Slashdot Mirror
Should Copyright of Academic Works Be Abolished?
Dr_Ken writes to mention recent coverage of a Harvard Cyber-Law study on Techdirt that analyzes the uses of copyright in the academic world. Some are claiming that the applications of copyright in academia are stifling and that we should perhaps go so far as to abolish copyright in the academic world entirely. "I've even heard of academics who had to redo pretty much the identical experiment because they couldn't even cite their own earlier results for fear of a copyright claim. It leads to wacky situations where academics either ignore the fact that the journals they published in hold the copyright on their work, or they're forced to jump through hoops to retain certain rights. That's bad for everyone."
Who modded this insightful? I'm not trolling, but the fact that copyright allows labels to benefit from sales more than artists is THE FAULT OF THE ARTIST for signing away forever and ever rights in exchange for an advance from the label. Especially since today a record label is largely obsolete.
But yeah, ruin it for everyone because you don't like David Geffen or the teeny bopper shitheads who know nothing of the world and are willing to sell what proves to be millions, if not billions, of dollars of music for and advance that works out to be pennies on the dollar, but will slake their beer, coke and hooker binges until they have to keep releasing shitty album after shitty album as indentured servants paying off a lien.
It is copyright that ALLOWS individuals to make a living simply by being creative. How, again, does making a living making some form of art hamper creativity? I hear that all the time, but NO ONE has been able to flesh it out.
Academics (or anyone else) can ALREADY cite papers within their own. When was the last time that someone got sued for a cited quote and an entry for the source of that quote in a bibliography or footnote?
It sucks that stuff costs money, I guess. But take away the profit incentive for people who research, write books, record music, take pictures and make movies and you'll see all of it wane and disappear.
There is a certain amount of creative talent that can emerge when you can dedicate your life to the pursuit of your interest. I get a lot more work done by doing it full time, rather than working at McBurger or Ikea or Lawfirm 1120 and playing in my "spare time."
The solution is to educate people about what copyright is, how it applies to them, and how to use it effectively.
As the US and most industrialized nations shift part of their economies away from manufacturing and raw materials to information, copyright becomes an absolutely more necessary protection for the economy.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be fair, but why shouldn't I have the ability to make money as a photographer because you want to download the new Metallica album for free so that they can "make it up on concerts and t-shirts?"
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
"A tax incentive or tax credit isn't government funding. The government may call it funding... But they also call reducing the amount a department's funding is scheduled to increase a budget cut, which is also not true except by their broken definition.
Thanks for demonstrating your inability to understand what a budget is, how inflation works, or the time frame on which things actually need to happen here in the real world. Makes it much easier to justify ignoring whatever other idiocy you have to say.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
I'm just wondering-- this isn't a topic I'm all that familiar with-- but do journals really serve a very good purpose these days? I'm assuming that whatever the purpose is, it's not simply the distribution of the articles, since that can easily be done online for free.
As far as the "publish or perish" nature of academia, that in itself seems like a problem to me. I've had some exposure to that quality of academia, and it always feels like it's the wrong focus. I've wondered if there shouldn't just be more of a split between research institutions and educational institutions-- or something...? I'm not sure it really works that well to have such a results-driven approach to education and academic study. Or am I completely misunderstanding the situation?
It seems to me like you could have research institutions that handled peer review and offered some degree of endorsement to studies which are deemed to have been carried out in reasonable ways, but without it being connected to the publishing/copyright concerns involved. On the public funding issue, it seems to me like anything that is funded by the government shouldn't be granted any patents or copyrights, but should just be entered into the public domain. But I'm sure someone will tell me why that's crazy-talk.