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 -------------- section suivante -------------- Une pi?ce jointe HTML a ?t? nettoy?e... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120325/306a5362/attachment.html
