Michael Geist on E-publishing and the Law

We will probably also be talking about Open Access publishing at SciBarCamp (http://scibarcamp.org) this coming weekend (I can only say "probably" for now because we don't have a schedule until Friday night)
I'm bookmarking this post because it might come in handy this weekend.

The statement "Those same medical professionals turned around and created an open access, peer-reviewed medical journal called Open Medicine (...) This software platform, created out of University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University, is used by over a thousand open source journals, most of them coming from the developing world.'" is absolute nonsense.
"Open Medicine" (which is less than a year old) is an open access journal, not a platform. The OM journal USES a software platform (called OJS) which is used by about thousand other journals. The paragraph above gives the wrong impression that Open Medicine would have created a platform, which is of course nonsense.
I know what I am talking about - in fact, my research group, the ePublishing Innovations group at the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation at the University Health Network, has - in the context of developing the Journal of Medical Internet Research, a leading 10 year old Open Access journal -, contributed significantly to the OJS platform. We have developed software modules which are now part of the OJS release and which are essential for Open Medicine to operate, such as XML/PDF functionality and doc-to-XML converters), so giving Open Medicine credit for this is quite absurd.
And as I mentioned in my blog in another context, for editors who have being doing this for more than a decade, it is concerning that journalists reflexively write about high-profile, well-funded OA journals such as PLOS, while the majority of OA journals have entirely different characteristics and problems to deal with.

re: "People are creating not because of copyright, not because they are looking for compensation, but instead because they have the power to create, the desire to create, and the ability now to share it with the world," said Geist."

Sure you can upload/download for free but if you really support what artists do - purchase their music, their prints, their books, their art. Artists pay rent and need a living wage like everyone else. Globalism squashes local artists!

For all his crusading, Michael Geist unfortunately failed to speak out on the issue of law enforcement agencies requiring Canadian ISPs to censor web sites invisibly and without public or judicial scrutiny.

(Yes, it's happening now. Every time Rogers gives you a "404 - Not found" message it might be because some cop doesn't want you to see that page "for your own good".)

Other than that surprising failure, Mr. Geist works very hard to protect the rights of Canadians and deserves our full and vocal support.

@mdtoronto: One of the things Geist mentioned in his talk (that perhaps I didn't elaborate enough in this article) is that, in many instances when creators give away their work for free, it actually enables them to sell more of their work. Or it creates enough interest to develop new ways to distribute the work with a different business model (like WikiTravel Press).

Once people get a taste of your work they'll want to pay for it. That said, there's always those who will want to get something for nothing. YMMV.

Roger, sorry to disagree - I can tell you that my experience as a music producer/visual art maker is that people simply do not pay for something they can get for free. Unless you are one of the very, very few people supported by press, which is still based on the old model of releasing your work through distribution companies (and not simply releasing it online), you won't gather a base of support necessary to justify your own production costs, (production costs for indie projects can be anywhere from $1,000 - $50,000). Artists tour and perform to offset these costs, obviously the web helps with making your fanbase wider but not everyone (i.e. Radiohead) can afford full page ads to advertise and then offer their work as 'pay what you can'.

I don't necessarily agree with all of what Geist claimed in his talk about the free distribution model. It works for some though. Which is why I mentioned Cory Doctorow as a prime example.

Geist's Random House example is another instance. He described how they tracked watermarked downloads and realized that those weren't being redistributed for free on peer-to-peer networking sites, so they decided to offer free downloads from then on.

True, most independent artists don't reap the benefits of giving away their stuff for free. At least not in the short term. Long term it may pay off. Like in the Cory Doctorow scenario.

In the end, you've got to have work that people are willing to pay for eventually.

"In the end, you've got to have work that people are willing to pay for eventually."

Bingo. It's too easy to attribute poor sales to piracy. The hard truth is that sometimes it's due to poor quality, too.

The social experiments conducted by Doctorow, Radiohead, Harper-Collins etc. indicate that people will pay for what they feel is worth paying for.

A song may be worth listening to a few times on the radio for free, without necessarily being worth $0.99 to download (let alone being worth $25.00-$30.00 to buy the CD it happens to be on).

It's curious this idea that people don't want compensation for their work. I have yet to meet any of them. In my experience, people (or organizations) always want some form of compensation, even if it is not monetary. And, of course, generally, the more poorly something is produced, the less worthy it is of compensation. There's no shortage of that kind of thing on the web.

From your report, Geist seems to be painting a deceptive and perhaps delusional picture of how creativity must function, by building a false correlation between personal blogs (a form of hobby writing, mostly) and professional journals, commercial websites that issue free content (but make their money in other ways) and some deeply-funded open source projects.

Just because Suzy can write on a WordPress blog about how much she loves Rufus Wainright, and just because organizations like Google and MIT have "free" and/or open source projects, it does not follow that all creative content should therefore be available for free on the web. That's a ludicrous rationalization. It's the tail (Internet structure) wagging the dog (the expectation by professional producers of creative material that they be compensated for their work), and it is the sort of illogic that has created the widespread attitude of legitimized thievery that has destroyed the music industry and is currently gnawing at the foundations of "traditional" publishing.

"People are creating and are inviting the rest of the world to use that creativity," said Geist. What he means is, _some_ people. And most of those people are either amateurs or deeply wealthy organizations. Meanwhile, most professional artists (and other professional creators) are inviting the rest of the world to purchase their creativity, and they are wholly justified in doing so, just as Geist is justified in expecting to be paid to deliver a lecture. Just because the Internet was designed to convey information in an uninhibited manner, it doesn't follow that people should work for free. Frankly, believing such a thing is borderline stupid. It's no different than believing the goods in a store should be free because the store's front door is unlocked.

The old idea is that vendors got to control public access to creative output, and limited that access to create artificial scarcity and drive up prices.

The new idea is that the Internet renders creative output (or access to it) abundant.

Once a commodity is no longer scarce, its value is assigned by the consumer, not the vendor.

The negative for producers is that the value of their output drops as a consequence.

The positive is that superior products can then be discovered by the market, and the value assigned to those products soars.

So Justin Timberlake and Scary Spice might go hungry, but the next John Lennon may just get the big break he deserves.

(Disclaimer: this is Economics, which is about as scientific as astronomy.)

Don?t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ?lesser? estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America?s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ?humanitarian? spin on it. Calling attention to her own ?good will?. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don?t fall for any of their ?humanitarian? CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can?t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world?s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ?good will? ?humanitarian? BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ?trickle down? as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They just keep getting richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductible crumbs and call themselves ?humanitarians?. Cashing in on the PR and getting even richer the following year. IT CAN?T WORK THIS WAY. Their bogus efforts to make the world a better place can not possibly succeed. Any 'humanitarian' progress made in one area will be lost in another. EVERY SINGLE TIME. IT ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. So don?t fall for any of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductible contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. SEND A ?THANK YOU? NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I?m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren?t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. Now, there are commercial ties between nearly every industry and every public figure. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don?t fall for their ?good will? BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you?re a fool. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you?re a fool.. WAKE UP PEOPLE. THEIR GOAL IS TO WIN THE GAME. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Reaganomics. Their idea. Loans from China. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. High energy prices. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their idea. The multi-million dollar endorsement. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. Brainwash plots on TV. Their idea. Prozac, Zanex, Vioxx, and Celebrex. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed, credit card, pharmaceutical, love-sick, couch potatoe, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of the above shrink the middle class, concentrate the world?s wealth and resources, create a dominoe effect of socio-economic problems, and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, executives, entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don?t fall for any of their ?good will? ?humanitarian? BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTIBLE PR CRAP. In many cases, the 'charitable' contribution is almost entirely offset.. Not to mention the opportunity to plug their name, image, product, and 'good will' all at once. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. These filthy pigs even have the nerve to throw a fit and spin up a misleading defense with regard to 'tax revenue'. ITS A SHAM. THEY SCREWED UP THE EQUATION TO BEGIN WITH. ITS THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT. If the middle and lower classes had a greater share of the pie, they could easily cover a greater share of the federal tax revenue. They are held down in many ways because of greed. Wages remain stagnant for millions because the executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, and entrepreneurs, are paid millions. They over-sell, over-charge, under-pay, outsource, cut jobs, and benefits to increase their bottom line. As their profits rise, so do the stock values. Which are owned primarily by the richest 5%. As more United States wealth rises to the top, the middle and lower classes inevitably suffer. This reduces the potential tax reveue drawn from those brackets. At the same time, it wreaks havok on middle and lower class communities and increases the need for financial aid. Not to mention the spike in crime because of it. There is a dominoe effect to consider. So when people forgive the rich for all of the above and then praise them for paying a greater share of the FEDERAL income taxes, its like nails on a chalk board. If these filthy pigs want to be over-paid, then they should be over-taxed as well. Remember: The richest 1% STILL own 1/2 of all United States wealth EVEN AFTER taxes, charity, and PR CRAP. A similar rule applies worldwide. There is nothing anyone can say to justify that. Anyway, there is usually a higher state and local burden on the middle and lower classes. They get little or nothing without a local tax increase. Otherwise, the red inks flows. Service cuts and lay-offs follow. Again, because of the OBSCENE distribution of bottom line wealth in this country. I can not accept any theory that our economy would suffer in any way with a more reasonable distribution of wealth. Afterall, it was more reasonable 30 years ago. Before Reaganomics came along. Before GREED became such an epidemic. Before we had an army of over-paid executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, investors, entrepreneurs, developers, and sold-out politicians to kiss their asses. As a nation, we were in much better shape. Lower crime rate, more widespread prosperity, stable job market, free and clear assets, lower deficit, ect. Our economy as a whole was much more stable and prosperous for the majority. WITHOUT LOANS FROM CHINA. Now, we have a more obscene distribution of bottom line wealth than ever before. We have a sold-out government, crumbling infrastructure, energy crisis, home forclosure epidemic, 13 figure national deficit, and 12 figure annual shortfall. The cost of living is higher than ever before. Most people can't even afford basic health care. ALL BECAUSE OF GREED. I really don't blame the 2nd -5th percentiles. No economy could ever function without some reasonable scale of personal wealth and income. But it can't be allowed to run wild like a mad dog. ALBERT EINSTEIN TRIED TO MAKE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND. UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we?ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN. EXTREME WEALTH MAKES WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, they will jump to small minded conclusions about 'jealousy', 'envy', or 'socialism'. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don?t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

Don't hold back there Truxter :-), Diane, one of the flaws I see in your idealistic view of how things "should" work is that the individual with money to advertise will always trump the guy without regardless whether the product is good or not. Its the advertisers/i.e. corporate multinationals that often get the grease, the web essentially works the same. Your "next John Lennon" won't likely get reviewed without national distribution or a hip indie label, though word of mouth does get around.

How about Blogs that use photo pools? - As a flickrer, (for the past 3 years), I've contributed to a number of blogs who feature photography prominently. I've never seen any discussion about monetary compensation for featured photos in the form of cash honorariums - though the "exposure" is welcome.

mdtoronto:

Well, it's not *my* view, though I think it would make a nice change, so "idealistic" is probably accurate.

Sure advertising will greatly increase the attention Musician X gets for his music. But if it turns out that Musician X's music sucks compared to music of Musician Y, Musician Z, or any of the others whose music is available in an *economy of abundancy*, then Musician X will have pretty much shot himself in the foot.

(There is a real-world basis to the notion that "nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising". It is widely believed that the popularity of the Piels Beer ads in the late '50s and early '60s actually hurt sales because people liked the ads, tried the beer and found out they did not actually enjoy it!)

Truxter, you win the prize for the longest single comment on blogTO.

Now would you care to comment on what Geist spoke about? ;)

I'm really sorry I didn't get around to reading this post until now. It sounds like both this talk and the SciBarCamp would have been amazing. I wouldn't really compare use of information (from the internet or any other source) to taking goods from a store. If you take goods from a store, the owner, who paid to bring them in, no longer has them. If you take an idea off the internet, it doesn't really take anything away from the person who originally had the idea. People should absolutely be paid and given credit for their work, but we have to be careful about getting overly possessive. In an age when everyone seems so interested in owning things and assigning value for them, we have to come back to the concept that some things (like ideas) shouldn't have monetary value. The internet is a great tool for distributing ideas and fostering this kind of gifting attitude. Should people be allowed to keep useful DNA sequences from bacteria to themselves? Or patent stem cell lines? Or live in fear of mixing someone else's song into their own? Wouldn't it be better for everyone's creative output if these things were freely available to use? There are certainly issues about credit going to the idea's originators that still need to be sorted out. But it's not just a simple case of economics and getting your due.

Colleen, your suggestions i.e. "If you take an idea off the internet, it doesn't really take anything away from the person who originally had the idea" or "some things (like ideas) shouldn't have monetary value," weren't so sad they would be laughable. I encourage both you and Dianne to take an artist to lunch and YOU buy - I'm done with this thread.

I can't speak for Colleen, but I'll take an artist to lunch and gladly pay ? if I feel their work merits it.

Brilliant!