If people are foolish enough to sign away even those
rights, then the publishers can impose their will
accordingly - alas
Charles
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:32:53 +0100
leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Charles,
>
> According to your last sentence publishers have no say
>on so called pre-prints. Yet, Sherpa/RoMeo tells us that
>so called 'white' publishers (36%) do not allow
>self-archiving of pre-prints. Isn't that a contradiction?
>
> Leo.
>
> Charles Oppenheim wrote:
>> Arthur is wrong on his final point. When an author
>>assigns copyright
>> to a publisher, the author gives away all rights. It is
>>equivalent to
>> selling your house, your car or anything else. Once
>>you've sold it,
>> you've no right to enjoy it's use any more, even though
>>you were the
>> previous owner.
>>
>> So when an author assigns copyright to a publisher, he
>>or she has no
>> rights to keep a back up copy, store it in a repository,
>>etc., UNLESS
>> the publisher graciously gives permission for the author
>>to do so.
>> But what the publisher cannot do is demand deletion,
>>etc., of earlier
>> drafts of the manuscript, because the author has only
>>assigned the
>> final accepted version to the publisher.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:01:59 +1100
>> Arthur Sale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Talat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me assure you that you should credit that a court
>>>would accept a
>>> case
>>> that repositories fulfil other functions. Indeed in
>>>Australia we
>>> could argue
>>> that they are required by the Federal Government for the
>>>purpose of
>>> institutional publication reporting and research
>>>evaluation.
>>> Tasmanian law
>>> requires the university to keep records for long-term
>>>preservation
>>> under the
>>> Archives Act and so do most States.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The other point you miss is that publishers have no
>>>rights to prohibit a
>>> restricted copy being mounted in a repository. If an
>>>author chooses
>>> to keep
>>> a copy of his or her article in one computer system or
>>>another (or is
>>> required to place a copy in a particular one) is of no
>>>concern
>>> whatsoever to
>>> a publisher. They might as well demand that the author
>>>delete the
>>> manuscript
>>> from their personal PC once it has been published!
>>>Indeed my
>>> departmental
>>> backup system makes regular copies from my PC somewhere
>>>and I don't
>>> bother
>>> enquiring where, nor does any publisher of my work.
>>>Neither do they
>>> demand
>>> that a particular filing cabinet be used for any paper
>>>drafts. None
>>> of this
>>> is of any concern to a publisher.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You and I have had this argument before and you persist
>>>in this view,
>>> but it
>>> cannot go unchallenged if you keep making it. It does
>>>not stand up to
>>> examination.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arthur Sale
>>>
>>> University of Tasmania
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Repositories discussion list
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> On Behalf Of Talat Chaudhri
>>> Sent: Saturday, 14 February 2009 2:57 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, as Charles points out, the only way of doing it
>>>legally is to get
>>> the author to give permission to a private requester.
>>>The technology
>>> used has to allow for that, with an appropriate security
>>>mechanism to
>>> make sure nobody else gets it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never been clear whether a repository has a right
>>>to store such a
>>> copy on a restricted basis in the first place if the
>>>publisher says it
>>> may not, but it's often contended that this is allowed
>>>for
>>> administrative purposes. Since repositories are
>>>demonstrably not
>>> intended for that, and since the button is in place in
>>>such a scenario,
>>> the intent seems to me to be to solicit requests and
>>>therefore to
>>> redistribute. To my uninformed mind that would look like
>>>storing a copy
>>> in breach of copyright. The response I've had in the
>>>past from Stevan
>>> Harnad and others is, uncharacteristically I might add,
>>>that
>>> repositories may serve purposes other than distributing
>>>content on the
>>> web. I find it hard to credit that any court would be as
>>>simple-minded
>>> as to swallow that argument, should the issue ever
>>>arise. It hasn't come
>>> to court so far, so let's hope it never does. Perhaps
>>>any such case
>>> would be unprovable anyway, but it would be nice to know
>>>the legal
>>> position on storing a copy in a retrieval system, as one
>>>often sees the
>>> phrase in copyright statements in published books.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps Charles has the answer to this? Clearly if one
>>>can't store a
>>> copy, the issue of the button would never arise unless
>>>the publisher
>>> specifically allowed a restricted-access copy to be
>>>held, rather
>>> contrary to the purpose of their opposition to OA and
>>>presumably thus a
>>> rare occurrence. If there are reasonable legal grounds
>>>to hold a
>>> restricted-access copy in a repository despite the
>>>publisher's lack of
>>> permission, then the issue evaporates.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Talat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Rankin wrote:
>>>
>>>> I may have misunderstood the thread
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I had read it that the eprint request would
>>>>automatically email the
>>>> paper
>>> without intervention from the author.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Is it that the eprint request sends a message to the
>>>>author to email
>>>> the
>>> paper?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Ricky
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>
>>>> From: Repositories discussion list
>>>> [[log in to unmask]] On
>>> Behalf Of Talat Chaudhri [[log in to unmask]]
>>>
>>>> Sent: 13 February 2009 15:32
>>>
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Any transport protocol would seem fine provided that the
>>>>author's
>>>> active
>>>
>>>> consent is incorporated into the process for each
>>>>personal request.
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, HTTP doesn't work that way. I suppose the
>>>>system could
>>>
>>>> instead send a unique authentication code by email to
>>>>the person who
>>>
>>>> wanted to see it by HTTP whereas normally it would be
>>>>restricted,
>>>> but it
>>>
>>>> would have to work only once in case they shared it
>>>>against the
>>>> author's
>>>
>>>> wishes - so what would be the advantage over sending it
>>>>by email?
>>>> Unless
>>>
>>>> of course one has an account on the repository or
>>>>another linked
>>>
>>>> service, again requiring the author's permission - but
>>>>are people
>>>> really
>>>
>>>> going to use one FB-type service for academia and
>>>>request/give
>>>
>>>> permissions through it? Isn't it simpler to use email?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Ian Stuart wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Ricky Rankin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Sorry to return to this.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> As I understand the arguement goes that by including a
>>>>>>eprint request
>>>
>>>>>> link/button it is OK to email the publishers pdf as this
>>>>>>is the same
>>>
>>>>>> as sending a copy through the post.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> A computing colleague has asked why is ths different
>>>>>>than displaying
>>>
>>>>>> the pdf on the screen of the requester's screen as http
>>>>>>is just
>>>
>>>>>> another transport protocol?
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> The difference is that the paper is not Openly
>>>>>available: The author
>>>
>>>>> of the paper makes a concious decision to produce a copy
>>>>>for a fellow
>>>
>>>>> academic
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> An Open Access (true Open Access) article would have the
>>>>>paper
>>>
>>>>> available without restriction.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>> Dr Talat Chaudhri
>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> Research Officer
>>>
>>>> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, Great Britain
>>>
>>>> Telephone: +44 (0)1225 385105 Fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
>>>
>>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask] Skype: talat.chaudhri
>>>
>>>> Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/t.chaudhri/
>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Dr Talat Chaudhri
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Research Officer
>>>
>>> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, Great Britain
>>>
>>> Telephone: +44 (0)1225 385105 Fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
>>>
>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask] Skype: talat.chaudhri
>>>
>>> Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/t.chaudhri/
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
|