There is still confusion about the term "intellectual property" (IP) here. IP is not a propaganda term; it is an accurate description -- if I make somethin new, it is my property and I can decide whether to sell it, give it away, lease it, bequeath it or whatever. If I decide to sell, or give away, my IP to a publisher, I lose the right to distribute copies myself unless my agreement with the publishing company permits me to. If I retain the IP myself but choose to give away copies for nothing to anybody who wants one, I can still prevent others from selling (or giving away) copies without my permission. But whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I still retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to be changed, etc.
Am I right? Fytton Rowland. Quoting Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>: > On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > > >sh>Texts that an author has himself written are his own intellectual > >sh>property. > > > > To refer to a text as someone's "intellectual property" spreads a > > dangerous propaganda term which also spreads confusion. (See > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more explanation > > of why this is so.) > > Richard, I've read the GNU passage, and I agree that "intellectual > property" is not a good descriptor for software, as code can be built > onto and out of others' code and programmers and users are better served > if the code is open and can be modified by others. > > But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my > intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is > that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it. > > Now that I have read your recommended passage, can I ask you to read > mine? > > "5. PostGutenberg Copyright Concerns" > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5 > > We are in agreement that copyright lawyers and perhaps legislators are > trying to force disparate things -- like music, patents, software, and > texts (both give-away and non-give-away) -- into the same Procrstean > bed, and that the results are not only unsatisfactory but sometimes even > logically incoherent. > > But it is important that you should not do the same thing either! What > is good for and true of software is not necessarily good for and true of > texts. > > >sh>The text is still the author's > >sh>intellectual property," in the sense that authorship is retained by > >sh>he author, and the text may not be plagiarized by anyone, > > > > That is even more confusing, since it stretches the meaning of > > "intellectual property" even further than normal. > > Not at all. What could be simpler? I wrote this text. No one else may > claim to have written it. End of story. (The rest is about whether or > not I deem it a give-away text.) > > Copyright has (and always has had) at least two functions: > > (1) To protect against theft-of-text-authorship (plagiarism) > > (2) To protect against theft-of-text (piracy, a word I know you don't > like, when applied to software, but perfectly valid when applied to > non-give-away text) > > ALL text authors want copyright protection of their intellectual > property > (sic), their text, from (1), theft-of-text-authorship (plagiarism). > > Only NON-give-away authors want copyright protection of their > intellectual > property, their non-give-away text, from (2), theft-of-text (piracy). > > You are quite right that (1) has nothing to do with "copying" in the > sense of making copies bearing the author's correct name. So perhaps the > legal protection against plagiarism should not be subsumed under > "copyright" law in this sense. But that is a mere terminological matter, > for one can certainly describe copying my text without my name, and > affixing your name to it, as an illicit form of copying. So maybe it > should stay under copyright law after all. > > > To avoid confusion, I suggest you rewrite it as follows: > > > > When you write an article, you are the copyright holder; you > > are free to give away or sell copies, on-paper or on-line > > (e.g., by self-archiving), as you see fit. > > Unfortunately, that does not quite cover it. For an author may be > foolish enough to sign a copyright transfer agreement, assigning all > rights to give away or sell his texts, online or on paper, to someone > else, say, a publisher. But that would still not alter the matter of > intellectual property, i.e., authorship. He would still be the author. > And if someone else claimed to have authored it, it would still be a > violation of his rights, even after he had assigned the copyright, > without restrictions, to a publisher. > > I am not an expert in this (nor especially interested in it, I might > add), but I believe that it is only if an author puts his text in the > public domain that he loses the intellectual property rights, i.e., he > cannot prosecute someone for plagiarizing it. > > (I am not sure about this last matter, and someone may wish to correct > me, > but please, let us not side-track the Forum discussion into these > esoteric > paths http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1713.html as it > is not what we are concerned about here. We are concerned with GIVEAWAY > texts -- peer-reviewed research articles -- for which their authors > definitely want to retain authorship; but they also want them accessible > for free for all.) > > See also: > "PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research" > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1309.html > > Stevan Harnad > > NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free > access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the > American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01): > > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html > or > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html > > Discussion can be posted to: > american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org > > See also the Budapest Open Access Initiative: > http://www.soros.org/openaccess > > and the Free Online Scholarship Movement: > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm > >