Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:03:21 -0500 From: Revised List Processor (1.7e) 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