Re: [JoPP-Public] JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 63, Issue 17
I am not an expert on copyright, but feel strongly about some implications of what we are discussing. To outline briefly my politics: As a Marxist, I am all for open access, but find some of the free culture positions rather problematic, particularly those ones that are rooted in liberal theory (Stallman, Lessig, Benkler etc). One of these positions is the idea that academic should not only make available their work for free, but also make it available in a format does not respect authors rights in that it does not care about attribution. In a neoliberal climate that massively devalues academic labour it is not a wise strategy to devalue academic labour even further and to do so voluntarily. Therefore I do not support copyright politics, that contribute to new levels of proletaristion of academic labour. But this is not just about politics, it also about the future orientation of this journal. I would be very hesitant to publish in a journal that invites and encourages the use of my labour without appropriation. And I have a feeling I am not the only academic with such a view. So to go for PD, and for that matter for CC0 has imho the long-term effect that academics will stay away from JOPP and that the reputation of JOPP as a journal with high-quality academic rigour could seriously suffer. My preference would be CC-BY-SA best, Andreas On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:44 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Send JoPP-Public mailing list submissions to [email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of JoPP-Public digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production (Stefan Meretz) 2. Re: Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production (Peter Troxler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:21:34 +0200 From: Stefan Meretz <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
I completely agree with Stefano. I want to add an explanation to Mathieu:
Am 19.08.2017 um 04:50 schrieb Mathieu ONeil:
To sum up: one license (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AU) does not allow commercial use or derivatives (better for authors?), the other (CC BY 4.0) does (better for the Cause?)
If the purpose is to prevent commercial use and simultaneouly keep freedom of sharing, then CC BY-SA, the most restrictive free cultural license, is the best choice, NOT NC. Why? Share-alike means that the commercial user itself has to use SA which conficts with keeping content scarce to make money of it (especially when published offline). NC explicitly prevents commercial use but at the same time sharing in a lot of areas. And commercial use is a wide notion which applies to books as well as to blogs with adds on it.
Concluding, I would prefer CC0, since I find commercial use okay beause it spreads content, and thats my aim. We live in capitalism, and thats the way it goes. Second best is CC-BY. Third would be CC BY-SA. Everything below that is neither useful nor acceptable - for me :-)
Best, Stefan
-- Start here: www.meretz.de OpenPGP-ID: 0x1D4BB160
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:15:17 +0200 From: Peter Troxler <[email protected]> To: "Journal of Peer Production's general and public list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production Message-ID: <CAH-wfc1copB_0v4o5rhjSc47kPx6dMP+Y-fYQ_ [email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi all
chiming in from the "docle far niente" on the license issue
I am also very strongly opposed to restrictive licences as CC-BY-NC-ND which are in actual fact worse and more limiting than good old copyright. I've been trying to send this message for a while, but for some reasons my computer and my email account don't play nicely currently. So this might be reiterating a few statements made already
If we want to go CC, then CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are the most sensible options. Wikipedia have chosen the CC-BY-SA license, where the SA element essentially keeps content free and discourages commercial use (by *removing* commercial protection).
I do not concur with Angela that ND is needed for the integrity of the work, as integrity is already protected by copyright (to which a CC license is an addendum) I do not concur with Angela that NC is needed so "no-one can make a profit out of the articles" ... NC signals that we don't want that, but it does not protect. Furthermore, NC would prevent us from coming up with some scheme to rise money for server costs etc. (mind you: even fundraising is regarded as commercial in the interpretation of NC!)
A public domain dedication (PD) is much more radical. Going public domain is more radical and could invite users to not attribute work -- whereas attribution (being cited) is one of the main "currencies" in the academic field. Creative Commons have developed the CC0 "dedication" to mark that a work is deliberately put into the public domain (most often used for open government data), and the PD, a mark to "certify" that something is in de public domain; see https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/. Angela is right that the public domain situation is legally unclear.
I would personally prefer the CC-BY-SA license for the reasons stated above; second best is CC-BY
Best / Peter
Disclosure: I have worked for Creative Commons Netherlands in 2007-2009 and I am a founding member of the Communia association ( https://www.communia-association.org/)
On 19 August 2017 at 04:50, Mathieu ONeil <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Zack, all
OK, now I remember why I always try to stay out of license discussions.. :-)
(FWIW: IMHO there is a big difference between massively multiple-authored WP and single or small-group authored research articles, but whatever.)
To sum up: one license (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AU) does not allow commercial use or derivatives (better for authors?), the other (CC BY 4.0) does (better for the Cause?)
What do others think?
cheers
Mathieu
=====================================================
KEY POINTS BELOW::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::
=====================================================
Angela argues for https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/au/
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Australia (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 AU)
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. Non-Commercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Zack argues for https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
------------------------------ *From:* JoPP-Public <[email protected]> on behalf of Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> *Sent:* Saturday, August 19, 2017 11:33 *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* Re: [JoPP-Public] Fw: Your journal application to DOAJ: Journal of Peer Production
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 12:56:19AM +0000, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
This may be a silly question but I wonder if there is a difference between the moral rights (as Angela said) of the author of computer code which is reused and those of the author of thoughts/words?
Wikipedia --- words, not code --- license is CC-BY-SA. The whole Free Culture movement is not about code, even though it clearly got inspiration from it.
Also, very high profile examples of open access journals that have adopted Free Culture licenses abound, e.g.,
- https://elifesciences.org/about/openness Openness | About | eLife <https://elifesciences.org/about/openness> elifesciences.org We believe that open access to research findings and associated data has the potential to revolutionise the scientific enterprise
- https://www.plos.org/license License | PLOS <https://www.plos.org/license> www.plos.org Appropriate attribution can be provided by simply citing the original article (e.g., Huntingtin Interacting Proteins Are Genetic Modifiers of Neurodegeneration.
- https://peerj.com/about/publications/ PeerJ - About - Our Publications <https://peerj.com/about/publications/> peerj.com PeerJ is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, scholarly journal, whilst PeerJ Preprints is a venue for rapid communication of results.
having a bottom up journal that has "peer production" in its name do anything short of that would be very weird.
Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . [email protected] . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
_______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
_______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
Andreas Wittel <[email protected]> writes:
I am not an expert on copyright, but feel strongly about some implications of what we are discussing. To outline briefly my politics: As a Marxist, I am all for open access, but find some of the free culture positions rather problematic, particularly those ones that are rooted in liberal theory (Stallman, Lessig, Benkler etc).
One of these positions is the idea that academic should not only make available their work for free, but also make it available in a format does not respect authors rights in that it does not care about attribution. In a neoliberal climate that massively devalues academic labour it is not a wise strategy to devalue academic labour even further and to do so voluntarily. Therefore I do not support copyright politics, that contribute to new levels of proletaristion of academic labour.
But this is not just about politics, it also about the future orientation of this journal. I would be very hesitant to publish in a journal that invites and encourages the use of my labour without appropriation. And I have a feeling I am not the only academic with such a view. So to go for PD, and for that matter for CC0 has imho the long-term effect that academics will stay away from JOPP and that the reputation of JOPP as a journal with high-quality academic rigour could seriously suffer.
My preference would be CC-BY-SA
Heh, I would argue for CC0 for similar reasons that Andreas argues for CC-BY-SA. I don't think academics today have to (or empirical are) relying on the copyright regime to enforce attribution (BY) or the misrepresentation of their work (SA) -- these are tools that publishers use to extort money from academics and other consumers. Academics have their own culture, ethics and even legal regulations to address problems of non-attribution (e.g. plagiarism) and misrepresentation (for instance straw man arguments), and these should be adequate to address the matter. I would use CC0 simply to ensure that the journal content is available to readers without relying on the copyright regime as little as possible. To summarise: I argue that respect for and enforcement of IP rights contributes to the proletarisation of academic labour much more than defends against it. Therefore, we should dismantle it. I also agree with Stefan Meretz that our PD/CC0 policy is one of the things that sets JoPP apart from other open access journals, which buy into the more restrictive and more pro-IP regimes offered by Creative Commons. So far I was very happy to explore an alternative path based on trying to have as less restrictions as legally possible. As Zack mentions, there are already plenty of other journals who are working with more restrictive licences. Parts of my articles have been cut up and published in fanzines, mostly with attribution as a courtesy, but sometimes without. Sometimes fanzines are sold for a price and profits go to the publisher. Do I mind? No, my livelyhood is not dependent on how many people credit me, except citations in academic publications, which are, again, governed by scientific norms and not IP law. What I care about is that the material is available for read and reuse. I think the subtle shift from an informal PD dedication to the formal application of CC0 would be sufficient to clarify the questions about author rights that are necessary for JoPP to be listed as Open Access. I prefer this solution, rather than imposing more terms for conformity's sake, or in hopes that the IP regime would serve the interest of authors. Sorry to chime in late too, and make the discussion more difficult. -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 https://relay70.metatron.ai/ ~ We are the static site generation!
Why not using one license (say CC0) as default while offering the option for a second one (say CC-BY-SA)? On 19 August 2017 at 18:51, maxigas <[email protected]> wrote:
Andreas Wittel <[email protected]> writes:
I am not an expert on copyright, but feel strongly about some implications of what we are discussing. To outline briefly my politics: As a Marxist, I am all for open access, but find some of the free culture positions rather problematic, particularly those ones that are rooted in liberal theory (Stallman, Lessig, Benkler etc).
One of these positions is the idea that academic should not only make available their work for free, but also make it available in a format does not respect authors rights in that it does not care about attribution. In a neoliberal climate that massively devalues academic labour it is not a wise strategy to devalue academic labour even further and to do so voluntarily. Therefore I do not support copyright politics, that contribute to new levels of proletaristion of academic labour.
But this is not just about politics, it also about the future orientation of this journal. I would be very hesitant to publish in a journal that invites and encourages the use of my labour without appropriation. And I have a feeling I am not the only academic with such a view. So to go for PD, and for that matter for CC0 has imho the long-term effect that academics will stay away from JOPP and that the reputation of JOPP as a journal with high-quality academic rigour could seriously suffer.
My preference would be CC-BY-SA
Heh, I would argue for CC0 for similar reasons that Andreas argues for CC-BY-SA. I don't think academics today have to (or empirical are) relying on the copyright regime to enforce attribution (BY) or the misrepresentation of their work (SA) -- these are tools that publishers use to extort money from academics and other consumers. Academics have their own culture, ethics and even legal regulations to address problems of non-attribution (e.g. plagiarism) and misrepresentation (for instance straw man arguments), and these should be adequate to address the matter. I would use CC0 simply to ensure that the journal content is available to readers without relying on the copyright regime as little as possible. To summarise: I argue that respect for and enforcement of IP rights contributes to the proletarisation of academic labour much more than defends against it. Therefore, we should dismantle it.
I also agree with Stefan Meretz that our PD/CC0 policy is one of the things that sets JoPP apart from other open access journals, which buy into the more restrictive and more pro-IP regimes offered by Creative Commons. So far I was very happy to explore an alternative path based on trying to have as less restrictions as legally possible. As Zack mentions, there are already plenty of other journals who are working with more restrictive licences.
Parts of my articles have been cut up and published in fanzines, mostly with attribution as a courtesy, but sometimes without. Sometimes fanzines are sold for a price and profits go to the publisher. Do I mind? No, my livelyhood is not dependent on how many people credit me, except citations in academic publications, which are, again, governed by scientific norms and not IP law. What I care about is that the material is available for read and reuse.
I think the subtle shift from an informal PD dedication to the formal application of CC0 would be sufficient to clarify the questions about author rights that are necessary for JoPP to be listed as Open Access. I prefer this solution, rather than imposing more terms for conformity's sake, or in hopes that the IP regime would serve the interest of authors. Sorry to chime in late too, and make the discussion more difficult.
-- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 https://relay70.metatron.ai/
~ We are the static site generation!
_______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
-- Dr. Vasilis Kostakis Senior Research Fellow, Tallinn University of Technology Research Affiliate, Harvard University Founder, P2P Lab
Hi all, (I've changed the subject to something more meaningful.) On 19/08/17 17:51, maxigas wrote:
Heh, I would argue for CC0 for similar reasons that Andreas argues for CC-BY-SA. I don't think academics today have to (or empirical are) relying on the copyright regime to enforce attribution (BY) or the misrepresentation of their work (SA) -- these are tools that publishers use to extort money from academics and other consumers. Academics have their own culture, ethics and even legal regulations to address problems of non-attribution (e.g. plagiarism) and misrepresentation (for instance straw man arguments), and these should be adequate to address the matter. I would use CC0 simply to ensure that the journal content is available to readers without relying on the copyright regime as little as possible. To summarise: I argue that respect for and enforcement of IP rights contributes to the proletarisation of academic labour much more than defends against it. Therefore, we should dismantle it.
I also agree with Stefan Meretz that our PD/CC0 policy is one of the things that sets JoPP apart from other open access journals, which buy into the more restrictive and more pro-IP regimes offered by Creative Commons.
I agree with maxigas on both points. I also strongly feel that we should choose CC0 in order to preserve the spirit and (almost) the letter of the current "license" note, which is clearly visible on the bottom of every page: "All the contents of this journal are in the public domain." Retroactively changing this PD licensing to something much more restrictively (such as ShareAlike or even "no commercial use allowed") would be highly unfair to both authors and readers. On 19/08/17 22:18, Vasilis Kostakis wrote:
Why not using one license (say CC0) as default while offering the option for a second one (say CC-BY-SA)?
Did authors ever complain, or even refuse to submit, because of the PD licensing? If yes, I'd agree that offering them one or two other free licenses (CC-BY and CC-BY-SA) would be a reasonable alternative. As long as nobody complains (and I can't remember that anyone did), I'd say: keep it simple and understandable by sticking with PD/CC0 for all texts. Best regards Christian -- |--------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- [email protected] --------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Commonsbasierte Produktion: www.keimform.de/2016/eine-welt-in-der-alle/ | Why Production No Longer Worries Us: www.keimform.de/2013/free-sources-1/ |------------------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x980FA6ED -- That an author, at common law, has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against any one who deprives him of it, cannot be doubted; but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work, after the author shall have published it to the world. -- Wheaton v. Peters, 1832
participants (4)
-
Andreas Wittel -
Christian Siefkes -
maxigas -
Vasilis Kostakis