Subject: Re: tc-list More on American Responsibilities

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:38:33 -0400

At 04:56 PM 9/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>I am curious why Jim West has taken the position that he would not mail even
>copies of orginal negatives. If these are only copies and the person requesting
>the copies has paid a reasonable reproduction fee and postage/handling
charges I
>can't see through the smoke of this debate any reason to not send them. It
would

Because one simply cannot trust the mail.  Even copies are of great value-
so far as I am concerned.  In the worst case scenario if a fire or some
flood or such destroyed the archives- the copy would be the only film left.
I would not want to see it floating around in the postal service.  And,
interestingly, you alone have introduced the caveat about paying a
reproduction fee.  That puts an important spin on it... 

>be simpler to have high-resolution scans of the originals in digital format so
>they could be transmitted upon request across the Internet but one could also
>scan the negatives (with some degradation in the image) for similar delivery.

There is a great difference between sending a digital image versus film.
Digital images are reproducable with such ease that every user could have a
copy.  This is just not so with film.

>Does anyone have a calm and reasoned explanation for why material should not be
>openly shared with others? 

First, if a research institution buys the rights to film a certain ms, or if
they have purchased a ms, or have been given a ms, then they have the right
to control access.
Second, sharing implies a two way street.  Is the SBL publication office,
for instance, willing to send all of us pre-publication copies of
forthcoming TC books at no charge?  Why not if not?  The information will be
- in fact- restricted- to those who wish to pay for it, right?  Why should
ms films be any different- whether payment comes as a fee or as travel
expenses to the place where the films are safely archived.  So- if Munster
shares its films with scholars elsewhere, it is only right that others do so
as well.  In other words, why should Munster alone be singled out?

>Yes owners have the right to restrict access, yes
>scholars can create contracts to restrict access, yes the provincials of every
>stripe can restrict access, BUT is there any reason related to actual scholarly
>inquiry that supports restricting access to scarce material?

Yes, its called the right of publication and dissemination.  Again I recall
to you a simple fact...  if folk are interested in the free dissemination of
the fruits of scholarship (for instance- a list of internet web sites having
to do with the study of religion published in paperback) then why is such
information sold (as a book) when it could be freely given away?

In short what we have here is a bit of a double standard.  Its ok for me (or
any author/scholar) to sell my ideas and materials- but I want you (the
holder of some ms or film I want to see) to give it away for free.  Odd,
isnt it?

> To put it another
>way, how is my use of a resource diminished by Jim West or Gary Dykes also
having
>a copy of the material I am reading?

It is not diminished at all... and in fact it becomes more widespread and
available.  So if you wish others to send their stuff freely no less can be
asked of you.  Right?  What are you reading this week?  I am sure I would be
benefitted by a copy.  Please send it at your earliest convenience.

I hope you see my point- though I have had to make it rather dryly.

Best,

Jim
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
email- [email-masked]
web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

---

From: Patrick Durusau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:24:45 -0400

Jim,

I have reordered some of the remarks in our exchange for clarity and to emphasize
certain issues.

Free versus Open Access:

The term "free" seems to be a hot button when discussing access to ancient
manuscripts so I would suggest that we use the phrase "open access" instead. By
"open access" I mean the availability of ancient manuscripts in a digital or film
replica providing the requester pays a reasonable fee for duplication, postage and
handling.

Your remarks on a "double standard"

>   as well.  In other words, why should Munster alone be singled out?
<snip in middle of quoted material>

> holder of some ms or film I want to see) to give it away for free.  Odd,

confuse the categories of ancient manuscripts and contemporary publications.

Ancient manuscripts are items that are owned by historical accident (preservation,
chain of purchasers, etc.) to which the holder has made no intellectual
contribution.

Contemporary publications are items that represent the intellectual output of
scholars and to which the author has made an intellectual contribution.

The key to resolving the "double standard" is in your statement is that your are
free to "sell my ideas and materials." The manuscripts in question are not the ideas
of any of their holders, they only own the manuscript as object and have no claim to
the intellectual content of the manuscript. As I noted before they can certainly
restrict access to the physical object as its "owner" but is that a decision that
hinders or promotes scholarship?

Publication and Dissemination

When I asked for "any reason related to actual scholarly inquiry that supports

>     information sold (as a book) when it could be freely given away?

I understand the right of publication and dissemination to apply to my original
intellectual content, not information I have gained by accident of history or
access. Recall that I used the example of the NRAO (National Radio Astronomy
Observatory) sharing raw data as soon as it was available with all researchers which
forms the basis for a large number of publications in that field. Ancient
manuscripts are the raw data in many fields of academic study and you have yet to
distinguish ancient manuscripts as "raw data" from scientific "raw data" in a way
that implies one should have more open access than the other. I would appreciate
your addressing the issue of why radio astronomers can share raw data and yet
biblical scholars commonly do not. (Please no flames from those who share! I am
aware of many such efforts, including the electronic ones and fully support such
efforts. Sadly this century has seen any number of cases of non-sharing of biblical
and biblical related materials, some of which continues to this day.)

Digital Images

> copy.  This is just not so with film.

Sorry, I miss the danger of "every user could have a copy." That would seem to be a
distinct advantage to scholarship since time would not be wasted on travel, grants
on travel expenses and other expenses while providing scholars with the "raw data"
that leads (hopefully) to intellectual output.

Does this sharpen the issues to move away from the "free" debate and onto the
questions of "Does restricted access to manuscripts further the work scholars?" and
if no, "What policies should we urge (support) in institutions regarding access to
manuscripts that further scholarship?"

Patrick

Patrick Durusau
Information Technology Services
Scholars Press
Manager, ITS
[email-masked] (home)
[email-masked] (work)