On not conflating the give-away and non-give-away literature (2002)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2003.html
PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research (2001)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci01/0249.html
Harnad, Stevan (1991) Post-Gutenberg
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Steve Hitchcock wrote:
... in many cases for authors to reserve a self-archiving right, rather
than copyright, is sufficient, but not in every case... One example is
where you might want to [1] reuse data in more than one paper. [T]here are
cases where research results [2]
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 Elizabeth Gadd e.a.g...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
sh if [authors] retain the self-archiving right, that is sufficient
I would beg to differ here. Retaining copyright is far superior to
assigning it, even with a self-archiving concession. The reason being: if
academics retain their
- Original Message -
From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
.
In the earlier, pre-codification
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
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
Texts that an author has himself written are his own intellectual
property.
To refer to a text as someone's intellectual property spreads a
dangerous propaganda term which also spreads confusion. (See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more explanation
of why
.)
See also:
PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1309.html
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist
and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1309.html
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 99 00 01
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote:
whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I still
retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to be
changed, etc.
Yes, that's my understanding too. Perhaps moral right is a more
transparent term
-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf
Of Stevan
Harnad
Sent: Monday 22 July 2002 15:07
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote:
whether I transfer the IP
-
From: Fytton Rowland j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
There is still confusion about the term intellectual property (IP) here.
IP
-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote:
whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I
still
retain the moral right to be identified as its author
-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf
Of Fytton
Rowland
Sent: 22 July 2002 12:40
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
There is still confusion about the term intellectual property (IP)
here
First of all, apologies. I should not have approved the posting by
Albert Henderson, which was branched from another list. It was a mistake.
As it has appeared here, however, I will comment, though this has
already been said many times before on this list.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Albert Henderson
Dear Colleagues
I was wondering if anyone could help answer a couple of question regarding
electronic copyright.
Does anyone have any experience in advising organisation on the
implementation of Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). What are the
copyright implications or issues related to
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
sh whereas it is indeed the journal's quality tag, certifying the
sh quality level of its contents, that authors and users need, the two
sh critical, substantive components on which it is based -- the research
sh report itself, and the referee
Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Bernard Lang wrote:
bl why should the quality-control service be provided by publishers ?
Because they are providing it now. And there is nothing wrong with it
(except the extras forcibly wrapped
At 01:29 PM 6/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:
Dear Stevan,
While I am fully aware of the distinction between the give-away literature
and the writing-for-fee literature, I can't help but wonder if the US
Supreme Court ruling (see below) will have implications for the scholarly
literature, as
Dear Stevan,
While I am fully aware of the distinction between the give-away literature
and the writing-for-fee literature, I can't help but wonder if the US
Supreme Court ruling (see below) will have implications for the scholarly
literature, as publishers have been digitizing back issues of
What libraries are spending is not the issue, nor whether they are
well managed.
The issue is that publishers have outlived their economic
usefulness, at least where publication of scientific papers (how
quaint!) is concerned.
Hence there is no reason any money should be spent on them.
Unfortunately, Albert Henderson's suggestions are so repetitive and
predictable that they can be responded to by number. These responses
are themselves equally predictable (and a fortiori, repetitive), but
they differ from the points to which they are responses in that they
take the point into
Dear Stevan,
While I am fully aware of the distinction between the give-away literature
and the writing-for-fee literature, I can't help but wonder if the US
Supreme Court ruling (see below) will have implications for the scholarly
literature, as publishers have been digitizing back issues of
Greetings,
On Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 01:29 PM, Leslie Chan wrote:
While I am fully aware of the distinction between the give-away
literature
and the writing-for-fee literature, I can't help but wonder if the US
Supreme Court ruling (see below) will have implications for the
scholarly
on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote:
Unfortunately, Albert Henderson's suggestions are so repetitive and
predictable that they can be responded to by number. These responses
are themselves equally predictable (and a fortiori, repetitive), but
they differ from
: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
At 01:19 PM 6/26/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
More seriously, taking Henderson's point about economic exchanges that
course through the research communication process
At 01:19 PM 6/26/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
More seriously, taking Henderson's point about economic exchanges that
course through the research communication process, I suggest that
Elsevier, Springer, Taylor Francis, etc.,
on Tue, 26 Jun 2001 Christopher D. Green chri...@yorku.ca wrote:
Albert Henderson wrote:
Money is not the only token of value. One of the key
fallacies that burdens this forum is the failure to
recognize the economic exchanges that course through
the
@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: 6/27/2001 11:48 AM
RE: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
At 01:19 PM 6/26/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
More seriously, taking Henderson's point
Albert Henderson wrote:
Money is not the only token of value. One of the key
fallacies that burdens this forum is the failure to
recognize the economic exchanges that course through
the research communication process. Publishers exchange
recognition
on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 Alan Story a.c.st...@ukc.ac.uk wrote:
As soon as someone suggests you know it really is a crazy system under
which commercial publishers acquire, at no cost, all intellectual property
rights to the work of authors which is produced by the often-unpaid labour
of academics
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Alan Story wrote:
Sally Morris' note raised the issue of copyright and journals on your list.
And so I responded with a copyright and journals-related response.
If you do not want copyight-related posts, then don't put them on the first
place.
Copyright and journals is
: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Perhaps I can set the record straight.
ALPSP has not (at least in the past 3 years) surveyed journals' copyright
policies, although in 1998/9, the Association did carry out a study
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Perhaps I can set the record straight.
ALPSP has not (at least in the past 3 years) surveyed journals' copyright
policies
Hitchcock sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Alan,For the benefit of authors who may have little knowledge
of different rights
At 11:38 AM 6/22/2001 +0100, Stevan wrote:
The American Physical Society version of this same basic arrangement is
at ftp://aps.org/pub/jrnls/copy_trnsfr.asc :
The author(s) shall have the following rights: The author(s)
agree that all copies of the Article made under any of these
on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 Alan Story a.c.st...@ukc.ac.uk wrote:
The ALPSP may call their deal a model licence...but instead it should be
called a Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence.
Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the
publisher is assigned (at no
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Thomas J. Walker wrote:
sh [I might add only that the distinction between personal web home page
sh and e-print servers is silly, incoherent, and hence untenable, but it
sh makes no difference, if it makes some people happy to put it that way...]
There is distinction
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, [Anonymous] wrote:
I do not quite agree with you on the assertion that eprint services and
personal web pages are the same; the former have the distinction of being
maintained by some organisation which intends / commits to perpetuity and
may add additional useful
people said it was.
Alan Story
Kent Law School
Original Message -
From: Albert Henderson chess...@compuserve.com
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Standards are great and often make the difference between the success and
failure of an endeavor. But in some cases other standards can be used and not
put
additional burdens on authors and users. It's possible to set up an open archive
that's useful and not require authors any additional work
Perhaps it would be worth having a look at the ALPSP licence before
dismissing it so readily - broad re-use rights, including educational use
and electronic posting, are retained by the author (I actually think this is
much more important than whose name appears on the copyright line)
Sally
-
From: Guillermo Julio Padron Gonzalez guillermo.pad...@cigb.edu.cu
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: 31 May 2001 20:59
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
Fytton Rowland wrote:
A recent survey by the (UK) Association
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
The claim that one can leave the preprint in place as a somehow
different work, after transferring the copyright is
dangerously misleading.
The claim is only (1) that
George, does this mean that you now consider the Ingelfinger Rule
outdated or inappropriate as a general matter? As I believe you were
widely known as a supporter of it in your NEJM days, a definite
statement about your current position that could be further circulated
would be of great help to
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
Speaking more generally, it is clear that there is a
sense of publication when a work is made available on an
Internet database. This medium is different from printing
and distributing a number of copies. It
This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy that Steve and so
many of us are urging be changed universally.
George Lundberg wrote:
In the document entitled Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Medical Journals published by the International Committee of Medical
, 2001 10:43 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy that Steve and so
many of us are urging be changed universally.
George Lundberg wrote
George Lundberg wrote:
In the document entitled Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted
to Medical Journals published by the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors it is stated that ...electronic publication is
publication... Most such journals do not wish to
Message-
From: David Goodman [mailto:dgood...@princeton.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:43 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
on 30 May 2001 Peter D. Junger jun...@samsara.law.cwru.edu wrote:
It is unusual for authors to ``transfer'' the entire copyright in an
article to a journal. Normally all that is assigned is the right of
first publication in a journal.
Is
A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional Society
Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the journals
surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly
asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a paper if the author
insisted
Albert Henderson wrote:
Again, in the case of the publication of preprints, since preprints are
published before the assignment of copyright, that publication cannot be
a violation of the ``transfer agreement,'' whatever that is.
Of course, from my point of view--and I am an editor of a
Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional
Society
Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the journals
surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly
asked for it, but would
Fytton Rowland wrote:
A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional Society
Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the journals
surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly
asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a
on 31 May 2001 Stevan Harnad har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
[snip]
I am saying that after the transfer of copyright, the
article must be withdrawn unless the agreement provides
for continued publication of the
56 matches
Mail list logo
