summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html140
1 files changed, 140 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..38f0314
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html
@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
+<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
+
+Boston, MA 02110-1335
+Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
+worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
+preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
+of this book from the original English into another language provided
+the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and
+the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all
+copies.
+
+ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
+Cover design by Rob Myers.
+
+Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
+ -->
+
+
+ <a name="Science-Must-Push-Copyright-Aside">
+ </a>
+ <h1 class="chapter">
+ 19. Science Must Push Copyright Aside
+ </h1>
+ <a name="index-libraries_002c-access-fees-and">
+ </a>
+ <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>
+ <a name="index-universities-3">
+ </a>
+ <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>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-defend-progress-of-science-from-copyright">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ The
+ <a name="index-Constitution_002c-copyright-and-US-2">
+ </a>
+ 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.
+ <a name="index-libraries_002c-access-fees-and-1">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <hr size="2"/>
+