The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0061 Friday, 1 February 2008
[1] From: Ron Severdia <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008 12:42:26 -0600 (CST)
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0055 Books to Buy
[2] From: Will Sharpe <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008 21:57:33 +0000
Subj: RE: SHK 19.0055 Books to Buy
[3] From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008 21:11:24 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0055 Books to Buy
[4] From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 31 Jan 2008 13:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 19.0055 Books to Buy
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Severdia <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008 12:42:26 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 19.0055 Books to Buy
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0055 Books to Buy
Gabriel Egan wrote:
>Those doing the digitization of the papers will claim
>that although the primary materials are not
>their intellectual property, they are imbuing these
>materials with fresh copyrightable value by
>digitizing them. This absurd argument is the
>reason that libraries feel entitled to put on their
>microfilm images the words 'Not for reproduction'
>even when the image is of a 400-year old book.
I've been over this point in great detail with a copyright attorney. His
contention is that though the material contained in that book (and the
book itself) is 400 years old, the images are not. Just like a
photographer can copyright his/her images, the institution can do the
same. It's the image that's copyrighted and illegal to reproduce, not
the work itself.
Ron Severdia
PlayShakespeare.com
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Will Sharpe <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008 21:57:33 +0000
Subject: 19.0055 Books to Buy
Comment: RE: SHK 19.0055 Books to Buy
This is an interesting debate indeed, but I do feel that ultimately it
does come down to a question of black-and-white legality, and not a
moral perception of the way knowledge should be freer to those who want
to know. Gabriel says that:
(I might go beyond the permitted limited distribution for the purposes
of teaching and research, and think we should all push those limits as
hard as we can.)
To me, however enticing that sounds, it does sound like a belief rather
than a justifiable expression of absolute right. I am not assuming a
contrary position because of any moral outrage or differing opinion;
rather, I think the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act (1988) makes it
fairly clear (this is the UK legislation, and I apologise for the
length, but I have supplied the relevant sections - my emphasis):
16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work
(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the
following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the
following acts in the United Kingdom-
(a) to copy the work (see section 17);
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);
(c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);
(d) to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service
(see section 20);
(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation
to an adaptation (see section 21); and those acts are referred to in
this Part as the "acts restricted by the copyright".
(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence
of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the
acts restricted by the copyright.
(3) References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the
copyright in a work are to the doing of it-
(a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it, and
(b) either directly or indirectly; and it is immaterial whether any
intervening acts themselves infringe copyright.
(4) This Chapter has effect subject to-
(a) the provisions of Chapter III (acts permitted in relation to
copyright works), and
(b) the provisions of Chapter VII (provisions with respect to copyright
licensing). 17 Infringement of copyright by copying
(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in
every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to
copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
work means reproducing the work in any material form.This includes
storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
(3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a
copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a
copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.
(4) Copying in relation to a film, television broadcast or cable
programme includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial
part of any image forming part of the film, broadcast or cable programme.
(5) Copying in relation to the typographical arrangement of a published
edition means making a facsimile copy of the arrangement.
(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making
of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the
work.
I know the counter-argument could be mounted on grounds of using the
work for educational purposes, but the law seems to me pretty clear on
that front too:
32 Things done for purposes of instruction or examination
(1) Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not
infringed by its being copied in the course of instruction or of
preparation for instruction, provided the copying-
(a) is done by a person giving or receiving instruction, and
(b) is not by means of a reprographic process.
Incidentally, OED defines 'reprographic' as: "The branch of technology
concerned with the copying and reproduction of documentary and graphic
material."
Isn't this an open-and-shut case, irrespective of how we may feel about
the distribution of "knowledge" i.e. if the "knowledge" has a copyright
logo on it, it can't be distributed in the same way as conveying
spoken-word "knowledge" which you have written yourself in the form of
an unpublished lecture to a room full of students? Incidentally, the Act
can be read in full here (and I hope I haven't breached copyright by
reproducing the above sections)!!!
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_1
Best,
Will Sharpe
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Projansky <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 30 Jan 2008 21:11:24 -0800
Subject: 19.0055 Books to Buy
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0055 Books to Buy
A day or two ago I said on this thread that Larry Weiss should be
ashamed of himself for stooping to red-baiting on SHAKSPER. Someone has
very kindly and gently advised me offlist that I was perhaps ignorant of
some personal and SHAKSPER history and that Larry's thrust was probably
not the below-the-belt attack that I took it to be. I was indeed
ignorant of those facts and I'm sorry I said that.
Bob Projansky
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Egert <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 31 Jan 2008 13:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 19.0055 Books to Buy
Comment: Re: SHK 19.0055 Books to Buy
David Bishop writes:
>"I somehow doubt that Gabriel Egan begrudges
>me my pittance, but if he wants to offer my book
>for free, I wouldn't mind.
David, I was hoping for an outraged defense of an author's rights to his
worker's wage--only to be frustrated by your commendable generosity.
Please reconsider.
Gabriel Egan explains:
>Just to be clear: no,
>I wouldn't deliberately undermine someone else's monograph sales by
>distributing large numbers of copies for free. (I might go beyond the
>permitted limited distribution for the purposes of teaching and
>research...
But Gabriel, doesn't going beyond the "permitted" limited distribution
in fact undermine those sales and constitute yet another example of
"outright law-breaking"?
Gabriel continues:
>The ownership of ideas generated by people who work for educational
>institutions is a vexed and unresolved question. Universities rightly
>think it iniquitous that they pay academics to generate knowledge that
>is then given (virtually for free) to publishers and thereafter sold
>back at great cost to the university library. In the digital economy I
>have been sketching in these posts, universities themselves would retain
>in their Institutional Repositories the knowledge their staff generated.
>It is no surprise that publishers are very worried indeed about
>Institutional Repositories.
But Gabriel, won't universities be tempted to charge for access to and
use of their Institutional Repositories to cover their overall expenses?
Would you deny them this right?
Gabriel later cites Genesis: "One might see the story of Cain and Abel
as the proto-typical conflict between the arable farmer, for whom land
is property, and the pastoralist for whom that notion is absurd."
But doesn't the pastoralist Abel deem his sheep property?
Gabriel again: "For a simpler illustration of the same point, I ask
students to imagine the privatization of the atmosphere and consider
whether they could ever accept the idea that the air can be owned."
But can that air be rented? If I invest in air conditioning for my
business, say a restaurant, may I charge for mere access to the premises
in an otherwise polluted area of town?
Gabriel later backtracks: "For the sake of achieving agreement, I'd
happily leave out of the argument that I'm making for Open Access all
those writers for whom royalty payments are a substantial proportion of
their income and confine myself to those writers who are primarily
employed by the state as educators and researchers."
But Gabriel, who is to enforce if not define "substantial" and
"primarily"? One more bloated bureaucracy or Commissariat? Will writers
and independent scholars like David Bishop or Lynn Brenner be better
served in the land of Gabe? Or will life become even more difficult for
them?
Gabe concludes: "I'm afraid I don't understand Joe's point and cannot
respond."
Sorry, Gabriel, for not being clearer. Hope this post helps.
Finally, let me affirm my complete sympathy with the Open Access
movement for reasons so ably articulated by Gabriel Egan, as long as it
remains voluntary and not compulsory. There is a larger issue at stake,
however-namely Gabe's cheery defense of piracy, which will appeal to the
Oedipal rebel in all of us. Such an antinomian thrust will, in a Burkean
sense, further unmoor and destabilize society, until Vincentio is forced
to find his Angelo. The ancient dilemma remains: should Socrates escape
prison or drink the hemlock?
Regards,
Joe Egert
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
