From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 16:25:33 -0600

So, Chuck, you're in favor of companies like Academia.edu (and
Napster, YouTube, Aimster, and Grokster before them) that build their
businesses by stealing IP from others? Would you condemn any
university presses that choose to issue take-down notices to
Academia.edu and other such companies in similar language?

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 16:11:37
>
> http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/
>
> For those who are unhappy with decades of  Elsevier's policies,
> practices, pricing, and even their recent purchase of Mendeley, their
> unforced error in issuing take-down notices is an amazing, mistaken
> and ultimately self-destructive decision on Elsevier's part.
>
> Anyone who has any disagreement with Elsevier on any issue: copyright,
> OA policies, hybrid journals, OA pricing,  pricing in general, control
> of backfiles, text mining, any of a myriad of issues including, their
> crazy if you mandate it you can't do it IR policy and their standard
> refusal to permit re-printing "their"   research, should publicize
> this far and wide.
>
> Elsevier, no matter what they say, has demonstrated beyond any
> reasonable doubt in this action, their limited understanding of their
> remit, their control of scholarly research, They are nobody's
> friend's except their shareholders. They have demonstrated  their DNA,
> their belief in their right to  control the content scholars and
> researchers create and publish with Elsevier. They are wrong.
>
> What copyright law says is irrelevant in this, what authors want to do
> with their own research is paramount.
>
> It might have been masked before under the guise of impact factors and
>  collegial editorial board meetings in locations worldwide and smart
> as a whip  editors, and outreach at conferences, and invitations to
> "publish your research with us"  and  PR, and more or less "green" OA
> policies, and excellent inhouse readings of directions in future
> trends, and all the other trappings and expertise they have in
> academic publishing which is at the top of its game. Those trapping
> are insufficient.
>
> Elsevier and its cynical relationship with authors and institutions,
> has been demonstrated by Elsevier itself. No one could have done this
> to them but themselves.
>
> The tide of OA, of authors making sure people who need to see it, get
> to read their research, OA  in all its guises, is inexorable and if
> handled correctly even by such behemoths as Elsevier, will lift all
> boats in the publishing stream, despite  the scaremongers and
> naysayers in publishing, or the mistaken advice of some in libraries,
> or even among  OA advocates themselves. It's logic is persuasive, its
> goals commensurate ultimately with what authors want for their own
> research. To put up and enforce barriers to what scholars want to
> distribute that they themselves produce is antediluvian.
>
> Elsevier's unforced error may be more effective than any boycott.
>
> Chuck Hamaker