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 > From: Marcus A Banks <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:45:05 +0000 > > Sandy, I am referring to the articles published in bioscience journals > like Science or Cell, for which the authors transfer their copyright > as a condition of publication. > > Obviously such a transfer grants a publisher legal entitlement to > copyright, but we could see a different scenario in which authors > retain their copyright and license publication. > > In the current scenario the individual(s) who do the intellectual > labor no longer control the rights to their own work. In my view this > grants a publisher legal copyright but not "moral authority." This is > why I perceive an intractable conflict between author rights and > copyright retention for publishers. I am very interested in why you do > not see it this way. > > This entire conversation assumes that publication in a traditional > journal is required for disseminating an idea or research output -- > which it certainly is in a "publish or perish" sense, but not > technically. Elsevier's power against SciHub ultimately rests on the > fact that scholars are still wedded to a publication model that > pre-dates the Web. Thinking beyond the PDF and monograph, my hope is > that publishers and librarians can work together to build and promote > services for Web-enabled scholarship. > > Marcus Banks > Blaisdell Medical Library, UC Davis > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 23:23:43 -0600 > > Please explain what you mean by querying whether publishers' IP is > legitimate. I have been a strong advocate of OA for more than two > decades, but i also have been a member of the Copyright Committee of > the Association of American Publishers since 1974. I do not see any > contradiction in being both. > > Sandy Thatcher > > >> From: Marcus A Banks <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 05:00:58 +0000 >> >> Agree -- data/text mining requires different understandings. "Normal" >> usage as defined by whom, and for what agenda? >> >> Obviously publishers will seek to protect their IP from entities such >> as SciHub, but of course the entire debate surrounding open access is >> whether that IP is legitimate. Which depends on which side of the >> fence you stand on. >> >> The OA debate is now very stale. And the writing is on the wall for >> immediate OA in the biosciences -- embargos will become a thing of >> history. >> >> I hope that, going forward, the revenue streams for publishers >> transition from licensing and APC schemes into licensing tools for >> data/text mining on top of an open corpus. -- Marcus