On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Couture Marc <couture.marc at teluq.ca> wrote:
> > > I agree that putting a CC-BY Work behind a paywall is almost certainly > dishonest, if not fraudulent, because it makes sense only if you somehow > hide the fact that the work is freely available elsewhere. Things are > different for a derivative work, which may offer enough added value to > justify a fee. And such a work is not bound by the Work?s license > conditions (unless SA is added). It's here that the NC option plays its > intended role: an author decides if others can make money (by adding a > paywall, say) or not from derivative works based upon his or her work. > FWIW in 2007 the British LIbrary charged 24 GBP for access to my Open Access articles. see http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2007/09/09/the-british-unlibrary/ this has screenshots of the BL charges. I entered into considerable correspondence and I think the conclusions was that it was too much trouble to work out what articles were open access so it was easier t charge for all of them. I have no idea where the money ended up. The BL did say that if you came to the actual reading room at St Pancras it was free (but you have to pay the train fare). But maybe it's changed after 5 years and maybe it hasn't. I don't have time to check. > ** > > Marc Couture**** > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120325/6b12f951/attachment.html
