[Insight-users] OPEN ACCESS: "Should Copyright Of Academic Works Be Abolished?"

[Luis Ibanez]

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5505

"Should Copyright Be Abolished On Academic Work?"


Abstract

* The conventional rationale for copyright of written works, that copyright
is needed to foster their creation, is seemingly of limited applicability to
the academic domain. For in a world without copyright of academic writing,
academics would still benefit from publishing in the major way that they do
now, namely, from gaining scholarly esteem. Yet publishers would presumably
have to impose fees on authors, because publishers would not be able to
profit from reader charges. If these publication fees would be borne by
academics, their incentives to publish would be reduced. But if the
publication fees would usually be paid by universities or grantors, the
motive of academics to publish would be unlikely to decrease (and could
actually increase) – suggesting that ending academic copyright would be
socially desirable in view of the broad benefits of a copyright-free world.
If so, the demise of academic copyright should be achieved by a change in
law, for the 'open access' movement that effectively seeks this objective
without modification of the law faces fundamental difficulties. *


http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Copyright7-17HLS-2009.pdf

Discussion at:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0445155649.shtml

more discussion at:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/27/1642224

....

<quote>

You're missing a very important point here. For most university researchers,
the 'someone' that paid for the research is the taxpayer. But more
importantly, the number of university professors whose research has the
potential to generate profits for the university is vanishingly small
compared to those who are engaged in basic research.

The service most of us are providing to our university employers is measured
in courses taught, graduate students mentored, papers published, grants
secured, and various other tasks lumped together as 'service'. The professor
as profit generator is recent, still rare, and not entirely welcome
development.

In many ways, the idea that university researchers should be engaged in
producing proprietary 'intellectual property' is counter to the academic
tradition that such work depends on. Why should it be acceptable for someone
to take generations of 'open access' research in physics, engineering,
medicine, or whatever, add a little piece on top, and forbid anyone else
from using it? I'm not saying it should never be done, but certainly not in
a publicly funded university.

</quote>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/attachments/20090728/c856e345/attachment.htm>