Re: Reply to Mr Esposito's post

["Siegfried Angerer" <sseaprod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings
Reply to Joe Esposito's post:
I applaud your last email to the list. I think it is about time that people
forget about the technology and acknowledge that the medium is a publishing,
distribution and archiving - or all of the above - service when the Internet
is used for journal, book, magazine, music or video delivery. It is also
time that people begin to acknowledge that a website is a portal where the
real world equivalent is a shop front - even if only a hole in the wall.
Therefore, I agree with you that those who use this medium for exchange must
at all times observe all the rules, conventions and obligations that apply
in the real world also. I agree that some of these rules, obligations and
conventions are difficult to enforce and maintain in the digital domain, but
isn't that why we need to find suitable usage guidelines.
The fact that the Net is publishing medium applies to Universities,
Libraries, Museums or anyone else who uses the internet to publish,
distribute, archive, merchandise, brand, promote or sell any product or
service. The fact that Universities do not consider their activities on the
Net as a publishing, distribution, archiving, merchandising, branding,
promotion or a selling activity has been of considerable worry to me for
more than eight years. I guess it is convenient to build a smoke screen that
gives the impression that the Net is somehow other than convention, and
therefore we must acknowledge that different standards apply? This is simply
nonsense!
In my opinion all this nonsense about self archiving, building collaborative
and cooperative portals that are somehow exempt from standard publisher
rules etc, needs to be tempered with the reality that all those promoting
these ideas are also in the business of building websites that offer
services for a fee, providing goods and services that some fool - they
hope - has  given to them for nothing. This is about as honest as the
crack-house at the back of the Chinese laundry. It think it is important to
acknowledge that much of this nonsense is proposed by people who work in
secure academic or research positions for organizations who do not even
deliver comprehensive and detailed course and subject frameworks as well as
extensive research and sample content for free to their own students. I
wonder how many people pay an entry fee to their local corner store and find
empty boxes on the shelves?????
What this entire debate boils down to in my opinion is this:
Any publisher, distributor or archivist of any IP registered content must
have in place a workable and fully functioning DRM tracking capability for
any materials they deliver through their portal.
This includes usage exemptions, royalty or licenses as applicable.
This includes royalty payments to authors in accordance with and under fair
contracts.
This includes acknowledgement by the authors that enforcement costs of
licenses etc. are costs imposed on the publisher.
It includes author responsibility to register the digital original in order
to allow publishers to engage in and administer DRM for their clients.

These principles must apply whether the publisher is a University, a
software house, a music distributor, a Hollywood executive or what ever. It
is simply not good enough for some of these cowboys out there to set up an
Internet service under the premise that it is free and easy for academics,
artists, or writers to publish their stuff, when the service provider ends
up charging access fees to get in the door to anyone wanting to use the
service.
No! In my opinion that is deceptive and fraudulent!
I think that those academics at the cutting edge of the technology know well
what should be free to all and what must sit behind a pay as you enter door.
The rest of the academic community who give their journal articles and
research to these so called free self-archiving and distribution cowboys are
giving away their IP for no return as well as letting down their institution
and themselves. There must be some negotiated return for these contributors
even if it is only research work and peer acknowledgement that translates to
employment status and more research dollars.
So lets test these so called self archiving and free -someone else's -
content gurus. Lets ask them, if you are serious about what you say, then
how come only some parts are free and the rest I must pay for? Why can't
everything you deliver be free because that is the impression you give to
everyone?... I wonder what would happen. Don't you!

I am prepared to deliver about 600 megabytes of online -web ready- fully
accredited learning materials to anyone out their who is serious about
making it free for everyone. This includes eight years of bleeding edge
research into online learning content development, teacher and academic -
how to - online training and I prepared to do this right now..right here!
All I want is that you manage my copyright and deliver usage figures back to
me.
Regards
Siegfried E. Angerer
Bu. Ph 613 9645538
Ah. Ph 613 96961814