458 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
458 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
From LISTSERV@uacsc2.albany.edu Tue Jan 5 16:04:59 1993
|
|
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:03:21 -0500
|
|
From: Revised List Processor (1.7e) <LISTSERV@uacsc2.albany.edu>
|
|
Subject: File: "EJRNL V1N3-2"
|
|
To: pirmann@trident.usacs.rutgers.edu
|
|
|
|
_______ _______ __
|
|
/ _____/ /__ __/ / /
|
|
/ /__ / / ____ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ____ / /
|
|
/ ___/ __ / / / __ \ / / / / / //__/ / //_ \ / __ \ / /
|
|
/ /____ / /_/ / / /_/ / / /_/ / / / / / / / / /_/ / / /
|
|
\_____/ \____/ \____/ \____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \__/_/ /_/
|
|
|
|
September, 1992 _EJournal_ Volume 1 Number 3-2 ISSN# 1054-1055
|
|
There are 449 lines in this issue.
|
|
|
|
An Electronic Journal concerned with the
|
|
implications of electronic networks and texts.
|
|
2632 Subscribers in 38 Countries
|
|
|
|
University at Albany, State University of New York
|
|
|
|
ejournal@albany.bitnet
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONTENTS (Second supplement to V1N3 of November, 1991):
|
|
|
|
Editorial Notes - This Issue; List purging; money;
|
|
readers' survey [ Begins at line 53 ]
|
|
|
|
CREDIT, COMPENSATION AND COPYRIGHT: [ Begins at line 91 ]
|
|
OWNING KNOWLEDGE AND ELECTRONIC NETWORKS
|
|
|
|
by John B. Dilworth
|
|
Department of Philosophy
|
|
Western Michigan University, U.S.A.
|
|
Dilworth@gw.wmich.edu
|
|
|
|
Information - [ Begins at line 340 ]
|
|
|
|
About Subscriptions and Back Issues
|
|
About Supplements to Previous Texts
|
|
About Letters to the Editor
|
|
About Reviews
|
|
About _EJournal_
|
|
|
|
People - [ Begins at line 411 ]
|
|
|
|
Board of Advisors
|
|
Consulting Editors
|
|
|
|
********************************************************************************
|
|
* This electronic publication and its contents are (c) copyright 1992 by *
|
|
* _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give away the journal and its *
|
|
* contents, but no one may "own" it. Any and all financial interest is hereby *
|
|
* assigned to the acknowledged authors of individual texts. This notification *
|
|
* must accompany all distribution of _EJournal_. *
|
|
********************************************************************************
|
|
|
|
Editorial Notes - This Issue; List purging; money; readers' survey
|
|
|
|
This issue consists principally of an intriguing contribution to the polylog
|
|
about who owns electronic texts. Professor Dilworth argues that the difference
|
|
between intellectual property and legal property makes copyright essentialy
|
|
irrelevant, at least for electronic publications in an academic context.
|
|
|
|
This issue also carries an announcement about the journal "Simulation &
|
|
Gaming."
|
|
|
|
About e-mail and subscriptions to _EJournal_: We delete addressees when our
|
|
Listserv reports an inability to deliver an issue of the journal. If you
|
|
should get an unexpected message saying you have been removed from our List,
|
|
*please* understand that it was prompted by a report of undeliverability. If
|
|
you know anyone who stopped getting the journal and wasn't even informed,
|
|
please explain that we were not being surly and capricious. For that to
|
|
happen, TWO communications had to have bounced. An issue of the journal itself
|
|
and the follow-up message about being removed from the List came back to us as
|
|
undeliverable. It would help, if your address changes, if you would send
|
|
appropriate `unsub' and `sub' messages to LISTSERV@albany.bitnet .
|
|
|
|
Please do not send money. _EJournal_ was started with the hope that edited
|
|
propositions and conversations could be circulated inexpensively, and we still
|
|
have enough support to make that possible. Nor do we have reason to anticipate
|
|
change. Furthermore, we want the 'nets to remain non-commercial, and approve
|
|
subsidization that lets individuals with academic connections treat them as
|
|
`free.' But the idea of experimenting with electronic publishing along the
|
|
lines of shareware distribution has occurred to us, and we'd be interested in
|
|
readers' thoughts on the subject.
|
|
|
|
We know very little about _EJournal_'s readers, except that most of us get mail
|
|
through academic sites/nodes. If enough of you write to say you would like
|
|
to know more about our audience, and if someone volunteers to coordinate a
|
|
simple survey, we'd be happy to publish some generalizations. Let us know at
|
|
EJOURNAL@albany.bitnet .
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
CREDIT, COMPENSATION AND COPYRIGHT:
|
|
OWNING KNOWLEDGE AND ELECTRONIC NETWORKS
|
|
|
|
by John B. Dilworth
|
|
Department of Philosophy
|
|
Western Michigan University, U.S.A.
|
|
Dilworth@gw.wmich.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently _EJournal_ contained a stimulating paper by Doug Brent
|
|
("Oral Knowledge, Typographic Knowledge, Electronic Knowledge:
|
|
Speculations on the History of Ownership," _EJournal_ Volume 1
|
|
Number 3, November 1991) on the subject of ownership of knowledge
|
|
and related issues. An additional useful exchange between Brent
|
|
and Bob Hering (_EJournal_ Volume 1 Number 3-1, July 1992) on the
|
|
subject showed (among other things) some of the fundamental
|
|
disagreements which are easily possible on these topics. A key
|
|
issue raised was whether ownership and property rights must be
|
|
protected in a workable and generally acceptable dissemination of
|
|
knowledge in "cyberspace".
|
|
|
|
Instead of directly addressing Brent's paper and the exchange, I
|
|
shall briefly develop an alternative view, according to which
|
|
copyright or other property rights are relatively unimportant. In
|
|
my view, publicly giving credit to authors for original ideas is
|
|
much more important, and it can also help to ensure long-term
|
|
compensation for authors even in the case of electronic
|
|
dissemination of works. Hence I am optimistic that electronic
|
|
media can flourish, whether or not capitalism and concerns about
|
|
personal reward remain part of the dominant world economic
|
|
system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Intellectual Priority versus Legal Property Rights
|
|
|
|
A key distinction which needs to be made is that between
|
|
intellectual or conceptual priority and legal property rights. A
|
|
person who first conceives an idea is both its discoverer or
|
|
inventor, and the source of any publicly communicated form of the
|
|
idea. If we wish, we may say that such a person has "intellectual
|
|
ownership" of the idea, but it is important not to confuse this
|
|
intellectual or conceptual ownership with any legal ownership or
|
|
right. [line 133]
|
|
|
|
For example, note that one cannot steal or destroy intellectual
|
|
ownership of an idea, however much one tries to appropriate it as
|
|
one's own or meld it with other material. Nor could this
|
|
"ownership" or priority be transferred or sold to others. Of
|
|
course, in specific cases it may become unclear who originated an
|
|
idea, and credit or acknowledgement may wrongly be given to
|
|
various borrowers or secondary sources for an idea. But
|
|
intellectual priority with respect to an idea is a historical
|
|
fact which cannot itself be stolen or misappropriated.
|
|
|
|
Another reason why 'priority' is a more appropriate term than
|
|
'ownership' here is that there is clearly a sense in which any
|
|
ideas whatsoever are owned (or, if one prefers, not owned at all)
|
|
by all thinking beings capable of critically considering them.
|
|
Any thinkable ideas are part of our intellectual heritage. We
|
|
"own" them by participating in the culture of which they are a
|
|
part. A more specific sense of ownership along these lines is
|
|
that in which one owns an idea, or makes it one's own, by efforts
|
|
to understand or master it. In these senses too, ideas cannot be
|
|
stolen or misappropriated, and no rights are violated by sharing
|
|
them.
|
|
|
|
Returning to the main topic of intellectual priority, what should
|
|
our social attitudes be toward it? Broadly, we should give
|
|
people credit or acknowledgement for initiating ideas. But it is
|
|
a mistake to equate such credit with an ineffectual, minor social
|
|
politeness or etiquette (see later).
|
|
|
|
How should we reward or compensate intellectual priority? One
|
|
reason why there is a strong tendency to confuse intellectual
|
|
"ownership" of an idea with legal ownership is that it is
|
|
widely assumed that the only adequate reward or acknowledgement
|
|
for priority consists in the granting of legal property rights,
|
|
such as copyright, to the originator of an idea (or more
|
|
specifically, to an idea as expressed in a definite linguistic
|
|
way). [line 139]
|
|
|
|
This is indeed one reasonable way of rewarding conceptual
|
|
innovators, but it is not the only defensible one. We should not
|
|
forget that most people work for corporations, under legal
|
|
agreements such that any ideas originated in the workplace by an
|
|
employee automatically become the property of their employers.
|
|
This system is defensible insofar as employees are adequately
|
|
compensated for their efforts.
|
|
|
|
Current copyright law (at least in the U.S.) further encourages
|
|
the confusion of intellectual priority and property rights,
|
|
because simply by authoring a manuscript one automatically
|
|
acquires copyright or legal property rights in it, in the absence
|
|
of prior agreements with employers, etc. (In the U.S.,
|
|
registering such a copyright does not create it, but merely
|
|
provides evidence which would make it easier to legally defend
|
|
the copyright later if necessary.)
|
|
|
|
However, it remains important to distinguish priority and
|
|
property even in such cases of very close legal connection
|
|
between authorship and property rights. For if we examine the
|
|
actual workings of our capitalist commercial system for
|
|
distributing or publishing original manuscripts, it becomes clear
|
|
that copyright or ownership plays only a minor (and somewhat
|
|
paradoxical) role in the actual ways in which private authors are
|
|
compensated for their original work.
|
|
|
|
One might expect that the normal or standard case of compensation
|
|
in the current system would be that in which the author as owner
|
|
of the copyright receives payment for giving permission for
|
|
others to read or otherwise use her work. But in actual fact,
|
|
cases where an author publishes his own work under his own
|
|
copyright are relatively rare and inconsequential.
|
|
|
|
Instead, the almost universal actual model is one in which
|
|
authors engage in a contract with a commercial publisher, in
|
|
which the author unconditionally assigns or entirely gives up her
|
|
copyright to the publisher in exchange for certain benefits or
|
|
compensations. A main reason for this practice is that with
|
|
traditional media, the costs of publishing and distributing are
|
|
so high that contracting with independent publishers becomes
|
|
almost a necessity for authors. But then the "pound of flesh" of
|
|
having to give up one's legal ownership rights almost inevitably
|
|
ensues. In such cases we must distinguish between an author's
|
|
originality and her copyright ownership, because of course when
|
|
her work is being distributed she no longer owns the copyright,
|
|
in spite of the originality of her work. [line 218]
|
|
|
|
Because of this confusion or misconception, the whole issue of
|
|
whether electronic media involve threats to individual property
|
|
rights is misconceived from the start. Paradoxically, it is only
|
|
such innovative media which potentially could make widespread,
|
|
inexpensive distribution of manuscripts feasible while yet
|
|
maintaining individual copyrights. Thus there are initial
|
|
grounds for hoping that electronic media might provide the last,
|
|
best hope of preserving private property rights in manuscripts
|
|
against the authoritarian rule of corporate publishing.
|
|
|
|
However, things are more complex still because of another aspect
|
|
of copyrights, namely that as legal rights they may need to be
|
|
asserted and defended. These issues are particularly intractable
|
|
in the case of a journal or other compilation which may accept
|
|
manuscripts from several authors simultaneously. How are these
|
|
individual copyrights to be protected in the case of copyright
|
|
infringements? No journal could afford to separately defend
|
|
each of its individual authors in the courts against such
|
|
threats, and almost certainly the individuals couldn't afford it
|
|
either.
|
|
|
|
Thus here we have another main reason why publishers require
|
|
copyright assignment from their authors, and in this case it
|
|
applies just as much to electronic publishing as to more
|
|
traditional media. As long as our legal systems require
|
|
traditional judges, courtrooms and lawyers, all publishing which
|
|
involves protection of copyrights will have essentially the same
|
|
basic legal problems, whatever the publication medium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Defending Priority and Providing Compensation, Independently
|
|
of Ownership Issues.
|
|
|
|
The upshot of the previous discussion is that intellectual
|
|
priority and legal ownership rights must be distinguished, and
|
|
that even in the present commercial system, issues of financial
|
|
compensation for authors are largely independent of property
|
|
rights issues. Here are some further points suggesting more
|
|
positively that, as long as authors get credit for their work,
|
|
and some reasonable compensation for it (even if indirectly),
|
|
issues about legal ownership can safely be put aside as merely
|
|
secondary or peripheral issues. [line 261]
|
|
|
|
To begin with, a useful concept for the purposes of the present
|
|
discussion is that of deferred or indirect compensation.
|
|
Compensation is deferred if it is not a direct or immediate
|
|
benefit of an activity, but instead occurs only as an indirect or
|
|
later consequence of the activity. However, in terms of an
|
|
author's long-term 'bottom line', deferred compensation can
|
|
provide just as much money in the bank as could direct
|
|
compensation.
|
|
|
|
In view of this possibility, even if there is no direct or
|
|
immediate financial compensation for authoring and distributing a
|
|
manuscript in a medium, we cannot assume that therefore in the
|
|
long run such dissemination is bound to be unsuccessful. Even if
|
|
it is true that authors will not write or publish without
|
|
compensation, as long as some form of compensation (even if
|
|
highly indirect) is available, authors will continue to be
|
|
motivated to write.
|
|
|
|
For example, academic authors producing scholarly papers are
|
|
already very much aware that most academic journals pay no fees
|
|
to authors. Neverthess, because there is an indirect but very
|
|
powerful link between publishing credits and future or continuing
|
|
academic pay raises, promotion, and employment, such publishing
|
|
does virtually guarantee substantial deferred compensation to an
|
|
author.
|
|
|
|
Such kinds of case are already more common than is generally
|
|
realized. An otherwise very different example is provided by
|
|
various collaborative commercial authorship cases. For example,
|
|
a copywriter for an advertising agency is admittedly paid for
|
|
what she does, but if she has some strikingly original idea she
|
|
is unlikely to see any immediate increase in her compensation
|
|
because of it. However, in the future she is likely to get to
|
|
work on more prestigious accounts, get increased pay raises and
|
|
promotions, etc., because her employers give her credit for the
|
|
originality of her earlier ideas. Here too it would be a mistake
|
|
to concentrate exclusively on immediate compensation for
|
|
authorship. For in commercial as well as academic settings,
|
|
building a 'track record' of original achievements, which give
|
|
good prospects for future or indirect compensation, is extremely
|
|
important to authors. [line 303]
|
|
|
|
Next we should ask, where does credit for intellectual priority
|
|
or originality come into the picture? In my view, the
|
|
recognition and acknowledgement of intellectual or conceptual
|
|
priority is not merely a minor matter of etiquette or politeness
|
|
>from one author to another. Instead, it should be seen in the
|
|
broader context of an author's reputation, success and long-term
|
|
financial compensation. Whether in academic or other contexts, a
|
|
writer's influence and earning power depends on recognition by
|
|
his peers of his original contributions. The acknowledgement or
|
|
crediting of an author with an idea is an essential part of
|
|
building that social recognition, and hence it is much more
|
|
important to success as an author than copyright or other
|
|
ownership rights could ever be.
|
|
|
|
In conclusion then, provided we give adequate credit and
|
|
acknowledgement to authors for their original contributions,
|
|
generally they will in one way or another receive adequate
|
|
compensation for their efforts. And since these points apply
|
|
just as much to electronic media as to more traditional kinds,
|
|
we can justifiably be optimistic about their long-term viability
|
|
as vehicles for the encouragement and dissemination of knowledge.
|
|
|
|
John B. Dilworth
|
|
Department of Philosophy
|
|
Western Michigan University, U.S.A.
|
|
Dilworth@gw.wmich.edu
|
|
|
|
[ This essay in Volume 1 Number 3-2 of _EJournal_ (September, 1992) is
|
|
(c) copyright _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give it away.
|
|
_EJournal_ hereby assigns any and all financial interest to John B. Dilworth.
|
|
This note must accompany all copies of this text. ]
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
------------------------- I N F O R M A T I O N ------------------------------
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About Subscribing and Sending for Back Issues: [line 340]
|
|
|
|
In order to: Send to: This message:
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to _EJournal_: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET SUB EJRNL Your Name
|
|
|
|
Get Contents/Abstracts
|
|
of previous issues: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET GET EJRNL CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
Get Volume 1 Number 1: LISTSERV@ALBANY.BITNET GET EJRNL V1N1
|
|
|
|
Send mail to our "office": EJOURNAL@ALBANY.BITNET Your message...
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About "Supplements":
|
|
|
|
_EJournal_ is experimenting with ways of revising, responding to, reworking, or
|
|
even retracting the texts we publish. Authors who want to address a subject
|
|
already broached --by others or by themselves-- may send texts for us to
|
|
consider publishing as a Supplement issue. Proposed supplements will not go
|
|
through as thorough an editorial review process as the essays they annotate.
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About Letters:
|
|
|
|
_EJournal_ is willing publish letters to the editor. But we make no
|
|
predictions about how many, which ones, or what format. The "Letters" column
|
|
of a periodical is a habit of the paper environment, and _EJournal_ readers
|
|
can send outraged objections to our essays directly to the authors. Also, we
|
|
can publish substantial counterstatements as articles in their own right, or as
|
|
"Supplements." Even so, when we get brief, thoughtful statements that appear
|
|
to be of interest to many subscribers they will appear as "Letters." Please
|
|
send them to EJOURNAL@ALBANY.bitnet .
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About Reviews:
|
|
[line 653]
|
|
_EJournal_ is willing to publish reviews of almost anything that seems to fit
|
|
under our broad umbrella: the implications of electronic networks and texts.
|
|
We do not, however, solicit and thus cannot provide review copies of fiction,
|
|
prophecy, critiques, other texts, programs, hardware, lists or bulletin boards.
|
|
But if you would like to bring any publicly available information to our
|
|
readers' attention, send your review (any length) to us, or ask if writing one
|
|
sounds to us like a good idea.
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
About _EJournal_:
|
|
|
|
_EJournal_ is an all-electronic, Matrix distributed, peer-reviewed, academic
|
|
periodical. We are particularly interested in theory and practice surrounding
|
|
the creation, transmission, storage, interpretation, alteration and replication
|
|
of electronic text. We are also interested in the broader social,
|
|
psychological, literary, economic and pedagogical implications of computer-
|
|
mediated networks. The journal's essays are delivered free to Bitnet/Internet/
|
|
Usenet addressees. Recipients may make paper copies; _EJournal_ will provide
|
|
authenticated paper copy from our read-only archive for use by academic deans
|
|
or others. Individual essays, reviews, stories-- texts --sent to us will be
|
|
disseminated to subscribers as soon as they have been through the editorial
|
|
process, which will also be "paperless." We expect to offer access through
|
|
libraries to our electronic Contents and Abstracts, and to be indexed and
|
|
abstracted in appropriate places.
|
|
|
|
Writers who think their texts might be appreciated by _EJournal_'s audience are
|
|
invited to forward files to EJOURNAL@ALBANY.BITNET . If you are wondering
|
|
about starting to write a piece for to us, feel free to ask if it sounds
|
|
appropriate. There are no "styling" guidelines; we try to be a little more
|
|
direct and lively than many paper publications, and considerably less hasty and
|
|
ephemeral than most postings to unreviewed electronic spaces. We read ASCII;
|
|
we look forward to experimenting with other transmission and display formats
|
|
and protocols.
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Board of Advisors:
|
|
Stevan Harnad Princeton University
|
|
Dick Lanham University of California at L.A.
|
|
Ann Okerson Association of Research Libraries
|
|
Joe Raben City University of New York
|
|
Bob Scholes Brown University
|
|
Harry Whitaker University of Quebec at Montreal
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Consulting Editors - September 1992
|
|
|
|
ahrens@hartford John Ahrens Hartford
|
|
ap01@liverpool.ac.uk Stephen Clark Liverpool
|
|
userlcbk@umichum Bill Condon Michigan
|
|
crone@cua Tom Crone Catholic University
|
|
dabrent@acs.ucalgary.ca Doug Brent University of Calgary
|
|
djb85@albnyvms Don Byrd University at Albany
|
|
donaldson@loyvax Randall Donaldson Loyola College
|
|
ds001451@ndsuvm1 Ray Wheeler North Dakota
|
|
erdt@pucal Terry Erdt Purdue Calumet
|
|
fac_aska@jmuvax1 Arnie Kahn James Madison University
|
|
folger@yktvmv Davis Foulger IBM - Watson Center
|
|
george@gacvax1 G.N. Georgacarakos Gustavus Adolphus
|
|
gms@psuvm Gerry Santoro Pennsylvania State University
|
|
nrcgsh@ritvax Norm Coombs Rochester Institute of Technology
|
|
pmsgsl@ritvax Patrick M. Scanlon Rochester Institute of Technology
|
|
r0731@csuohio Nelson Pole Cleveland State University
|
|
richardj@surf.sics.bu.oz Joanna Richardson Bond University, Australia
|
|
ryle@urvax Martin Ryle University of Richmond
|
|
twbatson@gallua Trent Batson Gallaudet
|
|
wcooper@vm.ucs.ualberta.ca Wes Cooper Alberta
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
University at Albany Computing Services Center:
|
|
Isabel Nirenberg, Bob Pfeiffer; Ben Chi, Director
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Editor: Ted Jennings, English, University at Albany
|
|
Managing Editor: Ron Bangel, University at Albany
|
|
Assistant Managing Editor: Dan Smith, University at Albany
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
University at Albany State University of New York Albany, NY 12222 USA
|
|
|
|
|