[GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters
Couture Marc
[Apologies for cross-posting]
On March 23, 2012, Klaus Graf wrote:
>
> It's illegal to hide CC-BY contributions behind a pawywall.
>
quoting the following excerpt of the legal code:
"You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License"
Well, without delving too much into legal intricacies, let's just say that even if it may seem so at first glance, this doesn't mean that giving access to the Work (or to a derivative work based upon the work) through a paywall is forbidden.
If it were, then what would be the purpose of the licenses CC-BY-NC-ND (for the Work) and CC-BY-NC (for derivative works)?
Instead, the excerpt above may be interpreted, without disrupting the whole CC logic, as meaning: If "You" give access to a copy of the Work (behind a paywall or not), "You" can't apply to it any DRM technology that would forbid the recipient to reproduce, etc. (all the rights included in the license, see part 3 of legal code) the Work.
I agree that putting a CC-BY Work behind a paywall is almost certainly dishonest, if not fraudulent, because it makes sense only if you somehow hide the fact that the work is freely available elsewhere. Things are different for a derivative work, which may offer enough added value to justify a fee. And such a work is not bound by the Work’s license conditions (unless SA is added). It's here that the NC option plays its intended role: an author decides if others can make money (by adding a paywall, say) or not from derivative works based upon his or her work.
Marc Couture
Peter Murray-Rust
I agree that putting a CC-BY Work behind a paywall is almost certainly dishonest, if not fraudulent, because it makes sense only if you somehow hide the fact that the work is freely available elsewhere. Things are different for a derivative work, which may offer enough added value to justify a fee. And such a work is not bound by the Work’s license conditions (unless SA is added). It's here that the NC option plays its intended role: an author decides if others can make money (by adding a paywall, say) or not from derivative works based upon his or her work.
this has screenshots of the BL charges. I entered into considerable correspondence and I think the conclusions was that it was too much trouble to work out what articles were open access so it was easier t charge for all of them. I have no idea where the money ended up.
The BL did say that if you came to the actual reading room at St Pancras it was free (but you have to pay the train fare).
But maybe it's changed after 5 years and maybe it hasn't. I don't have time to check.
Marc Couture
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GO...@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
Sally Morris
From: goal-b...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-b...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc
Sent: 25 March 2012 17:29
To: go...@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters
Couture Marc
Sally Morris wrote :
>
> Playing devil's advocate: aren't people (arguably) paying for the service
> provided in gathering together the articles in which they might be interested
> in an easily accessible/searchable form?
>
This makes sense if someone pays for a subscription to a service, like those provided by aggregators, which offers an overall added value. Such databases may be viewed as compilations, which are in fact derivative works (see my previous posts).
The examples we discussed here used the pay-per-view model, which is different in my opinion: they ask a fee for individual works freely available elsewhere.
As to my statement that “putting a CC-BY Work behind a paywall is almost certainly dishonest”, well... I would hesitate to call the British Library “dishonest”.
More an example of overview, which a public organization should since have corrected (as P. Murray-Rust points out, it was 5 years ago). It shouldn’t be difficult to spot the (machine-readable) CC licenses (I don’t know how hybrid manage this on an article-by-article basis), or to put a link to the article and suggest that the reader check for the possibility of open access.
Anyway, these days, people should now know better than pull their credit card before checking the title in Google Scholar.
Marc Couture
Rzepa Henry
> this has screenshots of the BL charges. I entered into considerable
> correspondence and I think the conclusions was that it was too much trouble
> to work out what articles were open access so it was easier t charge for
> all of them. I have no idea where the money ended up.
>
> The BL did say that if you came to the actual reading room at St Pancras it
> was free (but you have to pay the train fare).
>
> But maybe it's changed after 5 years and maybe it hasn't. I don't have time
> to check.
I would add my various experiences with this national library (I am interesting if its different in other national libraries)
In search of a famous article on topology by Listing written in the 1850s, I did indeed visit St Pancras a few years back.
1. Whilst it is "free" to be there, they did charge something like £1 per photocopied page, which of course cost £40 for a 40 page reprint.
2. I asked if they could provide the scans on USB drive (which I had taken with me). The answer was no.
3. I recently made a request on line for a journal which my own library does not subscribe to, using a system known as SED (secure electronic delivery).
Understanding the semantics of "secure" is an interesting exercise. One might imagine that the interests of the reader were being served by "secure delivery". In fact, the term secure refers to the interests of the publisher, in that it implements DRM (digital rights management) which protects the document from unauthorised actions.
3.1 A permitted action for the reader is to request one print copy. This is achieved by by-passing the normal print driver interfaces and enforcing a special print driver.
3.2 I immediately fell foul of this. I have on my computer a selected printer which uses itself an "authenticating" driver, which associates any print operation with the user's swipe card. The SED document could not access this driver, and my one allowed attempt at a print failed because the job was not authenticated.
3.3 Forbidden actions upon the SED document include any attempt to copy/paste data out of that document.
3.4 Or to insert the document into any software that attempts to detect metadata contained within it.
3.5 The document itself has a finite life, and the only permitted permanent instance is that single print copy (which I did not end up with).
pippa...@gmail.com
As a comparator, I can get water free from rivers but I'm happy to pay someone to clean it up and pipe it to me.
Pippa
Sent from my HTC
From: "Sally Morris" <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 21:17
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters
gingra...@uqam.ca
>
> As a comparator, I can get water free from rivers but I'm happy to pay
> someone to clean it up and pipe it to me.
It seems to be a better comparison is between choosing free water from tap and
pay for bottled water.
:)
Yves Gingras
-------------------------------------------------
Uqam Service IMP: http://www.er.uqam.ca/courrier