tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post4247951099594929679..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53572614693621377792007-09-01T14:04:00.000-04:002007-09-01T14:04:00.000-04:00I agree, Marion. End runs are usually very effecti...I agree, Marion. <BR/><BR/>End runs are usually very effective. <BR/><BR/>it's hard to see exactly how the whole thing will play out, but i would bet that things will become less centralized, not more so.<BR/><BR/>on the issue of information storage and retrieval, de-centralization is almost always better than centralization (a point james Annan made on the previous thread).<BR/><BR/>The primary problem with a centralized library (or database) is that no matter how careful you are, it is always subject to <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria" REL="nofollow">fire</A> (or in the case of the database, erasure) and if you only have one copy in one place in one format, once it goes, it is gone for good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56478048692754432672007-08-31T11:20:00.000-04:002007-08-31T11:20:00.000-04:00Okay, look. A lot of that is not good argument for...Okay, look. A lot of that is not good argument for good things. It's cultlike, fascist capitalist bullshit.<BR/><BR/>Really. This is no better than creationism and a great deal less rational and scientific than half the climate denialist arguments. Or the 9/11 truth theories.<BR/><BR/>Funding research via foundations and taxes - funding tuition - are all hallmarks of an advanced civilization. And for God's sake, that includes funding peer-reviewed journals, which, if you've followed sociology of science or history of science discussions over the years, is usually described as the center, the key to scientific progress.<BR/><BR/>Yes, of course, the same people - and yes, they are libertarians - who want to defund tuition everywhere and defund research that's not defense related - also want to keep academic journals on a for-profit basis and make the margins they made when they were paying for dead trees and ink. I am in a business that still USES those, so I am not talking through my hat here.<BR/><BR/>This is reminiscent of the onset of CDs - there they are again, Eli! The recording industry - that part that had a physical plant, physical capital - had a cut they took out of each vinyl album - since it was a cost, it went to neither the artists nor the labels, or not most of it - but rather to the cost of processing petroleum and/or cellulose sources into vinyl, and pressing, etc. When they got CDs, which cost far less to manufacture, they - I would say criminally dishonestly - simply kept charging the "vinyl" fee. Since they were spending fractions of pennies where they had been spending quarters, the incentive to get everyone to buy CDs instead of vinyl became enormous, and it was certainly one reason they were so heavily promoted - easier to make, easier to store.<BR/><BR/>What I mean is, we've been here before. IF the people pushing against open access can insist you think only in their terms, within their bounds, and agree with every single one of their preconceived notions, then yeah, they'll "get the better of" the abject worthless non-argument that results.<BR/><BR/>Worshipful Professor Rabbett, if one can suggest it, you might consider refreshing your history on Richard Stallman, starting with being unable to use his university printer for Stalinist-capitalist reasons - a very Kafkaesque situation - up to when he leveraged the existing intellectual property laws and put them to actual positive academic and social uses.<BR/><BR/>What's missing on the "other side" of this debate seems to ME to be any good will whatsoever. It's taken as a God given fact that anything that exists exists only so some capitalist can charge someone else money for it. Where sane people need to direct their energy is in a Fabian battle where you leverage away the weakest cases, and where enough of the research users don't mind not being part of open access, you leave it alone.<BR/><BR/>Instead of a fur fight, I think the usual end run and leave them on the ash heap of history approach is called for. The history of open source, the GPL, the news blogosphere, wikipedia, etc. suggests that just perhaps having a CEO who mostly publishes soap opera digests be the final arbeiter on how an academic journal should run is, at least, not an unalterable natural law.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66185030982616785322007-08-31T10:36:00.000-04:002007-08-31T10:36:00.000-04:00The patent system is a perfect example of privatel...The patent system is a perfect example of privately owned ideas being published for all to see.<BR/><BR/>in fact, one of the primary (stated) purposes of the patent system (at least in the US) is to stir innovation by making the description of the device/method clear enough that anyone can produce it -- and possibly make it better. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, in the case of patents, it's not just publicly funded patents that are treated that way. it is all patents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41695061502847828272007-08-31T09:18:00.000-04:002007-08-31T09:18:00.000-04:00"I would argue that however publicly funded resear..."I would argue that however publicly funded research may be, there is a substantial individual contribution that renders the scholarly work individual, not public, property."<BR/><BR/>And I would argue that that is a separate issue from "open access".<BR/><BR/>Individuals and universities already make money from the fruits of their labors -- and that is not the point anyway. In a very real sense, they have already been reimbursed for the cost of making their results accessible -- when they took the public research dollars. <BR/><BR/>They should not be in the business of charging additional money to cover the minor cost of making the results accessible. That's double charging the public as far as i am concerned. <BR/><BR/>besides, if a University is concerned mainly with making money off research, the solution is simple. They can simply refuse public funding. That way, there will be no issue about who owns what.<BR/><BR/>of course, few (if any) universities would ever do this because without such public funding, most would cease to exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com