Twitter Test Twindles or Twonks

2009-07-31 Thread Stevan Harnad
On 31-Jul-09, at 5:46 AM, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:

 ** Open letter to Professor Stevan Harnad **
 
 Stevan, hi, I'm just back from the UK Web Managers workshop. Your
 name is well known to these people. Your posts  emails get around.
 
 The thing is that the UK university webmasters community is really
 big on using Twitter. I have been bet, in the bar, that I can't get
 you into using it, so I'm hoping to prove people wrong. Twitter is
 really interesting as it's like a broadcast of a phone text message.
 People read it if they follow you and are interested at that time,
 or are doing a search at the current time.
 
 For example, here's the search for what people were saying at the
 event I've just been at:
 http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iwmw2009
 
 Or what people have said about you this week:
 http://search.twitter.com/search?q=harnad
 
 Or open access:
 http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%22open+access%22
 
 Here's a search for what people were twittering DURING a talk I gave
 on Wednesday.
 http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iwmw2009+%23p7
 
 Most modern Internet phones have a tool for posting directly to your
 twitter, so you don't need to be at a computer to use it. It's great
 in talks to see what people
 
 So I really strongly urge you to have a go at using it. I think
 you'll have to think sideways a bit, to make a single point in 140
 characters (the bet was due to people talking about your famously
 long and complicated emails), but if you can adapt to it it would be
 a really powerful way to get your key points and ideas over to
 people who would never engage with a long, well argued discursive
 email.
 
 The rule for this bet is that you need to average one post-per-day
 for 30 days, and that this does not count please read my new blog
 post at http://; style tweets. You can make them, they just
 don't count towards the average.
 
 I'm sure if you signed up to Twitter and sent your username to the
 usual mailing lists, you'll instantly get a good few followers. If
 only that, people will be fascinated to see if you can condense your
 ideas into 140 characters or less!
 
 Good luck!
 --
 Christopher Gutteridge -- http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/cjg
 Lead Developer, EPrints Project, http://eprints.org/
 Web Projects Manager, University of Southampton, School of
 Electronics and Computer Science

Hi Chris,

Well, you've either already won or lost the bet, depending on how you
interpret the rule you have stipulated:

(1) I have been on twitter since Dec 31 2008 as AmSciForum (with
EPrints skywriting logo):
http://twitter.com/AmSciForum/status/1087825446

(2) My tweets have been accelerating steadily to the point where they
just might be approaching one a day these days: 15 in the last 10
days, for example (July 21-31).

(3) The tweets are not exactly in the form please read my new blog
post at http://; -- but, effectively, they do correspond to 1-
sentence summaries of either blog posts or amsci posts.

(4) So if the purpose of the exercise was just to cut down on my
verbosity, I'm afraid the Twitter Test seems to have twindled or even
twonked.

(5) I promise that when the repetitious trivia I keep posting begin
showing the slightest sign of having been understood (let alone taken
on board), I shall give my fingers and brain the rest they long long
for...

Chrs, Stevan


Re: Authors Re-using Their Own Work

2009-07-31 Thread Couture Marc

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:19 AM,

c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.ukc.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote:

 

 

 CO: The query referred to cases where the author has ASSIGNED

 copyright to Sage.  Sage then owns the copyright and is perfectly

 entitled to say what can be done with the article. Crucially, if

 something is not mentioned as permitted, it is forbidden. So if you

 have assigned copyright to Sage, you cannot do anything other than

 those things listed as permitted by Sage.

 

 

One should stress that no copyright owner can prevent a user doing
something that is allowed under one of the so-called exceptions which
are part of copyright laws, like fair use (in US) and fair dealing
(in Canada, UK and Australia).

 

For instance, US Copyright law (§107) states :

 

[...] the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means
specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom
use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

 

In the all the jurisdictions I mentioned, the exceptions allow for
distribution of copies (and note that copy is in no way restricted
to print copy) on an individual basis for research purposes, as
embodied in the traditional practice referred to by Harnad or, more
recently, in the request button,

 

It is true that some criteria must be met for such a use to be
considered fair, most notably the effect of the use upon the market.
But should a case concerning the fairness of the request button be
brought before a court, the publisher would have to demonstrate that
this particular act has indeed significantly reduced its earnings. If
it was the case, it would mean that the scenario of green OA
endangering journals has become a reality, something that may happen
in the future as Harnad (among others) dutifully points out.

 

In the meantime, authors should not hesitate to send copies to those
who are interested in (and don't have access to) their closed-access
(embargoed or otherwise) scholarly articles: after all, one can
hardly imagine other uses than research for these specialized works.

 

I will conclude that there are other instances where copyright owners
have tried to restrict the uses more than what these exceptions
allow. In fact, much of the debate about the anti-copying measures
that are part of Digital Rights Management (DRM) has focussed upon
the fact that such measures, which were meant to restrict unlawful
acts, will also restrict lawful ones. So we must remain alert (and
somewhat sceptical) when trying to decipher what uses a publisher
allow (or forbid).

 

Marc Couture

Télé-université (Université du Québec à Montréal)

mcout...@teluq.uqam.ca
http://www.teluq.uqam.ca/spersonnel/mcouture/home.htm

 

 

 

 

De : American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
De la part de Stevan Harnad
Envoyé : 27 juillet 2009 07:02
À : american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Objet : Authors Re-using Their Own Work

 

 

On 27-Jul-09, at 5:39 AM, [identity deleted] wrote:



Hello Stevan,

Could I ask you to have a quick look at SAGE's terms for Authors
Re-using Their Own Work?  It seems to me that it forbids the email
eprint request button:

http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/journals/permissions/author_use.d
oc

(The link is from this page:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav )

It says you can distribute photocopies of the published article to
your colleagues on an individual basis, but not electronic versions. 
On my reading, there's a 12-month embargo on circulating electronic
copies of the refereed version of the article in any way.  Wouldn't
this prohibit the email eprint request
button? http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html

 

(1) The SAGE 
author-re-usedocument says You can distribute photocopies. It does not say You cannot 
distribute electronic versions. It simply does not
say You can distribute electronic versions.

 

(2) There are many other things the SAGE author-re-use
document does not say you can do with your own work, including that
you can distribute corrected versions, laminated versions, or
versions in Gothic script.

 

(3) And in saying things that you can and cannot do with your own
work, the SAGE author-re-use document is not restricting itself to
the things a publisher can and cannot tell you that you can and
cannot do with your own work. For example, publisher permissions
regarding what you can and cannot do with your pre-submission
preprint prior to acceptance of the refereed postprint are rather
far-fetched (e.g., making corrections in it).

 

(4) But the short answer to your query is this: No, there is nothing
either defensible or enforceable that a publisher can do or say to
prevent a researcher from personally distributing individual copies
of his own research