Re: NEJM editorial on open access

["Michael Carroll" <Carroll@law.villanova.edu>]

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?

Best,
MC
______________

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:39:14 EDT, Jan Velterop wrote:

> The editorial also misunderstands the role of copyright in science
> communication. We have also sent a letter to the editor, necessarily
> very short, but a longer version is here:
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/miscell/?issue=21
> 
> Jan Velterop
> BioMed Central
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> [owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of Michael Carroll
>> Sent: 11 October 2004 23:51
>> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu 
>> Subject: Re: NEJM editorial on open access
>>
>> Yes, the editorial has a fundamentally flawed understanding of
>> copyright law.  I've sent a letter to the editor explaining why and
>> am waiting to hear whether it will be published.  The upshot is that
>> the editorial assumes that the NIH proposal would divest publishers of
>> copyright in NIH-funded articles.  This simply is wrong.  Publishers
>> come to own copyrights by contract, and nothing in the proposal
>> affects the validity of those contracts.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michael W. Carroll