April 2006 - LIS-Forum - ncsi.iisc.ernet.in

"Re: Contents of LIS-Forum digest...NET relief mooted for MPhil, PhD students"
by Puna Das 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Dear All, Please refer to e-mail message titled "[LIS-FORUM] NET relief mooted for MPhil, PhD students" at LIS Forum dated 21/04/06. I don't know much about south India, but in North India for every single post advertised, there is more than 100 NET/ SLET qualified applicants. Only one person will get the job and rest people will be left behind. The job market is not expanding enough in this sector where the persons will get permanent jobs with a proper UGC scale. So, there is no rationale to exempt NET/SLET clause for College Librarian/ Univ Asst. Librarian/ Lecturer post. Hope, UGC/ AICTE first give opportunities to NET/SLET qualified un-employed LIS professionals, then think of exemptions of non-qualified professionals. Thanking you With regards Anup Kumar Das New Delhi __________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com

2 1

Workshop on DL - Manuals and Presentations
by SUNIL M.V. 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Dear Professional Friends, SDM-IMD (SDM Institute for Management Development) in collaboration with MyLISA (Mysore Librarians and Information Scientists Association) has organized a workshop on Digital Libraries from April 6-8, 2006. We are happy to inform you that 38 Library and Information professional from Karnataka and neighbouring states participated in the workshop held at SDM-IMD. As we are receiving request for the workshop materials, especially the instructional manual of DSpace, we have placed the workshop report, presentation slides and instructional manuals on our website www.sdmimd.net/workshop . We request you to visit the website for any materials concerned to the said workshop. We will appreciate your feedback on the same. With regards, Sunil MV Librarian SDM Institute for Management Development No. 1, Chamundi Hill Road Siddartha Nagar, Mysore Phone : 0821 - 2420490/491 2429722/161 Fax: 0821-2425557 --------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Dear Professional Friends, SDM-IMD (SDM Institute for Management Development) in collaboration with MyLISA (Mysore Librarians and Information Scientists Association) has organized a workshop on Digital Libraries from April 6-8, 2006. We are happy to inform you that 38 Library and Information professional from Karnataka and neighbouring states participated in the workshop held at SDM-IMD. As we are receiving request for the workshop materials, especially the instructional manual of DSpace, we have placed the workshop report, presentation slides and instructional manuals on our website http://www.sdmimd.net/workshop www.sdmimd.net/workshop . We request you to visit the website for any materials concerned to the said workshop. We will appreciate your feedback on the same. With regards, Sunil MV Librarian SDM Institute for Management Development No. 1, Chamundi Hill Road Siddartha Nagar, Mysore Phone : 0821 - 2420490/491 2429722/161 Fax: 0821-2425557 Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman9/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/ev… calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

1 0

Two Books that address Digital Divide in India very exhaustively, freely available online
by Puna Das 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Two Books that address Digital Divide in India very exhaustively, freely available online: 1] "Taking ICT to Every Indian Village: Opportunities and challenges" Written by Atanu Garai and B. Shadrach Published by: OneWorld South Asia, New Delhi URL: http://www.digitalopportunity.org/filemanager/download/916/takingICTvillage… 2] "A Developing Connection: Bridging the Policy Gap between the Information Society and Sustainable Development" Edited by Terri Willard and Maja Andjelkovic Published by: the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, Canada URL: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/networks_dev_connection.pdf URL: http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=740 _______________________________________________________ Anup Kumar Das/ Swapan Kumar Patra/ Bidyarthi Dutta Information and Communication Society of India New Delhi _______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com

1 0

Save the Internet (fwd)
by Mailing List Manager 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:37:29 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> >From Andy Carvin Coalition to Launch "Save the Internet" Campaign for Network Neutrality This Monday, a coalition of Internet activists from across the political spectrum will officially launch the Save the Internet Campaign to fight telecom companies that are trying to create a multi-tiered Internet, where lower-income customers have less access to content and bandwidth than higher-paying customers. Quoting their new website: Congress is pushing a law that would abandon Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Network neutrality prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work the best - based on who pays them the most. Your local library shouldn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your computer. Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn't speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online. This isn't just speculation - we've already seen what happens elsewhere when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Last year, Canada's version of AT&T - Telus- blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating. And Shaw, a major Canadian cable TV company, charges an extra $10 a month to subscribers who dare to use a competing Internet telephone service. Congress thinks they can sell out and the public will never know. The SavetheInternet.Com Coalition is proving them wrong. Founding coalition members: Professor Lawrence Lessig - Stanford Professor Timothy Wu - Columbia Free Press - Coalition Coordinator Gun Owners of America Craig Newmark - Craigslist.com Founder Professor Glenn Reynolds - aka blogger Instapundit MoveOn.org Civic Action Consumers Union American Library Association Consumer Federation of America Public Knowledge Common Cause U.S. PIRG Center for Digital Democracy Association of Research Libraries The Service Roundtable - small business network Afro-Netizen Loyola University Chicago, Department of Communications Educause New Organizing Institute Covenant College Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project Association for Community Networking Amazing Kids CCTV Center for Media and Democracy Alliance for Community Media Professor Susan Crawford Center for Creative Voices in Media Community Technology Centers FreeNetworks.org Media Access Project Media Alliance The Agonist NYC Wireless AcornActive Media Foundation Californians Against Waste Chicago Media Action CUWiN National Video Resources Illinois Community Technology Coalition Ohio Community Computing Network Peacefire Quicksilver Communications To get involved, visit the website and let Congress know how you feel about the issue. -andy

1 0

Celebrating Libraries
by Mailing List Manager 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:32:41 +0530 From: Bhojaraju G <bhojaraju.g(a)gmail.com> Forwarded Message From: "Portal Administrator" <Electronic_Library(a)nlb.gov.sg> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:21:17 +0800 Did a book from the library give you the idea for your first business venture? Or did a collection of music inspire you to learn an instrument? Did attending a library programme enhance your understanding of a subject? Perhaps a librarian provided invaluable advice that led you to discover new insights. *How has the library transformed YOUR life?* Share your story of how the library has made a positive difference in your life and stand to win attractive prizes, including an iPod Nano, a 3G mobile phone and hotel stays. What's more, your story could be among the selected stories to be published into a book. To submit your story, visit http://www.nlb.gov.sg/celebratinglibraries or any participating library* to pick up an entry form. Closing date for entries is 30 April 2006. Bhojaraju G Lead - Knowledge Management *********************************************************************************************************** KM Cyberary: http://www.bhojarajug.freeservers.com/cyberary.html KM-Forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KM-Forum/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bhojarajug Skype Me: bhojarajug

1 0

IGNOU accredited (NIKHIL EYEROOR)
by Lata Suresh 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Dear Mr. Nikhil, As far as we understand, IGNOU courses are recognised, as this University has been set up by Act of the Parliament of India. Further information can be obtained from sred(a)ignou.ac.in. This information was given to me by Dr. P.K. Gupta, Deputy Librarian , Rajasthan University. regards Lata Suresh Librarian Institute of Health Management Research 1, Prabhu Dayal Marg, Sanganer Airport Jaipur 302033, RAJASTHAN, INDIA Tel : 91-0141-2791431-34 Fax: 91-0141-2792138 Email : lata(a)iihmr.org Message: 1 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:38:08 +0530 From: "NIKHIL EYEROOR" <eyeroor(a)gmail.com> Subject: [LIS-Forum] IGNOU accredited To: LIS-Forum(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in Message-ID: <412ff7420604172208q18df823ak89aced0811e91cba(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear friends, In the web based free content encyclopedia Wikipedia, I came across an information that IGNOU is an unaccredited University. Please see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi_National_Open_University. As a person planning to peruse research in IGNOU, I would like to know the credibility of the information. -- NIKHIL EYEROOR LIBRARIAN, P.A.AZIZ COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY KARAKULAM , TRIVANDRUM, PIN: 695 564 MOB: 09447515691

1 0

"Re: Contents of LIS-Forum digest...NET relief mooted for MPhil, PhD students"
by Susmita Chakraborty 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Dear All, Please refer to LIS Forum email message titled "NET relief mooted for MPhil, PhD students". I would like to share my personal observations in this regard. Firstly, let see who are qualifying UGC-NET/ SLET for Lecturership in Library and Information Science (LIS). The Meritorious or Talented or Hard-working LIS professionals are mostly qualifying these competitive examinations. On the other hand, let we see who are getting admission into MPHIL/ PHD programmes in LIS. Only few full-time MPHIL/ PHD courses are available in India as compared to total number of MLIS/AIS/ADIS passed outs. These full-time MPHIL/ PHD courses select student on the basis of Merit or NET/SLET. But they belong to only a few percent (about 10%) of total MPHIL passed outs in India. Rest 90% percent students are getting admission into MPHIL courses on the basis of ability to pay hefty course fee (varies from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 36,000/-). So, these 90% MPHIL/ PHD students are not that much Meritorious/ Talented/ Hard-working as compared to UGC NET/ SLET qualified LIS professionals, but they have financial capacity to pay the hefty course fee. There is also no consistency or transparency in the admission process of PhD programmes except for the NET/SLET qualified LIS professionals. So, if we propose to exempt of UGC NET/ SLET clause from the eligibility criteria of college librarians/ university assistant librarians/ documentation officers/ lecturers, probably we will discourage Meritorious or Talented or Hard-working persons to come into LIS profession. Instead, Library Associations, Forums can collectively pressurize UGC to produce sufficient numbers of UGC NET/ SLET qualified candidates, or to hold GRE type examination for admission into MPHIL and PhD programmes. Also, Library Associations and University departments can introduce NET/SLET coaching classes to address the shortage of qualified manpower and for the greater benefits of the society. Hope, the apex organizations, like, UGC, AICTE, MCI, should set the eligibility criteria on the basis of above-mentioned facts, and not bypassing the above-mentioned facts. With regards S. Chakraborty Kolkata

1 0

Worldwide open access to journals predicted
by Subbiah Arunachalam 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Friends: Here is something which sounds like fun, but who knows it could turn out to be true! Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] ----------------------------------- From Peter Suber's blog Budapest 2.0 Richard Feinman has written a press release from the future on how OA might evolve in the next 2.5 years. Excerpt: December 1, 2008. Budapest. The quiet frozen surface of the river stands as counterpoint to the heated discussions in the Duna (Danube) Hotel where representatives of governments, libraries, universities and major publishing houses are trying to hammer out guidelines for the implementation of a Universal Open Access Protocol (UOAP)....Scheduled for 2009, UOAP would make the contents of all scholarly publications free without subscription. The UOAP operation is to be funded by a consortium of government agencies, private foundations and commercial sources and follows a period of ad hoc funding and substantial confusion in the world of scientific journals, a situation which dates to the event now known in the publishing world as Nature Day of which the conference is the first anniversary. On Nature Day, December 1, 2007, 100 university librarians (with backing of their respective faculties) handed an ultimatum to Nature publishing, one of the larger publishers of scientific technical journals. This rather strange manifesto proclaimed that the profit that Nature gained from providing journals to university libraries was excessive and rather than pay the price asked by Nature, the librarians offered to pay one fifth of the price for the print version and required that Nature be open access, that is, available on line without subscription. The libraries agreed to support the open access version at a further reduced price for five years even though it would be available to everybody in the world. If Nature did not agree, the libraries threatened to cancel their subscriptions. "It seems strange telling a manufacturer how much profit they can make but really this is what a consumer does every time they choose one of several competing products" said Kuan-Teh Jeang of the NIH and editor of Retrovirology, a journal that has been open access since 2003....In the end, an undisclosed compromise was settled on. Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), was next. "They claimed to be not-for-profit" said Richard Feinman, editor of Nutrition & Metabolism, "but their journal operation was a big money-maker and the funds were used for other activities which, however worthwhile, were not what we intended to pay for when our libraries subscribed to the journal. I told them they should change their name to the American Association for the Advancement of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAAAAS)." ...[A]uthors and editors were quite enthusiastic. "Well, transparency was the key," said Barbara Starfield of Johns Hopkins, editor of International Journal for Equity in Health. "Once the faculty members recognized the burden being placed on the libraries and how unscrupulous the publishers were, in combination with the obvious benefits of wide circulation and controlling your own copyrights, everything fell into place." Faced with guaranteed income at a lower price or a difficult battle with customers, most publishers instituted the open access movement. Quite remarkably this was done, in some cases, literally, overnight since publishers already had the tools for online publication. It was only necessary to remove the gateway. The pressure was, in fact, great - once battle lines were drawn, authors and reviewers (who are not normally paid by publishers) jumped to side with the libraries. The new contracts provided great savings for the libraries but everyone realized that they had agreed to pay for the world's technical journals, and that a global solution had to be found. In essence, it was recognized that much money flows into publishing and it only had to be redirected. This lead to today's meeting in Budapest. The meeting today, like Nature Day itself is also the anniversary of the 2001 meeting in Budapest of the Open Society Institute (OSI) which might be said to have initiated the Open Access movement. Friends: Here is something which sounds like fun, but who knows it could turn out to be true! Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] ----------------------------------- From Peter Suber's blog Budapest 2.0 Richard Feinman has written a https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/2956.html press release from the future on how OA might evolve in the next 2.5 years. Excerpt: December 1, 2008. Budapest. The quiet frozen surface of the river stands as counterpoint to the heated discussions in the Duna (Danube) Hotel where representatives of governments, libraries, universities and major publishing houses are trying to hammer out guidelines for the implementation of a Universal Open Access Protocol (UOAP)....Scheduled for 2009, UOAP would make the contents of all scholarly publications free without subscription. The UOAP operation is to be funded by a consortium of government agencies, private foundations and commercial sources and follows a period of ad hoc funding and substantial confusion in the world of scientific journals, a situation which dates to the event now known in the publishing world as Nature Day of which the conference is the first anniversary. On Nature Day, December 1, 2007, 100 university librarians (with backing of their respective faculties) handed an ultimatum to Nature publishing, one of the larger publishers of scientific technical journals. This rather strange manifesto proclaimed that the profit that Nature gained from providing journals to university libraries was excessive and rather than pay the price asked by Nature, the librarians offered to pay one fifth of the price for the print version and required that Nature be open access, that is, available on line without subscription. The libraries agreed to support the open access version at a further reduced price for five years even though it would be available to everybody in the world. If Nature did not agree, the libraries threatened to cancel their subscriptions. "It seems strange telling a manufacturer how much profit they can make but really this is what a consumer does every time they choose one of several competing products" said Kuan-Teh Jeang of the NIH and editor of Retrovirology, a journal that has been open access since 2003....In the end, an undisclosed compromise was settled on. Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), was next. "They claimed to be not-for-profit" said Richard Feinman, editor of Nutrition & Metabolism, "but their journal operation was a big money-maker and the funds were used for other activities which, however worthwhile, were not what we intended to pay for when our libraries subscribed to the journal. I told them they should change their name to the American Association for the Advancement of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAAAAS)." ...[A]uthors and editors were quite enthusiastic. "Well, transparency was the key," said Barbara Starfield of Johns Hopkins, editor of International Journal for Equity in Health. "Once the faculty members recognized the burden being placed on the libraries and how unscrupulous the publishers were, in combination with the obvious benefits of wide circulation and controlling your own copyrights, everything fell into place." Faced with guaranteed income at a lower price or a difficult battle with customers, most publishers instituted the open access movement. Quite remarkably this was done, in some cases, literally, overnight since publishers already had the tools for online publication. It was only necessary to remove the gateway. The pressure was, in fact, great - once battle lines were drawn, authors and reviewers (who are not normally paid by publishers) jumped to side with the libraries. The new contracts provided great savings for the libraries but everyone realized that they had agreed to pay for the world's technical journals, and that a global solution had to be found. In essence, it was recognized that much money flows into publishing and it only had to be redirected. This lead to today's meeting in Budapest. The meeting today, like Nature Day itself is also the anniversary of the 2001 meeting in Budapest of the Open Society Institute (OSI) which might be said to have initiated the Open Access movement.

1 0

Journal publishers bribing scientists subtly
by Subbiah Arunachalam 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

Friends: A very good proposal. Membership in the editorial boards of low quality journals should be given negative points in evaluation of a scientists for Fellowships, funds and promotion, says a distinguished American chemist. We certainly need to follow such a policy in India. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] From Peter Suber's blog A modest proposal to curb journal proliferation Chris Reed, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry (University of California, Riverside), offers the following modest proposal on CHMINF-L: Colleagues: In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise. The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print, offering a career advance by having Editorial Board appointments on one's CV at promotion time, flattering authors with invitations to contribute papers in special issues, etc. All this effectively silences faculty from speaking out, or even caring about, the issues librarians understand so well. It is one of the reasons I am advocating that promotion policies at the University of California specify that appointments to the editorial boards of low quality, overpriced journals should count against promotion. The idea may not be so outrageous in five or ten years time. I have also recommended that the best way to change faculty habits is the pay them. Overpriced journals should be cancelled and some of the saved money given to Departments whose faculty agree not to submit to, referee for, accept editorial board appointments on journals they decide are too exploitive. Let me be a little provocative here. How far are librarians willing to go on this? Personally, I'd love to see faculty and librarians form a real partnership on this. (And its not the money driving me). PS. In case you are wondering, yes, I did hit the delete key on those Bentham invitations. Friends: A very good proposal. Membership in the editorial boards of low quality journals should be given negative points in evaluation of a scientists for Fellowships, funds and promotion, says a distinguished American chemist. We certainly need to follow such a policy in India. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] From Peter Suber's blog A modest proposal to curb journal proliferation http://www.chem.ucr.edu/faculty/reed/reed.html Chris Reed , Distinguished Professor of Chemistry ( http://ucr.edu/ University of California, Riverside ), offers the following https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0604&L=CHMINF-L&P=R10… modest proposal on CHMINF-L : Colleagues: In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise. The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print, offering a career advance by having Editorial Board appointments on one's CV at promotion time, flattering authors with invitations to contribute papers in special issues, etc. All this effectively silences faculty from speaking out, or even caring about, the issues librarians understand so well. It is one of the reasons I am advocating that promotion policies at the University of California specify that appointments to the editorial boards of low quality, overpriced journals should count against promotion. The idea may not be so outrageous in five or ten years time. I have also recommended that the best way to change faculty habits is the pay them. Overpriced journals should be cancelled and some of the saved money given to Departments whose faculty agree not to submit to, referee for, accept editorial board appointments on journals they decide are too exploitive. Let me be a little provocative here. How far are librarians willing to go on this? Personally, I'd love to see faculty and librarians form a real partnership on this. (And its not the money driving me). PS. In case you are wondering, yes, I did hit the delete key on those Bentham invitations.

1 0

What is access to knowledge (A2K)?
by Subbiah Arunachalam 23 Apr '06

23 Apr '06

Friday, April 21, 2006 What is Access to Knowledge? Jack M. Balkin The Yale Information Society Project Access to Knowledge Conference kicked off today. (You can learn more about the conference panels here and here.) I gave a speech on the first panel about framing access to knowledge, using insights from a year-long seminar that Yochai Benkler and I have been teaching on the issues. Here is the prepared text of my remarks: On behalf of the Information Society Project I want to express how happy we are to have you all here, and our pleasure at being a part of this wonderful movement that you, in the audience, have helped create. For the last year Yochai Benker and I have been running a research seminar at Yale with some very talented students on the theory and practice of access to knowledge, trying to understand the larger theoretical commitments behind the access to knowledge movement. This conference is the culmination of a long process of thought, study and reflection, which is part of the larger access to knowledge project here at the ISP. We hope that we can contribute in our own small way to what is already a rich and exciting conversation about the goals of access to knowledge. We are thrilled to be able to host what is truly an international event in an ongoing social movement that is unfolding before our very eyes. Today I want to make three points about the theory of access to knowledge. First, Access to Knowledge is a demand of justice. Second, Access to Knowledge is both an issue of economic development and an issue of individual participation and human liberty. Third, Access to Knowledge is about intellectual property, but it is also about far more than that. Access to Knowledge is a demand of Justice Access to Knowledge is a set of principles that emerge from a loose collection of different social movements. These social movements, in turn, are responding to changes in economy and society produced by new information technologies. Information and knowledge are embedded in goods like drugs that have value, and in social structures like education and science that produce value. Moreover, information, like capital, is not just a thing in itself but it's also a set of relationships between persons and groups. Some control it, others don't and law helps enforce that division of power and control. As the global economy develops, control over knowledge and information increasingly determines global wealth and power. Because not all countries participate in the global economy equally, not all of their citizens enjoy its benefits equally. Different societies prepare their members differently to participate in the information economy, and different countries have competitive advantages in producing information and controlling its distribution. Access to knowledge can be a confusing term because it actually refers to four different things. Here I borrow Yochai Benkler's typology: a.. 1. Human knowledge-- education, know-how, and the creation of human capital through learning new skills. b.. 2. Information-- like news, medical information, data, and weather reports. c.. 3. Knowledge-embedded goods-- goods where the inputs to production involve significant amounts of scientific and technical knowledge, often but not exclusively protected by intellectual property rights. Some key examples are drugs, electronic hardware, and computer software, but in contemporary economic life, information and intellectual property provide an increasingly important share of almost all valuable goods. d.. 4. Tools for the production of KEG's-- examples include scientific and research tools, materials and compounds for experimentation, computer programs and computer hardware. The goal of access to knowledge is to improve access to all four of these components of the knowledge economy: a.. 1. Access to human knowledge b.. 2. Access to information c.. 3. Access to KEG's d.. 4. Access to tools for producing KEG's Access to knowledge is a question of distributional justice, both within a society, say rich and poor, men and women, and across different societies, say countries in the North and the South. Given the long term trend in the world economy toward increasing the share of wealth going to these four components of the knowledge economy, what does justice require? I think we can make two claims: First, if you can produce the same or greater amounts of these four components and distribute them more widely and equitably both within countries and across national borders, justice demands this. Second, if you can spur additional innovation and information production in areas that existing market structures currently do not serve-- e.g., drugs for diseases in the third world, educational materials for persons in the poorest countries-- justice also demands this. Let me put it another way: Access to knowledge means that the right policies for information and knowledge production can increase both the total production of information and knowledge goods, and can distribute them in a more equitable fashion. The goal is first, promoting economic efficiency and development, and second, widespread distribution of those knowledge and informational goods necessary to human flourishing in our particular historical moment- the global networked information economy. I repeat: It's not just a trade off between equity and efficiency. We are not simply fighting about how to divide up a pie. Access to knowledge is about making a larger pie and distributing it more fairly. Or, at the risk of extending this pie metaphor well beyond its appropriate scope, access to knowledge means giving everyone the skills to make their own pies and share them widely with others. (And now all this talk of pies is starting to make me hungry.) This brings me to my third point. Access to Knowledge is both an issue of economic development and an issue of individual participation and human liberty. >From the arguments I've offered so far, which, I should mention, owe a considerable debt to the work of my friend and colleague Yochai Benkler, it sounds as if Access to Knowledge is just about economics and development. It isn't. I put it this way because some of the strongest arguments against A2K have been economic arguments that the current system is better for economic development and efficiency, and we have to sacrifice equality to promote development. What we've been trying to show in our seminar here at Yale is that this is just plain wrong. The best information policies, the best knowledge policies, the best development policies actually lower barriers to access to knowledge, they produce more information goods and they distribute them more widely. Our seminar has been trying to show how the best economic arguments are on our side. The crazy thing about the push toward global harmonization and IP maximalism is that it doesn't make economic sense. It benefits particular stakeholders, to be sure, and they often claim that making them wealthy makes everyone else better off. But it turns out it's not true. A more balanced set of IP policies actually produces greater wealth and distributes it more widely and fairly. But access to knowledge is about more than increasing GDP or promoting rapid development. For example, we might promote human development through producing lots of information goods for people and distributing them widely. On the other hand, we might promote human development by promoting decentralized access to information tools and by encouraging participation in the production of information goods by large numbers of people. Access to knowledge is about the second strategy- participation-- as much as the first. Or in economic terms, its about whether information production will be primarily centralized and proprietary or whether large parts of it should be decentralized and participatory. What we've been trying to show in our seminar here at Yale is that a vast range of information policies, ranging from free and open source software to universal service policies in telecom to networks of farmers sharing agricultural information aren't just about stuffing people's Christmas stockings with more information goods, but rather giving individual people tools to think with, build with, form communities with, and then watch these communities take off, enabling people to make their own knowledge and information goods either individually or through peer production models. You see, there is always more than one way to promote human flourishing using knowledge and information, and therefore you should usually adopt more than one strategy. You can make drugs cheaper or you can give people information about their health. Why not do both? You can reduce the costs of information embedded goods, or you can free up access to knowledge tools, increase literacy rates, and let people build things together and share their efforts. Again, why not do both? Is access to knowlege a human rights issue? Sure it is. Health, literacy, education, freedom of speech and participation in the knowledge economy all involve questions of human flourishing and all involve questions of human rights. So there is considerable overlap between the focus on development and the focus on human rights. But relying primarily on the rhetoric of human rights brings its own risks. I'll mention only two. First, people have started to argue that intellectual property is a universal human right so that people who resist increasing IP protections and making them equally stringent around the world are actually violating universal human rights. Second, much of good information policy requires governments to invest in information production-- scientific research, weather reports, agricultural information, health information, public libraries, educational materials-- and also to promote telecommunications infrastructures- cheap cell phones, universal access, telecenters and so on. A lot of good information policy comes from freeing up or encouraging the private sector to innovate, for example through government procurement policies, tax breaks, and IP reforms. Some of these policies and reforms aren't easy to squeeze into the rhetoric of human rights discourse, although, believe me, people have tried. (Is there a human right demanding that government spend more money on scientific research or that it provide network neturality policies in telecommunications? Maybe so, but human rights discourse might not be the best way to express one's goals in these particular situations.) That is why we have committed ourselves to talking about access to knowledge in multiple ways, as an issue of development, an issue of justice and an issue of human freedom and participation. It's a big topic, and there is no one single rhetoric that captures all of it. That brings me to my third point. Access to Knowledge is about Intellectual Property, but about far more than that. Much of the focus of access to knowledge, and much of what we are going to be talking about here, has been on intellectual property. There are good reasons for this. As you'll see in our discussions here, the international IP and trade regime has increasingly adopted policies that prevent the efficient and equitable flow of knowledge, information, and knowledge goods. However, if our goal is the promotion of human flourishing, economic development, and human freedom, Access to Knowledge must look beyond international trade and IP policy. First, no matter how restrictive IP laws may be, they may not be the major cause of human suffering and lack of access to knowledge around the world. Providing basic telecom access and rudimentary health care may be far more important in some countries. Using IP to deny people cultural freedom is bad enough, but broader censorship policies may be even worse. Second, we should always distinguish between law in the books and law in action. Sometimes the text of legal rules and treaties don't tell you how these laws are actually being enforced. Countries sign lots of treaties- like human rights treaties- that they don't actually enforce or only enforce selectively. Conversely, some treaties give countries opportunities to protect freedom- for example, exceptions and limitations provisions-- that they never use. Third, in some cases IP enforcement isn't the major stumbling block to economic development and human flourishing. For example, suppose a country wants to promote a local pharmaceutical industry. Its IP policies are important, but more important is their interaction with other policies like the presence or absence of research and development subsidies and tax breaks. Research and Development subsidies may be much more important than IP; and price controls may do as much harm as bad IP policies. A functioning public sphere, a free press, and government transparency- all goals of access to knowledge, by the way-- may be necessary to reduce government corruption and keep government policies from being skewed toward the short term interests of powerful stakeholders. Let me generalize this point: Universal telecom access and increased cell phone access, giving out free computers, providing public libraries and local telecenters, sharing agricultural information among farmers and educating women about their health and contraceptive options may be some of the most important things that a country can do to promote access to knowledge for a large proportion of its population. My point is that governments promote access to knowledge in many different ways besides IP laws-- through regulation and deregulation, through government procurement policies that encourage private actors to produce knowledge and information goods, and through the government's own provisioning of information, knowledge and education. That's why this conference contains panels on a wide variety of topics that go beyond current fights over the international IP regime-- panels about telecommunications, educational policy, and health policy. All of these policies serve the larger goals of A2K- the goals of justice, of development, and of participation in the forms and practices of knowledge by everyone on the planet. Friday, April 21, 2006 [A] What is Access to Knowledge? Jack M. Balkin The Yale Information Society Project http://research.yale.edu/isp/eventsa2k.html Access to Knowledge Conference kicked off today. (You can learn more about the conference panels http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme here and http://research.yale.edu/isp/a2k/wiki/index.php/Yale_A2K_Conference here .) I gave a speech on the first panel about framing access to knowledge, using insights from a year-long seminar that Yochai Benkler and I have been teaching on the issues. Here is the prepared text of my remarks: On behalf of the Information Society Project I want to express how happy we are to have you all here, and our pleasure at being a part of this wonderful movement that you, in the audience, have helped create. For the last year Yochai Benker and I have been running a research seminar at Yale with some very talented students on the theory and practice of access to knowledge, trying to understand the larger theoretical commitments behind the access to knowledge movement. This conference is the culmination of a long process of thought, study and reflection, which is part of the larger access to knowledge project here at the ISP. We hope that we can contribute in our own small way to what is already a rich and exciting conversation about the goals of access to knowledge. We are thrilled to be able to host what is truly an international event in an ongoing social movement that is unfolding before our very eyes. Today I want to make three points about the theory of access to knowledge. First, Access to Knowledge is a demand of justice. Second, Access to Knowledge is both an issue of economic development and an issue of individual participation and human liberty. Third, Access to Knowledge is about intellectual property, but it is also about far more than that. Access to Knowledge is a demand of Justice Access to Knowledge is a set of principles that emerge from a loose collection of different social movements. These social movements, in turn, are responding to changes in economy and society produced by new information technologies. Information and knowledge are embedded in goods like drugs that have value, and in social structures like education and science that produce value. Moreover, information, like capital, is not just a thing in itself but it's also a set of relationships between persons and groups. Some control it, others don't and law helps enforce that division of power and control. As the global economy develops, control over knowledge and information increasingly determines global wealth and power. Because not all countries participate in the global economy equally, not all of their citizens enjoy its benefits equally. Different societies prepare their members differently to participate in the information economy, and different countries have competitive advantages in producing information and controlling its distribution. Access to knowledge can be a confusing term because it actually refers to four different things. Here I borrow Yochai Benkler's typology: 1. Human knowledge-- education, know-how, and the creation of human capital through learning new skills. 2. Information-- like news, medical information, data, and weather reports. 3. Knowledge-embedded goods-- goods where the inputs to production involve significant amounts of scientific and technical knowledge, often but not exclusively protected by intellectual property rights. Some key examples are drugs, electronic hardware, and computer software, but in contemporary economic life, information and intellectual property provide an increasingly important share of almost all valuable goods. 4. Tools for the production of KEG's-- examples include scientific and research tools, materials and compounds for experimentation, computer programs and computer hardware. The goal of access to knowledge is to improve access to all four of these components of the knowledge economy: 1. Access to human knowledge 2. Access to information 3. Access to KEG's 4. Access to tools for producing KEG's Access to knowledge is a question of distributional justice, both within a society, say rich and poor, men and women, and across different societies, say countries in the North and the South. Given the long term trend in the world economy toward increasing the share of wealth going to these four components of the knowledge economy, what does justice require? I think we can make two claims: First, if you can produce the same or greater amounts of these four components and distribute them more widely and equitably both within countries and across national borders, justice demands this. Second, if you can spur additional innovation and information production in areas that existing market structures currently do not serve-- e.g., drugs for diseases in the third world, educational materials for persons in the poorest countries-- justice also demands this. Let me put it another way: Access to knowledge means that the right policies for information and knowledge production can increase both the total production of information and knowledge goods, and can distribute them in a more equitable fashion. The goal is first, promoting economic efficiency and development, and second, widespread distribution of those knowledge and informational goods necessary to human flourishing in our particular historical moment the global networked information economy. I repeat: It's not just a trade off between equity and efficiency. We are not simply fighting about how to divide up a pie. Access to knowledge is about making a larger pie and distributing it more fairly. Or, at the risk of extending this pie metaphor well beyond its appropriate scope, access to knowledge means giving everyone the skills to make their own pies and share them widely with others. (And now all this talk of pies is starting to make me hungry.) This brings me to my third point. Access to Knowledge is both an issue of economic development and an issue of individual participation and human liberty. >From the arguments I've offered so far, which, I should mention, owe a considerable debt to the work of my friend and colleague Yochai Benkler, it sounds as if Access to Knowledge is just about economics and development. It isn't. I put it this way because some of the strongest arguments against A2K have been economic arguments that the current system is better for economic development and efficiency, and we have to sacrifice equality to promote development. What we've been trying to show in our seminar here at Yale is that this is just plain wrong. The best information policies, the best knowledge policies, the best development policies actually lower barriers to access to knowledge, they produce more information goods and they distribute them more widely. Our seminar has been trying to show how the best economic arguments are on our side. The crazy thing about the push toward global harmonization and IP maximalism is that it doesn't make economic sense. It benefits particular stakeholders, to be sure, and they often claim that making them wealthy makes everyone else better off. But it turns out it's not true. A more balanced set of IP policies actually produces greater wealth and distributes it more widely and fairly. But access to knowledge is about more than increasing GDP or promoting rapid development. For example, we might promote human development through producing lots of information goods for people and distributing them widely. On the other hand, we might promote human development by promoting decentralized access to information tools and by encouraging participation in the production of information goods by large numbers of people. Access to knowledge is about the second strategy participation-- as much as the first. Or in economic terms, its about whether information production will be primarily centralized and proprietary or whether large parts of it should be decentralized and participatory. What we've been trying to show in our seminar here at Yale is that a vast range of information policies, ranging from free and open source software to universal service policies in telecom to networks of farmers sharing agricultural information aren't just about stuffing people's Christmas stockings with more information goods, but rather giving individual people tools to think with, build with, form communities with, and then watch these communities take off, enabling people to make their own knowledge and information goods either individually or through peer production models. You see, there is always more than one way to promote human flourishing using knowledge and information, and therefore you should usually adopt more than one strategy. You can make drugs cheaper or you can give people information about their health. Why not do both? You can reduce the costs of information embedded goods, or you can free up access to knowledge tools, increase literacy rates, and let people build things together and share their efforts. Again, why not do both? Is access to knowlege a human rights issue? Sure it is. Health, literacy, education, freedom of speech and participation in the knowledge economy all involve questions of human flourishing and all involve questions of human rights. So there is considerable overlap between the focus on development and the focus on human rights. But relying primarily on the rhetoric of human rights brings its own risks. I'll mention only two. First, people have started to argue that intellectual property is a universal human right so that people who resist increasing IP protections and making them equally stringent around the world are actually violating universal human rights. Second, much of good information policy requires governments to invest in information production-- scientific research, weather reports, agricultural information, health information, public libraries, educational materials-- and also to promote telecommunications infrastructures cheap cell phones, universal access, telecenters and so on. A lot of good information policy comes from freeing up or encouraging the private sector to innovate, for example through government procurement policies, tax breaks, and IP reforms. Some of these policies and reforms aren't easy to squeeze into the rhetoric of human rights discourse, although, believe me, people have tried. (Is there a human right demanding that government spend more money on scientific research or that it provide network neturality policies in telecommunications? Maybe so, but human rights discourse might not be the best way to express one's goals in these particular situations.) That is why we have committed ourselves to talking about access to knowledge in multiple ways, as an issue of development, an issue of justice and an issue of human freedom and participation. It's a big topic, and there is no one single rhetoric that captures all of it. That brings me to my third point. Access to Knowledge is about Intellectual Property, but about far more than that. Much of the focus of access to knowledge, and much of what we are going to be talking about here, has been on intellectual property. There are good reasons for this. As you'll see in our discussions here, the international IP and trade regime has increasingly adopted policies that prevent the efficient and equitable flow of knowledge, information, and knowledge goods. However, if our goal is the promotion of human flourishing, economic development, and human freedom, Access to Knowledge must look beyond international trade and IP policy. First, no matter how restrictive IP laws may be, they may not be the major cause of human suffering and lack of access to knowledge around the world. Providing basic telecom access and rudimentary health care may be far more important in some countries. Using IP to deny people cultural freedom is bad enough, but broader censorship policies may be even worse. Second, we should always distinguish between law in the books and law in action. Sometimes the text of legal rules and treaties don't tell you how these laws are actually being enforced. Countries sign lots of treaties like human rights treaties that they don't actually enforce or only enforce selectively. Conversely, some treaties give countries opportunities to protect freedom for example, exceptions and limitations provisions-- that they never use. Third, in some cases IP enforcement isn't the major stumbling block to economic development and human flourishing. For example, suppose a country wants to promote a local pharmaceutical industry. Its IP policies are important, but more important is their interaction with other policies like the presence or absence of research and development subsidies and tax breaks. Research and Development subsidies may be much more important than IP; and price controls may do as much harm as bad IP policies. A functioning public sphere, a free press, and government transparency all goals of access to knowledge, by the way-- may be necessary to reduce government corruption and keep government policies from being skewed toward the short term interests of powerful stakeholders. Let me generalize this point: Universal telecom access and increased cell phone access, giving out free computers, providing public libraries and local telecenters, sharing agricultural information among farmers and educating women about their health and contraceptive options may be some of the most important things that a country can do to promote access to knowledge for a large proportion of its population. My point is that governments promote access to knowledge in many different ways besides IP laws-- through regulation and deregulation, through government procurement policies that encourage private actors to produce knowledge and information goods, and through the government's own provisioning of information, knowledge and education. That's why this conference contains panels on a wide variety of topics that go beyond current fights over the international IP regime-- panels about telecommunications, educational policy, and health policy. All of these policies serve the larger goals of A2K the goals of justice, of development, and of participation in the forms and practices of knowledge by everyone on the planet.

1 0