[open-science] Copyright consultation

Thu Mar 15 18:49:31 UTC 2012

Many thanks Peter,
I know ORG well, especially through Becky Hogge.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Peter Bradwell <
peter at action.openrightsgroup.org> wrote:

> Dear Peter
>
> First of all please let me apologise for contacting you out of the blue. I
> felt inspired to get in touch with you by the recent action over Elsevier's
> position on access to journals. Open Rights Group, where I work, is focused
> on related issues.
>
> Given you signed the Cost of Knowledge petition, I would like to draw your
> attention to an ongoing and, in our opinion, very important review of UK
> copyright law.
>

I am copying in my OKF colleagues (Open Knowledge Foundation) as we are
also preparing a response to Hargreaves. My recent activities have been to
approach publishers with requests for text-mining. I am publishing their
responses. Most of them requires me to get their permission (which I find
unacceptable

>
> From the perspective of users of copyright works this the first major
> revision of copyright in over twenty years – in fact the first revision
> since Tim Berners-Lee wrote the first internet browser in 1990. It is
> perhaps an understatement to say that much has changed because of this in
> the way that we access knowledge.
>
> The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is currently consulting on a range
> of measures to make the law reflect  modern day technology with particular
> relevance to academics.  However many of the recommendations are being
> opposed by the publishing and entertainment industries, and it is therefore
> important that the voice of academics is heard. We have produced a brief
> guide to the issues<http://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/files/pdfs/Hargreaves%20Helpers.pdf> for
> those responding from education and research perspectives, and have pulled
> out the full list of consultation questions<http://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/files/pdfs/Hargreaves%20Consultation%20Questions.pdf>
> .
>
> These will be very useful to my colleagues. BTW I was invited to talk with
Ben Hawes at the IPO.

> The suggested amendments include proposals to:
>
>    - Allow non-commercial researchers to text and data mine material they
>    have lawful access to (e.g. the web / subscribed to journal databases etc).
>    (on page 79-82 of the consultation, and addressed in question 77)
>    - Allow digital archiving. (p.70-72 / Q.72)
>    - Extend research copying (“fair dealing”) to sound and film, and
>    allow librarians to make copies on behalf of researchers. (p.74 – 77 / Q.75)
>    - Widen the existing copyright exception for quotation to allow
>    information, analysis, argument or comment. (p.105 / Q.94.)
>    - Facilitate mass digitisation of post 1870 in-copyright materials,
>    including works whose copyright owner cannot be found (“orphan works”.)
>    (p.14 – 39 / Q.1 – 43)
>    - Update the existing copyright exceptions for educational
>    establishments and teaching.(p.89-95 / Q.85-89)
>    - Make sure that none of these amendments, or existing exceptions in
>    copyright law are “over-ridden” and negated by contracts entered into by
>    individuals or university libraries.(p.116-119 / Q.103)
>
> The consultation ends on the 21st March. The consultation document can be
> found online:
> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/consult/consult-live/consult-2011-copyright.htm
>
> Responses do not have to be long and you can select which questions you
> respond to. Responses from individuals are welcome and the quoting of
> evidence (economic, anecdotal etc) to support arguments is particularly
> valuable.
>
> If you do choose to respond, send your submission by the 21st March (next
> Wednesday) to: copyrightconsultation at ipo.gov.uk
>
> We would like to reiterate that in the face of vocal opposition it is
> important the voice of the education and research sector is heard - we
> consider this to be a once in a generation opportunity to update copyright
> law.
>

Yes. I am very conscious that we pay the publishers (through subscriptions)
who then employ staff to prevent us doing things. The publishers make an
apparently persuasive case - "always being helpfule". In fact they aren't
and part of our task is to pull together evidence to show that they have
prevaricated, flannelled, and in some areas are incompetent (not knowing
the difference between copyright and contract - BTW it is the contracts
that current stop me working - the libraries have signed many of our
current rights to the publishers.

This is my weekend's fun - fighting the publishers rather than doing
science.

>
> Finally, if you are interested in staying in touch regarding these and
> similar digital policy issues, do let me know. We have an academic mailing
> list that you could join.
>
> and vice versa.

> Many thanks once again for your time.
>
> We should swap drafts

> Best regards,
>
> Peter Bradwell
>

-- 
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-science/attachments/20120315/973866d6/attachment.html>