Joy,

Replies below. Where I feel I will be repeating myself I will leave the
section out.

Regards,

John Smith. 

On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Joy Foster wrote:

> < My main problem with it is that it assumes academic writers (who write to 
> dissemination  awareness of their work) are the same as 'Writers' who write 
> primarily to earn their living. >
> 
> We'll make it clear in the re-drafting that we wish to focus on academic 
> writers. ALCS represents academic writers whose reasons for writing range 
> from the sole wish to disseminate scholarly learning, research results etc. 
> to those academics on temporary and short-term contracts who have 
> professional reasons for writing, but who also welcome additional income 
> resulting from their academic writing activities. And there is scope for 
> them to supplement their academic earnings money whilst disseminating 
> learning: Reed-Elsevier posted operating profits in its Science Division 
> (research journals only) of over 40% on a ?553 million turnover.
> 
If the standard academic writers (who currently write just to
disseminate information about their work - for free) attempt to extract
money from the current system the publishers will simply pass on the extra
cost to their customers (mainly libraries). This will cause more
subscriptions to be cancelled, and probably titles to dissappear. Who
gains? Despite the large profits made by some publishers this is not the
Golden Goose you seem to think it is. The answer is to dispense with the
whole centralised system of academic publishers.

> < I'm curious about the meeting that composed this 'Declaration'.
> Who were the attendees?>
> 
> Academics from 'old' and 'new' universities and HE colleges (researchers 
> and lecturers); representatives of the AUT, NATFHE and Society of Authors; 
> representatives of the library community.
> 
Is there a list anywhere - on the Web?

>  < I'm also
> concerned with "control the use of copyright material" - this sounds like
> increased bureaucracy and an attempt to limit the free dissemination of
> knowledge>
> 
> ALCS and the writers it represents do not wish to obstruct the 
> dissemination of knowledge; ALCS is working to make authors aware that 
> there are instances where they can retain the copyright in their own 
> material (rather than assigning it to publishers) whilst still allowing use 
> of their works - via licensing agreements with publishers, for instance, 
> under which they stipulate conditions for use.
> 
Again - if we didn't have 'publishers' to whom we are required to assign
Copyright in order to get our work dissseminated we wouldn't need to have
all this hassle with 'licensing', etc.

> 
> < 3.4 The last sentance of this paragraph looks like more work for the
> lawyers. How much academic writing really has enough sales potential to
> justify all this effort?>
> 
> There's money to be made in academic publishing as mentioned above and ALCS 
> is in a position to help academic writers share with publishers the 
> financial rewards made from their works. Last financial year ALCS 
> distributed approx. ?9m to all types of writers (not just academic) from 
> the supplementary uses of their materials e.g. from the photocopying of 
> their works. ALCS was set up specifically to find and distribute small sums 
> of such monies to individuals in circumstances where it's not possible for 
> them to collect those monies themselves.
> 
The majority of photocopying is the HE sector is done by the students. If
you intend to charge them extra you will be attempting to squeeze money
out of a very well squeezed fruit. I'm happy that someone reads what I
write - I don't want to charge them for the privilege.

> < 3.7 How many academic authors have agents? The last sentance is very
> worrying. It means more work for the lawyers, agents, the ALCS and smacks
> of 'Big Brother'. Any such 'trackable' paper should also carry the heath
> warning 'You are being watched if you read this'.>
> 
> Not many academic authors have agents, but they do have author-run, 
> non-profit, non-union collective rights administration societies like ALCS 
> to help. We're aware of the sensitivities of monitoring and tracking and I 
> can assure you we do acknowledge the ethics involved here.
> 
I don't want you/others to "acknowledge the ethics" - I want to to live by
them.

>  < 4.2 In most cases that market value is zero or less. The majority of
> academic papers are read by so few that they would not be written except
> that the writer needs, for personal, academic and professional reasons, to
> disseminate information about the work done.>
> 
> This is frequently what we're working against: academic authors' 
> assumptions that their material has no value. If academics were to consider 
> additional uses of their materials (photocopying, in CD Roms, online 
> databases etc) I hope they would see the potential for  a market value 
> greater than zero for their works.
> 
It is not that it "has no value" but that it has very little or zero
commercial value. It has value (one hopes) as a contribution to knowledge
and it may enhance the writer's reputation in his/her field. The 'apparent
(or 'virtual') value' is caused by the pressure of academic writers' need
to publish and the need for libraries to make information availble to
their users. If there was another accepted way for these two needs to be
met this bubble would be burst. I will refrain from mentioning the URL of
my article again, except to say it has been accessed over 30 times each
week since last April - how many articles in a paper journal could make
that claim?

> Thanks for the pointer to your paper.
> 
You are welcome. If you find it interesting, thought provoking,
infuriating, please cite it, mention it to friends and colleagues - that
is what academic writing is for. 




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%