Comments on: Perils of Strong Copyright, continued

By: commons-blog

commons-blog — Fri, 09 Apr 2004 02:58:55 +0000

The Perils of Strong Copyright
Jason asked me what I thought about the paper. Here goes:

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:56:24 +0000

I do not believe that I “trashed” anyone, nor was my paper any attempt at such. I simply pointed out the public face that the ALA seems to be presenting on both sides of the coin, and asked why it was that they see in conflict.

In that I was relying on the “public” face of the ALA, I relied on the statements presented on the websites for Authors (as seen in the Appendix).

I absolutely do not believe, nor do I believe that I painted, “professional journals” as the “bad guys.” I simply pointed out what I see as an inconsistency within the profession.

As a matter of fact, the next thing I plan to work on will be an examination of why it is that the “open web” is not sufficient for tenure review, and the culture of scholarship that has become entrenched in this belief. I see it as short-sightedness on the part of academia.

Perils of Strong Copyright, published on the web under a Creative Commons license, certainly seems to be generating “scholarly” comments and concerns.

By: Alice Yucht

Alice Yucht — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:42:51 +0000

I’m curious: before you trash(ed) ALA’s policies, did you
a) ask your thesis advisors how they were treated when (if) publishing with ALA, and/or
b) contact the ALA Publishing office for any clarifications?

Since one of the realities of our profession is to evaluate the veracity of the information we find, I’m wondering why you see professional journals as the bad guys. . . esp. in academia, where ‘publish or perish’ still does not accept the open Web as an authoritative publishing venue.

By: jean

jean — Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:55:02 +0000

next step – law school. consider it. seriously.