This has got to be among the most specious arguments against less-restrictive open access that I've ever heard. If I take free tires from a landfill and turn them into sandals and sell them, is that a bad thing? Doesn't prevent anyone else from taking the tires and making their own sandals. If I take photographs of a national park and sell them, is that a bad thing? Doesn't prevent anyone else from taking their own snapshots.
Pat On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Michael Eisen <[email protected]> wrote: > This is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever heard. I requires > mental gymnastics of an absurd kind to equate a system in which people use > copyright to heavily restrict content to a system in which works are freely > available in perpetuity. If people can build services built on top of the > literature and people want to pay for them, even when the underlying > content is freely available, that is the definition of added value, and is > in no way comparable to a system in which the underlying content is private > property. > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Heather Morrison <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A problem with CC-BY: permitting downstream use with no strings attached >> is the toll access model >> >> The Creative Commons - Attribution (CC-BY) only license grants blanket >> permission rights for commercial use to any third party downstream. >> Proponents of CC-BY argue that this will open up the possibility for new >> commercial services to serve scholarship. This may or may not be; this is a >> speculative argument at this point. However, if this happens, this opens up >> the possibility that these new services will be made available on a toll >> access basis, because none of the CC-BY licenses is specific to works that >> are free of charge. >> >> This is very similar to the current model for dissemination of >> scholarship. Scholarly research is largely funded by the public, whether >> through research grants or university salaries. Scholars must make their >> work public (publish) in order to continue to receive grants, retain their >> jobs and advance in their careers. They give away their work to publishers >> with no strings attached, often signing away all copyright. A few >> publishers have taken advantage of this system to lock up scholarship for >> their private profit. >> >> One potential outcome of a CC-BY default for scholarship is a next >> generation of Elsevier-like toll access services. Many scholars and the >> public whose work was given away through CC-BY could be unable to afford >> the latest and best services made possible by their contributions. This is >> just one of the reasons to give serious thought to this matter before >> recommending a CC-BY default. For more, please see my Creative Commons and >> open access critique series. >> >> Thanks to Heather Piwowar for posting an opposing view on google g+ that >> helped me to work through this argument. >> >> from: >> >> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/03/a-problem-with-cc-by-permitting.html >> >> best, >> >> Heather Morrison, PhD >> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics >> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> > > > > -- > Michael Eisen, Ph.D. > Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute > Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology > University of California, Berkeley > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Support open access to the scientific literature www.publiclibraryofscience.org
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
