I admit that even the idea of open access was counter-intuitive for me before this week’s readings. Coming from an academic background that valued copyright, publishing laws, and intellectual property above all else, it felt wrong to me for anyone to suggest we not only give away our work for free but we encourage others to modify it as well. I tried as much as possible to come into the readings with an open mind and to explore the existing and potential benefits that come with open access.

 In his piece Open Source as Culture/Culture as Open Source from The Social Media Reader, Vaidhyanathan was straight forward about the benefits of open source as opposed to the short falls of copyright. He lists peer production and the long standing norm of sharing new discoveries with one another openly as selling points for open access.  Peer production exemplifies the old adage that two heads are better than one, and sharing the product/idea/service developed from this collaboration through open access can benefit anyone or everyone.  Previously I had not given much thought to how new and counter-productive copyright law can be. I had always come from the perspective that copyright was there to protect the artist’s ability to support themselves on their work, not that copyright could actually hinder information sources. Not to say that copyright is inherently bad, but most circumstances could be served by a middle ground. Vaidhyanathan confirms this by stating, “Most important, these experiments and projects show that “all rights reserved” need not be the default state of copyright protection. For many people, “some rights reserved” serves the interests of creators better than the absolutist proprietary model does.”

With peer production and collaboration established as strengths of open access, what could a potential risk be? When there are multiple people involved in the same project, it is not always guaranteed that they will have a common objective. Who is to say that the next person to modify an existing idea, object, or service is making it better or even has positive intentions with their actions? The authors of chapter 5 in The Social Media Reader narrate an incident when Stephen Colbert purposefully edited a Wikipedia article with false information and encouraged the viewers of his show, The Colbert Report, to do the same. Wikipedia had fail safes in place to eventually correct the article, but the situation did bring to light the understanding that some kind of regulation is essential to maintain the integrity of a project that makes use of collaboration.

I asked for a different view than my own on intellectual property, and Mandiberg‘s Giving Things Away Is Hard Work was certain there to provide. Practice over origin was the overarching theme, and patent is thrown by the wayside for the good of the community. He goes as far as hoping that a large bike manufacturer will steal one of his inventions just so it reaches a larger audience. While I did feel that his philosophy on giving away your work for free was somewhat unrealistic for most workers in today’s world, I did agree with his point on how the participatory nature of open access can be the genesis of a community. He writes, “The sharing of the project creates participation. And participation is at the edge of the beginnings of community.” 

Because this is my first M.A. class, I had not given much thought previously to the cost of academic publishing. However, while the prior readings had not really sold me on open access, Dawson’s DIY Academy from The Social Media Reader coupled with the first chapter of the Open Access textbook have showed me how flawed the current publishing system in academia can be with respect to cost barriers and influence of the public and publisher on the subjects explored by authors. Open access has obvious strengths in this area because publishing online can be done practically free, the material can be accessed by anyone so there is no pressure to cover a subject of interest to a publisher’s market. While online publishing may not now have the same integrity as an established printed publication has built over time, I believe that the academic world will come up with a change out of necessity, and very soon. However, the irony that only part of the Open Access textbook was available online for free was not lost on me.