2009/2/15 Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf_at_googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> As I have shown at http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ the Request
>> button isn't legal in Germany.
I have serious doubts that you have the knowledge to refute my legal
interpretations of German copyright law. How many years have you
studied German copyright law? I am not a lawyer but experienced in
this field since 1989.
>> Or simply NO - ...most scholars in my several tests have'nt reacted on my
>> request button tests.
>
> (4) Mr. Graf, I cannot explain why some of the authors from whom you have
> requested eprints have declined to fulfill your eprint-request.
Every one can repeat my little experiment with a mail adress not
indicating his name or affiliation. I am sure that a harvard.edu
adress will have higher rates. Writing in English to an Quebec
scientist will have very low rates. I am sure that some racist
Mississipi scholars will be unwillingly to fulfill a request from a
Mohammed N.
OA means: each scholar with internet access has the same chance to get
the paper. Thus it is clear that your request-button-ideology has
NOTHING to do with OA.
> (5) The decision to send a reprint or eprint is a discretionary one, on the
> part of the author, and that is exactly how it should be.
Basing an OA instrument which you falsely think it is important on
personal motives is unethical. Basing the ability to get a urgently
needed medical article in let us say Gambia on the discretion of
wealthy scholars in the US which are free in their decision and their
prejudices is unethical. Each day people die because there isn't OA
for medical literature. Any delay of OA and especially propagating a
random generator called request-button is immoral.
"The decision to" deposit an "eprint is a discretionary one, on the
part of the author, and that is exactly how it should be." This would
also be academic freedom.
Klaus Graf
Received on Sun Feb 15 2009 - 21:05:46 GMT