X. axis weeks.

Collections are just I just
wanted in our moderators.

So I'll start with our speakers.

Dr Ian Bogost is the Ivan Allen college
Distinguished Chair in media studies and

professor of interactive
computing Georgia Tech.

He's also the founding
partner at Persuasive Games.

As an author.

He writes about video games as
a medium with many uses and

as he makes games for political
social educational and artistic uses.

Dr Ty and
a Harrington is associate professor

in the school of literature media and
communication.

Professor sorry about that important.

Correction.

In addition to her Ph D..

She also has a J.D. and

specializes in intellectual property law
and international technical communication.

She's authored books on legal topics and
her articles treat issues in law and

international communication
focused on digital learning.

And like Dr Harrington Dr Robin Wharton
holds a large agree and a Ph D..

She was formerly a Briton
postdoctoral fellow and

then assistant director of fighting and
communication a Georgia Tech.

And at present she is the collaborator
on the Hockley archive a co-founder and

director of the Calliope initiative and
production editor at hybrid pedagogy

in addition to being an instructor
at Georgia Regents University.

So she is a scholar of digital humanities
and pedagogy critical theory and

meet many evil studies.

And her Tristan moderator who come to
us from Emory library's Center for

Digital scholarship.

So don't get the name right.

OK.

Dr Stewart finally here is the digital
scholarship quote needed and he works with

scholars who want to incorporate
technology into their research and

is particularly interested in
building a robust room for

my berries open access digital publishing.

He has a masters in my brain
information science and also a Ph D.

in American studies.

And finally Dr Brian Cox now is
the digital humanities strategist and

a lecturer of English at Emory.

Amounts about ripping and managing to all
scholarship projects in collaboration with

faculty graduate students my brains and.

He teaches courses and digital humanities
media studies and American literature.

And so if there is an editor for
Art Academy and a writer for profit.

Third round of applause for
our panel and let's begin.

OK We're glad to see that
open access is such a burning

issue that we have got so
many you out on on Friday afternoon

to celebrate open access week I think
the parade starts immediately after this.

So look forward to that.

We shared a couple of questions ahead
of time with our panelists Stewart.

Wrote yesterday an email.

This wasn't a quiz show so we didn't want
to necessarily stump them although we've

got questions they didn't see so if they
they misbehave we're ready to do so but

we thought because the focus of
the session is particularly looking

at the humanities we thought that it might
be useful to take sort of go to Ian first.

He wrote a sort of lovely provocative
piece a couple of years ago called The on

his blog called the turtleneck hair shirt
and talking about some of the problems

of humanity scholarship and reaching
out to public audiences and so you.

Here's a quotation from that post.

We don't want a mission.

Because we secretly hate
the idea of particular.

And in the end the greater world
even as we purport to give a voice

to speak of its true critical esoterics
no public either could ever grasp.

Which sounds an awful lot
like my dissertation.

So the question I'd like to
start with is to what extent

does participating in an open access
environment open access problem.

Projects solve this problem.

This is give us get us closer
to it to the public or

bring the humanities to the public right.

So I was to some extent is a safe answer.

But to what extent it what's the nature
of that extent Well a lot of open access

materials are delivered
on the Internet and

they're freely available and
anyone can access who has access to so

that that's one way of breaking down
some of those walls and any time you put

anything online there's at least
the possibility that it might be read by.

A broader broader public that and that
they're thereby you might as a scholar

incorporate the idea of the broader
public into your approach.

So once you start really really getting
more attention from ordinary people.

You realise that there are some concrete
voices that I've heard from and

I can do and
reorient some of my work in that way.

So to some extent on the one hand but

on the other hand the project
of public intellectual

which is really what I was what I was
writing about there is more thought going

to open access it's orthogonal to any
specific mechanism of publishing which

is just to say that we don't get we
don't automatically get for free.

That greater connection to
the public simply because

we have made something public via
an open access process or mechanism.

So we can have.

To.

Some extent it can help but

the idea of the risk is that we think
that it will automatically take place.

So I've kind of put my article
in this open access journal

instead of in this other you know
closed access print journal.

I'm done.

But if that article is just as esoteric
as it would have been in print and

no one can understand
in the first place and

it's not really addressed to anyone except
yourself and a small group of colleagues.

Then sure it has greater
potential reach but

the effect of that reach will
still be extremely limited.

So what's the answer right.

What's the answer and the simplest
way I can answer the question what's

the answer is to say we should be doing
the right things and certainly open access

mechanisms are one of those right things
or one ingredient in a kind of broad

based approach to living in the world
us as as humanistic scholars.

But there are other coaches too.

You know so I do a lot of writing for

journalistic venues now and
I get a lot out of that and

it means that while for
me to have the luxury of doing so I don't

have to have you know particular kind of
journal article on my C.V. anymore and

they would be nice if that were possible
for more people earlier in their careers.

But when I have something
to say that I find myself

asking well why why is that and to whom.

And so
I don't think we get a short cut for

those answers I don't think that there
is sort of one recipe or one stick and

we'll just start beating everything with
the open access stick now instead of

beating everything with the whatever
you know top your journal stick or

whatever the stick is that we that we used
to use instead we need to do the hard

work of realizing that this this process
of making things public of publication

is now kind of a question we have to

answer all along with the work that we're
publishing itself and this is this is a.

Huge pain because you used to be able to
take it for granted you do your thing and

the only way that your thing ever got
made public was through one or two or

three different mechanisms and so
we didn't have to consider those questions

and now we do which takes time and
energy and conflicts arise and so forth.

So I'm I'm I'm trying to answer in
a kind of quiet way but it's really

the the honest answer that we have to
look at every case individually and

we nice if we had the freedom and
flexibility to to try to try to

figure out what what we're doing at any
given individual moment scholars and

to let to let that thing be
made public in the right way.

And I realize there's all
sorts of complexities there.

But finding that right path for
a particular a particular type of work or

a particular argument at
a particular moment in time.

That's something that there's not
going to be a general answer for this.

So if I were to summarize and
I'm loath to do that in a way but

that the issue of open access in some
ways draws attention to the fact that in

the humanities we've it's not always been
very good at writing to an audience and

we have the potential a larger audience
now we might need to think about engaging

that audience instead of
simply engaging ourselves.

And that's I think that's what
was the there was one of the one

of the ideas in the Journal
of character piece.

But I think another idea is that
there's nothing in intrinsically

connected to digital media or
publishing or anything in making

that argument right it could we could
have said the same thing in the print era

when we did the same thing in many ways
but now we have this additional complexity

of all right so how how how am I meant
to do that and there's consequences to

I mean when we publish things usually
they tend to disappear more quickly.

There's a lot of noise
switching cost is zero.

So when you make things easily
accessible it also means that.

Fewer people find them and
when they do they move on.

Much more rapidly so the dynamics are.

Are complicated and

I worry that we think that that
we've sort of solved a problem here.

Open access.

OK Moving on now we can kind of do that
same that same article on you know like on

in film studies or whatever and they
will put it out there in the world and

yes get married bad you know it does look
humanist or whatever or that I've kind of

open access my way into and to you know
morally upstanding future scholar.

And that's QUEST clearly not the case.

So time Rob and maybe I can just sort
of open it to both of you as well.

There were open access specifically
you know these are the humanities how.

What does open access do for
the Humanities what should the humanities

how should we be engaging with open
access as a concept is a conceit.

Well I mean as I always
tell this the answers.

It depends it depends on what your.

What your purpose is.

I mean the whole face of
the Constitution is that

we want to support knowledge development.

We want to support an environment
that allows everyone to have access

to information in order to make democracy
possible if you don't have access.

You can't speak to
the to the materials and

the information that make
up who we are as a country.

You can't interact you're not
educated enough to interact so

you're not going to participate.

So from that standpoint we
need over an open access but

there's always even in the constitution
there's this basis of balance.

You have to have balance between
access for the public good and

strong robust public
domain make that possible.

And the need for
an individual to produce and

be rewarded for the production enough
to continue to produce to put more

information into create an incremental
development of knowledge.

You've got to have both and if you don't
have both you have you don't have you

don't have democracy and
access is meaningless and.

And you've you've got to have
a mechanism that works in both ways.

You had asked me about my
questions about grad students.

I mean.

Gretta grad student
there's the issue is that

a question about whether embargoed for
a good idea for

grad students to to have an embargo on
a dissertation for six years before they.

Before it to allow them to publish
within the before anybody sees their

their article in a open access venue.

I would say I mean first of all you know
as a student has a copyright in that

work and is supposed to be able to control
the work and the license for the work.

Nobody there shouldn't even be in
a question of an embargo a student should

have the right to choose what happens
to the work after it's produced.

You can't make a claim.

I don't think you can make a solid claim
that the student is an employee under

Work for Hire A students not the student
may work at a university as a T.A.A.

as a teaching assistant but but
is not there to produce the work itself.

And so and you know not within the scope

of the duties it's awfully
hard to make that claim.

But the student in this weird situation
in the university doesn't have the right

to prohibit open access in
some instances that can

be horrible if the student is
an academic if the students

an academic that student may need that
work to get tenure and promotion.

If you if the work and
you say OK revise the work.

It shouldn't be the same thing anyway.

The problem is you've got to get in that
line quickly these days because publishers

are lining up projects one after the other
instead of taking on several projects at

the same time if you've got a completed
manuscript you can send in the fourth and

you have to have a book for ten year
you're not going to be able to get

in the line fast enough to get
that produced to to get tenure.

If it's available in the publisher
didn't want to publish it.

So there.

And so you lose that balance again and.

It's in the in the issues of course
the other issues are a question about what

kind of work you're creating
some some value in some work

is in not the work itself but
what it does for

you in terms of your reputation or
your ability to connect with other

people through the work you create if
conic to Vittie is more important than

the work itself then then it doesn't
matter whether it's open access but

on the the academics of course want a
little of both they want the they want it.

Want them work to be accessible so
they're known for

the work but they want to be able
to control the work if you're

creating something like a novel or
a game or a piece of music you

want to hold that back until you perfected
it before it goes into the public.

So there's a difference in the work.

So you have all these elements
that play out in what is

what makes the best decision about how
you want to deal with with Access so

open access is great in general
terms in a democratic sense creates

a wonderful public domain but it can kill
innovation and it can kill the ability for

people to produce to continue
to create that public domain and

it's way more complicated
than that I just want

to start a long with what ties talking
about how you have to have a really

nuanced kind of policy approach I think at
the institutional level that takes into

account kind of how a graduate student is
different from a full Professor Wright and

where they're at in their career.

I also think too that.

What I like about the open access movement
is that it's kind of bringing these

questions right to a public
forum like this one so

that we're talking about in our
classrooms and our students and

that sort of thing but I also think
that we can't see open access or

something like Creative Commons as
the only answer and kind of it.

Nor sort of the need.

I I think for like real meaningful
legislative reform right and

regulatory clarification.

So that so that we don't see like OK well
we're acting at the institutional level

and at the arm's length level to kind of
change how we negotiate these rights and

that sort of thing but then we're not
necessarily paying attention to how those

rights are created at a higher level
in Congress and that sort of thing.

And so so

I think that it has to be part of that
whole conversation that open access.

I think as Ian was saying isn't just the
answer to everything that it's a really

complicated issue that involves kind
of multiple levels of regulation that

all need to be addressed with that same
level of nuance about Ty's talking about.

Since we're

already a little bit off script I was
wondering if you could maybe a little bit.

OK so.

So one level of regulation

is at the institutional level like
Todd was talking about right.

Where where the institution sets policies
about how dissertations are going to be

treated or war you could say at the
institutional help foundations the kind

of strings that they might attach to grant
money requiring that publications that

result from a funded project be made open
access within a certain period of time so

and then there are kind of arm's length
negotiations so that if a TA is my

publisher right and I have a book for
her and I say OK well instead of kind

of the standard contract that most people
that most sort of publishers use that

says we get all of the rights to publish
this in whatever language in any medium.

You know that exists now and that will
ever be invented in the future and

and you don't retain any rights.

We take everything.

Well I could say you know Ty what you
really need is the right of first

publication in English and just this
edition right and then I'm going to

retain all the translation rights and
if there is a second edition.

You know and that I should be
able to provide off prints for

educational use that sort of thing.

And so we negotiate that and then there
is the legislative level right that says

right now that if there's
a copyright it exists.

The minute I write something down I don't
have to comply with any what are called

formalities in the law right I don't
have to put all rights reserved.

I don't have to file a registration or
anything like that.

And indeed exists for
my life plus seventy years after that or

in the case of a corporate author
like Georgia Tech for ninety years.

I mean it's ninety five after publication
ninety nine after creation that's right.

Everyone is whichever is earlier.

And so.

So basically all of the Copyright Act
is meant to make space for

all of those kind of modes of regulation.

I think unfortunately this
kind of All rights reserved.

All the time.

And kind of dealing with the copyright
as this bulk thing that can't

ever be separated into its you
know kind of many different parts.

Has become kind of the default
way of dealing with things and so

what I don't want to see is that
you know the sort of default

response becomes well then we're just
going to make everything open access all

the time which again I
think doesn't allow for

that kind of arm's length dealing between
you know kind of individual entities and

the flexibility that copyright
was is intended really to have to

to create kind of a circulation of ideas
right by creating a market for them.

So I'm So that does that kind of
response to what you want like unpacking

in the room and you know and you know
when you look at the progression long.

Under the one thousand and
nine Act that controlled

until seventy eight the seventy six
act was an act in seventy eight.

So up until up until
the seventy six Copyright Act.

We're talking specifically
about copyright and patent and

some of the other is a trade secret
trademark that are treated differently but

up until that time you didn't
have an automatic copyright.

I mean up until the seventy six that
came along copyright existed through

your intentional in there
was no default to copyright

you had to intentionally register your
copyright in order to protect it and

even at that time it was life to
the author plus plus six fifty years.

Today the copyright term is life of
the author plus seventy years and

ninety five after publication or

one twenty after creation whichever
short while think about it.

Anything created today we won't
get to access unless what's

interesting what's happening
is you've got a change in and

I mean that that Eldred the Ashcroft
case the Constitution has fair use

fair use wasn't used that
much until recently but

now fair use is supported in a stronger
way because we don't have access.

We're so far the other way we don't
have access and so open access like

Robin said open access goes to
the other extreme you mean the top.

You always I think you
always have to go back to

Constitution the Constitution
is all about balance.

It's you've got to have a producer's
benefit in order to produce

you've got to have the public right to
access in order to maintain democracy and

open access goes so far that that there's
got to be a way to make that work.

Now I think we're at the cusp of a huge
change in how we treat information

material altogether academia is not at the
forefront of that change never it never

has been never will but I think we're
going to be treating information and.

And material.

What we consider material in completely
different ways in the future than we do

now we see information is a commodity
now and I think in the future.

It's the connections among and

between pieces of information in the
people who produce those that will be more

important than the information
as a commodity in itself and and

I think I mean from a digital humanities
perspective I think that's where

where we're headed but we're not we're
definitely not there in academia.

We're still limiting who
publishes what as a criteria for

who gets from it and and
even I I mean I'm a full professor so

I don't have I'm not in the private
pressure of publishing anymore.

But if I want my I want to sell
factionalized through the process

which is what the Constitution
is also about to participate

in the conversation that that
goes on about the issues.

If I want to publish.

I have to publish in the news
that by their nature

are powerful enough to
retain the copier so.

So for me to participate.

I can't allow my material to be of access.

I think I want to follow up on
a part of your original idea for

this part of the questioning came out
of you know just talk about the Ha

recommendation over the summer
the graduate students should embargo for

as long as it should be allowed
should be allowed to embargo.

You know for with their and
actual pictures and there was a huge

response to that saying
that's that's maybe overkill.

You know why would do that instead
of maybe encourage departments to

make more nuanced tools or you know T.V.
since because of recommendations.

So the.
I'm kind of wondering if you were seeing

libraries are obvious and
for obvious reasons.

You know pushing very hard knocks us
here we're seeing other people for

also obvious reasons resisted.

Who else needs to be to

you know to make sure that the new
ones that you're asking for represent.

Well I mean I think actually
my institution the University

of Georgia just recently went to
a mandatory open access policy.

So basically the default is that
your dissertation is open access.

It's a mandatory electronic deposit and
so and it's default open access

unless you can make a special case
that it should be embargoed and

then I think it can be a market for
five years when I graduated the maximum

embargo was five years so I'm actually
now kind of running it up against next

year the embargo expire on my dissertation
and yes I didn't bargain for Taishan and.

All rights reserved.

Sorry And and so

and I think one of the kind of responses
by a lot of the graduate students and

even the faculty that were representing
the graduate student interest in these

discussions was that graduate students
were they were allowed to participate in

the conversation but they weren't really
in franchised in any way to vote on it and

so I think one of
the definitely when you're

making these decisions it's not just
about like who should listen to and

who should be included
in the conversation but

should be given like actual control
in making that decision and

and I think with you
know with early career.

Scholars in particular graduate students
I think the way that that balance

that you have to strike it in some ways
is to give them control and then sort of

have this try to create you know
the kind of environment where

open access is encouraged because
publication paradigms are changing.

It's no longer you know
the requirement of a book for

ten year our publishers are willing to
publish dissertations that were open

access Nazri think that that rather than
creating a blanket policy that really

deprives the graduate student agency
rather you kind of give that agency

to the graduate student allow them
to retain that agency while at

the same time creating an environment that
encourages them to do the right things.

Does that make sense so so

I think it's it's not good to think
about who should be consulted.

But then also thinking about kind of how
this balance of power really plays out and

and how to provide incentives versus him
kind of these blanket policies that that

might actually go against what
the intent of the law is first and

then there's I mean the other ethical
ethical slash legal issues that these

students create work that that after
the seventy six six Act is copyrighted for

in there in them in the Creator They're
the authors of the work they create if

it's not a work for her and I don't
think the university can make a case for

work for her over dissertations
then that that work is is

the it within the control of the student.

So it's arbitrary to say we allow
you to do what you want with it for

six years and then we're going to
publish it because because for

everyone else who's on the author that
author now which I think is excessive.

That is his life or the other for
seventy years term on the copyright and

can prohibit anybody from publishing the
work I'm in favor of access myself doesn't

sound like it but I'm also in favor
of treating students with the same.

From the same ethical perspective
as you would anyone else.

It creates a work and

I think it's a I think it's problematic
that they're within a system.

They're often within the system
that disregards the same kinds

of rights they would have been a work that
any other author outside of the neck and

it would retain and could support.

So it's a funny situation.

It's like either do we say or you don't
graduate either publish or don't graduate.

So you know and I'm wondering
a lot of times these conversations

sort of about open access sort of
start at the presumption of text and

so teaching media studies or are working
with students who are producing

sometimes more than just tax you yourself
producing games as well as books.

Is there something different to be
thinking about with media objects or

or non text as far as open access
is concerned that sometimes

falls outside of these conversations
because our default is to think of text.

I mean if there's anything that
also has maybe the broader system

that we assume and
don't talk about as much.

So we're making certain I think

tacit assumptions about the kind of
digital nature of publishing these days.

You know you could say in
a certain way before the Internet

we had open access as well in
the sense that a library but

it maintained a collection that
anyone could could have gone and.

Partaking of so when we're talking about
open access we're often talking about

digitisation and we're kind of in
the midst of the entire economic and

political infrastructure that the Internet
the Internet and Internet companies right.

And so that's something that does have
implications that go far beyond the text.

For example.

So much of the media in general you.

Now freely available.

That is for the quote unquote consumer
that I can I can watch a show or read

a book or play a game for free and then
there are these kind of insidious business

models tacked on in which our attention
is captured and our data is is sold and

so forth and to think that those are not
a part of the open access discussion

is is wrong that they're exerting enormous
force on the entirety of our lives.

So that's kind of where I would point
to the the connections it's not so

much that well you know you're here when
you're making a piece of software then

you're subject to different kinds
of of a phenomena kind of pressures

as when you're writing a book
although that might also be true but

in fact if you if you're writing
a piece of software as a scholar in

computer science then you're
probably also writing an article and

really the article is the thing
that has scholarly merit and

the software may may be patentable or
may otherwise be transferable and

kind of be able to create its
own its own closed value right.

But the fundamental difference
between this sort of narrowly

focused perspective on open access that we
sometimes have from our our highly textual

perspective in the in the humanities and
the one that we ought to have I think is

more socio economic that it
is media specific we don't

talk about the fact that all of
these graduate students who would or

wouldn't publish their dissertations in
a particular manner may not have a viable

means to do that research in the first
place because the economy has been so

massively changed by a handful
of companies that generally

speaking don't pay taxes that part of
the conversation seems seems odd to us so

that's that's sort of where I would point
to greater attention mean necessary

not not so much in the distinctions
between you know text and.

From the media.
Although of course there are differences

in the way the rights are managed
the copyright works and

what's copyrightable what will
in different kinds of media but

that seems like I mean it's an interesting
interesting problem but the real the real

meat of the matter for our purposes and
in relation to the humanities and

its future is whether or not we'd be able
to do this stuff in the first place.

Right.

If we can't do that then it's it's
not terribly important whether or

not the mechanisms by which we publish the
work that we can't do because it's been

made viable how it takes place.

And that perhaps prompts in my
mind this is a related question.

One of the questions I think in
the sciences is around the issues of open

access is often the big science research
tends to have some sort of component of

public funding and so there seems to be an
imperative if the public has paid for this

and the public should have had access to
the end product there of the humanities.

This isn't and nearly is often
the case because the humanities don't

have the same costs or at least the same
apparent costs for for research.

But when we're working in this particular
instance we're at a state institution.

How does the research
produced by public and

pull employees that are on a public
payroll funded by the state does that make

some sort of claim for open access for
anything we produce as a scholar so

we don't this problem across town in
our our coking trying to neighborhood.

But it but does this make a difference for

humanistic scholars even if we're not
on a public grant from N.E.H. N.S.F..

Yeah I think so.

And I actually think everything's.

We had a mechanism to do the problem
is we have a practical method mechanism

that disallows it because
the the system requires certain kinds

of publications in certain venues and
those been used have been necessary.

Historically to the operation
of the university and

vice versa so
big publishers publish the works that were

that drive what goes on
in academic settings.

If you're if you break that out of
the the the structure then you.

You don't create value in the place
where it's published you create value in

the work itself or what's being
said then then you lose the need to

retain the copyright with the publisher
the publisher doesn't have the publisher

goes by the wayside because the publisher
only benefits through the control to

the value to the publisher is in the
scarcity of the work to everyone but but

to grab it from the publisher.

If you if you eliminate that then you
could make everything public access and

it's still of the same value but

we don't have a system that supports
that it's also political will you do.

I mean I agree with you that I would
like everything to be made public but

that only only works in an environment
in which we believe in public goods and

investment and absolute rights and we
don't have to you know we don't know right

now what we're going ties pointed out
I think a number of times that sort of

you know this balance right in
academia that the incentives

where this is presuming that
people have secure jobs right.

The incentives are not necessarily like
most academics do not make lots of money

from the work that they publish right it's
not an economic incentive other than just

publication and being you know
publishing within your field and

you know being recognised as you
know a scholar within your field is.

Part of what keeps you employed at
the university so academics really

their incentive is their incentives are
that that we want to speak on these issues

that we think that they're important that
hopefully there is a public audience for

what we have to say and and so
the economics of it you know making

things open doesn't really
change those incentives and so

I think I agree with ties here that
that it would be an Australian

thought it would be nice that if we had
you know kind of mechanisms in place and

the well and kind of economic
wherewithal to create these kind of open

publication venues where peer review and
at it you know and editing and all of this

valuable things that I think publishers
do often contribute to the process and

can still take place but I'm and

there would still be incentives there but
unfortunately

what you see a lot of times
is that you take away.

Take away the publisher and you take
away the value that the publisher adds

you take away the prestige that
would be you know a crew and

then that the person who publishes and
that sort of thing.

And so in the incentives.

Again you know the public has a right
to access and that's one thing but

I also think that people who you know
invest time and effort in creating things

should be able to benefit from
that I mean the key word is value.

You know how do we value what we produce.

If it's valued because it's scarce.

That doesn't mean that the thing
itself has in the intrinsic value.

It's value because of scarcity So OK
a Rolex watches ridiculously expensive or

whatever the particular writer with us.

Watches that are worth twenty five will
probably more hundred thousand dollars or

whatever the first whatever they are is so
out of my range I don't even know what but

those are value for
scarcity not for the watches.

I mean there's some value
in the watch itself but it.

But it's the issue is not that
the information we produce information or

interaction the ideas that
we express are we see those

as valued in our fields because of
the the way they're expressed or

because of the uniqueness that the
innovative thinking behind the expression.

So the value is in the thing itself unlike
like Rob like Robin said I mean that's

it's the ability to really sell
factionalized we're we're lucky.

We're some the luckiest people who world
because we get to spend our lives doing

what drives us what we think is
important and bringing this to

the public not everybody gets to do
that and and that's the value for

the faculty member beyond tenure
promotion and so valued you know.

Now if you have a product that is for
sale for

the product itself the value
isn't what it brings back.

Not in what it gives out necessarily so
determining that you is your first step in

deciding how to treat
the material to work with and

I think about your question of the sort
of started question in this this question

about like who has the right who ought to
have access to these materials based on

how things are funded the situation is
really quite complicated because really

when when something is publicly
funded funded for the public good.

That doesn't necessarily mean
that the that the written

up version of a particular kind
of result is the public good.

So does it do the residents of
the taxpayers the state of Georgia any

good to have you know somebody's serial
science funding available to them.

I mean maybe it's just it seems
harmless to have it available but

that's not really where the where the
impact the public impact would take place.

Maybe it would have more impact.

In a closed access publication that
is widely read among communal.

That would actuate those findings right.

And I think that same thing would be
true if we're talking about politics.

We're talking about theory of time and

anything else that could have a public
impact so that this this this idea that I

should be able to have access to something
because I've had some financial connection

to it at what level of abstraction
that is also very hard to trace.

It's not that it's incoherent or
wrong or right or

it's just it's a very troubled notion to
think that it's that we're saying anything

at all when we make those observations but
even if we assume so.

Yes you're right that we Republicans
to touche and so our work should

be made available which public is it just
the state of Georgia like that sort of

the will and how would we even do that
you know we're going to publish something

online it can't be constrained to just
the taxpayers who have funded only

a portion really of the of the operational
costs of this institution at a small and

a smaller and smaller portion every year
and then you know if you kind of go back

to your comparison to the sciences we also
tend to misunderstand in the humanities

how that actually works because really
your N.S.F. grant you know maybe it

covered some of that research and and you
were you were also using state money and

state time but that it was actually
also subsidized by the institution in

invisible ways because generally
speaking sponsored research is actually

a cost center other profits are as if
you really try to follow the money and

make a justification for
who has the right to the findings of

research as a result of who has paid for
them the whole thing just falls apart

like a house of the House of Cards.

So what we would need
again to go back to this.

I do eat hammering on is use some
general notion of the public good.

Which we would have to
invest in holistically and

this is at least traditionally the kind
of Commons that we've created across many

kinds of institutions in many places in
which an institution like Georgia Tech or

Emory pays us out of their coffers and
we contribute globally to our fields and

to that and to the the general
base of of human knowledge and to.

To me that makes sense at an individual
level at an institute individual

institution level or
at the level of individual publications.

It just doesn't work

where we're just here but

OK So it sounds like

we're describing open access is an
interesting part of this conversation but

it's actually not the focus.

That's what I'm hearing it could be
an interesting part of an answer

to a much more interesting
conversation someone

so what are the outlines of the
conversation how you know what can we do

from our places in the academy
to address this is that even Or

can we you know from from where we are so
how do we solve the world.

The question I just asked you know

one thing that sort of one of
the questions that you had sort of sent my

way like and you know the preliminary
thing was was thinking about remix and

reuse and whether or not.

That is a component or will be a component
of the academic part production and

you also point out that it is in fact
a component of academic production.

And and so and I think the easy
answer to that question is yes and

it's actually a relatively uncontroversial
answer to that question right that that

what we do with scholars is we reuse the
preexisting work of other scholars right.

But I think as and this sort of
touches on the question that you have.

About media right and how the medial
characteristics of a particular artifact

influence kind of maybe not
as copyright status but but

these problems of attribution right and
citation and that sort of thing and

what I would really like to see is
the open access conversation become

part of a larger conversation about
kind of ethics and professionalism and

value that is not necessarily monetary
right and property that is communal

as well as personal so that and
thinking about how kind of

we control circulation of intellectual
property very broadly defined

in ways that may have grounding
in the law and may not

how those how that changes you know from
context to context and actually represents

kind of a broad range of values and
how a community values knowledge and

knowledge production and
cultural artifacts and scholarship and

that's right thing in ways that that
are that are an economic but that are also

you know historical social and
intellectual that that kind of thing.

And so so I mean I think one thing that we

can do is rather than just having this
conversation of ownership all the time and

like and the value of ownership and owning
things and that's one thing thinking

more broadly about what kind of
academic production means socially and

really being conscious scholars asking
ourselves is what I'm dealing speaking

to the public is a valuable am I
creating you know that kind of value.

So that's I think part of that part

of part of the the equation
with open their excesses

is when you create open access as.

It almost becomes a juxtaposition to
a system that's been in place for

a long time that makes that lack of access

the incentive and and
if open access eliminates incentive

then it's going to kill production
is the general kind of the general

based concept if you're not
incentivized by scarcity or

by whatever whatever means credit
creating credibility in something

because it's hard to hard to publish in
certain areas whatever you've got you've

got these two competing directions but
if you if and

it goes back to what Robin just
said if open access allows people

to find incentive in their ability
to interact because Open access

is a mechanism that makes that possible.

And you focus on that
incentive that you that you

want to interact I mean that's why
we produce what we produce and

make nothing from the production but only
from the work itself we're able to do.

We're able to produce and

where we're not I don't think
we're in Senna's incentivized by

our promotions we're incentivized by the
opportunity to produce and interact and

open access is a perfect place for
academics because it's all about that.

It's all about being a part of
a conversation a broader conversation.

That's an incentive for us but
we're an unusual part of the population.

And other other people who are a part
of a population that that creates

in different kinds of components and
different kinds of products are going to

be incentivized in different ways and it
takes that different incentive for every

different producer to create the things
that we need to keep moving forward with.

And that's why I think it's I
think we have to think Inter.

We can't think in broad terms.

I think we have to think in terms of
context for every single product we

produced and for
every single treatment of the law and

we have to we have to consider the context
of incentives in need and what.

And consider what open access would
do in each set of circumstances

rather than something you know
we need open access period or

we need a closed system period and I
think that's what's problematic about all

of it open access is awesome but
it's not awesome.

If you're you want to create products
that that can't be available publicly

very retain value because
you can't produce any more.

And I mean we're there for
a bit of a bind and in the humanities

too because on the one hand I think the
answer your question is that open access

can become a lever in a negotiation around

reinforcing investment
in public knowledge.

OK you want this stuff to
be available to everybody.

Well it's not just about accessing it.

It's about the entire infrastructure
that produces it keeping that running.

So that's all that's that's that
sounds great to start with but

then the humanities we've got this problem
where we spent decades making sure that

our work does not participate in
that public economy that and I must

just thinking about financially right that
it doesn't circulate in the general public

that in fact we often actively reject
those connections and looked and

looked down upon them and so now we're
paying the price in some ways for

having done so and we can't we can't sort
of ran reinvent ourselves overnight and

say well now we've you know we've got
value to offer because in the meantime

the only value that that is considered
valuable is kind of directly traceable

immediate financial value
which isn't isn't the idea.

The ideas is making making knowledge and
ideas public.

Yes because we value having public ideas
for no other reason than to make them

available and to let them do whatever
it is that they're going to do so.

I mean I would my answer your question is
because we can access is one example of

a set of evidence is there that we
might want to muster in a renegotiation

of the production of public knowledge but

in the humanities we're a particular
disadvantage in doing so I'm

conscious of our time we wanted to give
an opportunity to our audience for

any questions that you might have
unfortunately asking a question

means I will bring you this microphone and
you have to speak into it.

So

it's a poorly formed question into a Mike
what are the implications in education.

So we've talked a lot about the value for
you as an individual producing and

consuming as a scholar and connecting as
a scholar but given that one of our prime

activities on this campus still
is teaching and learning what

are the implications of open access or
lack thereof in the educational endeavor.

It's awesome for students.

I mean this is what more do you want for
students.

I mean this is it's the if you
can access everything you can

pull from every area you
can work from every area.

I mean it's great.

This no there's no inhibitions for
students.

I mean it's I mean that's that's
the I mean for all of us who

are students at core no matter what we do
from that perspective it's great but but.

Being a student is a short time short term

situation in the way we're structured.

I mean in an actual student and

at some point those students are going
to have to go out in make a livin.

Right right.

But if if while they're here.

If students are imbued in in this

this this you know whirlpool
of the benefit of public

knowledge in a way that they can
recognize and experience first hand in

the educational project then then they
will recognize that value in carry on.

Instead of not seeing it right.

It's not that they don't believe that's
the case I think it's that it's hidden and

so that the system that we introduce
students to and the educational projects.

This is likely the one they
will they will carry on into

their lives as adults and legislators
sound and and business people and so

forth that will have an influence on
the culture and society that we live in.

So yeah I mean I think if we even
if we did nothing directly right.

And again in our classrooms.

But we have an environment in which public
dollars was really public and it mattered

that it was and it was supported and
and I was clear that making that clear.

Maybe is the is the project for us.

Like how do we make it evident to it to
students that hey this is kind of a weird

place the university and here's one of the
things that it does for the universe and

I want to make sure you see that so that
you recognize the difference between that

kind of environment and the environment
of the corporate environments or

the governmental environment or
the or any other.

Yes I think I think that is it's got to
mean something just a matter of like well

we can I can access this tax and the costs
of my of my textbooks will be lowered.

So because you know.

Education more affordable
to me as a student.

That's nice but really the issues.

This idea of seeing those values
clearly and carrying them

back out in into the world for
other bands wasn't for that's not who will

run it's about making it public
in ways that are about how

it's couched in transmitted that is
that it is really excessive all and

all of those ways and I think also getting
students to participate in creating

scholarship and make you know not just
presenting the hey here you have access to

all these closed commodities that are
written in language that's really hard for

you to understand and all you can do
is really just kind of read it and

then bright essays that knowing that
no one's ever going to read about it.

I mean I think one of the things that
the possibilities that digitization in

particular provide its is the possibility
that students are themselves going

to participate in this public discourse
on this publication of knowledge and

the more that we can open it
up to them in many ways and

get them participating in that the better.

That's part of and I see that as
a really kind of important part of

what Open Access can do you know I think
students are already participating

strongly in open access systems I
mean social media is there in itself.

I mean they're providing content to
each other on You Tube constantly and

they're producing work.

You know kinds of forms.

It's just that we may not value it.

Well that's there's a different
spin in you know how

we approach what we value in it.

The expectation that they
carry that out with them but

that production generally
benefits large private

corporations that do not return that value
to the public and I don't think they

see that to mean we have we got you know
it's just teaching this this money for.

This is the understand that they're

they think they're making
something public in the market.

It's a particular kind of
mean I think public and so

I think there's and that's another part
of the educational project that we have

to do is really the sort of media literacy
for the current system and seeing it for

what it really is rather than for

the sales pitch that we get from from
Google about me but the mindset.

I think is you know you're not special
that it's the it's the general mindset

there are way more there ahead of
us you know they would I think

they would say open access will of course
why would we even talk about this you know

it's it's an automatic thing these days I
think it's the academy that still back in

the old model and
not that the students are way ahead.

But I think to when they do that for

me you know there's a way in which
the kind of the labor that goes

into doing things becomes apparent when
you ask students to engage in it right.

Like the value of having students do art.

Even though they're not artists right.

The value of having them participate
in scholarship even though

they're not scholars they
understand that it's hard work.

It's intellectual and physical sometimes
labor that takes skill and knowledge and

that sort of thing and I think having them
go into the world with an understanding

of how the value of that because
it's hard and difficult and

it creates some you know pressure or
whatever it's also really you know.

One more question.

Anybody.

So I'd be curious to
hear from the three of

you you may know that the institution
passed an open access policy which

I'm starting to feel is very poorly
named because it in fact is intended to

encourage authors to retain copyright but
me license a copy.

So that it's open and so I'm curious to
hear your thoughts about this policy and

whether you think this strikes
an appropriate balance between promoting

open access but also empowering you
know students and faculty authors.

You know I can yammer about it.

I think I mean I I think that
I mean it's a fine policy but

the problem is I don't think
it's particularly practical for

the boy we have to operate with the
materials that we work with at least in my

case I mean I'm in a field where in order
to get to say the things I want to say and

put the information in front of
people who I want to want to see it.

I have to publish in venue's where
the publishers retain the copyright and

it's not my license to provide
to the university it's that's

the publishers license and so

the target if the targets faculty with
with this policy doesn't do much good.

I mean in the in the other pragmatic
issue is that you know Georgia Tech has

always made this kind of blanket
statement that you know you have

to sign away your rights to everything you
create and it's not really the case anyway

even with the you know there are questions
about whether that's in your speech and

I mean I would say that's the ultimate
He can contract no matter that you have

no negotiating power you sign away
everything even signed signing away and

that's not even what
the law says you know so

you can say whatever you want to say but
it doesn't mean make it legal.

But beyond all that it's the pragmatic
aspects about well how you deal

with the material when Georgia Tech
doesn't want to retain old

copyrights they don't care about what I
have a little pittance of royalties I

make what they want me to do is do all
the work of working with the publisher So

the publishers get the copyright they
are the license the copyright they they

produce the work they do the work to
publish it in georgia tech doesn't have to

deal with it if they have to deal with
every publisher that every academic

works with for
written materials are pretty much.

Ariel's other than Patton Patton objects
it's a whole different story but

if they had to deal with that
they would do nothing but

in ministry copyrights cost and
it's no benefit to them.

So it's greater benefit to use
a system that that stays within this

current structure so that we publish
more we produce more and more is seen.

So is it so you publish in a venue
where your work is seen you're

accomplishing your goals right but don't
you think that you can still do that and

having the institutional
policy behind you.

Makes it but also easier easier
to quite easy to then stipulate

with with a publisher actually you know
in addition to your usual requests and

industry usual requirements
that I can make this this

I can retain some rights that I
wouldn't otherwise be able to do so

that it's a move in a direction that
that allows some of those conversations

to become much lighter than they would
be otherwise because you don't have to

then go in and go see every line of
them of the publishing agreement but

rather it's often enough to say yeah
we're used to dealing with this now or

an institution wants to retain
archival rights with a promise is that

even going to the archive of this right or
is this just a kind of empty exercise that

we're playing with ourselves where I get
rights my foot peg myself in the back and

I like put on my open acts
like it's a second hash and

I don't you know I'm wearing
my open access jacket.

But then it actually doesn't end up in the
institutional archive it ends up you know

on my website maybe but then I leave or
that just disappears because my web to

goes down so you know to me the question
is whether or not it's accomplishing

the the end goal of providing a long
term archival access to these

materials and there are also issues
with you know kind of the fine.

Sorry that as a practical matter.

You know kind of the bundling of
different kinds of you know of.

Open access journals with you know so
if the institution is and

it retain its own archive great.

And so all the stuff.

The Repository exists with some
publisher that has closed access and

open access things and
you can only you know it's kind of like

in order to get H.B.O. You have to get
fifty other channels that you don't want.

I mean as a practical matter is open
access really going to affect things like

the cost of subscriptions to you know
like is it actually going to make things

more available and so on so
I think that that's you know.

Understanding that it's not just that.

OK We have a contract that says X.
or you know we have a policy that says X.

but you have like a practical in
infrastructure that really does support

access that there are you know that there
are more than two public terminals in your

library like that that the library is
really a public you know where that's

where things are that people can access it
from off campus or something like that.

So I think you know all of this
practical considerations come into

play as well as kind of the legal like
we wrote a contract and it says X.

so that means that it's up next for open
access to work with the whole structure

underneath the P. and T.
process that we've that we're bound to

has to hash to change if the if
the venues for publication

change which mean that they allow open
access then that whole process changes.

So if we really want to open access we
dismiss all the other everything that's

underneath in course
then you have the danger.

I've got now.

I mean the irony.

I got some time this this week or last
week and I kept it because I had this on

there was a it was email that said we
will publish your article for free.

OK what's going on with

this remember in an article in April about
science publications and it said there.

There's a real problem with publishing for
pay.

So you.

You proof you publish the publish for pay
you pay them to publish your work and then

you go in and say look I have all this
published work you have to give me tenure.

That's the other problem with it.

You've got to find some way for open
access to work it really has to you have

to value what the materials
that are available openly but

then how do you determine your P.M.T.
process.

If your basis for people who are P. and T.
is on what's not available publicly.

So that's got to change to folks
in excess is going to work but

then you get the difficulty.

So I think this is been at this been
a really interesting discussion.

And please join myself I thanking
our panelists and thank you all for

being here today.