Consider the battle between 21st-century mindsets and those of the 19th century. Earlier this month, Google halted its library program after protests from publishers who said it was breaking copyright laws and depriving them of income. Google argues it does not bypass publishers, but helps readers find books under fair use provisions of US copyright law. Google says it helps book sales and that publishers can opt out, but publishers say it should seek permission first. Publishers are saying we should pay a premium to use old technology that makes it harder to find information. They're saying that because they own the words of authors, anyone who wishes to read them should buy a book and pay money to middlemen who add nothing to the information value chain - indeed, they detract. Publishers had a role in the old world. Their job was to aggregate information and sell it in a digestible form, for which they charged money. But the internet and other technologies made publishers' roles as information clearing-house irrelevant, outdated, anachronistic and obsolete. The world has changed, but they have not. The publishers' actions highlight copyright's absurdities and the greed of its beneficiaries. They offer no justification for their actions other than a desire to protect income based on a technology and a business model invented centuries ago.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 8/30/2005 09:44:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
