Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] On archiving

From: holl AT konkoly.hu (Andras Holl)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:31:11 +0200 (MEST)


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] On archiving from nick.thieberger AT gmail.com
             Re: [BOAI] On archiving & Mirroring by Third Parties from luis.ibanez AT kitware.com
             Re: [BOAI] On archiving from machado AT sociologia.de
             [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties from luis.ibanez AT kitware.com
             [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties from luis.ibanez AT kitware.com
             Re: [BOAI] On archiving from fotis AT mail.cern.ch
             Re: [BOAI] On archiving from nick.thieberger AT gmail.com
             RE: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties - Attribution from dennis.hamilton AT acm.org
             Re: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties - Attribution from luis.ibanez AT kitware.com
             RE: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties - Attribution from dennis.hamilton AT acm.org
             RE: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties - Attribution from dsolomon AT msu.edu


Hi Luis,

>    Legally you, as a Jornal publisher, don't have any right to
>    prevent somebody from creating an archive of your Journal.
>    If that were the case, then I would have to burn my Science
>    journal after I read them, because by stacking them in my
>    bookshelf I'm creating an archive.
>
>    "Archiving" is not one of the exclusive rights for which the
>    state granted you a limited-time monopoly under copyright laws.

First of all, while apparently I am not legally correct, my objections
were not legal.

And I think the case of the electronic journals should be different.
Could a library archive the full content of a subscribed
electronic journal? I would be glad to have that right.
But, such kind of archiving is local, and I have no objection to
that. The kind of archiving in question, I feel, is different.
It would involve eventual redistribution. 


>    Some of them related to your concern for the integrity of
>    the information, and some of them related for some (surprising)
>    desire to excert control over the information.

While we charge no fee for the access of our journal, we have to
demonstrate to our funding agencies that their money is well spent.
We think it is best achieved if the whole journal is kept on our
site, and everyone has to donwload it from us. Meanwhile we take
care of the availability and accessibility.


>    "I would not like a party starting to archive all of
>     my PDF files without my knowledge."

>    I'm asking myself:  Why ?

It is purely technical. It would overload our server. I do not see
why should I buy a server twice as expensive, while already providing
a service for the community.

>    Why is your concern when some other organization
>    redistribute your PDF files ?

I have already explained my problems with redistribution.

>    You cannot adopt Open Access and still be obsessed with
>    controlling content. That is to be left to organizations
>    that still live with 20th century mentality, such as the
>    MPAA and the RIAA.

>    Are you going to bring lawsuits to students who decide
>    to redistribute your journal ?

I have nothing against redistribution of any individual paper
(including groups of papers), An author could deposit his/her
paper in a repository, put it on his/her website. A research
group could do the same with the papers they authored.
Organizations publish their proceedings in our journal, and
re-distribute it in their own newsletter. Universities
archive papers published by their staff and students in our
journal. All of that is all right. What I am against is redistributing
the whole journal. It has never happened that a student wanted
to do that, and I can not imagine why any student would like to.


>    If the concern is quality of redistribution, then you simply
>    have to make sure that your own redistribution is the one
>    with the highest quality of service for readers.

In reality it is very confusing to readers that they can get the
- apparently, but not truly - same material from many different
sources. 

>    If it happens that some other organization can redistribute
>    your files better than you do, then you shouldn't be worry
>    about it, you should rather send them an email with a
>    *Thank You* note.

It has happened that organizations at a certain time could
redistribute our content better, than us, and I was  happy with
that. It has also happened, that in one of such cases, the
mirroring/translation process went wild (the automatism was
not maintained any longer because people responsible left
that institution), and for months garbage content was displayed.


>    I think you must rethink your mission.

I think I have thought about my mission quite a lot.

>    Are you publishing a Journal in order

>      a) to gain reputation ?
>      b) bring attention to your web site ?
>      c) advance the progress of a field ?

>   If the answer is (c), then redistribution by third parties
>   should simply make you happy.

The answer is all three, and some more too. Publishers of
OpenAccess journals desire some reputation, and attention to
their website might help them to provide services for free.

With best regards,

Andras Holl


Re: [BOAI] On archiving

From: "Nick Thieberger" <nick.thieberger AT gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 05:46:57 +1000


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message

So we have the 'open is open' corner and then the 'open is open, but
needs to be realistic' corner (which is where I sit). I faced this
issue with regard to an archive of ethnographic material I am part of
(http://paradisec.org.au). Someone in Sweden set up a 'stolen grammars
site' (his name) and put pdf versions of grammars of many languages,
over 1,000, up for free download. Lots of these were covered by
copyright so he was exposing himself to potential legal action, a
courageous stand on his part. But he also put material from our
collection up on his site after he had signed our access form which
explicitly asks that nothing be further distributed. He also put a
copy of my dissertation on his site, despite it being freely available
in an eprints repository. When I asked him to link to my material
rather than copying it, he pulled the whole site down. All this is
blogged here: 
http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/elac/2007/05/open_access_or_open_slather_ni_1.html

I think we need to earn the trust of depositors to open access
collections, which means that enforcing deposit and access conditions
has to be seen to be done.

Nick Thieberger


2008/5/12 Andras Holl <holl AT konkoly.hu>:
>
> Hi Luis,
>
>>    Legally you, as a Jornal publisher, don't have any right to
>>    prevent somebody from creating an archive of your Journal.
>>    If that were the case, then I would have to burn my Science
>>    journal after I read them, because by stacking them in my
>>    bookshelf I'm creating an archive.
>>
>>    "Archiving" is not one of the exclusive rights for which 
the
>>    state granted you a limited-time monopoly under copyright laws.
>
> First of all, while apparently I am not legally correct, my objections
> were not legal.
>
> And I think the case of the electronic journals should be different.
> Could a library archive the full content of a subscribed
> electronic journal? I would be glad to have that right.
> But, such kind of archiving is local, and I have no objection to
> that. The kind of archiving in question, I feel, is different.
> It would involve eventual redistribution.
>
>
>>    Some of them related to your concern for the integrity of
>>    the information, and some of them related for some (surprising)
>>    desire to excert control over the information.
>
> While we charge no fee for the access of our journal, we have to
> demonstrate to our funding agencies that their money is well spent.
> We think it is best achieved if the whole journal is kept on our
> site, and everyone has to donwload it from us. Meanwhile we take
> care of the availability and accessibility.
>
>
>>    "I would not like a party starting to archive all of
>>     my PDF files without my knowledge."
>
>>    I'm asking myself:  Why ?
>
> It is purely technical. It would overload our server. I do not see
> why should I buy a server twice as expensive, while already providing
> a service for the community.
>
>>    Why is your concern when some other organization
>>    redistribute your PDF files ?
>
> I have already explained my problems with redistribution.
>
>>    You cannot adopt Open Access and still be obsessed with
>>    controlling content. That is to be left to organizations
>>    that still live with 20th century mentality, such as the
>>    MPAA and the RIAA.
>
>>    Are you going to bring lawsuits to students who decide
>>    to redistribute your journal ?
>
> I have nothing against redistribution of any individual paper
> (including groups of papers), An author could deposit his/her
> paper in a repository, put it on his/her website. A research
> group could do the same with the papers they authored.
> Organizations publish their proceedings in our journal, and
> re-distribute it in their own newsletter. Universities
> archive papers published by their staff and students in our
> journal. All of that is all right. What I am against is redistributing
> the whole journal. It has never happened that a student wanted
> to do that, and I can not imagine why any student would like to.
>
>
>>    If the concern is quality of redistribution, then you simply
>>    have to make sure that your own redistribution is the one
>>    with the highest quality of service for readers.
>
> In reality it is very confusing to readers that they can get the
> - apparently, but not truly - same material from many different
> sources.
>
>>    If it happens that some other organization can redistribute
>>    your files better than you do, then you shouldn't be worry
>>    about it, you should rather send them an email with a
>>    *Thank You* note.
>
> It has happened that organizations at a certain time could
> redistribute our content better, than us, and I was  happy with
> that. It has also happened, that in one of such cases, the
> mirroring/translation process went wild (the automatism was
> not maintained any longer because people responsible left
> that institution), and for months garbage content was displayed.
>
>
>>    I think you must rethink your mission.
>
> I think I have thought about my mission quite a lot.
>
>>    Are you publishing a Journal in order
>
>>      a) to gain reputation ?
>>      b) bring attention to your web site ?
>>      c) advance the progress of a field ?
>
>>   If the answer is (c), then redistribution by third parties
>>   should simply make you happy.
>
> The answer is all three, and some more too. Publishers of
> OpenAccess journals desire some reputation, and attention to
> their website might help them to provide services for free.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Andras Holl
>
>


Re: [BOAI] On archiving & Mirroring by Third Parties

From: Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez AT kitware.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:25:39 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message


Hi Nick,


   I see your point regarding the case that you cite.


As I mentioned to Andras, given that enforcing restrictions on
redistribution is an almost impossible task to accomplish, it
is much better to encourage redistribution and to turn this
redistribution to your advantage.


A potential mechanism for doing so, is to require all papers
published in your Journal to have inserted in every page a
permanent URL that points back to the location of the paper
in your official web site, or even to have simply a link to
the top page of your Journal's official web site.


If you make sure that the PDF files are indexable by Google,
then the more these files are redistributed and the more they
are posted in third parties web sites, the more links you will
get pointing to your Journal. Whether these are posting by readers,
authors or third parties that mirror your entire Journal, all those
links will point back to your site.


Readers, regardless of how they obtained the PDF paper, will also be
aware of where to they should go in order to find the official version
of the paper, and perhaps find comments about the paper, or even better,
updated versions of the paper.


No matter how much we discuss it here, redistribution will simply
happen. Whether you authorize it or not, whether we like it or not,
it is the nature of information to be disseminated. In the spirit
of Open Access is a lot more constructive to tell readers:


    Here is a paper:
    It is free, please copy it, redistribute it, put it
    in your web site, send it in BitTorrent, email it to
    your colleagues.

    and

    if you find it useful,
    then cite/link to our Journal web site.




   Best Regards,



         Luis


-----------------------
Nick Thieberger wrote:
> So we have the 'open is open' corner and then the 'open is open, but
> needs to be realistic' corner (which is where I sit). I faced this
> issue with regard to an archive of ethnographic material I am part of
> (http://paradisec.org.au). Someone in Sweden set up a 'stolen grammars
> site' (his name) and put pdf versions of grammars of many languages,
> over 1,000, up for free download. Lots of these were covered by
> copyright so he was exposing himself to potential legal action, a
> courageous stand on his part. But he also put material from our
> collection up on his site after he had signed our access form which
> explicitly asks that nothing be further distributed. He also put a
> copy of my dissertation on his site, despite it being freely available
> in an eprints repository. When I asked him to link to my material
> rather than copying it, he pulled the whole site down. All this is
> blogged here: 
http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/elac/2007/05/open_access_or_open_slather_ni_1.html
> 
> I think we need to earn the trust of depositors to open access
> collections, which means that enforcing deposit and access conditions
> has to be seen to be done.
> 
> Nick Thieberger
> 
> 
> 2008/5/12 Andras Holl <holl AT konkoly.hu>:
> 
>>Hi Luis,
>>
>>
>>>   Legally you, as a Jornal publisher, don't have any right to
>>>   prevent somebody from creating an archive of your Journal.
>>>   If that were the case, then I would have to burn my Science
>>>   journal after I read them, because by stacking them in my
>>>   bookshelf I'm creating an archive.
>>>
>>>   "Archiving" is not one of the exclusive rights for 
which the
>>>   state granted you a limited-time monopoly under copyright laws.
>>
>>First of all, while apparently I am not legally correct, my objections
>>were not legal.
>>
>>And I think the case of the electronic journals should be different.
>>Could a library archive the full content of a subscribed
>>electronic journal? I would be glad to have that right.
>>But, such kind of archiving is local, and I have no objection to
>>that. The kind of archiving in question, I feel, is different.
>>It would involve eventual redistribution.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   Some of them related to your concern for the integrity of
>>>   the information, and some of them related for some (surprising)
>>>   desire to excert control over the information.
>>
>>While we charge no fee for the access of our journal, we have to
>>demonstrate to our funding agencies that their money is well spent.
>>We think it is best achieved if the whole journal is kept on our
>>site, and everyone has to donwload it from us. Meanwhile we take
>>care of the availability and accessibility.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   "I would not like a party starting to archive all of
>>>    my PDF files without my knowledge."
>>
>>>   I'm asking myself:  Why ?
>>
>>It is purely technical. It would overload our server. I do not see
>>why should I buy a server twice as expensive, while already providing
>>a service for the community.
>>
>>
>>>   Why is your concern when some other organization
>>>   redistribute your PDF files ?
>>
>>I have already explained my problems with redistribution.
>>
>>
>>>   You cannot adopt Open Access and still be obsessed with
>>>   controlling content. That is to be left to organizations
>>>   that still live with 20th century mentality, such as the
>>>   MPAA and the RIAA.
>>
>>>   Are you going to bring lawsuits to students who decide
>>>   to redistribute your journal ?
>>
>>I have nothing against redistribution of any individual paper
>>(including groups of papers), An author could deposit his/her
>>paper in a repository, put it on his/her website. A research
>>group could do the same with the papers they authored.
>>Organizations publish their proceedings in our journal, and
>>re-distribute it in their own newsletter. Universities
>>archive papers published by their staff and students in our
>>journal. All of that is all right. What I am against is redistributing
>>the whole journal. It has never happened that a student wanted
>>to do that, and I can not imagine why any student would like to.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   If the concern is quality of redistribution, then you simply
>>>   have to make sure that your own redistribution is the one
>>>   with the highest quality of service for readers.
>>
>>In reality it is very confusing to readers that they can get the
>>- apparently, but not truly - same material from many different
>>sources.
>>
>>
>>>   If it happens that some other organization can redistribute
>>>   your files better than you do, then you shouldn't be worry
>>>   about it, you should rather send them an email with a
>>>   *Thank You* note.
>>
>>It has happened that organizations at a certain time could
>>redistribute our content better, than us, and I was  happy with
>>that. It has also happened, that in one of such cases, the
>>mirroring/translation process went wild (the automatism was
>>not maintained any longer because people responsible left
>>that institution), and for months garbage content was displayed.
>>
>>
>>
>>>   I think you must rethink your mission.
>>
>>I think I have thought about my mission quite a lot.
>>
>>
>>>   Are you publishing a Journal in order
>>
>>>     a) to gain reputation ?
>>>     b) bring attention to your web site ?
>>>     c) advance the progress of a field ?
>>
>>>  If the answer is (c), then redistribution by third parties
>>>  should simply make you happy.
>>
>>The answer is all three, and some more too. Publishers of
>>OpenAccess journals desire some reputation, and attention to
>>their website might help them to provide services for free.
>>
>>With best regards,
>>
>>Andras Holl
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


Re: [BOAI] On archiving

From: "machado AT sociologia.de" <machado AT sociologia.de>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 00:17:27 -0300


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message

Hi Nick.

Just a few comments:

1) Why the site "Paradisec" is on "Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License"?  This license allows
"to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work". Right?

2) I think the site of Harald Hammarström did nothing really bad. It was
just a "fair use" for educational purposes. In some countries, there 
is
no problem to distribute untill a copyright holder ask to delete the
content from the website.

3) I believe that almost all research materials available on 
"Paradisec"
are the result of public founding. Maybe this is meaningfull.

Best Regards,

Jorge Machado
University of São Paulo



Nick Thieberger escreveu:
> So we have the 'open is open' corner and then the 'open is open, but
> needs to be realistic' corner (which is where I sit). I faced this
> issue with regard to an archive of ethnographic material I am part of
> (http://paradisec.org.au). Someone in Sweden set up a 'stolen grammars
> site' (his name) and put pdf versions of grammars of many languages,
> over 1,000, up for free download. Lots of these were covered by
> copyright so he was exposing himself to potential legal action, a
> courageous stand on his part. But he also put material from our
> collection up on his site after he had signed our access form which
> explicitly asks that nothing be further distributed. He also put a
> copy of my dissertation on his site, despite it being freely available
> in an eprints repository. When I asked him to link to my material
> rather than copying it, he pulled the whole site down. All this is
> blogged here: 
http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/elac/2007/05/open_access_or_open_slather_ni_1.html
> 
> I think we need to earn the trust of depositors to open access
> collections, which means that enforcing deposit and access conditions
> has to be seen to be done.
> 
> Nick Thieberger
> 
> 
> 2008/5/12 Andras Holl <holl AT konkoly.hu>:
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>>>    Legally you, as a Jornal publisher, don't have any right to
>>>    prevent somebody from creating an archive of your Journal.
>>>    If that were the case, then I would have to burn my Science
>>>    journal after I read them, because by stacking them in my
>>>    bookshelf I'm creating an archive.
>>>
>>>    "Archiving" is not one of the exclusive rights for 
which the
>>>    state granted you a limited-time monopoly under copyright laws.
>> First of all, while apparently I am not legally correct, my objections
>> were not legal.
>>
>> And I think the case of the electronic journals should be different.
>> Could a library archive the full content of a subscribed
>> electronic journal? I would be glad to have that right.
>> But, such kind of archiving is local, and I have no objection to
>> that. The kind of archiving in question, I feel, is different.
>> It would involve eventual redistribution.
>>
>>
>>>    Some of them related to your concern for the integrity of
>>>    the information, and some of them related for some (surprising)
>>>    desire to excert control over the information.
>> While we charge no fee for the access of our journal, we have to
>> demonstrate to our funding agencies that their money is well spent.
>> We think it is best achieved if the whole journal is kept on our
>> site, and everyone has to donwload it from us. Meanwhile we take
>> care of the availability and accessibility.
>>
>>
>>>    "I would not like a party starting to archive all of
>>>     my PDF files without my knowledge."
>>>    I'm asking myself:  Why ?
>> It is purely technical. It would overload our server. I do not see
>> why should I buy a server twice as expensive, while already providing
>> a service for the community.
>>
>>>    Why is your concern when some other organization
>>>    redistribute your PDF files ?
>> I have already explained my problems with redistribution.
>>
>>>    You cannot adopt Open Access and still be obsessed with
>>>    controlling content. That is to be left to organizations
>>>    that still live with 20th century mentality, such as the
>>>    MPAA and the RIAA.
>>>    Are you going to bring lawsuits to students who decide
>>>    to redistribute your journal ?
>> I have nothing against redistribution of any individual paper
>> (including groups of papers), An author could deposit his/her
>> paper in a repository, put it on his/her website. A research
>> group could do the same with the papers they authored.
>> Organizations publish their proceedings in our journal, and
>> re-distribute it in their own newsletter. Universities
>> archive papers published by their staff and students in our
>> journal. All of that is all right. What I am against is redistributing
>> the whole journal. It has never happened that a student wanted
>> to do that, and I can not imagine why any student would like to.
>>
>>
>>>    If the concern is quality of redistribution, then you simply
>>>    have to make sure that your own redistribution is the one
>>>    with the highest quality of service for readers.
>> In reality it is very confusing to readers that they can get the
>> - apparently, but not truly - same material from many different
>> sources.
>>
>>>    If it happens that some other organization can redistribute
>>>    your files better than you do, then you shouldn't be worry
>>>    about it, you should rather send them an email with a
>>>    *Thank You* note.
>> It has happened that organizations at a certain time could
>> redistribute our content better, than us, and I was  happy with
>> that. It has also happened, that in one of such cases, the
>> mirroring/translation process went wild (the automatism was
>> not maintained any longer because people responsible left
>> that institution), and for months garbage content was displayed.
>>
>>
>>>    I think you must rethink your mission.
>> I think I have thought about my mission quite a lot.
>>
>>>    Are you publishing a Journal in order
>>>      a) to gain reputation ?
>>>      b) bring attention to your web site ?
>>>      c) advance the progress of a field ?
>>>   If the answer is (c), then redistribution by third parties
>>>   should simply make you happy.
>> The answer is all three, and some more too. Publishers of
>> OpenAccess journals desire some reputation, and attention to
>> their website might help them to provide services for free.
>>
>> With best regards,
>>
>> Andras Holl
>>
>>
> 
> 


[BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties

From: Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez AT kitware.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:08:46 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message



Hi Andras,


1) Yes, a library has the full right of archiving the full
    content of an electronic journal for which it has a
    subscription.

    This right usually extends to the members of the institution
    that have the subscription.

    For example, if your university has an institution-wide
    license for an IEEE journal, any of your students and
    faculty is fully entitled to download every month the
    PDF versions of the papers in that journal and to store
    them in her/his hard drive.

                 Note that this is "archiving".

    As long as the files remain in her/his hard drive, this
    person is simply creating a backup of copyrighted material
    for which it has permissions.

    This person will not have any trouble, unless she/he decides
    to make that directory in the hard drive a shared directory,
    or she starts to send PDF files as attachments to emails,
    or post these files in the web. That will be "redistribution".

    (although a US court case recently made a point about the
     difference between "making available" and 
"redistributing",
     and stated that "making available" is not equivalent to
     copyright infringement).

    The library does not have to ask IEEE for permission for
    archiving these files (as long as there is no redistribution).

    If such a right were to be removed from libraries,
    that will mark the extinction of Libraries as we know them.
    That will be a very sad day.



2) I think we both agree that "archiving" is not the issue.
    The issue is "redistribution" or if you will 
"mirroring".

    I understand and agree with your point regarding the
    importance of attracting readers to the "official" site
    of the Journal. E.g. to justify funding and to build up
    a reputation for the site, even to have the opportunity
    to drive revenue via advertisement. We have the same
    need in our case.

    My point is that if you try to achieve this by imposing
    restrictions in the licensing of the papers, you will trap
    normal readers in the same restriction.  If you forbid
    redistribution, then readers can't send your papers to
    colleagues as attachments, they can't put them in shared
    drives... and so on.

    Trying to enforce such prohibitions will put you in the
    impossible situation of the MPAA and the RIAA. Where you
    will have to threat your customers with legal actions.

    My suggestion will be to achieve the purpose of driving
    readers to your official site, by offering services that
    are difficult to replicate. For example, in our case,
    the papers that we host (in the domain of medical image
    analysis) must be accompanied by source code, data, and
    parameters needed to make possible for users to reproduce
    the results presented in the paper.  Our site actually
    verify the reproducibility of submissions before posting
    papers online.  It is unlikely that anybody who attempts
    to mirror our site would go to the trouble of building
    the same infrastructure.

    ...and... even if somebody manages to do it... I will think
    that if they went through the trouble of doing all that work,
    then they are certainly worthy of mirroring our site.



3) Here is a practical suggestion on how to drive authors
    and readers back to your official site:

    As part of the review process or the submission process,
    generate a permanent URL for the paper (e.g. like the
    handle system used by DSpace), then require the authors
    to insert that link in every page of the final PDF version
    of the paper (e.g. as a footer in every page).

    The link could say something like:

    "This paper is available free of charge at Journal XYZ"
    "in the following link:
    "http://www.xys.journal.open.access.org/handle/98731"

    If this is a live-link in the PDF file, then even better.

    In this case, anybody reading the paper from the PDF file
    will be referred back to your site.

    You could also require (or at least make very easy for)
    authors to use also permanent URLs when citing papers
    from your Journal. For example, in the paper itself
    add a sentence such as:

    "For citing this paper, please use the following URL"
    "http://www.xys.journal.open.access.org/handle/98731"


    In that way, If I'm citing a paper from your Journal,
    I'll be happy to insert that live-link in the references
    section of my own paper and enlarge the network of links
    that point back to your site.

    This is a bit like the hotmail method of giving email
    access for free, and to make every email to be advertisement
    for hotmail itself. That is, you can make every paper in your
    Journal to be advertisement for your site. In that context,
    then, the more the papers from your Journal are redistributed
    mirrored, shared, emailed or posted on the web... the more
    visible your official journal site will be.

    It will cost you zero $ to get this extra advertisement.


    Note that this is also the only practical way of building
    up your Google ranking. Google will only count (or so we
    believe) links that are external to your site. So, it is
    in your best interest to have readers and authors posting
    online the PDF papers from your journal(if you have inserted
    in them the permanent URLs pointing back to your official site).


    Instead of making "redistribution" to be the enemy,
    you can make it your best friend.

    In the online publishing world, few things are more important
    than building up your Google ranking.


    I wouldn't mind to see a modified Creative Commons by
    Attribution license that will also require credit to
    the Open Access Journal, as well as to the authors.





   Best Regards,


      Luis



-------------------
Andras Holl wrote:
> Hi Luis,
> 
> 
>>   Legally you, as a Jornal publisher, don't have any right to
>>   prevent somebody from creating an archive of your Journal.
>>   If that were the case, then I would have to burn my Science
>>   journal after I read them, because by stacking them in my
>>   bookshelf I'm creating an archive.
>>
>>   "Archiving" is not one of the exclusive rights for which 
the
>>   state granted you a limited-time monopoly under copyright laws.
> 
> 
> First of all, while apparently I am not legally correct, my objections
> were not legal.
> 
> And I think the case of the electronic journals should be different.
> Could a library archive the full content of a subscribed
> electronic journal? I would be glad to have that right.
> But, such kind of archiving is local, and I have no objection to
> that. The kind of archiving in question, I feel, is different.
> It would involve eventual redistribution. 
> 
> 
> 
>>   Some of them related to your concern for the integrity of
>>   the information, and some of them related for some (surprising)
>>   desire to excert control over the information.
> 
> 
> While we charge no fee for the access of our journal, we have to
> demonstrate to our funding agencies that their money is well spent.
> We think it is best achieved if the whole journal is kept on our
> site, and everyone has to donwload it from us. Meanwhile we take
> care of the availability and accessibility.
> 
> 
> 
>>   "I would not like a party starting to archive all of
>>    my PDF files without my knowledge."
> 
> 
>>   I'm asking myself:  Why ?
> 
> 
> It is purely technical. It would overload our server. I do not see
> why should I buy a server twice as expensive, while already providing
> a service for the community.
> 
> 
>>   Why is your concern when some other organization
>>   redistribute your PDF files ?
> 
> 
> I have already explained my problems with redistribution.
> 
> 
>>   You cannot adopt Open Access and still be obsessed with
>>   controlling content. That is to be left to organizations
>>   that still live with 20th century mentality, such as the
>>   MPAA and the RIAA.
> 
> 
>>   Are you going to bring lawsuits to students who decide
>>   to redistribute your journal ?
> 
> 
> I have nothing against redistribution of any individual paper
> (including groups of papers), An author could deposit his/her
> paper in a repository, put it on his/her website. A research
> group could do the same with the papers they authored.
> Organizations publish their proceedings in our journal, and
> re-distribute it in their own newsletter. Universities
> archive papers published by their staff and students in our
> journal. All of that is all right. What I am against is redistributing
> the whole journal. It has never happened that a student wanted
> to do that, and I can not imagine why any student would like to.
> 
> 
> 
>>   If the concern is quality of redistribution, then you simply
>>   have to make sure that your own redistribution is the one
>>   with the highest quality of service for readers.
> 
> 
> In reality it is very confusing to readers that they can get the
> - apparently, but not truly - same material from many different
> sources. 
> 
> 
>>   If it happens that some other organization can redistribute
>>   your files better than you do, then you shouldn't be worry
>>   about it, you should rather send them an email with a
>>   *Thank You* note.
> 
> 
> It has happened that organizations at a certain time could
> redistribute our content better, than us, and I was  happy with
> that. It has also happened, that in one of such cases, the
> mirroring/translation process went wild (the automatism was
> not maintained any longer because people responsible left
> that institution), and for months garbage content was displayed.
> 
> 
> 
>>   I think you must rethink your mission.
> 
> 
> I think I have thought about my mission quite a lot.
> 
> 
>>   Are you publishing a Journal in order
> 
> 
>>     a) to gain reputation ?
>>     b) bring attention to your web site ?
>>     c) advance the progress of a field ?
> 
> 
>>  If the answer is (c), then redistribution by third parties
>>  should simply make you happy.
> 
> 
> The answer is all three, and some more too. Publishers of
> OpenAccess journals desire some reputation, and attention to
> their website might help them to provide services for free.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> Andras Holl
> 
> 


[BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties

From: Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez AT kitware.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 22:37:57 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message



Hi Andras,

This post in the "creative-commons-community" mailing list:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2008-May/003750.html

is very relevant to our previous conversation:


It is about a thriller novel that was posted online under CC 
non-commercial license, the text has been community-edited.

The book is sold at a web site:
http://www.thickerthanbloodthebook.com/purchase.shtml

and its PDF file is available for free download at:
http://www.thickerthanbloodthebook.com/book1/Thicker-Than-Blood.pdf


If you note,
the book's second page states:

<quote>
------------------------------------------------------
License
Copyright 2005,2006,2007,2008
M. A. Newhall,
some rights reserved.
Please See
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
for the full text of the license.
This is version 1.02 of this book.
First Edition.
The latest version can always be found at
http://www.thickerthanbloodthebook.com
A printed copy of the book can be purchased from
http://www.thickerthanbloodthebook.com/purchase.shtml
This book has been community edited.
If you find errors of any kind in this text,
please email a correction to me at
M.A.Newhall AT thickerthanbloodthebook.com
Please include:
The nature of the error;
The chapter number;
The page number;
A few contextual words;
A suggested correction;
I will consider all corrections for the next edition.
Thank you for your intelligent criticisms.
I hope you enjoy the novel.
-----------------------------------------------------
</quote>

          No redistribution restrictions...


In fact, the more we redistribute the PDF the more chances does
the printed book to be sold. This simply because few people like
to read a 220 pages document in a computer screen, specially when
it is a novel.

Please note that the PDF file is plenty of live links that point
back to the book's offical web site:

         http://www.thickerthanbloodthebook.com/


In marketing, this is called "viral marketing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing


--

For the case of papers, once you have inserted on every PDF page
a live-link to your web site, you actuall want to ask readers
(strongly encourage them, and even beg them) to re-post online
the copies of papers they downloaded from your Journal.

This will create multitude of links that point back to your
official site, and will raise your Google ranking.
[see http://www.google.com/technology/index.html]
with the net result of attracting more surfers to your web site
and building up the reputation/visibility of the Journal.



     Best Regards,


        Luis



----------------------
Luis Ibanez wrote:
 >
> 3) Here is a practical suggestion on how to drive authors
>    and readers back to your official site:
> 
>    As part of the review process or the submission process,
>    generate a permanent URL for the paper (e.g. like the
>    handle system used by DSpace), then require the authors
>    to insert that link in every page of the final PDF version
>    of the paper (e.g. as a footer in every page).
> 
>    The link could say something like:
> 
>    "This paper is available free of charge at Journal XYZ"
>    "in the following link:
>    "http://www.xys.journal.open.access.org/handle/98731"
> 
>    If this is a live-link in the PDF file, then even better.
> 
>    In this case, anybody reading the paper from the PDF file
>    will be referred back to your site.
> 
>    You could also require (or at least make very easy for)
>    authors to use also permanent URLs when citing papers
>    from your Journal. For example, in the paper itself
>    add a sentence such as:
> 
>    "For citing this paper, please use the following URL"
>    "http://www.xys.journal.open.access.org/handle/98731"
> 
> 
>    In that way, If I'm citing a paper from your Journal,
>    I'll be happy to insert that live-link in the references
>    section of my own paper and enlarge the network of links
>    that point back to your site.
> 
>    This is a bit like the hotmail method of giving email
>    access for free, and to make every email to be advertisement
>    for hotmail itself. That is, you can make every paper in your
>    Journal to be advertisement for your site. In that context,
>    then, the more the papers from your Journal are redistributed
>    mirrored, shared, emailed or posted on the web... the more
>    visible your official journal site will be.
> 
>    It will cost you zero $ to get this extra advertisement.
> 
> 
>    Note that this is also the only practical way of building
>    up your Google ranking. Google will only count (or so we
>    believe) links that are external to your site. So, it is
>    in your best interest to have readers and authors posting
>    online the PDF papers from your journal(if you have inserted
>    in them the permanent URLs pointing back to your official site).
> 


Re: [BOAI] On archiving

From: Fotis Georgatos <fotis AT mail.cern.ch>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 16:58:57 +0300


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message


Hello *,

O/H Andras Holl :
> While we charge no fee for the access of our journal, we have to
> demonstrate to our funding agencies that their money is well spent.
> We think it is best achieved if the whole journal is kept on our
> site, and everyone has to donwload it from us. Meanwhile we take
> care of the availability and accessibility.

This should be called AOA == Almost Open Access?

The fundamental questions trim down to:

1) If you single-handedly decide to pull down to material,
does someone else have the right to bring it up?

2) Is someone allowed to maintain his own copy for non-redistribution
purposes? (eg. I might need to build a search engine on it for my usage)

You might have good reasons to support your argument,
and indeed something is better than nothing,
but I would be caucious to call it Open Access...

> journal. All of that is all right. What I am against is redistributing
> the whole journal. It has never happened that a student wanted
> to do that, and I can not imagine why any student would like to.

I can imagine the two legitimate reasons expressed earlier
that don't collide with your needs for central distribution.

> In reality it is very confusing to readers that they can get the
> - apparently, but not truly - same material from many different
> sources. 

This is a problem of integrity of content and reputation of provider etc.
It trims down to trivial IT solutions, so it is not a show-stopper.

What you are suggesting is more of Open Electronic Library,
which is good by itself, but it prevents us from doing interesting things
with information, the very things that all people will do this century!
For example, one of the projects in which I am involved is grid systems.
The basic idea is that we could create digital libraries over huge
infrastructures that not only store information but also process it;

In particular, I might need to query for a report of all the papers
mentioning "linux" that were published during last month.
If you can use the grid and exploit 10.000-100.000 CPUs in parallel
that's an interactive service that can be provided, say, by a web form.
If you artificially restrict redistribution, all information would
exist only at centralized repositories and search would last 
"forever";
because noone has a budget of 10.000 CPUs, just for quick search service.

You have to take sides now :)

ps.
Luis suggests a compromise which I find reasonable and advantageous for all.

cheers,
Fotis



Re: [BOAI] On archiving

From: "Nick Thieberger" <nick.thieberger AT gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:01:53 +1000


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message

Jorge,

I also think 'Stolen Grammars' did not do something really bad in
putting copies of documents on the web. But it was not good.

The argument that all information should be freely available ignores
some issues that concern me. One is that it takes effort to create
repositories, especially for primary research material, and this needs
to be recognised by these repositories being the sources of the
information (with hit counts as the main measure of success). The
other is that archives of field-recordings (one of which our team is
building) require some sensitivity, with deposit conditions arising
from the relationship of the speakers to the researcher who then
becomes the depositor.

And, yes, the research is publicly funded, but the building of the
repository is not funded any more (the startup cost was provided to
buy digitisation equipment but nothing after that. So, until
researchers include archiving costs in their budgets we will not have
properly funded research repositories, and the information will not be
available either open or semi-open. And if digital repositories can be
misused (as I see it) then they will also not be likely to be funded,
or trusted by depositors.

Yours in (sensible) open access,

Nick

2008/5/13 machado AT sociologia.de <machado AT sociologia.de>:
> Hi Nick.
>
>  Just a few comments:
>
>  1) Why the site "Paradisec" is on "Creative Commons
>  Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License"?  This license 
allows
>  "to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work". 
Right?
>
>  2) I think the site of Harald Hammarström did nothing really bad. It was
>  just a "fair use" for educational purposes. In some countries, 
there is
>  no problem to distribute untill a copyright holder ask to delete the
>  content from the website.
>
>  3) I believe that almost all research materials available on 
"Paradisec"
>  are the result of public founding. Maybe this is meaningfull.
>
>  Best Regards,
>
>  Jorge Machado
>  University of São Paulo
>
>
>
>  Nick Thieberger escreveu:
>
>
> > So we have the 'open is open' corner and then the 'open is open, but
>  > needs to be realistic' corner (which is where I sit). I faced this
>  > issue with regard to an archive of ethnographic material I am part 
of
>  > (http://paradisec.org.au). Someone in Sweden set up a 'stolen 
grammars
>  > site' (his name) and put pdf versions of grammars of many languages,
>  > over 1,000, up for free download. Lots of these were covered by
>  > copyright so he was exposing himself to potential legal action, a
>  > courageous stand on his part. But he also put material from our
>  > collection up on his site after he had signed our access form which
>  > explicitly asks that nothing be further distributed. He also put a
>  > copy of my dissertation on his site, despite it being freely 
available
>  > in an eprints repository. When I asked him to link to my material
>  > rather than copying it, he pulled the whole site down. All this is
>  > blogged here: 
http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/elac/2007/05/open_access_or_open_slather_ni_1.html
>  >
>  > I think we need to earn the trust of depositors to open access
>  > collections, which means that enforcing deposit and access 
conditions
>  > has to be seen to be done.
>  >
>  > Nick Thieberger
>  >
>  >
>  > 2008/5/12 Andras Holl <holl AT konkoly.hu>:
>  >> Hi Luis,
>  >>
>  >>>    Legally you, as a Jornal publisher, don't have any right 
to
>  >>>    prevent somebody from creating an archive of your 
Journal.
>  >>>    If that were the case, then I would have to burn my 
Science
>  >>>    journal after I read them, because by stacking them in my
>  >>>    bookshelf I'm creating an archive.
>  >>>
>  >>>    "Archiving" is not one of the exclusive rights 
for which the
>  >>>    state granted you a limited-time monopoly under copyright 
laws.
>  >> First of all, while apparently I am not legally correct, my 
objections
>  >> were not legal.
>  >>
>  >> And I think the case of the electronic journals should be 
different.
>  >> Could a library archive the full content of a subscribed
>  >> electronic journal? I would be glad to have that right.
>  >> But, such kind of archiving is local, and I have no objection to
>  >> that. The kind of archiving in question, I feel, is different.
>  >> It would involve eventual redistribution.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>>    Some of them related to your concern for the integrity of
>  >>>    the information, and some of them related for some 
(surprising)
>  >>>    desire to excert control over the information.
>  >> While we charge no fee for the access of our journal, we have to
>  >> demonstrate to our funding agencies that their money is well 
spent.
>  >> We think it is best achieved if the whole journal is kept on our
>  >> site, and everyone has to donwload it from us. Meanwhile we take
>  >> care of the availability and accessibility.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>>    "I would not like a party starting to archive all of
>  >>>     my PDF files without my knowledge."
>  >>>    I'm asking myself:  Why ?
>  >> It is purely technical. It would overload our server. I do not 
see
>  >> why should I buy a server twice as expensive, while already 
providing
>  >> a service for the community.
>  >>
>  >>>    Why is your concern when some other organization
>  >>>    redistribute your PDF files ?
>  >> I have already explained my problems with redistribution.
>  >>
>  >>>    You cannot adopt Open Access and still be obsessed with
>  >>>    controlling content. That is to be left to organizations
>  >>>    that still live with 20th century mentality, such as the
>  >>>    MPAA and the RIAA.
>  >>>    Are you going to bring lawsuits to students who decide
>  >>>    to redistribute your journal ?
>  >> I have nothing against redistribution of any individual paper
>  >> (including groups of papers), An author could deposit his/her
>  >> paper in a repository, put it on his/her website. A research
>  >> group could do the same with the papers they authored.
>  >> Organizations publish their proceedings in our journal, and
>  >> re-distribute it in their own newsletter. Universities
>  >> archive papers published by their staff and students in our
>  >> journal. All of that is all right. What I am against is 
redistributing
>  >> the whole journal. It has never happened that a student wanted
>  >> to do that, and I can not imagine why any student would like to.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>>    If the concern is quality of redistribution, then you 
simply
>  >>>    have to make sure that your own redistribution is the one
>  >>>    with the highest quality of service for readers.
>  >> In reality it is very confusing to readers that they can get the
>  >> - apparently, but not truly - same material from many different
>  >> sources.
>  >>
>  >>>    If it happens that some other organization can 
redistribute
>  >>>    your files better than you do, then you shouldn't be 
worry
>  >>>    about it, you should rather send them an email with a
>  >>>    *Thank You* note.
>  >> It has happened that organizations at a certain time could
>  >> redistribute our content better, than us, and I was  happy with
>  >> that. It has also happened, that in one of such cases, the
>  >> mirroring/translation process went wild (the automatism was
>  >> not maintained any longer because people responsible left
>  >> that institution), and for months garbage content was displayed.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>>    I think you must rethink your mission.
>  >> I think I have thought about my mission quite a lot.
>  >>
>  >>>    Are you publishing a Journal in order
>  >>>      a) to gain reputation ?
>  >>>      b) bring attention to your web site ?
>  >>>      c) advance the progress of a field ?
>  >>>   If the answer is (c), then redistribution by third parties
>  >>>   should simply make you happy.
>  >> The answer is all three, and some more too. Publishers of
>  >> OpenAccess journals desire some reputation, and attention to
>  >> their website might help them to provide services for free.
>  >>
>  >> With best regards,
>  >>
>  >> Andras Holl
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  >
>
>


RE: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties - Attribution

From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton AT acm.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:19:40 -0700


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message

I find the analysis here and in David J. Solomon's remarks to be very
useful.

1. I do not fear that preventing redistribution (which a library does under
particular licenses from publishers) is going to be the death of libraries.
Libraries do not now have blanket license to allow others to 
"archive"
copies of the material that the library has "archived."  Some 
institutional
licenses allow limited redistribution (and limited access) and we should not
confuse that with generally-permitted behavior.  

3. I think providing a link to the authoritative/definitive version of a
work (and even where there might be errata, related material, etc.) is a
wonderful practice.  Because once the scholarly/scientific literature is set
loose on the Internet, it is not possible to know who has it and what they
are making of it.  Ties to authoritative sources and possibly even
more-recent versions and analyses can be very important.

A. With regard to the Creative Commons Attribution flavors, all CC deeds
specify that attribution is to be made in a form specified by the author
(even though authors rarely do this).  So it is perfectly appropriate for a
work to specify how attribution is to be made to it and also to provide
links to an authoritative source as part of that.  The on-line Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy does something like this on its pages, and it is
possible to cite Wikipedia articles in a way where the reference is to a
specific version of an entry.  I would not call this advertising.  I would
call it support for good scholarship.

B. With regard to the breaking links and vanishing content problem, either
because of archive failure or removal of self-archived materials, or site
design or whatever, there is another service that provides for viral
archiving of scholarly materials on the web: http://www.webcitation.org/
This has two interesting features - it works where a DOI is not available
and it is viral in the sense that you can use it not only for your own
material but for material that you cite, so that the material will be
archived and can be found at an archive location if the primary link rots or
fails.  (You can see how I archived them at 
http://nfoworks.org/notes/2008/03/n080301d1.htm#d2008-05-07 although I am
missing attribution guidance on those CC pages of mine -- something I have
plans to remedy real soon now.)

 - Dennis

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
AIIM DMware Technical Coordinator 
mailto:Dennis.Hamilton AT acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
http://DMware.info http://ODMA.info/ http://TROSTing.org 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Luis Ibanez
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 16:09
To: Andras Holl
Cc: boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties


Hi Andras,


1) Yes, a library has the full right of archiving the full
    content of an electronic journal for which it has a
    subscription.

[ ... ]

2) I think we both agree that "archiving" is not the issue.
    The issue is "redistribution" or if you will 
"mirroring".

[ ... ]

3) Here is a practical suggestion on how to drive authors
    and readers back to your official site:

    As part of the review process or the submission process,
    generate a permanent URL for the paper (e.g. like the
    handle system used by DSpace), then require the authors
    to insert that link in every page of the final PDF version
    of the paper (e.g. as a footer in every page).

    The link could say something like:

    "This paper is available free of charge at Journal XYZ"
    "in the following link:
    "http://www.xys.journal.open.access.org/handle/98731"

    If this is a live-link in the PDF file, then even better.

    In this case, anybody reading the paper from the PDF file
    will be referred back to your site.

    You could also require (or at least make very easy for)
    authors to use also permanent URLs when citing papers
    from your Journal. For example, in the paper itself
    add a sentence such as:

    "For citing this paper, please use the following URL"
    "http://www.xys.journal.open.access.org/handle/98731"


[ ... ]


Re: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties - Attribution

From: Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez AT kitware.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 13:28:04 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message



Dear Dennis,


Thanks for your insightful comments.


I would like to clarify point (1) of your email, regarding whether
libraries and archives need permission or not from copyright holders
in order to archive copyrighted material. Let's make clear that we
are talking about "archiving" and not about 
"redistribution".


Libraries and archives *do not* need any license for publishers in
order to archive copyrighted materials. Under US copyright law,
libraries and archives are granted exceptions allowing them to
reproduce materials for archival purposes:


        http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108


Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), libraries and
archive are also allowed to circumvent copyright protection measures
(DRMs) for the purpose of fulfilling their educational mission:


               http://www.copyright.gov/1201/


Let's keep a clear distinction between "archiving" and 
"redistributing".


My previous comment stated that any prohibition of "archiving" will
entail by itself the end of the essential mission of a library, not
to mention that it will force any buyers of books and records to
dispose of the material after they have use it, because storing
books and CD records in a bookshelf is essentially "archiving".


Open Access in scientific publishing is all about reacting against
the disproportional application of Copyright protections to scientific
material. The publication of scientific papers is an area in which
copyright should have *never* been applied in the first place.

Researchers do not need copyright protection for their journal
papers, because


   a) They don't get paid by publishers when
      they transfer their copyright

   b) Researchers mission is to disseminate information.


Richard Stallman stated it much better in:
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/stallman.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/push-copyright-aside.html


The copyright that journal publishers use in order to restrict the
free distribution of scientific information was acquired for free
by requiring paper authors to give away their copyright without
any compensation.


Copyrights at this point are simply exploited by publishers for their
own interest at the expense of preventing access to valuable information
to world wide communities.


Organizations build upon the premise that their mission or their
business model involves the restriction of dissemination of information
are living in denial of the essential principles of the Information Age
and are destined to become irrelevant in a world where a Google search
determines whether something exist or not.



    Best Regards,


       Luis


---------------------------
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I find the analysis here and in David J. Solomon's remarks to be very
> useful.
> 
> 1. I do not fear that preventing redistribution (which a library does 
under
> particular licenses from publishers) is going to be the death of 
libraries.
> Libraries do not now have blanket license to allow others to 
"archive"
> copies of the material that the library has "archived."  Some 
institutional
> licenses allow limited redistribution (and limited access) and we should 
not
> confuse that with generally-permitted behavior.  
> 


RE: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties - Attribution

From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton AT acm.org>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 12:17:52 -0700


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message

Luis,

Thank you for your question.  I must confess that #108 is newer than my last
deep mining in USC 17.

Lets not wordsmith too heavily about archiving and what it means to put a
book on a shelf.  #108 is clearly about making a single copy as well as
additional copies (2 or 3) to allow for preservation at other sites.  It
doesn't say anything new that limits what one can do with a
properly-obtained published form of a work (that is, the exclusive and
automatic rights of copyright owners stand except as explicitly licensed
otherwise by the copyright owner).

The key thing is that this permission to make an archival copy does not
grant broad redistribution rights within an institution (the one copy rule
is very limiting and requires on-site access to the public).

It is very clear that putting such a thing on the web for general access,
even if limited to a community of users, is not provided for here.  (The
small extracts, single articles, etc., might be a loophole, but I think it
is clear that wholesale downloading is not one of the provisions of #108 and
not something that arises under the default and automatic protections of
copyright in USC 17.)

I agree that we should not confuse archiving with redistribution.

Having reviewed #108 as currently written, I stand behind my comment that
you quote.  Libraries are very constrained in providing archival copies to
others and may only provide one for themselves (with the prospect of
replacement of a shelf-copy if the original is lost, destroyed, and not
replaceable).  I don't believe that many libraries do that systematically
(storage of "originals" seems more the pattern).  

So as long as the provisions of *COPYING* for archival purposes are as
stated in #108, I think that's fine and apparently more than many libraries
require.  There is no prohibition at all against archiving a non-copy, so
let's not go too far into the woods here.

And the special agreements publishers have with certain libraries that
provide for controlled distribution are just that: special bilateral
agreements outside of the automatic provisions of USC 17.

That's all I wanted to make sure we were careful to differentiate.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Luis Ibanez
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:28
To: BOAI Forum
Subject: Re: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third
Parties - Attribution



Dear Dennis,


Thanks for your insightful comments.


I would like to clarify point (1) of your email, regarding whether
libraries and archives need permission or not from copyright holders
in order to archive copyrighted material. Let's make clear that we
are talking about "archiving" and not about 
"redistribution".


Libraries and archives *do not* need any license for publishers in
order to archive copyrighted materials. Under US copyright law,
libraries and archives are granted exceptions allowing them to
reproduce materials for archival purposes:


        http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108


Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), libraries and
archive are also allowed to circumvent copyright protection measures
(DRMs) for the purpose of fulfilling their educational mission:


               http://www.copyright.gov/1201/


Let's keep a clear distinction between "archiving" and 
"redistributing".


My previous comment stated that any prohibition of "archiving" will
entail by itself the end of the essential mission of a library, 

[ ... ]


---------------------------
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I find the analysis here and in David J. Solomon's remarks to be very
> useful.
> 
> 1. I do not fear that preventing redistribution (which a library does
under
> particular licenses from publishers) is going to be the death of
libraries.
> Libraries do not now have blanket license to allow others to 
"archive"
> copies of the material that the library has "archived."  Some
institutional
> licenses allow limited redistribution (and limited access) and we should
not
> confuse that with generally-permitted behavior.  
> 


RE: [BOAI] Re: On archiving & Mirroring of Journals by Third Parties - Attribution

From: "David J. Solomon,. Ph.D." <dsolomon AT msu.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 07:43:16 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] On archiving from holl AT konkoly.hu
      • This Message

Thanks Dennis,

I agree, Webcite is an ingenious and valuable tool and we all owe 
Gunther Eysenbach a big round of applause for developing and 
maintaining this system. I use it every chance I get when referencing 
web based content.

I am not sure it is an ideal tool for achieving journals. It is 
really designed for archiving by an author referencing a particular 
web page to ensure it will be there for the reader in the form it was 
when the author referenced it.This is a little different situation. 
It's also not 100% effective for dynamic content and it is designed 
(rightly so) not to archive pages where the meta data specifically 
forbid caching.

Dave



>B. With regard to the breaking links and vanishing content problem, either
>because of archive failure or removal of self-archived materials, or site
>design or whatever, there is another service that provides for viral
>archiving of scholarly materials on the web: http://www.webcitation.org/
>This has two interesting features - it works where a DOI is not available
>and it is viral in the sense that you can use it not only for your own
>material but for material that you cite, so that the material will be
>archived and can be found at an archive location if the primary link rots 
or
>fails.  (You can see how I archived them at
>http://nfoworks.org/notes/2008/03/n080301d1.htm#d2008-05-07 although I am
>missing attribution guidance on those CC pages of mine -- something I have
>plans to remedy real soon now.)
>
>  - Dennis
>
>Dennis E. Hamilton
>------------------
>AIIM DMware Technical Coordinator
>mailto:Dennis.Hamilton AT acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430
>http://DMware.info http://ODMA.info/ http://TROSTing.org
>

David Solomon, Ph.D.
A-202 E. Fee Hall
MSU
E. Lansing, Mi 48824

(517) 353-2037 Ext. 223 Voice
(517) 432-1798 Fax
dsolomon AT msu.edu 


[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .