Re: Chronicle of Higher Ed article -- the Supreme Court

From: Steve Hitchcock <sh94r_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:57:39 +0100

At 12:39 30/03/01 +0100, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Abbott, Bruce wrote:
> > --> SEE
> >
> > Isn't it an argument in favor of Stevan's self-archiving policy ?
>Four caveats, if you wish to make sense of copyright in the
>PostGutenberg Galaxy:
>(1) Distinguish the anomalous flea (the refereed research literature,
>always an author give-away literature) from the much bigger and more
>representative dog (books, magazines, definitely NOT an author give-away
>literature). One (legal) size does NOT fit both.

I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Legally you can't make a
differentiation on this basis.

But it doesn't make any difference to the basic argument. Authors can
self-archive publicly, but they must retain the rights to do so if they
want to publish elsewhere too.

The main impact of this case, whatever the outcome, will be that publishers
of all sorts are likely to be even more rigorous in demanding ALL rights to
works in all forms.

Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:05 GMT