I am happy to return to Dr. Withey's article "Does Information Really Want to be Free? Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the Question of Openness" because I think the article does an excellent job of embedded theory into practice. In considering the issues raised within the conversations pertaining to DRM, I hold onto the notion of what is lacking in the critique of Stallman and Brand, stating "how one decides which information is generally useful or beneficial in the hands of just anyone" (Withey 2875). In thinking about this notion, the example of the electronic academic databases come to mind such as ProQuest and J-Stor. With the advancement of technology, the ways in which we do research and organize such research is vastly evolving. Rather then tangible books and journals, we're able to access a plethora of information through electronic academic databases which host a sever for viewing material.
However.
Although the concept of electronic academic databases make our work much more convenient and organized, we have to wonder if such information is really "free". Many academic databases require an annual membership fee or a school affiliation granting you access to view the materials. In returning to Stallman's understanding of DRM and whether or not information really wants to be free, he argues that "information is social and moral, rather than economic" (2875). If this is true, does the idea of electronic academic databases really fall within the scope of free information? In the end, someone is paying for our access to these materials. Without affiliation in some scope, these databases are othering those who don't have ties in some way to academia.
When viewing the ProQuest website, you'll see that the information is dispersed into four different categories. Ironically, one category is labeled customers, though all categories have to pay in order to access the information. Though my thesis is available through ProQuest per requirement of my department at my previous institution, I have to pay in order to access something that I wrote myself! In order for my thesis to be "published" it had to have an affiliation with an electronic database, which then disseminates my information as it pleases, taking the agency away from the author and places it in the database company. In referring specifically to graduate work, I think a lot of us don't realize where our scholarship goes (unless we write for specific publication).
After finally typing in the name of my work in google, I found that through ProQuest, I was able to access only the abstract of my work, but had the option of either ordering a copy, or requesting one through "my library" (what if I don't belong to a university?). Though I do have copies of my own work, the notion that I can't disperse the information freely in a way that I had intended defies the open access movement and takes the access away from the author and doesn't put in the hands of the user but rather the corporate profits.
Though this is part of academia, it plays into the arguments that Dr. Withey brings up in the unrestricted sharing debate (who gets it/who doesn't). In referring to the dispersion of information "the system does not work if knowledge or cultural materials are closed off or hidden from all. Knowledge can (and does) die if it is not used. But it also needs to be used and circulated properly within an articulated ethical system" (2883).
"Information neither wants to be free nor wants to be open; human beings must decide how we want to imagine the world of knowledge-sharing and information management in ways that are at once ethical and cognizant of the deep histories of engagement and exclusion that animate this terrain" (2889).
