On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Peter**** > > ** ** > > To what extent does “fair-use” over-ride the publisher wishes? > In http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/blog/fair-use/lessig-fair-use-and-open-video-allianceLessig reiterates "fair use if the right to call a lawyer". EVERYTHING depends on the law. The law of the land trumps everything. If I am arrested in a police station I have rights. I know them by heart - I have been there so many times. "You have the right to remain silent". The law and case law gives me that right. In scholpub there are two laws: * the law of the land. It differs by jurisdiction. There is no "fair use" in UK. In other jurisdictions it may depend on case law or it may depend on getting a judicial review. In scholpub there is no case law because no University would dare to challenge the publishers - it is left to individuals (I do not expect my University to help me in this regard) * the law of the publishers. The publishers have set their own arbitrary law through their contracts. You may NOT do x,y,z. There is no reason why universities have to agree to these contracts but they universally and comprehensively give in to the publishers. They even agree to secrecy on these negotiations so we don't even know what they have given into. Hargreaves has said that these contracts are unacceptable and they should be removed. The IPO(UK) and other organs are in the process of reviewing submissions to Hargreaves and will come up with legal instruments (not necessarily acts of Parliament) which will (I hope) forbid restrictive contracts. Alicia Wise asks how she can help. Elsevier set these restrictions - Elsevier can remove them today if they wished. If she is true to form there will be lots of apparently helpful words that "we want to help" but no absolute permission. Read what she writes carefully to see if she has actually given any substance or it's only "let's start a discussion". Discussions have wasted three year of my research and made no progress. > It seems to me that the Australian copyright act is quite clear about > using copyright material for criticism, legal purposes, extracting data, > etc, but I am not an expert in UK law. **** > > ** ** > > Lawyers could have a good argument too about whether copyright acts say > anything about eyeballing whatsoever. Is automatic text speaking (for blind > persons) not permitted, or reading aloud by others? Can the speech program > not index the material so one can find something one heard earlier? > The great thing about being a l;awyer is that people like me have to pay lots of money to find out what I can and cannot do. The Universities should do this. P. > **** > > ** ** > > This whole mess depends on totally obsolete copyright legislation.**** > > ** ** > > And on publishers who are unwilling to change their business model. The real problem for Open Access is the publishers, isn't it. -- 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
