The Open Access Movement: Where We Are and Where We Are Headed
Tuesday, July 26th, 2011By Karl Eckler, University of Washington iSchool Student
“There are current instances in which publishers are attempting to control the use of their publications [...] in ways that would hinder the operations of libraries.
“The alternatives among which libraries fear that they may have to choose in response to such limitations are either (a) to abandon completely the affected services; (b) to dispense with the use of modern technology and to revert to archaic and inefficient methods for providing such services; or (c) to pay in burdensome and discriminatory fees and red tape in order to be permitted to use the more effective methods.” [1]
–Verner W. Clapp, via JSTOR.
It would be understandable to interpret the above quotation as referencing the current issues surrounding digital delivery of journal articles. That Clapp was writing in 1968 about the right of libraries to use photocopiers on patrons’ behalf is of only minimal impact to his argument. In arguing that copyright exists not as an intrinsic right of the author or publisher, but instead as a requirement intended to expand the public good, he takes a radical position for the purposes of justifying a moderate one.
The same case could be made for Aaron Swartz, the Harvard ethics fellow, former Reddit employee and open access activist who, according to a grand jury indictment, “between September 24, 2010, and January 6, 2011 contrived to [...] download a major portion of JSTOR’s (an online system for archiving academic journals) archive onto his computers and computer hard drives” [2]. In fact, that case iscurrently being made by Demand Progress, the activist group Swartz founded for the purpose of “fighting back” against fee based delivery methods for journal articles [3].
The executive director of Demand Progress “compared the indictment to, ‘trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library’” [3]. Given that Mr. Swartz’s actions deprived MIT’s students, faculty and guests of access to JSTOR for several days, a better analogy might be that of putting someone in jail for breaking into the library at night, stealing all the books, stuffing chewing gum into the door locks, copying all the books and then bringing back the originals a week later.
I say this with the very highest admiration, sympathy and support for the open access movement. I feel it must be said that illegal action is not the way to accomplish the long term goal of open access: providing a sustainable system of publishing and accessing scholarly education and research. Swartz’s–alleged–actions directly damaged an organization that has made great strides toward this goal.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization whose access fees for its entire database are about that of a particularly high-priced single journal title from another source. Many smaller colleges and libraries find that JSTOR is, if not all they need, certainly all they can afford in the way of research databases. Unaffiliated scholars benefit from JSTOR as well, because “All JSTOR license agreements allow for walk-in use of the resources” [4]. In fact, it was this privilege that allowed Swartz to access JSTOR through MIT, without being a student or faculty there. An abuse that may lead to less, not more, access to JSTOR materials by the general public.
What Does This Mean To Librarians?
Mr. Swartz proved what anyone knowledgeable in Information Assurance or Cyber-security already knew: Unauthorized replication of an entire research database is not only possible, but also inevitable. Much like music, photographs, movies, books and computer programs, scholarly intellectual property can be and will be illegally shared on the Internet. Libraries will then have to make the same type of tough choices about how and to what extent they will block this content from their web-using patrons.
Also of concern will be rising costs from publishers and database providers worried about the delivery systems libraries provide to their users. Expect increased security requirements, a cost related to, but not budgeted with, electronic serials acquisitions. We can also expect a greater restriction of rights granted to libraries and end users in the contracts we sign and the EULAs (End User License Agreements) we click through.
These and other methods of control, “that would hinder the operations of libraries” [1] are the reasons that librarians must increase our control over–and bargaining power for–scholarly publication by supporting legal, equitable and comparatively inexpensive open access projects. By this course of action, we can strike a balance between public and private good, while providing our patrons with the research materials they require.
#
[1] Clapp, V. W. (October 01, 1968). The Copyright Dilemma: A Librarian’s View. The Library Quarterly, 38, 4, 352-387
[2] US District Court Massachusetts. (July 14, 2001). Grand Jury Indictment.
<http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pdf>. accessed 20 July 2011.
[3] Schwartz, John. (July 19, 2011) Open-Access Advocate Is Arrested for Huge Download. The New York Times. Accessed 20 July 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.html>
[4] JSTOR. (10 June 2011). JSTOR At A Glance. <http://about.jstor.org/sites/default/files/jstor-factsheet-20110610.pdf> Accessed 20 July 2011.
