Re: Garfield: "Acknowledged Self-Archiving is Not Prior Publication"

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:40:43 +0100

> sh> Call it whatever you like: It is what you are violating when you
> sh> plagiarize. (And I'm not sure the authors of public-domain works are
> sh> protected from it.)
> sh>

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote (in cni-copyright):

> Show me a law (in the U.S.) that forbids plagiarism. (To save your
> time searching for law, there is none.)...
> ...plagiarism is to copy expressions from sources without
> giving attribution....
> ...this action is called "copyright infringement", not "plagiarism"...

As I said, call it whatever you like. The texts of peer-reviewed
research publications are author give-aways, but their authorship and
their textual integrity are not.

Currently, copyright law is doing double duty, (1) protecting
copyright-holders from users who would make copies of their texts without
paying for them (give-away authors do not want this protection) and
(2) protecting copyright-holders from users who would make corrupted
copies of their texts (including copies in which someone else is listed
as the author). Almost all authors still want protection from the

To this layman, therefore, it looks clear that PostGutenberg copyright
protection has to be split (into at least two parts). For non-giveaway
texts it must forbid (1) and (2), and for give-away texts it must forbid
(2) but not (1).

> Public domain has nothing to do with this thread of discussion.
> There is no need to bring it up here....
> Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923
> in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright
> owners' prisons: 5,961
> Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
> post in the public domain.

I repeat (though you say it is irrelevant), that your own solution of
putting the text in the public domain does not work for the give-away
authors of refereed research -- though it may work for other kinds of
give-away authors -- because it allows (1) but it also allows (2).

Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri Sep 06 2002 - 20:40:43 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:38 GMT