Out of all the topics covered so far, “open access” appeared to have the most diverse range of issues covered, from problems in the music industry, to gaming websites, to scientific journals.
When considering the music industry I managed to squeeze in an unnecessary cake metaphor to reply to Nabeel’s post, which underlined the contrast with which people view content depending on whether it is in digital form or a hard copy. Watching Anna’s PowToon also showed me that arguments for open access depend on who you are and how to stand to benefit from it, with rich and famous musicians, who stand to lose money, eager to block sharing, whilst up-and-coming artists actually enjoying profits from this sharing expansion.
I am also enjoying expanding my arguments of what I am learning from my own and others’ blogs by relating them to my psychology degree. As Din and I discussed the psychological issues behind conspicuous consumption, I remembered that every market is competitive and each party will clamour for their own most profitable outcome. They will therefore approach specific consumers in a way to make their product most desirable, whether it is playing on the competitiveness of online gamers or the desire for academic integrity that highly reputable journals provide.
In terms of open access of scientific material, I still believe that open access is best, for the world needs scientific discoveries for growth, and with more people attending universities than ever, education for all should be encouraged and not be hidden by pay-walls. Freya’s blog agreed completely with me, highlighting how seriously issues of open access are taken. I think we both feel quite strongly about this issue due to our own interest in the scientific world and concerns about how our own education will be affected.