From: Gretchen McCord <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:23:41 -0600 By the time this is posted, most of you will probably have read Kevin's blog post from this morning, and maybe that will to explain the thoughts behind his Liblicense post. But I have to jump in anyway, because I think Sandy's interpretation of Kevin's statements is a bit unfair. Questioning our laws is something we should do regularly as a matter of being good citizens, and to question or criticize the law itself or even its very purpose does not equate to advocating its dissolution (even as applied to a specific industry or other application). I don't always agree with Kevin. I sometimes think he's a bit idealistic, and perhaps he is on the issues raised by the Sci-Hub situation. But I think Sandy made a huge leap here in his interpretation of Kevin's statements. Opining that the copyright system is broken (which is more a fact than an opinion; I'm not sure anyone can argue with a straight face that it's not) and therefore advocating copyright form, as Kevin did in this post, is a long way from suggesting that any industry should "be relieved of copyright protection." "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." There is no question that, to a great extent, copyright DOES NOT currently serve it's purpose. It's purpose is to promote the creation of new works and the expansion of the body of human knowledge. In the modern world, it FREQUENTLY achieves the opposite. We all know this. Thus, it is time to rethink the POLICY behind our current law, that is, to ask how we rewrite the law to ensure as best we can that its implementation will achieve the constitutional purpose of copyright law in the modern world. As an aside, copyright is not the only area of law to go through this. The vast majority of our civil laws are "forms of economic social engineering" (or political engineering) -- tools to manage/control behavior, really -- written in attempts to achieve certain bigger-picture goals. (The first example that springs to mind of another area of law that's WAAAY exceeded its original purpose is our electoral college...but that's another discussion for another venue entirely.) Respectfully, Gretchen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gretchen McCord MSIS, JD Making sense of complex legal issues TRAINING • CONSULTING • LEGAL COUNSEL 512.470.8932 | [log in to unmask] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 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