Of interest to those researching Open Access:
One of our Harvard Law colleagues, Professor Steven Shavell, has shared a draft of a new paper that "explains why abolishing copyright for academic publications is a good idea — and why the open access movement that seeks a similar goal is unlikely to succeed.”
Professor Shavell's draft paper can be downloaded here (comments are welcome): "Should Copyright Of Academic Works Be Abolished?"
Here is the full abstract:
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.
Last updated July 20, 2009