[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: exploitation of "Auditory List" as a free "Article Request" list

Brian's position is understandable. Creating too much noise from constant article requests reduces the ability for useful discussion on the list.

From a selfish point of view, it is simply more efficient to request an unavailable (on my university's library subscription) article here, and receive responses within a few minutes, than to travel to the other university or public library in my city and work out how the request system works there.

There is also the (serious) issue of intellectual property rights. I personally feel uncomfortable with a request for a PDF of an entire book here. Clearly, in most jurisdictions, photocopying an entire book is not legal. This list is a useful resource, and it is unfair on the list owners (located in the US) to subject them to any liability for the lists misuse in this regard.

I am not sure about the general case of copying of a single journal or conference paper, but in the UK I believe it was acceptable to copy a single book chapter, conference paper or journal article within the University. Electronic transmission might be treated differently, but I would advise against anyone fulfilling requests directly to the list, instead posting directly to the address of anyone requesting the article.

Requests for articles may raise general awareness of interesting publications, and this is definitely one benefit from posting requests here.   


On 06/08/12 14:38, Marcelo Caetano wrote:
Dear Brian and members of the list,
I disagree with Brian's characterization of article requests as "rather excessive use of this list for obtaining articles". Personally, I have a hunch that the frequent article requests might better reflect flaws in the library system (amongs others) rather than plain laziness.
Unfortunately, I don't have data to confirm this impression (does anyone?). However, we usually see immediate responses to article requests made on the list, in opposition to the alternatives Brian points out. Ultimately, I feel that this discussion is very in line with ongoing debates on issues about intellectual and property rights, and I think we all could very much benefit from actively engaging in it.
Marcelo Caetano

De: Brian FG Katz <brian.katz@xxxxxxxx>
Para: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Enviadas: Segunda-feira, 6 de Agosto de 2012 11:57
Assunto: [AUDITORY] exploitation of "Auditory List" as a free "Article Request" list

Dear list members,

I would like to bring to people's attention the rather excessive use of this
list for obtaining articles. While I understand that some articles may be
hard to find, being old, or in obscure journals, the constant flow of
requests for articles that are clearly available, albeit for a fee, is
something of an abuse of the list and also the library system.

Student especially should profit from the systems in place at their
respective institutions, and if need be actually go to a library. Many
libraries also offer article retrieval services, which should be *fully*
exploited before make a global request to the open community.

Students are also encouraged to contact the authors directly to obtain
difficult articles, as a means of expressing interest, and possibly opening
a dialog.

Only as a last resort should the list be used as a resource for "freely"
obtaining your bibliographic references.


-Brian FG Katz
Brian FG Katz, Ph.D
Audio & Acoustique
BP 133
F91403 Orsay
tel. (+33) 01 69 85 81 55
fax. (+33)
e-mail Brian.Katz@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Brian.Katz@xxxxxxxx>
web_theme: http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/
web_group: http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/