“So I was dismayed to see Steve Braunias use his platform to give oxygen to a moral panic over the National Library’s deaccessioning plans, complete with cries of “piracy!” The public conversation would be better served by taking a moment and giving a complicated situation the care and attention to detail it deserves.
Without a doubt, rights-holders are upset at the Internet Archive and are, in fact, suing the organisation in the United States. On its own, the existence of a lawsuit doesn’t tell us much — litigation is a way of life in America, and copyright owners there have a long history of overestimating their legal rights and losing their biggest cases (just ask Oracle, or the Authors Guild, or Universal Studios). Maybe it’s prudent, then, to take a look at the substance of what the lawsuit is about; see if perhaps there’s something more going on than simple piracy.
With that in mind, here is the controversial thing this library, the Internet Archive, is doing: they’re lending books.
The problem is that the library at issue is online, and the books it lends are digital. The system used is called “controlled digital lending,” the concept behind it is a fairly simple implementation of traditional library lending in online spaces….”
“An analysis of journal articles published by Victoria University (VU) researchers in 2019 indicates that over half of the journal articles published were freely accessible.
Based on a methodology developed by New Zealand researchers to determine how many published journal articles were free-to-access, an analysis of journal articles published by VU researchers in 2019 indicates that 54% of VU research articles were open.
VU had a higher percentage of open access articles compared to the percentage recorded for all New Zealand universities where 41% of journal articles were open access.
While the VU figure is a pleasing result, the percentage could have been even higher. Nearly all the remaining closed articles published in 2019 had the potential to be open if the author accepted manuscripts were added to the VU Research Repository (VURR)….”
“Claims that the National Library’s recently announced plan to send 600,000 books overseas to be digitised is equivalent to ‘internet piracy’ are unfounded, says a group of New Zealand civil society organisations supportive of the initiative.
In a statement from the Department of Internal Affairs last week, Te Puna M?tauranga o Aotearoa National Library announced it had reached an historic agreement where all books left at the end of the Overseas Published Collections (OPC) review process will be donated to the Internet Archive so they can digitise and preserve them.
Several New Zealand associations and organisations, including Internet New Zealand, Museums Aotearoa, the New Zealand Open Source Society and Tohatoha Aotearoa Commons, are backing the National Library’s plan, saying that the initiative will help ensure future access for New Zealanders to a greater range of publications.
Mandy Henk, CEO of Tohatoha and a librarian herself, said that claims that the Internet Archive’s digitisation service is illegal – made this week by several New Zealand publishing organisations – are not true….”
“The National Library will donate 600,000 books that it was planning to cull from its overseas collection to a United States-based internet archive that will make digital copies of the works freely available online.
National Librarian Rachel Esson announced the “historic” agreement on Monday, saying books left at the end of the library’s review process would be donated to the Internet Archive, a digital library with the self-stated mission of universal access to all knowledge….”
“The group was founded in 2013 as the Australian Open Access Support Group, AOASG. In 2015, with the addition of members from New Zealand and a change of focus, it became the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group.
In 2021, we became Open Access Australasia.
We support all models of open access, and in particular we endorse the principles of the F.A.I.R. Access Policy Statement for research outputs to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable, ensuring they can be part of the global research ecosystem.
We are committed to advocating for and raising awareness of open access in Australia and New Zealand through collaboration regionally and internationally and building capacity and expertise within this region.
This website aims to be an authoritative source of information on all aspects of open access in Australia and New Zealand.
Our major focus is on open access to research publications – preprints, peer reviewed scholarly manuscripts, books, monographs and theses. We also contribute to initiatives in open research practices, data, software, open educational resources, reform of research assessment and copyright and open licenses.
The Patron of Open Access Australasia is Emeritus Professor Tom Cochrane, Faculty of Law at QUT….”
“The AUT Open Scholarship Policy was approved by the University in June 2020. It makes AUT research, specifically journal articles and published conference papers, open by default….
Copyright is not transferred to AUT. Each faculty member grants to Auckland University of Technology permission to make available their scholarly articles, and to exercise the copyright in those articles. In legal terms, the permission granted by each faculty member is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of their scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorise others to do the same, for the purpose of making their articles widely and freely available in an open access repository, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit….”
“Key Recommendations Develop a National Strategy • National Library, CONZUL, and LIANZA should work together collaboratively to lead the development of a national level strategy. • Each University and Crown Research Institute should appoint a senior leader who can manage strategy development and local coordination, while liaising with the wider research community. • M?ori scientists, scholars, and researchers need to be specifically invited into this conversation and supported to participate. National Library, the Universities, and Crown Research Institutes should work to create the conditions needed for self-determination and an equitable outcome. Fill the Knowledge Gaps New Zealand has critical gaps in its knowledge around open access, scholarly publishing, and open data. To create good policies and move forward with this transformation, more research and more funding to conduct that research is needed. There is room for multiple robust research projects to help understand the needs of researchers, their current behaviors, and what interventions make the most sense in New Zealand. Centre Care • Work with the Tertiary Education Union to reform the Performance Based Research Funding system to support well-being and disentangle from proprietary non-transparent metrics. Refocus on traditional peer review and innovative ways of measuring excellence. • Fund and support education for librarians, academics, and administrators to develop a deeper understanding of scholarly communication and open access issues. • Support public and university community focused education campaigns to engage a wide range of people in open access issues and invite them into the conversation. Strengthen Open Access Infrastructure Transforming our scholarly communications system requires building both policy and technological infrastructure. To create a robust system that will support the kind of transformative change needed, we should prioritise developing this infrastructure as part of a deep engagement process with researchers, scholars, and scientists. • New Zealand universities should coordinate with our Australian counterparts and work to develop a regional response to Plan S. • Open Access policies across New Zealand universities and Crown Research Institutes should be harmonised to strengthen our national negotiating position – but, this process should be based on robust engagement with academics across disciplines and with the needs of M?ori and other marginalised scholars at the forefront. • Increase existing investment in university repositories to ensure that ‘green’ open access remains a robust path. • Expand the existing institutional repository system to Crown Research Institutes and others. • Develop a policy framework focused on carbon footprinting and monitoring to ensure that the system is as close to zero carbon as possible….”
“Knowledge has never been more vital to the well-being of the world. The work done in our universities, Crown Research Institutes, and other publicly funded institutions benefits from taxpayer funding. Unlike journalists or novelists, these thinkers, researchers, and writers have funded positions. The public should benefit from their work….”
“Today, 51% of our New Zealand-based university research is made available to everyone – either through a university repository or by being published in a journal committed to using Creative Commons or other open licensing.
Which left a small group of highly profitable publishers in want of a business model. Enter the Performance Based Research Fund and international competition for university rankings.
When publishers with 40% profit margins start rebranding themselves as “information analytics” companies, it’s a good idea to take a close look at what they’re up to.
Abstract: The United States (‘US’) extended most copyright terms by 20 years in 1998, and has since exported that extension via ‘free trade’ agreements to countries including Australia and Canada. A key justification for the longer term was the claim that exclusive rights are necessary to encourage publishers to invest in making older works available — and that, unless such rights were granted, they would go underused. This study empirically tests this ‘underuse hypothesis’ by investigating the relative availability of ebooks to public libraries across Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. We find that books are actually less available where they are under copyright than where they are in the public domain, and that commercial publishers seem undeterred from investing in works even where others are competing to supply the same titles. We also find that exclusive rights do not appear to trigger investment in works that have low commercial demand, with books from 59% of the ‘culturally valuable’ authors we sampled unavailable in any jurisdiction, regardless of copyright status. This provides new evidence of how even the shortest copyright terms can outlast works’ commercial value, even where cultural value remains. Further, we find that works are priced much higher where they are under copyright than where they in the public domain, and these differences typically far exceed what would be paid to authors or their heirs. Thus, one effect of extending copyrights from life + 50 to life + 70 is that libraries are obliged to pay higher prices in exchange for worse access.
This is the first published study to test the underuse hypothesis outside the US, and the first to analyse comparative availability of identical works across jurisdictions where their copyright status differs. It adds to the evidence that the underuse hypothesis is not borne out by real world practice. Nonetheless, countries are still being obliged to enact extended terms as a cost of trade access. We argue that such nations should explore alternative ways of dividing up those rights to better achieve copyright’s fundamental aims of rewarding authors and promoting widespread access to knowledge and culture.
“Research funding agencies in Australia and New Zealand will not be able to support Europe’s Plan S unless rules around repositories are watered down, according to open access advocates in both countries.
A joint submission says that repository provisions in the Plan S implementation strategy are overly prescriptive and would be cripplingly expensive – and in some cases technically impossible – to implement….”
:Australian and New Zealand research funders are under growing pressure to join Plan S, the European-led push to require academics to make publicly funded research freely accessible at the point of publication.
The initiative is due to be implemented at the start of next year by the 13 European national research funders that have backed it so far, alongside the European Commission and three charitable funders, including the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
However, the project’s backers acknowledge that, to achieve the “big flip” towards open access, they need to build a global coalition, and efforts have been made to persuade North American, Asian and African funders to sign up….”
“Analysis & Policy Observatory (APO) is an award-winning, open access knowledge hub and information service providing easy access to policy and practice research and resources.
APO makes policy research visible, discoverable and usable.
Established in 2002 at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, APO is a not-for-profit collaborative knowledge infrastructure and web platform working with partners from universities and organisations across Australia, New Zealand and beyond.”