<html>
<body>
We may actually be in agreement, Stevan<br><br>
You say this "<i>"100 years or so of copyright protection"
is something scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It
was just foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not
refuse.</i>"<br><br>
I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher
authors are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a
lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to them in the first
place.</i>"<br><br>
We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
should become public domain quickly.<br><br>
As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the
Public Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times.
I do not see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.<br><br>
David<br>
<a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://insidepublicaccess.com/<br><br>
</a>At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\)
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The copyright agreement already
exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't invent it, just adopt
it.<br><br>
And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo,
whatsoever.<br><br>
And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather
like "Make America Great Again"...)<br><br>
(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less
glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global
warming in which DW does not believe...)<br><br>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright
law be changed to make research articles publicly available after a very
short time. <br><br>
<dd>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public
Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See
below and also at
<a href="http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html">
http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html</a>
. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy
proposal.<br><br>
<dd>It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not
written for profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright
protection.<br><br>
<dd>Comments?<br><br>
<dd>David<br>
<dd><a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/">
http://insidepublicaccess.com/<br><br>
<br>
</a><br>
<dd><h3><b>Public Access limited copyright?</b></h3><br><br>
<dd>The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my
<a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/">newsletter</a>: "Inside
Public Access"<br><br>
<dd>Synopsis</b>: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the
copyright law to embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make
sense.<br><br>
<dd>Â Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has
written a thought provoking book and
<a href="http://www.slaw.ca/2018/03/09/let-canada-be-first-to-turn-an-open-access-research-policy-into-a-legal-right-to-know/?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=6d62950ff7b6420580c05d212d85d50f&fl=4&uid=2192321690&nid=244+272699400">
blog article</a>. The basic idea is amazingly simple: If we are going to
make research articles publicly available then we should change the
copyright law to do just that.<br><br>
<dd>Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada):<br><br>
<dd>"Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to
this body of knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to
other intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s
lifetime).</i>"<br><br>
<dd>What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian
government has a public access program that is similar to the US
program.<br><br>
<dd>The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a
certain time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to
dramatically shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely
research articles in journals.<br><br>
<dd>As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these
articles OA (such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder
mandate. Codifying this existing practice, without the funder limitation,
would be easy as far as legislative drafting is concerned. <br><br>
<dd>Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it
having bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care
argument for OA and the Republicans would like the innovation and
economic growth argument. <br>
<dd>The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make
money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to
them in the first place. We need the present limited embargo period of 12
months to protect the publishing system, but that is all.<br>
<br>
<dd>This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an
attractive policy.<br><br>
<dd>In fact Congress has already taken a step in this direction. Public
Access originated in the Executive Branch, but Congress has now
legislated it for the Departments of HHS (think NIH), Education and
Labor. <br><br>
<dd>One possible objection is that the 12 month embargo period is too
short for some disciplines. However, the publishers have had five years
to raise this issue formally with the US Public Access agencies and to my
knowledge none has done so. <br><br>
<dd>On the other hand, some disciplines are only lightly funded by the
Public Access agencies. In that sense their case has yet to arise and
they can make it in the legislative process. I imagine that if Congress
were to move in the direction of public access copyright there would be a
lot of discussion.<br><br>
<dd>Willinsky specifically mentions a Canadian government
<a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2017/12/parliament_to_undertakereviewofthecopyrightact.html">
review</a> of copyright law that is presently getting underway. His book
may even be timed for it. The title of his blog article is Let Canada Be
First to Turn an Open Access Research Policy Into a Legal Right to
Know</i> so this clearly is a policy proposal.<br><br>
<dd>How this Parliamentary review proceeds with regard to Willinsky's
radical public access proposal might be worth watching. In any case the
US Congress should consider it.<br><br>
<dd>Note that Richard Poynder has a lengthy discussion of, and interview
with, Willinsky here:<br>
<dd>
<a href="https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learning.html">
https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/the-intellectual-properties-of-learning.html<br>
<br>
<br>
</a>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>