Hi,
I do not know whether the mail I am replying to went to the whole list,
but it is written like it was intended to.
* Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_gmail.com> note le 03-10-08 :
> I have several times returned the postings of Bernard Lang to him as
> not relevant to the American Scientist Open Access Forum, because they
> are not about Open Access but about software patents.
It is true that I spent much time on patent issue ... and I will not
dispute Stevan assertion because I am far too lazy to go back to my
old mails. I would normally mix issues because I think there is an
objective connection, but that is sometime a subjective
perception. :-)
Whatever ... I also work on copyright issues, and generally on free
access, but not restricted to academic litterature. This is
off-topic, I know.
More on topic, I was nominated to seat at CSPLA, a council that is
supposed to analyse copyright issues for the French ministry of
culture. I guess the reason was mainly my implication with the free
software mouvement, but I happen also to be (I believe) the only
scientist nominated to represent the interests of some community (free
software), and that leaves me free to represent also the academic
community, since AFAIK it is not officially represented (which says a
lot). Of course producers and publishers are very strongly
represented. Authors are mostly represented by Collective Copyright
Management organization, mostly .... which are generally a very
conservative bunch, not really keen on open access. There was actually
an explicit attack by publishers against open access at the first
plenary meeting I attended, a year ago.
I am saying all this because, possibly, I might do more for open
access in France (see my coordinates in signature), though I usually
belong to a tiny - thus powerless - minority. Our closest friends,
there, are probably the representatives of academic libraries, while
the representative of the national library (BNF) works with (for ?)
the publishers, for what I can observe.
Last year, we had a commission studying possible changes in the
legislation on orphan works. The main reason is that libraries cannot
give access to digitalized version of many works without permission
from rightholders, who are too often impossible to find.
http://www.cspla.culture.gouv.fr/CONTENU/rapoeuvor08.pdf
As I said in previous mail :
> > ... many scientific publications have a
> > potential to become orphan works : since the author does not get
> > royalties, he has no incentive to leave personal information to be
> > tracked after he ceases to be an active professional.
Some of the legislative recommendations in Europe may reveal dangerous
with repect to open access. In a nutshell, orphan works would be
managed by collective management organizations mostly controled by
publishers. And the intention is certainly not to allow open access
... the idea is actually to get royalties that authors will most
likely never see - and that is quite explicit.
So one can really worry that scientific publications that have become
orphan might actually be barred from open access. Assuming that such a
legislation is voted, one would certainly want some form of exception
for scientific publications.
Now, my own work on this issue has been to legally demonstrate that
such a legislation (unlike the proposed US legislation) would be in
contradiction with international treaties (specifically with the
3-step test, required in all major copyright treaties). But the law
has always been very flexible when money and corporations are
involved.
I realize that this is not central to what is to be done now for open
access. But does it have to be neglected ? My experience is that
protecting freedom of any kind (and open access is a form of freedom)
can seldom be fully isolated from context. Social structure is very
interconected and you never know when one issue will suddenly impinge
on another.
Another point, again very local to France, is that there is currently
more interest in digitalized publishing. One report was produced for
the ministry of culture in July, by someone called Patino.
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/conferen/albanel/rapportpatino.pdf
The Patino commission has been clearly working with and for
publishers, and for example they pretend that nothing changes with
digitalization. Open access is simply ignored, as well as many other
facts or issues. Here again, the scientific community should react.
I did my very small bit by writing a short comment on the report
in magazine of a researcher union :
http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/liste/VRS374.LANG-Patino.pdf
(for the full magazine :
http://www.sncs.fr/IMG/pdf/VRS374.pdf )
These are all small bits, individually harmless. Coalescence is the
danger.
Bernard Lang
* Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_gmail.com> note le 03-10-08 :
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr> wrote:
>
> > I did not follow this specific case, but I have personally been
> > censored rather often (compared to the number of times I tried to
> > contribute).
> >
> > I do not have a reputation of being off topic in the other forums
> > where I usually speak.
> >
> > for what this is worth :
> >
> > Of course, no one here can assess whether what I am saying is right,
> > since my words did not get through.
>
> I have several times returned the postings of Bernard Lang to him as
> not relevant to the American Scientist Open Access Forum, because they
> are not about Open Access but about software patents.
>
> Bernard is a great opponent of software patents, and I agree with him,
> but that is not the subject matter of the AmSci OA Forum. There are
> other lists devoted to that topic. There are even other OA lists that
> might find his postings on software patents pertinent, but the AmSci
> OA Forum was explicitly focussed on OA Policy issue as of several
> years ago, when US University Provosts were added to the list. This
> specific focus was announced numerous times. (And from sad experience
> I learned that when I relaxed the constraint to remain on topic, the
> result was always a slew of sign-offs from the list from busy
> policy-makers who did not have time for the airing of other causes):
>
> > Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
> > Software patents threaten your company
> > Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
> > http://www.economic-majority.com/
>
> > BTW, since I am talking. Is there an interest in orphan works on this
> > list. I am asking because many scientific publications have a
> > potential to become orphan works : since the author does not get
> > royalties, he has no incentive to leave personal information to be
> > tracked after he ceases to be an active professional.
>
> There is some peripheral interest, but the focus of the list is
> providing open access to the 2.5 million articles published annually
> in the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals.
>
> > I am asking because, though the proposed legislation on orphan works
> > seems rather well designed in the USA, there are very different
> > proposals in Europe that may reveal dangerous. In a nutshell, orphan
> > works would be managed by collective management organizations mostly
> > controled by publishers. Where that would lead us is anyone's guess.
>
> If this is an OA issue, by all means discuss it (and explain how it is
> an OA issue).
>
> Stevan Harnad
--
Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
Software patents threaten your company
Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
http://www.economic-majority.com/
Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644
http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
Received on Sat Oct 04 2008 - 14:00:47 BST