On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-06-01, at 4:17 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > > > Please accept that posting on the web, with whatever good intentions but > without explicit licence, gives no rights to any potential user. > > Good grief, no, I accept no such thing. You sound like a copyright > maximalist here, PMR. > I am a copyright realist. The reality is that Copyright law trumps any "implicit" permissions. If I download from a site with "All Rights Reserved" or indeed without a clear *legal* license such as CC then I am potentially breaking copyright and can be taken to court. The judge will decide using the law of the country/ies involved (which may be difficult with distributed servers, remote working, etc.). > We need to understand that posting on the web means that you are > automating giving people certain permissions, e.g. to read, copy, crawl, > unless you have put up explicit barriers. There is no legal justification for this and it will usually not act as a defence in court. I am often challenged by publishers who assert I have no right to mine material on their sites. Legal letters to repositories have required them to remove material. > This is not something to be taken for granted, rather an obvious right to > fight for in copyright law. And that is what I and many other have been fighting for for years. In the UK parliament, In Strasbourg, in Brussels. It may be "obvious" but it is being fought tooth and nail by the STM publishing industry with lobbying and FUD. > Precisely what permissions is not something we need to figure out exactly > in advance. Norms can evolve based on what people do, what they like and > dislike. > > > > > A CC BY document, with only one copy behind the LIcensor's firewall is > not accessible and is therefore operationally closed. If one copy is > published, then it can be copied and cannot be revoked by the licensor. > > Agreed. CC-BY does not necessarily mean open access. A CC-BY license can > be applied to a work that is never shared with anyone at all. A CC-BY > license can be put on a work with technological protection measures that > prevent people from actually using the rights granted. > CC-BY is not sufficient for open access. > In all non-hypothetical cases it has been fully sufficient to grant BOAI-compliant Open Access. Where publishers hide CC-BY material behind firewalls I an others alert the community. It would be nice to have greater support for this. > > >Thank you for acknowledging that the UK has changed its laws to > facilitate data and text mining. > Since I have spent years fighting for this I am happy to publicize it. > > best, > > Heather > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > 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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
