diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html | 202 |
1 files changed, 202 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3227d2e --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> +<title>Science must “push copyright aside” +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/push-copyright-aside.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Science must push copyright aside</h2> + +<p>by <strong>Richard M. Stallman</strong></p> + +<p><em>Many points that lead to a conclusion that software freedom must be +universal often apply to other forms of expressive works, albeit in +different ways. This essay concerns the application of principles +related to software freedom to the area of literature. +Generally, such issues are orthogonal to software freedom, but we +include essays like this here since many people interested in Free +Software want to know more about how the principles can be applied to +areas other than software.</em></p> + +<p>(This article appeared in <em>Nature</em> magazine's +<b>web</b>debates forum in 2001.)</p> + +<p>It should be a truism that the scientific literature exists to +disseminate scientific knowledge, and that scientific journals exist +to facilitate the process. It therefore follows that rules for use of +the scientific literature should be designed to help achieve that +goal.</p> + +<p>The rules we have now, known as copyright, were established in the +age of the printing press, an inherently centralized method of +mass-production copying. In a print environment, copyright on journal +articles restricted only journal publishers—requiring them to +obtain permission to publish an article—and would-be +plagiarists. It helped journals to operate and disseminate knowledge, +without interfering with the useful work of scientists or students, +either as writers or readers of articles. These rules fit that system +well.</p> + +<p>The modern technology for scientific publishing, however, is the +World Wide Web. What rules would best ensure the maximum +dissemination of scientific articles, and knowledge, on the web? +Articles should be distributed in nonproprietary formats, with open +access for all. And everyone should have the right to +“mirror” articles—that is, to republish them verbatim +with proper attribution.</p> + +<p>These rules should apply to past as well as future articles, when +they are distributed in electronic form. But there is no crucial need +to change the present copyright system as it applies to paper +publication of journals because the problem is not in that domain.</p> + +<p>Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone agrees with the truisms +that began this article. Many journal publishers appear to believe +that the purpose of scientific literature is to enable them to publish +journals so as to collect subscriptions from scientists and +students. Such thinking is known as “confusion of the means with +the ends”.</p> + +<p>Their approach has been to restrict access even to read the +scientific literature to those who can and will pay for it. They use +copyright law, which is still in force despite its inappropriateness +for computer networks, as an excuse to stop scientists from choosing +new rules.</p> + +<p>For the sake of scientific cooperation and humanity's future, we +must reject that approach at its root—not merely the +obstructive systems that have been instituted, but the mistaken +priorities that inspired them.</p> + +<p>Journal publishers sometimes claim that online access requires +expensive high-powered server machines, and that they must charge +access fees to pay for these servers. This “problem” is a +consequence of its own “solution.” Give everyone the +freedom to mirror, and libraries around the world will set up mirror +sites to meet the demand. This decentralized solution will reduce +network bandwidth needs and provide faster access, all the while +protecting the scholarly record against accidental loss.</p> + +<p>Publishers also argue that paying the editors requires charging for +access. Let us accept the assumption that editors must be paid; this +tail need not wag the dog. The cost of editing for a typical paper is +between 1 percent and 3 percent of the cost of funding the research to produce +it. Such a small percentage of the cost can hardly justify obstructing +the use of the results.</p> + +<p>Instead, the cost of editing could be recovered, for example, +through page charges to the authors, who can pass these on to the +research sponsors. The sponsors should not mind, given that they +currently pay for publication in a more cumbersome way, through +overhead fees for the university library's subscription to the +journal. By changing the economic model to charge editing costs to the +research sponsors, we can eliminate the apparent need to restrict +access. The occasional author who is not affiliated with an +institution or company, and who has no research sponsor, could be +exempted from page charges, with costs levied on institution-based +authors.</p> + +<p>Another justification for access fees to online publications is to +fund conversion of the print archives of a journal into online +form. That work needs to be done, but we should seek alternative ways +of funding it that do not involve obstructing access to the +result. The work itself will not be any more difficult, or cost any +more. It is self-defeating to digitize the archives and waste the +results by restricting access.</p> + +<p>The US Constitution says that copyright exists “to promote +the Progress of Science”. When copyright impedes the progress of +science, science must push copyright out of the way.</p> + +<hr /> + +Later developments: + +<p>Some universities have adopted policies to thwart the journal +publishers' power. For instance, here is MIT's.<br/> +<a href="https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-policy/"> +https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-policy/</a>. +Stronger policies are needed, however, as this one permits individual +authors to "opt out" (i.e., cave in).</p> + +<p>The US government has imposed a requirement known as "public +access" on some funded research. This requires publication within a +certain period in a site that allows anyone to view the article. This +requirement is a positive step, but inadequate because it does not +include freedom to redistribute the article.</p> + +<p>Curiously, the concept of "open access" in the 2002 Budapest Open +Access Initiative did include freedom to redistribute. I signed that +declaration, despite my distaste for the word "open", because the +substance of the position was right.</p> + +<p>However, the word "open" had the last laugh: influential +campaigners for "open access" subsequently dropped freedom to +redistribute from their goals. I stand by the position of +the <a href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/">BOAI</a>, but now that +"open access" means something else, I refer to it as "redistributable +publication" or "free-to-mirror publication".</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2001, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 Richard M. Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2018/12/15 14:02:38 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |