[GOAL] Re: A case for strong fair use / fair dealing with restrictive licenses

[Heather Morrison]

There is nothing in any of the CC licenses that requires that works be made available free of charge, either by the downstream user or by the original licensor. It is true that a CC license cannot be revoked, however the catch is you have to have a copy of the work and proof of the license under which you obtained the work. There is nothing to stop the original licensor from changing their mind, taking down the CC-BY copy and replacing it with a work under whatever terms they like (or not making the work available at all).

This argument is basically that while CC-BY may appear to be highly desirable and reflect the BOAI definition of OA (which I now reject as the source of the problem), it is a weak license full of loopholes that could be the downfall of open access.

best,

Heather

On Apr 28, 2015, at 5:21 PM, "William Gunn" <william.gunn at gmail.com<mailto:william.gunn at gmail.com>> wrote:


On Apr 26, 2015 2:08 PM, "Heather Morrison" <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca<mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>> wrote:
>
> There are arguments against CC-BY as a default that apply across all disciplines. The most important is the potential for downstream enclosure... A broad-based CC-BY success of the open access movement could easily and quickly revert to toll access on a massive scale in the future (short, medium or long term).

I think I'm missing a key part of your argument. Can you explain how a CC-BY licensed work would revert to toll access?

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150428/3d23208e/attachment.html