Have you published papers in refereed journals? In open access journals? Have you received reprint requests? Have you been a referee for research papers? Have you placed your papers in open access repositories? Do you know the journal budget of your library? Do you use Wikimedia, Blogs, RSS feeds, and other web 2.0 facilities? Do you know the NPTEL courses can be stored in your cell phone, shared with others and can be viewed on a PC/laptop? Have you accessed Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg and Khan Academy?  

He also referred to a quote from Revolution in the Revolution:

"We are never completely contemporaneous with our present."  Our vision is encumbered with memory and images learned in the past. “We see the past superimposed on the present, even when the present is a revolution."

Regis Debray in Revolution in the Revolution  

It takes considerable motivation and effort to get away from the burden of the past and really move on to the present. Scholarly communication is no different from other human endeavours. The main purpose—science is the production of knowledge. Some may say understanding the universe, but the two are virtually the same. There are two kinds of knowledge: knowledge one wants to give away free and knowledge one wants to encash. In the past two days we have heard several speakers speak about intellectual property, patents, royalty, court cases on infringement of rights, etc. All that is, of the second kind. Today I am not concerned with that kind of knowledge. I am concerned with knowledge that everyone wants to share, give away free to maximize one’s advantage. The means by which scientists give away the knowledge they generate is through scholarly communication. 

There are very good reasons for developing countries to pursue science. As there is a growing tendency to privatize science, issues of great social importance (such as health research related to malaria, diarrhoeal diseases, etc.) remain neglected. And if developing countries do not improve their stakes in knowledge production, they will eternally remain vulnerable to exploitation by the rich countries.

Without free and unhindered flow of information, it will be difficult to perform science let alone maximize the efficiency (and the benefits) of scientific research and build capacity for doing science.

The power of access to information was amply in evidence during the tsunami tragedy, when wherever people were exposed to a culture of information they were able to cope with the tsunami better.

Researchers in most developing countries are working under very difficult conditions, especially in regard to information access. To do research, they need access to essential global research findings, but they do not have such access. For example, a survey revealed a few years ago in the 75 countries with a GNP per capita per year of less than $1,000, 56 per cent medical institutions had no subscriptions to journals; in countries with a GNP between $ 1–3 thousand, 34 per cent had no subscriptions and a further 34 per cent had an average 2 subscriptions per year. What kind of research is possible in these institutions?

Eight countries, led by the USA, produce almost 85 per cent of the world’s most cited publications, while 163 other countries account for less than 2.5 per cent. In the ten years, 1998-2007, there were less than 800 papers from India that were cited at least 100 times. There is tremendous asymmetry both in access to information and in the production of quality research between the rich and the poor countries. As long as this asymmetry in research output and access to relevant information persists, scientists in developing countries will remain isolated and their research will continue to have little impact.

Here he borrowed an extract from Cornell University Library:

“Scholarly communication — the process used by scholars and scientists to share the results of their research — is fast approaching crossroads. Individual disciplines and the scholarly community as a whole will soon need to make far-ranging decisions about how scholarly information is formally and informally exchanged, because current methods of scholarly communication are increasingly restrictive and are economically unsustainable.”

The history of scholarly communication since 1665 revolves largely around dissemination of knowledge through print-on-paper journals and libraries subscribing to a large number of them and making them available to scholars and scientists. Despite the advent of the faster and far more convenient means of communication - in the form of Internet and the World Wide Web - print continues to hold sway in many parts of the world.

From 1665 to today, the scholarly journal has changed considerably both in the way the content is presented and in the way technology is used. Gone are the leisurely descriptive prose used by people like Michael Faraday. Today the text is terse and most experimental details are omitted and just a superscript (reference) is given. We no longer use the movable types invented by Gutenberg but use personal computers and laptops to compose the text. We no longer use the four-line composing system for mathematical texts; we have TeX in different flavours. We now use sophisticated visualization techniques and multimedia tools. Here are two examples from two different centuries.

"I purpose, in return for the honour you do us by coming to see what our proceedings here are, to bring before you, in the course of these lectures the chemical history of a candle. I have taken this subject on a former occasion, and, were it left to my own will, I should prefer to repeat it almost every year, so abundant is the interest that attaches itself to the subject, so wonderful are the varieties of outlet which it offers into the various departments of philosophy. There is not a law under which any part of this universe is governed which does not come into play and is touched upon in these phenomena. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of natural philosophy than by considering the physical phenomena of a candle. I trust, therefore, I shall not disappoint you in choosing this for my subject rather than any newer topic, which could not be better, were it even so good."

Michael Faraday in “The Chemical History of a Candle” (1861)

ARPES measurements in the vortex liquid1 part of the pseudo gap region of underdoped BISSCO cuprates show that the spectrum retains an energy gap of d symmetry, but that around the nodal points that gap appears to have collapsed, leaving a finite arc of apparently true Fermi surface, which simply terminates. In the anti-nodal region the gap remains nearly as large as in the superconductor.2,3 In the experiments there is no indication that this arc represents a part of a true Fermi surface pocket, but this has not prevented the publication of various theoretical interpretations in such terms.4,5 Whatever other properties this region of the pseudogap  …   …   …

Simple Explanation of Fermi Arcs in Cuprate Pseudogaps: by Philip W Anderson, 2008

For a history of scholarly communication, I will refer you to the works of Alan Jack Meadows and Christine Borgman.

The inability to cope with the constantly rising subscription prices of journals provided the motivation for librarians in the West to look for alternatives. And men like Paul Ginsparg and Tim Berners-Lee who saw the potential of technology to facilitate easy and rapid dissemination of nascent knowledge helped others - especially in the physics and computing communities - to make the transition from the past to the present and become contemporaneous with the present. Both of them facilitated open access.

The online revolution went far beyond speeding up knowledge dissemination and democratizing knowledge. It helped the very process of knowledge production in myriad ways. It facilitated visualization, synthesizing, data mining, international collaboration, grid computing, and ushered in the era of eScience.

Unfortunately, most developing countries have not made the transition from the past to becoming contemporaneous with the present.  Neither have they seen the same levels of transformative impact of science and technology as the advanced countries nor have they taken full advantage of the new technologies and adopted open access to science and scholarship.

Even China and South Korea, both of which have made rapid progress in science and technology in the past decade or two, have not taken full advantage of the open access movement.

In this talk I will present the situation in India. There are three sides to knowledge: education, research and innovation. We will begin with some indicators and set the context.

Together with China, India is widely seen to be a rising global power. China has gone way ahead of India in many respects.

It is the same in science as well, with China performing far better. Some other Asian countries are also stepping up investment in science and soon Asia may rival USA and European Union in science.  In terms of R&D investments (in current ppp US dollars), India is in the top ten countries in the world. Some of our labs are better equipped than labs in the West.

Rough estimate of R&D investment, as % GDP

In India, about 70 per cent of R&D investment comes from the government, but industry’s share is increasing. Despite the economic slowdown India's government allocated 284 billion rupees (US $5.8 billion) for R&D last year, 17 per cent more than the previous year.  [The US spends $370 bn on science, $270 bn coming from the industry.] In January 2010, the Prime Minister promised to keep hiking the budget for science for some more years. The allocation for the higher education sector is also on the rise and new IITs and IISERs have been set up.   Clearly, India is keen to make a mark in world science. Concurrently, a National Knowledge Network is coming up that would link all of India’s higher educational and research institutions and provide high bandwidth connectivity. 

India’s scientists have not betrayed the confidence reposed in them. In the past few years, their productivity measured by the number of papers indexed in Science Citation Index – Expanded rose from 18,138 papers in 2000 to 22,846 in 2003 to 30,992 in 2006 to 42,446 in 2009. But these papers have appeared in well over 2,500 journals published from more than 100 countries of the world and in widely differing fields from agriculture and astronomy to space science and new biology. As many of these journals are not subscribed to by most Indian libraries, papers published by researchers in one Indian laboratory may not be known to researchers working in the same field in other laboratories. That is not a good thing. In science, we need to know what others are doing. As Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Let us see the number of papers published by India and China in different fields.

Data from Scopus show that India moved up from 13th rank in 1996 to 10th in 2006 among nations publishing the largest number of papers. In the same period China moved up from ninth to second. Data from SciBytes – ScienceWatch show that in no field does India receives citations on par with world average.

But after a few years of stagnation, science in India is looking up. Both investments and research output are increasing. New institutions – IITs, IISERs, IIITs and central universities – are coming up. Internet penetration is growing and the costs are coming down. Work done by development organizations has shown that access to scientific knowledge and data benefit not only researchers but also common people.

Scientists and scholars who give away their contribution to knowledge are hampered by copyright law which protects the interests of the intermediaries rather than those of the creators of knowledge. The OA movement is trying to restore the Knowledge commons to the creators. Knowledge commons differ from natural resources commons in one respect. They are not in the zero-sum domain; indeed knowledge grows when shared. Both require strong collective action, self-governing mechanisms and a high degree of social capital to thrive. But the OA movement is spreading unevenly. 

Information is the key to science development. It forms the ‘shoulders of giants’ as Newton said. Science in India suffers from two problems: They relate to access and visibility. Both these problems can be solved by widespread adoption of open access.  We need to persuade the world to adopt open access. Many advocates are already doing and things are improving.

India needs to adopt OA in a big way. We should take advantage of the potential of the Net and the Web and make the field level playing. But most of us still live in the print-on-paper era.

The access problem is solved to some extent by consortia subscriptions to journals at huge costs. There are at least ten consortia, big and small. A recent study, however, has shown that these journals are not used well.

There are two Indias at vastly different levels of development. With a huge population and a history going back to several millennia, India is keen to develop rapidly and become an advanced country and a global power. This India is reflected in growth rates upwards of 8 per cent over several years, Indian companies acquiring overseas companies, growing foreign investments, increasing investment in science, etc. India is also home to the largest number of the poor in the world and is beset with a multitude of problems most of which could be solved only with research in the sciences and social sciences. The benefits of the high growth rate have not percolated to the poor and there is tension between the two Indias. 

India needs to perform research that will make it competitive in global science and to perform science that can address local problems. In the first case India has no escape from the evaluation criteria and practices used in the advanced countries such as citation counts and impact factor. In the second case, India needs to adopt evaluation criteria more suitable for the purpose. In both kinds of research, India will benefit greatly by adopting open access. Unfortunately, progress in the adoption of open access is slow. The story of OA in India is one of missed opportunities and half-hearted attempts.

India has an efficient space programme, a controversial nuclear energy programme and a network of national laboratories under different research councils. Science is managed by multiple agencies. There are two advisory bodies – Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government and the Science Advisory Council to the Prime Minister – and several departments under the Ministry of Science and Technology. There is a separate Ministry of Earth Science.

But most of these agencies have not done much to adopt open access. Despite a request by the DG of CSIR, most CSIR laboratories have not set up OA IRs.  The CSIR Director General is promoting open source drug discovery and has secured substantial funding for the project. CSIR is also planning a national level repository for all researchers to deposit their papers irrespective of their affiliation. CSIR-NISCAIR has made all its 19 journals open access.

Agriculture is the key to India’s survival and India has many agricultural research laboratories and universities. Very few of them have an OA repository. ICRISAT, a CGIAR outfit, has set up its own IR and mandated OA. CMFRI has set up an IR and it is filling up fast.

India ranks first in the incidence of blindness, tuberculosis and diabetes. But health research is not paid as much attention as it deserves. No medical research lab or college has an IR.

Many Indian medical journals are OA though, largely thanks to the efforts of MedKnow Publications and the National Informatics Centre of the Government of India. NIC has set up a central OA repository for papers in biomedical research. Indian Journal of Medical Research went OA a few years ago and since then its impact factor is increasing every year. The same is true of many journals made OA by MedKnow.  

The Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, signed the Berlin Declaration six years ago, and it took a while to make its journals OA. The Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, made all its 11 journals OA a few years ago.

The Academies can do a lot more. They do talk about OA in their meetings, but nothing much happens. Early last year INSA convened a meeting on open access and copyright. Dr Sahu, Mr Sunil Abraham and I were invited to speak and INSA is still considering the recommendations.

Their top priority is for requesting the government to pay publication fees to journals that charge such fees and not mandating open access for publicly funded research. 

A suggestion to the Academies to set up an Indian equivalent of the Dutch Cream of Science project – an online archive of all papers by all Fellows of the Academies – is taken up by IASc after more than three years.

The Academies could be proactive and advise both the government and the scientists to adopt a mandate for OA, but they are reluctant. Prof. P Balaram, a member of the Knowledge Commission and the Science Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, is an advocate of open access. In an editorial in Current Science, he said, “The idea of open, institutional archives is one that must be vigorously promoted in India.”

Is anyone listening?

This table is an example of the current situation regarding open distribution of scientific results by world universities. In the case of United Kingdom, the production of quality papers is far higher than the number of them available in repositories and thus being indexed by Google Scholar.

UK universities are not achieving higher ranks in Webometrics as compared to other research-based rankings and this is the most likely explanation for this behaviour. Southampton ranks above Columbia and Yale largely because Southampton has a mandate requiring that all of its research output be made open access on the web through an institutional repository.

The Department of Biotechnology supports over 60 Bioinformatics Centres and the coordinators of these centres meet annually. Eight years ago the plan for setting up IRs in these centres was discussed and till now the plan has not materialized although IRs have been discussed in many of the coordinators meetings.

Early last year the Wellcome Trust and DBT set up a joint Programme of Fellowships to Indian researchers at three levels to prevent brain drain and ensure career advancement for those who stay and work in India. The Minister for S&T proudly announced that papers published by these Fellows will be available freely on the Internet. 

If the Wellcome Trust funded research can be made OA why not all Government funded research be mandated to be OA? Examples from the West, such as the OA mandates adopted by research councils in the UK, NIH, Harvard University Faculties of Arts and Science and Law, the Stanford University School of Education and MIT have not influenced Indian funding agencies and researchers. Largely because the majority of Fellows of Academies and Indian scientists in general are unaware of OA and its advantages, limits of copyright, relative rights of authors and publishers, etc. Indian authors rarely use the author’s addendum when signing copyright agreements with journal publishers. 

The situation in the social sciences is even worse. With the kinds of economic and socio-political transformations taking place and caste, religious, regional, sectarian and linguistic divisions often threatening the multicultural fabric of the nation, one would think India should invest as much on social science research as on science and technology. But social science research is neglected. Only a few institutions and some think tanks in the non-governmental sector really count and even they have not adopted OA.      

The National Knowledge Commission has made clear recommendations on the need for mandating open access for publicly funded research. But it is not clear when the recommendations would be implemented.

In the area of open educational resources, some of India’s best institutions – IITs and IISc - have formed a consortium and have made available some excellent material for undergraduate courses in engineering. IGNOU has recently opened up its course ware. Most NCERT textbooks are available for free on the Internet. The Ministry of HRD is planning to make virtually all educational content freely available to all educational institutions connected to a grid.

The open access revolution can go far beyond helping scientists and social scientists in universities and research institutions. It can help the other India, the India of the poor and the marginalized, as well.

In many developing countries, development organizations working with the poor have shown how improving access to information – relating to weather, market prices, location of large shoals of fish in the sea, government entitlements, availability of credit, training facilities, etc. – through a variety of technologies can make a difference.

If intermediaries such as rural doctors and local health workers can access medical information relevant to the current needs of their communities they will be far more effective. The power of sharing medical information was amply demonstrated when SARS broke out in 2003. The unprecedented openness and willingness to share critical scientific information led to the quick identification of the coronovirus responsible for the attack and its genome mapped within weeks. 

The same way farmers around the world can benefit from the world’s agricultural research findings if they are freely accessible. That was the reason why the CGIAR laboratories were set up. That is the reason why we should resist privatization of knowledge, especially knowledge generated with public funds. About two months ago, I and 15 other OA advocates appealed to the top brass of the CGIAR to mandate OA for all research publications of CGIAR centres. Three weeks ago CGIAR held a workshop at Rome for the knowledge managers and they are planning one more in November for the senior management. We hope CGIAR will adopt a NIH-like mandate soon.

Open access is making slow progress in India. The main reason is lack of awareness of its advantages among policy makers and scientists. This is a problem common to most developing and possibly some advanced countries. Focused advocacy, especially among research students and young faculty, and training programmes (in setting up OA IRs) can bring in better results. As the Wellcome-DBT project has shown, foreign collaborators can help. Projects like DRIVER can partner with developing country institutions and as Leslie Chan suggests, one may think of a global repository for developing country researchers.

What is there already?

• World-class Open Course Ware.
• About 200 OA journals. 
• Academies led the way. D K Sahu has shown that going OA is win-win all the way. 
• A small group is promoting OJS.
• There are about 50 repositories. IISc was the first to set up. Its EPrints archive has crossed the 22,000 mark  and IISc is now depositing all legacy papers.
• National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, is the first Indian institution to have an OA mandate in place.
• There are three subject repositories: Biomedical research,
• Library and information science, Catalysis.
• Many physicists use arXiv and India hosts a mirror site.
• Five Indian repositories are in the top 300 of the CINDOC list: IISc  36;   ISI-DRTC  96;   NIC 111;   IIA  228;   NIO  231.
• The Catalysis repository is not listed. 
• There are some efforts to digitize theses. 
• Informatics India Ltd provides an alerting service called Open J-Gate.
• An Indian, LIS software NewGenLib incorporates OA software into a library management software. It is open source.
  

But we are a country of 1.15 billion people. We should do much more. The major concerns are fear of publisher action, copyright and researcher apathy. But awareness of OA – green or gold – and author addenda is rather low among both researchers and policy makers. What we need is advocacy and more advocacies. We should adopt both bottom-up and top-down approaches. 

On the policy front Science Academies, INSA and IASc, are engaged in a discussion on OA. I was invited to address the Council of INSA and again to put together a half-day seminar for the Fellows of INSA and other researchers. I am also talking to IASc frequently.

Science managers have been alerted to the advantages of OA and the need for mandating OA to publicly funded research. But not many seem to care. There is much talk and little action. The Bioinformatics community provides a classic example. As India is hierarchical and to some extent feudal, one wonders if top-down approaches will work better than bottom-up approaches. But OA champions follow both. 

Many workshops and conferences on OA are held. Most of them are suboptimal and cannot achieve OA implementation. There are two online lists for OA, but most members are librarians and many of them believe they cannot implement OA on their own.

International collaboration and ways forward

A new society, Centre for Internet and Society, has come up to promote all things open, including open source software and open access. 

The Principal Scientific Adviser is a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. He often meets his counterparts from other countries. Decisions on OA made in the UK and Europe may have an influence on him.

India is a key member of the InterAcademy Panel and Inter Academy Council. Leaders of Indian science can learn from their counterparts, especially from Latin America. It may help if international champions of OA could be brought to India for discussion with science administrators and public lectures.

eIFL does not work in India. We must persuade them to include India in their programmes. One never knows when things will happen in India. They happen when they happen. So we should be pushing all the time!

We need to create more knowledge and make the best use of it, says Janez Potocnic, the European Commissioner for Science and Research.

OA can help in both creating more knowledge and in making the best use of it. We all know that. But there is a big gap between knowledge and action. It is up to you now. Set up repositories in your institutions. Persuade your director/ Secretary to mandate open access. Set up an Alliance of Taxpayers for Open Access. Citizen groups can achieve what individuals cannot. Write to the Minister, MPs and other policy makers.

The workshop will discuss the problems of obtaining data, especially in India, the technological solutions that these various groups have encountered, the difficulties of technology as a mass-based civic solution, and the visions that these groups have for a more engaged civil society and the contributions they seek to make to the public.

The people attending are, from India (Bangalore):

1. Alok Singh (Akshara Foundation)
2. Shivangi Desai (Akshara Foundation)
3. Arun Ganesh (Geohackers / National Institute of Design)
4. A. Pandian (Mapunity)
5. Sridhar Raman (Mapunity)
6. S. Raghavan Kandala (Mapunity)
7. Thejesh GN (Janaagraha / Infosys)
8. Sushant Sinha (IndianKanoon.com / Yahoo)
9. Vijay Rasquinha (Mahiti)
10. P.G. Bhat (SmartVote.in)
    
11. Pranesh Prakash (CIS)
12. Raman Jit Singh Chima (Google)

And from Britain:

1. David McCandless (Information Is Beautiful)
2. Harry Metcalfe (TellThemWhatYouThink.org / Open Rights Group)
3. Tim Green (Democracy Club)
4. Edmund von der Burg (YourNextMP)
5. Rohan Silva (Special Adviser to the PM)

A permanent member of the prestigious Harvard University Trade Group, Carlos Pérez del Castillo has received the highest decorations from the Governments of Brazil, Chile, France and Venezuela. Carlos Pérez del Castillo also served as the Chairman of the WTO General Council and as Vice-Minister and Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay (1995-1998) and as Permanent Secretary of the Latin American Economic System (1987-1991). He is a member of the Board of the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council (IPC), and a small cattle farmer.

Katherine Sierra, CGIAR Fund Council chair, is the World Bank vice president for sustainable development responsible for people and programs in environmentally and socially sustainable development and infrastructure. Sierra chairs several international consultative groups. These include the World Bank-WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Cities Alliance, Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, and Water and Sanitation Program. Other international groups that she chairs are InfoDev, which supports information and communication technologies for development, and the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, which promotes private participation in infrastructure.

The Letter

Dear Dr. Carlos Perez del Castillo/ Dr. Kathy Sierra:

Subject: Please make all CGIAR research publications open access

About a year ago, on 20 May 2009 to be precise, Dr. William D Dar, Director General of ICRISAT sent a memorandum on Launching of Open Access Model: Digital Access to ICRISAT Scientific Publications to all researchers and students in all locations of ICRISAT [http://openaccess.icrisat.org/MemoOnDAIS.pdf]. In the memorandum Dr. Dar had said "Every ICRISAT scientist/author in all locations, laboratories and offices will send a PDF copy of the author's final version of a paper immediately upon receipt of communication from the publisher about its acceptance. This is not the final published version that certain journals provide post-print, but normally the version that is submitted following all reviews and just prior to the page proof."

ICRISAT is the only international agricultural research centre with an OA mandate, and is second among the research and education institutes operating from India, the first being the National Institute of Technology-Rourkela. ICRISAT publishes a research journal (http://www.icrisat.org/journal/) which is also an open access journal.

Since then Institutional Repository is growing fast and the portal now has virtually all the research papers published in recent times, and all the books and learning material produced by ICRISAT researchers.

We believe that it would be great if other CGIAR laboratories could also mandate open access to their research publications. Indeed, it would be a good idea to have a system wide Open Access mandate for CGIAR and to have interoperable OA repositories in each CGIAR laboratory. Such a development would provide a high level of visibility for the work of CGIAR and greatly advance agricultural research. Besides, journals published by CGIAR labs could also be made OA. There are more than 1,500 OA repositories (listed in ROAR and OpenDOAR) and about 5,000 journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Currently over2050 journals are searchable at article level. Over 390,000 articles are included in the DOAJ service.

The world will soon be celebrating the International Open Access Week [18-24 October 2010] and you may wish to announce the CGIAR OA mandate before then.

As you may be aware, all seven Research Councils of the UK and the National Institutes of Health, USA, have such a mandate in place for research they fund and support. The full list of ~220 mandates worldwide is available at the Registry of Open Access Repository Material Archiving Policies.

We look forward to seeing an early implementation of open access in all CGIAR labs.

Regards
Sincerely,

Subbiah Arunachalam [Distinguished Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society,Bangalore, India]
Remi Barre [Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (CNAM), Paris, France]
Leslie Chan [University of Toronto at Scarborough, Canada]
Anriette Esterhuysen [Association for Progressive Communications, Johannesburg, South Africa]
Jean-Claude Gudon [University of Montreal, Canada]
Stevan Harnad [Universite du Quebec a Montreal and University of Southampton]
Neil Jacobs [JISC, UK]
Heather Joseph [Executive Director, SPARC, USA]
Barbara Kirsop [Electronic Publishing Trust for Development, UK]
Heather Morrison [University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada]
Richard Poynder [Technology journalist, UK]
T V Ramakrishnan, FRS [Banaras Hindu University and Indian Institute of Science; Former President of the Indian Academy of Sciences]
Peter Suber [Berkman Fellow, Harvard University; Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College; Senior Researcher, SPARC; Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge]
Alma swan [Director, Key Perspectives, UK]
John Wilbanks [Vice President for Science, Creative Commons]
John Willinsky [Stanford University and University of British Columbia]

Status Report on a Suggestion made to CGIAR

Sixteen open access advocates wrote to the CGIAR leadership – Dr. Carlos Perez del Castillo and Dr. Kathy Sierra – on 19 May 2010, requesting CGIAR to adopt an open access mandate for all research publications from CGIAR centres. [As the names of the signatories were arranged in alphabetical order, my name appeared on the top of the list. I am one of the group and not the leader.]  Mr. Richard Poynder posted a write-up on the letter in his famous blog ‘Open and Shut’.

The letter led to a flurry of activity among the ICT-KM professionals of CGIAR. I have heard from ICRISAT (Dr. William Dar, Director General), ILRI (Dr. Peter Ballantyne, Head, Knowledge Management and Information Services) and CIAT (Dr. Edith Hesse, Head Corporate Communications and Capacity Strengthening).

Dr. Dar welcomed the suggestion. Incidentally, he is a champion of open access and is on the Board of Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS). He was also the first in the CGIAR system to mandate open access to all research publications from the centre he heads.

From the mails of Dr. Ballantyne and Dr. Hesse, I could perceive some misgivings about the letter to CGIAR among knowledge managers of some CGIAR centres. In contrast, Dr. Francesca Re Manning of CAS-IP, CGIAR, expressed complete agreement with the proposal made by the OA advocates.

The response of Dr. Enrica Porcari, Chief Information Officer of CGIAR, was ambivalent, almost a tightrope walk. She didn’t say that OA was not acceptable to CGIAR and yet she was not willing to accept OA mandating as an option. She said: “Rather than a policy on ‘open access’ limited to journal articles, I would instead prefer to see us develop a strong and clear CGIAR view and set of practices that balance the need for high quality science with highly accessible outputs, and reinforces the substantial progress we have already made across all the Centers…I would advocate for a concerted effort to ‘opening access to our research’. Is not providing open access to research publications the obvious first step in opening access to our research?”

Probably, Dr. Porcari also thought that the advocates were promoting open access journals. Both Richard Poynder and I clarified that what we suggested for CGIR was open access and not open access journals and explained the difference between the two. Richard clarified that our emphasis was actually on open access archiving.

Dr. Peter Bloch and Dr. Kay Chapman of CAS-IP thought that some of the ideas we put forward were astute and relevant but had some concerns about making papers for which the copyright vests with journal publishers open access as well as papers co-authored with non-CGIAR researchers. In response we pointed out how other organizations which have mandated open access have dealt with these issues.

Prof. Anil Gupta of the Indian Institute of Management , Ahmedabad, and founder of the Honey Bee network that disseminate the innovations of thousands of farmers, craftsmen, artisans and the lay public, endorsed the suggestion stating that  Harvard made it obligatory for all the papers published by its faculty to be openly accessible. He said that "once this is made into a policy by CGIAR, the publishers will have to fall in line."

Prof. Michael Gurstein, editor of Journal of Community Informatics, welcomed the idea of making CGIAR research open access, and suggested that we should go one step further and see to it that the research is also made easily applied by the farmers and other ultimate users. Others who endorsed the suggestion include Professors Bill Hubbard, Stephen Pinfield and Chrisopher Pressler of the Nottingham University, David Bollier, Co-founder of Public Knowledge, Prof. Helen Hambly Odame of the University of Guelph.

In the meanwhile, I found that "the Coherence in Information for Agricultural Research for Development (CIARD) initiative is working to make agricultural research information publicly available and accessible to all. This means working with organisations that hold information or that creates new knowledge – to help them disseminate it more efficiently and make it easier to access. CGIAR, FAO and DFID are CIARD partners.

I refer to the CIARD Manifesto here. It is all for open access. Both DFID and FAO also have adopted open access. Please refer to the R4D portal of DFID. Why R4D?  In the past it was difficult to find out what research topics, projects, and programmes DFID was funding or had funded. Researchers all over the world (and even DFID staff) had to rely on a network of personal contacts or inspired detective work to discover who was already working in a particular area, what was already known, and what lessons had been learned. R4D responds to a demand expressed by many DFID stakeholders for better and open access to all this information. It is and will always be only one piece of the jigsaw, but it is a high-quality piece, as in order to have received DFID funding the research posted on R4D will have met strict criteria and quality standards in both formulation and execution.

FAO has complied with all the 13 CIARD requirements for developing institutional readiness and increasing the availability, accessibility and applicability of research outputs. Indeed FAO is the only institution to have done so.

Dr. Ballantyne of ILRI himself has championed open access. Responding to New publication: Learning to Share Knowledge for Global Agricultural Progress, he wrote on 21 March 2010, "Great to see this experience all written up. I was going to complain at the lack of open access to this CGIAR research output… but then I found the author version ‘available’ in full on the CIAT website. Excellent example of I can’t remember which CIARD pathway! Would be even better if your author version was ‘accessible’ in a proper CGIAR/CIAT repository that is harvestable, etc., and not just uploaded on the web!" This is precisely what the 16 signatories to the letter to CGIAR want for all of CGIR research publications!

There should be no difficulty for CGIAR – the Consortium Board, the Science Council and the Programme Committee to accept the suggestion that they adopt an open access mandate for all their research publications.

It is likely that a few knowledge managers were unhappy that people outside the system made the suggestion. It may be their immediate response. It should not be difficult for them to realize, on sober reflection, that all we mean is to bring access to CGIAR research on par with access to research done at some of the best institutions in the world such as MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and Southampton, and to make CGIAR policy the best in the world – even better than the OA policies of NIH, the Research Councils of the UK and the Wellcome Trust. We assure those who have any misgivings that our intentions are honourable, our suggestion was made in the best interest of CGIAR, and they can cast away their misgivings.

Regards,
Arun

The Central Advisory Service for Intellectual Property (CAS-IP of CGIAR) organised a successful workshop in Rome in early July. CAS-IP hopes to conduct a workshop on open access for all CGIAR librarians and knowledge managers before the end of the year.

Project Timeline

From mid-April to mid-July.

Summary of Outputs

1. A 15-20 page paper surveying the online video environment in India and the opportunities it presents for creative expression, political participation, social justice, and other such concerns. The paper should deal with the structural limitations of the medium (e.g.: limited bandwidth, IP lobbies discourage re-appropriation of cultural materials, online video is inaccessible to the deaf, and so on) and how they can be addressed.  Recommendations should be bold but in touch with the real policy and business frameworks of present-day India.
2. Several 1-2 page briefs on specific policy matters like: where is jurisdiction being exercised? what are the policy inflections? and, what interventions are needed to solve the structural limitations of the medium?

Survey Paper

The survey paper should describe the online video scenario in India, and  three or more policy tensions. The paper should focus on areas of intellectual property rights, network issues, standards, device freedom and interoperability, accessibility, etc. The Open Video Alliance website[ova] for a complete list of relevant issues.

Overall, it should paint both a qualitative as well as a quantitative picture of online video in India, and in which structural improvements are needed (if any) to empower individuals.This paper should not be viewed as a recommendation to policymakers but instead as a general interest document which will inform and appeal to many audiences. While we expect the paper to span several distinct issues, there should be a prevailing narrative to weave them together.

Basic Assumptions

We want online video to be a participatory and collaborative social medium powered by open source. We also value the ability of individuals to express themselves using these tools, and the ability of new entrants to challenge incumbents and innovate on top of existing technologies. No time is needed to be spent establishing these values—instead, through this  paper we try to identify structural improvements to the online video medium. How do we get from the status quo to the ideal open video environment?  What investments must be made? What protections must be put into place for users, producers, etc.? Further, we should be able to make some broad recommendations to governments, foundations, and big institutions.

Because the network and IP enforcement environment in India are still malleable, we want to stress that there are many possible shapes that the online video medium could take. Our goal is to shine some light on how a medium that privileges the values outlined above could take shape.

Suggested Methodology

First, you would need to carry out a basic survey of the literature. Second, you should talk to various organizations using video, discover what they consider the structural limitations of online video, and what might be considered open video practices: some are legal, some are technical. You would use this data to direct original research and weave your findings into an engaging narrative.

Next Steps

• You send 2 writing samples, a CV, and letter of recommendation;
• We'll discuss the unifying themes and identify a more detailed timeline;
• We produce a contract;
• We Pick a regular time to meet every other week, to track progress.
  

Last week, and for many a surprise, Google launched its new social networking platform, Buzz.  The new service is Google’s effort to amplify the “social nature” of their services by integrating them under one platform, and adding some extra social utility.   The social application runs from the Gmail interface, but also links other Google accounts a user may have, including albums on Picasa, and Google Reader.   The service also allows for the sharing from external sources, such as photos on Flickr, and videos from YouTube.  The service also allows users to post, like, or dislike the status updates of others which may be publicly searchable if the user opts.  Before a Gmail user may fully participate in Google Buzz service, a unique Google Personal Profile must be created. 

User Consent

Much of the buzz surrounding the new social networking service last week wasn’t paying much lip service to the new application.  Instead, an uproar of privacy concerns continued to dominate the Buzz scene, with many critics quickly labeling Buzz a “privacy nightmare”.  A formal complaint has been already filed with the US Federal Trade Commission in response to Google’s new privacy violating service.   A second-year Harvard Law student has also filed a class-action suit against the company for its privacy malpractices. 

Much of the privacy talk thus far has focused on issues of consent, or lack thereof, in this case.  Upon Buzz’s launch, Gmail users were automatically subscribed as “opting in” for the service.  Google has used the private address books of millions of Gmail accounts to build social networks from the contacts users email and chat with most.  To entice users into using the service, Gmail users were set to auto-follow all of their contacts, and in turn, to be followed by them, too.  Furthermore, all new Buzz users had been set to automatically share all public Picasa albums and Google Reader items with their new social graph.  It is argued that social network services should be opt-in, rather than opt-out, and that Buzz has violated the consensual nature of the social web. 

Illuminating the complications of building a social graph from ones inbox is the story of an Australian women, who remains anonymous.  As she claims, most of the emails currently received through her Gmail account, are those from her abusive ex-boyfriend.  Due to Google’s assumption that Gmail users would like to be “auto-followed” by their Gmail contacts (mirroring Twitters friendship protocol), items shared between herself and new boyfriend through her Google reader account had become public to her broader social graph, including her ex-boyfriend and his harassing friends.

In a blog response directed to Google’s Buzz team, the woman scornfully wrote- “F*ck you, Google. My privacy concerns are not trite. They are linked to my actual physical safety, and I will now have to spend the next few days maintaining that safety by continually knocking down followers as they pop up. A few days is how long I expect it will take before you either knock this shit off, or I delete every Google account I have ever had and use Bing out of f*cking spite”.  As this case demonstrates, the people we mail most often may not be our closest friends.   As email has replaced the telephone for many as the dominate mode of communication--some contacts may be friends, however, many others may not be.  

In response to the uproar, tweaks to Buzz’s privacy features have since been made.  Todd Jackson, Buzz’s product manager, has also posted a public apology to the official Gmail Blog late last week for not “getting everything quite right”.  The service will now assume the more user-centric “auto-suggest” model, allowing users to selectively choose the contacts they wish to follow, and will also no longer auto-link Picasa and Reader content.  However, as the EPIC’s complaint notes, many are still unsatisfied with the opt-out nature of the service, arguing that users should be able to opt-into the service if they so choose, rather than having to delist themselves for a service they didn’t necessarily sign up.  Ethical quandaries also still loom over Google’s misuse of the users’ private contact lists to jumpstart their new service. 

Contextual Integrity

The attacks on personal privacy resulting from Google’s model are vast.  As the case of the Australian woman illuminates, the concept of the “online friend” has completely taken out of context with Buzz’s initial auto-follow model.  Many of the contacts we make on a daily basis need not be made public through the Google profile.  For most, this Buzz’s privacy breach may be benign or annoying at most. However, those who are engaged in sensitive social or political relationships via their Gmail chat or email accounts, the revelation of common contact could have been potentially damaging for many.  A reporter from CNET has cleverly labeled Buzz’ as a “socially awkward networking”, as bringing diverse contacts under one umbrella doesn’t exactly make the most social sense. In response, Gmail users are required to sort through and filter their Buzz followers according, or choose to disable the service all together.

Besides questions of who is stalking whom, the assumptive and public nature of Google’s  new move has cast a shadow of doubt among Gmail users regarding the ability of Google to maintain the privacy and contextual integrity of the Gmail account.  Should one account be the place to socialize, and  “do business”?  Gmail is, and should remain, an email service.  However, Buzz takes the email experience into new and questionable grounds.  Do Gmail users feel entirely comfortable having their personal email, social graph, and chat functions all coming under the auspices of one platform?   Many users felt they had been lured into using a social networking service that they didn’t sign up for in the first place.   

Social Media Competition

In addition to Google’s attempt to integrate their various service offerings, Buzz is seen as an obvious attempt to bolster competitiveness in the social media market.  In 2004, Google released Orkut. While the service has become big in countries such as Brazil and India, it has been overshadowed by sites such as Facebook in other jurisdictions, and has not been able to prove itself as a mainstream space for networking.  In the past year, Google had also launched Google Wave, a tool that mixes e-mail, with instant messaging and the ability for several people to collaborate on documents.  However, the application failed to completely win over audiences, and was considered one of the top failures of 2009. 

With Google unable to effectively saturate the social media ecosystem, Buzz is an attempt to compete with the searchable and real time experiences provided by social media giants, Facebook and Twitter.  Increased competition within the social media market could be a positive development for privacy, as social media companies could arguably be compete on their ability to provide users with preferable privacy architectures.  To the contrary, however, such competition has thus far had negative ramifications for user privacy, as the recent Buzz and Facebook moves illustrates.  Facebook’s loosened privacy settings were a competitive knee-jerk to Twitters searchable and real time experience.  Through a Twitter search, individuals can come to know what people are saying about a certain topic, event, or product, and as a result, the service has received a great deal attention from users, and non-users such as advertisers, alike.   

In an attempt to one-up, their competition, the “Twitterization” of Facebook followed in two distinct stages.  First was with the implementation of the Facebook News Feed, which gave users a real time account of actions their friends on the site.  Many argued that this feature invaded user privacy.  However, it was argued by Facebook that they only were making available information that was already accessible through individual profile pages.  The News Feed, as it happens, effectively took user information and actions on the site out of original context by streaming this information live for others easy viewing.  Information users once had to rummage for had become accessible in real time on the homepage of the service. 

Secondly, Facebooks’ recent privacy scandal was a step towards making profile information more searchable and accessible to third parties, as is most often the case with the more public feeds on Twitter.  As one commentator notes,   “Facebook used to be very private but private is not great for search, to have great search you need all of the data to be publicly available as it mostly is on Twitter. Facebook have not quite nailed real time search yet but they are getting there and it will soon be a great way of examining sentiment across different demographics”.  As a result, information on Facebook, such as name, profile picture, friends list, location and fan pages have become open access information.  In addition, users on Facebook have been subjected to new privacy regime without notice, leaving their profile pages generally more open, and searchable through Google.    

Converging the Online Self

The impact Buzz alone can make on the social media landscape remains questionable (Gmail heralds only 140 million accounts, which is a deficient cry from Facebooks’ 400+ million dedicated users).  However, despite Googles’ in/ability to become claim hegemony over the social web landscape, the abuse of private information to launch a new service has raised serious debate over the privacy and the future of social networking.  The Buzz service marks more than yet another new social networking service that brushes aside the privacy of users.  As user control and privacy becomes an increasingly peripheral concern, Google’s shift toward privacy decontrol also signifies a worrisome supply-side shift towards the “convergence” of online identity.

Within this new dominant paradigm, privacy concerns are often interpreted as antithetical to competitiveness in the social media marketplace.  Instead of an imagined ecosystem based on user control and privacy preference, it can now be inferred that the competiveness of social networking services will continue to disrupt the delicate balance between the public and private online. Regardless that greater visibility and searchability of the social profile may not be in the public interest, Google’s recent move works to reinforcement of the new status quo of “openness”.  Furthermore, it is questionable as to how concentrated and integrated a user may want their online activities to become.  A critical discourse of online privacy must, therefore, take into account the ways in which the social web has renders the user increasingly transparent through networks of networking services. 

Google’s Buzz illustrates this point quite well.   Initially, Gmail was a straightforward email service.  Next, the AdWords advertising service and Gmail chat had become integrated into the Gmail experience.  Because Google was using the confidential emails of its Gmail users, privacy concerns began to mount upon the launch of the the AdWords service.  However, turmoil surrounding AdWords died down, notably as Google continues to reassert that is is bots, not humans, that are scanning the emails in order to provide the AdWords service.  Next, there gradually occurred a convergence of Google services under the single social profile, or “email address”.  A single Gmail account potentially includes use of with Google reader, calendar, chat, groups and an Orkut account.  In terms of behavioral targeted advertising, Google has recently announced that they will be providing personalized search results even to users who have not signed up for Google services.  This will be done through the placement a cookie on all machines to provide targeted advertising seamlessly through each Google search and browsing session.    

While many argue that the collection of non-personally identifiable information poses no privacy harm, this assumption needs reassessment.  As Google comes to offer us more, they also come to learn more, and Buzz signifies this trend towards a Googopolized social web.  To add another layer of complexity to Googles hegemony, users of the Buzz service are also required to create a “Google Profile”, which is searchable online and displays real time status updates, comments, and connections from other social network services, such as Facebook and Twitter.  As Google recently launched the beta version of the new Social Search, Buzz was just the service required to increase the relevance to the new service by encouraging Gmail users to publish even more personal information.  The creation of a personal Google profile, which is indexed and searchable, raises many concerns about privacy and identity, and doubts are continually raised over how much Google should come to know about us.

While Google’s services have arguably made the online social experience more seamless and tailored, it is questionable as to how relevant, or even desirable, such a shift may be.  At present, it may appear that Google is wearing far too many hats, and users should be wary of placing all eggs into one basket.      As the launch of Buzz has shown us, user consent and the contextual integrity of private personal information can be compromised when a diverse number of online services are integrated and given a social spin.    When competition among social web providers drives users to lose control of the private information which is inherently theirs, critical questions surrounding competition, convergence and privacy require critical exploration.  

Document Actions

The perils of information exposure and the loss of privacy on social network sites (SNS) has become a talked about issue. Information once considered has private has in many instances become viewable by unintended audiences of parents, colleagues, college admission officers, employers, even the courts.  The recent Facebook privacy scandal, which left sensitive personal information for millions of users open and searchable via Google, heightened privacy consciousness amongst users, public interest groups, and Facebook itself.  As the free flowing nature of information on the internet has redefined practices surrounding the disclosure of information, new and multidimensional privacy challenges have arose as a result. 

The much-celebrated ethos of “openness” continues to attract numerous and diverse users to SNS, and without a doubt, these platforms have enabled users to stay connected and share information with the people around them -- for better or worse. However, it is within this inherently open context that notions of privacy are continuously being challenged and redefined.   While a particular user may prefer to keep certain information widely available to attract “potential friends” within a certain network or social circle, it may go without saying that the same user may not be comfortable with a family member viewing that same information, or having personal information open access to third parties.  It is this iterative tension between “openness” and privacy which beckons the need to balance the openness of SNS with the privacy of its members.

Privacy as a Semi-Public Personal Space

Most commonly, privacy has been interpreted by users as a “lack of access”, or the degree to which they are able to protect their information from the public gaze.  Various research examining the privacy (mal)practices of users have also, by in large, conceptualized privacy within this public/private binary.  The most popular SNS today do allow users to careful define their privacy level.  However, whether or not the information of a user remains open, restricted, or private will depend on the privacy preferences unique to the user, and to some degree, the architecture of a particular SNS.  Inferring from privacy in practice, researchers have generally labeled users as privacy fundamentalists, pragmatics, or the marginally concerned .  While making this distinction has been useful, is important to note that the diversity and complexity of relationships within a single networked space obscures the inherent simplicity of such typology.  With many online social networks becoming representative of offline affiliation, the challenges inherent to maintaining a diverse number of social relations online may lead researchers to interpret uncertain privacy practices as paradoxical.  Such a notion also calls into question the utility of categorizing users according to their privacy practices.

To illustrate such complexity, many users today are compelled to join sub-networks or groups within these sites, which then cluster users and relax the privacy settings between them.  While a college student may wish to keep weekend outings hidden from the professors they have connected with, they may also be tempted to reveal such information with his network of peers-- to which the professors may belong. The open nature of these sub-networks are inherently valuable for maintaining offline affiliations, friendships and collegial relationship. However, this also increases the likelihood invisible audiences of unintended users may gain access to potentially unflattering information to an .  By joining a network on Facebook, for example, the personal information of a users profile page becomes open to all “friends and networks”, even if the users may previously had their information set behind a more granular privacy settings. 

Within these open spaces, the ability of users to make appropriate or selective disclosures of information is becoming obscured.  While Facebook does allow for users to alter the settings after joining a network, such “openness by default” may catch many users off guard or only be brought to their attention once they face its negative repercussions.  Because the maintenance of a wide variety of such social relationships depends on the disclosure/non-disclosure of certain types of information, privacy in praxis has become an act of balancing the utility of social network with the privacy concerns they present. Users are now faced with the challenge of classifying certain pieces of information public or non public, or determining suitable practices of disclosures amongst a diverse social graph. It is not to be expected that such decisions will become easier within a context whose architecture is built on openness to make it “easier for friends to find, identify, and learn about you”. 

Privacy as Control over the Flow of Information

While the classification and coding of information vis-à-vis a diverse set of relationships forms the base of practice for most of the privacy conscious, this paradigm of privacy remains rather limited within a defined network of individuals, whether they be “friends”, within an intended audience, or not.  Within this framework, information is understood as being either socially or institutionally sensitive, as its exposure may affect certain social or institutional relationships.  Given the spatial and temporal context the “social profile” gives to personal information, it is reasonable to see how popular understandings of privacy have been within the public/private paradigm.

While this may be the case, it is important that users observe how the inherently “networked” nature of these spaces complicates the common privacy paradigm.  When a user joins a SNS, they enter into a complex and opaque set of networked relationships beyond those with their “friends” and “friends of friends”.  There exists sub-networks of third-party actors which constitute corporate entities, their partners and affiliates --may they be advertisers, third party developers, or a broad range of other service providers.  Many of which are granted access to your information in varying forms and for differing reasons.  With the introduction of the Open Social network, fronted by Google and various social advertising and developers networks, the ability for one to maintain the control and integrity of their information or “data” has become an increasingly complex endeavor.   

While the importance of maintaining non-public social spaces online should not be diminished, in a time when collecting, storing, aggregating and disseminating information has become increasingly easy and cost-effective, users of SNS must begin to conceptualize online privacy in a way which extends past the social context popularly understood to give “information” meaning.   Once information loses its contextual place of meaning, which may be the profile itself, users seem less apt to consciously consider the collection and dissemination of such data as a breach of privacy, or even a concern at all.  It may be true that the socially sensitive nature of such data is reduced once it is disassociated with a particular user, or that the click stream patterns and other information collected by advertisers through cookies may not always pose a direct and potential threat to our privacy as we’ve thus far conceived it.  However, a brief glance at the privacy policies, terms of use, and on-site practices of a few SNS illuminates that privacy must be seen as the control over the flows of personal information.that

Privacy vis-à-vis Third Parties

As many have illuminated, SNS are commercial enterprises with a business model based on the harvesting of personal information for marketing and other purposes.  Therefore, it may be naive for a users to believe what happens on these sites stays on these sites, or that privacy settings, however granular they may be, grants them adequate control over their information.  While SNS such as Bebo state that they “take your privacy very seriously”, the onus is on the user to determine whether or not the privacy standards of third party applications are up to par.  The transfer of responsibility for monitoring the privacy practices of third parties is characteristic of many popular SNS.  MySpace states in their privacy policy that they do not “control third parties” and cannot “dictate their actions”, while Facebook similarly states that they cannot guarantee that such third parties will “follow their rules”. 

As third parties are often governed by their own privacy policies, the unmonitored and unenforced nature of these networked relationships places further responsibility on the individual users to ensure that privacy practices are adequate.  This becomes quite difficult on SNS like Facebook, where third party developers are granted access to the personal information of all you and all your network members, including photos, videos, and other biographical information.

The relatively anonymous nature of these parallel sub-networks also obscures the ability of the user to take control over the accessibility of their information.  Further, the privacy policies of the various SNS give no indication as to “who” their affiliates, partners, and service providers are.  Most SNS also reserve the right to transfer personally identifiable information to its partners and affiliates if they have a “business reason to do so” and in all cases, advertisers are subject to their own privacy policies with regards to the information they collect -- some of it personally identifiable.  To complicate matters, all of the leading SNS, including Facebook, Orkut, Myspace, and Bebo, reserve the right to collect information about you from other companies and publicly available sources.  It is unclear as to what information is being collected or for what purposes, and unfortunately, such information is effectively kept “private”.

Redefining Privacy on Social Network Sites

Social network sites can be seen as open spaces which allow users to maintain diverse personal relationships.  However, the somewhat anonymous parallel networks of third parties which exist on these sites threatens the “open nature” of these sites vis-à-vis our privacy.  While users may maintain that the information they have provided is kept secure and private, these parallel third party networks negates the control an individual may assert over the flow of their information.   It is within this context that privacy needs to be conceptually redefined in relation to both user “information” as it appears on a social profile, and “data” once it is processed by third parties.  There is a need for an alternative paradigm to privacy on SNS which takes into consideration the flow, retention and use of personal information. 

While it may be too early to determine whether or not the expected digital dossiers complete with complex user-specific biographical data will be developed or come to threaten our privacy in a fundamentally new way, it is also premature and erroneous to assume that traditional notions of privacy are fundamentally antithetical to the net.  As communication become increasingly mediated by digital technologies, so to should our perceptions of privacy and ways of preserving it.  SNS must also become responsible for ensuring greater transparency in the flows and uses of personal information, working to standardize the privacy policies in such a way that makes the user experience one which is seamless with respect to privacy practices.  Initiatives such as the W3C’s P3P are a promising step towards nurturing a more nuanced understanding of privacy among internet users.  Only through understanding privacy as the control over the flows of personal information can be balance the interests of SNS users with the business models of these “open” networked spaces.

In the days of offline software – vendor lock-in was achieved using proprietary formats thus preventing users from migrating to the competition. As a result, very few of us have files from the Word Star and Word Perfect days.  Proprietary formats force the user to keep renewing the license for the associated software or worse, pirating it. Fortunately, the copyright law in many countries including India allows for reverse engineering and free software developers were able to provide us alternatives such as OpenOffice.org. This combined with anti-trust investigation in Europe and US has resulted in Microsoft embracing an open format as native storage for the latest version of the Office suite. 

Today it is déjà vu in the world of social networking in particular and cloud computing more generally. Facebook, Myspace, Orkut and their ilk all provide file storage, contact management, messaging and calendaring functionality. However, very few of them actually allow the user to backup their data – for example on Facebook and Myspace it is not possible for a user to backup their contact database. Some exceptions like Orkut allows for export of contact database, etc., but that is more because it is not the primary monopoly that Google wants to protect. Fortunately, email providers like Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo Mail have all finally embraced open protocols and are using POP3 or IMAP protocol and we can copy our mail offline using Microsoft Outlook or Mozilla Thunderbird. In the future, social networking sites may congregate around a couple of open standards and offer their users true digital social mobility. There are already some initial signs of hope here – for example, the Data Portability Project is supported by individuals from Plaxo, Facebook and Google.

However, if competition and technological development does not rectify the situation then there might be a case for government intervention. Especially, because citizens wishing to engage in e-governance have no choice but to embrace the choice of the politicians and bureaucrats whether it is Twitter, Facebook or YouTube. In Canada, the Privacy Commissioner forced Facebook to change its policies on retaining user data after they had deleted their accounts. In US, the Attorney Generals of 49 states gave a laundry list of modifications to Myspace in order to keep children safe from paedophiles. In India too, the government and civil society should collaborate on policy reform to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected on social networking websites. Think of it as a phone number portability equivalent for Web 2.0.

The notion of free and open is under great debate even under that, and I think even when you side with a camp, there are going to be further splinters. There are many ways of defining the free and open, and I think that the tension, rather than being resolved, needs to be sustained and creatively perpetrated to keep an internal checks and balances on not getting carried away with it. All the groups did indeed circle around this in different, often tangential ways – that there is need to define, variously and almost endlessly, in defining the context of the free that we are dealing with.

Open video, in that matter, has gone through different iterations, and I think it is nice that different stakeholders have defined it variously, and also looked at the problems that it might lead to. However, for the sake of synthesis, I am going to let you have your own idea of free and open but instead look at five key words which have emerged, in my selective hearing, through the day: Access, Archive,  Share, Remix, Repurpose. And it is these five that we need to now imbricate these concepts across different thematic that emerged in the groups today.

Access has been one primary question that almost everybody dealt with; Access has its legacies in the Open and Free culture movements, where technological access, dealing with questions of open standards and content, of bandwidth and infrastructure. More interestingly, in an emerging information society like India, there are other concerns of language, access, privilege, bandwidth, education etc.  To contextualise access and to put it into different perspectives is something that different participants have voiced the need for.

Archive is a preoccupation with most people because archiving has close relationships with knowledge and subsequently retrieval and usage. If knowledge is being digitised so that it is made accessible to different people, there are older questions of representation, voice, empowerment, participation, ethics, privacy, ownership etc. Crop up. In education archiving has to do with the curricula building and knowledge production. In networking, collaboration and film making, it is the kind of issues that pad.ma is trying to tackle with. It also leads to notions of access, distribution etc.

Sharing is what is almost defining the spirit of the Open and Free culture movements. There is a need to understand and explore what sharing means. When does it infringe laws and what kind of regulation needs to be advocated so that sharing becomes possible. How does one overcome questions of piracy, stealing, IPR etc? More interestingly, what do we share and who do we share it with?  Tools by which sharing leads to innovation? How does it lead to new participation and learning practices and pedagogies? What kind of open distribution models and networks can be built up?

Remix has been of great value because it means that you are being converted into some sort of a stakeholder or a contributor to the process. Networking and nodes, network-actor, collaborator , peer 2 peer – the possibility of looking at questions of internet and digital traces is interesting. Or imagine that the act of sharing is also a remix. Sometimes just putting it into new contexts, making it available to newer constituencies, etc. can also be looked upon as remixing. Remix as a knowledge production aesthetic and mechanics seems to have emerged.

Repurpose is my additional reading of something that perhaps needs no mention to this group, but nonetheless needs flagging. The fact remains, that the technology is not a solution in itself. It is a tool that enables the solutions which one is seeking for. The processes, paradigms, protocols and practices are indeed shaped and mediated by technologies and there are new solution possibilities which are produced. However, there still seem to be anxieties, concerns, questions and problems which are cropping up and need to be addressed outside of technology but within technology ecologies.

N. V. Sathyanarayana (“Sathya”), Chairman & Managing Director of Informatics (India), set the stage by charting changes in the online media landscape. In less than ten years, Google has become the dominant media player, overtaking 100-year old rivals like Thomson/Reuters/Reed/Elsevier. In fact, the top 10 players in the online content industry are all free-content (ad-supported aggregator) companies: GYM (Google, Yahoo, MSN). Free and open content have disrupted the traditional paid content model, but the paid model will work for those content providers who can find an assured base of institutional buyers. The free content model is based on ad revenues which in turn are based on the overall performance of the economy: the current downturn is shaking up the content industry.

The dominant rise of information related to human resource activities as part of the overall content pie is a notable trend in recent years, said Sathya, citing research from Outsell. Online access has completely transformed research and academic activities. Just a few decades ago, researchers had to first monitor and read all available published material before making connections and drawing analyses – now a number of automated tools can provide alerts, search resources, identify trends and help visualise domains of knowledge. The Internet has also greatly extended the shelflife of content; many journal publishers who used to make money only on sales of new copies to libraries now make even more money on digital access to back issues.

Sunil Abraham  (http://twitter.com/Sunil_abraham), executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, focused more on the democratic potential of the Internet for knowledge dissemination. He charted out the evolution of the open model for software, content, access and educational resources. He distinguished between “muft” and “mukti” interpretations of the often-misunderstood term “free” – it can mean free of cost or freedom/liberation (translations from Hindi). Sunil dwelt on the implications of copyright, copyleft and copycentre models of IP, as well as governance models such as WikiPedia in English and other languages. These open code and content models are in turn affecting business models of companies ranging from IBM to Apple, and will also impact online content access for marginalised and needy communities.

An interesting discussion followed, touching on “healthy useful piracy,” IP models of scholastic v/s entertainment content, ownership rights of translated materials, “responsible” authorship and metaknowledge in Wikis, outdated information policies and knowledge cultures at companies who block employee access to social media, the need for more knowledge sharing in the fragmented NGO sector, the need for organisations to incentivise not just innovation but also copying/sharing of knowledge, and even Christian v/s Hindu worldviews and binary v/s polytheist interpretations of fee/free/layered content models! Now that’s a profound note on which to end 2009; see you all in 2010!

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 at 6:44 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. 

Link to the original blog entry

This workshop in Bangalore—modelled after a similar meeting in October 2008 at Yale University—draws together experts from tech, art, film, NGOs and business to explore the future of online video.

When: December 15th, 2009

Where: The Energy and Resources Institute- Southern Regional Centre

(TERI-SRC)
4th Main, 2nd Cross, Domlur II Stage
Bangalore- 560071

What: The Open Video Summit is a one-day workshop to explore issues of intellectual property and telecom policy for video. By inviting experts from different fields to participate in the workshop, we aim to create a framework for open video in India and to better understand how the online video medium is developing. We also hope to expand the network of researchers who have open video on the radar and to foster international collaborations. We expect between 30-40 participants to attend.

Participants should bring some specialized knowledge or insight about the state of online video to the event. The workshop is highly interactive and its success will depend on the quality and dynamism of our discussions. This workshop will in turn direct iCommons research efforts in the area of online video policy.

Why: We’re now surrounded by cameras in cellphones, laptops, and everywhere else. Software and storage advances have made video remix an emergent art form. For the first time, huge numbers of people are communicating through video. Video is almost like a new language, a new toolkit for self-expression. This has some pretty profound implications.

But while sites like YouTube have enabled millions of people to broadcast themselves, it offers just a glimpse into the future of the online video medium. Heading into this future, the tools for creating, manipulating, and sharing video must be available to everyone. And while having community-developed, open source versions of these tools is a critical charge, it’s only one part of a larger puzzle. Open video requires that networks and technical, legal and business structures support the ability of huge numbers of individuals to use video in ways that go beyond just watching.

The Open Video Alliance was created to support industry coordination toward an open video ecosystem. OVA members develop free and open source software and conduct policy research to support a more participatory video medium. The OVA also coordinates the Open Video Conference, a multi-day summit of thought leaders in business, academia, art, and activism to explore the future of online video. The first OVC was host to over 800 guests, including 150 workshop leaders, panelists and speakers. Over 8,000 viewers tuned in from home to watch the live broadcast.

Meeting Organizers:

The Open Video Alliance is a coalition of organizations devoted to creating and promoting

free and open technologies, policies, and practices in online video. OVA founding members include Mozilla, the Participatory Culture Foundation, Kaltura, iCommons, and the Yale Information Society Project.

iCommons is a project-based incubator organization dedicated to promoting free culture and the global commons.

The Centre for Internet and Society critically engages with concerns of digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices, in the field of Internet and Society, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange.

Magic Lantern Foundation is a non-profit group working with media and human rights.

This meeting made possible with the support of the Ford Foundation.

Working schedule:

Morning: 

• Keynote talk and brief discussion
• Lightning presentations by selected participants
• Breakout discussion groups

Afternoon:

• Lunch
• Breakout discussion groups
• Plenary discussion to identify focus areas and summarize

Evening: 

• Film Screening

Space is limited. Please RSVP to conference@openvideoalliance.org, and feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. We look forward to meeting you in Bangalore.

CIS and JAAGA organised a CC Salon (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Salon) by Jon Phillps on Creative Commons Casestudies, Featuring Status.Net

Venue: JAAGA
Time: 7.30pm

The aim of this get together was to share knowledge and experiences of alternative copyright licensing.  Artists, lawyers dealing with copyright licensing and others are encouraged to highlight their own work, experiences and queries about Creative Commons and other alternative licenses.

An abstract of the presentation and the bio of Jon is given below.

ABSTRACT:

Creative Commons Casestudies, Featuring Status.Net

Creative Commons is a well-known nonprofit organization that increases sharing and improves collaboration. Its key tools are six licenses that fit between public domain and complete control, copyright, to give you control over how your work is shared with the world. This presentation explores high level case studies that use Creative Commons licenses to make a successful project. The key featured case study is Status.Net, a new status updating hosted service and open source software that uses Creative Commons licensing for content.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Salon

BIO:

Jon Phillips is a community and business developer contributing to society and building meaningful relationships. In 2002 he helped launch the open source drawing tool, Inkscape and founded the Open Clip Art Library. From 2005 until 2008 he built Creative Commons’ community and business development projects and is currently a Creative Commons Fellow. Currently, he is growing the media company Fabricatorz with Cantocore Art Exhibitions, Laoban Open Soundsystems, and is recently assisting with an upcoming re-launch of Status.Net (Identi.ca). He is known for growing successful open communities globally, leading international business development in Asia (particularly China), and developing Open Marketing.

http://rejon.org/bio/#images

Videos

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is a fifteen-year old body in which all kinds of people come together for purposes of setting standards around the World Wide Web.  Thus, everything from HTML, which is used to write Web pages to WCAG, which are guidelines to enable people with disabilities access websites through assistive technologies.  W3C conducts its discussions openly: anybody who has a good idea has a right to participate in its discussions -- it does not matter who one works for, who one represents -- what does matter are the ideas one brings to the table.  The kinds of standards that W3C deals with are of interest to an immensely wide-ranging group of people.  Even ten-year olds have actually expressed their opinions about standards like HTML.  All this openness of participation must be guaranteed while ensuring that the processes move forward.

Next spoke Renu Budhiraja of the Department of Information and Technology, which is a part of the Indian government.  She started off by hoping that this workshop would be not only a platform to share knowledge, but also to reach consensus on a few matters.  Next, she laid out why open standards are extremely important for the Indian government.  What citizens want in their interactions with the government are ease of interaction and efficiency.  For them it is immaterial whether a certain service is provided by Department A or Department B.  Thus we need to move towards a single-window government service for citizens, enabling them to interact easily with the government's various departments.  While such an initiative must be centralized for it to be effective, it is crucial that its implementation be decentralized and suited to each district or localities' needs.

There is, understandably, a huge institutional mechanism behind ensuring that these systems are based on open standards.  We have expert committees, consisting of academics and knowledgeable bureaucrats, and working groups, which include industry groups.  Through these, we have evolved a National Policy on Open Standards, which is currently in a draft stage, but shall be notified soon.  This policy outlines the principles based on which particular standards required for governmental functioning are to be chosen or evolved.  This document will ensure long-term accessibility to public documents and information, and seamless interoperability of various governmental services and departments.  It will also reduce the risk of vendor lock-in and reduce costs, and thus ensure long-term, sustainable, scalable and cost-effective solutions.

Ms. Budhiraja noted that there are a few aspects of the policy that bear discussion in a forum such as the IGF.  First is the issue of whether royalty-free is the only choice for innovation.  All other things equal, between royalty-free and reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) standards, of course royalty-free is to be preferred.  But what if a superior technology (JPEG200 vs. JPEG) is RAND?  What should the government's position be in such a case?  Further, what should the government's position be when in a particular domain a RAND standard is the only option? 

Next is the issue of single vs. multiple open standards.  When interoperability is what we are aiming at, can multiple standards be recommended as some in the industry are asking us to do?  And then is the issue of market maturity.  The government sometimes finds itself in a situation where a standard is available, but well-developed products around that standard aren't and there aren't sufficient vendors using that standard.  All these issues are of great practical importance when a government works on a policy document on standards.

Next up was Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society.  His presentation was on open standards as citizens' and consumers' rights.  He started off by citing the example of  the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Application (SCOSTA) standard, and the implications that the SCOSTA story has on large-scale projects such as the National Unique ID project currently under way in India.  SCOSTA, an open standard, was being written off as unimplementable by all the MNC smart card vendors who wished to push RAND standards.  IIT Kanpur helped the government develop a working implementation.  Within twenty days, the card manufacturers submitted modified cards for compliance testing by NIC.  Because of SCOSTA being an open standard, local companies also joined the tender.  The cost went down from Rs. 600 per card to Rs. 30 per card.  This shows the benefits of open standards as a means of curbing oligopolistic pricing, and working for the benefit of consumers.

From a rights-based perspective, access to the state machinery is a primary right.  Citizens should not be required to pirate or purchase software to interact with the state.  If e-governance solutions are based on proprietary standards, not all citizens would be equal.  The South African example or requiring a particular browser to access the election commission's website shows that in a rather drastic fashion.  When intellectual property interferes with governmental needs, governments have not been shy of issuing compulsory licences.  This was seen when during the Great War the United States government pooled various flight-related patents and compulsorily licensed them, as well as what we are currently seeing with many Aids-related drugs being compulsorily licensed in developing countries.  Thus, there are precedents for such licensing, and governments should explore them in the realm of e-governance.  Many countries now have statutes that guarantee the right to government-held information.  Government Interoperability Frameworks should take these into account, and mandate all government-to-citizen (G2C) information be transacted via open standards.  This must be backed up by a strong accessibility policy to ensure that the governments don't discriminate between their citizens.

Proprietary standards act like pseudo-intellectual property rights, just as DRMs do.  They add a layer on top of rights such as copyright, and can prevent the exercise of fair use and fair dealing rights because of an inability to legally negotiate the standards in which the content is encoded in a cost-free manner.  In guaranteeing this balance between copyrights and fair dealing rights, free software and alternative IP models play a crucial role.  Because of software patents being recognized in a few countries, development of free software which allows citizens to exercise their fair use rights is harmed in all countries.

Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft spoke next and placed the standards debate in a large context.  He noted that standards are a technicality that are only a small part of the large issue which is interoperability in e-governance and delivery to citizens.  The real challenges are organizational and semantic interoperability.  Frequently interoperability is not harmed by technical issues, but by legal and organizational issues. Governments used to work on paper; during the shift to electronic data, they didn't engage in any organizational changes.  Thus they continue to function with electronic data the same way that they did with paper-based data.  Governments often lack strong privacy policies regarding the data that each of their departments holds.  This harms governmental functioning.  Additionally, legacy hardware and software have to be catered to by the standards we are talking about: sometimes an open standard just will not work. 

Standards don't guarantee interoperability, and there is significant work done on this by noted academics ("Why Standards Are Not Enough To Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability" Lewis et al.; "Difficulties Implementing Standards" Egyedi & Dahanayake; "Standards Compliant, But Incompatible?" Egyedi et al.).  Mandated standards lists will not help address interoperability issues between different implementations of the same standard.  What would help?  Transparency of implementations; collaboration with community; active participation in maintenance of standards, etc., would help.  There is a need for continued public sector reform, with a focus on citizen-centric e-governance, and a need to engage with the question of whether government-mandated standards lists lead the market or follow the market.

Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, a senior researcher at UN University, Maastricht, spoke next.  He started by noting that technical standards are left to technical experts.  That needs to change, which is why discussing open standards at the IGF is important.  He next set off a hypothetical: imagine you go to the city council office in Sharm el Sheik, and at the parking lot there it says that your car has to be a Ford if you are to park there; or if the Dutch government insists that you have a Philips TV if you are to receive the national broadcaster's signal.  While these might seem absurd, situations like this arise all the time when it comes to the realm of software.  Thus, the social effects of open standards are of utmost importance, and not just their technical qualities.  Analysing the social effects of open standards takes us back to the economics of technology and technological standards.  Technological standards exhibit network externalities: their inherent value is less than the value of others using them.  Being the only person in the world with a telephone won't be very useful.  Technological standards also exhibit path dependence: once you go with one technological format, it is difficult to change over to another even if that other format is superior to the first.  Thus, clearly, standards benefit when there is a 'natural monopoly'.  The challenge really arises when faced with the question of how to ensure a monopoly in a technology without the supplier of that technology exhibiting monopolistic tendencies.  This can only be done when the technology is open and developed openly, of which the web standards and the W3C are excellent examples.  If the technology or the process are semi-open, then because of the few intellectual property rights attached to the technology, some would be better off than others.  Just as governments cannot insist on driving a particular make of cars as a prerequisite for access to them, they cannot insist on using a particular proprietary standard as a means of accessing them.

Many interesting questions arose when the floor was thrown open to the audience.  "Should governments only mandate a particular standard when it is certain that market maturity exists?"  Not really, since governmental decisions also give signals to the market and help direct attention to those standards.  It would be best if roadmaps were provided, with particular under-mature standards being designated as "preferred standards", thus helping push industry in a particular direction.  Examples where this strategy has borne fruit abound.  This is also the strategy found in the Australian GIF.  On the issue of multiplicity of standards, Sir Tim was very clear that they have to be avoided at all costs.  He gave the example of XSLT and CSS, which are both stylesheet formats.  He noted that their domain of operation was very different (with one being for servers and the other for clients), so having two standards with similar functions but different domains of operation does not make them multiple standards.  Multiple standards defeat the purpose of the standardization process.

It was noted that governmental choices are of practical importance to citizens.  During the Hurricane Katrina emergency, the federal emergency website only worked properly if Internet Explorer was used.   How do we move forward?  We must move forward by having policies that strike a balance between allowing for the natural evolution of standards and stability.  The Government Interoperability Frameworks must be dynamic documents, allowing for categorization between standards and having clear roadmaps to enable industry to provide solutions to the government in a timely fashion.  Governments must be strong in order to push industry towards openness, for the sake of its citizens, and not let industry dictate proprietary standards as the solution.  Some opined that since there are dozens of domains that governments function in, maintaining lists of standards is a time-consuming process that is not justified, but others rebutted that by noting that for enterprise architectures to work, governments have to maintain such lists internally.  Opening up that list to citizens and service providers would not entail greater overheads.

Sunil Abraham talking Open Standards at IGF09

(Video added on December 30, 2009)

Upon first glance, intellectual property regimes governing the sale, use and production of artistic work may appear wrought with ambiguities for those unfamiliar with legal technicalities. As the globalized nature of legal and technological infrastructures has given rise to complex new challenges for the governing of the art world, there was no shortage of questions from the group in attempt to crystallize their understandings. What does one do when a rights holder has not responded to a licensing request? Can an artist copyright their work when drawing from the public domain? The multiplexicity of the questions made one thing clear – the modern artist must be legally literate if they are to fulfill their rights and obligations under the law. Determining who owns the rights to what, and under what circumstances, can prove more challenging than one may initially assume.

How, and to what extent, the legal system is used by an artist depends on a host of factors. Some of theses factors may include whether or not the artwork has the potential to be commercially exploited, holds intrinsic or traditional cultural value to the artist, or whether or not it can be easily reproduced and distributed using digital technologies. Some participants were interested to learn how they could use the law to protect their work from illegal distribution, while others were keen to how they can contribute to the public domain, while maintaining certain rights to their their work. The increasingly commercial nature of museums and galleries and the risks they pose to artists seemed to be a pressing concern for many. Individuals cited cases of galleries buying the rights to entire bodies of work, thus rendering artists unable to reclaim their artistic rights and integrity.

The monetary value placed on artistic expression, coupled with a technological infrastructure which enables the dissemination of artistic works, appear to have artists seeking greater ownership of what they create. Furthermore, the threat of commercial exploitation seemed to have many artists questioning the possible implications of placing their work in the public domain. The exploitation of art for commercial gain strongly illustrated the need for legal rights to protect the moral and economic rights of artists, and it is within this context that a discourse of rights and proprietorship came to dominate much of the workshop. While only briefly touched upon, A a more nuanced discussion of the rights an artist may obtain under a creative commons license may have led discussion in more open directions. With such emphasis placed on how an artists is to protect their legal rights, the importance of public domain for the art world received little discussion.

While learning how to protect legal rights seemed to be a focus, a leveling sense of ambivalence prevailed as many began to critically questioned the role of the law in shaping artistic expression. From the dominance of the intellectual property framework to the very nature of legal language, legal structures appear to play an increasingly influential, yet ill-suited role, in answering the classic question “what is art?”. In the early 20^th century, legal and peer censorship played a prominent, yet more traditional role in determining what did or did not constitute art. India's 1954 nude art scandal involving Akbar' Padamsee's painting “The Lovers” and the similar ostracism of artist Marcel Duchamp for his Dada piece “The Fountain”, demonstrates these more traditional forms of legal and peer censorship, respectively. Today, a more nuanced method of censorship appears to have evolved alongside the complex legal structures governing artistic work. Under the intellectual property rubric, judges and lawyers, as much so as artists, are critiquing the integrity of art and, consequentially, shaping modern perceptions of authorship and creativity.

Many participants found the epistemological power of law in the contemporary art world to be questionable. As new art forms continue to transgress traditional boundaries of creativity and legality, copyright law is becoming an increasingly complex arena. To what extent does the pop art of of Andy Warhol blur the lines between artistic expression and trademark infringement? Does a series of painted lines a canvas demonstrate “some labor, skill and judgment”? Should conceptual artists be able to copyright their installations and freeze performances, however impermanent these works they may be? The work of artist Jeff Koons clearly exemplifies how copyright law may classify adaptive works as extralegal. His sculpture “String of Puppies” –a playful and colorful adaptation of a photograph, was determined by American courts to be an infringement of copyright, even though it had been clear that a great deal of “labor, skill and judgment” had been poured into the piece. Through the artistic gaze, the work was seen as “original” in its own right. To the legal eye, it was a clearly an infringement of copyright. Such a case demonstrates how juridical authority can, and is used, to impose rigid notions of creativity and authorship.

The role of intellectual property regimes in exacerbating power imbalances within the art world was another theme of concern for artists throughout the two days. Participants gave many examples which demonstrated the cumbersome processes artists must undergo to secure a performance license from foreign rights holders. While one performance manager thought they had secured the rights to a show, they were kindly notified by authorities that they had only in fact been given rights to the script, but were never granted permission to use the music. One can imagine how the increasingly globalized nature of intellectual property law can impose financial restrictions on small time performance artist in Bangalore to acquire all the licenses necessary to “legally” perform a classic Broadway show. Considering that shows are normally performed for smaller audiences and do not garner substantial profits, these legal structures often work to reinforce an asymmetric balance of power in the art world.  Other participants noted how emergent Artists Guilds in India are taking almost draconian measures to ensure copyright law is respected by artists and performers in and around the art scene in Bangalore.

The politics of power also permeated discussions of how governments are protecting traditional forms of artistic expression through geographical indication. Geographical indication seems to preserve the spatial contextuality intrinsic to the production of traditional art forms. However, bringing “traditional art” under the umbrella of intellectual property law also raised a host of questions. Considering the disjuncture which exists between supranational systems and local practice, who should hold the power to decide how folklore is protected? These methods of protecting the intellectual property of “the local” often present new tensions between geographical fluidity:rigidity, individual:communal modes of production, and legal representivity:invisibility.

It is evident that the law plays a necessary and functional role for governing the art world and protects many artists from undue exploitation. However, legal structures continue to gain greater epistemological power within the art world as a consequence. This has many questioning how the law may stifling artistic expression; notably as new technologies continue encourage new art forms through the use, adaptation, and remixing of copyrighted works. What will the future of art look like if judges, and artists alike, continue to survey the practice through the lens of legality to the extent they do today? As artistic and legal practices continue to evolve, it may become increasingly difficult to disentangle art from the complex political economy of interests that governs it.

Drawing from such concerns, I am compelled to question why a discourse of rights and protection, rather than one of obligation, continues to dominate discussion of the art/law nexus? If artists are concerned with these increasing legalisms, why aren't they encouraged to preserve the creative commons as often as they are advised to assert their proprietary rights? Wouldn't a discourse of artistic “responsibility” rather than “rights” set the art world on a path towards redefining the role of law and and reclaiming the power of influence over artistic expression? There is a clear need for the art world to recenter the line between legal rights and creative subjectivity, and I feel that more focus on protecting the public domain, rather than individual property rights, would be a proper step towards achieving this. Only by doing so do I believe that artists will be able to ensure that copyright law continues to serve its functional role without becoming a new form of creative censorship.

If the opinions I have expressed raise important questions for you, A.R.T. will be holding another workshop exploring art in the context of social media. As more artists are using the internet and social networking tools to promote their work, new benefits, as well as challenges have risen within this domain. A date for the workshop has not yet been set, however it is planned to take place early on next year.

In 1992, the first Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell University began to place primary sources of law and interpretive legal materials online, free of charge.  The Free Access to Law Movement soon expanded to form a broad network of LIIs who shared the belief that legal information is digital common property and should be accessible to all. Today, citizens around the world can access legal information in multiple languages through easily searchable databases. Among the resources available are statutes, bills, court decisions, bilateral treaties, law journal articles, legal reform documents and much more. This freely available legal information has helped make the law more accessible to audiences previously underserved by costly commercial databases, and has allowed comparative legal research to become more practicable than ever before.

Research will focus on gauging the broader societal effects of free access to law initiatives, as well as on understanding the diverse factors which contribute to or undermine their sustainability.The CIS will be overseeing research in Asia, while SAFLII and LexUM will cover South and West Africa, the South Pacific, Canada and Australia. The global scope of the study will facilitate the sharing of expertise and best practices within the global network of LIIs.

The value of creating a legal information commons has been clearly demonstrated. Access to legal materials helps to strengthen judicial systems, improve legal expertise, guide policymaking and maintain the rule of law. Legal transparency helps businesses assess risk and encourage entrepreneurship. Citizens and civil society actors require access to law to participate in the political process and assert their rights. These audiences form an important constituency for open access to legal scholarship and demonstrate the need to further examine the core benefits of free access to law initiatives.

Online free access to legal materials has also been an indispensable tool in underserved regions where a host of factors often undermine access to legal information. The following examples, derived from preliminary CIS research throughout Asia, demonstrate how free access to law can bridge various gaps in legal information accessibility. In some cases, laws may be completely unavailable. For example, bureaucrats may demand bribes before allowing access to copies of a law, or governments may wish to keep certain implementing guidelines or regulations a secret. In other cases, a law might have simply been lost through lack of proper storage or record-keeping.

A second problem occurs when laws and case law are available only in certain locations or certain forms. A law may be available only in hard copy or in one or two libraries in the capital city, for example. This causes difficulties for citizens and practitioners in remote areas who lack the resources to travel. Sometimes, the libraries containing the legal information also may require special permissions to access. In other instances, legal materials may have been digitized but not properly stored or networked.

Digitizing and uploading laws to organized, searchable databases presents its own challenges, and some governments lack the technical capacity to do so. However, digitizing and uploading laws does not guarantee general public access. In some countries, laws may be online but placed in pay-per-use databases. And some governments retain a copyright or similar intellectual property rights in their laws and other documents. This may mean that NGOs or LIIs cannot copy, consolidate, or re-post certain legal information without exposing themselves to copyright liability. The commercialization of legal information also restricts access to individuals and firms able to pay costly subscription fees.

Copyright and the commercialization of legal information can inhibit the free flow of legal information—notably when legal information can be better organized, preserved and disseminated further under more open standards. Because of the importance of free access to law, a significant focus of the research will be to identify factors that contribute to the sustainability and success of free access to law initiatives. This is of great importance in Asia, where the local capacities of LIIs require further strengthening before their databases can begin to rival their commercial counterparts.

Many challenges remain for the development and sustainability of free access to law initiatives in the Asian region. Searchable legal information must be provided in both English and regional languages, while local technical capacities require further development. Mariya Badeva-Bright of SAFLII also notes that LIIs need to secure working partnerships within the judicial branch of government in order to reduce the burdens of digitization and to promote common standards in preparation of legal material. The AsianLII has only begun to scrape the surface of valuable legal information that is potentially available and must continue to develop and strengthen partnerships in the region.

The study will have several concrete results. Upon completion of the study, a Free Access to Law Best Practices Handbook will be published and will serve as a comprehensive knowledge resource for both existing and nascent free access law initiatives. The handbook will outline various steps in creating and maintaining successful free access to law initiatives, while ensuring that important aspects of design and sustainability are not overlooked. Also, a comprehensive online library will host current and future materials relating to the free access to law movement, including a collection of free access to law case studies.

Research by the CIS, LexUM, SAFLII, and their respective team of researchers is expected to commence within the next few months.  In the end, the free access to law study will provide future initiatives and existing LII networks with proven and adoptable best practices. This research will increase the chance that nascent initiatives will be successful, and support the continued growth of the thriving legal information commons.