first

1 files changed, 152 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/push-copyright-aside.md b/docs/push-copyright-aside.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8ae6039
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/push-copyright-aside.md
@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Science Must Push Copyright Aside {#science-must-push-copyright-aside .chapter}
+====================================
+
+> Many points that lead to a conclusion that software freedom must be
+> universal often apply to other forms of expressive works, albeit in
+> different ways. This essay concerns the application of principles
+> related to software freedom to the area of literature. Generally, such
+> issues are orthogonal to software freedom, but we include essays like
+> this here since many people interested in Free Software want to know
+> more about how the principles can be applied to areas other than
+> software.
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2001, 2012 Richard Stallman\
+ {This essay was first published in Nature magazine’s Web Debates forum,
+on 8 June 2001. This version is part of @fsfsthreecite} It should be a
+truism that the scientific literature exists to disseminate scientific
+knowledge, and that scientific journals exist to facilitate the process.
+It therefore follows that rules for use of the scientific literature
+should be designed to help achieve that goal.
+
+The rules we have now, known as copyright, were established in the age
+of the printing press, an inherently centralized method of
+mass-production copying. In a print environment, copyright on journal
+articles restricted only journal publishers—requiring them to obtain
+permission to publish an article—and would-be plagiarists. It helped
+journals to operate and disseminate knowledge, without interfering with
+the useful work of scientists or students, either as writers or readers
+of articles. These rules fit that system well.
+
+The modern technology for scientific publishing, however, is the World
+Wide Web. What rules would best ensure the maximum dissemination of
+scientific articles, and knowledge, on the web? Articles should be
+distributed in nonproprietary formats, with open access for all. And
+everyone should have the right to “mirror” articles—that is, to
+republish them verbatim with proper attribution.
+
+These rules should apply to past as well as future articles, when they
+are distributed in electronic form. But there is no crucial need to
+change the present copyright system as it applies to paper publication
+of journals because the problem is not in that domain.
+
+Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone agrees with the truisms that
+began this article. Many journal publishers appear to believe that the
+purpose of scientific literature is to enable them to publish journals
+so as to collect subscriptions from scientists and students. Such
+thinking is known as “confusion of the means with the ends.”
+
+Their approach has been to restrict access even to read the scientific
+literature to those who can and will pay for it. They use copyright law,
+which is still in force despite its inappropriateness for computer
+networks, as an excuse to stop scientists from choosing new rules.
+
+For the sake of scientific cooperation and humanity’s future, we must
+reject that approach at its root—not merely the obstructive systems that
+have been instituted, but the mistaken priorities that inspired them.
+
+Journal publishers sometimes claim that online access requires expensive
+high-powered server machines, and that they must charge access fees to
+pay for these servers. This “problem” is a consequence of its own
+“solution.” Give everyone the freedom to mirror, and libraries around
+the world will set up mirror sites to meet the demand. This
+decentralized solution will reduce network bandwidth needs and provide
+faster access, all the while protecting the scholarly record against
+accidental loss.
+
+Publishers also argue that paying the editors requires charging for
+access. Let us accept the assumption that editors must be paid; this
+tail need not wag the dog. The cost of editing for a typical paper is
+between 1 percent and 3 percent of the cost of funding the research to
+produce it. Such a small percentage of the cost can hardly justify
+obstructing the use of the results.
+
+Instead, the cost of editing could be recovered, for example, through
+page charges to the authors, who can pass these on to the research
+sponsors. The sponsors should not mind, given that they currently pay
+for publication in a more cumbersome way, through overhead fees for the
+university library’s subscription to the journal. By changing the
+economic model to charge editing costs to the research sponsors, we can
+eliminate the apparent need to restrict access. The occasional author
+who is not affiliated with an institution or company, and who has no
+research sponsor, could be exempted from page charges, with costs levied
+on institution-based authors.
+
+Another justification for access fees to online publications is to fund
+conversion of the print archives of a journal into online form. That
+work needs to be done, but we should seek alternative ways of funding it
+that do not involve obstructing access to the result. The work itself
+will not be any more difficult, or cost any more. It is self-defeating
+to digitize the archives and waste the results by restricting access.
+
+The US Constitution says that copyright exists “to promote the Progress
+of Science.” When copyright impedes the progress of science, science
+must push copyright out of the way.
+
+### Later Developments {#later-developments .subheading}
+
+Some universities—MIT for instance[(1)](#FOOT1)—have adopted policies to
+thwart the journal publishers’ power. Stronger policies are needed,
+however, as ones like MIT’s permit individual authors to “opt out”
+(i.e., cave in).
+
+The US government has imposed a requirement known as “public access” on
+some funded research. This requires publication within a certain period
+in a site that allows anyone to view the article. This requirement is a
+positive step, but inadequate because it does not include freedom to
+redistribute the article.
+
+Curiously, the concept of “open access” in the 2002 Budapest Open Access
+Initiative did include freedom to redistribute. I signed that
+declaration, despite my distaste for the word “open,” because the
+substance of the position was right.
+
+However, the word “open” had the last laugh: influential campaigners for
+“open access” subsequently dropped freedom to redistribute from their
+goals. I stand by the position of the BOAI,[(2)](#FOOT2) but now that
+“open access” means something else, I refer to it as “redistributable
+publication” or “free-to-mirror publication.”
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright “MIT Faculty Open Access Policy,” adopted by unanimous
+faculty vote on 18 March 2009,
+[http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/\
+open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/](http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/%3Cbr%3Eopen-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/).
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See <http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/> for the
+BOAI guidelines. @end raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\