* Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>, le 16-11-10, a écrit:
> Bernard,
>
> The Green Road is not generally conceived of as "publishing" unless you
> take the work "publishing" in a very general sense, such as "making
> public". Stevan Harnad, in fact, has always carefully separated the
> Green Road (self-archiving - not self-publishing) from both vanity
> presses and publishing reforms. I agree with him on these two points,
> even though I also believe that repositories could make moves that would
> bring them much closer to a publisher-function (to transpose the
> author-function of Michel Foucault). But I do not want to re-open this
> can of worms here.
>
> When most of us speak about the Green or Gold Road to Open Access, we
> generally mean free access and free reuse within some well-defined
> limits (e.g. responsible use) that the Bethesda Declaration (among
> others) tried to spell out). In other words, OA is more than simply an
> ability to read at no costs. OA is an ability to reuse, incorporate,
> etc... Again, think about the GPL in free software and the meaning of
> "free" (as in "free speech") in this context. The power of remixing is
> at the heart of the free software movement, and it is also at the heart
> of a healthy scientific effort. It extends to the notuion of a vigorous
> cultural evolution.
Thank you for the clarification
We are trying to define a notion of open work, that is somewhat fuzzy,
a bit in the spirit of what you say.
>
> The OA movement does not deal with orphan works in any central way. It
> deals with scholarly and scientific works where the issue of orphan
> works does not appear to be central (at least I have never seen it
> mentioned in this context).
I realized that ... I was only saying that there are threats to open
access that you may not be aware of. This is one of them.
> Your collecting societies in France obviously want to control both
> access and re-use of orphan works. However, as Larry Lessig has pointed
> out, this is not necessarily all bad provided that:
>
> 1. This helps clearly identify orphan works (and as a consequence, it
> also helps define the public domain);
mumble ...
> 2. This removes the problem of identifying rights owners;
no ... they want the owners to be searched first
> 3. The fees collected are modest or even minimal.
that is precisely what they want to avoid. They are after what they
call "the acceptance of payment" ("le consentement à payer") ... they
dont want people to be used to low prices.
>
> My impression is that you should fight this battle with the use of
> Creative Common licenses, rather than with the OA example. This would
> provide more wiggle room to negotiate an acceptable solution for orphan
> works. And you might remind your negotiating partners that if France
> puts too many restrictions (economic or legal) on orphan works, it will
> simply make the projection of French culture worldwide that much more
> difficult. In other words, French authorities will shoot themselves in
> the foot. I know they are quite good at doing this regularly, to the
> point that i suspect some form of masochism is at work here, but
> nonetheless... Using a suitable CC license on orphan works could lead to
> free re-use of these works so long as it is not commercial. Fees could
> be collected for commercial re-use
does not work legally. But I agree regarding their feets.
They are like their thinking : full of holes.
I am trying something else ... similar result.
http://www.datcha.net/ecrits/liste/orphan-gbs.pdf
But one thing I am now sure of : orphan works are the wrong concept,
a red herring.
We need registration. And I am sure it can be free.
Bernard
>
> Jean-Claude
>
> Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 15:52 +0100, Bernard Lang a écrit :
>
> >
> > Thank you Jean-Claude
> >
> > But when you speak of the green and gold road, and their form of publishing,
> > does it imply that the accessible works come with these rights granted ...
> >
> > or is it only seen as a way to get there.
> >
> > I means that if those rights are given, does it matter much how the
> > work is initially made available.
> >
> > With apologies if my questions are silly. I am missing a link somewhere.
> >
> > I do need to clarify these issues, as France seems intent (I do hope
> > they fail miserably) to have an orphan law, that would give control
> > over works to collective societies, to manage and make money from
> > (theoretically in the author's name). One of the explicit purposes is
> > to kill free works as much as possible (unfair competition).
> >
> > This is already pretty bad.
> >
> > Next news is that the definition of orphan works ignores the existence
> > of a licence or anything. Only reaching the author matters.
> >
> > In other words, the open access publications of an academic who has
> > retired without leaving an address might cease to be open access.
> > They did not say either that the law is only applicable to French
> > works.
> >
> > So far it was only a law for still images, but they were very clear
> > that the intents is to expend it to all things printable.
> >
> > Why still images .. because that gives them an excuse to get started,
> > as photos are often used illegally by pretending the author cannot be
> > found. But there are better way of solving that problem.
> >
> > As I want at least to have open access works excluded, I need a
> > definition, that will be general enough without encompassing
> > everything on the net.
> >
> > I have various references, but all in French.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> >
> > PS The promoter of that law explained to me that violating the moral
> > rights of an author (by preventing use of his works without a mandate
> > from the author) is OK if done with a state mandate, i.e., with legal
> > permission.
> >
> >
> >
> > * Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>, le 16-11-10, a écrit:
> > > Bernard,
> > >
> > > I will simply quote the Bethesda statement on OA:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. Definition of Open Access Publication
> > >
> > >
> > > An Open Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two
> > > conditions:
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a
> > > free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and
> > > a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the
> > > work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in
> > > any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to
> > > proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the right to
> > > make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.
> > >
> > > 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
> > > including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a
> > > suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately
> > > upon initial publication in at least one online repository that
> > > is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society,
> > > government agency, or other well-established organization that
> > > seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,
> > > interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical
> > > sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope this helps you sort out these ideas.
> > >
> > > OA is more than simple and cost-less access; it implies the same kinds
> > > of freedoms that a GPL ensures for software.
> > >
> > > Much of OA thinking was inspired by the free software movement.
> > >
> > > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > >
> > > Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 13:21 +0100, Bernard Lang a écrit :
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there a distinction between papers that are just openly accessible,
> > > > and papers that can be freely reproduced on other sites, or other
> > > > media in your classifications.
> > > >
> > > > I am trying o identifi the concept of an open work. If it is simply
> > > > something that I can access, that qualifies the whole of the Internet.
> > > >
> > > > But can I make copies, preserve it or present it in some other form.
> > > > Who has enough rights so that the conditions of work availability can
> > > > evolve with the state of the art in documents access, presentation,
> > > > organization.
> > > >
> > > > What we do now in not the end of progress in publication. My concern
> > > > is the future.
> > > >
> > > > Why do I worry : because I spend much time working on orphan works
> > > > issues. I am trying to determine when the rightsholder is needed to
> > > > ensure adequate life and survival of a work. Being accessible for
> > > > reading is just not enough.
> > > >
> > > > Bernard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon_at_UMONTREAL.CA>, le 14-11-10, a écrit:
> > > > > Indeed, Larry!
> > > > >
> > > > > And Stevan Harnad is quite right is refusing to equate Open Access with
> > > > > the Gold Road.
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact, Open Access is made up of two approaches: OA publishing or
> > > > > "Gold Road" and self-archiving or "Green Road". And both roads are
> > > > > valuable, arguably equally (although differently) valuable.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for Wallace-Evans, one only has to see how he characterized Robert K.
> > > > > Merton ("most pusillanimous"... ???) to realize that the barbarians are
> > > > > at the gates. It is a pity to see a priodical like Nation fall this low.
> > > > > I used to like reading Nation when I was a student.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 10:21 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> > > > > > One can sympathize with Larry Lessig's frustration in "An Obvious
> > > > > > Distinction":
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LL:
> > > > > > "In 2010, [for David Wallace-Evans] to suggest [in a
> > > > > > 6000-word review in The Nation] that [the Creative
> > > > > > Commons movement] 'exhort[s]… piracy and the
> > > > > > plundering of culture'... betrays not just sloppy
> > > > > > thinking [but] extraordinary ignorance… [and lack of]
> > > > > > respect for what has been written… This terrain has
> > > > > > been plowed a hundred times in the past decade…
> > > > > > Reading is the first step to… respect for what has
> > > > > > been written... Reading is what Wallace-Wells has not
> > > > > > done well."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Larry tries to correct Wallace-Evans's 6000 sloppy words with 878
> > > > > > carefully chosen ones of his own.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me try to atone for my own frequent long-windedness by trying to
> > > > > > put it even more succinctly (20 words):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Creative Commons' goal
> > > > > > is to protect
> > > > > > creators' give-away rights --
> > > > > > not consumers'
> > > > > > (or 2nd-party copyright-holders')
> > > > > > rip-off rights.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Reader's of the American Scientist Open Access Forum may have a sense
> > > > > > of déjà lu about this since at least as far back as December
> > > > > > 2000: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1048.html )
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Harnad, Stevan (2000/2001/2003/2004) For Whom the Gate
> > > > > > Tolls? Published as: (2003) Open Access to Peer-Reviewed
> > > > > > Research Through Author/Institution Self-Archiving: Maximizing
> > > > > > Research Impact by Maximizing Online Access. In: Law, Derek &
> > > > > > Judith Andrews, Eds. Digital Libraries: Policy Planning and
> > > > > > Practice. Ashgate Publishing 2003. [Shorter version: Harnad S.
> > > > > > (2003) Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 49: 337-342.] and in:
> > > > > > (2004) Historical Social Research (HSR) 29:1. [French version:
> > > > > > Harnad, S. (2003) Cielographie et cielolexie: Anomalie
> > > > > > post-gutenbergienne et comment la resoudre. In: Origgi, G. &
> > > > > > Arikha, N. (eds) Le texte a l'heure de l'Internet.
> > > > > > Bibliotheque Centre Pompidou: 77-103.
> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The persistent "piracy" canard calls to mind others like it, foremost
> > > > > > among them being:
> > > > > > "OA ≡ Gold OA (publishing)"...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > > > Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S.,
> > > > > > Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E.
> > > > > > (2004) The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature Web
> > > > > > Focus
> > > > > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > > > > Professeur titulaire
> > > > > Littérature comparée
> > > > > Université de Montréal
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > > Professeur titulaire
> > > Littérature comparée
> > > Université de Montréal
> >
>
>
> --
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal
--
Après la bulle Internet, la bulle financière ...
Et bientôt la bulle des brevets
http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/revue/IMG/pdf/article_HS7RL2.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-kahin/the-patent-bubble_b_129232.html
la gestion des catastrophes comme principe de gouvernement
Bernard.Lang_at_datcha.net ,_ /\o \o/ gsm +33 6 6206 1693
http://www.datcha.net/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ tel +33 1 3056 1693
Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
Received on Tue Nov 16 2010 - 18:31:03 GMT