Login  Register

Re: Guerilla Open Access

Posted by Heather Morrison on Sep 23, 2008; 7:04pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/Show-your-support-for-open-gov-data-at-ibelieveinopen-ca-tp1231p1253.html


On 23-Sep-08, at 11:57 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:

> I believe folks are helping our Canadian democratic system be,  
> well, democratic, by making it easier for citizens to find their MPs.
>
> The NIH public access mandate, if i am not mistaken, is primarily  
> about journal articles and not necessarily the data that are used  
> to create them unless they are included as a PDF appendix in the  
> article.  OA movements in general, if i am not mistaken, are about  
> published material and i think there is a different batch of folks  
> working on public data which include socio-demographic, digital  
> maps, framework data and a host of scientific data from both the  
> natural and social sciences.  Both are complimentary movements and  
> at some point it might be good to pool resources.

Agreed on pooling resources - I am an OA advocate, totally supporting  
open data.  If open data goes ahead with public infringement, this is  
fine with me, but  - with very best wishes for open data - I'll have  
to take the ibelieveincanada.ca button off my blog.

The folks who are fighting for fair copyright in Canada could have  
the same potential synergies, and the same issues here.

chrs, h

>
>
> Also, I think it is ok to focus on the Canadian elections and not  
> necessarily the US opposition!
>
> cheers
> t
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Heather Morrison  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As an illustration of why the legislation is needed.  A bad and  
> totally inappropriate example, but might convince a busy legislator  
> who doesn't really have time to read and think about the details of  
> every piece of legislation that comes their way.
>
> One way to explain:  the argument that the "N" in NIH (US National  
> Institutes of Health) should not stand for "Napster" is being used  
> to fight the NIH Public Access Mandate.  Ridiculous, of course, but  
> anyone who has followed OA advocacy over the years knows that logic  
> is not a requirement of the anti-OA lobby for its arguments.
>
> Any legislator who understands copyright, does a thorough reading  
> and is making decisions based on what makes sense (as opposed to  
> who to contibuting to the campaign expenses), is not supporting  
> this bill, anyway...
>
> best,
>
> h
>
>
> On 23-Sep-08, at 11:25 AM, Daniel Haran wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Heather Morrison  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Re:  scraping and infringing and telling everyone - please note  
> that OA
> advocates in the U.S. are battling a concerted effort by the anti-OA
> publishing lobby to basically change U.S. copyright law to prevent  
> public
> access mandates to federally funded research.  The Conyers bill is  
> nuts, but
> could easily get slipped into another bill and passed.
>
> This is not a great time to be public about infringing; this would  
> help the
> opposition.
>
> Not that I'm against this approach altogether, just not the best  
> timing.
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison
>
> How would this help the opposition?
>
> d.
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> Tracey P. Lauriault
> 613-234-2805
> https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss