<html>
<body>
That's exactly correct. <br><br>
Koven's comments do not fit the realities of (academic) research. He
accuses Francis of believing that "nobody should be allowed to make
a living from his/her work." This is disingenuous. Those of us at
academic institutions are not (directly) compensated for the transfer of
copyright. It is the publisher who makes the profit (really a rent for a
legally-induced and otherwise wholly artificial scarcity), not the
author. Moreover, the profit is mostly generated from the budgets of
research libraries, which do not make money from direct exploitation of
the work on their shelves. <br><br>
In some cases, the selling-back is even more direct: library budgets are
limited (though this journal is bundled with EBSCO Business Source
Premier) so some scholars have to fund necessary subscriptions through
personal or grant monies. Some journals (though not this one) charge
hefty submission fees. <br><br>
But the argument that scientific output should be free to readers does
not mean that no payment is needed or collectable.
<ul>
<li>Since the immediate benefits of publishing a particular article in a
peer-reviewed journal accrue to the author(s) (in the form of promotion,
increased odds of proposal funding and other reputation rents) and the
host institution (in countries where research output is evaluated and
used to allocate institutional funding), it is reasonable that they
should pay. The readers benefit collectively, eventually and as a 'public
good.'
<li>Even if readers are made to pay, efficiency suggests that they should
pay in proportion to their marginal benefit. This cannot easily be
determined and appropriate payment cannot be enforced. It is certainly
hard to see why journal publishers (many commercial entities) should be
funded through research libraries - at best this is a relic of the age of
paper journals that were difficult to produce, distribute, archive and
copy.
<li>Even if journals charge for subscriptions, there is a strong case for
open archiving of the material once published. The arguments for open
archiving - as distinct from open access - are well-known (including but
not limited to the obvious point that as taxpayers we have already paid
for the research once); it is worth observing that even some commercial
publishers accept and even welcome 'eprint archiving'
<li>The point is that (even University-hosted) journals will survive on
the basis of the 'quality imprimatur' and added-value they provide. Those
that don't provide these things will die - and rightly so!
</ul>Competition should be used to promote efficient and equitable
activity, not the opposite.<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
J.<br><br>
At 18:18 06/04/2005, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hmmm.<br><br>
But the issue of course, is that its not "their" i.e. MIT's
material... Rather it is material which scholars have given (via
copyright) to MIT and which MIT is then in the business of selling back
to them (via their institution's library budgets). And in addition
the materials themselves have been in many cases generated through the
use of public funds (e.g. university salaries or publicly funded research
grants). <br><br>
So publicly supported institutions are thus expected to pay for publicly
funded materials freely given to a private institution. (Anybody else see
something slightly askew with that picture?)<br><br>
I personally, have decided to follow Lawrence Lessig's lead and only
publish my academic writing in Open Archive journals which make
their<br>
materials freely available to all via the net.<br><br>
Mike Gurstein<br><br>
Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.<br>
School of Management <br>
New Jersey Institute of Technology<br><br>
Editor-in-Chief Journal of Community Informatics
<a href="http://ci-journal.net/" eudora="autourl">
http://ci-journal.net</a><br>
Honorary Professor: Central Queensland University, Queensland, AU<br>
Senior Scholar: Claremont Information Technology Institute,
Claremont<br>
University, California, USA<br>
Honorary Research Scholar: Centre for Community Networking Research,<br>
Monash University, AU<br>
Chair: Community Informatics Research Network
<a href="http://www.ciresearch.net/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.ciresearch.net</a><br>
<br><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org
[<a href="mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org</a>] On<br>
Behalf Of Ronald Koven<br>
Sent: April 6, 2005 6:58 PM<br>
To: INTERNET:plenary@wsis-cs.org<br>
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITID's The World Summit in
Reflection<br><br>
<br>
Dear Francis --<br><br>
MIT is a private entity. <br><br>
It has every right to attempt to generate revenue by selling its
materials.<br><br>
<br>
There is no requirement, legal or moral, that organizations go bankrupt
to meet your view that everything should be free and that nobody
should<br>
be allowed to make a living from his/her work.<br><br>
The ultimate logic of your position is that we'll all be totally<br>
dependent on government handouts.<br><br>
And where will that leave our freedoms ?<br><br>
Best, Rony Koven<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Plenary mailing list<br>
Plenary@wsis-cs.org<br>
<a href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary" eudora="autourl">
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Plenary mailing list<br>
Plenary@wsis-cs.org<br>
<a href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary" eudora="autourl">
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>