Good post. P On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Sandy Thatcher wrote: > Technically, it probably is better to regard the eprint request Button as a > function facilitating personal use rather than fair use. (Stevan once used to > call this the "fair use button.") The Copyright Act of 1976 does not > directly address personal use, as it does fair use in Sec. 107, except in an > addition that was later made to deal with home audiotaping. The concept has > arisen in some court cases, most notably the Sony case involving > "time-shifting" of videotaping of TV shows for later viewing. But there > remains a lot of debate about what personal use covers. It will likely be a > subject of much discussion in the forthcoming hearings in Congress over > comprehensive reform of copyright law. > > Sandy Thatcher > > > At 10:37 AM -0400 8/7/13, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> If supplying eprints to requesters could be >> <https://theconversation.com/neuroscientists-need-to-embrace-open-access-publishing-too-16736#comment_198916>delegated >> to 3rd parties like Repository Managers to perform automatically, then they >> would become violations of copyright contracts. >> What makes the >> <https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy>eprint-request >> Button legal is the fact that it is the author who decides, in each >> individual instance, whether or not to comply with an individual eprint >> request for his own work; it does not happen automatically. >> Think about it: If it were just the fact of requesters having to do two >> keystrokes for access instead of just one (OA), then the compliance >> keystroke might as well have been done by software rather than the >> Repository Manager! And that would certainly not be compliance with a >> publisher OA embargo. "Almost OA" would just become 2-stroke OA. >> >> No. What makes the >> <https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy>eprint-request >> Button both legal and subversive is that >> <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0671.html>it is not >> 3rd-party piracy (by either a Repository Manager or an automatic computer >> programme) but >> <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/262893/1/resolution.html#9.1>1st-party >> provision of individual copies, to individual requesters, for research >> purposes, by the author, in each individual instance: the latter alone >> continues the long accepted tradition of reprint-provision by scholars and >> scientists to their own work. >> If reprint-request cards had been mailed instead to 3rd-parties who simply >> photocopied anyone's articles and mailed them to requesters (with or >> without a fee) the practice would have been attacked in the courts by >> publishers as piracy long ago. >> >> The best way to undermine the Button as a remedy against publisher OA >> mandates, and to empower the publishing lobby to block it, would be to >> conflate it with 2-stroke 3rd-party OA! >> >> That practice should never be recommended. >> >> Rather, make crystal clear the fundamental difference between 1st-party >> give-away and 3rd-party rip-off. >> >> >> [Parenthetically: Of course it is true that all these legal and technical >> distinctions are trivial nonsense! It is an ineluctable fact that the >> online PostGutenberg medium has made technically and economically possible >> and easily feasible what was technically and economically impossible in the >> Gutenberg medium: to make all refereed research articles -- each, without >> exception, an author give-away, written purely for research impact rather >> than royalty income -- immediately accessible to all would-be users, not >> just to subscribers: OA. That outcome is both optimal and inevitable for >> research; researchers; their institutions; their funders; the R&D industry; >> students; teachers; journalists; the developing world; access-denied >> scholars and scientists; the general public; research uptake, productivity, >> impact and progress; and the tax-payers who fund the research. The only >> parties with whose interests that optimal outcome is in conflict are the >> refereed-research publishers who had been providing an essential service to >> research in the Gutenberg era. It is that publishing "tail" that is now >> trying to wag the research "dog," to deter and delay what is optimal and >> inevitable for research for as long as possible, by invoking Gutenberg-era >> pseudo-legal pseudo-technicalities to try to embargo OA, by holding it >> hostage to their accustomed revenue streams and modus operandi. OA >> mandates, the immediate-deposit clause, and the eprint-request Button are >> the research community's means of mooting these delay tactics and hastening >> the natural evolution to the optimal and inevitable outcome in the >> PostGutenberg era.] >> >> Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) >> <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>Open Access Mandates and the "Fair >> Dealing" Button. In: >> <http://www.utppublishing.com/Dynamic-Fair-Dealing-Creating-Canadian-Culture-Online.html>Dynamic >> Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren >> Wershler, Eds.) > > > -- > Sanford G. Thatcher > 8201 Edgewater Drive > Frisco, TX 75034-5514 > e-mail: sgt3@psu.edu > Phone: (214) 705-1939 > Website: http://www.psupress.org/news/SandyThatchersWritings.html > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher > > "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > > "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who can > write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > ********** ********* ******** ******* ****** ***** **** *** ** * Peter Burnhill Director, EDINA national data centre & Head, Data Library Causewayside House University of Edinburgh 160 Causewayside Edinburgh EH Scotland, UK tel: +44 (0) 131 650 3301 fax: 3308 mobile: +44 (0) 774 0763 119 Email: p.burnhill@ed.ac.uk URL http://edina.ac.uk -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. *********************************************** * You are subscribed to the SERIALST listserv (Serials in Libraries discussion forum) * To post a message to the list address: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU * For additional information, see the SERIALST Scope, Purpose and Usage Guidelines <http://www.uvm.edu/~bmaclenn/serialst.html> ***********************************************
