Google Scholar was such a success stirring conversation that I want to follow up, taking as a point of departure Dunce's
passing mention of open-source vs. limited-access scientific research.
I'll pose some questions to you, readers, at the end. First, I want to
provide a very narrow, limited context for discussion -- limited because
the subject is so immense, my knowledge is not extensive, and my time
is about as limited as my knowledgebase.I've
thought a lot about this subject lately. The idea of open source is not
new, but I gained direct access to it via my interest in e-Learning,
Web-based training, and Web development (for that purpose). I found
online communities of instructional designers, IT/corporate trainers,
courseware authors, Web developers, database programmers, etc. all
sharing large blocks of PHP, Flash, and assorted other types of
code/script. I also found open source e-Learning course management
systems, such as Moodle. Open source communities and resources in IT and IT-related fields are really extraordinary in scope, I've since learned.Since
anyone can conveniently select View>Page Source on your Web broswer
to view and even "borrow" someone else's code/script, I never seriously
considered code/script proprietary. Many Web developers use the built-in
HTML "notes" tag to help other designers understand how a script or
code works. Code and script can be proprietary, of course. In a way,
it's analogous to writing a book. Both require creative manipulation of a
standard language (complete with its own rules for semantics and
syntax) to create, innovate, and communicate. In fact, I've seen
freelance Web development jobs where companies stipulate they retain
rights to code, just as magazines do for an exclusive article or cover
design. I'd say the IT community operates under some of the most
democratic professional practices I've seen, from open source and
documentation projects to white papers and working papers related to
things like Semantic Web, RSS/RFD, and special problems with XML
development.Shift
now to the arts, entertainment, media, and publishing industry, where
virtually everything is governed by iron-clad copyright laws to protect
proprietary and creative collateral. I've heard the complexities of
getting permission to use pop songs in broadcast commercials can be more
complex than navigating the most draconian government bureaucracies.
Google came under fire recently for their project to scan and make
searchable all the world's print-based documents via the Internet.
Protests about copyright, intellectual property, and lost business
revenue have temporarily halted the project (last I heard).In
between these two worlds is education, partly governed in the U.S. by
"Fair Use" laws (section 106) contained within the U.S. Copyright Act.
Fair use laws provide a somewhat ambiguous guide for using materials in
conferences, seminars, lectures, and even departmental meetings. I have
no expertise or credibility on this subject, but many issues I’ve heard
about often hinge on definitions of terms such as "distribution,"
"performance," "audience," and yes, even "education." For instance, is showing a single printed page converted into a Web-based presentation page in a closed seminar "distribution"? And
if a janitor walks by during a "closed session" and sees information
displayed on a screen, how does that change audience dynamics? (Silly
question, but I heard of a case similar to this dealing with "closed"
vs. "open" seminar audiences. I think there's even a limited number of
people and percentage of a text you can use without getting in trouble.)
Again, I'm not an expert on this, but with corporate, public, and
private education embracing online and distance learning, I'm sure there
will be many interesting Supreme Court cases in the future.Finally, on a somewhat related note, Monday marks the beginning of one of my favorite annual festivities: Banned Books Week, sponsored by the American Library Association. BBW is to English majors what Easter week is to Christians.The
critical connection between BBW and earlier discussion is access. Free
access and unlimited freedom to reproduce, distribute, and even use
information in personal work makes open source a nice fit for democratic
societies. It encourages self-education and free exchange of
information to benefit us all. It encourages collaboration and
networking, in turn fostering ideas and innovation. On the other hand,
controlling the scope of access (e.g. reproduction, distribution, etc.)
to artistic, enterprise, and proprietary information -- in turn
protecting a person or company's "original" work or idea -- is what
makes copyright necessary, some say. Profits from copyright drive
entrepreneurial, artistic, and scientific/technological innovation.These
two ideas -- open source and copyright -- stand directly opposed to one
another, at least philosophically. Open source is also the financially
altruistic antithesis of capitalism’s copyright opportunism. Yet, they
can and do co-exist. So
what do you, readers, see as the future? Do you think we will move
toward more open source information, spurred by the Internet, Google,
and the host of related geo-political, economic, cultural, and societal
factors. Or do you think the future holds even more stringent attempts
to exercise copyright laws? If the latter, how do you enforce it on the
Internet and across different countries' citizens? What might the
ramifications of either be? And which do you feel is better and why?
Feel free to "reframe" the discussion; there are lots of entries, and
I’ve only scratched the surface. I'm interested in hearing your
responses, since I have a wide range of readers -- from IT professionals
and researchers/educators to journalists and marketing professionals.
For other readers, it may be interesting if you mention your industry in
your responses.
I look forward to reading your thoughts.
