[Open-access] Letter to publishers - URGENT

Mon Mar 5 08:51:15 UTC 2012

I'd like to get a letter from this group to 8 publishers, hopefully by end
of today. The letter will be based on
http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/03/04/information-mining-and-hargreaves-i-set-out-the-absolute-rights-for-readers-non-negotiable/
where I set out our demands for our rights. These are not negotiable.

I originally wrote

*I want to extract as many facts as I can from the scientific literature
and publish them (as CC0) for me and others to do science with, to build
new scientific tools and improve the quality of science.

I would suggest rewording this to

*
*We assert that subscribers [1] have an absolute right to use machines to
extract facts [2] from the scholarly literature in all forms [3]  in
arbitrarily large amounts [4] whenever they wish [5] and publish the output
as CC0 [6]. This right extends to creating CC0 indexes [7] and summaries
[8]. Publishers have a responsibility to make this process simple and
reliable for all subscribers [9].
*
*
We will then ask the publishers to agree to this and publish whether they
do. There are only three responses:
A. Agree
B. Refuse to agree
C Fail to reply

To guard against C I have prepared a list of people who I know personally
and who I will either assume have the ability to reply or know where in the
organization. This should take care of non-repudiation. The only person I
don't know is in Science/AAAS.

**We shall point them to the Hargreaves review, the IPO call for
submissions. We shall advise them of my blog and this list and indicate
that they are welcome to take part in discourse where they will be treated
courteously.

Please comment on the wording and add supporting material. All discussions
including those with publishers will be made publicly visible

Notes:
1. A subscription to a paper artefact allows the reader to extract facts,
create indexes and makes summaries without requiring permission. We are
asking for this right for legitimate subscribers to electronic journals and
other scholarly artifacts.
2. Facts are not copyright.
3. **Scholarship expresses facts [at least] as text, numbers, tables,
diagrams, images, spoken discourse and video. Machines can reliably extract
facts from all of these*
4. Limitations on volume are unacceptable, just as they are for human
extracters. The parties have a duty to make sure that robots perform in a
friendly manner
5. Scholars should be able to extract information as soon as it appears and
to delve backwards as far as they wish. They should not be dependent on
publishers providing dumps, though this may be a useful additional option.
6. CC0 means that the information can be freely used with no restrictions.
7. There is a traditional right to index the literature. Many indexes are
factual, others involve judgment/classification which can now be provided
by machines
8. There is a traditional right to create summaries of works and publish
them.
9. No publisher should install robots to block legitimate use by
subscribers. No publisher should insert clauses in contracts which militate
against the subscribers' rights. No publisher should require individuals to
ask for permissions or justify their actions.

P.

*
*--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120305/d4daff10/attachment.html>