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that are not peer reviewed, i publish in peer reviewed venues.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...
>
--
Roger Malina Is France at this time
When in France I can be reached at:
011 33 (0) 6 15 79 59 26
or (0) 6 80 45 94 47
IN USA
phone 1 510 853 2007
|