Re: Authors "Victorious" in UnCover Copyright Suit

From: Albert Henderson <NobleStation_at_COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:08:03 -0400

on Sat, 12 Aug 2000 Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_coglit.ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> (1) I've always argued that give-away refereed research reports are
> indeed more like self-advertising than anything else (but it
> accordingly follows that it makes no more sense that readers should be
> charged for access to them than it does to charge for access to any
> other ad!).

        That is an interesting idea, but advertising is
        very different in its essential details. The publishing
        cost of advertising is paid by the advertiser. Thus the
        advertising model is more like the "subversive proposal,"
        where the author bears the burden of dissemination, than
        it is the traditional journal publishing process.

        Three elements differentiate formal publication from
        advertising: (A) the investment of a third party, the
        publisher, (B) justified by peer review and (C) the
        purchase for dissemination purposes by libraries or
        by individuals. In addition, the publishers' ability to
        recover their investments is (D) secured by copyright.
        These factors do not appear in advertising and are
        rejected by the self-archiving model.

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532_at_compuserve.com>
.
.
Received on Mon Jan 24 2000 - 19:17:43 GMT