LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:44:04 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:42:40 +0000

In the Beall case, there has only been a threat; no lawsuit filed as
yet, so it may be premature for a defense fund.  The Edwin Mellon
Press suit against another librarian trying to inform the community
about allegedly dubious business practices has been filed, however.
It is interesting to me that the two lawsuits (one still embryonic)
are really over the same thing -- attempts, which may or may not have
been accurate, to identify predatory business practices.  One involves
the OA publishing world and one involves the world of more traditional
publishers, and from both worlds there has been legal pushback.  If
nothing else, this unfortunate concurrence of events should remind us
that publishing ethics is an inclusive concept, and breaches of those
ethics can occur regardless of the format or business model.

Kevin L. Smith, M.L.S., J.D.
Director, Copyright and Scholarly Communication
Duke University, Perkins Library
P.O. Box 90193
Durham, NC  27708
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2