<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.6">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
With regard to Jeffrey Beall's arguments against CC licences, let me respond as follows:<BR>
<BR>
1. What is the evidence about the claim that there is much disagreement about what the licences mean? We might see some disagreement about which licence to use, but each licence is about as clear as any, well-constructed, legal document.<BR>
<BR>
2. The legalese is indeed complex, but so is the legalese of a transfer of rights: that is because both kinds of documents translate into a local jurisdiction what the plain English terms mean. Any legal document will suffer from this. That is why we speak of legalese.<BR>
<BR>
3. The "simplicity of copyright"? This must be a joke. Think about the tension between copyright and authors' rights (with its associated "moral rights"). Think about copyright preserving only the order of words, but not the ideas, yet protecting derived works... How does "fair use" work in the US? How about outside the US? And I am not even a copyright specialist...<BR>
<BR>
If someone is happy with giving all his/her rights away, this is a personal decision. However, I cannot refrain from adding that some people enjoy pain: they are generally known as "masochists". Happily giving everyone of one's rights away could be associated with masochism.<BR>
<BR>
As for the statement, "my transaction was easy to understand, unambiguous, and clear", I have to agree with this: giving everything away is also one of the seductive dimensions (for some) of vows of poverty. Meanwhile the so-called "high-quality" publishers fulfil their real objective, which is high profit rather than high quality. Finally, if a thief threatens my life to get my wallet, I have also to admit that the transaction was easy to understand, unambiguous, and clear.<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
--
<PRE>
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
Le lundi 13 avril 2015 à 14:45 +0000, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
Regarding this ongoing discussion about Creative Commons licenses and scholarly publishers, I think it is fair to conclude the following:
1. There is much disagreement about what the licenses mean, how they can be interpreted, and how they are applied in real-world situations
2. The licenses are not as simple as advertised. In fact, they are complex legal documents subject to expert interpretation, and they lead to ongoing contentiousness and debate, even among experts.
3. There is beauty in the simplicity of copyright, that is, transferring one's copyright to a publisher. It is binary. The terms are clear. The publisher employs professionals that expertly manage the copyright. Owning the copyright incentives the publisher to make the work available and preserve it over time.
I just had an article accepted recently, and last week I turned in a form transferring copyright to the publisher, something I was happy to do. There is nothing wrong with this. It's my choice. The paper will eventually appear in J-STOR and will be preserved.
My transaction was easy to understand, unambiguous, and clear. Let's remember that transferring copyright to a high quality publisher is still a valid option and for many authors may be the best option.
Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Communications Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo. 80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
<A HREF="mailto:jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu">jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu</A>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>