At the Wellcome Trust we also believe that "fair use is not enough" if the benefits of text and data-mining - with its promise of discovering new knowledge - are to be fully realised.
Consequently, as a condition of paying an open access fee, the Trust requires publishers to licence these articles such that they may be freely copied, distributed, displayed, performed and modified into derivative works by any user. Publishers may impose conditions on users in relation to attribution (i.e. users must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor) and commercial use (i.e. specify that the work must not be used for commercial purposes. All publishers which offer a "Wellcome compliant" OA option - which includes, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, OUP etc - now include this licence information in the XML they deposit in PMC. Some publishers (e.g. Springer, OUP) use the CC-BY-NC, and others (e.g. Elsevier, T&F, Society for Endocrinology) have defined their own licences, but again they explicitly allow text-mining and the creation of derivative works. These articles are also made available through PMC's OAI interface, and as such can be downloaded and exposed to text and data-mining services. Conscious that this licence only extends to "gold" OA articles, the Trust is continuing to work with publishers to explore the possibility of developing a similar licence for author manuscripts. Regards Robert Kiley Head of e-Strategy Wellcome Library 183, Euston Road, London. NW1 2BE Tel: 020 7611 8338; Fax: 020 7611 8703; mailto:r.ki...@wellcome.ac.uk Library Web site: http://library.wellcome.ac.uk The Wellcome Trust is a charity, registered in England, no. 210183. Its sole Trustee is the Wellcome Trust Limited, a company registered in England, no 2711000, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE. List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 23:40:54 +0200 From: Klaus Graf <klausg...@googlemail.com> Subject: We do NOT need to update the BBB definition http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/386-Dont-Risk-Getting- Les= s-By-Needlessly-Demanding-More.html Peter Suber has answered at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/price-and-permission-barriers -ag= ain.html Peter Murray-Rust (and I) have often argued that permission barriers must be removed. See e.g. http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4409408/ http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4356023/ (and earlyer posts) See also MacCallum CJ (2007) When Is Open Access Not Open Access? PLoS Biol 5(10): e285 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285 On the recent discussion on textmining and PubMedCentral: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/text-mining-licensed-non-oa-l ite= rature.html http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/non-oa-full-text-for-text- min= ing/ http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=3D1026 Harnad writes: "OA is free online access. With that comes, automatically, the individual capability of linking, reading, downloading, storing, printing off, and data-mining (locally)." "Data-mining (locally)" is nonsense. If I have to mine 1000 articles and are allowed to downlad automatically 10 articles/day I have to wait 100 days. Harnad repeats his ideas as mantras. We can do the same: FAIR USE IS NOT ENOUGH. There are scholars and scientists outside the U.S. under more rigid copyright regimes without Fair Use. Let's have a closer look on the German Copyright law: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__53.html It is allowed to make copies for scholarly use if and only if (i) there are good reasons and (ii) there is no commercial goal ("keinen gewerblichen Zwecken dient"). In my humble opinion medical research in a pharma business is (i) research according BBB (ii) commercial. A scientist in this company may according German law (since January 1, 2008= ) NOT (i) make copies of scholarly articles (=A7 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 UrhG) for schola= rly use (ii) data-mining. On the problems of the new commercial clausula for universities ("Drittmittelforschung") see (in German) the position of the Urheberrechtsb=FCndnis: http://www.dfn.de/fileadmin/3Beratung/Recht/Expertise-3-korb-urhg.pdf =A7 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 allows him making copies (of some articles in a journal issue) on paper or for non-digital use only. Because data mining needs digital use our German pharma scientist has only a chance to mine the CC-BY subset of OA publications (most hybrid journals have AFAIK CC-BY-NC). (i) OA is important for all researchers (including commercial research). (ii) Commercial medical research is important for world's health problems. (iii) Data-mining is a new scientific way to solve medical problems. (iii) Business companies engaged in commercial research cannot and will not afford journal licenses for large-scale data-mining. (SCNR: How many people must die because an OA guru says "There is a need to update BBB" and denies the need of re-use?) There is a simple solution (I will repeat it because it is important like a mantra): * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY Klaus Graf ------------------------------ List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:04:57 +0100 From: Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Subject: Re: We do NOT need to update the BBB definition This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1318632772-364283164-1207779646=:7537 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: <pine.lnx.4.64.0804092324211.7...@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Klaus Graf wrote: > How many people must die because an OA guru says "There is a need to > update BBB" and denies the need of re-use? Ummm, a bit shrill! But here's my (6-step) answer: (1) We have neither price-freedom nor permission-freedom today. (So if people are dying because of that, they're dying.) (2) I am as sure as I am of anything (short of Cartesian certainty) that universal price-freedom (Green OA) not only fulfills most of the immediate needs of researchers, but that it is also the fastest and surest way of eventually achieving permission-freedom too (let's call that Gold OA, for simplicity -- it's not, but it'll do). (3) Now price-freedom can be achieved by self-archiving, and self-archiving can be (and is being) mandated. (4) Insisting now on wrapping permission-freedom into the mandate (copyright-retention) makes it much more difficult and much less likely that consesnus will be reached to adopt a mandate at all -- and if adopted, this stronger p&p mandate seems to require an opt-out option as a compromise (as in Harvard's p&p mandate), which means it is no longer a mandate at all, and compliance is not assured. (5) But (as Peter Suber has very fully understood) I have no reservations at all about stronger mandates (Green price-freedom plus Gold permission-freedom mandates) *if they can be successfully agreed upon, adopted, implemented and fulfilled*. More is always better than less if it can indeed be had; more is only an obstacle if it stands in the way of the less that is already within reach. (6) Harvard's p&p copyright-retention mandate, with an opt-out, is not a mandate. If it nevertheless proves, in 3 years, to deliver nearly 100% p&p OA, then it will be a success (and I will have been wrong). If not, then yet another 3 years will have been lost by needlessly over-reaching -- because we already know that weaker Green deposit (price-freedom) mandates, without opt-out, deliver nearly 100% (Green) OA within 3 years. (And if Harvard's p&p mandate is widely imitated in the meanwhile, instead of a deposit mandate, without even knowing whether it is destined to succeed or fail, then a lot more years of OA will be needlessly lost.) So "How many people must die"? You think fewer if we over-reach, trying unnecessarily for both price-freedom and permission-freedom in the same swoop, at the risk of getting neither. I think fewer if we first grasp what is already within our reach, because it is not only sure to give us most of what we want and need immediately (price-freedom), but it is also the most likely way to get the rest (permission-freedom) thereafter too. (By the way, if we don't update BBB, then Green OA is not OA, and Green OA mandates are not providing what they say and think they are providing, but something else. Nor have I been talking about OA for a decade and a half now, but about something else. "If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved...") "Kripke (1980) gives a good example of how "gold" might be baptized on the shiny yellow metal in question, used for trade, decoration and discourse, and then we might discover "fool's gold," which would make all the sensory features we had used until then inadequate, forcing us to find new ones. He points out that it is even possible in principle for "gold" to have been inadvertently baptized on "fool's gold"! Of interest here are not the ontological aspects of this possibility, but the epistemic ones: We could bootstrap successfully to real gold even if every prior case had been fool's gold. "Gold" would still be the right word for what we had been trying to pick out all along, and its original provisional features would still have provided a close enough approximation to ground it, even if later information were to pull the ground out from under it, so to speak." http://arxiv.org/html/cs/9906002 Amen. Stevan Harnad On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Klaus Graf wrote: > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/386-Dont-Risk-Gettin > g-L= ess-By-Needlessly-Demanding-More.html > > Peter Suber has answered at > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/price-and-permission-barrie > rs-= again.html > > Peter Murray-Rust (and I) have often argued that permission barriers > must be removed. See e.g. > > http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4409408/ > http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4356023/ (and earlyer posts) > > See also > MacCallum CJ (2007) When Is Open Access Not Open Access? PLoS Biol > 5(10): e285 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285 > > On the recent discussion on textmining and PubMedCentral: > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/text-mining-licensed-non-oa > -li= terature.html > http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/non-oa-full-text-for-tex > t-m= ining/ > http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=3D1026 > > Harnad writes: "OA is free online access. With that comes, > automatically, the individual capability of linking, reading, > downloading, storing, printing off, and data-mining (locally)." > > "Data-mining (locally)" is nonsense. If I have to mine 1000 articles > and are allowed to downlad automatically 10 articles/day I have to > wait 100 days. > > Harnad repeats his ideas as mantras. We can do the same: > > FAIR USE IS NOT ENOUGH. > > There are scholars and scientists outside the U.S. under more rigid > copyright regimes without Fair Use. > > Let's have a closer look on the German Copyright law: > > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__53.html > > It is allowed to make copies for scholarly use if and only if > (i) there are good reasons > and > (ii) there is no commercial goal ("keinen gewerblichen Zwecken dient"). > > In my humble opinion medical research in a pharma business is > (i) research according BBB > (ii) commercial. > > A scientist in this company may according German law (since January 1, > 20= 08) NOT > (i) make copies of scholarly articles (=A7 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 UrhG) for > scho= larly use > (ii) data-mining. > > On the problems of the new commercial clausula for universities > ("Drittmittelforschung") see (in German) the position of the > Urheberrechtsb=FCndnis: > http://www.dfn.de/fileadmin/3Beratung/Recht/Expertise-3-korb-urhg.pdf > > =A7 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 allows him making copies (of some articles in a > journal issue) on paper or for non-digital use only. Because data > mining needs digital use our German pharma scientist has only a chance > to mine the CC-BY subset of OA publications (most hybrid journals have > AFAIK CC-BY-NC). > > (i) OA is important for all researchers (including commercial research). > (ii) Commercial medical research is important for world's health > problems= =2E > (iii) Data-mining is a new scientific way to solve medical problems. > (iii) Business companies engaged in commercial research cannot and > will not afford journal licenses for large-scale data-mining. > > (SCNR: How many people must die because an OA guru says "There is a > need to update BBB" and denies the need of re-use?) > > There is a simple solution (I will repeat it because it is important > like a mantra): > > * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY > * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY > * MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY > > Klaus Graf > --1318632772-364283164-1207779646=:7537-- ------------------------------ End of AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM Digest - 8 Apr 2008 to 9 Apr 2008 (#2008-65) ************************************************************************ **************** This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com