The arguments on Open Access (OA) focuses on who can attain this information against why it should be copyrighted; revolving around cost, ease of access and the legal aspect of re-using the content published.
I’ve discussed on earnings and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with regards to the content online that affects creators and readers.
Plagiarism is a step further from violating IPR, as shared by Liting with the use of a case study on Zara’s copyright infringement for replicating an indie designers work. Although it is difficult to draw the line between plagiarism and inspiration, there is a grey area in which works created draw ideas yet hold much similarities to other sources. As much as plagiarism is frowned upon in all types of work, it is very unlikely that content today is 100% authentic. Creators subconsciously add or use work that is already done; improvising where necessary to form a ‘new’ work.
While Zaid discussed the differences on how OA affects different groups of people and not only the content producers, he believed OA has a different and larger impact on the academic research industry than on the creative or other industries which thrive on the internet. To further understand how OA is applied to the creative sector, we can look at the FAQs on MET Museum which talks about Open Access for Scholarly Content (OASC).
Vivian’s comment mentioned that people should be willing to pay for knowledge. I agree that a form of payment should be made to gratify the efforts of the educator, but at what cost? The contents have been ridiculously overpriced where organisations and even institutions like Harvard, find difficulty paying.
OA in my opinion empowers one with knowledge at the expense of another’s effort. As much as I feel contents should be available freely online, the efforts of producers should not go unnoticed but instead be credited and rewarded.
Commented:
Space between 