From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:34:28 +0000

A couple of quick points:

1. OA does not collide with copyright. Sci-hub is not OA; it is civil
disobedience (http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/02/sci-hub-as-necessary-effective-civil-disobedience/);

2. The notion of sustainability is very slippery. If it means finding
stable financing, including public stable financing, I I have no
objection. If it means finding a way to recover costs or, worse, make
profits, then I object.

As far as scientific publishing is concerned, copyright is needed only
to the extent that it is needed to make CC-by work. Without copyright,
there is obviously no need for a licensing scheme.

Jean-Claude Guédon
________________________________________
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:01:03 -0600

My overall position is actually relatively simple: I believe that OA
is ultimately the most desirable future for scholarly publishing, but
until we can succeed in working out business models that are
sustainable in that new environment, I believe that copyright
protection is essential to maintaining the viability and integrity of
the traditional publishing model. If copyright is eroded too much
under present circumstances, university presses will not survive long
enough to become OA publishers. So, I'm for copyright now, but expect
its role to become less important for publishers (if not authors, who
will still need to be concerned about protecting the integrity of
their work) as we move into an OA future.

Sandy Thatcher



> From: Marcus A Banks <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:57:14 +0000
>
> Hello Sandy. Thank you for pointing me to your useful and valuable article.
>
> I do not disagree that the changes I am proposing would be deeply
> disruptive to established publishing practices (and to library
> practices as well, for that matter).
>
> But I would say that your effective advocacy of the publisher's
> prerogatives assumes that publication business models developed prior
> to the Web should carry over indefinitely into a post-Web era. Like
> many others I believe we are in a period of epochal change for
> academic libraries and scholarly publishers, which will take decades
> to sort itself out. And unlike some other open access advocates I feel
> that publishers will always have a valuable role in this sorting out.
>
> We part ways on whether publishers will indefinitely require
> copyright, as the entire copyright regime assumes that access to
> content must be controlled. I think that publishers 50 years from now
> will be thriving in other ways.
>
> For more, please see this article -- particularly the "Opportunities
> Ahead" section:
>
> http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0018.306?view=text;rgn=main
>
> Marcus Banks
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:54:11 -0600
>
> I guess the best way for me to reply is to refer you to my article
> titled "On the Author's Addendum," which originally appeared in
> Against the Grain (June 2008):
>
> https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/files/9880vr511.
>
> Sandy Thatcher