There is no need to update the BBB definition!

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/386-Dont-Risk-Getting-Less-By-Needlessly-Demanding-More.html

Peter Suber has answered at
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/price-and-permission-barriers-again.html

Peter Murray-Rust (and I) have often argued that permission barriers
must be removed. See e.g.

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4409408
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/4356023 (and earlyer posts)

See also
MacCallum CJ (2007) When Is Open Access Not Open Access? PLoS Biol
5(10): e285 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050285

On the recent discussion on textmining and PubMedCentral:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/text-mining-licensed-non-oa-literature.html
http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/non-oa-full-text-for-text-mining
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=1026

Harnad writes: “OA is free online access. With that comes,
automatically, the individual capability of linking, reading,
downloading, storing, printing off, and data-mining (locally).”

“Data-mining (locally)” is nonsense. If I have to mine 1000 articles
and are allowed to download automatically 10 articles/day I have to
wait 100 days.

Harnad repeats his ideas as mantras. We can do the same:

FAIR USE IS NOT ENOUGH.

There are scholars and scientists outside the U.S. under more rigid
copyright regimes without Fair Use.

Let’s have a closer look on the German Copyright law:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__53.html

It is allowed to make copies for scholarly use if and only if
(i) there are good reasons
and
(ii) there is no commercial goal (“keinen gewerblichen Zwecken dient”).

In my humble opinion medical research in a pharma business is
(i) research according BBB
(ii) commercial.

A scientist in this company may according German law (since January 1, 2008) NOT
(i) make copies of scholarly articles (§ 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 UrhG) for scholarly use
(ii) data-mining.

On the problems of the new commercial clausula for universities
(“Drittmittelforschung”) see (in German) the position of the
Urheberrechtsbündnis:
http://www.dfn.de/fileadmin/3Beratung/Recht/Expertise-3-korb-urhg.pdf

§ 53 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 allows him making copies (of some articles in a
journal issue) on paper or for non-digital use only. Because data
mining needs digital use our German pharma scientist has only a chance
to mine the CC-BY subset of OA publications (most hybrid journals have
AFAIK CC-BY-NC).

(i) OA is important for all researchers (including commercial research).
(ii) Commercial medical research is important for world’s health problems.
(iii) Data-mining is a new scientific way to solve medical problems.
(iii) Business companies engaged in commercial research cannot and
will not afford journal licenses for large-scale data-mining.

(SCNR: How many people must die because an OA guru says “There is a
need to update BBB” and denies the need of re-use?)

There is a simple solution (I will repeat it because it is important
like a mantra):

* MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY
* MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY
* MAKE ALL RESEARCH RESULTS CC-BY


Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.