Hi all, I know it’s a side-issue, but fwiw the 2005 edition of On Bullshit actually is exactly the same text as the 1986 essay – just stretched out over 80 pages by putting it in really large font (which is itself, ironically, a form of bullshit imho): https://books.google.at/books?id=bFpzNItiO7oC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
But in any case, the assertion that the “serendipity” of the text becoming so popular in 2005 depended on its copyright protection in 1986 seems wrong to me – one could just as well argue the counterfactual, that if it had been openly licensed in 1986 (and hence not locked up in a journal issue), then some enterprising person might have had the bright idea to popularise it at the time, and printed their own book run. Note here I’m only saying that Frankfurt’s text could have become just as popular (seen/read by as many people) in a CC BY world – not that Frankfurt/PUP might not have missed out on some profits. But I think the profit argument is a misnomer here anyway, since the primary point of copyright was always meant to be “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” - not to enrich authors/publishers. In any case, I second David’s point, that the greater good of the principle of OA should be seen to outweigh such rare cases where academic texts become accidental best-sellers. Best, Tony From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> On Behalf Of Ross Mounce Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 5:17 PM To: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> Cc: Global Open Access List(Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>; SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu>; Schoolcom listserv <scholc...@lists.ala.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles The "On Bullshit" example is quite an interesting one. But I looked it up for the finer details of it - it is clearly not just a simple "reprint". Frankfurt’s essay "On Bullshit" was just 20 pages [Raritan Quarterly Review 6 (1986) pp 81-100] Frankfurt's book "On Bullshit" is 80 pages [Princeton University Press (2005)] Just because a work shares a theme, a title, and an author, doesn't mean it is the same work. Had the original 20 page essay gone into the public domain, the new book would clearly still be copyrightable and just as sellable - it is a substantially different, enlarged work. Kind regards, Ross On 23 March 2018 at 16:05, David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> wrote: Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them. Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions. David At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over $10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny authors that possibility to earn extra income? Of course, the market for anthologies in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot. Sandy Thatcher P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP denied the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind of serendipity impossible to achieve? On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> wrote: > >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan > >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse." > >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place." > >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles >should become public domain quickly. > >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community. > >David >http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote: >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't >>invent it, just adopt it. >> >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever. >> >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America >>Great Again"...) >> >>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less >>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global >>warming in which DW does not believe...) >> >>On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick >><<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>>dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> >> wrote: >>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be >>changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short time. >> >>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public >>Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See >>below and also at >><http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright >>.html>http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html >>. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy proposal. >> >>It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for >>profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection. >> >>Comments? >> >>David >><http://insidepublicaccess.com/>http://insidepublicaccess.com/ >> >> >> >> >>Public Access limited copyright? >> >> >> >>The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my >><http://insidepublicaccess.com/>newsletter: "Inside Public Access" >> >>Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law >>to embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense. >> >> Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has >>written a thought provoking book and >><http://www.slaw.ca/2018/03/09/let-canada-be-first-to-turn-an-open-acces >>s-research-policy-into-a-legal-right-to-know/?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iidm62950ff7b6420580c05d212d85d50f&fl=4&uid!92321690&nid$4+272699400>blog >>article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: If we are going to make >>research articles publicly available then we should change the copyright >>law to do just that. >> >>Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada): >> >>"Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this body of >>knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other >>intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s lifetime)." " >> >>What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian >>government has a public access program that is similar to the US program. >> >>The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a certain >>time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to >>dramatically shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely >>research articles in journals. >> >>As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these articles OA >>(such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder mandate. Codifying >>this existing practice, without the funder limitation, would be easy as >>far as legislative drafting is concerned. >> >>Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it having >>bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care argument for >>OA and the Republicans would like the innovation and economic growth argument. >>The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make >>money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to >>them in the first place. We need the present limited embargo period of 12 >>months to protect the publishing system, but that is all. >> >>This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an attractive policy. >> >>In fact Congress has already taken a step in this direction. Public Access >>originated in the Executive Branch, but Congress has now legislated it for >>the Departments of HHS (think NIH), Education and Labor. >> >>One possible objection is that the 12 month embargo period is too short >>for some disciplines. However, the publishers have had five years to raise >>this issue formally with the US Public Access agencies and to my knowledge >>none has done so. >> >>On the other hand, some disciplines are only lightly funded by the Public >>Access agencies. In that sense their case has yet to arise and they can >>make it in the legislative process. I imagine that if Congress were to >>move in the direction of public access copyright there would be a lot of >>discussion. >> >>Willinsky specifically mentions a Canadian government >><https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2 >>017/12/parliament_to_undertakereviewofthecopyrightact.html>review >>of copyright law that is presently getting underway. His book may even be >>timed for it. The title of his blog article is Let Canada Be First to Turn >>an Open Access Research Policy Into a Legal Right to Know so this clearly >>is a policy proposal. >> >>How this Parliamentary review proceeds with regard to Willinsky's radical >>public access proposal might be worth watching. In any case the US >>Congress should consider it. >> >>Note that Richard Poynder has a lengthy discussion of, and interview with, >>Willinsky here: >><https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-l >>earning.html>https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learning.html >> >> Sanford G. Thatcher Frisco, TX 75034 https://scholarsphere.psu.edu "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906) -- -- -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- Ross Mounce www.rossmounce.co.uk<http://rossmounce.co.uk/> -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
