On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Nick Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My impression of the academic publishing world is that NC licenses are > being mainly used not by academics themselves, but by publishers. Is > this right? That is, the scientist is still required to sign > copyright over to the publisher, and it is then the publisher who > refuses to allow others to make money from the work. Is that correct? > If so, does the scientist herself retain rights, or is she also bound > by the NC terms? If my impression is correct, there's plainly no > moral argument to be made for NC: the publishers haven't created the > work - or even paid for it - so it is no injustice to them if others > benefit from it. > This is certainly my prime motivation for challenging CC-NC for scholarly articles. The author has no say in the choice of licence and cannot decide how their work will be used. [Please don't suggest that the author can bargain with the publisher - it's an artificial monopoly situation with no elasticity. I am one of the very small number of people who have tried to negotiate with publishers - apart from anything their pubklishing apparatus is so primitive that they cannot reassign rights and don't want to.] The only negotiations - if any - that have taken place are between funders and publishers on licence type. My guess - and I shall explore it with public funders - is that the funders simply agree "open access" and allow the publisher to choose whatever licence suits them - not the funders and certainly not the authors. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
