[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 18 December 2013 06:41, Peter Murray-Rust
> I agree with you about the other problems about funders and OA subset.
> However, let's just step back a minute and think about the bigger picture.
>
> An -NC licence does not prevent any scholarly use of the content, which by
> definition, would be non-commercial. It only covers commercial interests,
> and purchasing those rights would come from private funds.
>

This is a common misconception. Scholarly is frequently commercial.
Universities charge fees - a commercial transaction. Authors pay publishers
- a commercial transaction.



> If an -NC licence allowed the authors (funders) to pay a lower APC, with
> the balance expected to be made up from commercial sales to private funds,
> then this would reduce the burden of publishing on the public purse, at no
> harm to scholarly use.
>
> Everyone has amateur opinions on what NC allows. What matters is the law -
and we have seen publishers exercising the law. The best estimate of the
LAW that I have seen is:

http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2189/

ZooKeys 150: 127–149, doi: 10.3897/zookeys.150.2189
Creative Commons licenses and the non-commercial condition: Implications
for the re-use of biodiversity information
Gregor Hagedorn 1, Daniel Mietchen 2, Robert A. Morris 3, Donat Agosti 4,
Lyubomir Penev 5, Walter G. Berendsohn 6, Donald Hobern 7

This makes it clear that the law almost certainly prevents re-use in
teaching, content-mining ,  publishing and much other "scholarly"
activity.  NC has no beneficial spinoffs to scholarship and has serious
drawbacks.

Offering it for a lower cost, without explaining the implications, is IMO
unacceptable.


> Arguably, that could be considered a good thing. Although more likely it
> would be seen that the public expenditure as an investment to allow
> commercial use to drive economic growth outweighs the small cost difference.
>

a nice idea but fallacious as the opportunity cost is large.


>
> G
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
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://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131218/b706f1cb/attachment.html