From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:44:02 +0000

Matt

As you know, the UK exception allows a user to text and data mine (for
non-commercial purposes) any content they have legal access to.  So a
researcher looking at a corpus of 100,000 articles provided through
their university library knows with legal certainty that they have the
right to text and data mine those articles.

Without the exception and in a license environment they have to look
at each paper individually, determine who the publisher (or rather
rights-holder) is, check to see if there is a license in place,
determine the nature of that license, reconcile any differences
between different licenses, and ask for permission in cases where
there are no licenses (so having to contact rights-holders, engage in
discussions that could take weeks if not months, etc, etc.).

I am finding it hard to see the second scenario as being less legally
ambiguous than the first.

An interesting report form the Lisbon Council outlined the
difficulties with the license model and pointed out that Europe as a
whole is falling behind those territories that have exceptions when it
comes to TDM:

http://www.lisboncouncil.net/publication/publication/109-mapping-text-and-data-mining-in-academic-and-research-communities-in-europe.html

Your last sentence provides the key as to why you are against
exceptions.  Publishers clearly see TDM as a new revenue stream to
exploit.

David




On 29 Jul 2016, at 02:41, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Matt McKay <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 07:57:35 +0000

David,

STM publishers are committed to facilitating TDM and already provide
products and services which meet the needs of users engaging in TDM.
Changes to copyright will not provide users with the tools they
require to be successful. In fact, TDM exceptions would introduce
legal uncertainty where none presently exists. Likewise, users rely on
the creation of, and access to, high quality content as raw material
to mine, exceptions would undermine the investment incentives
necessary to ensure this quality content is available.


Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:10:59 +0000

Perhaps Matt could expand on why some publishers and some publisher
associations (including STM) have lobbied hard against TDM exceptions
being implemented in national and international copyright regimes?

David



On 27 Jul 2016, at 02:26, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Matt McKay <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:02:06 +0000

Scientific publishers support text and data mining by providing access
to quality content and working with researchers to overcome technical
challenges. This also includes simplified licensing and the support
for text formatting allowing for efficient TDM activities. Active
users indicate that enabling initiatives introduced by publishers
deliver not only the legal certainty that they look for, but also meet
their practical needs. Most major STM publishers do and will continue
to offer licenses/license clauses which enable their customers to mine
both text and data across the research, corporate and educational
sectors. Likewise, most major STM publishers already meet the need of
users for TDM through various channels such as those facilitated by
CrossRef with a single one-time click through across multiple
publisher platforms. You can read STM’s position in our TDM
Declaration issued last year:

http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_11_10_Text_and_Data_Mining_Declaration.pdf