Posts by jon_knox
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I just asked the missus about the sharing of outcomes from publically funded research...as she has arrived to watch the cricket.
She says that the output of most research is made available when it's published....and adds "you just have to know what it means"....as she's getting published in the next few weeks, I'll take her at her word.
Which brings me back to some statements that Ben Goldacre made in a lecture I attended a month or 2 ago regarding articles published for peer review. Ben objects to much of the research being effectively hidden from the public by the barrier of the walled gardens that the review journals use. It was raised that this is really the domain of the expert, rather than the layperson, but in most cases the people with the relevant skills and time to review are recent graduates who haven't yet attached themselves to organisations that have access to the walled gardens and accordingly are free of any vested interests. (I'll see if I can make a transcript of Ben's comments....I did record it, but Ben requested that I not upload the audio on to the web).
-
And what about the output of academics whose research is paid for by public institutions?
Good question.
I don't think it's quite as clear cut.
I'll declare that my better half works in scientific research for Universities, but I'm not sure this impacts my position unduly.I think it’s more about who reaps the benefit. For radio, it tends to be the listener. Under the free sharing scenario that Gio raises the question regarding, the likely beneficiaries of the outputs from academic research would be commercial entities, either those with the (economies of) scale to protect the valuable idea, or those with a close relationship (under the notion of first mover advantage) to the research group, who seem to be free of any requirement to share the benefits derived. Though none of this is to say that individuals could not benefit.
Uni research seems more often to be undertaken not-for-profit and valuable outcomes licensed to entities that have commercial objectives. The income derived (hopefully) gets utilised to perform more research rather than getting paid into anyone's back pocket (perhaps this is a naive assumption). I'm also aware that, yeah this means subsidising the activities of a few people that perhaps fail to make the grade in a more critical environment but also enables some pretty cool stuff to occur). From what I’ve seen of Academic Research, it’s no bed of roses.
So would requiring that any outputs of research be made freely available to all have impact? To me, I think it would destroy any licensing opportunities and opens the outcomes up to other entities that have commercial objectives closer to heart.
-
A Tim O tweet brought my attention to a NYT article on the "operating system of democracy". NB that it's FREE.
I'm still of the opinion that more effort needs to be made to find some middle ground, that is to provide increntives for creatives and to encourage appropriate sharing. I think that article says in a pretty powerful way, that sharing is both important & cool.
-
Oh yeah, one thing that does bug me, is when publically funded broadcasters hide their content after they have publically broadcast it, particularly educational content. More annoyance is caused when those broadcasters retain the meta-pages acknoweldging the existence of the content, but do not allowing you to get to the content itself.
If there is content that should be shared, with due acknowledgement to the creators of the content, it's educational content that was produced through the allocation of funding from government. I'm aware that this means we need to think globally in sharing that content freely with others wherever they are. Overcoming the isolation of geography is one thing that the net thing seems good at.
-
Not that I've personally met RB, I've met Ben and think that they occupy a similar space.
In this instance, Ben has brought far more of an audience to the LBC's content, though for reasons that they might not be happy about. He hasn't edited the hell out it, he's simply let it stand for itself, initially out of his own bandwidth....And with his context stuck on either end.
Compare and contrast Ben's actions with those of the team that did the parody of Sony that Mark linked to in one of the other threads. Kinda different from Ben's situation some might suggest, as the content they generated themselves, but are they not infringing on Sony trademark? I can't imagine Sony are happy.
If parody is legit and public safety is not, then something is wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the fence, just suggesting that a binary view is not necessarily ideal.
-
Happened to catch an excellent Neil Young documentary a couple of weeks ago. It was called "Don't be Denied" and was from the BBC. Here's an excerpt (not of Neil tho) that even folks in NZ should be able to watch (only 4 mins).
-
Does/should the notion of fair use include public safety/good?
Has anyone else been watching the BenGoldacre-MMR storm in the UK? Ben (Bad Science dude from The Guardian) posted the content of a radio show online as an example of the dangerous myths used to justify avoidance of vaccinations and was shortly thereafter contacted by lawyers claiming copyright infringement.
-
Here's the link to the iiNet story from the ABC.
-
Have just read in the SMH the that Hussey & Clarke have saved Australia...then attempted to follow the live score link, only to find that the site's live blogger had abandoned providing this service with the following kind words.
Well, NZ should be able to stroll home from here. My shift is ending and have to move on. If it wasn't for Setanta the papers would be screaming for blood tomorrow. Enjoy
ED -
I was trying to listening to the cricket via the ABC and heard a story on the case against iiNet from the some of the big players in the Australian movie industry.
The story should turn up in the RSS feed soon-ish.