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:
Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:15:19 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
From: Richard James <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:17:48 -0500

Or drug companies? I think we could all get behind that, but I don't
see it happening. A significant aspect of the current sci-hub
conversation has been about unequal access to literature stifling
innovation and discovery in this area, although since it is supposed
to cost $2 billion to bring a drug to market, it seems a stretch to me
to argue that the cost of access to literature is really an issue.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:24 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 22:54:31 -0600
>
> Are you saying, Kevin, that copyright no longer works for any
> industry, or is it just the scholarly publishing industry you want to
> see relieved of copyright protection?  Do you believe, say, musicians
> should just give away their music for free and try to make a living on
> concerts, selling t-shirts, etc.? How about trade book authors, or
> authors of textbooks?  How about painters or sculptors, or film
> makers, etc.?
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> > From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 10:28:33 +0000
> >
> > It is probably worth remember that the policy of ignoring copyrights
> > granted by foreign governments, which is what SciHub is doing, was
> > also the stance of the American publishing industry throughout the
> > 19th century.  Publishing grew as fast as it did in the U.S. in part
> > because it was able to publish works from abroad without negotiating
> > royalties, since our nation did not recognize rights over foreign IP.
> >
> > Copyright is not a god-given natural right, and we should avoid
> > reifying it.  It is, in fact, a form of economic social engineering
> > design to achieve particular conditions.  When it no longer serves its
> > purpose, it may be time to reconsider our commitment to the copyright
> > regime once again, as a policy decision made for specific historical
> > conditions that no longer obtain.
> >
> > Kevin

ATOM RSS1 RSS2