I agree with pretty much everything Ranulph and Dave Crossland have said. One note on Ranulph's comment:

> Who, I ask, demands the copyright of what we publish,
> including all future forms it might take? The publishers.
> By doing this, they are essentially undermining the
> attempt to make what we have found widely and freely
> available.

In my limited experience, book publishers' contracts are often not as overreaching as academic journals' are. I have published much more in commercial/trade magazines than in academic journals but academic journals have sent me absurd copyright transfer forms that give them everything. The commercial press has always asked for something limited like first North American rights, the right to use my name in promotion, and (more recently) the right to use the article on their website. 

Even though many people have told me that no academic journal will ever publish without my signing over all of my rights, I've always refused to do so and simply thrown away the forms. Strangely, most haven't followed up at all. MIT Press called and told me that they were just saving me the trouble of handling copyright clearance for myself and I said that I didn't mind doing it. The others didn't even ask for the minimal stuff to protect themselves--like my permission to publish.

Some publishers may be more insistent than the ones I've dealt with but my suggestion to academics is to remember that the publishers need them as much as they need the publishers--No. Make that: The publishers need us and ultimately we do not need the publishers--and that most legal forms are written by lawyers who don't know the issues and spread by bureaucrats who don't even know what the forms say. Adults need to learn to choose what contracts they are willing to enter into. It's part of being an adult in developed society. Academics need to stop being so damned scared of everything and everyone and start doing their jobs--the creation and sharing of knowledge--which means taking responsibility for the agreements they choose to make.

Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858

[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006

at East Carolina University:
+1 252 328 2839 
[log in to unmask]

________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ranulph Glanville [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 10:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: copyrights and the net

I thought that academics published in order that others should know
what we have found (and test it). The whole idea is to make work
freely available. Most of u who are academics are anyhow paid for our
research and writing as part of our jobs. So we shouldn't be trying to
get paid a second time (not that many of us succeed, anyhow!).

Of course, copyright gets in the way of free availability. But, in my
view, it's not really copyright (which I consider an absurdity today:
we need a different mechanism, which we won't get while we keep trying
to serve copyright) that is to blame. Who, I ask, demands the
copyright of what we publish, including all future forms it might
take? The publishers. By doing this, they are essentially undermining
the attempt to make what we have found widely and freely available.

Of course, this doesn't help the discussion of copyright etc. But I
hope it provides at least a viable perspective for why we should
resist copyright (and publishers).

We could, also, resist the absurd requirement to publish. I don't
believe I'm the only person who reads this list who believes they
publish too much, though I may be one of the few who will admit this.

I suggest we stop talking about copyright, and get on with promoting
publication that, while respecting (and, I hope, improving) standards,
moves towards better and cheaper access, even if this does destroy the
publishers.

Ranulph