2008/12/3 Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Klaus Graf <klausg...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> 2008/12/2 Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>: >> >> As I have shown according German law it is not possible for all >> researchers >> >> to data-crunch digital documents. > > Until you show how and why any German researcher cannot do exactly the same > thing I can do with any peer-reviewed journal article I find on the web, I > am afraid you have not shown anything at all.
Read carefully http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4851871/ and don't ignore that, although I am not a lawyer, I am a copyright expert in German law. > >> >> As I have shown the button is in Germany illegal > > No, I'm afraid you have not *shown* that the (email eprint request) button > is illegal in Germany. You have merely *said* that it is. No I have given enough legal arguments at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ I didn't read from you any substantial legal argument rejecting my conclusions based on my knowledge of German copyright law. >> >> and my few tests make it clear that it is realistic not to speak of 37 % >> but let us say >> of 10 %. > > The 63%/37% figure comes from the 10,198 journals indexed by Romeo (and this > includes most of the top international journals). It is not clear what > sample your "few tests" are based on. I have given the numbers at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5247312/ and for the U of Tasmania repository in this list. Zurich: 6 requested, not got 5 St. Gallen: 6 requested, not got 6 (read the confirmation of the repository manager that the success rate is low) Tasmania: 7 requested, not got 5 Summa summarum: 19 requested, got 3 The button wasn't tested by ROMEO. You are manipulating the facts. If the success rate of the button is poor you cannot say that the rest of 37 % will be reached by the button. Klaus Graf