On 29 Dec 2003 at 16:40, Sally Morris wrote:
> I don't think due consideration has been given to WHY some publishers might
> legitimately object. Their concern is that making their content freely
> available may ultimately undermine their sales revenue - and, although this
> has not yet proved to
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Sally Morris wrote:
> I don't think due consideration has been given to WHY some publishers might
> legitimately object. Their concern is that making their content freely
> available may ultimately undermine their sales revenue - and, although this
> has not yet proved to be t
www.alpsp-collection.org
- Original Message -
From: "Stevan Harnad"
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, [identity deleted] wrote:
>
> > >On W
There is another point that Bob might have made: given the desire of
journal editors to hang on to their authors, it is very unlikely that a
publisher would actually go to the extreme of suing (and thus alienating)
their own authors. Threaten, maybe; actually do it, almost certainly not.
Fytton R
I agree with Stevan's strategy in theory. The problem is that this is
not something provosts and library directors would support as part of the
institutional repository policy. If we want institutional legitimization
of eprint archives, we will also have to live with added red tapes and
bureaucraci
Stevan Harnad writes:
>If they want to ask the rest, fine; but better still, do as the far
>more sensible physicists did: self-archive, and decide whether or not to
>withdraw only if and when someone ever asks!
EXACTLY. Stevan you need to emphasize this point more. Although
I am certainly not a
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, [identity deleted] wrote:
> >On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Carole Brault wrote:
> > >
> > > I still have to verify : did the professor keep the "pre-print" of these
> > > articles ? I would say NO.
>
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote
> >
> >No you don't have to verify it. The aut
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Carole Brault wrote:
> just thought I would share this with you. It may help when trying to
> explain the importance of institutional archiving (or self-archiving) or to
> encourage authors to keep their copyright (or at least the right to post an
> eprint, pre or post...)
Thr
On 18 Nov 2003, at 13:28, Stevan Harnad wrote:
What is the actual percentage of withdrawals in the 12-years span of
250,000 papers self-archived in http://www.arxiv.org
And what actually was the reason behind there withdrawals?
Below is a manual analysis of the 399 which depends on my interpre
On 15 Nov 2003 at 18:27, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Dr.Vinod Scaria wrote:
>
>v> It is possible (this factor has not been monitored to date) that
>v> many researchers (those who are aware of the open access movement)
>v> are troubled by the possible copyright implications of open
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Troy McClure wrote:
ive been browsing through the citebase and quite a few of such messages came up:
"This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to copyright."
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai%3AarXiv%2Eorg%3Anlin%2F0301018
Stevan Harnad:
I have
On 17 Nov 2003, at 20:42, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> I have to admit that this is the first I've ever heard of any papers
> being removed from Arxiv for copyright reasons.
Me too. There are 11 entries across the whole *physics* archive which
have any comments about copyright: 9 are mentions of copyri
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Troy McClure wrote:
> ive been browsing through the citebase and quite a few of such messages came
> up:
>
> "This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to copyright."
> http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai%3AarXiv%2Eorg%3Anlin%2F0301018
I have to admit
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Dr.Vinod Scaria wrote:
> It is possible (this factor has not been monitored to date) that
> many researchers (those who are aware of the open access movement)
> are troubled by the possible copyright implications of open archives
> and access
Fact: It is not only possible but
Bernard Lang wrote:
> > It seems that for every
> > worrier I respond to, two more worriers pop up in their place! And this
> > is still going on after 10 years and countless talks and papers and
> > discussion lists.
>
> welcome to the club ...
>
> this symptom is unfortunately quite frequent
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 02:52:35PM +, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Chris Armstrong wrote:
>
> > the reason I do not usually enter into these discussions
> > with you is that you never reply except as a put-down...
> > You rarely add to a Socratic discourse, or so it seems to
> >
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Chris Armstrong wrote:
> the reason I do not usually enter into these discussions
> with you is that you never reply except as a put-down...
> You rarely add to a Socratic discourse, or so it seems to
> me; only to a long list of didactic statements.
Dear Chris,
I apologize.
Stevan
the reason I do not usually enter into these discussions
with you is that you never reply except as a put-down:
you obviously haven't understood...
this has already been discussed...
etc.
You rarely add to a Socratic discourse, or so it seems to
me; only to a long list of didactic statement
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Chris Armstrong wrote:
> If the subversive proposal takes hold,
> journal prices will be forced up - in the short term, at
> least. In the long term, IF it worries them, the
> publishers can lobby for litigation outside of the
> copyright laws, I suppose. Perhaps something to
A late comment on Charles Oppenheim's 16/11 email:
>I agree with Professor Riolo - the best way forward is
>for authors to refuse to assign copyright to a
>publisher, and simply to license them.
>
>...This means that the genie IS out of the bottle ...
Well yes - but, hasn't it really been out of
At 09:05 16/11/2001 +, you wrote:
any are exploring innovative ways to do just that.
Regarding Albert's contention that it is possible to track down all the
pirate copies through Google, etc., these search engines only cover a
minute proportion of all the Web pages out there.
That's true,
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> But my original statement stands: Publicly self-archive online
> first, then sign the copyright transfer form and you have committed no
> crime.
Once again, it all depends on how the agreement is written. I
would advise readers not to accept your sta
I agree with Professor Riolo - the best way forward is for authors to
refuse to assign copyright to a publisher, and simply to license them.
I also agree with Stevan though - if an author DOES choose to assign
copyright, then the practical problems of a publisher trying to chase all
those allegedl
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
> > the publisher who is the new copyright holder can
> > prevent any more reproduction of the copyrighted work that it now owns.
> > So, right after the moment when the transfer is completed, the copyright
> > holder can stop anyone who has the co
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
> the publisher who is the new copyright holder can
> prevent any more reproduction of the copyrighted work that it now owns.
> So, right after the moment when the transfer is completed, the copyright
> holder can stop anyone who has the copy before
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> But that is not at all the case here! There is no other publisher.
> The AUTHOR HIMSELF has publicly archived HIS OWN TEXT on-line
> BEFORE THERE WAS ANY COPYRIGHT TRANSFER AGREEMENT.
>
> Having done that, there is no way to stop the cyberjuggernaut: I
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> I think you have misunderstood. That statement is surely as true as the
> law of physics that there can be no backward causation is true.
I admit that I misunderstood. Yet, I feel that the statement is
misleading because an author could be bound by a
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> [after] posting a work to an Internet
> server... [t]he author may be obligated by a copyright transfer to delete
> what he has "archived" (an inappropriate term for unreviewed drafts)
> and to defend the copyright that protects authorship from piracy
on 15 Nov 2001 Stevan Harnad wrote:
>sh> 6.5. If 6.3 is unsuccessful, archive the"corrigenda"
>
>sh> Your pre-refereeing preprint has already been self-archived
>sh> since prior to submission, and is not covered by the copyright
>sh> agreement, which pertains to the revised final ("value-added")
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> > 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim
>
> the following passage [is] misleading:
>
> >6.5. If 6.3 is unsuccessful, archive the"corrigenda"
> >
> >Your pre
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
>
>> > 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally
>> >
>>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim
>
>> I have a great doubt about the legality on the second statement in the
>> section 6.1 (saying that an auth
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
>
>> > 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally
>> >
>>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim
>
>> I have a great doubt about the legality on the second statement in the
>> section 6.1 (saying that an auth
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
> > 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim
> I have a great doubt about the legality on the second statement in the
> section 6.1 (saying that an author is
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> 6. How to get around restrictive copyright legally
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim
You mention that reference several times at CNI-COPYRIGHT and, I notice,
here too.
I have a great doubt about the legal
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Richard Poynder wrote:
> sh> Journalists work for-fee (free-lance) or salary. They write their texts
> sh> as works for hire. Their texts are not author give-aways. For that reason,
> sh> they are in exactly the same category as the non-give-away books which
> sh> are likewise
At 11:47 12/11/2001 +, you wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Richard Poynder wrote:
> as a freelance journalist I can tell you that at least
> one UK national newspaper sent out a form to its freelancers last year
> asking them to, amongst other things, "waive" their moral rights -- the aim
> bein
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Richard Poynder wrote:
> as a freelance journalist I can tell you that at least
> one UK national newspaper sent out a form to its freelancers last year
> asking them to, amongst other things, "waive" their moral rights -- the aim
> being I believe to be able to build up their
unger [mailto:jun...@samsara.law.cwru.edu]
Sent: 10 November 2001 04:14
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
Joseph Pietro Riolo writes:
: If I publish your paper as my own, I am in violation of copyright
At 12:59 09/11/2001 +, you wrote:
But EU law also has "moral rights", which have no financial value and are
non-transferable, and these include the right of the author to be
identified as author of the work. I realise the US law is different, but
surely it cannot allow false attribution of a
Joseph Pietro Riolo writes:
: If I publish your paper as my own, I am in violation of copyright
: in respect to the right to reproduce. It has nothing to do with
: authorship. If you grant me the permission to copy your paper
: without any restriction, I can copy your paper and publish it as
: m
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> I am afraid that the copyright discussion with Joseph Riolo is at
> cross-purposes because we are systematically discussing different kinds
> of texts, different kinds of authors, different kinds of purposes and
> different kinds of problems.
When you
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Fytton Rowland wrote:
>
> In European Union law the distinction is clear. Copyright, as the term
> "intellectual property" implies, is a piece of property that can be bought
> and sold; so if I sell the right to make copies of my novel to Stevan, he
> can quite legitimately se
9:46 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> There are two almost entirely independent dimensions of copyright
> protection:
>
>
I find it very hard to believe that this is an accurate statement of US
law! It implies that, if I write a novel and then I choose to sell its
copyright absolutely to Stevan Harnad, he can then publish it, not just for
his financial benefit, but with "Stevan Harnad" as author! Surely not.
In Eur
I am afraid that the copyright discussion with Joseph Riolo is at
cross-purposes because we are systematically discussing different kinds
of texts, different kinds of authors, different kinds of purposes and
different kinds of problems.
The original question on this thread concerned whether the co
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> But you can't publish his words and claim to be their author.
I can only if the original author sold his whole copyright
without any restriction to me. The point that I want to tell you
is that the U.S. copyright does not give the author, except for
t
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> > There are two almost entirely independent dimensions of copyright
> > protection:
> >
> > CT: Protection from theft-of-text (piracy, illicit acquisition or sale of
> > the copyright owner's text)
> >
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> There are two almost entirely independent dimensions of copyright
> protection:
>
> CT: Protection from theft-of-text (piracy, illicit acquisition or sale of
> the copyright owner's text)
>
> and
>
> CA: Protection from theft-of-authorship (plagiarism,
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo posted to cni-copyri...@cni.org:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> > (6) If and when it is accepted for publication, THAT final draft,
> > including the value added by the refereeing process (and perhaps also
> > the editing, markup, formatt
@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joseph Pietro Riolo
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> The question, as put, is, Do
At 16:18 24/10/01 +0100, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> 2. Released on the Internet, a work cannot be withdrawn
>from further distribution by the copyright owner.
>
> Just as a print publisher can withdraw unsold
> copies of a book from sal
At 10:51 25/10/01 +0100, Fytton Rowland wrote:
At 07:12 PM 10/24/01 +0100, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Joseph Ransdell wrote:
>> Question: Can the third party list the URl of that paper on his or
her own
>> website?
>
>Of course! (Do you know of any legislation that dictates what
At 07:12 PM 10/24/01 +0100, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Joseph Ransdell wrote:
>
>> Suppose the copyright assigned to the publisher permits the author to:
>>
>> > > > "mount your version of the article on your personal World Wide
Web home
>> > > >page and/or that of your employer's,
In response to my second question:
> > 2nd Question: What about the case where there is no such special permission
> > mentioned in the copyright transference? Is there any legal problem in this
> > case?
Stevan wrote:
> Not sure what you mean. Are you referring to papers that may have been
>
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Joseph Ransdell wrote:
> Suppose the copyright assigned to the publisher permits the author to:
>
> > > > "mount your version of the article on your personal World Wide Web home
> > > >page and/or that of your employer's, provided that you (a) cite the
> > > >Journal
> > > >
A question for Stevan Harnad:
What about the following sort of case:
Suppose the copyright assigned to the publisher permits the author to:
> > > "mount your version of the article on your personal World Wide Web home
> > >page and/or that of your employer's, provided that you (a) cite the Jour
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> Harnad's theory below depends on several false assumptions:
>
> 1. The law does not apply equally to print and nonprint works,
>or to academic and non-academic authors.
>
> It seems to me that we are guaranteed equal protection
> u
, INTERNET:cni-copyri...@cni.org
To: Multiple recipients of list, INTERNET:cni-copyri...@cni.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: 10/23/2001 1:32 AM
RE: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Peter Suber
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Rainer Stumpe wrote:
> ...the UK Copyright Act explicitly states:
>
> (4) Where in any proceedings the question arises whether an article is an
> infringing copy and it is shown-
>
> (a) that the article is a copy of the work, and
>
> (b) that copyright subsists in the work or
ttp://www.EuroSciPubl.de
mailto:rai...@rainerstumpe.demailto:stu...@euroscipubl.de
-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad [SMTP:har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:19 PM
To: stu...@euroscipubl.de
Subject: Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations
I confirm Stevan's interpretation is correct. it is also worth noting that
the publishers' copyright in layout and typography is, in the UK at least,
confined to print publication only and does not refer to any electronic
form.
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Dept of Information Science
Loughboroug
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Peter Suber wrote:
> [forwarding from Rainer Stumpe.]
>
> Scott Melon asked "What is copyrighted - the science or the look? Is
> there a difference?"
>
> The answer is: both. When an author has signed a standard copyright
> transmission form, the publisher has all rights to p
62 matches
Mail list logo
