I've been tossing around an idea lately that seems to cause the bile to rise in any academics' throat whenever I put it to expression. I get evil stares, angry tirades, and, probably more often, shakes of the head and something about "Get real." The question is, should scholarly work produced in public universities be copyrightable? I'm thinking here, of course, of the books and articles written by professors (and graduate students!), textbooks, theses and dissertations, and even student essays. Who should control the copyright to these documents?
My answer, naturally, is NO ONE. All academic work produced by scholars working for or supported by public universities ought to automatically be placed in the public domain. These works, paid for (directly or indirectly) by the public, ought to be given freely to the public. To cut right to the chase, any professor or even graduate student who sells or gives a copyright to a commercial publisher or in any way restricts the public's access to his or her work is guilty of academic graft. They are stealing from the public resources as surely as a politician who dips into the treasury to fund a vacation to Hawaii.
We've all felt a little shaky about state-supported professors profiting from the sell of textbooks they produced on "company time." The excuse is usually something like, "Well, professors don't get paid much anyway, so we'll turn a blindeye to this--so long as they don't require their own students to purchase the book." Yes, it's perfectly acceptable for a professor to write a textbook and sell it so that students from other universities may benefit; it's just unethical if his or her own students benefit. Hmm...Okay.
What the hell is the public doing paying for professors to take sabbaticals just so they can write a book that won't be given to the public domain? How dare someone suggest that scholars ought to consider the marketability of their proposed books and articles. Are public universities little more than graft mills, with public servants chasing willy-nilly after any corporate racketeer with a crummy eight pieces of silver?
I would like nothing better than to take a whip and drive these money-changers from the steps of the academy. Nothing sickens me more than to see them clustered at national conferences, peddling their stolen goods and luring academics into shameful acts. "It's all about networking," eh?
When Cs was at New York I had the privilege of seeing a textbook publisher's building in all its glory. It was tall, shiny, gleaming--and propped on a mind-blowingly expensive piece of real-estate. I thought, geez, Cooper Hall here at USF sure can't compare to this. I wonder how many publically-funded academics think of that majestic building as they hunch over an old PC in a tiny office in a shabby 50s-era public building, grinding out articles and books for commercial publication. Maybe that book they've just finished--took a whole year--will help fund a new chandelier or a new executive desk for an executive vice-president.
This whole affair is really no different than state highway workers deciding to sell traffic cones on eBay. No one would have a problem calling that theft, yet we tend to side-step the issue when it arises in academic contexts. Another analogy might be the state's paying for an indepedent contractor to build a bridge, then allowing that same contractor to charge a toll once the bridge is completed. Don't think so, buddy.
I have a few problems with the status quo. One of my biggest problems is with so-called university presses and so-called non-profit academic journals that try to enforce intellectual property laws.
As far as I'm concerned, any non-commercial academic journal or university press that hasn't ALREADY made its publications freely available online is guilty of academic graft. They are a shameful and obvious example of either corruption or profound ignorance, take your pick.
Here's the circular argument we're so familiar with: 1. Hiring/tenure/promition committees only value print publications in prestigious, recognized journals or books by recognized academic presses. 2. It costs a lot of money to print these journals and books. 3. The costs are passed along to libraries and subscribers. 4. If these were made freely available online, people wouldn't buy the print versions, and the press folds. All those print presses just stop rolling and become little more than a fire hazard. What do you think about that situation, Mr. B?
My response? Let the )%)@ burn. Burn, $()@, burn! Let's just say that academic presses all over started folding because so many people were reading the free online versions rather than buying the expensive print version. Guess what, suddenly, hiring/tenure/promotion committees are FORCED to revise their evaluation procedures. If online publications are THE ONLY PUBLICATIONS, they will also be the only publications considered in h/t/p decisions. Of course, it'd be fun for awhile to watch departments implode as tenured curmudgeons refuse to accept online criteria. It won't take long for administration to catch up and start making some "early retirement" offers that you just can't refuse.
Professors at public universities ought to be ineligible to publish in commercial or for-profit journals, period. All work produced by public academics must be ineligible for copyright and placed automatically in the public domain.
The justification for the existence of a public research university is that the university benefit the public. The PUBLIC deserves a return on its investment--NOT a for-profit, commercial publisher, nor even a university print publisher who supports its existence at the expense of the free and easy dissemination of scholarship.
yes we need copyright
i disagree with putting scholarly work into the public domain. if you want to best guarantee the public's "return on its investment" then copyleft is the better solution. the public domain just provides too much opportunity for commercial exploitation in comparison to copyleft.
But which "public" ?
I've been musing on this very topic for a few weeks now. As for licences I quite like the "creative commons" style of free-to-use but attributed.
However, there is one huge impediment to this sort of approach. Who is the "public"?. You say "These works, paid for (directly or indirectly) by the public, ought to be given freely to the public.". I'm guessing you are based in the USA, so I can assume you would include the American public in your largesse. But what about the "public" of other nations and cultures, who haven't "paid" for these works?
For example, the recent announcement that the BBC is releasing its archive for free reuse is stunning, and extremely laudable, but if you look closely there are still weasel-words about "for the benefit of everyone in the UK".
I have real doubts about any political organization giving away something as valuable as academic research free to potential competitors or enemies. Especially in the post 9/11 world of "homeland security". Can you see a way round this?
RE: Which public?
That's an excellent question, Frank, and one which I have also considered. The best I can say is that while some people may frown at other countries' free use of another country's intellectual resources, others find it a source of pride. It must be edifying to know that people in Hungaria or even Iraq find one's scholarship useful and pertinent. The UK can take pride in the fact that so many Americans enjoy the BBC archives; after all, it is much better than American TV.
I'd go so far as to say that the pursuit of knowledge--science, roughly speaking--ought to transgress mere national boundaries. Indeed, one thing I can say with pride is that with all our faults, academics are generally quite willing to stay on friendly terms with members of other nations regardless of ethnic creed.
Probably a harder question is whether academics in the US ought to enable academics in "evil empire" countries to take advantage of their work, particulary scientific work that could assist the development of WMDs and the like.
Commercial Exploitation
This is where we differ, cel4145. I think commercial exploitation is a good thing. When I say "information ought to be free" I'm not saying that the person I give it to can't profit from it. Hell, if I write a PHP script that a commercial company uses as part of an expensive software suite, I don't care--as long as that company doesn't try to shut me down.
After all, most of the commercial publishers and the like are in the business of making things available. If someone would rather buy a novel than read it for free online, that shouldn't trouble the truly generous author.
The scholarship and research of public academics ought to truly be placed in the public domain for exploitation by other academics, the lay public, AND those who would exploit it for commercial purposes.
true. consider the UN WSIS statement
which promotes the equal access of information in our society, not just within one nation.
WSIS Declaration of Principles
But which "public" ?
"They are stealing from the public resources as surely as a politician who dips into the treasury to fund a vacation to Hawaii."
< Mayor_Quimby >Um, are you people telling me that this is a crime?< /Mayor_Quimby >
Seriously, this is a great issue, but I'm thinking about public in another sense. I'm a graduate student at the University of Georgia. I'm told (though I'm not sure that I believe or accept it) that the university owns all of the rights to any work I produce while I'm here, it's just that they rarely if ever enforce that right in the humanities. Does this mean that if one of the creative writers in our department publishes a book of poems in the traditional print model then all of the royalties should be paid to the university? What if I decide to write something on my own time -- where does the university claim begin and end? For as I understand it no other employer enjoys the right to claim copyright to all of the private creative work of individuals under their employ. Where does public end and private begin? Do you surrender all of your claims to a private self when you begin working for a public university?
I think I'm with Charlie on his preference for copyleft. If the University of Georgia claimed copyright over any of my creative work believe me they could be just as mercenary as any Manhattan-based publisher in collecting revenues off that publication. There'd be no egalitarian surrendering of that work into the public domain.
Universities and Creative Work
I can understand where you're coming from, Bob. I heard the same arguments during a recent Computers & Comp seminar in which we discussed Lessig's Free Culture. There were several "creative writing" types in the mix that were quite angry at what they termed my "communistic views" regarding their intellectual property.
Basically, what you're looking at when you're talking about "creative writing" is the outmoded (and passe) notion of originality, genius, and individual authorship. If you don't buy into this notion, which I don't, then it becomes hard to justify the enslavement of things like novels, short stories, and poems.
There is certainly NO reason why students or professors in a creative writing program ought to have special exemption from a mandatory straight-to-public domain policy. Believe it or not, some academics put just as much--if not more--work into crafting a fine work of scholarship as a poet puts into her verse.
Really, there is no more justification for a man to claim ownership of ideas and expressions as there is for his ownership of a fellow human being (slavery). If the ability to share thoughts and enjoy a shared literacy is what distinguishes us from animals, then surely society as a whole will prosper under a more egalitarian policy towards "intellectual property."
Still, right now I'm simply arguing that people receiving their financial support from a public university ought to relinquish their copyright to the state. Now, I prefer that the state then share it with the world, but at this point (considering Frank's comment) we should probably leave that choice to individual states. However, if professors or students are part of a vocational writing course of ANY sort, creative, technical, or otherwise--they must be held to the same standard.
Otherwise, they can quit and write for commercial publishers all they want.
copyleft allows making profit, but better benefits the public
well, copyleft does not negate the ability to make profits, but it does reduce the likelihood that content produced by scholars would be overly exploited. for example, suppose that a publisher takes the product of a few scholars which is in the public domain, edits and assembles the text minimally, but just enough to establish a new copyright. they then own outright the new version and have complete control and can charge whatever amount they want for the text and restrict its usage. this new text is no longer "free as in freedom" and the commercial publisher gets to exploit the scholars work in ways that an academic press or not for profit organization (such as NCTE) does not when they own copyright on scholarly works (their proceeds go back to the public benefit).
but if the original works were copylefted, then the new version created by a commercial publisher as described above would be copyleft, too. those purchasing it would be permitted to do with it what they would, including building new versions from it or giving out copies. or, in the case that the publisher were overcharging for the text (as we see with many commercial journal publishers), some one person could purchase the text, then make it availble for free.
so copyleft not only guarantees the future freedom of a work (consider intellectual usability for some ideas on why this is important), but it also acts to create a ceiling on the level of commercial exploitation allowed. this seems to me a better benefit to the public than the method you are suggesting, and one that satisfies your main point that "the justification for the existence of a public research university is that the university benefit the public."
in fact, given that all academic content was published as copyleft, who cares whether commercial publishers or academic presses charge for their editions, or even how much? then "the public" receives "a return on its investment," and commercial publishers are allowed to make profits, too, just in a limited way. meanwhile, "the free and easy dissemination of scholarship" is preserved through copyleft ad infinitum (free as in freedom again).
good reason for working with jedit on emma
i'm glad you are building on jedit with emma, and a good reason to build off of other open source apps, rather than building in house any applications you need. even though the university may be able to claim copyright, they are also bound by the copyleft license if they were to modity and/or release your work themselves. and you would be able to continue to use your applications when you move to another institution without their permission. copyleft is a nice guarantee that way :)
Employers claiming ownership
Bob writes For as I understand it no other employer enjoys the right to claim copyright to all of the private creative work of individuals under their employ.
Plenty of them try and claim it, though. I've worked for several tech companies who get new employees to sign a draconian contract reserving all copyright on work produced while in that employment. The reasoning is the same as that of the University - they provide free access to a wealth of proprietary research, materials, support and tools to encourage innovation at work. For an employee to claim "I made this entirely on my own" sounds very unlikely.
Just look at all the recent fuss about whether users of the free Linux operating system should pay royalties to SCO, who are the current owners of some copyrights and patents which may be related. This difficulty has led to strangeness like the idea of "clean room" development, where only people who have never ever seen a proprietary original, are allowed to work on an alternative free of copyright infringement.
In pure "knowledge work", such as academic research, a "clean room" approach is effectively impossible, so it can seem simpler to just claim a blanket copyright and allow use on a case-by-case basis.
A little devil's advocacy?
You make an interesting point, one which I'm inclined to agree with. I do wonder, however, what would happen to the academic establishment if such a step were universally adopted. The first faculty members to opt out of the public academic marketplace would be the published authors. Of course they would leave, because they would have no reason to stay. Then all the aspiring authors would leave.
Where would they go? Either to industry jobs where they'd either have the freedom to publish or the benefit of a higher salary, or to private colleges and other institutions willing to let them make a little extra money on the side. Public institutions would have no way to compete with industry and private schools, especially for the highest paid, most coveted individuals.
The only way to stop this flow would be to ban copyright altogether (which, if I know Matt, isn't something he'd particularly object to).
Just a thought.
--Dave
Let'm Leave
That's a good point, Dave, but I really wouldn't mind if public universities bid good riddance to a few "pro authors" whose sole concern is rubbing elbows and mothering their book sales.
There are plenty of public universities where the "star" professors teach NO classes, or at most a few, and spend the rest of their time earning a monstrous salary (paid for by the tax-payers) and writing for-profit, commercial books.
These leeches should be the first to go. They are only using their professorship as a credential anyway. As a tax-payer, I'd rather pay professors who either teach full-time or dedicate the findings of their research to the public domain.
Copyleft and Commercial Exploitation
Thanks for the insight, cel4145. However, I'm not sure how your example of commercial exploitation would really play out. A publisher could take a novel in the public domain now--say, Bram Stoker's Dracula--change it up a bit, claim copyright, and publish it, but that's not going to affect the classic version in the public domain. Any other publisher would still be free to pull out that version and publish it as cheaply as he/she wanted--and people could still post it for free on the Internet.
I had an idea once that was kinda scarey. Let's say someone built a network computing system like SETI@home that would systematically arrange words in the English language, run them through a sophisticated "intelligibility filter" and store them in a monolithic databank (or even a shared storage solution like P2P or Freenet). I know this sounds extremely "sci-fi" now, but it's not difficult to conceive given the ever-expanding storage capacity and processing power of modern PCs--every possible 251 word combination (one more word than that which qualifies as fair-use0 of English could be expressed somewhere in this immense database and retrievable by a search string.
The effect? Every possible 251 word combination would ALREADY be copyrighted, and thus any publication or expression produced after this machine finished its task would be liable to copyright infringment.
the importance of derivative works
true. but it's the importance of derviative works. copyleft is not based on the right to deny access (like copyright), but rather the right to distribute (see Steven Weber's The Success of Open Source). but you are priviliging the idea that the public is only entitled to significant access to the original work. why make that choice? isn't the public also entititled to more access than available under copyright for any derivative works which are based on research/writing done by academics? otherwise, it sounds like you agree with the principles of copyright, only that academics should deny it.
Why target academics?
You're right; at this point I'm not trying to take a "baby step" as you might say, and go after those people who ought to know better than to enforce copyright: academics at public universities. It'd be a helluva lot harder to convince Stephen King that he needs to give up copyright and throw everything into the public domain than it is for academics. The academics' writing is essentially funded by the state; King's writing is funded by himself.
Here's what I make of it.
Let's say King tried to apply for welfare. They'd take one look at his royalties and say, "Forget it." The way I see it, the same should be said of people applying or receiving academic pay at a public university. If they're earning income on copyrighted works, they need to either quit receiving state income or quit their jobs.
It seems to me that there's a conflict of interest here that needs to be immediately addressed.
Once I have all academics at public universities turning stuff over to the public domain, then it'll be time to start working on the less educated.
This is why I hate (the memory of) Sonny Bono
I hate to step back into this, because a lot of this has been said before elsewhere; I probably cannot even do justice to the variety of ideas expressed in this thread.
Overall, I respect Blacklilly8's opinion, but I just cannot agree with it. It feels like her opinion is targeting academics. Speaking as an academic, I really don't think it is in any way wrong for someone in the employ of a public university to publish a for profit work. Full stop.
It seems to me that there are two overriding reasons why anyone in academia publishes his/her work: (1) recognition (which has T&P currency), or (2) cash. You might also seek some balance of these two. This doesn't mean that we're not commited to helping advance our field and to teaching. If we weren't commited to those goals, then we wouldn't be in the university at all. We'd be Steven King (or, in my case, a much less-talented and less-recognized author).
If you have the means to support yourself while you work on a lengthy project -- good for you. I don't. I can't afford to work for free. So for me it's a choice of between finding payouts (1), (2), or a combination, or not working on the project at all.
Does that mean I'm mercenary for wanting compensation for working on a long term writing project? Selfish? Robbing the good faith of the public university who allows me (and anyone else in the state who holds a driver's license, I might add) access to the library? I don't think so. And please don't tell me that I'm already paid to write these articles and books as part of my base pay. I'm not. I am specifcally NOT paid for these endeavors.
The good news is that we have traditional copyright, copyleft, and several open source GNU-spirited in betweens. The problem, in my opinion, is Sonny Bono.
Copyright feels wrong to me solely because of its now absurd duration here in the U.S.. The purpose of copyright and patents is to give some monetary incentive to the authors and inventors of original and creative work. Then copyrighted/patented material is supposed to revert to public domain after a brief amount of time. It was absurdly long at life plus 50 years, but he helped to make it life plus 75 (and life plus 95 years in the case of corporate-held copyright). Supposedly he wanted to extend the term forever.
Thinking about the abuse of public domain at the hands of the powerful lobbying groups that passed this legislation just about gets me to the point of sharing Blacklily8's anger. But then I also remember that my kid needs braces. Then I'm back to choosing between a crummy copyright system or not working on a project at all.
you are right about academics and incomes, but
academics which are underpaid should be able to supplement their income (which includes most everyone in the humanities). i see no problem with that. so i don't totally agree with blacklily8. but what i would like to see is scholarly publishing which goes to journals or academic presses released under some kind of open content licensing (particularly copyleft). and i'm not overly concerned about whether or not if it is released online for free (such as with the open access movement). let journals make their profit off the print versions, and then others transfer them to electronic form. the first priority is open content, not "free" online (because "free online" may reduce some opportunities to support this model economically). free online will eventually happen if academics and librarians have the right to copy and post the texts.
i say this mostly because the scholarly publishing model is currently crumbling. libraries are unable to keep with skyrocketing costs created by more journal publishing and excessive subscription rates from some commercial publishers. increase in costs and the number of journals has led to decreases funding for academic presses, thus decreases in publishing opportunities with academic presses.
so the system is starting to break down. if all academics published scholarly work under open content licenses--whether for free or for pay--libraries could begin building their own archives (either separately or as consortiums) to minimize the growing dependence on publishers owning and managing the archives. scholars could trade articles legally via p2p. there are so many advantages of this economic model, and it seems the only solution to the growing infoglut of academic texts (only exceeded by the growing cost of purchasing access from publishers, of course).
Didn't mean to let this pass. . .
You're exactly right, cel4145. We're glad that emma is on an open source platform for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that it's free for users and institution independent. Plus, it's just a lot more FUN to be involved in an open source community rather than trying to hack it out on our own: we've learned a lot about the data-centric side to XML processing, things we'd never have encountered in our narrative-centric world. And vice-versa.
Work for hire
If indeed SUNY or the state of New York wanted to own the copyright to my writing, I suppose they would have to pay for the privelege. Currently, they do not, except in the case where the university specifically asks me to write something. This is part of the union contract. As such, any royalties I might get are not "extra" money, they are part of the negotiated compensation I receive as an employee. I think it is misleading to charge me with trying to steal from the public simply because I do my job and get paid for it by the terms of my contract. A change in the contract would be required, at least in my state, and I would obviously expect some other form of compensation.
In any case, there would be multiple problems with this suggestion.
1. This would mean that SUNY and the state would own the copyright. This is not the same as saying it is in the public domain. The fact that tax money supports something is not a basis for the public to claim a right to it. I have to pay to go into a tax-supported state park or drive on my tax-supported highway. I'm not even allowed to sleep in the tax-supported Governor's Mansion or ride in his car. And so on and so on.
Now the state might be inclined to just give that copyright away, but I kinda doubt it. For one thing, we have a fair number of publishers in our state who like to make money selling those copyrights as textbooks and journal subscriptions. Those folks would not be happy. No, I am entirely certain that the state would simply keep the copyrights and take the royalties into its coffers.
Besides, even if they did put the work into the public domain, that doesn't mean that it will be free, it just means I won't get paid. That is, if I write a textbook and it is put straight into the public domain, then any publisher can print and sell copies of the textbook without paying me. Meanwhile, the student at the college bookstore will still be paying just as much. Or is the assumption that the state will be printing and freely distributing my textbook or that everyone will read it online at a website freely maintained by the state?
2. This would put an end to academic freedom at public universities. If SUNY owns the copyright to my writing, then I do not have the right to publish my own work or even alter it. I would have to ask their permission before publishing anything. Could I even maintain my own blog without their approval? Obviously if I wrote something objectionable, in their minds, it would never see the light of day. Think about the situation with my SUNY colleague Steven Kurtz of the Critical Arts Ensemble.Do we really want to suggest that the legislators in Albany should be the ones to determine what academic work gets published by SUNY faculty?
Of course not. I agree with the principle that academic work be freely accessible to the public. However, saying that academics at public universities should transfer their copyrights to their institutions and/or the state is simply not the way to make that happen.