Please read the definitive article on the button http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268511/ and elsewhere, given by Stevan Harnad but not written solely by him, rather than coming up with new interpretations. Yes the document is slightly oriented to Canada because it is in press as a book chapter, but it is applicable to jurisdictions across the world (the authors live in four countries and have links to at least three more). It demonstrates clearly how the button is based on the fair use and fair dealing provisions of the copyright acts around the world, coordinated by the Berne Convention. Its status is hardly dubious.
'Personal use' is irrelevant, whatever it is. Research is not 'personal', or at least only in minimal senses. Arthur Sale Tasmania -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of P Burnhill Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013 6:59 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; Lib Serials list Subject: [GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] 1st-Party Give-Aways vs. 3rd-Party Rip-Offs Good post. P On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Sandy Thatcher wrote: > Technically, it probably is better to regard the eprint request Button > as a function facilitating personal use rather than fair use. (Stevan > once used to call this the "fair use button.") The Copyright Act of > 1976 does not directly address personal use, as it does fair use in > Sec. 107, except in an addition that was later made to deal with home > audiotaping. The concept has arisen in some court cases, most notably > the Sony case involving "time-shifting" of videotaping of TV shows for > later viewing. But there remains a lot of debate about what personal > use covers. It will likely be a subject of much discussion in the > forthcoming hearings in Congress over comprehensive reform of copyright law. > > Sandy Thatcher > > > At 10:37 AM -0400 8/7/13, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> If supplying eprints to requesters could be >> <https://theconversation.com/neuroscientists-need-to-embrace-open-acc >> ess-publishing-too-16736#comment_198916>delegated >> to 3rd parties like Repository Managers to perform automatically, >> then they would become violations of copyright contracts. >> What makes the >> <https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy>eprint-request >> Button legal is the fact that it is the author who decides, in each >> individual instance, whether or not to comply with an individual >> eprint request for his own work; it does not happen automatically. >> Think about it: If it were just the fact of requesters having to do >> two keystrokes for access instead of just one (OA), then the >> compliance keystroke might as well have been done by software rather >> than the Repository Manager! And that would certainly not be >> compliance with a publisher OA embargo. "Almost OA" would just become 2-stroke OA. >> >> No. What makes the >> <https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy>eprint-request >> Button both legal and subversive is that >> <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0671.html>it is >> not 3rd-party piracy (by either a Repository Manager or an automatic >> computer >> programme) but >> <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/262893/1/resolution.html#9.1>1st-party >> provision of individual copies, to individual requesters, for >> research purposes, by the author, in each individual instance: the >> latter alone continues the long accepted tradition of >> reprint-provision by scholars and scientists to their own work. >> If reprint-request cards had been mailed instead to 3rd-parties who >> simply photocopied anyone's articles and mailed them to requesters >> (with or without a fee) the practice would have been attacked in the >> courts by publishers as piracy long ago. >> >> The best way to undermine the Button as a remedy against publisher OA >> mandates, and to empower the publishing lobby to block it, would be >> to conflate it with 2-stroke 3rd-party OA! >> >> That practice should never be recommended. >> >> Rather, make crystal clear the fundamental difference between >> 1st-party give-away and 3rd-party rip-off. >> >> >> [Parenthetically: Of course it is true that all these legal and >> technical distinctions are trivial nonsense! It is an ineluctable >> fact that the online PostGutenberg medium has made technically and >> economically possible and easily feasible what was technically and >> economically impossible in the Gutenberg medium: to make all refereed >> research articles -- each, without exception, an author give-away, >> written purely for research impact rather than royalty income -- >> immediately accessible to all would-be users, not just to >> subscribers: OA. That outcome is both optimal and inevitable for >> research; researchers; their institutions; their funders; the R&D >> industry; students; teachers; journalists; the developing world; >> access-denied scholars and scientists; the general public; research >> uptake, productivity, impact and progress; and the tax-payers who >> fund the research. The only parties with whose interests that optimal >> outcome is in conflict are the refereed-research publishers who had >> been providing an essential service to research in the Gutenberg era. >> It is that publishing "tail" that is now trying to wag the research >> "dog," to deter and delay what is optimal and inevitable for research >> for as long as possible, by invoking Gutenberg-era pseudo-legal >> pseudo-technicalities to try to embargo OA, by holding it hostage to >> their accustomed revenue streams and modus operandi. OA mandates, the >> immediate-deposit clause, and the eprint-request Button are the >> research community's means of mooting these delay tactics and >> hastening the natural evolution to the optimal and inevitable outcome >> in the PostGutenberg era.] >> >> Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) >> <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>Open Access Mandates and the >> "Fair Dealing" Button. In: >> <http://www.utppublishing.com/Dynamic-Fair-Dealing-Creating-Canadian- >> Culture-Online.html>Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture >> Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.) > > > -- > Sanford G. Thatcher > 8201 Edgewater Drive > Frisco, TX 75034-5514 > e-mail: s...@psu.edu > Phone: (214) 705-1939 > Website: http://www.psupress.org/news/SandyThatchersWritings.html > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher > > "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > > "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people > who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > ********** ********* ******** ******* ****** ***** **** *** ** * Peter Burnhill Director, EDINA national data centre & Head, Data Library Causewayside House University of Edinburgh 160 Causewayside Edinburgh EH Scotland, UK tel: +44 (0) 131 650 3301 fax: 3308 mobile: +44 (0) 774 0763 119 Email: p.burnh...@ed.ac.uk URL http://edina.ac.uk -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
