Hmmm. The moderator is right: I have never suggested that copyright should be disregarded, let alone the law. Just that the author should keep his/her copyright and use it to effectuate maximum dissemination and use.
I also can't recall ever having been with CUP. I've been forgetting ever since I can remember, I admit, but this I surely would not have forgotten. Maybe reports about the two are related in the sense that they are both nonsense. Jan > -----Original Message----- > From: Iain Stevenson [mailto:v...@soi.city.ac.uk] > Sent: 16 January 2004 14:53 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting > Rights > > > [Moderator's Note: I have prepended Jan Velterop's message to which > Iain Stevenson seems to be replying below. Iain may have been > replying to something else as I see nothing in Jan's message to > suggest he is recommending that anyone should disregard copyright: > He is just recommending that authors retain it. -- SH] > > Jan Velterop wrote: > > > There is nothing against copyright. There is everything against > > copyright (or exclusive distribution rights) on research articles > > being transferred to the kind of publishers who subsequently use it > > to restrict - severely restrict - their dissemination and optimal > > use. Authors of research articles should keep their copyright and if > > they use it properly, they use it to ensure maximum dissemination, > > which is where their real interest lies. > > Gosh, Jan, you've changed your tune since you were at CUP! People can't > just disregard copyright. it exists and is a good thing. I happen to > agree that authors should retain copyright and used to practise this > when I ran journals. I seem to remember you telling me I was dangerously > liberal then! You can't just disregard a law because it doesn't fit your > view of the world. > > Iain Stevenson
