Open Access News

News from the open access movement

Jump to navigation

Friday, July 01, 2005

Playing catch-up: June 28 blog postings

Here are the major blog postings I made by email to SOAF while OAN was down last week. June 28, 2005:

Geist on Canadian copyright reform and access to knowledge. Michael Geist, Technology, culture, education, P2P Net, June 27, 2005. Excerpt: 'Last week the [Canadian] federal government unveiled Bill C-60, its long awaited digital copyright reform bill....While some of those provisions strike an admirable balance (most notably the approach to ISP liability which should serve as a model for other countries), the biggest disappointment is found in the tepid provisions on digitizing access to knowledge in Canadian schools and libraries. The bill contains provisions that are ostensibly designed to facilitate technology-based education and the digital delivery of library materials. Unfortunately, they fall far short of their goal by hobbling any new rights with suffocating restrictions that render the provisions practically useless. For example, Bill C-60 purports to promote Internet-based learning by permitting schools to communicate lessons featuring copyrighted materials via telecommunication. The bill quickly restricts that new right, however, by forcing schools to destroy the lesson within 30 days of the conclusion of the course. Moreover, schools are required to retain, for three years, records that identify the lesson as well as the dates it was placed on a tangible medium and ultimately destroyed. The library provisions are even more onerous, turning librarians in digital locksmiths, who are ironically compelled to restrict access to knowledge in order to provide it. The bill allows libraries and archives to provide digital copies of materials, however, in order to do so they must limit further communication or copying of the digital files and ensure that the files cannot be used for more than seven days. We can do better....In the short term, the provisions in Bill C-60 that seek to facilitate knowledge distribution through digital networks should be amended by removing the restrictions that have been placed on educational institutions and libraries. Such an approach would better ensure that all Canadians benefit from greater access to educational materials and life learning opportunities....As I suggested earlier this year, Canada could set an even more ambitious yet attainable goal � the digitization of every Canadian book, government document, and court case ever published. The public would benefit from unrestricted access to works in the public domain along with more limited access to other work, all without the need to seek any prior permission. Authors would still enjoy copyright protection in their work and would frequently find that greater access leads to increased commercial success.'
More on Open CRS. Brian Faler, Hard-to-Get Policy Briefings For Congress Are Now Online, Washington Post, June 28, 2005. Excerpt: 'A Washington research group has created a Web site where the public can read, submit and download the difficult-to-find public policy briefs members of Congress use to get up to speed on issues. The Center for Democracy and Technology has created an online database of Congressional Research Service reports that anyone with an Internet connection can now tap free of charge. The often-coveted but elusive reports are produced by CRS, a public policy research arm of Congress. CRS, which boasts hundreds of analysts and a $100 million budget, churns out hundreds of briefs each year on a wide range of topics....The reports have long been praised as nonpartisan, concise and readable. But they are reserved for members of Congress, committees and their staffs. A member of the public can get one generally only if a lawmaker chooses to release it. There is also at least one company, Penny Hill Press of Damascus, Md., that gathers up reports and then sells them for as much as $20 apiece. LexisNexis announced last week that it will also begin offering the reports through its online service. The CDT, a technology policy organization, complained that the reports are paid for with taxpayer money and ought to be readily available for free to anyone who wants one. "Taxpayers pay $100 million a year for this resource, yet they don't have ready access to it," said CDT spokesman David McGuire. "We don't think they should have to pay twice to get their hands on it." McGuire predicted the Web site, http://www.opencrs.com , will find an audience among academics, reporters, bloggers, librarians, college students and anyone else looking to bone up on an issue. A spokeswoman for the Library of Congress -- the CRS's parent agency -- said it did not have an opinion of the site. "We suggest that people get them through their congressional offices -- that's the way it's supposed to be done," Jill Brett said. "If [the CDT] can get the reports and put them up, we can't stop them." '
Comment. I'm embarrassed by the peevish comment from the Library of Congress, my national library. Open CRS is undeniably lawful and undeniably helpful. The LOC position seems to be that third parties should not take advantage of lawful opportunities to remove access barriers, and users should not take advantage of barrier-free paths that third parties might create. Does that sound like a *librarian* talking?
The origin of the Google Library project. Gregory M. Lamb, Google's Multiple Personalities, Christian Science Monitor, June 27, 2005. A general profile of Google with this nice historical nugget on the origin of the Google Library project: 'Impossible dream: Take all the books ever written, digitize them, and make them available to the world. "We had all these cockamamie schemes for how we could get content," recalls Marissa Mayer, director of consumer Web products at Google. "We thought, well, could we just buy books? But then you don't get the old content. We thought maybe we should just buy one of every book, like from Amazon, and scan them all." How long would it take to scan all the world's books? No one knew, so Ms. Mayer and Google cofounder Larry Page decided to experiment with a book, photographing each page so that it could be digitally scanned. "We had a metronome to keep us on rhythm for turning the pages. Larry's job was to click the shutter, and my job was to turn the pages," Mayer says. "It took us about 45 minutes to do a 300-page book." With that ad hoc experiment, Google began its now controversial Digital Library project last December, signing agreements with the New York Public Library and the libraries of Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, and the University of Michigan to put their holdings online. Current projection: "Maybe inside of the next 10 years we'll have all the knowledge that's ever been published in book form available and searchable online," she says. "It's really a grand vision." ' (Thanks to LIS News.)
Sydney presentations on OA. The presentations from the conference, Information Online 2005 (Sydney, February 1-3, 2005) are now online. Many are on OA repositories. (Thanks to Eprintblog.)
Draft RCUK policy now online for public comment. The long-awaited Research Councils UK (RCUK) draft policy on open access is now posted at the RCUK web site for public comment. The comment period will end on August 31, 2005. From this morning's press release: ' The eight UK Research Councils, under the umbrella of Research Councils UK (RCUK), have proposed to make it mandatory for research papers arising from Council-funded work to be deposited in openly available repositories at the earliest opportunity....RCUK spokesman, Professor Ian Diamond said that Councils have already widely consulted the research community: "We've held workshops, given evidence at Select Committees, met with the publishers through a DTI working group and written out to all UK Vice Chancellors to share our views as they emerge on this issue and hear what others are saying," he said. "The technology that has led to this debate is still evolving and so is our position. We see today's statement as a starting point and we're actively seeking the views of all parties involved in the debate, such as the Learned Societies," he added. RCUK's position would apply to new grants awarded after 1 October this year...."The Research Councils are responsible for supporting and promoting the activities of a research base that is vibrant, productive and sustainable. We�re therefore committed to ensuring the widest possible dissemination of ideas and knowledge, effective quality assurance of research and its results, cost effective use of public funds and the long-term preservation of research outputs. Our emerging position on the access issue should come as no surprise to those who understand our remit," said Professor Diamond. RCUK proposes: [1] A requirement for all grants awarded from 1 October 2005 that, subject to copyright and licensing arrangements, a copy of any resultant published journal articles or conference proceedings should be deposited in an appropriate e-print repository (either institutional or subject-based) wherever such a repository is available to the award-holder. Deposit should take place at the earliest opportunity, wherever possible at or around the time of publication. [2] Research Councils will also encourage, but not formally oblige, award-holders to deposit articles arising from grants awarded before 1 October 2005. [3] Councils will ensure that applicants for grants are allowed, subject to justification of cost-effectiveness, to include in the costing of their projects the predicted costs of any publication in author-pays journals.'
RCUK page on the OA policy (collecting related links)
The RCUK Consultation, covering note
RCUK Position Statement on Access to Research Outputs (PDF, 119 KB)
Summary of RCUK Position Statement on Access to Research Outputs (PDF, 39 KB)
Consultation to date

Posted by Peter Suber at 7/01/2005 12:54:00 PM.