Peter Subers Open-Access-Rückblick auf 2010


The worst of 2010:

10. James Murdoch, heir to the Rupert Murdoch news empire. For objecting to the British Library plan to provide OA to its archive of historical newspapers on the ground that it would be bad for business.

9. English Heritage. For claiming to own the copyright on Stonehenge and demanding a cut of the profits from image libraries selling photos of the monument.

[Siehe auch ]

8. Todd Platts, Republican representative from Pennsylvania. For the bill (HR 5704) he introduced in the US House of Representatives, in 2005 and again in 2010, giving faculty at the US military academies copyrights in their scholarly writings (“in order to submit such works for publication”), and requiring them to transfer those copyrights to publishers.

7. A copyright reform bill before the Czech parliament drafted by the Ministry of Culture and the national collecting societies without input from other stakeholders. For giving effect to the author’s open license only after the author notifies the collecting societies, and for placing the burden of proof for that notification on authors. For erecting new and needless bureaucratic hurdles in the way of anyone wanting to use open licenses.

6. The Swiss National Library. For using public funds to digitize public-domain books, and then selling the digital copies rather than making them OA.

[Siehe auch ]

5. “Misinformation and gatekeeper conservativism” in the field of communications (in the apt words of Bill Herman and the Ad Hoc Committee on Fair Use and Academic Freedom of the International Communication Association). For leading a fifth of surveyed researchers in the field to abandon research in progress because of copyright problems, leading a third to avoid research topics raising copyright issues, and forcing others to seek permission before discussing or criticizing copyrighted works.

4. The majority of OA journals that don’t use open licenses, such as the 81% of journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals that don’t use CC licenses. For failing to realize one of their potential advantages over most collections of green OA. For missing a golden opportunity to provide libre OA, make their articles more useful, and serve research and researchers.

3. The German Association of Higher Education (Deutscher Hochschulverband). For demanding an “education- and science-friendly” copyright policy that would put copyright protection ahead of education and science, and rule out OA mandates. For taking a public position without doing elementary research first. (Like last year’s Heidelberg Appeal, the DHV confuses green OA mandates with gold OA mandates, and doesn’t realize that green OA policies are compatible with the freedom to submit work to the journals of one’s choice.)

[Siehe auch ?p=18210

2. BP. For hiring scientists to research the gulf oil spill under a contract that prohibits them from “publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years….[that requires them] to withhold data even in the face of a court order if BP decides to fight such an order…[and that] stipulates that scientists will be paid only for research approved in writing by BP….” For undermining both the integrity and the availability of research.

1. The American Psychological Association. For claiming in a Congressional hearing that requiring public access for publicly-funded research would violate President Obama’s December 2009 memo on government transparency –not the transparency part of the memo, but the exceptions for national security, privacy, and “other genuinely compelling interests”. For asserting that there is a genuinely compelling interest in putting the financial interests of private-sector publishers ahead of the research interests of researchers, even at government agencies whose mission is to advance research and put the public interest first.

Robert Heinlein responded to the APA position more than 70 years ago (Life-Line, 1939): “There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.”

Übrigens bin ich in dem Text auch vertreten:

“Klaus Graf found that only one of the 24 articles published in 2008 by the Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie, Germany’s leading LIS journal, was free online in 2010.”

“Klaus Graf created a screencast to teach users outside the US how to use a US proxy to read Google Books.”

Diesen Blogbeitrag zitieren
Klaus Graf (2011, 3. Januar). Peter Subers Open-Access-Rückblick auf 2010. Archivalia. Abgerufen am 23. Juni 2024, von

Autor: Klaus Graf

Historiker und Archivar, Blogger

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.

Suche in OpenEdition Search

Sie werden weitergeleitet zur OpenEdition Search