3.762 copyright, cont. (73)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Sun, 19 Nov 89 22:32:14 EST
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 762. Sunday, 19 Nov 1989.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 12:31:12 PST
From: "[DCGQAL]A0234" <XB.DAS@STANFORD.BITNET>
Subject: [DCGQAL]A0234!Copyright
On the issue of copyright...
Very complex issues, indeed. Part of the concern seems to arise from the
present identification of intellectual work as "property." This
attitude gives rise to the idea that duplicating or replicating private
property is unlawful.
On the other hand, we clearly know the economic rule that when money
changes hands, most often it presumes a taxable situation, on the
grounds that it is in the transfer of capital that economic expansion
and growth is most visible.
This theory very much holds true in information exchange, especially in
the electronic environment. Rather than penalize and restrict the
transfer of information, we need to develop a copyright scheme that
provides incentives for copying and adding value to scholarly material.
The more we move information in that manner, the greater likelihood is
there that members of a foreseeable "national educational electronic
network" will benefit. Such an attitude also fosters a synergy among
scholars which ought to be quite welcome.
Michael Hart's question: "I would like to hear why so many are against
having machine-readable texts of public domain materials easily and
cheaply available." points to the heart of the question. Our concept of
labor in transcribing material into machine-readable form is based on
the protections appropriate to the physical publishing artifact. To be
extremist about it (and I know what dangers that involves with this
group) it might be suggested that putting things into machine-readable
form is not a sufficiently great scholarly contribution to merit reward
or protection. Yes, it does take an enormous amount of time and assumes
considerable editorial judgement and reconciliation. Ultimately,
however, the community benefits from the existence of the texts. And it
is upon the basis of the availability of the texts that real scholarly
contributions can be made. This suggests a kind of altruism for those
who prepare and mount electronic versions of texts. So be it.
There is an excellent article on the subject of whether our current
copyright laws can, in fact, be transported to the electronic medium.
It appears it cannot (at least from the demonstrable violations of the
law in practice). Robert Kost, has provided a theoretical model that
provides incentives for copying, and shows how the model would not only
turn our present views of copyright 180o, but can be implemented to work
for everyone's benefit.
His article is entitled "UseRight" and appears in the Network Planning
Papers of the Network Development and Marc Standards Office, Number 17,
1989, entitled "Intellectual Property Issues in the Library Network
Context: Proceedings of the Library of Congress Network Advisory
Committee Meeting, March 23-25, 1988." I have written off to Robert
asking for permission to transcribe his article for the purposes of
mounting it on HUMANIST.
[Editor's note: This has been done, as announced in the previous
number of Humanist, s.v., COPYWRIT LECTURE. --W.M.]
Cordially,
Chet Grycz
Scholarship and Technology Study Project
transfer of information, we need to develop a copyright scheme that
provides incentives for copying and adding value to scholarly material.
The more we move information in that manner, the greater likelihood is
there that members of a foreseeable "national educational electronic
network" will benefit. Such an attitude also fosters a synergy among
scholars which ought to be quite welcome.
Michael Hart's question: "I would like to hear why so many are against
having machine-readable texts of public domain materials easily and
cheaply available." points to the heart of the question. Our concept of
labor in transcribing material into machine-readable form is based on
the protections appropriate to the physical publishing artifact. To be
extremist about it (and I know what dangers that involves with this
group) it might be suggested that putting things into machine-readable
form is not a sufficiently great scholarly contribution to merit reward
or protection. Yes, it does take an enormous amount of time and assumes
considerable editorial judgement and reconciliation. Ultimately,
however, the community benefits from the existence of the texts. And it
Received: from vm.epas.utoronto.ca by VM.UTCS.UTORONTO.CA (Mailer R2.04) with
BSMTP id 2336; Sun, 19 Nov 89 22:33:27 EST
Received: by UTOREPAS (Mailer R2.03A) id 6481; Sun, 19 Nov 89 22:32:43 EST
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 89 22:32:14 EST
From: Willard McCarty <MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: 3.762 copyright, cont. (73)
To: Humanist Discussion Group <Humanist@utoronto>
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 762. Sunday, 19 Nov 1989.
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 12:31:12 PST
From: "[DCGQAL]A0234" <XB.DAS@STANFORD.BITNET>
Subject: [DCGQAL]A0234!Copyright
On the issue of copyright...
Very complex issues, indeed. Part of the concern seems to arise from the
present identification of intellectual work as "property." This
attitude gives rise to the idea that duplicating or replicating private
property is unlawful.
On the other hand, we clearly know the economic rule that when money
changes hands, most often it presumes a taxable situation, on the
grounds that it is in the transfer of capital that economic expansion
and growth is most visible.
This theory very much holds true in information exchange, especially in
the electronic environment. Rather than penalize and restrict the
transfer of information, we need to develop a copyright scheme that
provides incentives for copying and adding value to scholarly material.
The more we move information in that manner, the greater likelihood is
there that members of a foreseeable "national educational electronic
network" will benefit. Such an attitude also fosters a synergy among
scholars which ought to be quite welcome.
Michael Hart's question: "I would like to hear why so many are against
having machine-readable texts of public domain materials easily and
cheaply available." points to the heart of the question. Our concept of
labor in transcribing material into machine-readable form is based on
the protections appropriate to the physical publishing artifact. To be
extremist about it (and I know what dangers that involves with this
group) it might be suggested that putting things into machine-readable
form is not a sufficiently great scholarly contribution to merit reward
or protection. Yes, it does take an enormous amount of time and assumes
considerable editorial judgement and reconciliation. Ultimately,
however, the community benefits from the existence of the texts. And it
is upon the basis of the availability of the texts that real scholarly
contributions can be made. This suggests a kind of altruism for those
who prepare and mount electronic versions of texts. So be it.
There is an excellent article on the subject of whether our current
copyright laws can, in fact, be transported to the electronic medium.
It appears it cannot (at least from the demonstrable violations of the
law in practice). Robert Kost, has provided a theoretical model that
provides incentives for copying, and shows how the model would not only
turn our present views of copyright 180o, but can be implemented to work
for everyone's benefit.
His article is entitled "UseRight" and appears in the Network Planning
Papers of the Network Development and Marc Standards Office, Number 17,
1989, entitled "Intellectual Property Issues in the Library Network
Context: Proceedings of the Library of Congress Network Advisory
Committee Meeting, March 23-25, 1988." I have written off to Robert
asking for permission to transcribe his article for the purposes of
mounting it on HUMANIST.
[Editor's note: This has been done, as announced in the previous
number of Humanist, s.v., COPYWRIT LECTURE. --W.M.]
Cordially,
Chet Grycz
Scholarship and Technology Study Project