I am a reactionary—at least when it comes to copyright. The first copyright law in 1709
provided protection for up to 28 years. In most countries today, copyright extends for 70
years beyond an author's life, which means copyright can extend for more than 150 years!
The period of 28 years was a compromise between anarchy (zero) and perpetual
monopoly (infinity). It balanced the rights and interests of publishers, authors, and the
public. The balance worked.
Modern copyright law seems to work for novels, music, and movies, but it doesn't work
well for scholarly journals. Journals record the knowledge of one generation for the
next—they are long-term affairs. Recently, scholars discovered that copyright was a
major impediment to making the older literature available online because obtaining
permission decades after a journal was published was often impossible. And scholars
realize that these difficulties will increase as we migrate to new formats in the future. For
scholarly journals, copyright protection is an obstacle, not a safeguard.
We cannot change the laws that protect novels, movies, and music for the sake of
scholarly journals. Publishers have persuaded both themselves and lawmakers that our
present copyright laws provide the right balance for these creative works, and we are
unlikely to change their minds. We should look for practical solutions, not ideological
jousts.
What's a practical solution? Be reactionary—revert to the older traditions of copyright,
without changing the law. We should urge scholars when publishing journal articles to
dedicate their work to the public domain after 28 years.1
Until then, authors and
publishers control their work as at present (perhaps giving free access much earlier).
After 28 years, the work belongs to the world, in keeping with the historical traditions of
copyright.
MORE
Monday, December 1, 2003
Wednesday, October 1, 2003
Copyright and Authors
For three centuries, publishers have touted the virtues of copyright and the need to protect
authors. Authors must be treated fairly, they say. Authors must be rewarded for their
work. And copyright is the tool by which publishers can do this. The benefit to publishers
is incidental.
The argument is illustrated clearly in a recent article by Peter Givler, the Executive Director of the American Association of University Presses (Givler, 2003). The essay has the title "Copyright: It's for the Public Good." In his essay, Givler is condescending. ("The academics and librarians I know are smart, interesting, delightful people, but they do have some peculiar ideas about copyright.") He is a little smug. ("I think I understand academic values well enough, and the challenge of trying to make this scholarly publishing business serve those unbusinesslike ends has made my career interesting...") And he is sometimes misleading. ("Shakespeare, whose works are so well known, yet whose texts exist in so many versions, furnishes an instructive example of the perils of authorship before copyright."1 ) He ends his essay with a rousing declaration that paraphrases Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg to say copyright is "good law precisely because it is such a powerful force for public good."
Of course, some aspects of copyright are good, both for authors and for the public. Without copyright, publishing would fall into anarchy, as it has at certain times in the past. Large parts of our modern world—literature, movies, and music—depend on copyright. Even esoteric scholarly publishing depends on copyright (in spite of recent suggestions to the contrary by some ill-advised members of Congress who want to do away with copyright for all federally funded research). But copyright is not for authors, and copyright is not about fairness. Copyright is a complex system of laws and traditions, created to balance the rights and interests of three groups involved in publishing— authors, publishers, and public.
Not so, writes Peter Givler. He claims that copyright is simple and self-evident: ...MORE
(Also appeared in First Monday)
The argument is illustrated clearly in a recent article by Peter Givler, the Executive Director of the American Association of University Presses (Givler, 2003). The essay has the title "Copyright: It's for the Public Good." In his essay, Givler is condescending. ("The academics and librarians I know are smart, interesting, delightful people, but they do have some peculiar ideas about copyright.") He is a little smug. ("I think I understand academic values well enough, and the challenge of trying to make this scholarly publishing business serve those unbusinesslike ends has made my career interesting...") And he is sometimes misleading. ("Shakespeare, whose works are so well known, yet whose texts exist in so many versions, furnishes an instructive example of the perils of authorship before copyright."1 ) He ends his essay with a rousing declaration that paraphrases Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg to say copyright is "good law precisely because it is such a powerful force for public good."
Of course, some aspects of copyright are good, both for authors and for the public. Without copyright, publishing would fall into anarchy, as it has at certain times in the past. Large parts of our modern world—literature, movies, and music—depend on copyright. Even esoteric scholarly publishing depends on copyright (in spite of recent suggestions to the contrary by some ill-advised members of Congress who want to do away with copyright for all federally funded research). But copyright is not for authors, and copyright is not about fairness. Copyright is a complex system of laws and traditions, created to balance the rights and interests of three groups involved in publishing— authors, publishers, and public.
Not so, writes Peter Givler. He claims that copyright is simple and self-evident: ...MORE
(Also appeared in First Monday)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)