Re: Abundant information, libre open access and information literacy

[richards1000@comcast.net]

Klaus Graf:

By "data mining," I mean "the process of identifying patterns in
large sets of data." National Text Mining Centre & Judy Redfearn,
Text Mining (version 2, 2008), available at

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/bptextminingv2.aspx

Robert Richards
richards1000@comcast.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Klaus Graf" <klausgraf@googlemail.com>
To: richards1000@comcast.net
Cc: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu, sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:31:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Abundant information, libre open access and information literacy

I cannot see that it is helpful to confuse writing of review
articles and data mining. Can you please explain what you mean
with data mining? Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining

Klaus Graf

2009/4/29  <richards1000@comcast.net>:

> If I understand correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
> in her post of March 26, Heather Morrison argued that in order
> for users to obtain the right to engage in data mining or
> "hand-creating review articles incorporating . . . the original
> articles," the publications that are the object of such data
> mining or "hand-creating" must be "free-to- reuse." It's
> unclear to me whether Heather Morrison intended this statement
> as an empirical assertion or a prescriptive assertion.
>
> Then, in a post of March 27, Sally Morris made an empirical
> assertion, that "'Free to Reuse' is NOT what is needed for text
> mining, etc - in fact such content doesn't even need to be free
> to access. What it does need, though, is rigorous structuring
> and adherence to standards (for both text and data)." I agree
> with Sally Morris's assertion, because (a) I am certain that
> many authors have created review articles by utilizing
> statutory, case law, or administrative law 'fair use'
> provisions, e.g., the fair use provisions of 17 U.S.C. sec.
> 107, that do not grant the right to freely reuse the
> copyrighted content (one can verify this by reading those
> articles and reading the applicable law); and (b) I am certain
> that many institutions and individuals have obtained the right
> to engage in data mining by the grant of licenses that did not
> convey the right to freely reuse the licensed content (one can
> verify this by examining the executed license agreements, or by
> observing such data mining that is governed by an implied
> license). Under U.S. law, a license is usually unnecessary for
> creation of a review article because such an article usually
> requires only the use of short excerpts of the original
> articles, and that use is generally permitted by the fair use
> statute.
>

> The blog post at http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=1769
appears to make a number of prescriptive statements respecting access to
publications and data. None of those statements appears to challenge Sally =
Morris's empirical assertion that data mining and the creation of review articles
have been and continue to be enabled by legal provisions and license= s that do not
convey the right to freely reuse copyrighted content. I honestly don't think that
Sally Morris's empirical assertion can be refuted, because of the wealth of evidence
supporting it. If Klaus Graf has empirical evidence to challenge that empirical
assertion, what is it?

>
> The statements above do not constitute legal advice or legal
> representation.
>
> Robert C. Richards, Jr., J.D.*, M.S.L.I.S., M.A.
> Law Librarian & Legal Information Consultant
> Philadelphia, PA
> richards1000@comcast.net
> * Member New York bar, retired status.