Re: Certification and Dissemination

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

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