I wish to point out in support of Stevan that actual practice supports his
views, but in fact goes further. I add a point (10*).
ROBOTIC HARVESTABILITY
(10*) Robotic harvesters like Google may harvest the freely available full
text, and republish stored versions of it, without essential change in
content at the time of harvesting, though format changes and minor omissions
of unusual inclusions may occur.
This has also been happening for many years without challenge. I have used
it often to access information that is temporarily or permanently
unavailable..
I'd also like to suggest a point (11*), but with slightly less confidence.
It happens in Australia and I suspect elsewhere, but I have no evidence of
the latter.
ROBOTIC HARVESTABILITY
(11*) Robotic harvesters like preservation archivists may harvest the freely
available full text, and store multiple archived versions of it, without
essential change in content at the time of harvesting, though changes to
archival (preservation) formats may occur over time. The stored versions may
be republished on the Internet or otherwise.
I'd just like to make another point. Putting something on the Internet is
not 'publishing' in the traditional sense. The Internet has transformed the
whole world of dissemination, and the term 'publishing' is a victim in this
revolution. It means so many different things to different people that its
use should be eschewed as far as possible. Lawyers won't think this way, but
the law is very far behind reality.
Arthur Sale
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Monday, 15 October 2007 2:06 AM
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Re-Use Rights Already Come
> With the (Green) OA Territory: Judicet Lector
>
> Re-Use Rights Already Come With the (Green) OA Territory:
> Judicet Lector
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> Hyperlinked Version:
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/308-guid.html
>
> SUMMARY: Not one, not two, but three of my valued OA comrades-at-arms
> have so far publicly registered their disagreement with my position
on
> "re-use" rights.
>
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/10/more-on-ukpmc-publishers-panel.ht
ml
>
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind07&L=american-scientist-open-a
ccess-
> forum&D=1&O=D&F=l&S=&P=95934
> http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=668
> Here is my summary of the points at issue: Judicet Lector.
>
> INDIVIDUAL RE-USE CAPABILITIES: If a document's full-text is freely
> accessible online (OA), that means any individual can (1) access it,
> (2) read it, (3) download it, (4) store it (for personal use), (5)
> print it off (for personal use), (6) "data-mine" it and (7) re-use
> the results of the data-mining in further research publications
> (but they may not re-publish or re-sell the full-text itself:
> "derivative works" must instead link to its URL).
>
> ROBOTIC HARVESTABILITY: In addition, (8*) robotic harvesters like
> Google can harvest and index the freely available Web-based text,
> making it boolean full-text searchable. (9*) Robotic data-miners can
> also harvest the full-text, machine-analyse it, and re-use the
results
> for research purposes (but they may not re-publish or re-sell the
> full-text itself: "derivative works" must instead link to its URL).
>
> OA IS ABOUT ACCESS AND USE, NOT RE-PUBLICATION OR RE-SALE: Online
> re-publishing or re-sale rights were never part of OA, any more than
> on-paper re-publishing or re-sale rights were; nor do they need to
be,
> because of all the capabilities that come with the free online
> territory.
>
> THE GREEN OA TERRITORY: Capabilities (1)-(9*) all come automatically
> with the Green OA territory. Hence there is no need to pay for
> Gold OA to have these capabilities, nor any need for further re-use
> rights beyond those already inherent in Green OA. Sixty-two percent
> of journals today already endorse Green OA self-archiving, Gold
> OA includes Green OA: If you do elect to pay a publisher for Gold
> OA, you also get the right to deposit your refereed final draft
> ["postprint"] in your own OA Institutional Repository. Hence even
> here there is no need for further "re-use rights." (If you pay for
> "Gold OA" without also getting this Green OA, you have done something
> exceedingly foolish.)
>
> "HARVESTING RIGHTS"? If authors self-archive their articles on the
> web, freely accessibly (Green OA), robots like Google can and do
> harvest and data-mine them, and have been doing so without exception
> or challenge, for years now.
>
> WHAT ABOUT GRAY PUBLISHERS? With Gray publishers (i.e., neither
> Green nor Gold) the interim solution today is (i) Immediate Deposit
> (IDOA) Mandates, (ii) Closed Access deposit for Gray articles,
> and (iii) reliance on the semi-automatized "Email Eprint Request"
> ("Fair Use") Button to provide for individual researchers' usage
> and re-usage needs for these Gray articles during any Closed Access
> embargo interval (but note that the Fair Use Button cannot provide
> for robotic harvesting and data-mining of these embargoed
full-texts).
>
> EXTRA GOLD OA RIGHTS? For those articles published in the 38% of
> journals that are still non-Green today, I think that relying on
> (i)-(iii) above is a far better interim strategy for attaining 100%
> OA for one and all than to pay hybrid Gray/Gold publishers for Gold
> OA today. But regardless of whether you agree that (i)-(iii) is the
> better strategy in such cases, what is not at issue either way is
> whether Gold OA itself requires or provides "re-use" rights over
> and above those capabilities already inherent in Green OA -- hence
> whether in paying for Gold OA one is indeed paying for something
> that is needed for research but not already vouchsafed by Green OA.
>
> As not one, not two, but no fewer than three of my valued OA
> comrades-at-arms have so far publicly registered their disagreement
> with my position on one (possibly two) points of detail concerning
> "re-use" rights, it is perhaps worthwhile taking a closer look at
> these points to see exactly what is and is not at issue:
>
> Individual re-use capabilities. The concern is about "re-use rights,"
> but I prefer to speak of "re-use capabilities." My OA comrades suggest
> that these consist of more than just the ability to read, and they are
> certainly right about that: If a document is OA -- i.e., if its
> full-text is freely accessible online, immediately and permanently,
> webwide -- then that means that any individual, webwide, can (1) access
> the document online, (2) read it, (3) download it, (4) store it (for
> personal use), (5) print it off (for personal use), (6) "data-mine" it
> and (7) re-use the results of the data-crunching in further research and
> research publications (however, they may not re-publish or re-sell the
> full-text itself, in "derivative works," either online or in print,
> without permission, beyond a reasonable number of quoted/cited excerpts:
> instead, they may only link to the OA full-text's URL in such derivative
> works, leaving the user to click to access it).
>
> Robotic harvestability. In addition to the individual re-use
> capabilities (1-7), there are the following: (8*) Robotic harvesters
> like Google can harvest the freely available Web-based text (exactly as
> they harvest all other texts that are freely available on the Web) and
> inverse-index it, thereby making it searchable by boolean full-text
> search in their search engines. (9*) Robotic data-miners can also
> harvest the text, machine-analyse it, and re-use the results of their
> data-crunching for research purposes in further research and research
> publications (however, they may not re-publish or re-sell the full-text
> itself, in "derivative works," either online or in print, without
> permission, beyond a reasonable number of quoted/cited excerpts:
> instead, they may only link to the OA full-text's URL in such derivative
> works, leaving the user to click to access it).
>
> The Green OA territory. All the above -- (1)-(7) plus (8*)-(9*) --
> already come automatically with the (Green) OA territory when a
> full-text is made freely accessible online, immediately and permanently,
> webwide. It is for this reason that I continue to insist -- and this is
> the fundamental point of disagreement with my three OA comrades -- that
> there is no need whatsoever for any further re-use rights beyond what
> already comes automatically with the Green OA territory. In particular,
> there is no need to pay extra for Gold OA, in order to "purchase" these
> "extra" re-use rights. Nor is there any need to add any further re-use
> rights to Gold OA copyright agreements (although formalizing the rights
> is always fine, and a good idea).
>
> Gold OA includes Green OA. If you have paid a publisher for Gold OA, you
> have, among other things, certainly paid for the right to deposit your
> refereed final draft ["postprint"] in your own OA Institutional
> Repository (along with any XML tagging you may wish to add to facilitate
> usage, search, harvesting and data-mining): hence you already have
> (1)-(9*). Hence what you are paying for, if you elect to pay for Gold
> OA, is not extra re-use rights, but simply Gold OA, which already
> includes Green OA, which in turn already provides all the requisite
> re-use capabilities.
>
> Gold OA without Green OA? If any author (or funder) were ever to pay for
> "Gold OA" without thereby also getting the publisher's blessing to
> deposit the refereed final draft (postprint) in the author's own
> Institutional OA Repository, then that author (or funder) would be doing
> something exceedingly foolish. (I know of no "Gold OA" today that does
> not automatically include Green OA.) But, apart from that, paying for
> Gold OA is still an unnecessary expenditure today for all except those
> to whom money is no object and who consider paid Gold OA to be worth the
> cost because it helps promote Gold OA, reinforcing the fact that it is a
> potentially viable cost-recovery model. Gold OA itself is certainly not
> necessary for any re-use needs that are purportedly not fulfillable
> through Green OA alone.
>
> Pay for Green OA rights? The second possible point of disagreement with
> my three OA comrades, a more minor one, would be about whether it is
> worth paying for Gold OA to a hybrid Gray/Gold publisher who does not
> endorse Green OA self-archiving except if paid for Gold OA: I'm inclined
> to say that Closed Access self-archiving in your Institutional
> Repository (IR), along with the IR's "Email Eprint Request" Button, is a
> much better strategy than paying such a hybrid Gray/Gold publisher for
> Gold OA in such cases, because it facilitates exception-free IDOA
> Deposit Mandates. But this is a less important point of disagreement
> than the logical, practical point about whether paid Gold OA is indeed
> needed for certain re-use rights.
>
> "Harvesting rights"? I will close on the sole potentially substantive
> matter on which my three OA comrades do have at least a theoretical
> point -- but, I will argue, a point that has no practical import: The
> reason I put an asterisk after 8* and 9* is that it can be argued that
> whereas the individual uses (1) - (7) do indeed come with the territory
> if one makes a document freely accessible on the web, this does not
> necessarily cover robotic uses such as harvesting.
>
> "Could?" is trumped by "Does." I will give a very simple and pragmatic
> answer: "Can," "could," "cannot" and "could not" are all trumped here by
> "does." My OA comrades are needlessly reasoning hypothetically in this
> case, when the objective evidence is already in: "If authors were to
> self-archive their articles on the web, freely accessibly (Green OA), as
> described above, could robots like Google harvest and data-mine them?"
> The answer is a resounding "yes": they could, and can, as demonstrated
> by that fact that they already do, without exception or challenge, for
> years now!
>
> Articles vs. books. We are not talking here about the full-texts of
> books, ambivalently provided to Google by their publishers (and
> authors), or scanned directly by Google, with certain conditions imposed
> by their publishers and authors on their re-use. We are talking about
> authors' final drafts (postprints) of their peer-reviewed journal
> articles, self-archived free for all by their authors in order to
> maximize their accessibility, usage and impact. In the case of books,
> there can be and have been contentious harvesting issues. But in the
> case of self-archiving, not a single article's harvestability has been
> contested, and we already have a decade and a half of precedent and
> practice behind us in this. So those who are worrying about the need to
> formally guarantee Google's (and other harvesters') "right" to do what
> they are already doing, without exception or challenge, since the advent
> of the Web, are worrying about a notional obstacle, not a real one.
>
> OA is not about or for re-publication or re-sale, online or in print; OA
> is about access and use. Before replying to insist that I am wrong about
> about "re-use" being a nonproblem for self-archived postprints, may I
> ask my readers please to recall (i) the parentheticals I carefully
> inserted earlier, concerning both individual users and harvesters:
> "(though they may not re-publish or re-sell the full-text itself, in
> "derivative works," either online or in print, without permission,
> beyond a reasonable number of quoted/cited excerpts: instead, they may
> only link to the OA full-text's URL in such derivative works, leaving
> the user to click to access it)". None of that is part of OA, nor has it
> ever been ("BBB" Declarations to the contrary notwithstanding). OA is
> something new that has been made possible by a new medium: the Web.
> "Online re-publishing or re-sale rights" were never part of OA any more
> than on-paper re-publishing or re-sale rights were -- nor do they need
> to be, because of what comes with the OA territory (i.e., with being
> freely accessible to one and all online).
>
> What About Gray Publishers? Recall also that (ii) Gold OA already
> includes Green OA (as part of what you are paying for) and that (iii)
> with Gray publishers (i.e., those that are neither Green nor Gold) the
> interim solution for now is Immediate Deposit mandates plus the
> semi-automatized "Email Eprint Request" or "Fair Use" Button for any
> Closed Access deposits. That does provide for individual researchers'
> uses and re-uses even for this "Gray" literature (meaning non-Green,
> non-Gold journal articles) -- although it does not provide for robotic
> harvesting and data-mining of the (Closed Access) full-texts, just their
> metadata.
>
> IDOA and the Button -- or Paid Gold OA? Here, as I said, my colleagues
> and I may agree to disagree on the second, minor point, as to whether
> (a) it is a better strategy to rely, for now, on mandated IDOA and the
> Button for articles published in non-Green journals (38%), trusting that
> that will eventually force those journals to go Green (62%)? or, rather,
> (b) it is a better strategy to pay for Gold OA right now? But note that
> what is not at issue either way is whether Gold OA itself requires or
> provides "re-use" rights over and above those capabilities already
> provided by Green OA -- hence whether in paying for Gold OA one is
> indeed paying for something that is needed for research, but not already
> vouchsafed by Green OA.
>
> Stevan Harnad
> AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
>
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.h
tml
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
>
> UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
> If you have adopted or plan to adopt a policy of providing Open Access
> to your own research article output, please describe your policy at:
> http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
>
> OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
> BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access
journal
> http://romeo.eprints.org/
> OR
> BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access journal
if/when
> a suitable one exists.
> http://www.doaj.org/
> AND
> in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
> in your own institutional repository.
> http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
> http://archives.eprints.org/
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/
Received on Mon Oct 15 2007 - 01:00:20 BST