[open-bibliography] Orphan data

Fri Mar 2 17:18:48 UTC 2012

On 3/2/12 8:27 AM, Mark MacGillivray wrote:

>
> If we provide such a space / concept / logo, then we at the same time
> promote the idea that things found say just on the internet with no
> claims attached to them are not freely available.

Sorry, Mark, I need you to unpack this a bit. Are you saying that this 
is a good thing or a bad thing?

Promoting such a
> default stance would do nothing except promote the interests of people
> who want to own everything. As long as people are indoctrinated into
> thinking they are not allowed to do what they want, then they will not
> be allowed to do what they want.

As per copyright law, any "work" created is covered by copyright 
regardless of explicit statements claiming rights. That's standard Berne 
convention. So documents, videos, sounds, are all covered by copyright. 
Thus: CC to allow people to make their preferences clear on things that 
they have created. Data is the exception and it's so complex and 
convoluted that no one knows what data is and is not covered by 
copyright. Thus PDDL and other data licenses. Those of us who want our 
data widely used unfortunately need to make a declaration of that 
nature. It's actually a service to the potential end users who then 
don't have to worry or wonder because they have a clear statement of the 
status.

kc

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Does this sound like an idea?
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>> On 3/2/12 2:54 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Owen Stephens<owen at ostephens.com
>>> <mailto:owen at ostephens.com>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>     So why not setup a clearing house service by which OKF takes
>>>     orphaned data (or other with unclear rights) and publishes it with
>>>     an open license?
>>>
>>>     The Open Library doesn't go this far in terms of asserting a
>>>     license, opting for the vague "It's complicated". However,
>>>     anecdotally, by acting as an intermediary with an 'open' intent,
>>>     they have enabled re-use that otherwise might have been seen as too
>>>     risky.
>>>
>>>
>>> I like Owen's phrase.
>>>
>>> There is also the pragmatic and possibly legal defence of "best
>>> endeavour". If we tell the world what we are doing very visibly and
>>> after a period then take action then at the very least the damages would
>>> be much reduced.
>>>
>>> We can't protect against submarine suits  but I doubt that's the case
>>> here.
>>>
>>>     Owen
>>>
>>>     Owen Stephens
>>>     Owen Stephens Consulting
>>>     Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>>>     Email: owen at ostephens.com<mailto:owen at ostephens.com>
>>>
>>>     Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>>>
>>>     On 2 Mar 2012, at 09:54, William Waites wrote:
>>>
>>>      >  On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:30:36 -0800, Karen Coyle
>>>     <kcoyle at kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle at kcoyle.net>>  said:
>>>      >
>>>      >>  don't think so. It's either yours or not yours, I don't think
>>>      >>  that you can license something unless you've got some legal
>>>      >>  right to it, and I don't think that a claim can establish that
>>>      >>  right. (OK, it worked for conquerers and the entire manifest
>>>      >>  destiny across this continent, but I think someone might call
>>>      >>  you out if you tried it today.)
>>>      >
>>>      >  I like this thread.
>>>      >
>>>      >  Ownership is not something magic, it comes from the ability to
>>>     enforce
>>>      >  some sort of exclusive right of use or occupation. That's literally
>>>      >  backed up by the threat of force. Often we don't see that played out
>>>      >  in places like Europe and North America these days because if I
>>>     go and
>>>      >  occupy, you'll call the police and they'll happily use force to
>>>     remove
>>>      >  me -- that's what police are for. That's so ingrained as to be
>>>     obvious
>>>      >  so it just isn't done.
>>>      >
>>>      >  Similarly with copyright, they'll take you, physically, and put
>>>     you in
>>>      >  jail and shoot you if you try to escape if you try to go too far in
>>>      >  flaunting the system and step on someone with the will and clout to
>>>      >  insist on their rights' toes.
>>>      >
>>>      >  Is there any likelihood at all that in this situation *anybody* is
>>>      >  going to pursue things to a level even approaching that? Most likely
>>>      >  not. The worst that will happen is someone might write a blog post
>>>      >  saying they disagree.
>>>      >
>>>      >  So I agree with Mark. Just assert ownership so far as to explicitly
>>>      >  put the thing in the public domain. If someone comes out of the
>>>      >  woodwork and disagrees it might make for an interesting
>>>      >  discussion. I'd wager even that won't happen.
>>>      >
>>>      >  Don' worry! :)
>>>      >
>>>      >  Cheers,
>>>      >  -w
>>>      >  _______________________________________________
>>>      >  open-bibliography mailing list
>>>      >  open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>>     <mailto:open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org>
>>>
>>>      >  http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     open-bibliography mailing list
>>>     open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>>     <mailto:open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org>
>>>
>>>     http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>> University of Cambridge
>>> CB2 1EW, UK
>>> +44-1223-763069
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> open-bibliography mailing list
>>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-bibliography mailing list
>> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet