Morning all,

I don't understand either of the arguments on the list this morning, but maybe 
tits just Friday:-


*         If someone takes freely available content, and then "adds value to 
it" I would expect them to try and get recompense or make a profit from that. 
If so, they are welcome to do so. If it is a worthwhile endeavour then people 
will pay for it (or, if it is worthwhile and repeatable, people will take the 
freely available content and do it themselves, IP permitting). If it is not, 
then people will go back to the original, freely available literature. If it is 
a commercial enterprise investing in work to add value, I see no problem in 
this. The public funded research is still freely available. The commercially 
funded 'added value' is available at a cost.

*         If someone takes a sentence from a CC-BY piece of work, then adds a 
'NOT' into it and misrepresents the author, you have recourse to either force 
them to remove the attribution, or take legal action against them I would 
assume if it could be construed as libel etc. This isn't really unique to 
anything under a CC-BY licence however. If someone is going to misrepresent a 
piece of work deliberately, then I doubt copyright restrictions are high on 
their list of things to check.

Kind regards

James

James Bisset

Academic Liaison Librarian (Research Support)
Durham University Library
Stockton Road
Durham DH1 3LY

Tel: +44 (0)191 334 1586

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Michael Eisen
Sent: 15 March 2013 05:20
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Is CC-BY analogous to toll access?

This is one of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever heard. I requires 
mental gymnastics of an absurd kind to equate a system in which people use 
copyright to heavily restrict content to a system in which works are freely 
available in perpetuity. If people can build services built on top of the 
literature and people want to pay for them, even when the underlying content is 
freely available, that is the definition of added value, and is in no way 
comparable to a system in which the underlying content is private property.

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Heather Morrison 
<hgmor...@sfu.ca<mailto:hgmor...@sfu.ca>> wrote:
A problem with CC-BY: permitting downstream use with no strings attached is the 
toll access model

The Creative Commons - Attribution (CC-BY) only license grants blanket 
permission rights for commercial use to any third party downstream. Proponents 
of CC-BY argue that this will open up the possibility for new commercial 
services to serve scholarship. This may or may not be; this is a speculative 
argument at this point. However, if this happens, this opens up the possibility 
that these new services will be made available on a toll access basis, because 
none of the CC-BY licenses is specific to works that are free of charge.

This is very similar to the current model for dissemination of scholarship. 
Scholarly research is largely funded by the public, whether through research 
grants or university salaries. Scholars must make their work public (publish) 
in order to continue to receive grants, retain their jobs and advance in their 
careers. They give away their work to publishers with no strings attached, 
often signing away all copyright. A few publishers have taken advantage of this 
system to lock up scholarship for their private profit.

One potential outcome of a CC-BY default for scholarship is a next generation 
of Elsevier-like toll access services. Many scholars and the public whose work 
was given away through CC-BY could be unable to afford the latest and best 
services made possible by their contributions. This is just one of the reasons 
to give serious thought to this matter before recommending a CC-BY default. For 
more, please see my Creative Commons and open access critique series.

Thanks to Heather Piwowar for posting an opposing view on google g+ that helped 
me to work through this argument.

from:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/03/a-problem-with-cc-by-permitting.html

best,

Heather Morrison, PhD
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com



_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal



--
Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to