|
Here's an interesti ng link I was pointed to by our University of Melbourne
team working on problems confronting moves to a digital commons. We were
discussing the very varied pricing structures, the block-purchase
monpoloies, and the old-fashioned business models of electronic journals
subscriptions from peop;e like E;lsevier and taylor and Francis. My
colleague suggested taking a look at the hybrid model being develped in the
high-energy physics area
http://scoap3.org/index.html
The idea is for an international consortium of labs and universities to take
over the open access publication of the five or six core journals in their
field. It is possoble because the commuity of researchers has decided to
take action in the context of the crisis precipitated by rising subscription
prioces and the consequent reduction in subscriptions in the typical
research library.
Their model involves tendering for the refereeing process - which places
companies whose business models are based on producing and distributing
hardcopy to move towards a service model.
I wonder if we have the kind of common interest and commitment between
digital media specialists to bring about something similar?
Sean
On 30/04/08 6:35 PM, "roger malina" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> patrick et al
>
> I guess I would like to inject again the metaview of publishing
> and public expression as of an evolving ecology and that
> there needs to be a variety of ways that new ideas get disseminated
> and read and evaluated. Leonardo, MUTE , ANAT discussions, this list,
> SPECTRE etc are nodes in that ecology. The
> ecology is evolving rapidly driven both by social changes ( cultural
> globalisation) and new media technologies. Recognition systems
> and intellectual property systems always lag the technical implementations.
>
> Just like biological diversity ensures robustness and opportunity
> for biological innovation, the same in the world of ideas. One risk
> of the new system is that of "mono culture' in both biological
> terms ( eg genetically modified seeds) and in the world of ideas
> will emerge.
>
> One part of the system that needs serious redesigning to reflect the
> new environment are Universities themselves which in many cases
> are actually impediments to new ideas and expression rather than
> places where fragile heresies can be stimulated and tested.
>
> If I look at my personal writing practice, I blog, I discussion list,
> I facebook, I write book essays, i publish in exhbition catalogues
> that are not peer reviewed, i publish in peer reviewed venues. They
> all have different time scales of dissemination, different kinds of
> audiences.
>
> As I mentioned before we have been surprised at the success of the
> Leonardo Book series in a community that has been early adopters
> of new internet technologies and often creators of those modes, and
> a community at the forefront of IP discussions ( Leonardo Book Series
> published CODE edited by Ghosh from the CODE conference that
> addressed several years back many of the open source topics being discussed
> here.).
>
> And at some point Mark Amerika , Lev Manovich ,Geert Lovink 'had a book in
> them"
> and the Leonardo Book series was enthusiastic about giving them a forum.
> That doesnt make them part of an evil empire that abuses thinkers
> by enforcing a destructive intellectual property system !!
>
> The bull in the china shop is of course how people make a living while
> being able to express their ideas. IP systems were intended to help on
> that ( and not suppress free exchange of ideas !) and tenure in universities
> was also a way to ensure that thinkers had platforms that had a longer
> horizon than a 5 year contract. The sames issues as are driving the
> music industry debate.
>
> The most optimistic impression I have is that in the open internet ecology
> it is much easier than before for people outside major institutions
> and outside the anglosaxon n american/western europe system to get
> their work and ideas seen and read.But they need to make a living too.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:47 AM, Patrick Lichty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> I've been listening to the discussion about exclusivity, and thought I'd
>> chime in. What I might have to say may even be heretical for those who are
>> hungry for main-stage (or as some colleagues have put it, "Big Name"
>> presses).
>>
>> I think that some degree of respect is in order for groups like LEONARDO
>> who have marvelous legacies and have honestly done fairly well by promoting
>> art & tech. I also understand the concern for exclusivity in "big press"
>> publications as well, but I take a bit more of a Lessig-like approach.
>>
>> Being that I am part of a team that (still) puts out a scholarly
>> publication (albeit less frequently). I still stand behind Intelligent
>> Agent's model of exclusivity for one month, then republish with a polite
>> request to mention us in further publications. I think it's a good way to
>> share, while giving some precedent to the host institution.
>>
>> Here comes the heresy. Although I have published with MIT Press on a
>> number of occasions, and many others, this is not to say that I may not
>> web-publish the articles and chapters that I have published in print. My
>> rationale is that atoms are still desirable, and who really wants big
>> binders full of PDF's? In addition, most of my colleagues still copy
>> chapters, etc. There are endless rationalizations.
>>
>> Bottom line is that I feel that if you want paper, you will buy paper
>> regardless if it is online or not. I love my library, and it's wonderfully
>> easy to pop a book off the shelf. Will a press suffer if I place my chapter
>> online? Academic presses are small enough that I think they will not suffer
>> that badly, or even possibly have counterbalancing sales from greater
>> awareness of the work.
>>
>> But on the other hand, I also realize that a lot of effort goes into these
>> books and publications, and although I may re-publish, I feel that it's also
>> unfair to re-publish the material too soon after initial release. In other
>> words, give the publisher a little break, and then consider to do "what thou
>> wilt", with a note of the initial publication. In this way, the reader is
>> given a little plug for the original publisher, and the material goes out in
>> multiple channels.
>>
>> I agree that strict exclusivity is anachronistic, as I feel that as long
>> as there is a cross-mentioning, there is mutual benefit. I love LEA, and
>> all of the Leo publications - I think they do a great job. However, I feel
>> that a "gentlemanly" (another anachronism) dissemination of the information
>> is also of little harm, as those who want the book or materials will want
>> it, regardless.
>>
>> Therefore, I hope that others might agree that publishign with exclusivity
>> is perfectly fine, but reserve the right to put a copy on your website.
>> That is, if someone wants to read it, great, but also perhaps do not post
>> it across all your blogs...
>>
>
>
Prof Sean Cubitt
[log in to unmask]
Director, Media and Communications Program
Faculty of Arts
Room 127 John Medley East
The University of Melbourne
Parkville VIC 3010
Australia
Tel: + 61 3 8344 3667
Fax:+ 61 3 8344 5494
M: 0448 304 004
Skype: seancubitt
http://www.culture-communication.unimelb.edu.au/media-communications/
http://homepage.mac.com/waikatoscreen/seanc/
http://seancubitt.blogspot.com/
http://del.icio.us/seancubitt
Editor-in-Chief Leonardo Book Series
http://leonardo.info
|
