Text & Data Mining:UK Copyright Reforms : Technical Review: Submissions.

Update 13 April 2014

Draft SI now published


Q4. Does the term “electronic analysis” capture the range of analytical techniques used in scientific research?

…..“Electronic analysis” is a very broad term which has the advantage of covering not only present analytical techniques but also “future proofing” the exception as new techniques are developed. However, its broadness brings the risk of challenge in the courts to define the scope of the exception. For example, The International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers http://www.stm-assoc.org/ have a much narrower definition of text and data mining (TDM) which aims to distinguish it from other “similar” procedures….

….On balance I feel that the retention of the broad term “electronic analysis” in the exception would be a step forward by the UK towards the need seen in section 5.23 of the Hargreaves Review for: “exploring with our EU partners a new mechanism in copyright law to create a built-in adaptability to future technologies which, by definition, cannot be foreseen in precise detail by today’s policy makers”….

However, I also feel that the broad concept of “electronic analysis” in the exception would be strengthened, given possible litigation to interpret the exception, by some reference to fair dealing within the exception. The problem here is that, as a new exception, fair dealing for data-analysis has not yet been defined. The Hargreaves Review considered text and data mining to be an example of “non-consumptive use” i.e. “ uses of a work enabled by technology which do not directly trade on the underlying creative and expressive purpose of the work” (Hargreaves Review sec. 5.24).

Rewording subsection (1) of the proposed section 29A to read

“(1) Where a person has lawful access to a copy of a copyright work, copyright is not infringed where that person makes a copy of the work for the purposes of carrying out an electronic analysis, which does not directly trade on the underlying creative and expressive purpose of the work, of anything recorded in the work provided that….” ……..would introduce this reference to fair dealing. ……….

…………Subsection (2) establishes that a copy made for these purposes may not be distributed or used for any purpose other than non-commercial research. Any such action infringes copyright. This protects the owners of rights in the copied works

Q5. Is this wording effective?

My problem with the proposed wording centres around whether citation/quotation from a copy made for data-analytic purposes is within the scope of “non-commercial research”. Scientist W uses data-analysis to carry out non-commercial research into X, this data-analysis highlights Paper Y which includes a result he wishes to cite in his own paper Z. Under the proposed amended exception for quotations, subject to fair dealing, this citation from paper Y in paper Z will be lawful.

If the scope of “non-commercial research” stretches from research to eventual publication of research outcomes there is no problem. Scientist W can use the copy of paper Y he obtained by data-analysis to extract the quotation from. However, if publication and citation is seen a separate activity from the original research then he can’t lawfully use the data-analysis copy to make a quotation from. Quotation would be a dealing with the copy for “a purpose other than non-commercial research” . Presumably he would have to lawfully acquire a separate copy and then make his citation from that. Which is a rather around the houses approach, not to mention a waste of good research time!

Full submission… (Word 2003 .doc file 83KB)

Data analysis exception

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Quotations: UK Copyright reform 2013: Techical Review: Submission

Update 13 April 2014..

Draft SI now published

Thinking about it a bit more..as an alternative to manual transcription it could be legal to cut and paste the quotation from a screen view (if DRM/TPM allowed!!). The decision by the UK Supreme Court in Public Relations Consultants Association Limited (Appellant) v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited and others (17 April 2013) would seem to be relevant. This case was about web browsing as a “lawful use”  under  section 28A subsection (b) of the CDPA 1988 as revised by The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2498), reg. 8(1)  . Many of the arguments in the Supreme Court decision could also apply to  “cut and paste” operations to lawfully create a quotation. Because of the transnational importance of their decision the UK Supreme Court has refered the case to the CJEU (Case C-360/13) for their consideration..Another factor is the new section in the draft SI

“(4) To the extent that a term of a contract purports to prevent or restrict the doing of any act which, by virtue of subsection (1ZA), would not infringe copyright, that term is unenforceable.”

When I want as a commercial user to extract a lawful “fair dealing” quote from a web site, or publication, that has all the usual T&Cs that say “all rights reserved.. you can’t download a copy for commercial purposes without our permission…etc.. etc..” (I’m thinking of most university web sites here!)  can I just invoke this section (4) to say that those T&Cs are preventing/restricting me from doing something lawful in a sensible way… Your guess is as good as mine..

What about “commercial users”  are they supposed to transcribe from the computer screen? No permanent copies allowed?

“…….Under the proposed exception, fair dealing with a quotation from a work will become a lawful use. For a quotation to be made there must some expression of the work, lawfully made available to the public, for it to be extracted from…..

…To summarise, For “non-commercial” quotation, the quotation can be extracted from a permanent copy. For “commercial” quotation, extraction is restricted to temporary copies or manual transcription. Both types of quotation embedded in a further work, subject to fair dealing, would be equally lawful…..

….Given all the above I would propose a drafting amendment to subsection (2) to make it clear that it is fair dealing with the work to make a permanent copy of a work solely to the extent necessary for extracting a quotation from it. This could perhaps be inserted before the two existing restrictions on fair dealing with quotations.”

Full submission

quotation exception technical review submission (word 2003 .doc file 45KB)

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

BIS Select Committee on Open Access: submission


BIS Select Committee report published September 2013

Written Evidence  to BIS Select Committee on Open Access


Summary of submission:
The Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Finch Group Report ‘Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications’, including its preference for the ‘gold’ over the ‘green’ open access model;

Green OA via deposit in repositories provides limited open access to full text papers. Sampling of the University of Southampton repository shows about 20% OA availability (Table 1). Stronger mandates for deposit raise deposition rates but the OA availability of full text papers remains below 50% (Table 2: University of Liege). Mandated green OA can be effective for dissemination of information between researchers in a discipline(“pull model”) but does not address wider dissemination across disciplines and to the public (“push model”).

Rights of use and re-use in relation to open access research publications, including the implications of Creative Commons ‘CC-BY’ licences;

For the widest and fastest dissemination of research information, commercial re-use and transformation must be allowed. The RCUK approach of applying OGL licences “upstream” to information in grants databases and CC-BY licences “downstream” to research outcomes in published papers is to be applauded. There is an anomaly in between- the research outcomes published as “translate and engage” information on the departmental research pages of university websites remain, in effect, all copyrights reserved. For this publicly funded information no commercial re-use is possible without express permission.

……Full submission

BIS open access   (Word 2003 .doc file 56KB)

Posted in Intellectual Property, Open Access | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Gentlemen & Scholars Only. No Tradesmen. University Websites.

Tradesmen Entrance web

Photo by Chris Radcliff  (CC BY-SA 2.0)     “Sign in Washington D.C. near the U.S. Capitol building. The arrow pointed to a blocked narrow staircase leading down to an unused basement door.”

Another comment, following my earlier one,  posted in response to  the Guardian article .

“Where are university websites hiding all their research?”


 The descriptive text for the photo above seems very appropriate to how Universities treat research pages on their websites.

Got a bit steamed up at the end – aux barricades citoyens and all that- but why not?  Am beginning to wonder if researchers give a damn about their research pages on university websites. If they “owned”  them it might be different.

(Comment follows)

“I submitted a clunky comment earlier.I’d like to repackage and try again.

First, I’ll declare an interest. I want to make money from the information about the research going on in UK universities. Let’s be clear, what I’m interested in is not the published papers. They are probably the most important output of university research but they are not the only product of that research. There is also the “translate and engage” information that you will find on the website pages about departmental research and in the research councils’ grant databases. This where a research unit can sketch out who’s doing what, where, and who’s paying. Where researchers can blog and post videos. Where they can engage possible collaborators from other disciplines and other countries. I want to take this information mix and mash it and sell it on to the world.  Why? Because the UK public sector research base is one of the few strengths the UK still has since Mrs. T’s long bet on the banks went bust. Why commercial? Because a “push” model of getting that information out as far as possible would serve UK universities better at engaging with the world outside the research units than the present “pull” model of researcher looking up researcher. And to push that information out requires an incentive to me, and others like me. And no, given the volume of UK research, I don’t think a trickle feed of research news items from university press departments counts as an effective push model

So what do I find when I get to a university departmental research page? A big sign saying “Gentlemen  and scholars only. No tradesmen”.That is what the present  “all rights reserved except for fair dealing exceptions” copyright T&Cs that are applied to university websites amount to.

Things are changing, Gateway to Research the beta phase RCUK portal to grant database information is under Open Government Licence- that is I can do more or less what I want with it, including commercial re-use, so long as I attribute source and don’t misrepresent.

Cicero21 quite rightly points out that universities don’t do research, it’s the researchers in departments who do. And who writes the departmental research webpages?  The researchers not the university administrators. So here’s my modest proposal to you researchers – take back control of your intellectual property, of your copyright over what you have written on those webpages, and decide for yourselves, unit by unit, what licensing terms you want to apply. You want to keep the No Tradesmen sign up, fair enough- but you decide.  And don’t be put off by being told that the university website can only support one level of licensing for everyone and everything. A modern CMS based university website that does not support explicit granularity of content licensing is not fit for purpose- especially with the emergence of MOOCs and OERs. And don’t be put off by administrators telling you that in your contract of employment you assigned your website page copyright to the “university”. Remind them that when you write for your departmental webpages it is no different from when you write a research paper. And if research papers are moving towards Open Access and Open Licences, and the research councils are behind that move, then why should your departmental web pages be different. Place them in the position of being perceived as Elsevier and see how they like it.”

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Research Pages on University Websites : CC BY licences?

With my  Scibella  hat on, one aim in 2013 is to  campaign for CC-BY “open”  licencing terms for research pages on university websites. It’s time to drag whoever writes their website T&Cs  away from a vision of university research as a “club for gentlemen & scholars “.    So have just commented on Guardian article

“Where are university websites hiding all their research?”


Mainly a cut and paste job from section 2 of my BIS select committee submission


with added Gateway to Research OGL licence (hooray,hooray) angle.

I would agree with Ian Carter of the University of Sussex that “presenting research and knowledge exchange information online is important as the university’s website is an entry point for potential funders, customers, partners and researchers themselves.”

A 2010 NESTA-RIN report characterised these research outputs as the “translating and engaging” part of the research cycle :

“involving the envisaged users of the research in actual or potential applications of it, in other research fields, commercialisation or policy” ..by means of “General articles, web pages, briefings, public exhibits, presentations”

Source: Open to All? Case studies of openness in research,

It would seem obvious that the widest dissemination, within and beyond the UK, of this “translate & engage” information would be of great economic value. However, at present, nearly all of this information is only available under university website copyright terms & conditions which limit its use to non-commercial private research & study. Re-use for any other purpose is forbidden without “express written consent”—even if you are a non-commercial academic researcher.

Recently RCUK set up Gateway to Research, a portal for research grants, “aimed at those that wish to access UK research information, with a particular focus on innovation intensive SMEs, who wish to understand the UK research base”- ( http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/ ) using the Open Government Licence (more or less equivalent to a CC-BY licence). Under “Intellectual Property” ( http://gtr.rcuk.ac.uk/resources/ip.html ) they say:

“If an individual or a company wishes to learn more about a research project or gain access to IP, they should contact the host Research Organisation. Research Councils expect both the host Research Organisation and interested parties to take effective decisions about intellectual asset management that deliver the most benefit to society and the economy. This will include recognising circumstances where the publication of research outcomes or free dissemination to users might be the most effective approach.”

At present a innovative SME going from Gateway to Research to a university website to learn more about a research project,or a researcher,infringes the terms of use for that website if they make any copy of that information without “prior written permission”! Not quite the best way to deliver the most benefit to society and the economy.

Time for university website managers and others responsible for website T&Cs to get in line with the RCUK and change to a CC-BY or OGL licence for university website research pages?   “

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hargreaves IP Review consultation: quotations exception: scibella submission

Responded to question about exception for quotations. .

Question 94.

Should the current exception for criticism and review be amended so that it covers more uses of quotations? If so, should it be extended to cover any quotation, or only cover specific categories of use? Can you provide evidence of the costs or benefits of amending this exception?

My submission is now published as http://www.ipo.gov.uk/response-2011-copyright-scibella.pdf  . Only problem is it’s still trapped inside the on line pdf form the IPO provided – peering out 4 lines at a time from a tiny scrolling window [Note to IPO, you’re doing good work with covering the implementation of Hargreaves but don’t ever use that form again, please..]. So, here it is free at last, roaming the wilds of wordpress.

“I am working on a project Scibella.com to set up a Current Research Information Service (CRIS)  for research being carried out by UK and Irish universities and research councils. The innovative aspect of Scibella would be a  transformative re-use of UK university & research council job advertisements. These advertisements contain substantial details about researchers, what their projects are, where they are based- the core elements of a CRIS. I am planning a commercial operation as this is the best way of ensuring its continuity, I am 65 and at some point will wish to hand this CRIS project on.  My present problem with copyright is that these adverts, even after expiry of the application date and their deletion from university websites, retain copyright for a period of 70 years. As matters stand I  have to seek written permission to quote from these adverts, for commercial re-use, from well over a hundred separate institutions- a long process with no certainty of outcome.

An exception that allowed quotation under “fair dealing” for purposes of information would provide a legal framework within which my project could proceed further

An exemplary quotation would be further details for an entry on
Project: Sonosensitive Nanoparticle Characterisation
Unit: University of Oxford – Institute of Biomedical Engineering

Further details:
“Description of the project

The project forms part of a large collaborative effort within the Institute of Biomedical Engineering aimed at developing improved, ultrasound-based drug delivery strategies that are capable of targeting both primary and metastatic liver tumours efficaciously over a single course of administration. The objective over the 5-year project timescale is to address the drug formulation, ultrasound-induced release, quantitative imaging aspects and anticancer activity of the project in parallel, with all researchers working in adjacent laboratories.

Overview of the role
Recent work carried out at the University of Oxford has yielded a new generation of solid sonosensitive nanoparticles of high surface roughness and hydrophobicity, capable of lowering the pressure amplitudes required for initiation of inertial cavitation and drug delivery. The specific role of the person appointed will be to understand, model and optimize the mechanism for nanoparticle-based cavitation nucleation and drug release, both computationally and experimentally. The researcher will also have the opportunity to contribute to the design and manufacture of existing and novel sonosensitive nanoparticle formulations.”

Source: https://www.recruit.ox.ac.uk/pls/hrisliverecruit/erq_jobspec_version_4.jobspec?p_id=102250 (now deleted from Oxford University website)


I envisage a sectoral approach, e.g.current nanotechnology research projects in UK universities, published in e-book format.  Initially I plan  4-6 sectoral publications per year.  Each sectoral publication could involve using 200-400 quotations from around approx 20-30 major research universities and research councils. Each quotation could be about 200-400 words.

 Under present copyright law I would have to make  80- 180 applications  per year for clearance.

(20 universities/research councils approached 4 times a year =80; 30 universities/research councils approached 6 times a year =180)

Using data from the impact assessment accompanying the consultation “Exception for use of quotations or extracts of copyright works IA No: BIS0310” ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-ia-bis0310.pdf ) I estimate for each application about 4 hours of scibella time and 4.5 hours for the rights-owner at  £12.40- £18.80  per hour (including 24%uplift). This gives a range for administrative costs for rights-clearances:

Scibella  £3968 -£13536 (80 requests x 4hrs x £12.40= £3968  180 requests x 4hrs x £18.80 = £13536)
Rights-holders £4464 – £15228  (80 requests  x 4.5hrs x £12.40=£4464 180 requests x 4.5hrs x £18.80 =£15228)

If the universities as rights-holders were to try and apply a licensing rate of £170 per 1000 words then the cost to Scibella would be from £ 27200 to £163200 per year

(4 pubns. a year x 200 quotes per pubn. x 200 words a quote x £0.17 a word = £27200
(6 pubns. a year x 400 quotes per pubn. x 400 words a quote x £0.17 a word = £163200
Taking the  mid point  expected licensing costs to Scibella would be £ 95200 a year

Expected sales of the publications  are 200-400 per sector at £20-40 per publication producing a gross revenue range of £ 16,000-£96000. (4 pubns. per year x 200 sales per pubn x £20 per sale =£16000: 6 pubn.s per year x 400 sales per pubn. x£40 per sale =£96000).The  mid point is £56000.

Obviously given expected annual licensing costs of £95200 a year and sales revenue of £56000 I would not proceed with Scibella and the benefits of promoting and disseminating excellent UK scientific research would not occur.

Much more likely is the situation in which the universities as rights-holders would grant me permission without charge in recognition of the advantages  to themselves in the widest dissemination of their research. In which case under the present copyright regime there is an administrative cost of £ 8432-£28764 to Scibella and the universities without any benefit from licensing income to the universities. An exception for “fair dealing” with quotations for purposes of  information, or comparable uses, would avoid imposing these administrative costs of seeking and clearing rights permission”

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Text & Data Mining:response to Reed Elsevier submission to Irish Copyright Review consultation

[Update: this response to the Reed Elsevier submission has now been published as http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/Carroll_Peter.pdf ]

Submission by Reed Elsevier in response to Irish Copyright Review Committee (CRC) consultation paper:

Response by: Peter Carroll (scibella.com)

Date: 29th June 2012

I am involved in a project that seeks a transformative re-use of information about current scientific research projects to provide a Current Research Information Service (CRIS) for the UK and Ireland. I have previously submitted to the CRC as Peter Carroll [1:http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/carroll_peter.pdf  ]


The CRC have published the submission from Reed Elsevier in response to their consultation paper as[2]  http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/Reed_Elsevier.pdf . Reed Elsevier confine  their  detailed comments and evidence to the concept of a new exception for text and data mining discussed in section 9.8 of the Consultation paper.

In my response I italicise excerpts from Reed Elsevier’s submission. My response is in normal text.

Over the last decade Reed Elsevier has invested some £2.02bn to combine technology with authoritative content to deliver enhanced functionality to the user. [2,p.2]

This seems an impressively large sum. Presumably most of this investment was in IT. However, it covers the expenditure of the whole Reed Elsevier publishing operations not just their Scientific Technical & Medical (STM) publishing. Total turnover reported by Reed Elsevier for the decade 2001-2010 is £51.9 bn.

[Source annual reports:

Expenditure of £2.02 bn is about 3.8% of turnover- comparable to the 3.4%
expended on IT by large US companies in 2007

What would be more relevant would be their investment in the STM areas directly affected by a text/data mining exception. Particularly investment in the ConSyn system introduced in 2010 to

“offer the facility to digitally transfer bulk copies of the required content to the user via a secure delivery mechanism which we call ConSyn”  [2 p.3]

 3. Where is the market failure?

 We would suggest that far from there being a market failure there is extensive evidence that publishers are creating opportunities for researchers to text and data mine journal content. We quote our own business offerings in the following section as examples.

 Against this is the UK report by JISC into text/data mining [3  source: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx ]  which looked into the issue of market failure and concluded:

 “There appears to be strong evidence for market failure against three of the four indicators for market failure in the ‘Green Book’. Strong evidence for market failure can justify government intervention and would tend to support the case for the Hargreaves recommended copyright exception on the grounds of improving economic efficiency.” [3, sec. 5.3]

 Also there is direct evidence from researchers, trying to use content mining, of problems with STM publishers see: http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Content_Mining.pdf  [4]for examples.

 In addition, we submit that significant progress is being made on cross-corpora mining (i.e. across different publisher collections). The STM publishing industry has developed a model licence that will simplify the contracting process,and industry discussions about how to achieve the necessary technical standardisations are now underway.

The model licence from STM can be found at http://www.stm-assoc.org/2012_03_15_Sample_Licence_Text_Data_Mining.pdf

I am not a lawyer but this model licence appears to reserve many rights to STM publishers and grant very few to users.  The cross corpora mining presumably refers to the Linked Content Coalition project  http://www.linkedcontentcoalition.org/Home_Page.html [5] set up by the European Publishers Council.  Progress to date can be gauged by the report of the first Plenary session held on 20 June 2012. http://www.linkedcontentcoalition.org/uploads/1206120_plenary.pdf 


We note that the Consultation paper references the UK Hargreaves report and the UK Government’s response to Hargreaves when discussing a possible exception for text and data mining. As noted above, we believe changes to IP policy should be guided by evidence and would draw the CRC’s attention to the fact that after months of work, both by Hargreaves and the UK’s Intellectual Property Office, the UK consultation document and impact assessment did not identify any monetary benefits in favour of the exception, or accounts of costs.

Estimates of the economic benefit to the UK research community of text/data mining are set out in the JISC report [3: section 5 Economic analysis of the value and benefits of text mining in UKFHE].

“If text mining enabled just a 2% increase in productivity – corresponding to only 45 minutes per academic per working week37 (and looking at CIBER’s analysis of the impact of eJournals [69], this is very much an underestimate), this would imply over 4.7 million working hours and additional productivity worth between £123.5m and £156.8m in working time per year.” 

Publishers are enabling Text and Data Mining

As part of Elsevier’s commitment to enable access to support innovation, in late 2010 we opened up our core database ScienceDirect (10 million full text articles and book chapters) and Scopus, the world’s biggest database of academic abstracts and citations (19,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers), for the building of applications by third party developers.

This means that it is possible for anyone from an Irish university or Irish technology business to use our content to develop text and data mining tools. There is no charge and the tools are mounted on our platforms for the collective benefit of our researcher users. The IP in the developed applications remains with the developer, and is non-exclusive, meaning that they may also offer it to other publishers’ platforms and users. We provide access to the content via application programme interfaces (APIs) after validating the credentials of the developers to ensure content security. By having the applications on our platform we can utilise our entitlement system to enable users to mine subscribed or Open Access content.

Professor Peter Murray Rust from the University of Cambridge has a different take on STM publishers offering access via APIs on their systems.

 “P M-R: I don’t want to use Elsevier’s API. That means 100 APIs for me to learn — one per publisher.

In fact, I only need a single API — a DOI resolver. I may wish to systematically mine a single publisher — in which case I use a list of their DOIs, or I may want to follow links — that’s exactly the same process. Yes I need an API per publisher but I and others are hacking this and it’s a one-off. So a publisher API makes it worse.

The only conceivable argument for publishers to insist on the use of APIs is server load. Elsevier publishes 250,000 papers each year, has an archive of 7 million publications, and has 240 million downloads. That’s a soluble problem.” [4, p14]

 Whilst a publisher provided API may be sufficient for many researchers there are many who need to analyse content with their own software. As Cameron Neylon puts it:


“Because the mining I want to do and the mining that Peter Murray-Rust wants to do will be different, and what I will want to do tomorrow is different to what I want to do today. This kind of personalised mining is going to be the accepted norm of handling information online very soon and will be at the very centre of how we discover the information we need”

[ 6 source: http://cameronneylon.net/blog/they-just-dont-get-it/ ]



Impact on platform stability

We remain concerned that the exception would lead to aggressive crawling by multiple parties of our core publishing platform, with knock on effects of significantly reduced user experience. Currently we only allow Google to crawl full text articles.


Cameron Neylon again:


“The technology exists today to make this kind of mass distributed text mining trivial. Publishers could push content to bit torrent servers and then publish regular deltas to notify users of new content. The infrastructure for this already exists. There is no infrastructure investment required. The problems that publishers raise of their servers not coping is one that they have created for themselves. The catch is that distributed systems can’t be controlled from the centre and giving up control requires a different business model. But this is also an opportunity. The publishers also save money  if they give up control – no more need for six people to sit in on each of hundreds of thousands of meetings. I often wonder how much lower subscriptions would be if they didn’t need to cover the cost of access control, sales, and legal teams.”  [6]

What is research?

The Consultation paper does not try to define text and data mining. The UK consultation describes text and data mining as an automated text and data analysis for patterns, trends and “other useful information”. That seems to describe a search engine query. What is a search if not an “automated analytical technique” (i.e. an algorithm) that is used for picking out “useful information” or “patterns” from digitised data and text? All searches are a form of research.

A  proposed  “working”  definition for text and data mining can be found at the STM association, of which Reed Elsevier are members,  web site:


“A computational process whereby text or datasets are crawled by software that recognises entities, relationships and actions.”  

As is made clear  in the STM statement this definition aims to distinguish text and data mining from other activies such as Information Retrieval and Information Extraction.

Disincentive to supply to the Republic of Ireland

The risk of damage to the core business of journal publishing posed by the exception, as outlined above, could make publishers consider whether it is worthwhile continuing to offer their publications in Ireland. As Irish law will apply regardless of the origin of the work, it is foreseeable that the owners of foreign copyrights could set up firewalls preventing access by users located in the Republic. E-sales in Ireland only represent approximately 0.2-0.3% of total STM global e-revenue. To avoid the significant downside risks, rights holders may end up choosing to forgo the Irish market, thereby depriving Irish users of access to valuable content.

 What can I say. Put more succinctly –  “Drop the exception or the scientist gets it”.  In areas other than copyright reform the phrases censorship and “collective punishment” might come to mind.


 [1] http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/carroll_peter.pdf 

 [2]  http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/Reed_Elsevier.pdf

 [3 ]  http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining.aspx 

 [4] http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Content_Mining.pdf 

 [5] http://www.linkedcontentcoalition.org/Home_Page.html

 [ 6 ] http://cameronneylon.net/blog/they-just-dont-get-it/




Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment