[The University of Toronto] in very good company after recently joining the Open Content Alliance, a consortium of internet and software companies, national archives, and academic institutions dedicated to making digital content available and free online....The Open Content Alliance has positioned itself in contrast to a similar scheme to scan and post books online, the robust but controversial Google Print. Google, the closest thing we have to the collective consciousness of the human race, has caught hell from book publishers for scanning copyrighted material without their explicit permission....Copyright holders have pushed aggressively to extend their control over how their work may be used in the culture, and though it has made a lot of people rich, it has made us all culturally poorer....The Open Content Alliance is supposed to throw open the doors of human knowledge, but it apparently has no critique of how that knowledge is controlled and disseminated in the culture. By meekly agreeing to play by the copyright rules --no matter how idiotic and damaging those rules are-- the Alliance is neglecting an important part of its job as an advocate for, and protector of, the cultural heritage to which everyone is heir. U of T has noble goals in joining the Open Content Alliance, and its participation is a step in the right direction. But if it does not challenge the cultural monopolists who believe that every scrap of human knowledge has a price tag, it is failing in its mission as an educator and as a steward of the intellectual ecosystem on which all learning relies.
Comment. I agree with the praise for OCA, the praise for Toronto for participating in it, and the critique of copyright. So why do I think it's a cheap shot to criticize the OCA for not adding a valuable critique to its valuable action? First, because you don't have to talk the talk when you walk the walk. Second, because this particular critique isn't the only good reason for the OCA to do what it's doing. The OCA can build a larger and more effective coalition by welcoming everyone who agrees on the goal than by laying down a party line on the rationale. It's a strategy mistake to hobble a project that you admit is good just to see its leaders agree with you about why.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 10/25/2005 03:58:00 PM.
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.
