Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

INFORMATION AND THE MARKET
1
1
1
2
1
1
Consultation of Sutherland’s oeuvre is now much simpler with word-search
systems. By the same token they are a source of income to the publishers, who
are determined to exploit that income stream. But Sutherland objects that all this
has been done without his permission and without return to him, though he is the
author. The pressure comes from the publishers, who are endeavouring to use
digitalisation to maximise the return on their investment.
A connected, but much more important, issue concerns the realm of scientific
knowledge, publication of scientific research and the pressures towards commodification.
On one side are those who argue that scientific knowledge should
be freely available. This taps a ‘communist’ spirit amongst many scientists that
encourages them to make available their findings for the general good. So long
as their peers acknowledge them, many scientists appear committed to their
research findings being open to anyone who wishes to consult them. Such a position
waives proprietary claims over the science and is sympathetic to ‘open
source’ publication that ensures results of research are posted on the Web free
of charge. However, opposing this is the view that regards scientific knowledge
as proprietary, as subject to ownership, so that those who wish to consult such
knowledge should pay a fee whenever they do so. One might imagine Einstein
claiming proprietary rights over his Laws of Thermodynamics, due to receive a
fee every time his equations were drawn upon. The situation is further complicated
by the presence of publishers of scientific research. They have long had a
presence in this field, publishing hard-copy journals as commercial activities.
However, the spread of the Internet potentially puts them out of business, since
scientists can now, in principle at least, bypass the publisher by putting findings
directly on to the Web. Publishers, who are rapidly digitalising their journals and
records of previous publications (which considerably eases access for users, so
long as they have subscription rights), insist that the status quo on publication
should remain. These journals are often extremely expensive and are lucrative
sources of revenue to publishers. From another side, some universities – which
employ many scientists – are also developing policies that encourage researchers
to self-archive their work, putting their publications on to university websites,
where they may be consulted free of charge. The argument here is that these are
staff of the university, they undertake research as part of their duties, so their
research might well be put out on the university website. Obviously publishers
are resisting this since it threatens their business. Clearly, the situation here is
complex and fluid, but no one believes that the traditional ways of behaving can
continue indefinitely. Pressures to commodify, to make available on market
terms, scientific knowledge are making themselves felt, at precisely the same
time as some scientists are urging that open source publishing develops which
threatens established commercial interest.
It needs to be appreciated how vital and controversial such matters are for
the information society. It should surprise no one to learn that copyright, originally
introduced to balance rights of authors and inventors with the wider public
good, has had its period of enforcement raised from 14 years in the late eighteenth
century to, in 1998, 70 years after the death of an author and 95 years for
corporations after publication. It may seem trivial to learn that copyright can now
145