Hi Paul, and you all;
As I advanced last Friday, at this moment it seems highly probable that I will not be able to participate in tomorrow´s telcom (unless some unexpected reason forces me to cancel the flight). I went through the text (stopping at the definitions ). It case it helps, and to win time, these are some comments (mainly related to Paul´s calls for CHECK and ADD LINKS). bezsixdes that my impression is quite favorable to the text as it stands but very possibly discussion will raise issues that I overread.
Have a good telcom if, as it looks, I cannot connect
Enrique
1.- Page 3. CHECK concerning the Orphanage Directive. What do you need to check. The Directive (Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 25 October 2012 , on certain permitted uses of orphan works ) allows some institutions to make the orphan work available to the public but to reproduce them for the purposes of digitisation, making available, indexing, cataloguing, preservation or restoration; the first one implies the giving them the same scope as the the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain (so the consequences are equivalent to dedication to the public domain).
2.- Page 13. [Add link of the last paragraph.] Aren´t we referring not to the “committee” (don´t think it exists) but to the policy approved by the Steering Committee of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) in April 1998? See https://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/privacy%20policy/?searchterm=conf…
3.- Page 14. After the reduction and reorganization of the principles, I think that the first line of the guidelines of Principle 5 should read “The implementation of most of the other principles can be facilitated through…” , without giving special consideration to Principle and Guideline 4. In fact also access (principle 1) and determination of rights (principle 2) can and are very much facilitated (even more than principle 4) through harmonization.
4.- Same page 14 paragraph 4 should say “These actions by the practitioners themselves are known as…”
5.- Page 17. First paragraph of Guideline 6A [CHECK]. I think that what defines plagiarism is not the “wholesale” nature of the copy and in abstract terms it is not related to copyright but to lack of attribution per se. The essential element is the intent to deceive on authorship (intentional breach of attribution with the intention to misrepresent authorship). See Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World ( Lise Buranen,Alice Myers Roy eds, 1999, page 11) “A basic definition of plagiarism is using another person’s idea or part of his/her work and presenting it as a writer’s own” (http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/19631153/what-plagiarism);
Wikipedia: Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
But it is true that being always lack of attribution at its finest, sometimes it can also be a copyright infringement (strict, and not intentional, liability) so there is some overlapping.
But since the phrase is in principle 6 (attribution) I think that the sentence should read:
“Copying with intentional lack of attribution, and/or, in some cases, with copyright infringement, arises to the level of plagiarism and constitutes an ethics infringement punishable under deontological riles or normative schemes as well as, eventually, an infringement of copyright punishable under statutory law” (or something similar).
________________________________
De: pfuhlir=***@***.***-groups.org [pfuhlir=***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de puhlir [***@***.***]
Enviado el: martes, 16 de febrero de 2016 17:59
Para: RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Asunto: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Revised Implementation Guidelines
Hi all: The attached draft takes all review comments into account and streamlines and eliminates many redundancies, while restructuring them according to the six new Principles. It has taken several days of work and it is still not finished, especially the definitions section and some of the Bibliography. Also some of the guidelines for Principles 1 and 5 still need some work. There also are some formatting problems and the document has not been fully proofread. However, I believe it is ready for discussion and I look forward to your comments and suggestions this Friday.
Cheers,
Paul
Paul F. Uhlir, J.D.
Scholar, National Academy of Sciences, and
Consultant, Data Policy and Management
4643 Aspen Hill Court
Annandale, VA 22003
USA
Tel. 703 941 0817; Cell +1 703 217 5143
Skype: pfuhlir; Email: ***@***.***
Web: http://www.paulfuhlir.com; Twitter: @paulfuhlir
________________________________
El texto de este correo es confidencial y exclusivamente está dirigido a su destinatario. Si se ha enviado a una dirección errónea rogamos elimine el mismo y, en su caso, los documentos adjuntos, y nos lo comunique urgentemente. This message is intented only for the use of the addresse and contain confidential information. If you are not the intented recipient, dissemination of this documentation is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please, erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately.
Antes de imprimir este correo electrónico, piense bien si es necesario hacerlo: El medioambiente es cosa de todos.
