From: Mary Murrell <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:12:32 -0700

Anthony,

Your comments beg a question. Is there any need for a researcher to ask
for permission to text mine? Such a use is, to many people (myself
included), a fair use under copyright. As I understand it, some librarians
don't even negotiate "mining rights" (or whatever they would be called)
into a license agreement with publishers because they don't want to give
any ground on the issue of fair use.

Mary Murrell


> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:13:20 +0100
>
> Richard
>
> We shall see. I read the blurb not the article. It was the "increasingly
> protesting" that seems to me to demand more than an opinion to justify.
> There is of course the heading but let that pass. It is advocacy after
> all.
>
> A little embarrassing however - almost as embarrassing as the "academic
> spring".
>
> I recognise that there is been quite a bit of noise, partly from other
> journalists, but surely a proper survey is needed to underpin this sort of
> remark?
>
> My opinion is partly based on the study by Eefke Smit and her colleague -
> see:
>
> http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PRCSmitJAMreport20June2011Versio
> nofRecord.pdf.In the summary (2011) they write:
>
> "The mining requests that publishers receive are not very frequent (mostly
> less than 10 per year, a good share even less than 5 per year) and come
> mostly from Abstracting and Indexing services and from corporate
> customers.".
>
> They do suggest (from the survey) that there are more requests but they
> also say that the great majority of these have been met by licence.
>
> I would love to know if there is a big increasing demand that is not being
> met by licence/permissions.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:46:24 +0100
>
> Anthony,
>
> My assertion was not based solely on the views and experience of Peter
> Murray-Rust, as those who read the PDF file will see. I don't doubt
> that the RSC and the ACS would disagree, but feel free to send me some
> names of scientists you know who would disagree. I am more than happy
> to hear their views.
>
> Richard