Withholding knowledge is also power
via INSIDE Higher Ed:
JSTOR -- which until now has been a repository for back issues of nearly 800 journals -- will, beginning in 2011, provide current content from the 50-plus journals that the UC Press publishes, meshing the new releases seamlessly with the journals' back files and primary content from libraries increasingly found on JSTOR. ......libraries would buy access to both current and archival journals in a single transaction, though the pricing models would be different. Users would continue to pay for JSTOR's archival material in roughly the same way they do now, paying for collections of journals at prices set by JSTOR, but publishers will set their own prices for the current journals, which while provided through JSTOR will be clearly branded by journal and publisher.SIGH"The important issue here is whether or not other publishers will get on board with the UC Press," Steven J. Bell, associate university librarian for research & instructional services at Temple University, said in an e-mail message. "As they say, this agreement could be a 'game changer,' but not if the other publishers don’t buy in to the change.""Aren't we at a point where we should be moving forward more to integrate monograph with journal content online, rather than allowing this new 'digital divide' to grow even further?" ...[Oh yes - the digital divide.]"It would be a natural extension of this platform to have that content. Eventually, it won't matter what the traditional carrier was -- it will be 'content,' in a variety of presentations, that represents the whole scope of the research endeavor."
JSTOR's method of digitally packaging academic knowledge seems to be maturing into a richer model. What's unclear is why the expansion of "content" is not yet matched by similar efforts to broaden audience access. Why not set as a goal the chance for anyone, anywhere to access articles for minimal micropayments? Or is that not within "the whole scope of the research endeavor." What's the down side of sharing knowledge?
Labels: all thungs JSTOR, break jstor wide open, History Management, open access, open systems
posted by Tom Matrullo at Friday, August 14, 2009
5 Comments:
Library - a collection of manuscripts, publications, and other materials for reading, viewing, listening, study, or reference.
Library of Congress - The Library's mission is to make its resources available and useful to .. the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations.
I continue to believe that JSTOR should be "eminent domained" by the Library of Congress and opened into the public domain.
Google could buy it with pocket change. But I guess it won't:
"Google's tentative settlement of the copyright dispute allows for readers to have free browsing rights to only 20 percent of a book."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111797207&
Re: micropayments .. several years ago I used to write about the possibility of charging for content by the bit, it being "weighed" on the way out in the check-out process (inspired by D. Weinberger's long-ago observation that hyperlinks pounded documents into smithereens and enabled the loose joining of small pieces, elsewhere).
One could go into a document, extract that which they wanted or needed (several paras, as opposed to the whole piece, for example), and accompany the use of the slice by citation of its provenance).
I still don't know why that hasn't been made possible or adopted as a reasonable form of obtaining some revenue. Seems to me as if many people would find this reasonable and more fair than a set price for the whole piece. However, it may well be that this concept, like many others I advance, may be flawed.
I guess I'm looking at models that really don't fit comfortably under the rubric "Business Models."
The idea is to extend the lucrative pay-for-access system already in place for atoms of infrastructure to bits of content. The only simple way to do this, that I can see, is to make content funding blind to size or brand vanity. Any content accessed generates a micropayment - taken from a common pool created from funds already paid to the Pipes, who seem to have monopoly-scale surpluses.
The idea is to set some equitable basis for content creation. If one wishes to build a branded business and use ads, etc. on top of it, fine. But the idea is to avoid content subscription fees on top of already fairly steep broadband access fees.
I guess I'm looking at models that really don't fit comfortably under the rubric "Business Models."
The idea is to extend the lucrative pay-for-access system already in place for atoms of infrastructure to bits of content. The only simple way to do this, that I can see, is to make content funding blind to size or brand vanity. Any content accessed generates a micropayment - taken from a common pool created from funds already paid to the Pipes, who seem to have monopoly-scale surpluses.
The idea is to set some equitable basis for content creation. If one wishes to build a branded business and use ads, etc. on top of it, fine. But the idea is to avoid content subscription fees on top of already fairly steep broadband access fees.
I'd say this is a more robust and fair "model" than what I was thinking of several years ago. It acknowledges the role of content creators and would seem to put the pipes and pipers in the appropriate place.
Post a Comment
<< Home