Am 01.02.13 22:59, schrieb Peter Murray-Rust:
But publishers need to prevent innovation from people like me as it
threatens their "ownership of content".
...
And the product will be an order of magnitude more valuable than any
current closed scientific databases. The results will be fully
semantic with recall/precision perhaps 50%.
I can't wait to see it! And indeed, Google started with two people
having a good idea and not even a garage.
Prevailing legal practises in academic publishing are designed to
prevent similar success from happening.
Am 02.02.13 02:02, schrieb Arthur Sale:
I have called it the Titanium Road to emphasise that it is based on
social networking rather than mandates
ResearchGate is not built on mandates but on SPAMing: I joined for
testing purposes half a year ago and have received 150 mails from them
meanwhile.
Does it make money from something? Probably, but not from selling
articles. This is murky, as are many issues in OA.
I would not think that "commercial re-use" is limited to an outright
(re-)selling of articles.
This "murky-ness" of the term, is key: As long as Peter is doing his
thing on research grants, the clause
provided non-commercial re-use such as text and data mining is supported
may protect him. But what if he tried the obvious and recover some
money through premium services for, say, the pharmaceutical industry?
(He might be forced some time in the future to do so by funds drying
up our cost shooting through his institution's roof)
best,
Hans
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
