5.0582 Copyright (3/144)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Mon, 13 Jan 1992 22:26:18 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0582. Monday, 13 Jan 1992.

(1) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 92 00:12:26 EST (25 lines)
From: Peter Ian Kuniholm <MCG@CORNELLC>
Subject: Re: 5.0565 Copyright

(2) Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 10:23:03 -0500 (67 lines)
From: Matthew Wall <wall@cc.swarthmore.edu>
Subject: Re: 5.0565 Copyright

(3) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 1:49:45 EST (52 lines)
From: ooi@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Jim Porter)
Subject: Re: 5.0565 Copyright

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 92 00:12:26 EST
From: Peter Ian Kuniholm <MCG@CORNELLC>
Subject: Re: 5.0565 Copyright (3/75)

Re. the matter of copying books/articles which are going to get heavy use on
the Reserve Shelf:
1. Suppose your university library has done its bit for both author and publis
her by buying the book. Hooray for the library! Hooray for royalties!
2. Suppose the use and mis-use of the book by a large class is going to leave
it fairly shredded, spine broken, dog-eared, generally a mess for the next user
. Even "careful" users mess up. I dropped a book only today.
3. Is it not an act of mercy (from the point of view of the book as well as fu
ture users) to copy it, let the copy be handed around, mangled, whatever, and
then discarded when the course is over? This may not be good law, but it is
the same reason we put on our old clothes when doing dirty work. If they get
damaged, who cares?
Peter Ian Kuniholm

Peter Ian Kuniholm, Dept. of the History of Art and Archaeology,
G-35 Goldwin Smith Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853-3201
Telephone: 1 (607) 255-8650 or 255-9732. FAX= 1 (607) 255-1454.
If you are writing from an INTERNET address, my address is
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------75----
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 10:23:03 -0500
From: Matthew Wall <wall@cc.swarthmore.edu>
Subject: Re: 5.0565 Copyright (3/75)

I found two disparate postings on the copyright issue intersting:

In 5.0565, Malcolm Hayward posits one of the many practical problems in
teaching with existing copyright law:

> Our library has several policies which seem
>what shall we say overly moralistic? For example: only one journal
>article (xeroxed) from any one issue of a journal may be put on reserve,
>even when our library owns that particular issue of the journal. Same
>with books: only one chapter from a book, whether the book comes through
>ILL or off our own shelves. The first is a particularly troublesome
>problem when you might want to use several articles from a special
>number of a journal devoted, let's say, to the topic you're teaching
>that week (and the classes are large and the students all want the
>article RIGHT NOW).

David Reimer writes:

>Date: Fri, 3 Jan 92 14:37:27 EST
>From: david j reimer f <dreimer4@mach1.wlu.ca>
>Subject: "Production" vs. "Publication"
>I wonder if others would be willing to think aloud about this
>question: what distinguishes *production* of texts/documents vs.
>*publication* of same?
[text omitted]
>In the electronic context, my concern is that the push for scholars to
>circumvent traditional publication leads directly to a line of
>*production*. What of significance, if anything, does the traditional
>publication route bring to a scholarly work? Or is this simply and
>cynically a way of pleasing adminstrators?

It seems to me that electronic publication offers scholars a way to
*reclaim* the 'line of production' from the middlemen (publishers).

The problem Malcolm Hayward refers to is essentially that the cycle of
research/publication/teaching-learning has been made more difficult by the
commercial laws, which everybody tacitly supports by submitting work to
journals which insist on copyright.

Publishers even of non-profit journals have to cover their paper production
and distribution costs. Libraries have to follow the laws.

There's really no way around it - either scholars and publishers insist on
royalties and you (or the library or the students) are forced to pay higher
costs to "supply" your students with instructional material, or you abandon
the notion that intellectual property lies in the copyright and not in the
value of the ideas themselves.

To me, the logical solution is to simply bypass the real sticking point -
the paper-based publication system - and go electronic. Yes, this raises
all the aforementioned problems with standards, cataloging, indexing, and
availability, and the oh-so-important professional credit. I'm not so sure
the solutions to these problems are so difficult to deal with given some
general agreement to go forward with electronic publishing. It certainly
seems to be in the best interests of everybody except the publishers.

- matt

(3) --------------------------------------------------------------63----
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 92 1:49:45 EST
From: ooi@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Jim Porter)
Subject: Re: 5.0565 Copyright (3/75)

David Reimer asks:
>I wonder if others would be willing to think aloud about this
>question: what distinguishes *production* of texts/documents vs.
>*publication* of same?

I am very interested in this question, as a person in
rhetoric/professional writing, with a keen interest in desktop
publishing and issues involving theology/ethics (perhaps an
uncommon combination).

Obviously the terms "production" and "publication" vary widely:
the meanings for and implications of "publication" within scholarly
forums vary from the meanings within
professional/technical communication. Within the latter forum,
"publication" suggests distribution to the public. Within the
former, "publication" suggests that some specific disciplinary
criteria has been met; there's a much stronger evaluative, even
competitive component.

I'm not aware of any "push for scholars to circumvent traditional
publication" (by this you mean paper journals?). I am aware of
the rapid growth of electronic publication (e.g., online journals),
which I regard as a medium which covers the weaknesses of
"traditional publication": electronic publication has the
advantage of immediacy and spontaneity (which, usually, traditional
print publication lacks); traditional publication may have the
advantage in terms of its ability to exercise greater editorial
care ... but even that depends on the exact nature of the electronic
publication (for some, the editorial process is equal to that of
the more traditional print publication). How tenure/promotion
committees do/should regard electronic publications is an issue that has
been much discussed. The conclusion seems to be that generally they don't
regard electronic publication very highly ... but the medium is
unfamiliar to them and maybe we can hope for change.

As for "production," one meaning for that within rhetoric/composition
is process: the entire dynamic by which one produces a text (including
things like invention, planning, drafting, editing, etc.). This
differs somewhat from production in the technical sense as the
physical/mechanical means by which one produces a text (printing
press, computer with page layout software and laser printer), and from
production in the neo-Marxist sense as the economic matrix in which
a text is situated (which influences its reception).

Jim Porter
Purdue University