From the point of view of the contributor to a scholarly or scientific discipline (who is not always a professor in a university, by the way), the most important question is whether or not he or she is maximally empowered to make such a contribution through publication. Any loss of copyright privilege is in itself a reduction in that power. Assuming that the desire is simply to contribute, i.e. leaving all ulterior motives aside, any giving over of that privilege is justifiable only on the assumption that it is a trade off in which one's ability to contribute is augmented in some way which compensates -- or rather more than compensates -- for the diminishment of it which is intrinsic in giving copyright to somebody else. There may well be some empowerment which a publisher can provide, depending on who the author wishes to communicate with effectively, about what, and so forth. This will not be true for all authors, though, and so for such persons there is no incentive to give up copyright to publishers. The question is: What incentive is there for authors to give up the power of copyright (or put it into unnecessary jeopardy) by an agreement with universities to share copyright with them? The primary objection to Koonin's proposal from the author's perspective is that no good reason has been given for doing this. The reason cannot be only that this will help the university in defending the author's rights from being taken away by the publisher: WHY would this be of any help to the university in doing this? If no reasons can be given then there is no reason to support Koonin's proposal, as far as I can see.
JOIN THE DEBATE Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity.
| ||||||||
previous response
Copyright © 1998 by The Chronicle of Higher Education