This is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever heard. I requires mental gymnastics of an absurd kind to equate a system in which people use copyright to heavily restrict content to a system in which works are freely available in perpetuity. If people can build services built on top of the literature and people want to pay for them, even when the underlying content is freely available, that is the definition of added value, and is in no way comparable to a system in which the underlying content is private property.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Heather Morrison <hgmor...@sfu.ca> wrote: > A problem with CC-BY: permitting downstream use with no strings attached > is the toll access model > > The Creative Commons - Attribution (CC-BY) only license grants blanket > permission rights for commercial use to any third party downstream. > Proponents of CC-BY argue that this will open up the possibility for new > commercial services to serve scholarship. This may or may not be; this is a > speculative argument at this point. However, if this happens, this opens up > the possibility that these new services will be made available on a toll > access basis, because none of the CC-BY licenses is specific to works that > are free of charge. > > This is very similar to the current model for dissemination of > scholarship. Scholarly research is largely funded by the public, whether > through research grants or university salaries. Scholars must make their > work public (publish) in order to continue to receive grants, retain their > jobs and advance in their careers. They give away their work to publishers > with no strings attached, often signing away all copyright. A few > publishers have taken advantage of this system to lock up scholarship for > their private profit. > > One potential outcome of a CC-BY default for scholarship is a next > generation of Elsevier-like toll access services. Many scholars and the > public whose work was given away through CC-BY could be unable to afford > the latest and best services made possible by their contributions. This is > just one of the reasons to give serious thought to this matter before > recommending a CC-BY default. For more, please see my Creative Commons and > open access critique series. > > Thanks to Heather Piwowar for posting an opposing view on google g+ that > helped me to work through this argument. > > from: > > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/03/a-problem-with-cc-by-permitting.html > > best, > > Heather Morrison, PhD > The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Michael Eisen, Ph.D. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
