"no one owns ideas."
If one has an idea, one should feel free to share it. Compensation/credit can take on many forms.
--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Steven . <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Steven . <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FYI--Why Academics Should Blog
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 2:01 AM
> Some observations on Morgan's comments:
>
> "I truly believe that people can't steal
> ideas."
>
> Yes they can. We’re not talking about performing a song
> that’s already been done by Pink Floyd etc. Such a comment
> is better applied in regards to a riff that is yet to become
> a song. Someone else steals that riff, builds a tune around
> it and releases it. They have stolen the original idea. What
> about sampling? Someone’s not trying to play like PF
> they’re just playing PF out of a sound system. What of
> photography, art or any other creative field? Your arguments
> on this matter seem a little restricted.
>
> "Those who like it are then inclined to by an actual
> physical book or audio book."
>
> Maybe, maybe not. In some cases this may work; however,
> I'm doubtful it proves any kind of cause-and-effect
> relationship. Evidence of this is lacking. Kiddies might
> just like the new Metallica single. They download it and
> never go out to buy the album. Hence, a flaw in your logic.
> Isn't it you that keeps telling me how 'real'
> all this binary code is? I'm intrigued, how does buying
> the physical book fit with that stance?
>
> "It makes people think!"
>
> And sometimes it just helps to disseminate biased,
> questionable disinformation and counterknowledge. Instead of
> actually knowing more, people might just think they do. Even
> the worst if ideas can make people think. That hardly makes
> them worth the effort of reading though.
>
> "no one owns ideas."
>
> If I have an idea then that is my idea. I may not own it in
> any tangible sense of the word as a possession but I do
> deserve credit for its conception. People can sell their
> ideas in the same way a tailor sells clothes. Some are good
> at manual work, others are good with their minds.
> Philosophical principles of ownership should not be used to
> undermine this.
>
> "If you want to stop the transmission of ideas you are
> trying to kill culture."
>
> Who is stopping the transmission of ideas? I fail to see
> how allowing someone to make a living off of their thoughts
> is doing this. If anything it promotes culture by
> facilitating creativity and giving people more incentive to
> come up with a good idea and get it out there. When the
> communists took away land ownership people cared less about
> how hard they toiled beacuse they would no longer reap the
> fruits of their labour. Intellectual copyright can be taken
> too far. It's fine to own an idea but things become
> problematic when an individual thinks they own a whole
> topic. Such a case would be accuratly described through your
> words because these folk usually try to stiffle any other
> research into that area.
>
> If we throw away the concept that ideas and their authors
> are linked then we’ll end up with a situation where
> everyone is going around implying that ideas are
> self-generated. Information is gathered from a range of
> sources. Yes, the internet can be good, yes, things need to
> change in response to media developments; but fundamentally,
> an idea belongs to its creator.
>
> Steven Gil
> School of History, Philosophy, Religion and
> ClassicsUniversity of Queensland
> > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:14:39 +1100> From:
> [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re:
> [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FYI--Why Academics Should Blog>
> To: [log in to unmask]> > Hi
> Sabina,> Some thoughts in response to your response.>
> > > Dude, this is what peer review is for.> > As
> Dan remarked, Peer review in its current stage takes ages.
> And it> often leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, a
> friend of mine> recently submitted an article based on
> her PhD. She is in ornithology,> and her PhD was
> fieldwork examining the patterns of bird populations in>
> Victorian (i.e.the state of Victoria in Australia) forests.
> One comment> in the middle of the paper was that her
> results were not the same as> another researcher had
> found. Another comment at the end was, "Well you>
> haven't found anything new". Also, she had done her
> research over the> summer of 2005-2006 and a comment,
> from her northern hemisphere> reviewer, was, "Well
> which summer was it?". Now its obvious that summer>
> in the southern hemisphere is December to February, and as
> her stated> study area was Victorian forests, the
> reviewer should have known better.> This is an
> exemplification of the same argument as why open source>
> software is better than proprietary software. More eyes. If
> someone had> been checking the peer reviewer's
> review, they would, hopefully, have> noticed these three
> basic errors. If this had been on the web, it would> have
> taken a very short time for the more eyes to bring this up.
> As it> was in academicland, the paper got rejected for
> publication. The process> for bringing these kinds of
> errors to people's notice is frankly too> slow. The
> process of getting things published in journals is too
> slow.> > Regarding the profit motive of journals, I
> honestly feel they are taking> two bites of the cherry.
> Yes it costs to make a journal, but they charge> authors
> to submit and they charge subscribers for access. And they
> want> the copyright so they can try to make more money
> later. The process of> ranking journals as a means to
> assess academics for employment is thus> flawed. The
> journals are not in it for the good of the academy. They
> are> in it to make profit. Therefore it is in their
> interests to allow free> dissemination of ideas and it is
> in their interests to only accept> papers that many peers
> will agree with. Remembering the great many> discoveries
> in many disciplines that were made by those not in the>
> mainstream should make us realise the dangerousness of this
> situation.> Who is going to publish the papers that
> genuinely break new ground?> Remember the vitriol
> directed at people who have kooky ideas that turn> out to
> be true, malaria comes to mind. Speaking of profit,
> let's> remember that we are in it for profit too. We
> hope to secure positions> that will provide us with
> income, and we hope to sell books that will> contribute
> to our reputations so that we can get positions that
> provide> us an income. This creates the tension between
> our desire to spread> knowledge throughout the world for
> the benefit of mankind, and our need> to put food on our
> tables.> > > It may promote my ideas, but it also
> makes them available for> plagiarism to anyone who trolls
> the net.> > As the RIAA has discovered, the data can
> no longer be the source of the> income stream. Because of
> the ease with which people can copy music the> RIAA have
> had to find new ways to make money. I am not saying it
> is> right that people copy music, or books, I am just
> saying that trying to> stop them is a truly Canute like
> act. It has taken them a while, but the> RIAA has finally
> come up with a business plan that means they don't
> have> to try to make so much money from the data. They
> have realised that they> can make money from live
> appearances and so on. I truly believe that> people
> can't steal ideas. Ok, so you write something and
> someone passes> it off as theirs. They may be able to
> articulate the idea, but they> didn't do the work
> that caused you to come up with it. Nobody does your>
> stuff like you do. No one plays Pink Floyd like Pink Floyd
> themselves.> No one lectures like Doug Ezzy but Doug
> Ezzy. I would pay to see Doug> lecture. This is why Doug
> is employed as a lecturer. As present day> authors, like
> Cory Doctrow, have found, giving your books away means
> you> make more money. He gives his books away as text
> files on his website.> He charges for actual physical
> books and for audio books. And he has> found that since
> he started giving away his books he made made loads> more
> money. Because the data is free more people get to see it.
> Those> who like it are then inclined to by an actual
> physical book or audio book.> > >Seems to me
> that's still the issue with the web: anyone can throw
> up> anything in any form, with little attention to
> reliability, factuality> or originality.> > As far
> as I am concerned this is a feature. One great advance of
> the> web, and of things like wikipedia in particular, is
> that people are> aware from the get go that information
> is contested. None of the,> 'because it is in a book
> it must be true' syndrome. It makes people not> take
> things for granted. It makes people think! And it makes
> people> aware that if you say something stupid the many
> eyes of the web will be> onto you in a New York
> minute.> > Ok, now this is looking a bit like a rant
> so I will wrap it up. My basic> point is that no one owns
> ideas. If you want to stop the transmission of> ideas you
> are trying to kill culture. Gods help us this should
> succeed,> we would be doomed.> > Regards,> >
> Morgan Leigh> PhD Candidate> School of History,
> Philosophy, Religion and Classics> University of
> Queensland> religionbazaar.blogspot.com> > Sabina
> Magliocco wrote:> > While I completely support the
> policy of open access, and would like to see more academic
> publications move to that model, there are also a number of
> flaws in the blogger's argument. Academics should feel
> free to blog if they choose to, but there may be many
> reasons why they might choose *not* to blog.> > >
> > Brief responses to the blogger's
> recommendations:> > > > 1. You need to improve
> your writing> > Seems like you haven't read much
> academic writing lately -- at least not the kinds I read,
> write and assign to my students. There is an entire
> cross-disciplinary movement that critically examines writing
> styles, especially the implicit power relations in dense,
> jargon-laden academic writing. It encourages experimental
> and community-focused writings. Many of us already write for
> the communities we work with as well as for more academic
> audiences.> > > > 2. Some of your ideas are
> dumb> > Dude, this is what peer review is for.
> Academia developed this process in order for scholars to
> give other scholars feedback on their ideas. I would much
> rather get feedback from scholars in my discipline, or in
> cousin disciplines, who actually understand what I'm
> writing about than from some random crank on the
> Internet.> > > > 3. The point of academia is to
> expand knowledge> > Yup, I agree. That's why we
> teach. Also, see above in terms of writing for the
> communities we work with and serve.> > > > 4.
> Blogging expands your readership> > Maybe. It also
> expands the number of wack-balls who email you daily. I
> already have to deal with several crank emails a day, on top
> of hundreds of messages from my students, colleagues and
> administration. I can't cope with more.> > >
> > 5. Blogging protects and promotes your ideas> >
> It may promote my ideas, but it also makes them available
> for plagiarism to anyone who trolls the net. It's quite
> an experience to see your own words reproduced for you in a
> student paper as original ideas -- only to realize they
> copied them from some random web page where they were posted
> without your authorization. Blogging would only compound
> this problem.> > > > 6. Blogging is
> Reputation> > A similar argument could be made for
> publication, with your reputation made by who cites you and
> where. We already have this system; why duplicate it in a
> much less controllable and reliable format?> > >
> > 7. Linking is better than footnotes> > Um,
> here's a newsflash: not everything ever written is on
> the web and linkable. Many of us still use (gasp!)
> historical sources.> > > > 8. Journals and blogs
> can (and should) coexist> > No argument here; I agree
> completely.> > > > 9. What have journals done
> for you lately?> > I completely support open access.
> But anyone who has run a journal will tell you that journals
> cost because production is not free. It costs to copy-edit,
> typeset and fact-check articles. It costs to print and
> distribute journals. Some of that cost could be offset by
> online publication, and probably will be given time; but
> there will still be costs involved in preparing articles for
> publication. You can't just throw any old thing up on
> the web, in any old form.> > > > Seems to me
> that's still the issue with the web: anyone can throw up
> anything in any form, with little attention to reliability,
> factuality or originality. At least academic publication
> tries to control for these to some extent.> > >
> > Best,> > Sabina> > > > Sabina
> Magliocco> > Professor and Chair> > Department
> of Anthropology> > California State University -
> Northridge> > 18111 Nordhoff St.> > Northridge,
> CA 91330-8244> > > > "If we want things to
> stay the way they are, everything will have to change."
> ~ Giuseppe di Lampedusa, The Leopard> > --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your dream beach house escape for summer! Sign up for the
> Hotmail Road Trip today.
> http://www.ninemsn.com.au/hotmailroadtrip
