Lest you think this blog is solely concerned with bashing Elsevier, it tries to be impartial. Most of the time I get my targets from the puffing of publishers on Twiiter flaunting their “open access offerings” and it just happens that the worst offender by far is Elsevier. But there are others with completely unacceptable activities. Here I am very grateful to Thomas Munro, who writes (http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2014/03/17/elsevier-admits-it-has-been-mis-selling-open-access-and-will-be-contacting-mis-sold-customers/#comment-152848 ):
Strangely, I’ve just found that BMJ do the same thing, e.g. this “CC BY-NC” article
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1741 (under “Request Permission”)
links to a Rightslink page that quotes $36.80 for an individual to make 10 photocopies. Furthermore, no-one may “reproduce in full or in part any material that promotes the use of baby milks / infant formula without reflecting current knowledge and responsible opinion and be restricted to scientific fact and not imply that or create a belief that bottle feeding is equivalent to breast feeding” or use a reproduction to promote sunbeds (!)
Shall we call it CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NonXerox-NonInfantFormula-NonSunBed?
Oh dear! Where to begin. Well here’s the screenshot:
BMJ has immediately and grotesquely broken the terms of CC. However much we may wish to outlaw sun beds or smoking, you CANNOT use CC-BY licences to do this. CC does not discriminate against fields of endeavour. The software community wrestled with this over thirty years ago and agreed that licences could not discriminate. If you wish to make poison gas using my chemical software I cannot use licences to stop you. So, BMJ , you will need to find another way. (I use cursing).
And I am delighted to have readers’ contributions – keep them coming.