Yes, the functionality to build a search which crosses content with different
permissions is something we want for society.  Currently, this is done through
Google Scholar and various discovery tools which do just the search and don't
process and hold content.

The topic-specific database, like Medline, is a different type of search.  It
isn't just because it processes and holds content.  It also hones in on one 
very
specific topic, so someone in that field can go straight to their field.  
Trying
to make OA content invisible in this search wouldn't be so great, because
there's a big advantage to having a database just for your topic so that no
totally irrelevant results show up.

So, what are the big OA search engines, anyway?  Just throwing it out, since
without a way to find content, that content may as well not exist.

-Wilhelmina Randtke

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]>
wrote:
      An interesting observation: are people paying for content or for a
      service? For example EBSCO are launching a medline package - the
      subscriber will get full text access to any article indexed in
      Medline. A very neat idea that I can see being very attractive to
      medical researchers. But quite a lot of Medline content is free or
      OA. So should they exclude these items? They (and I) would argue
      that people are paying for a service which includes OA and non-OA
      content - to exclude some content from the one-drop-shop would
      reduce its usefulness to me.

      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

      ----- Reply message -----
      From: "Sally Morris" <[email protected]>
      Date: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 21:17
      Subject: [GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and
      other intellectual property matters
To: "&apos;Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)&apos;"
<[email protected]>

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?
 
Sally
 
Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
Email:  [email protected]
 

________________________________________________________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Couture Marc
Sent: 25 March 2012 17:29
To: [email protected]
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other
intellectual property matters

[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


_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal






    [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to