
	all public funded research must be freely accessible, then what 
	other countries do will also change, and change quickly.  

to quote my buddy  Rick Anderson. IMHBCO. Chuck