<br><a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5505">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5505</a><br><br>"Should Copyright Be Abolished On Academic Work?"<br><br><br>Abstract<br><blockquote><i>
The conventional rationale for copyright of written works, that
copyright is needed to foster their creation, is seemingly of limited
applicability to the academic domain. For in a world without copyright
of academic writing, academics would still benefit from publishing in
the major way that they do now, namely, from gaining scholarly esteem.
Yet publishers would presumably have to impose fees on authors, because
publishers would not be able to profit from reader charges. If these
publication fees would be borne by academics, their incentives to
publish would be reduced. But if the publication fees would usually be
paid by universities or grantors, the motive of academics to publish
would be unlikely to decrease (and could actually increase) –
suggesting that ending academic copyright would be socially desirable
in view of the broad benefits of a copyright-free world. If so, the
demise of academic copyright should be achieved by a change in law, for
the 'open access' movement that effectively seeks this objective
without modification of the law faces fundamental difficulties.
</i></blockquote><br><a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Copyright">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Copyright</a> 7-17HLS-2009.pdf<br><br>Discussion at:<br>
<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0445155649.shtml">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090724/0445155649.shtml</a><br><br>more discussion at:<br><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/27/1642224">http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/27/1642224</a><br>
<br>....<br><br><quote><br><p>You're missing a very important point here. For most university
researchers, the 'someone' that paid for the research is the taxpayer.
But more importantly, the number of university professors whose
research has the potential to generate profits for the university is
vanishingly small compared to those who are engaged in basic research.
</p><p>The service most of us are providing to our university
employers is measured in courses taught, graduate students mentored,
papers published, grants secured, and various other tasks lumped
together as 'service'. The professor as profit generator is recent,
still rare, and not entirely welcome development.
</p><p>In many ways, the idea that university researchers should be
engaged in producing proprietary 'intellectual property' is counter to
the academic tradition that such work depends on. Why should it be
acceptable for someone to take generations of 'open access' research in
physics, engineering, medicine, or whatever, add a little piece on top,
and forbid anyone else from using it? I'm not saying it should never be
done, but certainly not in a publicly funded university.</p><br></quote><br>