Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Im America, the "codification" of which Stevan speaks must not be called a property right. It is an artificial monopoly that may be granted (or for that matter, denied) by Congress within very important parameters. The "giveaway/nongiveaway" distinction serves a political purpose, while it must be stressed that in the area of copyright, it fails to emphasize that we are speaking of an artificial grant of exclusive rights to "expression" per se, as opposed to any creation of a "property" right to information. Seth Johnson Stevan Harnad wrote: > > theft of text > > owning [. . .] one's "text's authorship" rather than > one's "intellectual property" or one's "moral rights" > -- for the give-away texts (mainly research reports, > before and after peer review) with which this Forum > is concerned. > > Changing one's vocabulary helps, but alas it is no > substitute for understanding and thinking clearly. > And for that, I find the giveaway/nongiveaway > distinction far, far more important -- yet hitherto > completely unmarked with a terminological distinction > of its own. -- [CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
Re: Book on future of STM publishers
This may be a poor deal, but we should not blame the author in particular , as it is apparently standard practice in some European countries-- they seem to have a more archaic procedure than in North America. Fyttton, as you, Steven, and others have pointed out, much better ways are available. In evaluating them, keep in mind that it is very unusual for a thesis to develop such interest! The author should indeed be congratulated. Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: > > I quite agree with Bernard Lang. There are better ways. > > And, as a scholar, you might consider the loss in visibility (and hence > potantial authority) you will suffer for a mere 400 dollars. > > Have you looked at the NDLTD site (http://www.ndltd.org)? I assume Stevan > pointed it out in his answer. He generally is very thorough in his use of > references. > > The next ETD meeting, incidentally, where putting theses on-line for free > will be in Berlin. You might want to make a trip there. > > Meanwhile, I encourage you to pull out of an obviously poor deal and place > your thesis on-line within a reputable open-access archive. > > Best, > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Le 19 Juillet 2002 04:42, M. Meier a écrit : > > As many of you wonder about the "outdated" media in which the dissertation > > is published, I will give you the obvious explanation: The University of > > Munich requires that all Ph.D manuscripts have to be handed in in print > > form, no online or CD-ROM version allowed. To recover the printing costs > > (appr. $ 400), every Ph.D. candidate tries to find a decent enough > > publisher to get at least a small percentage back. My publisher, a newly > > founded PoD boutique, would not be very happy if the book appeared as a > > free document on the www. > > > > Regards > > > > Michael Meier > > Dr. David Goodman Research Librarian and Biological Science Bibliographer Princeton University Library Princeton, NJ 08544-0001 phone: 609-258-7785 fax: 609-258-2627 e-mail: dgood...@princeton.edu
Text authentication, plagiarism, and degree-of-authorship
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Alan Story wrote: > So the phrase " text authorship" is the solution, is it? And "authorship", > unlike " property" is merely a neutral word with none of its own baggage? > > Too bad Michel Foucault is not a member of this list. Alan has a valid point. Authorship is a slippery slope. Again, this is not my area of expertise, nor do I believe it has much bearing on the purpose of this Forum, because the authorship of texts in peer-reviewed journals is, with perhaps a few exceptions, not problematic or disputed. (The only problem is getting authors to free access to those texts, at last, by self-archiving them.) However, it is clear that in the digital world, where plagiarizing will be so much easier to do, we will need digitometric tools to assess authorship. The slippery slope is obvious: If I take your text and add or subtract one word, does that make it my text? No? Well than how different does it have to be to be a different text? (With this, as Shaw quipped about another p-word, "Madame, we have already established your profession; we are merely haggling over the price"). There are already some some digitometric tools being developed (e.g., Latent Semantic Indexing http://www.cs.utk.edu/~lsi/) to detect plagiarism (mostly student plagiarism and software plagiarism), but it seems obvious, language being the recombinatory symbolic skill it is (http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad02.symlang.htm), that the differences between any pair of texts, whether by the same or different authors, cannot be absolute or all-or-none but just a matter of degree. So we will no doubt develop quantitative norms for the the degree of textual disparity that there is between (1) two arbitrary independent texts, (2) two texts by different authors on the same topic, (3) two texts by the same author, etc. Authorship will not only be a matter of degree, but statistical: I doubt that the degree of quantitative overlap in these various categories will be continuous and linear. The average overlap between arbitrary texts may hover at or below 20% on some measure (I am merely inventing here), between texts by different authors on the same topic it may jump to 60% and between different texts by the same author on the same topic it might be 90%. If the variance of these values is fairly tight, it will be fairly easy to assign them to their appropriate categories, leaving the range of, say, 95% and above safely inhabited only by variants of the same text, written by the same author (or plagiarized by someone else). To take a plagiarized text and drive the overlap down to 60% or lower, so as to put it into the range of texts by different authors on the same topic, and have it still intelligible and informative, would (I conjecture) require more intelligence than to write the paper for oneself. At least to meet peer-review standards. For student chicanery I plead nolo contendere. Stevan Harnad
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Stevan: So the phrase " text authorship" is the solution, is it? And "authorship", unlike " property" is merely a neutral word with none of its own baggage? Too bad Michel Foucault is not a member of this list. Alan Story Kent Law School
Re: Book on future of STM publishers
I quite agree with Bernard Lang. There are better ways. And, as a scholar, you might consider the loss in visibility (and hence potantial authority) you will suffer for a mere 400 dollars. Have you looked at the NDLTD site (http://www.ndltd.org)? I assume Stevan pointed it out in his answer. He generally is very thorough in his use of references. The next ETD meeting, incidentally, where putting theses on-line for free will be in Berlin. You might want to make a trip there. Meanwhile, I encourage you to pull out of an obviously poor deal and place your thesis on-line within a reputable open-access archive. Best, Jean-Claude Guédon Le 19 Juillet 2002 04:42, M. Meier a écrit : > As many of you wonder about the "outdated" media in which the dissertation > is published, I will give you the obvious explanation: The University of > Munich requires that all Ph.D manuscripts have to be handed in in print > form, no online or CD-ROM version allowed. To recover the printing costs > (appr. $ 400), every Ph.D. candidate tries to find a decent enough > publisher to get at least a small percentage back. My publisher, a newly > founded PoD boutique, would not be very happy if the book appeared as a > free document on the www. > > Regards > > Michael Meier > > > This is an interesting point. In some disciplines, there is a tradition > > of > > writing journal articles based on one's PhD research -- some of them > > perhaps > > published before the thesis is written -- while in other fields the > > practice is > > to turn one's thesis into a book. However, the thesis itself, in its > > original > > form as an examination document, is usually made publicly available in > > the library of its home university, and is indexed in various secondary > > services > > such as Dissertation Abstracts. If universities in future mostly have > > OAI- > > compliant servers, and theses are submitted in electronic as well as > > printed > > form, there seems to be no obstacle to each university mounting its own > > theses > > on its server for free worldwide access. > > > > But... Stevan often makes the point that his concern is purely with the > > scholarly journal literature, which is given away by its authors, and > > which > > should be avialable free of charge to other scholars. He goes on to say > > that > > this argument does not apply to other kinds of publication for which > > authors > > are traditionally paid, which is the case with books, even scholarly > > books. On > > that argument, having to pay 30 Euros for Meier's book is o.k. > > > > Hmm... So, if we are in a discipline that uses journals, free access is > > o.k.; > > free access to the raw thesis is also o.k.; but if the discipline is one > > that > > has the tradition of a book based on the thesis, then free access is not > > o.k. > > What do others think of this line of argument? > > > > Fytton. > > > > Fytton Rowland, Dept of Information Science, Loughborough University, UK. > > > > Quoting Thomas Krichel : > > > M. Meier writes > > > > > > > An exposé is availabel under > > > > http://www.ep.uni-muenchen.de/themen.htm. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > book as a whole will unfortunately not be available online for free. > > > > > > I understand that the book is Michael's PhD thesis. I think that > > > it would be interesting to understand the reasons why it is not > > > freely available online. If the FOS movement can not convince > > > scholars in scholarly communication to make their work freely available > > > online, we do have a problem. I would like to understand what the > > > problem is here. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Thomas Krichel > > > mailto:kric...@openlib.org > > > > > > http://openlib.org/home/krichel > > > > > > RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: >sh> But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my >sh> intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is >sh> that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it. > > The usual meaning of the term "intellectual property" is something > different: it means "copyright, patent, trademark, and various other > things." If the meaning above is what you intend to say, and if you > would like people to understand your intended meaning, I suggest you > find a different way to say it. I suppose the problem arises from the historical fact that what had been the main motivation of authors of texts for wanting to assert and protect their authorship of their texts was so that they (or rather, their publishers) could sell copies of them (and hence expenses could be covered and profits and royalties could be earned). In the earlier, pre-codification "oral tradition," when the only "product" that poets, tale-tellers and musicians had in mind was their own real-time performance skill (a "service," I suppose), all they wanted was payment for their time! Their lifetime benefits came from the reputation of their performing skills, and I suppose they thought of those as their only legacy too. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/chartier.htm http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.performance.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad91.postgutenberg.html With the advent codification, a new potential "product" was born, the text (or score), and protection from theft of authorship and protection from theft of text were wrapped into the same thing: "copyright protection." (There was little precedent from prior products, as paintings and sculptures were hand-made by the artist; perhaps bootleg prints were the inspiration for copyright?) That was also why publishers told authors that transfering the copyright to them was necessary to allow them (the publishers) to pursue and prosecute any legal infractions of their (the authors') rights, whether theft of authorship (plagiarism) or theft of text (making/selling unauthorized copies). So, although it is clear (in so many ways) that the real problem here is conceptual, and logical, not just terminological, I will be happy to follow Richard's advice and henceforth refer to owning and protecting one's "text's authorship" rather than one's "intellectual property" or one's "moral rights" -- for the give-away texts (mainly research reports, before and after peer review) with which this Forum is concerned. Changing one's vocabulary helps, but alas it is no substitute for understanding and thinking clearly. And for that, I find the giveaway/nongiveaway distinction far, far more important -- yet hitherto completely unmarked with a terminological distinction of its own. "Five Essential PostGutenberg Distinctions" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1 > 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. > > I agree and will take it a step further: even when something is good > and true for written works, such as software or scientific texts, it > is not necessarily good and true for ideas about programming > techniques, pharmaceuticals, or plant varieties, or genes. Copyright > on software is not the same issue as copyright on scientific articles, > and neither of them is the same issue as patents. > > The term "intellectual property", which lumps together copyrights and > patents leads people to limit consideration to simplistic > across-the-board approaches. If you would like to encourage people to > distinguish the issues of different kinds of works, it makes sense for > you join me in discouraging the term that lumps everything together as > one issue. Agreed! I shall no longer utter the word "intellectual property" (except to disparage it as inadequate and Procrustean). Stevan Harnad
Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
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. The usual meaning of the term "intellectual property" is something different: it means "copyright, patent, trademark, and various other things." If the meaning above is what you intend to say, and if you would like people to understand your intended meaning, I suggest you find a different way to say it. 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. I agree and will take it a step further: even when something is good and true for written works, such as software or scientific texts, it is not necessarily good and true for ideas about programming techniques, pharmaceuticals, or plant varieties, or genes. Copyright on software is not the same issue as copyright on scientific articles, and neither of them is the same issue as patents. The term "intellectual property", which lumps together copyrights and patents leads people to limit consideration to simplistic across-the-board approaches. If you would like to encourage people to distinguish the issues of different kinds of works, it makes sense for you join me in discouraging the term that lumps everything together as one issue.
Re: Book on future of STM publishers
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote: > It has always been quite easy (if you have the money) to get a book printed. > Publishers are not printers. The business of getting a book printed is only > one (and not the most important) of a publishing company's functions. Editing > to improve the quality of the raw product from the author is one of the > important ones, and marketing to bring it to the attention of those who might > be interested in its content is the other. I believe that both of these > functions remain important in an electronic-only environment. > And both functions are as important for scholarly journals as for books, although instead of that nasty term "marketing" we usually refer to a journal's "reputation". but it performs the same function of bringing content to the attention of those who might be interested. Of course a book stands on its own, while a journal article is represented as part of a greater whole (why is that, though, in the electronic era?) resulting in the one functional distinction Stevan claims makes the book example irrelevant: book publishers also collect royalty payments for authors. Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
Re: Book on future of STM publishers
i did not appreciate the forum was only for the research community ;i am an implementer of research findings eg www.nelh.nhs.uk and benefit from the detail of scientific monographs. also many people like me who live on the road and not on a university network need paper copies of books and publishers are reluctant to publish the specialist texts on paper. apologies for intrusion muir gray - Original Message - From: "Stevan Harnad" To: Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Book on future of STM publishers > On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, muir gray wrote: > > > I think the debate is too focussed on the future of the journal and am > > pleased to see that it now addresses the monograph. a colleague and I have > > just made a monograph by working directly with a printer and making > > simulataneous paper and electronic form of the book with no need for > > bookshops or warehouses. the printing revolution is as important as the > > pagemaking revolution > > This Forum is focused mainly on the contents of peer-reviewed journals > for the following reasons: > > (1) It is free online access to the peer-reviewed research literature that > is the research community's principal concern. > > (2) Non-free online versions of books that are produced to be sold are > not the concern of this Forum. This is not a Forum about new ways to > produce or market "eBooks." > > (3) Free online books are not a problem. They are by definition > open-access already. > > Stevan Harnad
