<div dir="ltr">I completely agree with all that Jan Velterop said..<div>copyright has nothing to do in the scientific enterprise today</div><div>The benefits of having all information accessible without any restrictions, and re-usable, the same, are enormous.</div>
<div>When we look at knowledge as something we have to protect, you have to ask protect from what? From risking the chance that your work is improved by being licensed under CC-BY? </div><div>If I remember correctly Mike Taylor at Berlin11 argued that many more billions of dollars are in fact wasted by not being able to share information to the full extent, than can be earned by protecting pieces of info in order to be able to sell them.</div>
<div>I also particularly oppose the notion of protecting the taxpayers property in one country from being used freely by citizens in other countries. The idea of open access restricted to one country is non-sense. How shortsighted can you be? People playing with these ideas probably implicitly suppose that their country will produce all (the good science).</div>
<div>The problem with any licenses is that they can be abused and that people can and will find ways to serve their own interests best. But as said somewhere in this thread that is not the problem of the licensing, but more of quality assurance in science.</div>
<div>Having open access CC-BY fully unrestricted , reusable etc in itself however is not enough to speed up and improve science to the extent possible, we do need networks (of scientist, citizen scientists) and ways to access the open access information more easily and efficiently.</div>
<div>for this a service like described by Mark MacGillivray would be great value and in my view even indispensable As well as the fact that we urgently need a better framework for quality assurance in science..<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Jan Velterop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">I've been following this discussion with increasing bemusement. Frankly, it's getting ridiculous, at least in my humble opinion. A discussion such as this one about licensing and copyright only serves to demonstrate that copyright, once conceived as a way to stimulate and enable science and the arts, has degenerated into a way to frustrate, derange and debilitate knowledge exchange.<div>
<br></div><div>I'm not the first one to point out that absolutely anything, under any copyright licence or none, could be abused for evil purposes or, in more mild circumstances, lead to misunderstandings and accidental abuse. I agree with all those who said it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The issue here is what science and scientific results stand for. Their purpose is emphatically not "to be copyrightable items". Copyright, invented to combat commercial abuse, has become a means of commercial abuse. The purpose of science and scientific results is to enrich the world's knowledge. Any commercial advantage – appropriate for industrially funded research – can be had by 1) keeping results secret (i.e. not publishing them), or 2) getting a patent. Science, particularly modern science, is nothing without a liberal exchange of ideas and information. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Ideally, scientific publications are not copyrightable at all, and community standards take care of proper acknowledgement. We don't live in an ideal world, so we have to get as close as we can to that ideal, and that is by ameliorating the insidious pernicious effects of copyright with CC-Zero and CC-BY licences.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The existence of the NC rider or stipulation for CC licences is unfortunate and quite damaging. Mainly because of the vagueness and ambiguity of what 'commercial use' means. Ideas in published articles can be freely used for commercial purposes of any kind, as ideas are not copyrightable. Only "the way the ideas have been formulated" is covered by copyright, and thus by the NC clause in copyright licences. In my interpretation that means that most usage of published material that is not a straightforward selling of text or images can be freely done. But that's my interpretation. And that's exactly where it rubs, because all the NC clause does is introduce hypothetical difficulties and liabilities. As a result of which, NC practically means: "stay away from using this material, because you never know with all those predatory legal eagles around". In other words, it's virtually useless for modern, sophisticated scientific knowledge discovery, which doesn't just consist of reading papers any longer, but increasingly relies on the ability to machine-process large amounts of relevant information, as human ocular reading of even a fraction of the information is not possible anymore. At least not in most fast-moving areas of the sciences. Read this article, or similar ones, if you want to be convinced: "<font face="Arial">On the impossibility of being expert" </font><span style="font-family:Arial">BMJ 2010; 341 doi:
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6815" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6815</a> (Published 14 December 2010 – unfortunately behind a paywall).</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial"><br></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Arial">The taxpayer angle ("must be open because the taxpayer paid for it"), leading to Kent Andersonian notions of knowledge protectionism ("results of research paid by US taxpayers should not be available to non-US citizens unless they pay for it"), is a most unfortunate, visceral and primitive reaction and a complete red herring. For many reasons, not least because the taxpayer, or vicariously the taxman, isn't the party that pockets any money payed for paywalled information. Besides, how far do you go? Americans not being allowed to stay alive due to a cure that was developed with public money in Switzerland unless they pay through the nose for it to the Swiss tax authorities? The "as-long-as-I-am-well-the-rest-of-you-can-go-to-hell" personality disorder. The whole idea is so against the ethos of science that those even thinking in that direction must be taken to be utterly and entirely unsuitable to any role in the scientific community. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Arial"><br></span></div><div><font face="Arial">Access control and restriction via copyright was at best a necessary evil in the print era; the 'necessary', though, has disappeared in the web environment.</font></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Arial"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial">Have a nice day!</span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><span style="font-family:Arial"><br></span></div><div>
<span style="font-family:Arial">Jan Velterop</span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></font></span><div><div><div class="h5">On 27 Jan 2014, at 18:55, Heather Morrison <<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca" target="_blank">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a>> wrote:</div>
</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>hi Mark,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Under automatic copyright a copyright holder has the exclusive right to authorize derivatives. Mike's e-mail to the list falls under copyright, so yes, you could make the argument that I have infringed his rights (both the exclusive right to authorize
derivatives and possibly his moral rights). On the other hand, an argument can be made that this use is perfectly legitimate under fair use / fair dealing as quotation for the purpose of criticism.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The situation would be similar with this quotation, a derivative of Bjoern's words copied below:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Brembs, B. on "Mike Taylor words with Heather Morrison's good manners": "This is a perfect example of why we should NOT have CC-BY. It's not working!"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My purpose in creating and sharing this example is scholarly criticism. I understand that my example does not reflect the meaning Brembs intended. However, if people are using CC licenses to grant blanket rights to create derivatives of their works to
anyone, anywhere, it is possible that people creating adaptations may think they understand the words of the original author but the original author might not agree with their interpretation. I am using this illustration to explain why not every scholar is
keen to grant blanket permission to anyone, anywhere to create derivatives of their work. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When discussing open access policy with respect to derivatives, it may be helpful to realize that "derivative" is not the same as "good, useful derivative". A derivative work can be an improvement, benign, or harmful. Either improvements or harms can be
negligible or significant.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If some scholars and publishers wish to experiment with blanket derivatives, that's their right. What I object to is policy requiring everyone to participate in the experiment. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Heather MOrrison</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On 2014-01-27, at 12:03 PM, Mark MacGillivray <<a href="mailto:mark@cottagelabs.com" target="_blank">mark@cottagelabs.com</a>></div>
<div> wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr"><br>
On 27 Jan 2014 16:58, "Bjoern Brembs" <<a href="mailto:b.brembs@gmail.com" target="_blank">b.brembs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Monday, January 27, 2014, 5:27:45 PM, you wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Mike Taylor wrote: "Heather, with all due respect this is complete nonsense".<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > The actually respectful derivative: ""Heather, with all<br>
> > due respect I disagree". (attribution: Mike Taylor, good<br>
> > manners contributed by Heather Morrison).<br>
><br>
> Perfect! If this is this an example of why we should NOT have CC BY, it's not working.</p><p dir="ltr">Indeed. And now I am free to compare the two, and decide if Heather was correct to imply that Mike was disrespectful, or if she misrepresented him.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Although, did Heather just infringe Mikes reserved rights?</p><p dir="ltr">Mark<br>
</p><p dir="ltr">><br>
> Bjoern<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Björn Brembs<br>
> ---------------------------------------------<br>
> <a href="http://brembs.net/" target="_blank">http://brembs.net</a><br>
> Neurogenetics<br>
> Universität Regensburg<br>
> Germany<br>
><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div></div></div><div class="im">
_______________________________________________<br>open-access mailing list<br><a href="mailto:open-access@lists.okfn.org" target="_blank">open-access@lists.okfn.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access" target="_blank">https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access" target="_blank">https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
open-access mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:open-access@lists.okfn.org">open-access@lists.okfn.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access" target="_blank">https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access" target="_blank">https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div>Tom Olijhoek<br>Codex Consult</div><div><a href="http://www.codexconsult.eu" target="_blank">www.codexconsult.eu</a></div><div>coordinator @ccess open access working group at OKF</div>
<div>DOAJ member of Advisory Board</div><div>freelance advisor for the WorldBank Publishing Group</div><div>TEL +(31)645540804</div><div>SKYPE tom.olijhoek</div><div>Twitter @ccess</div><div>LinkedIn <a href="http://nl.linkedin.com/in/tomolijhoek/" target="_blank">http://nl.linkedin.com/in/tomolijhoek/</a></div>
<div><br></div></div>
</div></div></div>