Nowhere are these experiences and observations better synthesized than in a recent article by Richard Danner, Ruffy Research Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Information Services at Duke University Law School. In “Applying the Access Principle in Law: the Responsibilities of the Legal Scholar,” Danner does a superb job of explaining what is unusual about legal scholarship, what the experiences of changing the publication models have been and what needs and responsibilities for individual scholars remain.

One of Danner’s observations particularly struck me when I read this article, and that impression was confirmed by a conversation I had this week with several librarians. Contrary to the oft-repeated claim that open access will inevitably lead to loss of subscription income for publishers, Danner documents the experience of Duke Law School when it moved all of its journals to open access web accessibility. As Danner tells the story, the school had concluded that the expected loss of subscription income would be offset by the values gained from greater exposure to its 6 print journals. But in fact, there was almost no such decline in print subscriptions, even after 10 years of free access. Only one journal showed an overall decline (of about 2%) over that time period, while four showed significant increases in subscriptions. The sixth journal experienced a small increase. Clearly better access leads to subscriptions from readers who otherwise would not have known about the journals, especially the specialized ones, which exhibited the largest increases. This week a librarian I was speaking with confirmed that she had also experienced this unusual form of marketing, when faculty have asked her to subscribe to journals they have discovered through open Web accessibility.

Overall, Danner’s article is a masterful analysis of the structure of publishing in a particular field and how the “access principle,” a concept taken from John Willinsky’s book of the same name, could transform a field of scholarship. In spite of the oddities of legal scholarship, Danner is very successful at offering both an analysis and a call to action that deserve to be translated and applied in other fields.

Share This

The quote in my title came from Prof. James Boyle of the Duke Law School, explaining how the very links that create value on the Web are still illegal for much of scientific literature, even when the texts are available in digital form. To use an image suggested by another Duke Law professor, Jerome Reichman, the “web” of science today resembles the Rhine river in medieval times — it is so clogged with demands for toll that progress is impeded. Just as merchants had to stop over and over again to pay each castle owner in order to be allowed to continue sailing the river, today researchers must stop at innumerable “toll gates” to gather the research they need. This is why, as Boyle said, “a picture of an article” is not enough; what scientific research needs is a “semantic web” of linkages that allows research to be structured and shared. Boyle explains this concept, and the legal and economic obstacles to it, in this column from the Financial Times, “The irony of a web without science.”

This concept of a true “web of science” was developed more fully by John Wilbanks of the Science Commons. He demonstrated very compellingly the vastly wasteful research process that is determined by the siloing of research as it now exists on the web by show how one would approach the task of finding research about a particular protein in various databases, including Google and PubMed. Then he showed what a true semantic web approach could produce; a much more targeted and efficient search, even when conducted (as it currently must be) over a relatively small field of content. His conclusion was that keyword searching is less and less useful for research in the life sciences and that the use of “ancient tools” like Google for such research is largely dictated by the access restrictions created by an outmoded system of law (copyright) and an outmoded economic model for publishing. Finding ways to loosen the stranglehold of copyright law over the research web should be a primary goal of all discussions of copyright limitations and exceptions, while the search for new ways to disseminate scholarly research should occupy the attention of every scholar who hopes to take advantage of the tools offered by the 21st century.

Share This

First, about the free-rider problem. Sandy Thatcher, who is Director of the Penn State University Press, explains the issue as publishers see it in this reply to the quote from my post in the Chronicle. I want to be clear that I am not necessarily defending the practices at Georgia State; I cannot do so because I only know one side of the argument. One of the advantages a plaintiff gets in a lawsuit is a fairly long period to make their case publicly while the defendant is constrained from replying. But even if “free-riding” applies to the practices at GSU, it is important to note that our law tolerates and even encourages some degree of free-riding on intellectual property as a necessary condition to further creativity. That is the logic behind a long list of exceptions and restraints on the exclusive rights conferred by both copyright and patents, including fair use. My point about free-riding, however, is that it occurs at several places in the system of academic publishing. If GSU free-rides on the publishers, the publishers have likewise taken a unpaid ride on the labor of the University and its faculty when it acquired content from them without payment. Because this free-riding occurs at the very base-point of scholarly publishing, it really cuts off any argument against whatever is happening at GSU based on the incentive system copyright is supposed to create. The incentive for creation that copyright is supposed to offer simply does not exist because publishers absorb all the profits without passing them on to authors.

An exchange in the comments on my own post discusses this point in some depth. Monica McCormick argues that there is still an incentive system for authors, based on two points. One is the small amount of money that is usually paid to academic authors who publish monographs, and the other is the “stability” of the publishing system which advantages authors through promotion and tenure. Regarding the first point, there are some interesting replies from Prof. Kathleen Wallace, whose article “Marketing Ideas” addresses the issues of the scholarly communication system from the perspective of neither librarian nor publisher, but faculty author — the very person about whom we are arguing. So I leave that part of the incentive argument to Prof. Wallace and hope her article will generate some helpful discussion. As for the “stability” of the publishing system, I would note first that this advantage, insofar as it exists, does not seem to be a necessary creation of the copyright system as it is currently put into practice. It is certainly possible to image an equally serviceable system that does not rely on the uncompensated relinquishment of rights. Also, what stability there is in the system — based on effective evaluation and strong reputations — is partially itself the result of uncompensated labor done by faculty members working as reviewers and editors.

Finally, stability in scholarly publishing is currently very much in doubt, largely because of the astronomical prices changed by commercial publishers for academic journals. As more and more of a university’s budget goes for journal content, which often must be purchased repeatedly in different formats, less money is available to serve as incentive in other parts of the system. It is harder and harder to publish a scholarly monograph because sales have dropped so low; a decline that is directly attributable to funds being drawn away from monograph acquisitions by journal prices. McCormick’s point that we should distinguish between large commercial publishers and smaller academic ones, as well as between monograph and journals publishers, is exactly right. The problem is that the actions of the large commercial publishers — and we have to include Oxford and Cambridge Press, who are plaintiffs in the GSU suit, in this category even though the maintain a nominal affiliation with universities — are destabilizing the remainder of the system. It is simply not the case that all would be well of academics would just stop “pirating” their own works from victimized publishers.

Lastly, I want to comment on how all this should play out in the GSU lawsuit. If that case every reaches the stage of arguing the fair use defense, I hope the court will look very hard at the second fair use factor — the nature of the copyrighted work. Previously, the action on this factor has been minimal and has largely focused on published versus unpublished works and how much originality is necessary for “thick” or “thin” protection. But the economics of a particular segment of publishing, especially one as dysfunctional as scholarly publishing, ought to be considered when analyzing fair use, and factor two is a good place to do that. If the system is structured in a way that undermines the whole incentive purpose of copyright, as I have argued the scholarly publishing is, factor two, which really focuses on the expectations of creators of different types of works, should strongly favor an expansive application of fair use. After all, it is, uniquely, the creators themselves who are being sued here and who are asking for a space to make fair use of their own works. The court must determine what that space will look like, but it should be reminded that scholarly publishing simply does not function the way other systems of intellectual property creation do.

Share This

The case out of California, Marketing Information Masters v. the Board of Trustees of California State University reaches a rather predictable result in dismissing an allegation of copyright infringement on the grounds that states and state institutions are immune from lawsuits by private individuals and corporations. Congress has tried to change this doctrine in regard to copyright by adopting section 511 of the Copyright Act in 1994, but the courts keep brushing that provision aside. William Patry comments negatively on this trend here, while Georgia Harper partially defends it here. But what is really interesting is that the district court in Marketing Information Masters allowed the suit to go forward after dropping Cal State as a defendant by leaving intact the claim against the specific university employee named in his individual capacity. Pretty frightening stuff for state university faculty.

If we now flip forward to the suit filed yesterday against Georgia State University, we have to wonder if the same sovereign immunity problem will lead to dismissal. The four university officials are named only in their official capacity; no one claims they actually infringed copyright themselves. So how will this case avoid being dismissed? The answer seems to be in one of the few exceptions to sovereign immunity, the doctrine that one can sue state officials in their official capacity if one is seeking only injunctive relief — an order to stop the infringing activity — rather than money damages (the Ex parte Young doctrine). The complaint filed against GSU takes exactly this tack, seeking only an injunction to stop the activity going forward, not damages for alleged infringement in the past. On that basis, we might actually get a decision about the meat of the claim, that electronic reserves are almost always infringing if the universities do not pay for permission.

This claim, if successful, would increase student costs for educational materials dramatically as schools would have to pass on the costs for permissions in addition to the money already spent when they financed the original research, purchased the resultant articles and then, often, purchased them again in digital format. If publishers get their way a fourth payment would be required, and it would come straight out of students’ pockets.

The complaint against Georgia State acknowledges fair use, as it must, but it relegates it to a tiny fraction of situations, none of which can realistically be expected to occur on a modern college campus. In effect, this is an attempt to enforce judicially a “pay-per-use” model of content distribution. The real irony is that it is justified as an attempt to remedy a “free-rider” problem — the claim that universities are appropriating the work of publishers and authors without just compensation. This claim is patently absurd, given the amount of money university libraries invest in published resources, but it is downright offensive when the real issue is clarified. Publishers here are themselves the free-riders, obtaining a huge amount of academic content from the universities and their faculty without compensation. The GSU complaint cites as an irony the fact that one of the professors who is cited as infringing the copyright of Sage Publishing has himself published three articles in Sage journals. The gall of the man! Nowhere is it mentioned that he was required to give up those articles without payment for the privilege of publishing with a company that is now suing his employer to recover even more money for those freely donated articles.

A little bit of attention to the economics of scholarly publishing quickly undermines the claim in this complaint that, without permission fees for electronic reserves, the incentive system of copyright will be undermined. No monetary incentive currently exists for the vast majority of academic publishing, from the point of view of faculty, yet academics keep writing. There is no evidence at all that this well of free content will suddenly go dry if publishers are not able to collect an additional income stream from that well. If this suit goes forward in spite of sovereign immunity, that should be the issue on which the court focuses its attention.

Share This

The core of the model agreement is a double license; the author grants to the publisher both a time-limited exclusive right of first publication and a perpetual, non-exclusive license to publish, distribute and sublicense. Subject to these two licenses, copyright is retained by the author. The model agreement contains a number of options or “fill-in-the-blank” points where publishers can customize the license to fit specific conditions. As an attempt to lower the transaction costs associated with publishing, and as an equitable balancing of needs that do not have to be in permanent competition, this is an excellent model to be followed in academic publishing.

It is unfortunate but predictable that one of the most immediate responses from the publishing community was a very revealing demur to the BioOne model agreement project. A university press director posted his objections within two days of the announcement; his position that the agreement is inappropriate even for academic publishers exposes the growing gap between academic publishing and the values of the academy that supports it.

One complaint is that, without an exclusive right in the published works, the publisher will have no standing to sue putative pirates who want to steal academic work. First, we should note that there will still be a rights holder under the model agreement who can enforce the copyright – the author. The problem is that the author’s interests not only do not coincide with the publisher in some cases, they sometimes conflict. The objecting press director notes that the author may actually benefit from wider distribution by a “pirate,” so one wonders why authors should continue to sign away copyrights to organizations who want to wield them as litigation weapons contrary to the authors’ interests. Copyright is supposed to be an author’s right; its genesis as a publisher’s right (associated with their role in censoring unpopular content) is centuries out of date.

And this brings us to the second revealing question about this objection – who are the pirates we are supposed to fear enough to give up copyright entirely to publishers? In fact, the only “pirates” against whom publishers tend to threaten litigation are the authors themselves and their institutions. The “theft” these publishers want to control is faculty authors passing out copies of their work to their own students or to others on campus, to their colleagues at other institutions, and via their websites. No one seriously expects large-scale republication of scholarly content for profit; all that is being defended by these grabs for exclusive copyright transfer is the traditional, and increasingly expensive, subscription model of access. If there is real danger that subscriptions will be canceled because authors retain their own copyrights, and this has never been shown to be the case, all it would illustrate is that this traditional business model has runs its course and no longer serves the interests of those it was created by and for.

The Ithaka report on university publishing asked presses and their parent institutions to reexamine how well publishing is integrated with the interests and values of the academy and the specific university. The BioOne Model Publication Agreement can help advance that integration, and objections to it are a profound illustration of the problem we need to address.

Share This

First, there is the phenomenon of “cross-subsidies,” where a product or service is given away for nothing in order to create an income stream somewhere else. Anderson uses the example of King Gillette, who gave away his safety razors in order to get men hooked on using them and to make money selling the disposable blades. As Anderson points out, the Internet provides greater freedom for businesses to make money from one set of customers while giving things away to another. Advertising supported Web business are only one of many examples.

The other trend Anderson identifies is “simply that anything that touches digital networks quickly feels the effect of falling costs.” He provides a nice discussion of why the cost of Internet communication is approaching or has reached the point where it is close enough to free so that we can “round down to zero.”

Anderson’s article ends with a “taxonomy of free” that describes five business models built around a base price of zero.

What has this to do with scholarly communications? We are already seeing the pressure towards free for all kinds of intellectual property on the Web. Music, of course, was the first IP commodity to head to zero, and it did so before distributors could catch on and move to a zero-based business model. Now the music companies are scrambling to find ways to add value to music in order to move customers back from the lure of $0.00. That is a very difficulty task, needless to say.

As the same pressures are exerted on digital scholarship, those who make that scholarship available, whether traditional publishers, libraries or individual scholars, need to plan ahead for how they will at least recover basic costs as the price of access falls. If we sit on our hands and deny that this is happening, we may well witness “the end times for tradition journal publishing,” as was recently predicted in Inside Higher Ed.

The issue is going to be how to add value to what could be obtained for free, in order to recover costs. To guide us, here is one more article about “freeconomics” — In “Better than Free, Edge columnist Kevin Kelly suggests eight “generatives” that can move a product past free to a point where consumers will pay something, not for the product necessarily, but for the value that comes with it. Kelly’s discussion of these “generatives” — immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity, accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability — should be required reading for those who advocate, consider or foresee that move toward free access to scholarship. Even if we fear it, we are likely to have to deal with it. The ability to add value along the lines that Kelly suggests may keep us and the scholarly apparatus we have grown familiar with over the years afloat in the age of freeconomics.

Share This

This was a victory for many library and higher ed. advocates of public access, but there is a certain element of “be careful what you wish for” here. Many campus are now scrambling to figure out the legal, practical and financial implications of complying with this mandate. Three issues must be addressed in a relatively short time frame.

1. How will authors manage their copyrights to comply with the mandate? It has long been important for authors to think about and negotiate for an appropriate copyright arrangement with publishers. Insofar as this mandate forces them to do what they ought to have been doing for years, its impact is salutary. But it will still come as a shock to many researchers and will increase the need for sound copyright guidance and policies on campuses.

2. How will campuses deal with the mechanics of deposit? Since lack of compliance could imperil future research funds, this is an issue which should not be left entirely to individual authors. Institutional repositories, where they exist, are in a good position to help with the mechanics of deposit, and library staffs will also need to be aware of the process and ready to assist. Although the process is not hard, and is easier to accomplish if the author is involved, it is clear that institutional guidance and assistance is called for.

3. Likewise, researchers will need assistance locating and tracking the PubMed reference numbers of their articles that are deposited with NIH. Starting with the May round of grant funding, NIH will require that these numbers be included as part of the investigators previous work with NIH when applying for renewals or new funding. Again, libraries are in the best position to help researchers locate and retrieve this information.

Hard on the heels of this public access mandate came news of the vote this week by the Harvard faculty to require deposit of all articles written by the Arts and Sciences faculty in Harvard’s own institutional repository. The faculty agreed unanimously to automatically grant to Harvard a non-exclusive license to their work to put those articles in the repository; authors retain copyright and are free to publisher their work anywhere they lack as long as the publisher will accept that copyright is subject to this prior license. The decision is a strong affirmation of the value of open access to academic research, both to the public and to the academy itself.

Lots of commentary on these two decisions is available. This comment by William Patry addresses both, and there is an excellent roundup of information and comment on the Harvard decision here on Open Access News and on Mike Carroll’s blog here. I have written about the NIH mandate here.

Have we arrived at a “tipping point” for open access? At the very least, these developments are a great opportunity to begin or deepen a campus conversation about open access – what it is, all the different whys it can be accomplished and, most importantly, why it is so important, both in our own best interests in higher education and in the public interest.

Share This

I have commented before on the growth of informal channels of scholarship, but have not written much about the relevant roles for different types of scholarly venues. These posts, and several others to which they link, do a nice job of starting that discussion. The linking itself is an important phenomenon; blogs provide a novel environment in which arguments and discussions can connect to and interpret each other. From that perspective, citing to a blog in a traditional article seems to defeat some of the principle advantages of blogging – the immediacy and interconnection.

It is also interesting to speculate on why legal scholarship seems to be the discipline in which this conversation is taking place. When I first read about it, I wondered if the unique aspects of legal scholarship, where most of the journals are edited by students rather than by full-time academics, might lead the professorate to feel less proprietary about their publications and thus more willing to experiment outside of the traditional confines of scholarship. Leiter suggests a somewhat different spin on this observation when he writes: “The problem is that reputational effects in the legal academy are mediate by two institutions whose primary arbiters are not, themselves, experts or even quasi-experts… First, one of the major venues for legal scholarship remains the student-edited law reviews” (the second institutional problem is the “journalistic reception” of legal ideas). For Leiter, the problem to which this lack of expertise contributes is the “availability cascade” – “an opinion that appears to be informed gains credibility by virtue of being repeated and thus becoming current in discourse.” For its discussion of this phenomenon alone, Leiter’s piece is worth reading, even while recognizing that blogs are certainly here to stay and scholarship is going to have to find ways to deal with them.

Share This

At Duke we have been struggling to deal with a very similar situation. A great deal of effort went in to the creation of digital collections feature lots of wonderful material in our collections on the history of advertising. So our staff was understandably distressed to find out that an Internet entrepreneur had downloaded virtually the entire collection, which is mostly public domain images, and was selling the CDs through his own website and via eBay intermediaries. It is a well-established principle of copyright law, of course, that “sweat of the brow” does not give one rights in a collection of facts or public domain material. Nevertheless, we were unhappy because we made the collections available in order to facilitate scholarship and research without barriers of place or fees for access; selling the material undermines our vision of the research purposes of the collection.

We finally decided to send a letter asking the vendor to stop selling this collection. We based our request on three claims – a compilation copyright in the whole collection, which was copied in its entirety with our selection and arrangement (and some commentary) intact; a fear that, because the Duke name appears in a few places, there might be confusion about our relationship with the vendor (there is no such relationship, in fact); and our concern that some of the images may still be protected by copyrights held by the donor who gave us the material in the first place. Most galling to us is the fact that the vendor who has appropriate this material himself claims, on the site, to hold a compilation copyright in the material.

So far our letter has been ignored, and the material is still available for sale. We are unsure if we want to take further steps or what those steps might be. We have no desire to impede the flow of information to people who want or need it. But we do want to uphold the value of free access to the public domain, and also to protect and value the intellectual efforts of our fine curators. Perhaps the best thing I can do is to use this space to encourage readers to check out the free digital displays of this fascinating material on the Emergence of Advertising in America website. And remind all that when someone offers to sell this kind of material that looks like it came from a library special collection, let the buyer beware!

Share This

Two aspects of this project make it significant beyond its own goals. First, it is only the initial such project that Mellon plans to finance; similar projects in Slavic studies and ethnomusicology are already in the works. Second, and most important, this project will help demonstrate that cooperation between academic presses is possible without surrendering the unique features of which many university presses are justly proud. Each of the publishers in this first project will be responsible for selecting its own titles and will continue to select in the specific area within the broad topic that is their own specialty.

It is no secret that publishers routinely have to reject quality manuscripts because the costs of production make them poor financial risks, however good the scholarship may be, and that many young scholars therefore can not get their work published. The hope for this experiment is that the value of collaboration, in terms of significant cost savings so that more worthy monographs will see print, can be realized without losing distinctive reputations or sacrificing quality.

A far more radical push to change the economics of scholarly publishing is expressed in this post on “Digital Media, Games and Open Access” from the blog “Grand Text Auto.” It is written by Nick Montfort, an assistant professor of digital media at MIT, ostensibly to explain his reasons for refusing to review for traditional journals anymore, saving his efforts for open access publications. As Montfort says, “there must be a few things that those of us who are part of the scholarly publishing process can do to foster an open-access future. The easiest thing that I’m able to think of is simply not volunteering our labor to lock academic writing away from the public.” His explanation of the current inequitable system of journal publishing is both clear and scathing, leading to his conclusion that that system, based on restricting access to scholarship rather than encouraging it, should be called “anti-publishing.”

These two very different approaches to the economic problems of scholarly communication may seem poles apart, but each is founded on the recognition that our current systems do not serve scholarship very well and are likely unsustainable. Whether changes come through carefully planned collaboration or through the radical disruption of open access (or both), change is certainly in our future.

Share This