[Open-access] [open-science] Elsevier caught selling articles that should have been open access

[Klaus Graf]

A higher German court has said that the court Peter cited was wrong.

http://www.offenenetze.de/2014/11/26/olg-koeln-zur-cc-by-noncommercial-einige-gedanken/
(German)

Klaus Graf

2015-03-10 21:09 GMT+01:00 Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>:

> NC DOES prevent use in the Classroom in Germany
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml
> - this is a Court decision. NC is "only for personal use". Text and Data
> mining has not been tested in court so I cannot be legally definitive.
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:14 PM, William Gunn <william.gunn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't know the specific details of this case & am not the person to
>> discuss it, but I can say that according to the folks I've been talking to
>> on the publisher side, NC does not prevent text and data mining, nor does
>> it prevent use in the classroom. It's really about selling the content
>> itself.
>>
>>
>> William Gunn
>> +1 (650) 614-1749
>> http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:17 AM, S.C. Edmunds <
>>> scott at gigasciencejournal.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anybody want to buy some reprints
>>>> <https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=Wiley&publication=CLM&title=HIV%20infection%20en%20route%20to%20endogenization%3A%20two%20cases&publicationDate=18%20DEC%202014&author=P.%20Colson%2CI.%20Ravaux%2CC.%20Tamalet%2CO.%20Glazunova%2CE.%20Baptiste%2CE.%20Chabriere%2CA.%20Wiedemann%2CC.%20Lacabaratz%2CM.%20Chefrour%2CC.%20Picard%2CA.%20Stein%2CY.%20Levy%2CD.%20Raoult&startPage=1280&endPage=1288&copyright=%C2%A9%202014%20The%20Authors%20Clinical%20Microbiology%20and%20Infection%20%C2%A9%202014%20European%20Society%20of%20Clinical%20Microbiology%20and%20Infectious%20Diseases&contentID=10.1111%2F1469-0691.12807&orderSource=Wileyonline&orderBeanReset=true&oa=creativeCommonsBy-nc-nd>?
>>>> Would it be "quintuple dipping" if so? One of the reasons the more old
>>>> school publishers are thought to be trying to cling on to the NC clauses in
>>>> their "OA" offerings is that they don't want to lose revenue from reprints
>>>> and other similar transactions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I have done a lot of checking in the past in this respect and it's very
>>> common. Haven't checked this one...
>>>
>>> Yes, you are right. The NC is driven by reprints and the justification
>>> for it is - that publishers give to authors - is almost completely
>>> specious. Unfortunately some academics believe CC-NC protects their moral
>>> rights (it doesn't) and the whole area is seriously MUDdied and FUDdled.
>>> CC-NC:
>>> * prevents reuse (without permission) of material for teaching
>>> * protects the publishers reprint market.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>> University of Cambridge
>>> CB2 1EW, UK
>>> +44-1223-763069
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-science mailing list
>>> open-science at lists.okfn.org
>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20150310/cb7713e6/attachment-0002.html>