An interesting observation: are people paying for content or for a service? For example EBSCO are launching a medline package - the subscriber will get full text access to any article indexed in Medline. A very neat idea that I can see being very attractive to medical researchers. But quite a lot of Medline content is free or OA. So should they exclude these items? They (and I) would argue that people are paying for a service which includes OA and non-OA content - to exclude some content from the one-drop-shop would reduce its usefulness to me.
As a comparator, I can get water free from rivers but I'm happy to pay someone to clean it up and pipe it to me. Pippa Sent from my HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "Sally Morris" <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 21:17 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters To: "'Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)'" <goal@eprints.org> Playing devil's advocate: aren't people (arguably) paying for the service provided in gathering together the articles in which they might be interested in an easily accessible/searchable form?  Sally  Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk  ________________________________________________________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Couture Marc Sent: 25 March 2012 17:29 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Libre open access, copyright, patent law, and other intellectual property matters [Apologies for cross-posting]  On March 23, 2012, Klaus Graf wrote:  > > It's illegal to hide CC-BY contributions behind a pawywall. >  quoting the following excerpt of the legal code:  "You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License"  Well, without delving too much into legal intricacies, let's just say that even if it may seem so at first glance, this doesn't mean that giving access to the Work (or to a derivative work based upon the work) through a paywall is forbidden.  If it were, then what would be the purpose of the licenses CC-BY-NC-ND (for the Work) and CC-BY-NC (for derivative works)? Instead, the excerpt above may be interpreted, without disrupting the whole CC logic, as meaning: If "You" give access to a copy of the Work (behind a paywall or not), "You" can't apply to it any DRM technology that would forbid the recipient to reproduce, etc. (all the rights included in the license, see part 3 of legal code) the Work.  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 Workâs 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.  Marc Couture [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
