What's wrong with this Picture?
A brand-new PhD recipient proudly tells his mother he has just
published his first article.
She asks him how much he was paid for it. He makes
a face and tells her "nothing,"
and then begins a long, complicated explanation...
2. A fellow-researcher
at that same university sees a reference to that same
article. He goes to their
library to get it: "It's not subscribed to here. We can't
afford that journal. (Our
subscription/license/loan/copy budget is already
3. An undergraduate
at that same university sees the same article cited on
the Web. He clicks on it.
The publisher's website demands a password:
"Access Denied:Only pre-paid
subscribing/licensed institutions have access to
undergraduate loses patience, gets bored, and clicks on Napster to
grab an MP3 file of his
favourite bootleg CD to console him in his sorrows.
later, the same PhD is being considered for tenure. His
publications are good, but
they're not cited enough; they have not made enough
of a "research impact."
thing happens when he tries to get a research grant: His research
findings have not had enough
of an impact: Not enough researchers have read,
built upon and cited them.
7. He decides
to write a book instead. Book publishers decline to publish
it: "It wouldn't sell enough
copies because not enough universities have enough
money to pay for it. (Their
purchasing budgets are tied up paying for their
inflating annual journal
8. He tries
to put his articles up on the Web, free for all, to increase their
impact. His publisher threatens
to sue him and his server-provider for violation
9. He asks
his publisher: "Who is this copyright intended to protect?" His
What's wrong with this picture?
(And why is
the mother of the PhD whose give-away work people cannot
steal, even though he wants
them to, in the same boat as the mother of the
recording artist whose non-give-away
work they can and do steal, even though
he does not want them to?)