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