[Marxism] Aaron Swartz Was Right - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education
lnp3 at panix.com
Tue Feb 26 11:10:50 MST 2013
On 2/26/13 1:04 PM, Les Schaffer wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 08:54 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
> subscription only. what does it say?
February 25, 2013
Aaron Swartz Was Right
By Peter Ludlow
The suicide of the Internet wunderkind Aaron Swartz has given rise to a
great deal of discussion, much of it centered on whether the penalty
sought against him by the prosecutor was proportional to his "crime."
The consensus so far has been that Swartz did something wrong by
accessing and releasing millions of academic papers from the JSTOR
archive. But perhaps it is time to ask whether Swartz did in fact act
wrongly. We might entertain the possibility that Swartz's act of civil
disobedience was an attempt to help rectify a harm that began long ago.
Perhaps he was not only justified in his actions but morally impelled to
act as he did. Moreover, we too might be morally impelled to take action.
To put it bluntly, the current state of academic publishing is the
result of a series of strong-arm tactics enabling publishers to pry
copyrights from authors, and then charge exorbitant fees to university
libraries for access to that work. The publishers have inverted their
role as disseminators of knowledge and become bottlers of knowledge,
releasing it exclusively to the highest bidders. Swartz simply decided
it was time to take action.
He laid the philosophical groundwork back in 2008, in an essay entitled
"Guerilla Open Access Manifesto."
"Information is power," he wrote. "But like all power, there are those
who want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and
cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is
increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private
corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results
of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like
Swartz said that this state of affairs was being driven by systemic
problems, beginning with the need of corporations to extract maximum
profit. "Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed," he wrote.
"The laws under which they operate require it—their shareholders would
revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back
them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can
Finally, he argued that the situation called for action:
"There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into
the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our
opposition to this private theft of public culture."
You might think that Swartz's prose is over the top ("bought off"
politicians? "theft of culture"?), but it is very much on target. The
academic publisher Elsevier has contributed to many U.S. Congressional
representatives, pushing the Elsevier-supported Research Works Act,
which among other things would have forbidden any effort by any federal
agency to ensure taxpayer access to work financed by the federal
government without permission of the publisher. An outcry effectively
killed the proposed law, but it wasn't the first such publisher power
play, and it probably won't be the last.
What is more important to human culture than access to the knowledge in
our scholarly journals? If anything, Swartz's manifesto understates the
egregiousness with which this theft of public culture has been allowed
Why did Swartz think that information in JSTOR belonged in the public
domain? First, for the most part the articles in JSTOR were written with
government support—either through agencies like the National Science
Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, through
state-financed educational institutions, or through the tuition of
students and the donations of alumni.
Once a student graduates from her college she no longer has access to
JSTOR—even though her tuition supported the research that went into the
data represented there. She may go on to be a generous donor to her
college and still not have access to JSTOR. You have to be a faculty
member or student to have access, even though, to some degree, everyone
helped pay for that research.
Many people I talk to assume payments to JSTOR flow through to the
authors of the archived publications. But authors of academic
publications, for the most part, don't see a dime from their journal
publications. Ever. Worse still, some academic publishers now demand
payments from authors to publish their papers. The academic publisher
Springer, for example, has attempted to steer journal submissions to its
online publication Springer Plus, offering to publish them for 850 euros
each, albeit allowing some waivers.
How is that even possible? Here it is important to think about one of
the consequences of the publish-or-perish model in academe. If you don't
publish, you won't get tenure. Even if you have tenure, your reputation
(and salary) is staked to your publication record. In my field,
philosophy, the top journals accept only about 5 percent of submissions.
That means that publishers of academic journals have tremendous
bargaining power with their authors.
When an academic signs away copyright to an academic publisher, it
amounts to a "contract of adhesion"—meaning a contract in which one
party has all the power and it was not freely bargained. One could even
make the case that the courts ought to void these contracts.
There was a time when securing a contract with an academic publisher
meant that the work would receive the widest audience possible. The
publishers could deliver journals to academic libraries, and other
scholars would find those works when they went to browse the library (I
used to do that on a monthly basis). Today, however, it would be much
more efficient to simply make the articles available online to anyone
who wishes to read them. Academic publishers have inverted their whole
purpose for being; they used to be vehicles for the dissemination of
knowledge in the most efficient way possible. Today they are useless
choke points in the distribution of knowledge, even taking advantage of
their positions to demand fees.
Noam Scheiber, in a February 13 New Republic article, traces how Swartz
focused on JSTOR in part because of a retreat he'd attended in Italy
organized by the international nonprofit EIFL. According to its Web
site, EIFL "works with libraries worldwide to enable access to digital
information in developing and transition countries." Scheiber writes
that EIFL is careful about obeying the law in the ways it disseminates
information, but its key message apparently got to Swartz. "Rich people
pay huge amounts of money to access articles," Scheiber quotes the EIFL
official Monika Elbert as saying about the conference. "But what about
the researcher in Accra? Dar es Salaam? Cambodia? It genuinely opened
his eyes," she said of Swartz.
JSTOR, which did not pursue criminal charges against Swartz and
"regretted being drawn into" the U.S. attorney's case against him, came
into existence in 1995 with good intentions. It sought a solution to the
rapidly expanding problem of paying for and storing an ever-growing list
of academic journals. The situation for libraries was becoming untenable.
But like the original authors, JSTOR had to negotiate its licensing
agreements from a position of weakness. There is a wonderful history of
JSTOR written by Roger C. Schonfeld. In it he notes that the charter
publishers signed up by JSTOR (in particular the University of Chicago
Press) demanded that they be compensated if there was a loss to their
(minimal) sales of rights to older materials, and they demanded
compensation even before JSTOR covered its own expenses.
And JSTOR really was in an impossible bargaining position. Important
scientific papers do not have cheaper alternatives. If someone wants to
read Watson and Crick's paper on DNA or Einstein's paper on the
photoelectric effect, it is not as if there is a paper by John Doe that
is just as good and available for less. Academic publishers are, in
effect, natural monopolies that can demand as much money as we can
afford, and possibly more. The result today is that a university like
mine must subscribe to more than 10 databases, at a cost of tens of
thousands of dollars per year and without the ability to share the
content with alumni, donors, or the community. JSTOR is experimenting
with a "Register and Read" program that allows independent scholars free
access to a subset of its database, but we need more solutions.
It's not as if there are no other options. For example, the philosophy
department at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor started an online
journal called Philosophers' Imprint, noting in its mission statement
the possibility of a sunnier alternative:
"There is a possible future in which academic libraries no longer spend
millions of dollars purchasing, binding, housing, and repairing printed
journals, because they have assumed the role of publishers,
cooperatively disseminating the results of academic research for free,
via the Internet. Each library could bear the cost of publishing some of
the world's scholarly output, since it would be spared the cost of
buying its own copy of any scholarship published in this way. The
results of academic research would then be available without cost to all
users of the Internet, including students and teachers in developing
countries, as well as members of the general public."
But a few paragraphs later the editors of Imprint acknowledge that "we
don't know how to get to that future from here." While "academic
institutions have access to the Internet [and] they have no reason to
pay subscription or subvention fees to anyone for disseminating the
results of academic research," they continue to do so. And I would argue
that the fault lies with us academics.
Why do scholars still submit their articles to journals that are behind
pay walls, and more important why do they serve as editors and referees
for these journals (usually gratis)? They submit articles because there
is still prestige attached to these journals and because online
alternatives do not carry the same weight in tenure and promotion
decisions. This is of course due to the general inertia of academic
life. Academics need to do some soul searching: Is placing so much
weight on tradition worth the cost to members of the profession and the
public at large?
Until academics get their acts together and start using new modes of
publication, we need to recognize that actions like Aaron Swartz's civil
disobedience are legitimate. They are attempts to liberate knowledge
that rightly belongs to all of us but that has been acquired by academic
publishers through tens of thousands of contracts of adhesion and then
bottled up and released for exorbitant fees in what functionally amounts
to an extortion racket.
When Swartz wrote his manifesto he pulled no punches, claiming that all
of us with access to these databases have not just the right but the
responsibility to liberate this information and supply it to those who
are not as information-wealthy.
"Those with access to these resources—students, librarians,
scientists—you have been given a privilege," he wrote. "You get to feed
at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out.
But you need not—indeed, morally, you cannot—keep this privilege for
yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have:
trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends."
Aaron Swartz's act of hacktivism was an act of resistance to a corrupt
system that has subverted distribution of the most important product of
the academy—knowledge. Until the academy finally rectifies this
situation, our best hope is that there will be many more Aaron
Swartz-type activists to remind us how unconscionable the current
situation is, and how important it is that we change it.
Peter Ludlow is a professor of philosophy at Northwestern University.
His books include "Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias" (MIT
Press, 2001) and "The Second Life Herald: The Virtual Tabloid That
Witnessed the Dawn of the Metaverse" (MIT, 2007).
More information about the Marxism