I am therefore convinced, for economic reasons above all, that it will be a long time before the liberation movement can expect to tear down the walls. Scientists demand the broadest possible exposure for their own work and access to the work of others, particularly through the deployment of new information dissemination technologies. The library marketplace that pays for journal subscriptions likewise argues for the broadest access at the most affordable price. The promotion of science and the useful arts is the fundamental purpose for which copyright is enshrined in the US Constitution, and we would do well to remember from time to time to apply that criterion in judging the effectiveness of our publishing and collecting regimes. Now we need time.
Compulsory sharing is at best a paradox, and more likely a contradiction in terms.
Schemes to drive publishers to stop publishing will find fifty ways to backfire, ways that we cannot now fully imagine. The idealism of the moment needs to express itself in a way commensurate with its own principles, by establishing dialogue, building community and giving standards and consensus time to develop. The high risk of not taking more time is that we will lose something quickly and replace it slowly. We will lose a system of publication that undeniably succeeds in making the best work widely known quickly and preserves it for long-term use. The researcher in search of high-quality information does not need to lose productivity because he or she has to make a lurching adjustment and navigate a new communication system that has been hustled into place prematurely.