From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:16:46 +0100

Subject: RE: Access Copyright - a global organization and STM copyright advocacy

Whatever one may think about the rights and wrongs (and personally I'm in
favour of publishers having much more open agreements with authors), that's
currently the law, isn't it?

Sally Morris
Email:  [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Johnson Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:17:41 -0500

This sounds like one of those, "so have you stopped beating your wife?"
kinds of questions.  Your framing of the issue largely misses the point. The
mission of academic libraries is not to pay rentier lobby groups extortion
money for questionable legal protections; it is to use scarce resources
providing access to their patrons to the content they often helped produce.
Perhaps these two goals aren't mutually exclusive, but in this case they
seem to be.

Seeing as many of the items with those "legitimate copyrights" were produced
by members of that academic community, it's a bit sly to act like providing
"fair use" access (rather than, in the present case, paying for it three or
four times over at an 800% markup) to that material should be an abrogation
of their rights. But I suppose this will continue to be the controversy on
which the entire scholarly communication endeavor pivots.

Dreaming of a detente,
Sean


On Apr 26, 2012, at 4:05 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:49:17 +0100
>
> Forgive me if I'm missing something, but exactly what is wrong with
> defending the legitimate copyrights of publishers and their authors?
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris
> Email:  [log in to unmask]