2 ms·

In context, JSTOR's statement was clearly not about public domain works. It was about the articles that Swartz downloaded, most of which were presumably not in

In context, JSTOR's statement was clearly not about public domain works. It was about the articles that Swartz downloaded, most of which were presumably not in the public domain.

politician 14y ago
Is that a distinction without a difference when their TOS restricts coordinated downloads of public domain content for the purpose of evading their artificial barriers? A TOS violation that carries, in the minds of some US prosecutors, a just penalty of several years in jail?
kanzure 14y ago
I don't see any evidence either way for whether or not his "keepgrabbing" python soup only grabbed public domain articles. At the very least, I imagine it touched the landing pages for each article to get the pdf link, where it would also have an opportunity to look at the copyright status. Is the copyright status even on the JSTOR page for each article anyway? Or is it only in the PDF? Let's see.. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1831029 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1831029 The "rights and permissions" link goes out to: https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Fischer+Black+et+al.&contentID=10.2307%2F1831029&copyright=Copyright+1973+The+University+of+Chicago&endPage=654&issueNum=3&numPages=18&orderBeanReset=true&publication=jpe&publicationDate=05%2F01%2F1973&publisherName=UCHP&startPage=637&title=The+Pricing+of+Options+and+Corporate+Liabilities&volumeNum=81 https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Fischer... ... ok copyright.com is not encouraging at all, that scam is everywhere. Let's try something older. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30096268 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30096268 The "rights and permissions" link goes out to: https://www.copyright.com/openurl.do?sid=pd_ITHAKA&servicename=all&WT.mc_id=tpd_ITHAKA19334192&issn=00682454&date=1902 https://www.copyright.com/openurl.do?sid=pd_ITHAKA&servi... which leads to: http://www.copyright.com/search.do?operation=detail&item=122798479&detailType=basic http://www.copyright.com/search.do?operation=detail&item... .. where they seem to be selling the rights??
- nullc 14y ago
  In the US the metadata is almost certainly not copyrightable, no matter how laborious its creation was. A work must be creative to be copyrightable, and mere facts are not as a matter of law.

In context, JSTOR's statement was clearly not about public domain works. It was about the articles that Swartz downloaded, most of which were presumably not in the public domain.

politician 14y ago

Is that a distinction without a difference when their TOS restricts coordinated downloads of public domain content for the purpose of evading their artificial barriers? A TOS violation that carries, in the minds of some US prosecutors, a just penalty of several years in jail?

kanzure 14y ago

I don't see any evidence either way for whether or not his "keepgrabbing" python soup only grabbed public domain articles. At the very least, I imagine it touched the landing pages for each article to get the pdf link, where it would also have an opportunity to look at the copyright status. Is the copyright status even on the JSTOR page for each article anyway? Or is it only in the PDF? Let's see.. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1831029 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1831029 The "rights and permissions" link goes out to: https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Fischer+Black+et+al.&contentID=10.2307%2F1831029&copyright=Copyright+1973+The+University+of+Chicago&endPage=654&issueNum=3&numPages=18&orderBeanReset=true&publication=jpe&publicationDate=05%2F01%2F1973&publisherName=UCHP&startPage=637&title=The+Pricing+of+Options+and+Corporate+Liabilities&volumeNum=81 https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?author=Fischer... ... ok copyright.com is not encouraging at all, that scam is everywhere. Let's try something older. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30096268 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30096268 The "rights and permissions" link goes out to: https://www.copyright.com/openurl.do?sid=pd_ITHAKA&servicename=all&WT.mc_id=tpd_ITHAKA19334192&issn=00682454&date=1902 https://www.copyright.com/openurl.do?sid=pd_ITHAKA&servi... which leads to: http://www.copyright.com/search.do?operation=detail&item=122798479&detailType=basic http://www.copyright.com/search.do?operation=detail&item... .. where they seem to be selling the rights??

nullc 14y ago
In the US the metadata is almost certainly not copyrightable, no matter how laborious its creation was. A work must be creative to be copyrightable, and mere facts are not as a matter of law.