From: "Peretsman-Clement, Gail" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 02:09:58 +0000
Thank you for articulating a viewpoint that, yes, other librarians and
library leaders indeed share. The increasingly "activist" aspect of
the library open access movement comes at the cost of trustedness in
our role as. highly engaged but balanced professionals.
Head of Research Services
Sent from a tablet while on the go.
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:58 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 18:19:49 -0500
> Further to Jean-Claude's message below re. Sci-hub's actions as civil
> disobedience: yes, Sci-hub does break the law, in this case copyright
> laws (of most nations).
> Am I the only librarian who's troubled by "the devil made me do it"
> argument that a number of library people are advancing here (the devil
> in this case being the publisher(s))?
> For example, from a recent SPARC interview: "Well, I think
> researchers take for granted that they're - they've been forced into a
> system of workarounds to try to get access to the articles that they
> need to do their research."
> So, when a scientist/scholar could go to an eprints site, or library
> doc delivery/ILL services, or ask colleagues for copies (and other
> long-standing legitimate ways of securing access to those works that
> aren't locally available) does that qualify as "being forced" to
> something that makes breaking the law preferable? "Driven" is another
> word I've seen.
> Do we as librarians really believe that large-scale copyright
> infringement is a good thing, that it's right, and a means to a better
> Ann Okerson
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: SciHub (was: Elsevier cracks down on pirated articles)
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 20:34:28 +0000
>> A couple of quick points:
>> 1. OA does not collide with copyright. Sci-hub is not OA; it is civil
>> disobedience (http://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/02/sci-hub-as-necessary-effective-civil-disobedience/);
>> 2. The notion of sustainability is very slippery. If it means finding
>> stable financing, including public stable financing, I I have no
>> objection. If it means finding a way to recover costs or, worse, make
>> profits, then I object.
>> As far as scientific publishing is concerned, copyright is needed only
>> to the extent that it is needed to make CC-by work. Without copyright,
>> there is obviously no need for a licensing scheme.
>> Jean-Claude Guédon