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
