Re: Copyright Law and Science
Dear all, Being somewhat of an opportunist, I would like to kidnap this thread to shamelessly plug the journal of which I am one of the editors. In contrast to the 'big' journals, mentioned in this thread, our journal (Lutra, the scientific, peer-reviewed journal of the Dutch Mammal Society) does not only give the authors reprints and a pdf, but will be available online, free of charge, from the next issue onward. I am not so naieve to think that we can change scientific publishing by doing this, but hopefully more (smaller) journals will do the same. I've pasted some info on the journal below. Kind regards, Jasja Dekker Editor Lutra Lutra is a scientific journal published by the Society for the Study and Conservation of Mammals (VZZ) based in Arnhem, The Netherlands. The society is dedicated to the study and protection of native mammals in Western Europe. Lutra publishes peer reviewed scientific papers on mammals across all disciplines, but tends to focus on ecology, biogeography, behaviour and morphology. Although exceptions are made in some cases, Lutra generally publishes articles on mammal species native to Europe, including marine mammals. Lutra publishes full articles as well as short notes which may include novel research methods or remarkable observations of mammals. In addition Lutra publishes book reviews, and compilations of recent literature on mammals. Lutra publishes in British English as well as Dutch. Lutra publishes two issues per year and Lutra is indexed in Biological Abstracts, Zoological Records and Artik. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Silvert Sent: maandag 21 november 2005 15:56 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Copyright Law and Science While it would be nice to have scientists organise against the present practice with regard to signing away copyright, unless a real movement gets started most of us have no choice. We have to publish to function and the publishers hold the cards, namely the power to accept or reject our papers. It would be good to organise a boycott of publishers who insist on transfer of copyright, but that is a big job and would take a long time. Most scientists simply do what they consider the right thing and focus on their research. Keep in mind that I posted in response to a message about whether one could copy a book that was totally unavailable, the author dead, etc. I think that the responses that focussed on the technicalities of following copyright law, which basically require that the researcher has to do without this resource, are wrong. As for suppression of material, this is common in the movie business. I gave one of several examples of cases where Hollywood has decided to remake a film, often a classic film, and pulls the original version off the market. In fields where creativity requires funding, often creative work can be suppressed because the rights belong to the funding party. This can ocur in the movies (Hearst vs. Citizen Kane for example, which almost succeeded) and in science there is growing concern that drug companies are able to suppress the publication of unfavourable results even by supposedly independent researchers. I also referred to the practice of letting creative works expire by failure to publish them, as often happens with old recordings and books. I mentioned video games in particular because there is an interesting issue there - fans of the old games for obsolete computers (like the 8-bit Ataris) cannot buy these games, but the software companies won't give up the copyrights. Since there will never be a profiable market for these games, why won't the companies let them go? Often the copyright ends up in the hands of people who are much tighter about it than the creator. I read about a Cambodian musician in the US who is delighted that pirated copies of his music are popular all over Cambodia even though the publisher is furious - but he points out that almost no one in Cambodia could afford the price of an American CD. Scientific journals charge for reprints (PDFs) of our papers which we are happy to distribute for free. And by the way I'd like to thank all of you who sent me copies of my own paper which Springer refused to send me! Bill Silvert PS - A later posting reminded me of the frequent proposal that scientific journals enforce copyright for just a short time, maybe a year or so, but then release papers into the public domain. Sure sounds like a good compromise. But I think the opposite is happening. I recently spent some time at a university where they had Science Direct access to many journals published within the last ten years, but it turned out that if I wanted access to older papers they would have to pay. This makes me pessimistic about winning the firms that control scientific publishing over to some reasonable solution. And given that there is a lot of c
Re: Copyright Law and Science
While it would be nice to have scientists organise against the present practice with regard to signing away copyright, unless a real movement gets started most of us have no choice. We have to publish to function and the publishers hold the cards, namely the power to accept or reject our papers. It would be good to organise a boycott of publishers who insist on transfer of copyright, but that is a big job and would take a long time. Most scientists simply do what they consider the right thing and focus on their research. Keep in mind that I posted in response to a message about whether one could copy a book that was totally unavailable, the author dead, etc. I think that the responses that focussed on the technicalities of following copyright law, which basically require that the researcher has to do without this resource, are wrong. As for suppression of material, this is common in the movie business. I gave one of several examples of cases where Hollywood has decided to remake a film, often a classic film, and pulls the original version off the market. In fields where creativity requires funding, often creative work can be suppressed because the rights belong to the funding party. This can ocur in the movies (Hearst vs. Citizen Kane for example, which almost succeeded) and in science there is growing concern that drug companies are able to suppress the publication of unfavourable results even by supposedly independent researchers. I also referred to the practice of letting creative works expire by failure to publish them, as often happens with old recordings and books. I mentioned video games in particular because there is an interesting issue there - fans of the old games for obsolete computers (like the 8-bit Ataris) cannot buy these games, but the software companies won't give up the copyrights. Since there will never be a profiable market for these games, why won't the companies let them go? Often the copyright ends up in the hands of people who are much tighter about it than the creator. I read about a Cambodian musician in the US who is delighted that pirated copies of his music are popular all over Cambodia even though the publisher is furious - but he points out that almost no one in Cambodia could afford the price of an American CD. Scientific journals charge for reprints (PDFs) of our papers which we are happy to distribute for free. And by the way I'd like to thank all of you who sent me copies of my own paper which Springer refused to send me! Bill Silvert PS - A later posting reminded me of the frequent proposal that scientific journals enforce copyright for just a short time, maybe a year or so, but then release papers into the public domain. Sure sounds like a good compromise. But I think the opposite is happening. I recently spent some time at a university where they had Science Direct access to many journals published within the last ten years, but it turned out that if I wanted access to older papers they would have to pay. This makes me pessimistic about winning the firms that control scientific publishing over to some reasonable solution. And given that there is a lot of consolidation in the publishing field, the chances of pressuring individual journals to back off on copyright issues seem dim. - Original Message - From: "David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 2:40 AM Subject: Re: Copyright Law and Science > The problem is not with copyright law, but with scientists who sign > their rights away in the publication agreements with the journals. I > don't know how that system got started, but if scientists organized -- > beginning with journals published by scientific societies it would > change, and copyright law would not be an obstacle to free flow of > information. > > Contracts can be signed granting publishers the rights they need, while > you retain copyright -- and limited rights to reproduce the work on your > own. > > I haven't heard much about copyright being used to supress ideas. Given > the fact that I also work in the creative community, I think I would > have heard more about that if it was as widespread as hinted in the post > below. It is not, and for the most part, it cannot happen WITHOUT the > WRITTEN consent of the creator of the work. (Works made for hire, such > as articles written for a newspaper by its staff, are a common exception.) > > Copyright law is good, and should be your friend. But you have to pay > attention to what you're signing away when you submit an article for > publication.
Re: Copyright Law and Science
I think a far better idea than a privately run journal is the PLOS series of journals, which run an open access policy (the success of this has seen PLOS Biology's impact factor hit 13.9 -- this is higher than almost every journal except for Science and Nature): http://www.plos.org/about/openaccess.html Does anyone know if there is some sort of a database which tracks the access/copyright policy of journals? --j On 11/20/05 2:51 AM, "Yaron Ziv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear ecologists, > > Due to the copyright issue, as well as due to unrealistically high (and > unfair, in most cases) rate of journal subscription, Michael Rosenzweig > (University of Arizona) has established his privately-run journal: > Evolutionary Ecology Research. > > According to the journal policy: âEER maintains a pioneering and > enlightened copyright policy. It is designed to help your work obtain > the widest possible use and influence. Authors keep their copyright but > give EER the exclusive right to distribute their paper for one > year. Authors also agree not to charge for non-commercial use of their > work by educational and research institutions. Consult our copyright > policy and advise your society to adopt a similar one.â° > (http://www.evolutionary-ecology.com/) > > The journalâs Board of Editors includes: Anthony Barnosky, Gary > Belovsky, Tim Blackburn, Francisco Bozinovic, James Brown, Thomas > Caraco, Peter Chesson, Robert Colwell, Lynda Delph, Michael Doebeli, > Steve Ellner, Mikael Fortelius, Charles Fox, Gordon Fox, Paul Harvey, > Andrew Hendry, Raymond Huey, Yoh Iwasa, David Jablonski, John Jaenike, > Eva Kisdi , Andrew Knoll, Bill Kunin, Jesus Leon, Bruce Levin, Curt > Lively, Adam Lomnicki, Marc Mangel, Brian Maurer, Mike McKinney, Lauri > Oksanen, Stuart Pimm, Derek Roff, Daniel Rubenstein, Beryl Simpson, > Lawrence Slobodkin, Peter Taylor, Scott Wing, and Helmut Zwolfer.  So, > I guess it does not suffer from a reduction in its quality of science. > > Following the previous e-mail by Bill Silvert, I believe that if we > favor and encourage journals with a similar policy as that of EER, we > may be moving towards getting the copyright of our works (as well as > getting lower subscription rates . . .). I think it is also the > interest of the chief editors and associate editors of the other > journals, who serve as an important group of the scientific community. > > -- Yaron Ziv > > > > On 19 Nov 2005, at 07:53, Bill Silvert wrote: > >> The recent discussion of copyright law seems to have managed to bypass >> the >> key issues in a very disappointing way. One set of postings comes from >> people who are confused because they don't see what is wrong with >> copying a >> book that is out of print and totally unavailable, while the other set >> comes >> from legal scholars who write things like "I love to see discussios >> over >> copyright lead by people who don't know what they are talking about." >> >> Debate about copyright tend to focus on the right of creators of >> intellectual property to receive fair compensation for their labours, >> and I >> have never heard copyright defended on the grounds that it is a >> mechanism >> for the suppression of ideas - but this often happens. Sometimes >> copyright >> is used to deliberate material intentionally. Hollywood will sometime >> buy >> the rights to a film, withdraw it from circulation, and replace it >> with a >> remake. Some very important films, such as the Marcel Pagnol "Fanny" >> trilogy, were suppressed in this way, although many continued to >> circulate >> in bootleg versions and are again available. Rich companies and >> individuals >> have often tried to buy the rights to unfavourable books so that they >> can >> suppress them. More often works are suppressed through a combination of >> negligence and greed, such as when a company drops a CD, book or video >> game >> from its catalogue but will not release it into the public domain. >> >> While the loss of an art work in this way is sad, in science it is >> totally >> unacceptable. Scientific progress requires the open exchange of ideas, >> and >> withdrawing books and journals from the scientific community is >> tantamount >> to burning them. Suppose that the Vatican, instead of issuing bodily >> threats >> against Galileo and Copernicus and actually burning Bruno at the stake >> had >> simply been able to buy up their copyrights? Or that Hitler had been >> able to >> withdraw from circulation all the German journals where Einstein and >> others >> published their results? >> >> Although these examples are exaggerated, copyright law is a serious >> problem >> for modern scientists. If you want to publish you have to transfer the >> copyright to the publisher, giving up even your own rights to what you >> wrote. Your work may simply vanish into limbo - the publisher declares >> bankruptcy, the book never gets printed, the journal becomes defunct - >> but >> the copyrigh
Re: Copyright Law and Science
Dear ecologists, Due to the copyright issue, as well as due to unrealistically high (and unfair, in most cases) rate of journal subscription, Michael Rosenzweig (University of Arizona) has established his privately-run journal: Evolutionary Ecology Research. According to the journal policy: EER maintains a pioneering and enlightened copyright policy. It is designed to help your work obtain the widest possible use and influence. Authors keep their copyright but give EER the exclusive right to distribute their paper for one year. Authors also agree not to charge for non-commercial use of their work by educational and research institutions. Consult our copyright policy and advise your society to adopt a similar one. (http://www.evolutionary-ecology.com/) The journals Board of Editors includes: Anthony Barnosky, Gary Belovsky, Tim Blackburn, Francisco Bozinovic, James Brown, Thomas Caraco, Peter Chesson, Robert Colwell, Lynda Delph, Michael Doebeli, Steve Ellner, Mikael Fortelius, Charles Fox, Gordon Fox, Paul Harvey, Andrew Hendry, Raymond Huey, Yoh Iwasa, David Jablonski, John Jaenike, Eva Kisdi , Andrew Knoll, Bill Kunin, Jesus Leon, Bruce Levin, Curt Lively, Adam Lomnicki, Marc Mangel, Brian Maurer, Mike McKinney, Lauri Oksanen, Stuart Pimm, Derek Roff, Daniel Rubenstein, Beryl Simpson, Lawrence Slobodkin, Peter Taylor, Scott Wing, and Helmut Zwolfer. So, I guess it does not suffer from a reduction in its quality of science. Following the previous e-mail by Bill Silvert, I believe that if we favor and encourage journals with a similar policy as that of EER, we may be moving towards getting the copyright of our works (as well as getting lower subscription rates . . .). I think it is also the interest of the chief editors and associate editors of the other journals, who serve as an important group of the scientific community. -- Yaron Ziv On 19 Nov 2005, at 07:53, Bill Silvert wrote: > The recent discussion of copyright law seems to have managed to bypass > the > key issues in a very disappointing way. One set of postings comes from > people who are confused because they don't see what is wrong with > copying a > book that is out of print and totally unavailable, while the other set > comes > from legal scholars who write things like "I love to see discussios > over > copyright lead by people who don't know what they are talking about." > > Debate about copyright tend to focus on the right of creators of > intellectual property to receive fair compensation for their labours, > and I > have never heard copyright defended on the grounds that it is a > mechanism > for the suppression of ideas - but this often happens. Sometimes > copyright > is used to deliberate material intentionally. Hollywood will sometime > buy > the rights to a film, withdraw it from circulation, and replace it > with a > remake. Some very important films, such as the Marcel Pagnol "Fanny" > trilogy, were suppressed in this way, although many continued to > circulate > in bootleg versions and are again available. Rich companies and > individuals > have often tried to buy the rights to unfavourable books so that they > can > suppress them. More often works are suppressed through a combination of > negligence and greed, such as when a company drops a CD, book or video > game > from its catalogue but will not release it into the public domain. > > While the loss of an art work in this way is sad, in science it is > totally > unacceptable. Scientific progress requires the open exchange of ideas, > and > withdrawing books and journals from the scientific community is > tantamount > to burning them. Suppose that the Vatican, instead of issuing bodily > threats > against Galileo and Copernicus and actually burning Bruno at the stake > had > simply been able to buy up their copyrights? Or that Hitler had been > able to > withdraw from circulation all the German journals where Einstein and > others > published their results? > > Although these examples are exaggerated, copyright law is a serious > problem > for modern scientists. If you want to publish you have to transfer the > copyright to the publisher, giving up even your own rights to what you > wrote. Your work may simply vanish into limbo - the publisher declares > bankruptcy, the book never gets printed, the journal becomes defunct - > but > the copyright never reverts to you. Maybe the publisher decides to > drop the > book because it serves a market where books favourable to evoloution > are not > selling well! > > Let me end with an example: Suppose that you write a paper in your > field > which you want to distribute in its entirety to your graduate students. > According to at least some of the expert postings on this list you > have no > right to do this unless you buy the reprints from the publisher. Would > you > really be prepared to tell your graduate students that they can't have > copies of the paper on which their
Re: Copyright Law and Science
The problem is not with copyright law, but with scientists who sign their rights away in the publication agreements with the journals. I don't know how that system got started, but if scientists organized -- beginning with journals published by scientific societies it would change, and copyright law would not be an obstacle to free flow of information. Contracts can be signed granting publishers the rights they need, while you retain copyright -- and limited rights to reproduce the work on your own. I haven't heard much about copyright being used to supress ideas. Given the fact that I also work in the creative community, I think I would have heard more about that if it was as widespread as hinted in the post below. It is not, and for the most part, it cannot happen WITHOUT the WRITTEN consent of the creator of the work. (Works made for hire, such as articles written for a newspaper by its staff, are a common exception.) Copyright law is good, and should be your friend. But you have to pay attention to what you're signing away when you submit an article for publication. Dave Bill Silvert wrote: > The recent discussion of copyright law seems to have managed to bypass the > key issues in a very disappointing way. One set of postings comes from > people who are confused because they don't see what is wrong with copying a > book that is out of print and totally unavailable, while the other set comes > from legal scholars who write things like "I love to see discussios over > copyright lead by people who don't know what they are talking about." > > Debate about copyright tend to focus on the right of creators of > intellectual property to receive fair compensation for their labours, and I > have never heard copyright defended on the grounds that it is a mechanism > for the suppression of ideas - but this often happens. Sometimes copyright > is used to deliberate material intentionally. Hollywood will sometime buy > the rights to a film, withdraw it from circulation, and replace it with a > remake. Some very important films, such as the Marcel Pagnol "Fanny" > trilogy, were suppressed in this way, although many continued to circulate > in bootleg versions and are again available. Rich companies and individuals > have often tried to buy the rights to unfavourable books so that they can > suppress them. More often works are suppressed through a combination of > negligence and greed, such as when a company drops a CD, book or video game > from its catalogue but will not release it into the public domain. > > While the loss of an art work in this way is sad, in science it is totally > unacceptable. Scientific progress requires the open exchange of ideas, and > withdrawing books and journals from the scientific community is tantamount > to burning them. Suppose that the Vatican, instead of issuing bodily threats > against Galileo and Copernicus and actually burning Bruno at the stake had > simply been able to buy up their copyrights? Or that Hitler had been able to > withdraw from circulation all the German journals where Einstein and others > published their results? > > Although these examples are exaggerated, copyright law is a serious problem > for modern scientists. If you want to publish you have to transfer the > copyright to the publisher, giving up even your own rights to what you > wrote. Your work may simply vanish into limbo - the publisher declares > bankruptcy, the book never gets printed, the journal becomes defunct - but > the copyright never reverts to you. Maybe the publisher decides to drop the > book because it serves a market where books favourable to evoloution are not > selling well! > > Let me end with an example: Suppose that you write a paper in your field > which you want to distribute in its entirety to your graduate students. > According to at least some of the expert postings on this list you have no > right to do this unless you buy the reprints from the publisher. Would you > really be prepared to tell your graduate students that they can't have > copies of the paper on which their theses are to be based because you can't > afford the reprints? > > I think that the basic point comes down to this - a scientist should have > access to all revious work in his field. If he can get access through legal > means, buying a book or such, that is the proper route to take. But if there > is no legal access, then copyright law should not be an obstacle to the free > flow of information. > > Bill Silvert -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
Copyright Law and Science
The recent discussion of copyright law seems to have managed to bypass the key issues in a very disappointing way. One set of postings comes from people who are confused because they don't see what is wrong with copying a book that is out of print and totally unavailable, while the other set comes from legal scholars who write things like "I love to see discussios over copyright lead by people who don't know what they are talking about." Debate about copyright tend to focus on the right of creators of intellectual property to receive fair compensation for their labours, and I have never heard copyright defended on the grounds that it is a mechanism for the suppression of ideas - but this often happens. Sometimes copyright is used to deliberate material intentionally. Hollywood will sometime buy the rights to a film, withdraw it from circulation, and replace it with a remake. Some very important films, such as the Marcel Pagnol "Fanny" trilogy, were suppressed in this way, although many continued to circulate in bootleg versions and are again available. Rich companies and individuals have often tried to buy the rights to unfavourable books so that they can suppress them. More often works are suppressed through a combination of negligence and greed, such as when a company drops a CD, book or video game from its catalogue but will not release it into the public domain. While the loss of an art work in this way is sad, in science it is totally unacceptable. Scientific progress requires the open exchange of ideas, and withdrawing books and journals from the scientific community is tantamount to burning them. Suppose that the Vatican, instead of issuing bodily threats against Galileo and Copernicus and actually burning Bruno at the stake had simply been able to buy up their copyrights? Or that Hitler had been able to withdraw from circulation all the German journals where Einstein and others published their results? Although these examples are exaggerated, copyright law is a serious problem for modern scientists. If you want to publish you have to transfer the copyright to the publisher, giving up even your own rights to what you wrote. Your work may simply vanish into limbo - the publisher declares bankruptcy, the book never gets printed, the journal becomes defunct - but the copyright never reverts to you. Maybe the publisher decides to drop the book because it serves a market where books favourable to evoloution are not selling well! Let me end with an example: Suppose that you write a paper in your field which you want to distribute in its entirety to your graduate students. According to at least some of the expert postings on this list you have no right to do this unless you buy the reprints from the publisher. Would you really be prepared to tell your graduate students that they can't have copies of the paper on which their theses are to be based because you can't afford the reprints? I think that the basic point comes down to this - a scientist should have access to all revious work in his field. If he can get access through legal means, buying a book or such, that is the proper route to take. But if there is no legal access, then copyright law should not be an obstacle to the free flow of information. Bill Silvert
