<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 December 2013 13:41, Jan Velterop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully functional, machine-readable version for the professional scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because if the provisional version was sufficiently human readable, then all of the subscriptions for providing basic access would be unnecessary, and cancelled.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Licencing the enhanced, machine-readable version would only occur when someone justifies that they have a project to text-mine the corpus. At which point, and despite having theoretically "freed up" the budget, the cost would mean that most text-mining efforts never even get off the ground.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And so free [to author] publishing as subscription publishers currently do would be unsustainable.</div><div></div></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">G</div></div>