[LINK] TK On Topic For once... Was UK publicly funded research free to read

Tom Koltai tomk at unwired.com.au
Sat Dec 24 22:14:02 AEDT 2011


> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Kim Holburn
> Sent: Saturday, 24 December 2011 9:58 AM
> To: Link list
> Subject: Re: [LINK] UK publicly funded research free to read
> 
> 
> Comment here:
> 
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/02070517078/open-acc
> ess-is-spreading-is-it-really-open-access.shtml
> 
> > Open Access Is Spreading -- But Is It Really Open Access?
> > 
> > from the let's-do-this-properly dept
> > 

The Open Access Knock-on-effect.

This discussion is actually a lot more complex than a simple
non-commercial use permitted CC-?? Version issue.

A great deal of academic funding comes from the credibility bought about
by the publication in journals and the compilation anthologies of
proceedings papers. Would those same Journals want to publish if they
didn't have the "scoop" on the content? (I know the current answer,
publish draft, no images..)
Would the community peers still attend conferences and seminars if all
knowledge was published immediately.

That said, I am a strong devotee of a totally open access regime and
agree that CC-NC is just not cricket.

Arguments For (publishing publicly):
Opens the floodgates of knowledge to anyone with an inquiring mind but
lacking the financial capacity to formerly expand the originally state
provided junior education, which;
Increases the GDP dramatically by creating more garage "inventors".

Rationale:
The reality is that whilst academia delivers more patentable concepts,
under-graduate drop-outs are known for delivering some of the biggest
fortune 500 company successes.

In fact Intellectual Property can be thought of as the Newspaper
wrapping the fish and chips. In the sixties old used newspapers were
adequate. By the eighties it was newsprint less white paper and today
it's a Styrofoam or cardboard container. An entire business has grown
around the packaging of Friday's Fish 'n Chips. The Questions we need to
ask are:-

"Does the packaging make the content taste any better" 

"Does the packaging increase or decrease the cost to the consumer" 

"If we just used old newspapers, what could that money be spent on ?
More Whiting or French fries? A bottle of Lemon & Paeroa or possibly a
healthy salad on the side." The lost opportunity cost because of the
packaging is a serious impediment to the growth of not only the corner
fish and chips shop, but the ancillary business that sell associated
goods with every order of fish and chips.

Many years ago, I learnt that for a business to be successful there was
one rule... KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. Newspaper wrapping is simple.
Pre-printed wax lined pre-cut cardboard containers constructed to
AS-Specification ????? Requiring storage, folding and ordering by the
21st of the month to ensure not running out by the 24th of the month is
not.

Lets face it, Intellectual property is an artefact of modern man that
was invented by lawyers to ensure that many hours could be billed
arguing about subject matter that doesn't add to the value of the actual
invention one iota. Further, Intellectual Property disputes are almost
always won by the side with the most money for attorneys to enable the
stalling till you're bankrupt game.

Therefore we come to alternative protective measures. CC-NC is an
economical and quick legal contract accepted by Academia and therefore
almost impossible to refute by the courts.

Arguments Against publishing all research - or restricting it's use :
The other alternative is non-disclosure or Trade Secrets. For example,
the remuneration of certain trades and entire industries depend on
maintaining a level of mystery and confidentiality.

Magicians would have no audience if everyone could research their trick
before it is performed unless they were Barnum and Bailey quality
"excellent" performance artist (in which case, anyone would pay to be
entertained, "but not amazed".

Chefs and Grandmothers reserve the right to keep their best and most
traditional recipes totally secret. Otherwise, very few would attend
their employers restaurants/(family dinners). Therefore those that have
a large collection of Women's Weekly Recipe Cards kept in a secret place
can command more "eaters" than those that publish every recipe on their
blog, unless their verrrry good cooks, in which case publicus (and
offspring) will continue to turn up for a feed. (This of course doesn't
apply to Grandchildren who love Grandma for the secret sweets and
deserts... And can't read anyway.) 

Conclusion:
So for the Academic that has just discovered the Higgs Boson particle
leading to the early development of successful cold-fusion through a
Quantum leap in associated particle logic, there is of course only one
question... Publish and be Nobeled... (or is that ennobled?) or Publish
Abstracts only with D.O.D. Most Secret stamped on all copies.

The reality is that your competitors via Garcia already have the content
if you discussed with it anyone on the Telephone or per email, so the IP
cat is already out of the bag. No real use in bolting the stable door
unless you need the content to elicit membership fees (ieee), or wish to
support a dying business model (overseas student tuition fees) or are
mired in a quill pen mentality that likes to hoard knowledge under an
archaic indexing system that no-one can fathom except a few ordained
devotee practitioners of the Hewey Decimal system. (Just joking...)  

Confirmation of the benefits of "publish or be damned" can be elicited
in peon related "commercial-in-confidence" materials, e.g.: 

If we reflect on the Colonels contribution to the obesity of 44% of the
worlds western population and the cost to the taxpayer being a fortune
in aged terminal obesity related health care, then we would have arrived
at the conclusion that the world would have been a better place had
someone leaked the "secret herbs and spices recipe.

The argument to publish or not publish must still I'm afraid be
dependent on commercial funding requirements. Financiers are not keen to
fund ideas that have been made public, negating their first mover
commercialisation value.

Academics need peer review to obtain advancement and retain tenure.

Therefore the tennis match must continue.

An option, nearly stamped out, because of it's usefulness is:
The P2P networks which have created an incredible archive of content
that is now spread globally across several thousand hardisks limiting
the potential of any single point of failure deleting the affected
content from the future of human consciousness'.

Similar in fact to the centuries old tradition relating to the printing
of knowledge on papyrus and storing it in clay jars for posterity away
from marauding invaders. 

Humanities knowledge is now rapidly and exponentially becoming reliant
on the mercy of mean-time between hardisk failures and the less
merciful, unforgiving "delete" button, (and of course, let me not forget
the always adrenalin raising famous blue screen).

We may in some of our lifetimes yet regret the great Google scanning
central repository scam perpetrated on humanity. The only way around it
is for every person to retain at least one laser printer and to print at
least one ream of content every day and to place same in clay jars to be
buried at suitable locations under the cathedral section of Jenolan
caves. 

So the discussion about publish and be damned is only a short term
solution to a longer term problem.

That is the predilection for entire websites to be taken off the
internet and to disappear with all of their uncached and unduplicated
original content.

We need a Xerox of the Internet... Daily or we need to all connect to a
central P2P resource so that when Google finally makes the "Cached
Version" link disappear altogether, there will be other sources of the
content with ANY-CC. (The Internet archive (Bibtex) is inadequate
because it merely samples, some pages on some websites.)

If we don't solve this problem, the first time the magnetometer readings
go haywire and we have a pole readjustment of more than a few metres, we
will discover the hard way the real value of not having access to
content.

In conclusion, whilst I admire the efforts of funding a knowledge
repository (in any form is better than no form), I have just one
questions. How many clay jars (or Faraday shields) have they ordered for
the project ? 

TomK


P.S.: Merry Christmas Linkers.




More information about the Link mailing list