12 de febrero de 2017

18 Cosas que solo entienden quienes prefieren leer libros impresos

1. Puedes pasar horas en una librería y sentir que no has perdido el tiempo. Todo lo contrario.

Via acuddleforakiss.tumblr.com
2. Sabes bien que la belleza de un libro impreso no la supera nada.
Via bride-of-the-north.tumblr.com
El lomo, la portada, las hojas, es algo que tus manos necesitan experimentar y nunca lograrás satisfacer a través de una pantalla táctil.

3. El olor a libro es inigualable y necesario en tu vida.


Existen perfumes con olor a libros, como este de Demeter o estas velas arómaticas ideales para acompañar la lectura o simplemente recordar ese aroma que las tabletas jamás tendrán.

4. La satisfacción que da el pasar una página te da vida.

Marioguti / Getty Images
Nunca es igual a hacerlo digitalmente. Deslizar no es igual a pasar una página. Jamás.

5. Eres de los que guardan recuerdos importantes dentro de sus hojas.

Via favim.com
Fotos, cartas, rosas, sobre todo las ROSAS, ¿dónde más vas a guardar una rosa?

6. Para ti alguien leyendo un libro impreso en un espacio público se hace inmediatamente más apuesto que alguien leyendo en una tableta.

playbuzz.com

sofeminine.co.uk
7. La idea de tener tu libro favorito firmado por su autor es algo con lo que fantaseas.

Robert Coleman / Via thethousands.com.au
Osea, nadie te puede firmar el libro atrapado en el iPad. En teoría.

8. La necesidad de hacer notas en sus páginas es más fuerte que tú.

Via studyslug.tumblr.com
La gente que no sabe nada de la vida te dirá que no rayes los libros. Mientras que los letrados, grupo al que perteneces, te mostrarán los suyos llenos de anotaciones, remarcados y viejitos del uso. Para eso están, para ser usados. Obviamente no es destrucción si lo haces para el nacimiento de nuevas ideas, tu disfrute y conocimiento.

9. Reconoces que no hay sustituto a un marcalibro físico en el mundo digital.

google.com

christinethornton.com
Marcar la página en la que te quedaste con una vieja foto, una tarjeta o cualquier cosa que demuestre tus intereses… una tableta solo marca la página de forma fría, como ellas.

10. No puedes estar más de acuerdo con esta frase del filósofo Cicerón:

Greta Álvarez / Buzzfeed / Via thinkstockphotos.com
El minimalismo se ve bastante bien, pero la ignorancia no :) Además, así leas libros electrónicos nada más, no puedes negar lo decorativo que es una buena obra impresa en una mesa de noche.

11. Y ni hablar de la honestidad en estas palabras de John Waters: “Si vas a la casa de alguien, y no tiene libros… no folles con esa persona”

Via twicsy.com
Amén.

12. No puedes negar que regalar un libro impreso es más significativo que regalar uno digital.

olderandwisor.com

entrelibrosopina.blogspot.com
Aunque el contenido sea el mismo, un obsequio tangible y envuelto se hace más especial que uno encerrado en un dispositivo electrónico. Además, la dedicatoria escrita a mano es sumamente importante.

13. Crees en la importancia de enseñarle a los niños el placer de pasar una página física y no deslizando una imagen.

Fuse / Getty Images
No niegas que las tabletas tengan sus aspectos positivos en la enseñanza, pero es importante también que entren en contacto con el mundo R E A L.

14. Ves a la literatura como el escape perfecto a la tecnología.

Via couplenature.tumblr.com
Todos los días estamos conectados a Internet. Algunos necesitamos desconectarnos de aparatos tecnológicos así sea por un rato, y no hay razón para hacer de un momento tan placentero como la lectura otra dependencia a la tecnología.

15. Prestarle un libro a alguien que quieres es algo que te llena de gozo.

Via periodiconmx.com
“Te voy a prestar un libro que significa mucho para mí y tienes que leer”. Aunque difícilmente la gente los regresa, disfrutaste el hecho de aportar algo en sus vidas.

16. Encontrar a alguien que comparta tu amor por libros es un: YES!

Via bitch-please-i-ride-a-unicorn.tumblr.com
Tú y yo… juntos, en silencio, leyendo. Piénsalo :D

17. Sientes que las letras están latiendo cuando están impresas.

Via cuandoyoencontreunsephora.tumblr.com
Las ves más vivas. No sabes por qué pero lo disfrutas.

18. No niegas las ventajas de los libros electrónicos, simplemente prefieres los impresos.

Via yoursummerdreamz.tumblr.com
Los viejos hábitos son difíciles de matar.

Autor: Comunidad de Lectores
Twitter: <@placer_lectura>
Fuente: <http://www.elplacerdelalectura.com/>

11 de febrero de 2017

Si no leemos, no sabemos escribir, y si no sabemos escribir, no sabemos pensar

Es así de contundente. Si no leemos, es difícil que podamos pensar bien

Hotel Lobby, 1943 por Edward Hopper. 
Detalle
Hoy todos escriben, todos quieren expresar sus sentimientos y opiniones, pero, ¿quién lee? En cierta forma la lectura es una actividad superior a la escritura; sólo podemos escribir con el lenguaje que hemos adquirido leyendo. La lectura es la materia prima de la escritura y la posibilidad de crear una obra que tenga belleza y profundidad o simplemente claridad, se basa en las lecturas que hemos hecho y lo que hemos aprendido de otros autores (sus palabras se vuelven las nuestras, se mezclan con nuestros pensamientos y experiencias). Así se destila la escritura, como una refinación del pensamiento no sólo personal, sino del tiempo mismo.

Para muchas personas es más atractivo escribir, tiene más glamour –algo que quizás se deba a la inmadurez y al egoísmo–, pero grandes escritores nos dicen que la felicidad en realidad está en la lectura. Borges es especialmente fértil en este sentido: "la felicidad, cuando eres lector, es frecuente". Y la célebre: "Que otros se jacten de las páginas que han escrito; a mí me enorgullecen las que he leído".

Hay una frase contundente, que si no mal recuerdo es de Juan José Arreola, "Si no lees, no sabes escribir. Si no sabes escribir no sabes pensar". Una sencillez aforística que debe ser el fruto de la labor intelectual de un buen lector.

Edmund Husserl escribe en su Lógica formal y Lógica trascendental: "El pensamiento siempre se hace en el lenguaje y está totalmente ligado a la palabra. Pensar, de forma distinta a otras modalidades de la conciencia, es siempre lingüístico, siempre un uso del lenguaje". Así que si no tenemos palabras, si no tenemos lecturas en nuestra memoria que enriquezcan nuestro lenguaje, nuestro pensamiento será muy pobre. Las personas toleran no ser buenos lectores, pero si se les dice que no saben pensar, esto lastima su orgullo y, sin embargo, una condiciona a la otra. Así, la lectura es una herramienta de desarrollo fundamental. Y donde mejor se desenvuelve esta herramienta es en los libros, no en los pequeños artículos que dominan la circulación de la Web; el encuentro con el lenguaje merece un espacio de concentración –el medio es también el mensaje–, un encuentro a fondo con la mente de un autor que puede haber muerto hace cientos de años pero que vive, al menos meméticamente, en el texto que se trasvasa a nuestra mente.

Reading and Art, por Marc Chalmé
Podemos también preguntarnos si es que existe o no la conciencia sin el lenguaje. Aunque una primera lectura de las filosofías de la India parecería indicar que para los pensadores que nos dieron el yoga y la meditación, la conciencia existe más allá del pensamiento lingüístico (que es, de hecho, todo lo que existe), como ocurre en los estados de absorción meditativa (jñanas), también se debe notar que en el hinduismo el universo es generado a partir de la letra A del sánscrito, de la cual también se deriva la sílaba creadora OM. Posteriormente, en el budismo tibetano la letra A del alfabeto tibetano (parecida a la A del sánscrito) es también considerada una especie de fuente cósmica creativa, y se representa como emanando los cinco elementos en un thigle (bindu en sánscrito). Tenemos por supuesto la cábala, donde el universo entero es lo que se produce cuando se pronuncian los nombres divinos; la letra Aleph, tiene suprema importancia (como exploró Borges en su cuento, donde el Aleph es justamente como una especie de thigle o punto donde se encuentra la totalidad del universo). Sin embargo, el mundo es creado con la letra Bet, con la palabra Bereshit, que David Chaim Smith traduce no como inicio, sino algo así como "inicialidad" (beginingness), para denotar la constancia de la creación, un acto perenne que no ocurre en el pasado, sino en el presente. En suma, el mundo se crea con la palabra y esto es así no sólo en una visión esotérica o religiosa de la realidad, lo es en nuestra vida cotidiana: sólo alcanzamos a distinguir las formas una vez que tenemos los nombres.

De cualquier manera queda claro que la lectura como surtidor de las palabras que animan nuestra conciencia es un aspecto esencial de lo que es un ser humano que piensa el mundo. Podemos existir sin pensar, y a veces el pensamiento se convierte en un ruido que enferma la mente, pero en el pensamiento, con el poder de la palabra, tenemos una potencia divina. Como escribió Hölderlin:
Sin embargo, nos compete, bajo la tormenta de Dios,
Oh poetas, erguidos y con la cabeza descubierta,
Asir con nuestras propias manos el rayo de luz del Padre,
Y pasar, envuelto en canción, ese regalo divino a la gente.
Autor: Alejandro Mar
Twitter: <@alepholo>
Fuente: <http://culturainquieta.com/>

10 de febrero de 2017

The Value of Copyright: A Publisher’s Perspective

Rick Anderson asked me recently to present a talk, as part of a panel, on the “Publisher’s View of Copyright”, at the upcoming Research to Reader Conference in London later this month. If you are going to stand up in front of an audience, it’s always best to know what you are talking about. While I have a general sense of what I think about the subject, and opinions to match, I thought it would be helpful to dig a little deeper, to make sure what I know is actually correct, and to try and find evidence and arguments that support what I am trying to say. First, a caveat: there is no one view of copyright that fits all publishers. The publisher of a poetry magazine will likely feel differently about aspects of copyright when compared to say the publisher of your local phone book - yes they do still exist. Indeed, even within scholarly publishing there is a range of attitudes towards copyright.

In this post I start with the basics. I move on to describe some interesting legal cases, and follow with a look at the shift towards the CC-BY Creative Commons license. I leave you with a sense of where I come down on these issues, and then ask you to let me know where you sit.

Let’s look at some facts on the ground about copyright, bearing in mind that while the spirit of copyright protection is global, copyright laws in a particular country are national. Having said this, international treaties have greatly helped harmonize an international approach to copyright law, the two main treaties being the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention.

Copyright law aims to:
Reward authors for their creative efforts
Provide an economic incentive to write and publish
Advance the learning, teaching and research ecosystem
Provide legal protection in case of infringement of the law
In the US, copyright law is etched into the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8:
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
The Supreme Court has upheld our Founders’ belief in the value of copyright. To me, a key case is Harper & Row Publishers vs Nation Enterprises. In 1985, the Supreme Court decided that the public interest in learning about a historical figure’s impressions of a historic event was not a fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright.
“…it should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one’s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.” Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 558 (1985).
So, copyright law creates a balance between authors, publishers and distributors, and users and the general public.

Perhaps at this point it is worth pointing out that the copyright holder is always the creator, the author. The author can transfer copyright to a publisher, or, as is becoming more common in scholarly publishing, sign a license allowing publication of the work while still retaining copyright. In an open access (OA) environment, the work remains under copyright, but a variety of Creative Commons licenses may be applied to the work.

In the US, it is also worth remembering that copyright is in force from the moment an author’s work is created in a tangible form for the life of the author plus 70 years. After this, the work is in the public domain. This does seem like an absurdly long period of time, and it is a good example of where there is a need for rational copyright reform.

It is important to distinguish between infringement of copyright and plagiarism. In an academic setting, copyright law really only protects the expression of ideas (the specific words and images used), not the actual ideas themselves. If actual ideas are copied, this is plagiarism but not copyright infringement, and it is unethical, but not illegal. If you were to take a work that sits in the public domain, and change it around a bit and call it your own, you are not breaking the law, but it is plagiarism. However, if you take a copyrighted work and claim it as your original work, it is both copyright infringement and plagiarism. If you take a portion of a work that is copyrighted, change it around a little bit and insert it into your own work without attribution, you are definitely plagiarizing; in addition, depending on how much you use, this could either be fair use or an infringement of copyright.

This leads us to one of the most controversial areas of copyright law in the digital age: fair use — in our scholarly arena, what limits should be placed on the sharing of copyrighted information among scholars, or for educational purposes? US Copyright law states: 17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
There’s no way to know whether a use of copyrighted material is truly considered fair use until it is challenged in court. In determining whether fair use comes into play for any particular case, the factors to be considered are:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
One of the most interesting fair-use recent cases worth following is in India.Oxford University Press (OUP) and Cambridge University Press (CUP) took out a law suit against Delhi University to stop the practice of photocopying copyrighted material and compiling them into course-packs without payment to the copyright holder. While the appeal is still in front of the Delhi High Court, this looks to be going in favor of the copy shops and the student’s rights.

Another recent copyright change worth noting is in Canada. In 2012, Canada added “education” to the list of exceptions that allow use of content without asking permission from the owner of that copyright. This means that you can assemble educational content and copy it, put into course packs etc., with no concern over whether you are infringing copyright. The effects have been quite serious. Oxford University Press and Edmond Press withdrew from publishing in Canada’s K-12 market as a direct result of this new provision.

An area of concern is the trend towards the Creative Commons CC BY license. CC BY allows for the greatest openness possible when publishing your article, save for placing your work in the public domain, with the author solely retaining attribution rights. In essence, authors are agreeing that their product is reusable in any form, and in any way by any one, provided proper attribution is granted. So, why is this a problem? Researchers may take the view that they do not care if their work is reused and redistributed, even if it is for a profit motive, as they were not going to make money from their work anyway, and they gain exposure. The question is whether proper attribution is really taking place, as noted in Phil Davis’ Scholarly Kitchen post, “CC-Bye Bye! Some Consequences of Unfettered Reproduction Rights Become Clearer“. Under this model, any incentive that publishers might have had to track and enforce CC BY terms vanishes. They have already been paid for the published article, without the continuing revenue seen in the subscription model, so what motivation is there to engage lawyers to enforce CC BY attribution?
So, copyright law creates a balance between authors, publishers and distributors, and users and the general public.
Another problem is that with CC BY, authors are signing away rights to any potential reuse, or perhaps misuse/misrepresentation of their product — all secondary rights. Indeed, this is a problem for publishers, too, in the sense that other channels such as reprints, advertising, and secondary rights offset author and subscriber costs with money coming from outside the research community. With CC BY, the financial burden shifts back entirely to the author.

The CC BY license allows for a liberal reuse of content, perhaps with a profit motive. It is interesting to look at the activities of the successful, for-profit sharing sites, ResearchGate, and Academia.edu. Most researchers like these services as they allow for easy sharing of content and the ability to see who is citing one’s work. However, there is another aspect to these services: Sarah Bond, in an interesting article in Forbes, entitled “Dear Scholars, Delete Your Account At Academia.Edu”, urges readers to delete their Academia.edu account. She suspects its motivations, pointing out it is not a real .edu, with no educational affiliations and motivated strictly by profit. For example, though the initiative failed, the site’s owners tried asking scholars if they would pay a fee to have their papers recommended on the site. As you may imagine, there was quite backlash to this notion.

It is worth taking a look at Rick Anderson’s Scholarly Kitchen post entitled “CC-BY, Copyright and Stolen Advocacy”. I extract an interesting example of an unfortunate consequence of unfettered reuse of content from his piece below:
“Apple Academics Press published a book titled Epigenetics, Environment, and Genes. The book was comprised almost entirely of articles taken, without their authors’ permission, from OA journals in which they had been published under CC-BY licenses. It is now being sold on Amazon for just over $100. Although members of the scholarly community have responded with outrage, Apple Academic Press has done nothing illegal or even unethical. As long as the authors of the articles are given due credit, this kind of reuse is one of the many that are explicitly allowed under CC-BY terms. If the authors feel mistreated by Apple Academic, it’s because they failed to read (or understand) the agreements they signed when they submitted their articles for publication in OA outlets. What is troubling about this example is not so much what the publisher did, but the fact that authors are apparently being pushed to adopt CC-BY licensing without understanding its ramifications.”
Lest we just focus solely on STEM, take a peek at Karin Wulf’s Scholarly Kitchen piece on “Open Access and Historical Scholarship”. It is clear that authors want to see their work distributed and used as widely as possible. Karin points out that when an author’s article is exempted from copyright restriction, the publishing ecosystem that led to the article is not accounted for and this may harm scholarship itself. In the humanities, the real value lies in the argument and this is found in the published article. This is very different to science, where most often the paper describes the experimental finding and it is in this finding that the value lies. If you write a paper on the cure for a disease, then the cure itself can be protected by patent, even if your paper about the cure is published under CC BY. For the humanities researcher, the essential intellectual property is in the argument — it is the paper itself, so there is great resistance in many such fields to the CC BY license.

To wrap up, let me say that I do not see why we need to rush towards the relaxation of copyright. I would suggest that one can provide paths to openness, while being mindful that the extreme conditions of CC BY actually may be one step too far if we want to preserve the ability of our creators to create in the global economy. There are several interesting article sharing initiatives emerging from the publishing community, bearing copyright concerns in mind. I am looking forward to seeing how these may come to fruition. Let’s not rush to undermine the value of copyright. Its value is in supporting our ability to teach and do research, and publish high quality works.

What do you think?

I will leave you with a quote I like from Roy Kaufman (Managing Director, New Ventures at the Copyright Clearance Center), who is an active supporter of gold open access models, but who also worries about notions of openness as a common good:
“The challenge with treating all scientific communications as a public good, is that it ignores the fact that public goods are often hard to sustain without strong and reliable government intervention. We do not live in a time of strong, reliable government intervention on behalf of unbiased science.”
Autor: Robert Harington
Twitter: <@RHARINGTON>
Fuente: <https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/>