Information is free.
At least, it should be, according to the majority sentiment in library land. Ever since the advent of early public libraries of the 1800s, public libraries have had a democratizing effect on society. In 1948, the ALA adopted the "Library Bill of Rights," championing open access to information resources and challenging censorship. Throughout the years, freedom of access has come to mean, in many areas, free access.
In this digital age, I think that our field's approach to access should change. Before, if a person had borrowed a book from the library, he would walk away with the book, for a designated period of time. However, he would have no sense of ownership over the book. He would eventually have had to return it to the library. In the mean time, another person who had wanted the book would have had to wait her turn to read the book. This system of lending had historically provided free access to materials and, as there was no sense of ownership, publishers and authors did not feel as though their intellectual property had been stolen or misused in any way. Currently, access continues to be free, in most cases, but the sense of ownership has changed. With digital copies of books and journals, library patrons can now download their desired information resources. Cost of access has not changed. All these resources are still free to the user, but ownership has altered. Protection of intellectual property has diminished.
I am not suggesting that libraries should start charging for all memberships or that school children should no longer be allowed to check out and read copies of Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat. I am suggesting, however, that access to digital information should change. Authors spent hours, perhaps years creating these resources; and, in the case of scholarly works, authors may have spent hundred of thousands of dollars on education to create the journal article that was just emailed into your inbox for the low, low cost of absolutely nothing.
Currently, there are hundreds of commonly used databases providing access to thousands of journals and other digital resources. Libraries often pay for subscriptions to these databases to allow patrons access to the information. However, these subscriptions are incredibly expensive; so, libraries can rarely afford more than a couple subscriptions.
What is the solution? How do you provide freedom of access to all information (not just the subscription your local library can afford) while simultaneously protecting the intellectual property of the people responsible for creation of the information? As unprofessional as this sounds, think of Netflix. They offer different levels of subscriptions for different levels of access. To individuals, not institutions. In addition, we could envision a situation where a person could want access to one and only one item in a database. For a one-time fee, this could be possible.
Information is not free. In fact, it is very expensive. The time, the work, the effort of the authors should be recognized and rewarded. And freedom of access should not always mean free access. Freedom of access should mean ability to access. In this age, where the lines of ownership are blurred with digital downloads, perhaps we should reconsider our system. While the purchase of information is somewhat antithetical to the ideals of library land, small fees to access scholarly work isn't necessarily robbing people of access. In fact, because patrons of any library could access the information in any database, access will be increased.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
you may be onto something, as iconoclastic as it might be to your fellow librarians.
ReplyDeleteI am, however, worried about a perceived barrier to entry. I'll use myself as an example. I'm a casual scholar. I have completed my degrees and am no longer active in any academic institution. I frequent my county library often, mostly for fictional books and music.
If a thought or idea or [insert noun] piques my interest, i'll attempt to investigate further. Since my official education nor my professional career has a stake in the answer, if i have an ad hoc charge, or even a one-time charge to access information, i will probably choose to go elsewhere for the information, or stop looking all together. I'm pretty sure this will make every librarian's blood curdle just a little bit, but it is true. I have so much information at my fingertips, i do expect that information, at the least the broad strokes, to be free.
That is why wikipedia is so great and well-used. Sure i know it isn't 100% accurate and most institutions aren't recognizing it as a valid source, but it gives me just enough to know and learn something about a given topic.
Perhaps the middle ground can be found. My taxes pay for the upkeep and running of my local library. Yet my membership card to that library is free. I would support a nominal fee to get a library card that would help pay for access to the academic journals. Or have a separate "journal card" program for those really interested in accessing journals.
Perhaps you should also talk to some of the scholars writing these articles. You suggest they spend thousands of dollars on their education to create journal articles. I agree with the dollar amount, but i'd argue that the articles are a by-product of their education, not the end goal. Scholars write because they have to to keep their university jobs, or because they are working on a book that will make them money, or because they have made a 'breakthrough' that they want to share with the world. I'm sure no one would claim that they got a Masters or PhD so they could write journal articles.
you may be onto something, as iconoclastic as it might be to your fellow librarians.
ReplyDeleteI am, however, worried about a perceived barrier to entry. I'll use myself as an example. I'm a casual scholar. I have completed my degrees and am no longer active in any academic institution. I frequent my county library often, mostly for fictional books and music.
If a thought or idea or [insert noun] piques my interest, i'll attempt to investigate further. Since my official education nor my professional career has a stake in the answer, if i have an ad hoc charge, or even a one-time charge to access information, i will probably choose to go elsewhere for the information, or stop looking all together. I'm pretty sure this will make every librarian's blood curdle just a little bit, but it is true. I have so much information at my fingertips, i do expect that information, at the least the broad strokes, to be free.
That is why wikipedia is so great and well-used. Sure i know it isn't 100% accurate and most institutions aren't recognizing it as a valid source, but it gives me just enough to know and learn something about a given topic.
Perhaps the middle ground can be found. My taxes pay for the upkeep and running of my local library. Yet my membership card to that library is free. I would support a nominal fee to get a library card that would help pay for access to the academic journals. Or have a separate "journal card" program for those really interested in accessing journals.
Perhaps you should also talk to some of the scholars writing these articles. You suggest they spend thousands of dollars on their education to create journal articles. I agree with the dollar amount, but i'd argue that the articles are a by-product of their education, not the end goal. Scholars write because they have to to keep their university jobs, or because they are working on a book that will make them money, or because they have made a 'breakthrough' that they want to share with the world. I'm sure no one would claim that they got a Masters or PhD so they could write journal articles.
ddv--
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of why most authors write articles, and I would include that some are motivated by the simple joy of writing. However, I don't think motivation negates the concept of just compensation.
I believe that intellectual property rights are, in essence, a capitalistic manifestation of a (perhaps Western) intellectual ideal. Most authors believe their work has value, whether monetary or intrinsic. Once a publisher, a periodical, or an individual puts a price on their work, the public has recognized the value of the author's intellectual efforts and ideas. I do not believe that the money someone pays for access will "pay back" the money the author spent on education or research. The price tag just acknowledges intellectual value.
While this distinction may be minimal in the case of a two-page article, my biggest concern is with the increased availability of digital books. If exchange of books becomes as simple as emailing a zip file, the public will have access and ownership without any compensation to the author, the publisher, the editor...the whole party of individuals who worked to create this book.
I suggest the publishing industry watches very carefully how the music industry is trying, and failing, to solve this problem. They might learn from the mistakes and pull out a feasible solution.
ReplyDeleteddv