A Researcher’s Response to IPO Consultation on Text Mining Copyright Exception and the Working Group Response to IPO Consultation on Text Mining Copyright Exception

On March 21, 2012 Peter Murray Rust posted “My response to Hargreaves on copyright reform: I request the removal of contractual restrictions and independent oversight” on his personal blog (petermr’s blog: A Scientist and the Web). The post opened with the following brief introduction: “Jenny Molloy, Diane Cabell, Laura Newman and I have been working to create a considered, hopefully powerful and constructive report to the Hargreaves report recommending the reform of UK copyright. (This is not a formal OKF response – OKF deliberately does not pursue advocacy – but has been done using OKF community processes and tools). We have created a response from all of us, but I felt that I could give personal evidence about the effect of the current publisher-imposed contractual and technical restrictions on information mining. I shall comment later in detail (and hope that this will generate lively discussion). Here I simply highlight my claim that the downstream market for chemical information alone is at least a billion and that much value is lost through the restrictions. I outline some of the types of lost value and, while some are slightly anecdotal, I hope they are compelling. I also make the case for removing control from the publishers to an independent body...” The post contains the full text of his personal response which has also been cross-posted on the blog of the Open Science Working Group, Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF). The Open Science Working Group, OKF also provides the full text of the “Working Group Response to IPO Consultation on Text Mining Copyright Exception.” Both OKF posts can be accessed from the link above.