{"id":2421,"date":"2013-02-11T09:30:42","date_gmt":"2013-02-11T14:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bohyunkim.net\/blog\/?p=2421"},"modified":"2014-08-18T21:25:22","modified_gmt":"2014-08-19T01:25:22","slug":"aaron-swartz-and-too-comfortable-research-libraries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bohyunkim.net\/blog\/archives\/2421","title":{"rendered":"Aaron Swartz and Too-Comfortable Research Libraries"},"content":{"rendered":"

*** This post has been originally published in ACRL TechConnect <\/a>on Feb. 11, 2013. ***
\n*** Update: Several references and a video added (thanks to Brett Bonfield) on Feb. 21, 2013. ***<\/em>
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Who was Aaron Swartz?<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you are a librarian and do not know who Aaron Swartz<\/a> is, that should probably change now. He helped developing the RSS standard, was the co-founder of Reddit, worked on the Open Library project<\/a>, downloaded and freed 20% (2.7 million documents) of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database<\/a> that charges fees for the United States federal court documents, out of which about 1,600 had privacy issues, played a lead role in preventing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)<\/a>, and wrote the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Most famously, he was arrested in 2011 for the mass download of journal articles from JSTOR<\/a>.\u00c2\u00a0 He returned the documents to JSTOR and apologized. The Massachusetts state court dismissed the charges, and JSTOR decided not to pursue civil litigation. But MIT stayed silent<\/a>, and the federal court charged Swartz with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, Swartz could be sentenced to up to 35 years in prison at the age of 26. He committed suicide after facing charges for two years, on January 11, 2013.<\/p>\n

Information wants to be free; Information wants to be expensive<\/b><\/p>\n

Now, he was a controversial figure. He advocated Open Access (OA) but to the extent of encouraging scholars, librarians, students who have access to copyrighted academic materials to trade passwords and circulate them freely on the grounds that this is an act of civil disobedience against unjust copyright laws in his manifesto<\/a>. He was an advocate of the open Internet, the transparent government, and open access to scholarly output. But he also physically hacked into the MIT network wiring closet and attached his laptop<\/a> to download over 4 million articles from JSTOR. Most people including librarians are not going to advocate trading their institutions\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 subscription database passwords or breaking into a staff-only computer networking area of an institution. The actual method of OA that Swartz recommended was highly controversial even among the strongest OA advocates.<\/p>\n

But in his Guerrilla OA manifesto, Swartz raised one very valid point about the nature of information in the era of the World Wide Web. That is, information is power. (a) As power, information can be spread to and be made useful to as many of us as possible. Or, (b) it can be locked up and the access to it can be restricted to only those who can pay for it or have access privileges some other way. One thing is clear. Those who do not have access to information will be at a significant disadvantage compared to those who do.<\/p>\n

And I would like to ask what today\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s academic and\/or research libraries are doing to realize Scenario (a) rather than Scenario (b). Are academic\/research libraries doing enough to make information available to as many as possible?<\/p>\n

Too-comfortable Internet, Too-comfortable academic libraries<\/b><\/p>\n

Among the many articles I read about Aaron Swartz’s sudden death, the one that made me think most was “Aaron Swartz\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s suicide shows the risk of a too-comfortable Internet<\/a>.” The author of this article worries that we may now have a too-comfortable Internet. The Internet is slowly turning into just another platform for those who can afford purchasing information. The Internet as the place where you could freely find, use, modify, create, and share information is disappearing. Instead pay walls and closed doors are being established. Useful information on the Internet is being fast monetized, and the access is no longer free and open. Even the government documents become no longer freely accessible to the public when they are put up on the Internet (likely to be due to digitization and online storage costs)<\/a> as shown in the case of\u00c2\u00a0PACER<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0and Aaron Swartz. We are more and more getting used to giving up our privacy or to paying for information. This may be inevitable in a capitalist society, but should the same apply to libraries as well?<\/p>\n

The thought about the too-comfortable Internet made me wonder whether perhaps academic research libraries were also becoming too comfortable with the status quo of licensing electronic journals and databases for patrons. In the times when the library collection was physical, people who walk into the library were rarely turned away. The resources in the library are collected and preserved because we believe that people have the right to learn and investigate things and to form one’s own opinions and that the knowledge of the past should be made available for that purpose. Regardless of one’s age, gender, social and financial status, libraries have been welcoming and encouraging people who were in the quest for knowledge and information.\u00c2\u00a0 With the increasing number of electronic resources in the library, however, this has been changing.<\/p>\n

Many academic libraries offer computers, which are necessary to access electronic resources of the library itself. But how many of academic libraries keep all the computers open for user without the user log-in? Often those library computers are locked up and require the username and password, which only those affiliated with the institution possess. The same often goes for many electronic resources. How many academic libraries allow the on-site access to electronic resources by walk-in users? How many academic libraries insist on the walk-in users\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 access to those resources that they pay for in the license? Many academic libraries also participate in the Federal Depository Library program<\/a>, which requires those libraries to provide free access to the government documents that they receive to the public. But how easy is it for the public to enter and access the free government information at those libraries?<\/p>\n

I asked in Twitter about the guest access in academic libraries to computers and e-resources. Approximately 25 academic librarians generously answered my question. (Thank you!) According to the responses in Twitter,\u00c2\u00a0 almost all except a few libraries ( mentioned in Twitter responses) offer guest access to computers and e-resources on-site. It is to be noted, however, that a few offer the guest -access to neither. Also some libraries limit the guests\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 computer-use to 30 minutes – 4 hours, thereby restricting the access to the library\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s electronic resources as well. Only a few libraries offer free wi-fi for guests. And at some libraries, the guest wi-fi users are unable to access the library\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s e-resources even on-site because the IP range of the guest wi-fi is different from that of the campus wi-fi.<\/p>\n

I am not sure how many academic libraries consciously negotiate the walk-in users’ on-site access with e-resources vendors or whether this is done somewhat semi-automatically because many libraries ask the library building IP range to be registered with vendors so that the authentication can be turned off inside the building. I surmise that publishers and database vendors will not automatically permit the walk-in users’ on-site access in their licenses unless libraries ask for it. Some vendors also explicitly prohibit libraries from using their materials to fill the Interlibrary loan requests from other libraries. The electronic resource vendors and publishers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 pricing has become more and more closely tied to the number of patrons who can access their products. Academic libraries has been dealing with the escalating costs for electronic resources by filtering out library patrons and limiting the access to those in a specific disciplines.\u00c2\u00a0 For example, academic medical and health sciences libraries often subscribe to databases and resources that have the most up-to-date information about biomedical research, diseases, medications, and treatments. These are almost always inaccessible to the general public and often even to those affiliated with the institution. The use of these prohibitively expensive resources is limited to a very small portion of people who are affiliated with the institution in specific disciplines such as medicine and health sciences. Academic research libraries have been partially responsible for the proliferation of these access limitations by welcoming and often preferring these limitations as a cost-saving measure. (By contrast, if those resources were in the print format, no librarian would think that it is OK to permanently limit its use to those in medical or health science disciplines only.)<\/p>\n

Too-comfortable libraries do not ask themselves if they are serving the public good of providing access to information and knowledge for those who are in need but cannot afford it. Too-comfortable libraries see their role as a mediator and broker in the transaction between the information seller and the information buyer. They may act as an efficient and successful mediator and broker. But I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t believe that that is why libraries exist. Ultimately, libraries exist to foster the sharing and dissemination of knowledge more than anything, not to efficiently mediate information leasing. \u00c2\u00a0And this is the dangerous idea: You cannot put a price tag on knowledge; it belongs to the human race. Libraries used to be the institution that validates and confirms this idea. But will they continue to be so in the future? Will an academic library be able to remain as a sanctuary for all ideas and a place for sharing knowledge for people’s intellectual pursuits regardless of their institutional membership? Or will it be reduced to a branch of an institution that sells knowledge to its tuition-paying customers only? While public libraries are more strongly aligned with this mission of making information and knowledge freely and openly available to the public than academic libraries, they cannot be expected to cover the research needs of patrons as fully as academic libraries.<\/p>\n

I am not denying that libraries are also making efforts in continuing the preservation and access to the information and resources through initiatives such as Hathi Trust<\/a> and DPLA (Digital Public Library of America)<\/a>. My concern is rather whether academic research libraries are becoming perhaps too well-adapted to the times of the Internet and online resources and too comfortable serving the needs of the most tangible patron base only in the most cost-efficient way, assuming that the library’s mission of storing and disseminating knowledge can now be safely and neutrally relegated to the Internet and the market. But it is a fantasy to believe that the Internet will be a sanctuary for all ideas (The Internet is being censored<\/a> as shown in the case of Tarek Mehanna<\/a>.)<\/em>, and the market will surely not have the ideal of the free and open access to knowledge for the public.<\/p>\n

If libraries do not fight for and advocate those who are in need of information and knowledge but cannot afford it, no other institution will do so. Of course, it costs to create, format, review, and package content. Authors as well as those who work in this business of content formatting, reviewing, packaging, and producing should be compensated for their work. But not to the extent that the content is completely inaccessible to those who cannot afford to purchase but nevertheless want access to it for learning, inquiry, and research. This is probably the reason why we are all moved by Swartz’s Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto in spite of the illegal implications of the action that he actually recommended in the manifesto.<\/p>\n

Knowledge and information is not like any other product for purchase. Sharing increases its value, thereby enabling innovation, further research, and new knowledge. Limiting knowledge and information to only those with access privilege and\/or sufficient purchasing power creates a fundamental inequality. The mission of a research institution should never be limited to self-serving its members only, in my opinion. And if the institution forgets this, it should be the library that first raises a red flag. The mission of an academic research institution is to promote the freedom of inquiry and research and to provide an environment that supports that mission inside and outside of its walls, and that is why a library is said to be the center of an academic research institution.<\/p>\n

I don’t have any good answers to the inevitable question of “So what can an academic research library do?” Perhaps, we can start with broadening the guest access to the library computers, wi-fi, and electronic resources on-site. Academic research libraries should also start asking themselves this question: What will libraries have to offer for those who seek knowledge for learning and inquiry but cannot afford it? If the answer is nothing, we will have lost libraries.<\/p>\n

In his talk about the Internet Archive\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Open Library project at the Code4Lib Conference in 2008<\/a> (at 11:20), Swartz describes how librarians had argued about which subject headings to use for the books in the Open Library website. And he says, “We will use all of them. It’s online. We don’t have to have this kind of argument.” The use of online information and resources does not incur additional costs for use once produced. Many resources, particularly those scholarly research output already have established buyers such as research libraries. Do we have to deny access to information and knowledge to those who cannot afford but are seeking for it, just so that we can have a market where information and knowledge resources are sold and bought and authors are compensated along with those who work with the created content as a result? No, this is a false question. We can have both. But libraries and librarians will have to make it so.<\/p>\n

Videos to Watch<\/strong><\/p>\n