The IPKat thanks Professor Hector McQueen for tipping him off about the British Academy’s recent report, which argues that copyright is impeding scholarship in social sciences and the humanities. The report argues that the existing copyright exceptions are not clear enough. It also lays blame at the feet of publishers, commercial rights holders and EU database protection.
Suggested strategies are:
*authors and producers of original creative material should understand that their interests in copyright are not necessarily identical with those of publishers and should not rely on publishers to protect them
*the law should be clarified - statutorily if necessary – to make clear that the use of copyright material in the normal course of scholarly research in universities and other public research institutions is covered by the exemptions from the copyright act.
*publishers should not be able to use legal or technological protection through digital rights management systems to circumvent copyright exemptions
*the growth of digital databases should be monitored to ensure that ready access continues to be available for the purposes of scholarship
The report was started before the Gowers Review was a twinkle in Gordon Brown’s eye, though the Academy did appear before Mr Gowers.
The IPKat notes that the recommendations seem to be expressed in terms of general statements of intent, rather than specific suggestions.
BRITISH ACADEMY REPORT ON COPYRIGHT
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html