This seems like trading off the potential for minor revenues/royalties — even no more than hypothetical in most instances — against the benefit of unrestricted open access for science and scholarship.
In my view this amounts to "profit spite". With a CC-BY-NC licence, why would the OA publisher be exempted from the NC clause? 'Non-commercial' is terribly ambiguous (what's 'commercial', and how far downstream does it apply?), and for that reason subject to potential unintended infringement and the ©-trolling that comes with that. In effect, that means that due to sensible self-censorship, any re-use is best avoided. That in turn means that the article with a CC-BY-NC licence is not truly BOAI-compliant open access, but merely 'ocular access' instead. Unsatisfactory for modern research and scholarship. Jan Velterop On 29 Jan 2013, at 09:55, Editor Living Reviews wrote: > > I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals > with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC. > > First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that > >> anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free? > > Our long review articles would make perfect (text-)books if anyone could > sell them without asking for publisher's or the author's permission. > Example: > > The open access review "The Post-Newtonian Approximation for > Relativistic Compact Binaries" (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-2) > was republished by Oxford UP as a major part of "Equations of Motion in > General Relativity" > (http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584109.001.0001) > in 2011. > > Original price at amazon.com: $98.50 for 156 pages! > > Of course, this example does not completely illustrate the possible > misuse of CC-BY: here, the author agreed to the commercial reprint, and > the original review was extended by other authors' contributions. > However, they could have easily sold only the Futamase part as a book. > > With CC-BY, the publisher would not even have to ask the authors or > original OA publisher for reprint permission. Moreover, the authors (who > usually write time-consuming reviews in addition to their publicly > funded research) would not financially benefit from this commercial > reuse in any way. Therefore, our authors would object to Peter > Murray-Rust, who has > >> never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY. > > In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell > them on amazon, why wouldn't there be a marked for commercial OA reprints? > > (And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least > it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...) > > > Frank > > > > > -- > > ====================================================== > Frank Schulz | Managing Editor > Living Reviews BackOffice > > MPI for Gravitational Physics > (Albert Einstein Institute) > Am Muehlenberg 1 > 14476 Potsdam | Germany > > email: edito...@aei.mpg.de > tel: +49 (0)331 567 7115 > > http://www.livingreviews.org > ====================================================== > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
