yes exactly. You can publish any damn thing you want on the web, but if you want to make a dent in your scholarly field, you need to publish it in peer reviewed scholarly publications that are taken seriously in your field.
The question isn't whether you personally might trust some random website over a well known journal; the question is whether the academic community does. I am all for "non-commercial publishing backed up by sound peer review"; the problem is if you're publishing in journals that nobody knows about or takes seriously, your work won't be read by others, it won't be cited in articles by other scholars or researchers, and it won't seriously make any kind of impact in your field. If your field has truly non-commercial outlets for academic work, and those outlets don't make you give up your rights as a precondition for publication, you're fortunate. I'd certainly love to see more of this throughout academia.
Sorry, but if I or CannonbalHead composes a 5-piece brass ensemble, NO ONE should be allowed to duplicate it without my permission. My composition is not some abstract idea.
You're probably working with copy shops who don't clear copyrights with publishers. There's a lot who do that. But from what I've seen there is considerable variation in cost for journal articles; 75 cents is definitely on the high end but is not unheard of (25-35 cents is not at all uncommon; and of course that's on top of basic printing costs). I haven't paid much attention to the details since I go with under-the-radar copy shops as well. But when they follow the copyright clearance path you see very high prices for some coursepacks.
Yes, they are at the mercy of these journals, at least until they start their own, and it gains recognition in the field as an acceptable outlet for peer reviewed scholarship. The problem is that many of these journals have a monopoly on peer recognition in specific fields. And when scholars do open up new journals they usually go with one of the major publishers who set the terms anyway. See, scholars don't see themselves as providing a product to a market -- they are interested in advancing knowledge through their research, or getting tenure, or whatever. They're not trying to make a profit, but their work has been coopted by people who are. That's not inherently a bad thing -- obviously it allows for these nice paper journals to be published in the first place -- but the publishers have taken advantage of the situation and turned academics into a captive labor force. I simply don't believe they should be allowed to set such terms in the first place -- they should make known their peer review criteria and process, and publish anything that survives that peer review. Authors should retain the copyrights to their work.
A more common compromise is the journal has electronic rights for 12 months with faculty rights after that. All in the name of financing the journal.
Interesting - some journals have the same deal with databases for university libraries, which I find ludicrous. The library subscribes to the database, which includes a subscription to X journals online... But it turns out, many of those journals are incomplete, the most recent issues are not available. This forces the library to subscribe to the print journal as well, at least in any field where there is a department who wants to stay current at that university. Why bother to offer online subscriptions when they are so crippled as to be less useful than print?
It's not just about tenure; it's about the very goal of academic research -- to help advance knowledge. You don't do this without publishing in recognized peer-reviewed journals. And those journals call the shots in terms of what you give up to publish with them -- there is no negotiating; in fact, authors don't get paid at all. If you refuse to sign the contract, your article doesn't get published, even though it survived peer review. And don't say "just publish it on the web" -- it's not going to be taken seriously in your peer community without publication in recognized journals in your field.
Academic authors are not in it trying to make a buck -- very few ever do, and certainly not through journal publications. I think that peer review should be the only filter on academic publishing; there is no reason that journals can't start publishing academic work without such contracts.
The problem is that the writers are a kind of captive labor force in this situation. Often there is no way to publish in these journals without giving up your copyrights, and your profession (and perhaps the progress of knowledge itself) demands that you publish in these journals. So they don't have to offer a fair price for your work; in fact, they don't have to offer anything at all, and usually don't. (The better journals will at least send you a few offprints that you can share with family members). And the author can't turn down their contracts without sacrificing his/her goals in terms of producing knowledge and achieving peer recognition.
Frankly, I don't see why journals should be allowed to acquire copyrights to creative work they didn't produce in the first place. I realize this is a practice that goes back about a century but I think it's time to reexamine it -- any copyrights should lie with the creator if they are really to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."
It's not just that; there really is no objective boundary between "academic" work and non-academic work. Even in music, there are certainly musical works that are "academic," produced by scholars to make a contribution to knowledge and receive scholarly recognition. So there's no way to apply this sort of proposal to only "academic" works. But I don't think copyright needs to be abolished -- it's just that the purpose of copyright law (at least in the US - promoting knowledge and creativity) should *always* supersede the "property" rights claimed by the copyright owner. This means in part a greatly expanded notion of fair use, and it also definitely means a realistic limit on the time of ownership of copyrights -- something more on the order of 10 years or less rather than life plus 70. And in every case where a court has to determine whether to restrict rights, it should always err on the side of promoting "the progress of science and the useful arts."
It shouldn't be abolished, but fair use should no longer be restricted. What these publishers get away with should be completely illegal under fair use provisions. Authors not being allowed to use their own works? And charging 75 cents a page for articles published in coursepaks is unconscionable, especially considering there is no economic loss to republishing in this form; it's not like the students in these courses would run out and pick up the September 1982 issue of Political Science Quarterly at the local bookstore if they didn't get this free version from their teacher. (I understand why publishers want copy shops to fork something over, but there should be an agreed upon reasonable limit in the area of a penny a page rather than a blank check, which is the way it currently is).
Actually what would be nice to see would be that the copyright stays with the creator in all cases. Allowing the journals to acquire the copyright to this work in the first place is a bizarre economic fiction anyway; when the author can't even cite their own studies due to this fiction, it has been taken to its absurd logical conclusion. But the proposal here is unworkable without some kind of objective standard of what constitutes "academic work," and that's not likely to happen.
Read the parent post I was responding to. Palm is not "promoting interoperability"; they're abusing Apple's vendor ID in order to pretend to be an ipod. While the effect of that may be "interoperability," as the other poster shows, that interoperability is already possible via third party tools, and if Palm wants to promote interoperability they should create their own solution rather than playing tricks on Apple's solution. I'm not trying to defend Apple on this - as I said a lot of the rage Palm is tapping into is justified - but I just don't think this is a valid reason to attack them.
Somebody mod this up. Palm is in the wrong here, but they're counting on capitalizing on anti-Apple sentiment since a lot of people are justifiably fed up with Apple. But Palm really needs to concentrate on making a better product -- if they want to compete with the iphone they've got to do more than piggy back on its success.
I really wanted to like the Palm Pre. I've still got my Treo, as beat to hell as it is, because I don't like the keyboard-less design of the iphone. (I text a lot and I like the Treo's keypad better than most). I have an ipod touch so I have most of the cool app features of the iphone without the AT+T contract. I went to the Sprint store to check out the Pre and I found it flimsy and slow, and its interface completely counterintuitive compared to the iphone. I was completely disappointed and now I might buy a Centro instead just because it's exactly what I now have except smaller and faster and it comes in green. So, yeah, I might opt for a feature set from like 1997 rather than the latest and greatest -- if that's happening in your product line, there's no way in hell you're gonna compete with the iphone.
Slashdot Mirror
I am quite certain that you have no idea what you're talking about. Fair use isn't whatever you want it to be.
Where did I say that it was? Oh, right. I didn't.
Fair use has never interpreted to mean wholesale duplication as you describe.
As I describe where? Oh, right. I didn't.
If you want no restrictions, there's a term for that. It's "public domain," which is a fancy way of saying "no copyright."
Where did I say I wanted no restrictions? Oh, right. I didn't.
yes exactly. You can publish any damn thing you want on the web, but if you want to make a dent in your scholarly field, you need to publish it in peer reviewed scholarly publications that are taken seriously in your field.
The question isn't whether you personally might trust some random website over a well known journal; the question is whether the academic community does. I am all for "non-commercial publishing backed up by sound peer review"; the problem is if you're publishing in journals that nobody knows about or takes seriously, your work won't be read by others, it won't be cited in articles by other scholars or researchers, and it won't seriously make any kind of impact in your field. If your field has truly non-commercial outlets for academic work, and those outlets don't make you give up your rights as a precondition for publication, you're fortunate. I'd certainly love to see more of this throughout academia.
Sorry, but if I or CannonbalHead composes a 5-piece brass ensemble, NO ONE should be allowed to duplicate it without my permission. My composition is not some abstract idea.
Then don't share it with anyone.
You're probably working with copy shops who don't clear copyrights with publishers. There's a lot who do that. But from what I've seen there is considerable variation in cost for journal articles; 75 cents is definitely on the high end but is not unheard of (25-35 cents is not at all uncommon; and of course that's on top of basic printing costs). I haven't paid much attention to the details since I go with under-the-radar copy shops as well. But when they follow the copyright clearance path you see very high prices for some coursepacks.
Yes, they are at the mercy of these journals, at least until they start their own, and it gains recognition in the field as an acceptable outlet for peer reviewed scholarship. The problem is that many of these journals have a monopoly on peer recognition in specific fields. And when scholars do open up new journals they usually go with one of the major publishers who set the terms anyway. See, scholars don't see themselves as providing a product to a market -- they are interested in advancing knowledge through their research, or getting tenure, or whatever. They're not trying to make a profit, but their work has been coopted by people who are. That's not inherently a bad thing -- obviously it allows for these nice paper journals to be published in the first place -- but the publishers have taken advantage of the situation and turned academics into a captive labor force. I simply don't believe they should be allowed to set such terms in the first place -- they should make known their peer review criteria and process, and publish anything that survives that peer review. Authors should retain the copyrights to their work.
A more common compromise is the journal has electronic rights for 12 months with faculty rights after that. All in the name of financing the journal.
Interesting - some journals have the same deal with databases for university libraries, which I find ludicrous. The library subscribes to the database, which includes a subscription to X journals online... But it turns out, many of those journals are incomplete, the most recent issues are not available. This forces the library to subscribe to the print journal as well, at least in any field where there is a department who wants to stay current at that university. Why bother to offer online subscriptions when they are so crippled as to be less useful than print?
It's not just about tenure; it's about the very goal of academic research -- to help advance knowledge. You don't do this without publishing in recognized peer-reviewed journals. And those journals call the shots in terms of what you give up to publish with them -- there is no negotiating; in fact, authors don't get paid at all. If you refuse to sign the contract, your article doesn't get published, even though it survived peer review. And don't say "just publish it on the web" -- it's not going to be taken seriously in your peer community without publication in recognized journals in your field.
Academic authors are not in it trying to make a buck -- very few ever do, and certainly not through journal publications. I think that peer review should be the only filter on academic publishing; there is no reason that journals can't start publishing academic work without such contracts.
The problem is that the writers are a kind of captive labor force in this situation. Often there is no way to publish in these journals without giving up your copyrights, and your profession (and perhaps the progress of knowledge itself) demands that you publish in these journals. So they don't have to offer a fair price for your work; in fact, they don't have to offer anything at all, and usually don't. (The better journals will at least send you a few offprints that you can share with family members). And the author can't turn down their contracts without sacrificing his/her goals in terms of producing knowledge and achieving peer recognition.
Frankly, I don't see why journals should be allowed to acquire copyrights to creative work they didn't produce in the first place. I realize this is a practice that goes back about a century but I think it's time to reexamine it -- any copyrights should lie with the creator if they are really to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."
It's not just that; there really is no objective boundary between "academic" work and non-academic work. Even in music, there are certainly musical works that are "academic," produced by scholars to make a contribution to knowledge and receive scholarly recognition. So there's no way to apply this sort of proposal to only "academic" works. But I don't think copyright needs to be abolished -- it's just that the purpose of copyright law (at least in the US - promoting knowledge and creativity) should *always* supersede the "property" rights claimed by the copyright owner. This means in part a greatly expanded notion of fair use, and it also definitely means a realistic limit on the time of ownership of copyrights -- something more on the order of 10 years or less rather than life plus 70. And in every case where a court has to determine whether to restrict rights, it should always err on the side of promoting "the progress of science and the useful arts."
It shouldn't be abolished, but fair use should no longer be restricted. What these publishers get away with should be completely illegal under fair use provisions. Authors not being allowed to use their own works? And charging 75 cents a page for articles published in coursepaks is unconscionable, especially considering there is no economic loss to republishing in this form; it's not like the students in these courses would run out and pick up the September 1982 issue of Political Science Quarterly at the local bookstore if they didn't get this free version from their teacher. (I understand why publishers want copy shops to fork something over, but there should be an agreed upon reasonable limit in the area of a penny a page rather than a blank check, which is the way it currently is).
Actually what would be nice to see would be that the copyright stays with the creator in all cases. Allowing the journals to acquire the copyright to this work in the first place is a bizarre economic fiction anyway; when the author can't even cite their own studies due to this fiction, it has been taken to its absurd logical conclusion. But the proposal here is unworkable without some kind of objective standard of what constitutes "academic work," and that's not likely to happen.
He should try to promote himself a different way than this
Yeah seriously; he should just start a band and try promoting himself under his own name. Call it the Steve Mill... umm, never mind.
This is Slashdot. Almost no one here uses IE.
Well, except after C.
It's true, this is a known fallacy. A true Scotsman would have figured this out.
You gotta have a crude nuclear weapon. A polite one simply won't do.
According to his user page, this is the one time he's commented. Give a cowhardon a break!
... OOOH! Look! Something shiny!
Awesome! a new OS X upgrade?
Read the parent post I was responding to. Palm is not "promoting interoperability"; they're abusing Apple's vendor ID in order to pretend to be an ipod. While the effect of that may be "interoperability," as the other poster shows, that interoperability is already possible via third party tools, and if Palm wants to promote interoperability they should create their own solution rather than playing tricks on Apple's solution. I'm not trying to defend Apple on this - as I said a lot of the rage Palm is tapping into is justified - but I just don't think this is a valid reason to attack them.
He said his main concern is that they should change the name to the GNU/Pirate Party
Perhaps but they were talking about the 21st century ;)
Somebody mod this up. Palm is in the wrong here, but they're counting on capitalizing on anti-Apple sentiment since a lot of people are justifiably fed up with Apple. But Palm really needs to concentrate on making a better product -- if they want to compete with the iphone they've got to do more than piggy back on its success.
I really wanted to like the Palm Pre. I've still got my Treo, as beat to hell as it is, because I don't like the keyboard-less design of the iphone. (I text a lot and I like the Treo's keypad better than most). I have an ipod touch so I have most of the cool app features of the iphone without the AT+T contract. I went to the Sprint store to check out the Pre and I found it flimsy and slow, and its interface completely counterintuitive compared to the iphone. I was completely disappointed and now I might buy a Centro instead just because it's exactly what I now have except smaller and faster and it comes in green. So, yeah, I might opt for a feature set from like 1997 rather than the latest and greatest -- if that's happening in your product line, there's no way in hell you're gonna compete with the iphone.
Talk to the hand.
goddamnit. replying to remove my mod of "offtopic," which was a mistake. I was trying to click "interesting." Now somebody mod me funny.
Just trying to keep it civil in here. :)
Good luck with that ;)
it didn't take long for the value of the internet to exceed the value of AOL's services.
Doesn't that kind of assume that at one point, the value of AOL's services exceeded the value of the Internet?