While I have concerns about the validity of the distinction
between "commercial" and non-commercial" uses
embedded in such
licenses as those provided by Creative Commons, Joe, I don't
think anyone in academe means to forestall or hamper in any
way
licensing of academic content for "commercial"
purposes, which
would indeed be to stand in the way of innovation and
progress
for society as a whole.
Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press
>I disagree with both Stevan Harnad and Sandy here. The
real point
>is that the academy lives inside the economy, not
outside it.
>
>Rather than call this thread "Certification and
Dissemination," I
>would call it "Yesterday's Solutions, Tomorrow's
Problems."
>
>The problem with the vision of the future of scholarly
>communications promulgated here is that it is modeled on
two few
>variables. What does the individual researcher
(presumably in any
>field, though most of the examples apply primarily if
not
>exclusively to the experimental sciences) need to get
his or her
>work done? Well, obviously, access to the outputs of
other
>researchers. Hence the need for open access. Case
closed.
>
>Similarly, one could argue (as a college instructor of
mine did many
>years ago) that the spur gave rise to the political
developments of
>the Middle Ages, that introducing a free market economy
would put an
>end to despotism and terrorism in Iraq, and that in
baseball,
>pitching wins the game. Whatever the virtues of
technology, the
>principles of Milton Friedman, or a fastball, there is
simply more
>going on than is dreamt of in Harnad's ideology.
>
>A case in point is the policy decision by many
institutions to
>create repositories (great idea), and then to insist
that the
>content, which is open, cannot be used for commercial
purposes. Now,
>what in heaven's name is the point of that? Why would
anyone want
>to stand in the way of investment and the innovations
that
>investment triggers? Better, in my view, for
institutions to
>license the use of their content for commercial
applications,
>bringing in revenue that could (for example) be used to
sponsor
>other research programs or for financial aid. To
advocate an end to
>restricted content is one thing, but to declare war on
the economy?
>
>The open access movement would benefit considerably if
it saw itself
>not as an end in itself but as one facet of a broader
academic
>enterprise. There are competing visions for OA, but one
of them,
>what I would term "conventional OA," will
increase costs, reduce
>investment, and stifle innovation in communications.
>
>Joe Esposito
|
