And off we go, yet again, Rights Rapture Redux: *Overselling the Importance and Urgency of CC-BY/CC-BY-NC * *for Peer-Reviewed Scholarly and Scientific Research* http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/909-.html
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Heather Morrison <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-08-17, at 11:03 AM, Arthur Smith wrote: > > > There is nothing preventing somebody from charging for a work provided > > through a CC-BY or other CC license; however, the first person to > > purchase such content then has the right (from the CC license) to > > redistribute it freely, so in practice if any publisher tried to charge > > it would be self-defeating. > > > > Arthur > > This is useful to know, and may explain why not all publishers are rushing > to embrace CC-BY. From the perspective of those who would like to use open > access materials, the assumption is that someone else is gathering these > works and making them accessible in a usable way. Otherwise, the potential > reader may well be faced with a paywall and the possibility that a free > version is available somewhere, but whether it is reasonably accessible or > not may depend a lot on the person's search skills. In medicine, with PMC, > as with arXiv for physics, there is such a mechanism for gathering across > the disciplines. However, this is not currently true across the disciplines. > > Speaking of PMC: if OA advocates succeed in making CC-BY the default for > scholarly publishing, this opens up the possibility of commercial entities > completely recreating PMC and then lobbying to eliminate funding for the > free version. This definitely would not be a nice thing to do, and there > probably are legal arguments that this would violate the license (this > would not be totally clear-cut, though, since PMC would not be the > Licensor). Plus, there are likely also clever ways of indirect lobbying. > Over the past decade or so, we have seen that scholarly publishers will go > to some lengths when it comes to lobbying against things they consider > unfavorable to their business model. The OA movement can continue to fight > such lobbying efforts, and we may well succeed. At the very least, let's > keep in mind that a full switch to CC-BY may not diminish the need to > continue to fight lobbying efforts. > > One thought is that the CC-BY approach reinforces the need for green - > even with open access publishing as CC-BY. That way, if the original > disappears altogether or behind a paywall, there should be a copy available > in the author's institutional repository. > > This does not address the possibility of a publisher changing its mind > about CC licenses, or journals changing hands from an open access publisher > to a publisher with a different perspective on OA. > > best, > > Heather Morrison > > > > > On 8/17/12 12:54 PM, Heather Morrison wrote: > >> Many in the open access movement consider CC-BY to be the very > embodiment of the spirit of the Budapest Open Access Initiative - giving > away all rights to one's work, including commercial rights, for open > access. My own take on this is that while CC-BY can provide a useful tool > for those fully engaged in the open access spirit, the license is > problematic for open access. This is important now that funding agencies in > the U.K. are beginning to require CC-BY licenses when they fund open access > article processing fees. That is to say, we are now looking at a situation > where organizations that do not have any commitment to (or even liking for) > open access, may be required to use this license. > >> > >> Some questions that I think should be raised at this point: > >> > >> The CC-BY legal code, as I read it, does not mention open access, nor > is there any wording to suggest that the license can only be applied to > works that are open access. Here is the URL for the legal code: > >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode > >> > >> Questions: > >> > >> 1. Am I missing something in the legal code, i.e. does it say > somewhere that this license is only for open access works? > >> > >> 2. Is there any reason why a publisher could not use a CC-BY license > on toll-access works? (Here I am talking about an original publisher, not a > licensee). > >> > >> 3. Is there anything to stop a publisher that uses CC-BY from > changing their license at a later point in time? (Assuming the license is > the publisher's, not the author's). > >> > >> 4. Is there anything to stop a toll-access publisher from purchasing > an open access publisher that uses CC-BY, and subsequently selling all the > formerly open access journals under a toll-access model and dropping the > open access versions? The license would not permit a third party to do > this, but what I am asking about is if the original licensor sells to > another publisher. > >> > >> To sum up, my perspective is that CC-BY, while superficially appearing > to be the embodiment of BOAI, is actually a problematic license with > significant loopholes and serious thought should be given to this before it > is recommended as a standard for open access. > >> > >> best, > >> > >> Heather Morrison, MLIS > >> Doctoral Candidate, Simon Fraser University School of Communication > >> http://pages.cmns.sfu.ca/heather-morrison/ > >> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics > >> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com > >> > > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
