<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Wiley asserts link liability&#8221; &#8211; ChillingEffects.org</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chemspider.com/open-chemistry-web/wiley-asserts-link-liability-chillingeffectsorg.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chemspider.com/open-chemistry-web/wiley-asserts-link-liability-chillingeffectsorg.html</link>
	<description>The Project: Open and Integrated Structure and Text Search</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:13:14 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: will</title>
		<link>http://www.chemspider.com/open-chemistry-web/wiley-asserts-link-liability-chillingeffectsorg.html/comment-page-1#comment-581</link>
		<dc:creator>will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:02:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemspider.com/open-chemistry-web/?p=24#comment-581</guid>
		<description>Thanks Mitch. My guess is that publishers don&#039;t contact the (allegedly) infringing research group websites since this would probably result in:

1) The research group resenting the takedown notice, though likely co-operating
2) Publishing any future research with a rival publisher

I haven&#039;t published the list of those Wiley say are posting articles illegally in case this is interpreted as accusing scientists of copyright infringement.

In any case, the publisher hasn&#039;t got what they wanted. Authors are still happily posting Wiley&#039;s PDFs and the major scholarly search engines (at time of writing) are still indexing them (though they may not have been asked by Wiley to de-index).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Mitch. My guess is that publishers don&#8217;t contact the (allegedly) infringing research group websites since this would probably result in:</p>
<p>1) The research group resenting the takedown notice, though likely co-operating<br />
2) Publishing any future research with a rival publisher</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t published the list of those Wiley say are posting articles illegally in case this is interpreted as accusing scientists of copyright infringement.</p>
<p>In any case, the publisher hasn&#8217;t got what they wanted. Authors are still happily posting Wiley&#8217;s PDFs and the major scholarly search engines (at time of writing) are still indexing them (though they may not have been asked by Wiley to de-index).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mitch</title>
		<link>http://www.chemspider.com/open-chemistry-web/wiley-asserts-link-liability-chillingeffectsorg.html/comment-page-1#comment-577</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chemspider.com/open-chemistry-web/?p=24#comment-577</guid>
		<description>Typically, the author can have a .pdf on their website, since they are using it as an educational resource. Technically, I think you were fine there. But, there is no way to know every author-publisher contract</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Typically, the author can have a .pdf on their website, since they are using it as an educational resource. Technically, I think you were fine there. But, there is no way to know every author-publisher contract</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

