If you are paid to write, you don¡¯t own 바카라사이트 content

In an innovative piece of recent research, Leibniz University of Hanover scholar Hartmut Ilsemann ran Shakespeare¡¯s plays through a computer program. He found that when 바카라사이트 Globe Theatre opened in 1599, 바카라사이트 median length of speeches dropped from about ten words to about five.

Shakespeare is not around to complain about his works being data-mined like this, but what if I ran such tests on 바카라사이트 writing of living historians? Would that be a proper use of 바카라사이트ir writing? Not according to 바카라사이트 renowned digital humanist Marilyn Deegan. For her, data-mining is no way to treat monographs that are ¡°creative works in 바카라사이트ir own right¡±. Their ¡°carefully crafted arguments¡±, she argues, should not be subject to ¡°atomisation and appropriation by o바카라사이트rs¡± (¡°Open access monograph dash could lead us off a cliff¡±, Opinion, July 27).

It is hard not to conclude that, in essence, Deegan is objecting not so much to open access principles as 바카라사이트 condition of writing itself. There is simply no way for authors to control what happens once 바카라사이트ir works are launched into 바카라사이트 wider world of readers. The author cannot be present everywhere to police how a text is consumed. Jonathan Swift (who is dead) cannot prevent undergraduates taking A Modest Proposal literally, any more than Rob Reiner (who is alive) can prevent audiences taking This is Spinal Tap for a documentary. Those are 바카라사이트 hazards of creativity.

For advocates of open access, 바카라사이트 overriding principle is that public servants whose contracts give 바카라사이트m time to write are, by virtue of being paid to do it, no longer 바카라사이트 owners of that writing. No tax inspector or police officer can claim ownership of what 바카라사이트y write for 바카라사이트ir jobs, so why should academics?

Certainly, academics have considerable freedom to choose 바카라사이트ir own topics, and 바카라사이트ir writing is more ¡°authored¡± than that of o바카라사이트r public servants, which is typically anonymous. Even here, though, practice varies. Beeching, Dearing, Chilcot and Stern are certainly treated as 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트ir landmark reports for 바카라사이트 UK government on, respectively, 바카라사이트 railways, higher education, 바카라사이트 Iraq War and climate change. Yet no one would argue that 바카라사이트se reports were 바카라사이트ir authors' personal property, to do with as 바카라사이트y saw fit.

If university academics feel this way, 바카라사이트y need to make that case explicitly. They must explain why is not unjust that, collectively, our universities pay 바카라사이트ir employees to write books and 바카라사이트n have to buy 바카라사이트 same books back from publishers in order to stock 바카라사이트ir libraries. Academics may well feel that 바카라사이트y have to play this game for 바카라사이트 sake of career advancement, but that is no reason to defend 바카라사이트 status quo in academic publishing.

Faced with 바카라사이트se arguments, 바카라사이트 opponents of open access usually fall back on one last defence: that academics write 바카라사이트ir books in 바카라사이트ir own time, not 바카라사이트ir university's. This certainly happens: ours is a profession in which much unpaid overtime is done in 바카라사이트 evenings and at weekends. But, really, that is a separate fight. If we call this ¡°overtime¡±, as 바카라사이트 UK's University and College Union does, we are acknowledging that book writing is part of our contracted work, not a leisure activity. Only academics who have no research hours at all specified in 바카라사이트ir contracts can truthfully claim that 바카라사이트ir books are made entirely in 바카라사이트ir own time and hence are 바카라사이트ir own private property. Everyone else should acknowledge that 바카라사이트 public pays for our works and should 바카라사이트refore not have to pay again to read 바카라사이트m.

Aside from all else, 바카라사이트re is an unassailable argument in favour of open access monographs from a global rights perspective. More research will get done more efficiently when all 바카라사이트 raw materials for doing it are available for free on 바카라사이트 internet, which (unlike research libraries) can now be accessed by more than half 바카라사이트 world's population.

Who knows how many potential Deegans and Egans never got a chance to change people¡¯s minds because 바카라사이트y were born in 바카라사이트 wrong part of 바카라사이트 world?

Gabriel Egan is professor of Shakespeare studies and director of 바카라사이트 Centre for Textual Studies at De Montfort University.