immateriblog.de

Matthias Spielkamp über Immaterialgüter in der digitalen Welt

immateriblog.de header image 2

Open Excess: Der Heidelberger Appell – haarsträubend und gefährlich

März 24th, 2009 · 5 Comments · In eigener Sache, Lobbyismus, Open Access, Publizieren, Urheberrecht, Verlage, digitales Publizieren

In der vergangenen Woche musste man sich nur über den schaurigen
taz-Artikel zu OA aufregen. Inzwischen ist es schlimmer geworden, denn
nun haben 150 zum Teil sehr bekannte Menschen (Michael Naumann, Daniel
Kehlmann) den “Heidelberger Appell” des Literaturwissenschaftlers Roland
Reuß unterzeichnet. Dieser Appell ist haarsträubend und für OA sehr
gefährlich. Ich habe mir die Mühe gemacht, das in einem langen Text zu
analysieren, der gerade bei perlentaucher erscheinen ist (Links zu den Quellen und Dokumenten dort):

Open Excess: Der Heidelberger Appell

Tags:

5 Comments so far ↓

  • Stevan Harnad

    Matthias,

    Your essay is very good, and makes all of the necessary points and distinctions.

    If I might just make a little comment: Reuss completely conflates two completely independent issues: (1) 3rd-party scanning, storing and displaying, by google, of authors’ non-give-away books, without their consent, and (2) Open Access, in which authors, by choice, give away their own give-away writings (mainly refereed-journal articles) for free online.

    I think it is a big mistake to treat these two very different (and in many ways even opposite) things jointly in any way. On the contrary, all the focus in correcting Reuss’s silly polemics should be on pointing out that what he says indifferently about both google books and Open Access in fact has *nothing whatsoever to do with Open Access*. This is the most important (and most misunderstood) PostGutenberg distinction: http://cogprints.org/1639/1/resolution.htm#1.1

    You play into Reuss’s hands (and you keep the vast, ignorant majority in their state of total confusion) by speaking about these two things in the same breath (even though what you say is correct, or at least arguable). If you wish to engage Reuss on google book-scanning, by all means do — but only after completely dissociating it from Open Access. (I would say also vice-versa, except that Reuss clearly has no clue at all, and nothing to say, about Open Access: He simply does not know what it is about, or for. Hence that is all one can say to him on that score, by way of response!)

    (I branch this to Ebs Hilf and some other OA-savvy German colleagues who will perhaps be willing to make this point publicly.)

    Beste Gruesse,

    Stevan

    PS Needless to say, I think it is a great mistake to conflate these two things together under the rubric of “copyright issues” too.

  • Matthias Spielkamp

    Stevan, thank you for your instructive criticism. I’m sorry you take issue with the fact that I reply to both topics (Google / OA) in the same text. Although I completely agree with you I considered it necessary in a reply to his petition and earlier suadae on OA to look at both issues – because Reuß does so, too. Unfortunately you may be right in saying that I could have made the distinction more thoroughly.

  • Zwitscher-Digest vom 2009-03-25 : Bibliothekarisch.de

    [...] Spielkamp: Open Excess: Der Heidelberger Appell – haarsträubend und gefährlich http://immateriblog.de/?p=381 [...]

  • Immateriblog.de - Matthias Spielkamp über Immaterialgüter in der digitalen Welt

    [...] Open Excess: Der Heidelberger Appell – haarsträubend und gefährlich [...]

  • Erklärung: “Open Access und Urheberrecht: Kein Eingriff in die Publikationsfreiheit”

    [...] erwarten, gibt es nun eine “Gemeinsame Erklärung der Wissenschaftsorganisationen” zum Heidelberger Appell. Hier der [...]

Leave a Comment