LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION ACCESS
What is copyright? Is it not the right to give some selected people the authority to deny others information just because they are privileged to have what they have acquired freely published or in a form that is reproducible.
What should librarians do concerning the freedom of access to information? Refuse people to access the databases because the library has not yet paid up the subscription fee?
Encourage people to make copies of software that is necessary for access of information in the library?
The later would be the choice of every librarian who is concise of power of information and the right that every human being has to information.
The investors in technology should not be allowed to take control of who accesses the information that is available. This is because they would control demand by hiking prices, control the distribution of information and decide who will access information and who will not basing it the amount of money one has. This would eventually lead to inaccessibility of information by the poor. Who cannot pay the rising fee of access.
One can easily say to "hell with copyright" But just stop and think.
ReplyDeleteWhat will the authors/creaters of what you and I read benefit from their creations? fame, influence, and respect.
What will they feed? where will they get the materials they need to compile their creations?
There is a dilemma here..
We need the information created to reach every individual on earth no matter the financial background and we also want the creators to benefit from their creations morally, intellectually and financially.
WHAT DO WE DO!?
There is a paper on the internet that has some propsals to this question.It is titled: DECOMMODIFICATION OF INFORMATION and can be found on DECOMMODIFICATION OF INFORMATION
Check the writers opinions and give a comment. If you know or have other suggenstions come forword and be one in the team looking for solutions to this dilemma information professionals are in.
Let me differ with you, copyright and other intellectual protection rights are vital in this information age. Of course, as many other things, these rights have been abused by those with power but that doesn't make them inherently evil. This is why the counter culture to copyright is not advocation of a vacuum but rather the antithetic movement known in different guises including creative commons, or sharealike or copyleft.
ReplyDeleteAn an intro see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share-alike
I completely agree with you. Copyright has eveloved throgh many years and this has improved its look, feel and actually has led to it being accepted in the information field.
ReplyDeleteThe original purpose was actually to protect publishers and not authors but today it works to protect authors. The problem with copyright is what you have just stated " it has been abused". Loopholes that exists have let to it being abused and instead of benefiting the authors it has led to rich publishing houses and avoidance of information products that seems to the publishers as 'not market worthy' thus denying the authors of such materials a chance to make income and the audience of information therein.
Can we have a chance to provide a solution to this. The copyright has and can work but if we could have another option that could offer what copyright promises to offer without the loopholes that are present in copyright, wouldn't this be a good thing?
Let's not stop there. Let us provide an information incentive that will motivate authors, creators, designers and producers and at the same time make information in all formats available without breaking the law.
The Creative commons is a good attempt but this makes the authors lose some rights (reproduction of their work does not end up earning them money) and it is not an african solution!
It still favours those who have access to telecommunication networks.
Anonymous, no-one forces authors to use creative commons, so if (as you suggest) they get ripped off, then it happened with their knowing.
ReplyDeleteMwandeo, You are right. Anonymous is also right.
ReplyDeleteBy authors choosing Creative Commons they loose some rights and nobody forces them to do so. Their main goal is to provide information and to earn.
Well some authors do not care whether they make money or not in the process of providing informtion, some do not care whether they are recognized or not but some do it as a means of making a living.
For them they would go for copyright but again the publishers must accept the manuscript first which depends on market and publishers biases and willingness. In this way we users of information lack the privilage of using the information blocked by publishers which could be useful to us even though the publishers think otherwise.
Could we have a fund for appreciating authors who have contributed to the knowledge we have and then provide the knowledge free to users?
Copyright is meant to protect the creator's work and also a bridge and NOT a blocking wall between information providers and information users. As information professions we have the role to contribute to the protection of the creator's rights in the right way. We should not arrogantly keep information from users in the name of copyright. We should know the extend to which we say the copyright has been infringed and the extend to which it is fair.
ReplyDeleteI think information professionals should be involved in educating the public on copyright giving clearly the importance of copyright. The information users should not be denied access to information in anyway whatsoever unless as per the law. Please can we revisit cap.130 of the Kenyan laws.
I have a topic i feel we should discuss as it comes as a result of the copyright issue. "Access of information between the haves and the have nots"