Peter Eckersley at the New Scientist has posted a very interesting discussion on the intellectual property / open access debate. In a 24 June 2009 article, “Finding a fair price for free knowledge,” he acknowledges the conflict between advocates of scarcity and the advocates of abundance, and takes a balanced look at each side.
Finally, he suggests that “when we build institutions to promote the abundance of knowledge, everybody wins. When it comes to knowledge, you can never have too much of a good thing.”
This is a debate that freelance writers and editors need to follow. As producers of content and processors of knowledge, we are deeply impacted by intellectual property rights issues and the open access debate. While knowledge must be shared, there must be adequate financial incentives for those who process it and prepare it for general consumption. Although I would continue to write even if I couldn’t earn a living at it, I’d have less time to do it, as I’d have to earn a living another way. I believe this is true of most freelance writers, and fewer writers working fewer hours would ultimately result in less knowledge disseminated.
As Eckersley suggests, open access is here to stay, and that’s not a bad thing. I believe that if you follow this issue, you can be prepared for any changes that come, and ready to continue profiting from the work you love. What do you think?
Where to draw the line between open access and fees for intellectual property is an interesting discussion and one in which was discussed in some of my graduate classes. Each copyright holder needs to weigh the pros and cons of how this will affect the bottom line. I have seen some publishers who offer all of their content for free and emphasize that they are selling the container, not necessarily the content. The concept of separating the content and the container it can come in has become controversial, but one that must be contemplated in order to remain in the digital age.
Comment by April Michelle Davis — July 21, 2009 @ 2:15 pm