Thursday, December 18, 2014

Are libraries losing their way in the digital age?

Now Entering the Information Commons: Admission, $100
(essay first published in the most excellent Canadian Notes & Queries magazine #90)



Not that long ago, while visiting the E.J. Pratt Library at the University of Toronto, I noticed the area in the building I might naturally call reference or the catalogue had been renamed. It’s no longer a humble catalogue, but a rather grandiose information commons instead. A little while later, I noticed the same terminology at the Toronto Reference Library. That vast, computer bank filled with folks watching YouTube? Toronto’s information commons.

The commonality of information is indisputable, isn’t it? There it is, all around us like air. But using the term information commons within a library is a political choice; it’s a declaration. It has its roots in the idea of a village commons, a plot of land that is not subject to private ownership, but instead is for the use of all citizens. A park, for instance.

Parks are nice. They make us feel good about being part of society, like we’re all sharing something. Declaring the presence of an information commons is like saying “Come on in, lie down on the grass, bring your dog. No-one can stop you from using this space or the information you find here.” Ironically, at U of T’s main branch, Robarts Library, the commons has been corporatized. Our common information at Robarts comes to us courtesy a sponsorship from Scotiabank, an entity created by and dedicated to the concept of private ownership.

This particular renaming undoubtedly has a lot to do with the fact that library spaces are now heavily connected to the outside world. Whereas the good old catalogue (card- or computer-based) was in place to tell you what information (i.e. writing) was available in the library itself – what had been acquired, collected, curated and stored within the actual brick and mortar building in which you were standing – now every computer terminal in every library in every city in the world has access to all of world knowledge through the connected tubes of the interweb.

Does that mean my iPhone is an information commons as well? If so, why bother with libraries at all? Let’s just make sure everything is available digitally, and we can tear down all those dusty old buildings. One library is good enough if it contains all of world knowledge and can be carried in my pocket. Give it a funny name and a colourful logo and no-one will ever have to suffer the humiliation of a public shushing again.

Digital utopian and free culture theories [i] depend heavily on the idea of the Internet being common ground, despite a great deal of evidence and practice proving otherwise (try to replicate and use Google’s search algorithm on the Internet, for instance – see how common that information is). What any of that has to do with the function of a library is a bit mysterious. I’m hoping we’re seeing a temporary fad take hold – like calling any combination of two things a “mash up” – and that soon we’ll all tire of the digital utopian lexicon and get back to calling things by their proper names. We may get a warm feeling from the idea of libraries as infoparks, but we’re fooling ourselves if we think that’s what they actually are.
  
Getting Lost in the Library

Nicholson Baker’s brilliant 2001 exposé, Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper, detailed the scandalous destruction of many thousands of books and newspapers in American library collections during the microforming craze of the late last century. Libraries were sold on vast microforming schemes as a means not just of preserving old, crumbling paper texts, but of saving space within the physical collections themselves. Many American libraries even agreed to turn over physical inventory with no intention of ever getting it back intact. Books had their spines guillotined and their guts removed for quicker copying, entire runs of newspaper were quickly photographed and then destroyed.

The libraries retained tiny photographs of their former collections on acetate – a technology that proved over time to be riddled with preservation and documentation errors, was tricky to keep properly stored and catalogued, and would often corrode faster than the old paper it was meant to replace. Many microform collections quickly succumbed to “vinegar syndrome,” a condition every bit as bad as it sounds. Double Fold won the 2001 National Book Critics Circle Award for Non-Fiction, and made quite a few enemies for Nicholson Baker in the information sciences.

Many in the worlds of research, writing and publishing are wondering if Canada is right now experiencing its own Double Fold moment. After a chaotic decade of amalgamation, restructuring, staff changes (downsizing) and shifting collection policies, our national memory bank, Library and Archives Canada has begun to fast track a project involving the mass digitization of their current holdings. As in the microforming debacle that preceded it, this new mass scanning and storage is being contracted to an outside supplier, in this case an online repository and subscription service called Canadiana.org.

News reports from early in the summer of 2013 had Canadiana.org scanning our publicly held archival collection in exchange for proprietary copies of all materials processed, which Canadiana would then load with metadata – the essential cataloguing and searching functionality that any national archive worth its salt is supposed to provide – and offer it back to the public, for a fee, through premium subscription services. What was once planned as a free service for all Canadians will now cost us upwards of $100 each.

The uproar from the cultural sector was predictable, resulting in the immediate postponement of the mass digitization project, presumably until better optics could be arranged. Strangely, about the only culturally-based organization not to voice concern over this privately arranged shift in ownership of public records was the Canadian Library Association. In fact, the CLA wrote a public letter [ii] of strong support, essentially quoting from Canadiana’s own project bumpf, while all but abdicating the traditional work and responsibility of public libraries:

“Those who provide financial support to this project will have the added value of access to the metadata…”

To be clear, all Canadians have already provided “financial support to this project,” and there would be no metadata from which to extract “added value” without the essential gift of all the public documents that make up the bulk of the collection. What is being proposed is extra pay for standard service. What’s more, it is being described by its defenders as simultaneously a common good and a premium value-add.

Canadiana.org appears, at least, to be a non-profit consortium of libraries and universities. Nevertheless, it is decidedly not Canada’s national archives – an institution into which the Canadian taxpayer has already invested many millions of dollars on the understanding it would preserve, organize and make freely available our national documentary heritage.

Lost in all of the fuss over the Canadiana deal is any sense of what will happen to the physical collection once mass digitization and metadata attachment is complete. Digitization is easily mistaken for preservation in such schemes. A scanner copies a physical document; it does not preserve that document. Will we still bother to keep and properly store our precious documentary history once we get copies of it all in a hard drive? Recent reports of books and paper collections from Canada’s contracting network of science libraries being discarded and dumpstered suggest we don’t value the hard copy as well as we should. [iii]

“Like Nature,” writes Alberto Manguel in his exquisite love letter to book collecting, The Library at Night [iv], “libraries abhor a vacuum, and the problem of space is inherent in the very nature of any collection of books… ultimately, the number of books always exceeds the space they are granted.”

One wonders if the universal access promised by digitization is so tantalizing to libraries because they are simply running out of shelf space.

The Myth of the Universal Library

The best-known version of the “let us help you preserve your collection by copying it” sales pitch is Google’s scanning deal with a consortium of public and university libraries called HathiTrust. The search engine gargantua continues to do all the heavy lifting (literally) of hauling millions of books off the shelves, scanning them, storing the digital files and then returning the books to their home libraries. In exchange for this work, the libraries allow Google to keep a digital copy of each of the scanned books, and use those copies in its own online library called Google Books.

Despite all the coded language of universal access and common information sharing surrounding that project, many argue Google’s interests are private and entirely commercial. In the era of big data, more equals money, and Google layers its profitable (and proprietary) search architecture on top of those millions of library books, something no other company is allowed to do. What’s more, it remains an open legal question whether or not Google or the libraries have the right to carry out this work in the first place, since vast numbers of the books in question remain under copyright protection, and no good faith attempt was made to secure permission for the copying from the authors. These matters remain before the courts. [v]

Will the libraries and archives actually achieve the goal of universal access to their collections through their deals with Google or Canadiana.org, or will they merely provide unparalleled access for restrictive commercial enterprises, and transactionally-dependent access for the rest of us? LAC and Canadiana.org insist that Canadians will only have to pay the premium price for our historical record for a decade or so, but that’s cold comfort for those wanting access right now (say, the octogenarian ex-soldier working on her memoirs). Since much of the material in the LAC collection remains under copyright, it’s also entirely likely that some Canadians will be forced to pay for digital access to their own writing. Welcome to the commons everyone! Hope you brought your wallet.

The dream of a universal library is not new, but for some reason it can become an obsession that encourages pretty awful behaviour. The ancient library of Alexandria apparently benefited from a royal proclamation requiring all ships visiting the Egyptian port to surrender their books for copying into the library collection. Often, the more handsome originals were not returned.

Rising Up From the Commons

I love libraries. Few physical spaces draw me with such intensity as the stacks, reading rooms and study carrels of a really great library. I go to libraries when I’m on vacation – simply cannot walk past the 42nd Street library in New York City without wandering in for a couple hours of reading or writing, or for no purpose at all. Did you know that a huge cistern used to stand on that block of Manhattan, providing drinking water to the city? I do know that, because I read about it… in a library. The Croton Distributing Reservoir used to hold upwards of 20 million gallons of water. It was torn down sometime in the late 1800s, replaced by the now familiar Beaux-Arts building and its adjacent Bryant Park.

The main public library branch in downtown Seattle is a wonder to behold, with precious foggy daylight streaming through massive slanted windows framed by redwood beams in the upper floor reading rooms, suggesting both mountain and forest vistas of the great Pacific Northwest. When I was there this past winter a man approached me, said he was from Alaska, and just kept shaking his head as he looked around the room, taking in its grandeur. “I’ve never seen anything so beautiful,” he told me.

Even the humble little Aurora Public Library, my old suburban hometown haunt from the 70s and early 80s, squat and ugly and utilitarian, with a weird cold war air-raid siren installed right by the front door – even that place felt more special than any other spot in that sad little town.

These three buildings have almost nothing in common architecturally, nor in the atmosphere they provide to those who use them. Yet they all have one very important thing in common. They exist because our world contains writers, and those writers create the books, magazine and journal articles that make up the core of a library’s collection.

Let me make a bold and not very populist suggestion. Libraries are not about commonality; they’re about exceptionalism. Or, at least, they’re supposed to be.

Why does New York City protect the entrance to its library with lions? Because only the brave should approach such a building, only those willing to find and absorb and at least attempt to understand the wisdom therein. Walk through the information commons in any university or public library these days and you are likely to see a student catching up on some Netflix or updating Facebook. Something essential about these spaces has been flipped on its head. Serious research of actual information is often now secondary to entertainment. Is that really what we want from our libraries?

Philanthropist, Andrew Carnegie is widely considered the father of the modern public library. One might be tempted to think of Carnegie’s generous grants to build libraries across the continent as some sort of democratizing gift to humanity - to the commons. Of course, by day Carnegie was a union-busting industrial capitalist with little time for common folk (or, at least, the common folk who expected union wages and benefits). His vision of the purpose of these libraries is clear and unequivocal. They are for the  “industrious and ambitious; not those who need everything done for them, but those who, being most anxious and able to help themselves, deserve and will be benefited by help from others.” [vi]

Can I walk into the Vancouver Public Library (another spectacular building) and walk out with a copy of one of my own books? No, I cannot. They have my books (thanks Vancouver!), but if I want to read them at the VPL, I will have to actually stay within the friendly confines of the VPL. Not being a resident of Vancouver, I cannot get a Vancouver Public Library card [vii], and you sure do need one of those to borrow a book from there. VPL, like every other public library you will enter these days, enforces control over its collection with sophisticated surveillance and electronic security measures. Strike one against the idea that libraries are for everyone. They are for everyone resident in the municipality on which the library depends for tax revenues.

The same goes for university libraries, like the Pratt in Toronto, where I do a great deal of my own writing. In many university libraries, I’m free to wander through the stacks and take books back to a study carrel for my immediate use. As long as I don’t leave the building, I can touch whatever I want (and touch it I do). But this is certainly not true for Robarts Library, the monolithic, turkey-shaped building at the corner of St. George and Harbord. The stacks at Robarts’ infopark are guarded by electronic gates and card-checking technology. The last time I was in that corporately-sponsored commons, I was watched very closely by a uniformed security guard. Never mind taking the books out of the building, if you want to even see most of the books in the Robarts collection, you will need to be a tuition-paying student at the University of Toronto [viii], one of the more exceptional, expensive and exclusive schools in North America. It’s all very nice and democratic sounding for libraries to promise universal accessibility, but they don’t really mean it [ix], and maybe that’s ultimately a good thing.

I don’t make these observations out of any Randian insistence on keeping the rabble away from the good stuff, and I’m as likely to lean toward Antonio Panizzi [x] as Andrew Carnegie for my essential understanding of and belief in the purpose of libraries – Panizzi, the Principal Librarian of the British Museum Library famously declared it was the government’s responsibility to make sure the poor and rich had equal access to his collection. That said, the job of providing access is nowhere near as easy as opening a door, and it carries with it an immense responsibility.

The elitism of the U of T library system serves an essential purpose for that system and for the public and private donations on which it is built. If anybody could walk into Pratt or Robarts and remove any book they like whenever they like, there would very soon be far fewer books in Pratt and Robarts. Protecting and preserving the collection they have is as much the job of a library as is building the collection in the first place. In fact, library workers should want to control access as much as they want to provide it. Otherwise, they are working themselves out of a job. And library workers have an essentially important job. They are the highly educated human conduit between some wonderful new tools (digital text, metadata, search algorithms, etc.) and the collections of human work to which they will be applied.

Schemes like Google’s library-scanning and Canadiana.org’s archive-scanning put the metadata first, the search second, and the people third (or lower), all the while making disingenuous promises about being stewards of the information commons. If we are building a universal library, it’s one designed with plenty of cloud-based servers and wired conduits, but precious few human-sized doors and climate-controlled storage rooms. Let’s leave the information commons where it belongs, with the digital utopians, and instead let’s expect of our libraries the real, human work for which they are uniquely suited. We can start by using the proper names for things as they are.




[i] The Information Commons: A Public Policy Report, by Nancy Kranich. The Free Expression Policy Project. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/InformationCommons.pdf

[iv] p. 66, The Library at Night, by Alberto Manguel, Knopf Canada 2006.

[v] Full disclosure: My day job is as executive director of the Writers’ Union of Canada, one of the named plaintiffs in the current HathiTrust legal proceedings in the US.

[vii] Vancouver Public Library website – How to Get a Library Card: https://www.vpl.ca/library/details/how_to_get_a_library_card

[viii] The U of T library system does have options by which non-students may access the stacks, but these options are costly and certainly not universal. A 7-day “stack access” card costs $20, and is available only to “Visitors, who are faculty members, staff, or graduate students in other universities.” http://onesearch.library.utoronto.ca/robarts-stack-access?source=services

[ix] I can’t even get past the home screen on a “commons” computer terminal without entering a U of T access code.

[x] Thanks to Nigel Beale for pointing me in the direction of Panizzi through his article, “Empty Archives: Reflections on an Institution in Crisis,” pp. 18-21, in the Summer 2013 issue of Write magazine (the member publication of The Writers’ Union of Canada).


 Bookmark and Share


Tuesday, December 09, 2014

blame the author

Canadian Author Attacked for Defending Rights


Folks from all over the world are gathered this week in Geneva, Switzerland to attend the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO's) 29th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. Everyone can follow these talks on Twitter at #SCCR29, and live webcasts of the plenary sessions are available here.

Up for discussion at WIPO are proposed new copyright exceptions for libraries and educational institutions.

Knowing from painful personal experience how badly discussions like this can end, Canada's writers and publishers have made sure we are well represented at these international talks, with accredited delegates from the International Authors Forum (of which I am the current Chair) and the Canadian Copyright Institute (of which The Writers' Union of Canada is a founding member) in attendance.

Both IAF and CCI have today made presentations at a WIPO side event, during which we focused on the damaging unintended consequences of poorly conceived exceptions to copyright. The Canadian example of educational fair dealing is at the centre of these presentations, with emphasis on the disastrous loss of income to authors and publishers resulting from this 2012 change to our domestic Copyright Act. The current count on lost income for Canadian writers and publishers tops out at $30.8 million dollars per year.

That's $30.8 million dollars, annually, removed from the Canadian cultural economy, while educational costs rise unabated and library budgets are under continuous threat. Is it any wonder Canadian cultural workers are standing as the international canary in the coal mine for "free culture"? Instead of denying cultural creators our established markets and earned incomes, why aren't we all focusing on funding libraries and education properly so they can afford to pay for the work they are using in ever greater volume?

Sadly and predictably, the IAF and CCI presentations in Geneva quickly attracted a now standard free-culture attack on authors. While IAF representative Katie Webb presented her observations of the Canadian fair dealing debacle, someone from a group called Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) tweeted this:


This is a stock free-culture tactic - assert loudly and without any shame that anyone defending copyright hates the user community. I was as unsurprised as I was disgusted to see that tweet come through my feed. KEI's slogan is "attending and mending the knowledge ecosystem" - although that activity apparently does not include fact-checking its own claims.

Margaret Atwood is, of course, one of the world's most vocal and high-profile defenders of libraries. She was the public face and voice of the Toronto Public Library Workers Union's campaign to save the TPL budget from municipal budget cuts in 2014. She was even involved in a high-profile spat with then Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's city councillor brother, Doug, over the library-funding issue.

For the record, here is Margaret Atwood on libraries - not hating, in fact, but loving:



Canadian writers sit on library boards, often we are librarians and library workers, we read our work in library reading series, we write, teach, and mentor other writers in libraries, our works are collected and generously lent for free through libraries, and we regularly hit the streets to demand better funding for our public library systems. These activities and our demand that copyright be vigorously protected are not in conflict. In fact, they are mutually supportive. What will we collect in libraries if writers can no longer afford to write, and publishers can no longer afford to publish? That free culture theorists would try to pit libraries against writers while offering nothing in terms of increased budgets or lowered costs tells you everything you need to know about the real agenda here.

I hope the assembled delegates in Geneva notice and pay attention to this ongoing attack on authorship. There will be no knowledge ecosystem to attend or mend if we don't protect creators.


 Bookmark and Share




Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Margaret Atwood calls out Canadian universities on copyright

The incomparable Margaret Atwood turned 75 last month, and was duly celebrated by her community of Canadian authors, readers and supporters of the literary arts. The Writers' Trust of Canada, a fundraising and awards-presenting not for profit (the "little sister" organization to The Writers' Union of Canada - both of which were founded by Atwood and her partner Graeme Gibson), dedicated their annual fundraising gala to a celebration of this momentous anniversary.

The Trust held a huge party for Atwood and all her admirers at Toronto's Four Seasons hotel, complete with a bookish cake, much champagne and a perhaps unexpected barn-burner of a thank you speech from Atwood herself.



In her speech, Atwood called out the Canadian educational sector for, as she put it, misuse of author copyright:
"...cultural creators are under increased threat: a worried publishing industry, and a university sector that under a badly-written copyright law feels entitled to help itself to creators’ content have not improved the lives of writers.
How many millions of dollars have been removed from authors through universities’ misuse of their copyright? And often by the same universities that charge 18 thousand dollars for an MFA in 'Creative Writing.' 
There's a disjunct there. Sort of like saying okay, we'll teach you to be a doctor but by the way you've got to doctor for us for nothing."

While I fully expect university administrations across Canada to pretend this speech never happened, and to continue to pretend their interpretation of fair dealing is all about student access and not about saving tonnes of money on the backs of authors, I'm guessing it's going to be harder and harder for them to convince anyone they have a morally sustainable position.

Witness the rather vulgar spectacle of the University of Western Ontario fundraising for themselves by claiming Nobel laureate Alice Munro as their very own, all while they refuse to sign a copyright license that would protect Ms. Munro's rights as an author.

Good on Margaret Atwood for telling it like it is (as she always does). What is this awful lesson our university sector is trying to teach?



 Bookmark and Share


Thursday, October 09, 2014

poking holes in Canadian copyright now more popular than hockey

the attack ad exception... for freedom!

Yesterday, I was asked for comment on this story about how Canada's governing party intends to introduce a new copyright exception allowing political parties the freedom to use proprietary news content in their political advertising without having to seek permission or pay for the use.

Canada's governing party of the day is Conservative, meaning, of course, they fall to the right of centre on the Canadian political spectrum. It might seem relatively clear cut that this story is about that spectrum, and that it is the conservatism of the government that inspires them to try this gambit of freeloading on the good work of Canada's news-gatherers.  Not so.

This story is actually about a pervasive and pernicious exception culture. Exception culture has rendered worldwide copyright laws pointlessly complex and almost entirely impotent. These days, any well-organized campaign of cheap populism can pry yet another hole through the fence protecting cultural production and free speech.  Exception culture, in my experience, holds no particular party allegiance, and has champions across the political spectrum around the globe.

So, here's my comment on yesterday's news:
A copyright exception for political use of news content is a terrible idea, completely unnecessary for principled political activity in Canada. The timing of this proposed exception suggests it is almost certainly a backhanded attempt to force the acceptance of a certain brand of sleazy yet highly effective attack advertisement onto Canada's public and private broadcasters before the next federal election in 2015. Broadcasters, the legal owners of the news content they have gathered and produced, have previously refused permission for these kinds of uses, and/or refused to air such ads. This proposed exception, in combination with certain election laws, would strip Canadians of their democratic right of refusal.

But, I'm not done yet:

Exception culture has overtaken Canada's public sphere. We all know the existence of Canadian Netflix has something to do with important territorial rights of cultural producers, right? Right. And yet how many Canadians use virtual private networks (VPNs) to circumvent those licensing arrangements and access American Netflix streams?  Predictably, this infringement on Canadian rightsholders is dismissed by Canada's consumer activists in the name of... freedom.

If this new political exception is forced into law by our majority government, I will not be the least bit surprised to see parties of all stripes taking advantage of it. And, I predict they will justify their behaviour with populist rhetoric about shared culture, freedom of access, and the public good.

That very same populist rhetoric was used to introduce Canada's disastrous new educational fair dealing exception - overbroad interpretations of which are currently costing the country's cultural workers tens of millions of dollars (annually), while doing nothing to reduce student costs or increase educational materials budgets. Educational fair dealing was introduced  by this same Conservative government, but the exception had many political champions on the left as well. For Canada's cultural workers, to hear some of Canada's most prominent social-democratic voices speak loudly in favour of weakening our industrial rights was a bitter betrayal.
This may be a very narrow exception aimed at news content, but it opens the door to all sorts of other "free" political use of created content - songs used in campaigns without permission, for instance. That's how exception culture works - one exception to established rights (however limited or controlled) inspires another exception, and then another, and then another, with the end result being copyright becomes more exception than right. And while we often think our own proposed exception is only intended for good purposes, self-interest turns us blind to the next perceived "public good" in follow-on exceptions. Thus educators who strongly support educational fair dealing because they want free access very quickly find themselves fighting interpretations of that exception that would see others get free access to their own lesson-planning and classroom work.
 
The border between copyright and freedom of expression becomes very squishy at this point. If the right of ownership over created content is endlessly undermined by ever new and frivolous exceptions, we will eventually cross the line between true freedom of expression and coerced cooperation. Unpermitted political access and use looks an awful lot like forced political endorsement. Has our exception culture reached the point where our most personally held views can be stripped from our created work and used against our own interests? Sadly, it has. I have no doubt prominent social democrats, educators, library workers and student activists will speak out loudly and angrily against this proposed political trespass. Ironically, they tore down the very barricade they will be trying to defend.

Crafting an effective political message may not always be easy, but it is also not impossible to do without free access to someone else's property. If you find it impossible, maybe you're just not doing politics right. The same can, and should, be said about entertaining ourselves with digital culture, educating others, and building highly profitable information databases online. None of these activities actually require free access. They're just less work with free access. Please, can we dispense with the Tom Sawyer populism? You do your work; I'll do mine. Maybe together we can get this fence back in shape.

 Bookmark and Share


Wednesday, August 27, 2014

you say you want a revolution? who's going to pay for it?


Recent Questions About Open Access Apply Equally to Copyright Exceptions


It's a long standing false conclusion that those who expect to be paid for their work in research, writing and publishing are somehow against greater access to the information contained within their works. Everyone from commercial authors to scientists are regularly accused of being elitist and trying to protect their turf at the expense of a broadly shared knowledge. The image most often used to make these attacks is one of a lock or chain.

Perfectly reasonable digital rights management systems, subscription paywalls, embargoed content within mostly free publications, author actions to oppose free-for-all scanning of in-copyright books by unbelievably wealthy and powerful search engine companies, even perfectly affordable collective licensing agreements intended to pay creators for the industrial copying of their work have variously and unfairly been portrayed as keeping universal knowledge chained up and locked away from the very people it could help.

Nowhere has this disingenuous gambit produced more immediate and damaging effects than in Canada, where the domestic publishing industry, both commercial and scholarly, and the already precarious profession of authorship have suffered an immediate and precipitous decline in earned royalties because educational lobbyists with an eye only to administrative budgets let loose a flood of restricted access fear-mongering, complete with lock and chain imagery, and convinced legislators to dilute copyright law. If we don't get an educational free ride for the millions of pages of copying we do, the argument went, our students will not be able to access all of those pages - they will be locked away from them, and kept, as well, from all of the wonderful digital innovations in pedagogy.

To support their arguments, educational lobbyists pointed often to the growing trend of Open Access scholarly publication. So much of the stuff we want to copy is already free anyway, they suggested, and since we'll likely be using more and more of the free stuff, we really shouldn't have to pay for anything we copy. Open Access became such a trendy catch-phrase and pseudo-philosophy in the last half-decade there have even been attempts to require its use by law. In 2013, the White House Office of Science and Technology released a directive requiring broad open access to the results of all federally funded research. The thinking there was, the taxpayer paid for the research, therefore the taxpayer should have free access to the paper that came from the research. Otherwise locks, chains, gates, deadbolts, etc. and anon. The problem is research, writing, publication and distribution are discrete activities all generating expenses, while the directive only provides funding for the research part.

Of course, anyone voicing any concern whatsoever about Open Access - like, for instance, who the heck is going to pay for all this writing, publication and distribution if the law requires it be given away? - is labelled anti-access. But that has not stopped one highly placed member of the American scientific community from speaking out and asking the hard questions about Open Access.

In an article for the US political journal, The Hill, entitled "What happens when you take something of value and give it away?", Gordon L. Nelson, president of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, wonders if those drawing up open access directives really had all the facts in front of them when they made those directives. He calls for a "transparent, evidence-based process" that takes into account a host of variables having to do with how much things actually cost, who is expected to invest, and who can best afford to invest. This article is followed up by an interview with Nelson on the blog, The Scholarly Kitchen, entitled Public Access Policies, Open Access, and the Viability of Scientific Societies.

Some excellent quotes from Dr. Nelson:
"Frankly, I am unclear what the public access challenge is. Who does not have access? I am not at a large university. I have always been able to get papers I needed over the years. I've published some 200 papers, plus chapters and books."
"To mount a journal is not free. Publication costs are significant, including hardware, software, management of the peer review process, editorial work and oversight, database maintenance, printing, archiving, distribution and storage."
Let me just jump in here and note Nelson did not include writing as one of the costs in all this. That is, presumably, because he is an academic and the academic economy for writing is very different from the commercial one (academics are paid for their research and writing as part of their salary - tenured salary often). For commercial publication where much, and often all, of the up-front risk and cost of the writing work is borne by the writer, the costs of writing must be factored in.
"Immediate open access publishing requires authors... to pay publication fees on the order of $1500 to $3000 per paper. In disciplines where that has not been the norm, where are researchers to get that money?"
Is Nelson suggesting we throw locks onto scientific knowledge? Does he want to chain students away from learning? Of course he doesn't. He simply wants scholarly publication to remain viable, even profitable, so that it can continue to advance knowledge and to subsidize conferences and symposia where even more learning is done.

The same concerns must be applied to the Canadian writing and publishing sectors. The changes to copyright law that have so damaged a crucial industry were made, I would argue, somewhat outside an evidence-based process, at least not one in which the evidence was particularly reliable.

I want to be perfectly clear here and state that I don't blame Canadian legislators for the changes to the Canadian Copyright Act. I watched the public consultations very closely, even participated in them. Legislators were told in public testimony that the proposed changes would not damage existing collective licensing agreements. We were all assured a free ride was not what was being requested. Some of us did not believe a lot of the testimony; it seemed, at best, overly optimistic. But those who did believe it acted in good faith. They will, hopefully, continue to act in good faith and recognize the unintended consequences that have most definitely occurred.


 Bookmark and Share


Thank you, as always, to magazine guru D.B. Scott for pointing me toward Nelson's article.

The image of the lock above was taken in my very own office by my very own iPhone.