On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Couture Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
Â
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 Workâs 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.
FWIW in 2007 the British LIbrary charged 24 GBP for access to my Open Access
articles.
Â
see http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2007/09/09/the-british-unlibrary/
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).
Â
But maybe it's changed after 5 years and maybe it hasn't. I don't have time to
check.
Â
Marc Couture
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
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
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
