[JoPP-Public] JoPP-Public Digest, Vol 63, Issue 17

Sat Aug 19 22:18:14 CEST 2017

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 <maxigas at anargeek.net> wrote:

> Andreas Wittel <andreas.wittel at gmail.com> 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
> JoPP-Public at lists.ourproject.org
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/jopp-public/attachments/20170819/726b75b5/attachment.html>