[Open-access] Letter to publishers - URGENT

[Mike Taylor]

That all looks good to me.  Only one nit to pick: the statement "facts
are not copyright" is an apples-to-elephants comparison.  We should
say something like "facts are not SUBJECT TO copyright".

No doubt many of the replies you receive will attempt to finesse the
issue by saying things that (they feel) fall short of an actual "no",
such as "we except that the amount should be limited".  We should not
ignore such detail, but clearly we mustn't allow it to blur the clear
picture that we want to present.  So my suggestion is that we present
the results of this survey as a list of YES and NO in bold; but then
include an annex with the detailed statements.

Finally, I don't know which publishers you plan to contact, but please
be sure to include some YESses, such as PLoS, as well as the Elseviers
and Springers.  Otherwise if we end up with a document that is just
NO, NO, NO all the way down, we risk making it seem as though the
publishing industry has a united front supporting a reasonable
position, and we are unreasonable for wanting/expecting it to be
different.  Instead, we want to draw lines between the publishers that
co-operate and those that don't.

-- Mike.


On 5 March 2012 08:51, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>