3 ms·

Since copyright only protects expression (at least in countries which haven't introduced protections for databases), couldn't important papers be liberated thro

by leoc 16y ago

Since copyright only protects expression (at least in countries which haven't introduced protections for databases), couldn't important papers be liberated through a cleanroom process? Say that person A reads the original paper and produces a paraphrase that's intended to be fully accurate and as clear as possible but contains whatever circumlocutions are necessary to avoid reusing the choice of expression in the original paper. This paraphrase is then handed to person B "in the cleanroom" who hasn't seen the original paper. B produces a concise and well-written paper from A's notes. A then reviews B's work, informing him of any misunderstandings that have crept in, still without using the wording in the original paper: this is repeated until A and B are satisfied. All communications between A and B are monitored and retained to prove that the cleanroom was not contaminated. It would be a fairly slow process, so surely only a small proportion of papers could be put through it. But if the work were focussed on the most important/high-impact papers which are under restrictive copyrights, might it not have a meaningful effect?

stevetjoa 16y ago
In theory, perhaps. In practice, this sort of already exists. And the process can take years. For example, some IEEE journals take six months per review round! (I know; I've just been through one!) Why does it take so long? I have no idea; reviewers just wait until the last minute, anyway. Another problem is the definition of an "important" paper. That, itself, sparks debate. One more problem is corruption. When reviews are not blind, bias can sneak into the review process. It happens. And it can distort all notions of what "important" papers are.
- leoc 16y ago
  That cleanroom process has things in common with journal peer review, but it's a different process with a very different objective. As to speed specifically, I was envisaging a relatively small group of readers who are competent to understand the papers they're targeting and who are highly motivated to upset the journals, while journal peer review relies on a (hopefully!) wider and more diffuse group of people each of whom is a highly-cited leader in the area for which he or she is asked to review, and for whom a review request is a tiresome social obligation. So the cleanroom process would obviously be relatively labour-intensive (and thus slow) but it shouldn't involve the epic delays involved in begging reviews from scientific (or engineering) eminences. As to which papers are important, for an effort like this to accomplish its objectives - bring some direct relief to the public, and bring some hurt to journal publishers - it's necessary to have a generally good sense of which papers are important or highly in demand, but not a perfect one. In particular, the objective in this case isn't to second-guess which papers ought to get published by journals or become popular with readers, but to give readers some papers they most want and take control of those papers from the journals.
wging 16y ago
I appreciate the sentiment that underlies your post, but in practice, I think piracy would be much easier.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>"Since copyright only protects expression [...]" Copyright law protects interests from the effects of copying. Derivative works are not the original expression but nonetheless are restricted by copyright laws and treaties. In your example A is committing copyright infringement. They're creating a derivative work by copying the original (albeit not slavishly copying). Person B is arguably committing contributory infringement (commercially enabling A) and is certainly copying a work created tortuously; consider it like handling stolen goods. It's a nice idea but I don't think that copyright law is naive enough to allow this sort of workaround in practice. If it were then foreign language copies wouldn't be infringing and I'm pretty sure that they are. IANACL
- leoc 16y ago
  Yes, I think you're probably right there. (IANALAA)

by leoc 16y ago

stevetjoa 16y ago

In theory, perhaps. In practice, this sort of already exists. And the process can take years. For example, some IEEE journals take six months per review round! (I know; I've just been through one!) Why does it take so long? I have no idea; reviewers just wait until the last minute, anyway. Another problem is the definition of an "important" paper. That, itself, sparks debate. One more problem is corruption. When reviews are not blind, bias can sneak into the review process. It happens. And it can distort all notions of what "important" papers are.

leoc 16y ago
That cleanroom process has things in common with journal peer review, but it's a different process with a very different objective. As to speed specifically, I was envisaging a relatively small group of readers who are competent to understand the papers they're targeting and who are highly motivated to upset the journals, while journal peer review relies on a (hopefully!) wider and more diffuse group of people each of whom is a highly-cited leader in the area for which he or she is asked to review, and for whom a review request is a tiresome social obligation. So the cleanroom process would obviously be relatively labour-intensive (and thus slow) but it shouldn't involve the epic delays involved in begging reviews from scientific (or engineering) eminences. As to which papers are important, for an effort like this to accomplish its objectives - bring some direct relief to the public, and bring some hurt to journal publishers - it's necessary to have a generally good sense of which papers are important or highly in demand, but not a perfect one. In particular, the objective in this case isn't to second-guess which papers ought to get published by journals or become popular with readers, but to give readers some papers they most want and take control of those papers from the journals.

wging 16y ago

I appreciate the sentiment that underlies your post, but in practice, I think piracy would be much easier.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>"Since copyright only protects expression [...]" Copyright law protects interests from the effects of copying. Derivative works are not the original expression but nonetheless are restricted by copyright laws and treaties. In your example A is committing copyright infringement. They're creating a derivative work by copying the original (albeit not slavishly copying). Person B is arguably committing contributory infringement (commercially enabling A) and is certainly copying a work created tortuously; consider it like handling stolen goods. It's a nice idea but I don't think that copyright law is naive enough to allow this sort of workaround in practice. If it were then foreign language copies wouldn't be infringing and I'm pretty sure that they are. IANACL

leoc 16y ago
Yes, I think you're probably right there. (IANALAA)