[Open-access] Well, this is unexpected!

[cameronneylon.net]

> I like the idea of describing IRs as publishers.  That isn't
> necessarily a point we need to make -- we can just start talking that
> way as though it's always been assumed.  "Like other publishers, IRs
> make works available under some specific licence; unlike many other
> publishers, that licence is often permissive."  That kind of thing.

Good point.

>> I hesitate to push the human rights angle in the UK at the moment, but in Europe it might. Or at least as part of the puzzle. But it does somehow need to be balanced against the national security and IP concerns that will ranged against it.
> 
> National security?!
> 
> Is anyone seriously going to propose that OA poses a threat to
> national security because when we publish How To Build Atom Bombs with
> Elsevier, the terrorists won't pay the $35?

No, but if we say "Access to research information is a human right" then there will be those who will line up to see that we are clearly a bunch of loons because "obviously security information isn't a human right" and "obviously they don't understand IP" so my point is that there needs to be a very strong and clear case as to why research information is different - because we can't win those other arguments in the near term (at least not on our own)

Cheers

Cameron