Open Access and Consumer Protection

Open Access and Consumer Protection:
The View of the Federation of German Consumer Organisations
By Patrick von Braunmuhl, Federation of German Consumer Organisations
開放近用與消費者保護法:
德國消費者組織聯盟的觀點
德國消費者組織聯盟, Patrick von Braunmuhl 著

Access to science, scholarship and research is part of consumer protection. It is in the consumer’s interest to be able to access as much information as possible on the Internet. People from all levels of society should have equal opportunities when it comes to accessing information. Open Access can meet this need by making scientific and scholarly literature available online publicly and free of charge so that anyone who is interested can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search and reference the full-text version of an academic work and use it in any other desired way, without fearing financial, legal or technical barriers beyond those concerning Internet access itself (cf. BOAI: Budapest Open Access Initiative).

Free access is justified when the public has contributed to the funding of science and research, and thus the publication. Users should not pay more than once: first with their taxes, which fund research and quality assurance, and then for the right to access the published results, for example in libraries. Moreover, libraries must not be forced to buy, at expensive prices, research results subsidized by public funds. They no longer have these kinds of financial means.

Limiting consumer rights when it comes to digital media is a general problem. It is not just a question of prices. The exploiting organisations, in this case the publishing houses, control the use of the media according to their own ideas, limiting and/or even monitoring them. Terms of use and licence agreements of considerable length written in complicated language are often not comprehensible to consumers but threaten high penalties in the event of violations, which tend to occur due to ignorance.

In the current discussion on the reform of German copyright law (the so-called ‘second basket‘), a solution was initially suggested which in our opinion would have been in the interest of consumers as well as authors. It would have given every scientist and scholar, even when they had granted exclusive licences to one publisher, the right to make their contribution publicly accessible after a period of six months after initial publication. Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected. A regulation along these lines would have benefited academics, since it is fundamentally in their interest to dispose of their work and to make it accessible to as many people as possible. Consumers would have obtained easy, free of charge and rapid access to important data. Moreover, the sixmonth period during which publishers would have retained exclusive rights would have meant that even their interests would not have been seriously impaired.
The free publishing of material on the Internet contains the potential for an active culture, and science and scholarship in which the user does not just consume, but also creates. This creativity must not be destroyed or restricted by
high prices, protective measures in the terms of use or licensing agreements, or by technical measures. Instead, all those interested should be given the opportunity to participate in scientific and scholarly results and thereby eventually to deliver new information and discoveries which could be of huge significance to academia and society as a whole, for example
in the medical or ecological sectors. Open Access can provide a larger audience with insights into the academic and research domain. This would both accelerate research and development processes themselves and benefit the economy as well as society as a whole. The added value generated by science could be greatly increased by Open Access.
Unfortunately, the advantages and benefits of Open Access have not yet been sufficiently recognized in the political arena.

學科,學術及研究報告的近用, 是消費者權益的一部份.能否在網際網絡上盡可能的近用更多資訊, 是消費者一向關注的.涉及到資訊近用,社會各階層的人士都應擁有平等的機會. 開放近用可透過製作公開的科學及文學的線上典藏並免於費用來滿足這個需要,讓每一感興趣的人可以閱讀、下載、複製、分發、列印、檢索內容、並連結至原來的網頁,參考全文版本並以任何需要方式使用,除了上網本身,不受任何經濟, 法律, 或技術上的阻礙(布達佩斯開放近用提議)

免費近用是正當合法的.,當公眾向學術及研究基金作出捐贈如出版物. 使用者不用再付任何費用除了基金研究及品質保證的負擔, 也為了近用出版品成效的權利, 如在圖書館. 更多地,圖書館定不必面對以高昂價格去購買,研究結果由公共基金津貼.但不擁有這項資產.

談到數位媒體時,限制消費者權益是一個普遍問題.這不只關乎價格的問題.既然那樣,出版機構只照他們的構想去操控媒體的功能,甚至進行規限並/或監控那些推銷團體.消費者卻很難去理解那些用複雜文字表示的, 重要的許可及使用期限的合約, 若有違犯,必受到嚴重的處罰. 但卻有被忽略的趨勢

在德國版權法改革最近的結論中(也稱第二問題), 開始時便提出了一個解決方法:在我們的立場, 我們有著和作者同樣的消費者的利益.實行在任一科學及學科中, 即使它曾經給過任一出版商專利權, 這個權利使得他們的著作能在首次出版後的六個月期間公開的近用.不幸的是, 這項計劃被否決了. 循著這點的規定會得到好處, 因為他們所關注去決定他們的研究和盡可能使得越多人能夠近用是很基本的. 消費者很容易和免費,便能快速地使用這些重要的數據. 更多的是, 出版商能保留獨有的權益的六個月中即使他們的利益從沒受過威脅. 網路上不受限制的出版資料相等於一個積極文化的潛力, 使用者不僅僅利用學科及學術,而且會創作. 這種創作活動不可以因為高價,還在有效限期中的保護法或合約合同,或1技術所破壞或限制.反之,這些權利應給予學術中參與的機會,因此最後去傳送新的資訊及那些對學術界及社會有很大的重要性的發現, 如醫藥或生態部份.開放近用可以提供從意見變成專業的學術及研究給大部份使用者. 同樣的還能促進研究及分析的發展, 並使得整個社會都得益. 額外的意義是因為科學能由於開放近用而大量地增加.但很不幸, 開放近用的優缺點在政治中都得不到完全的認同.

08/12/02 館藏發展

交作業，因為還沒完成沒得交
課上都在講那份英文資料，只好隨便做一些筆記，但也不能補交了...

08.12.02網路社群建立與應用

從別人的需要，看見自己的責任

每個人不是為了自己而存在嗎？為甚麼因為別人的需要，我們就有責任？
但其實這是顯而易見的，每個人都可以選擇自己的路該怎麼走，選擇了，就要負起責任，當起了圖書館員，我們的存在就是為了服務每個需要幫助的使用者，所以這是一句對選擇的詮釋，讓人有莫名的使命感啊

談到說網路書店，我不太常用這個，較喜歡真實接觸到書，不過也有同樣的閱讀樂趣，而和部落格不同的是，部落格提供寫作經驗，是不同類型的東西。