http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=997
They have a specific hate-on for Wikipedia:
"Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) objects to anyone encouraging the use of SciFinder - and STN - to curate third-party databases or chemical substance collections, including the one found in Wikipedia."
The claim is that "CAS numbers are copyright CAS/ACS who have the legal right to regulate their use - as above." I find this idea highly dubious myself, though I wonder what countries it would legally fly in. Particularly given that "CAS identifiers have come to be accepted as a primary identifier system for chemistry."
Anyone here have informed legal commentary?
Also (and this is why I've posted it to foundation-l) - anyone interested in a bit of organisational outreach to work out what can be done about this?
- d.
On 08/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=997
They have a specific hate-on for Wikipedia:
"Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) objects to anyone encouraging the use of SciFinder - and STN - to curate third-party databases or chemical substance collections, including the one found in Wikipedia."
The claim is that "CAS numbers are copyright CAS/ACS who have the legal right to regulate their use - as above." I find this idea highly dubious myself, though I wonder what countries it would legally fly in. Particularly given that "CAS identifiers have come to be accepted as a primary identifier system for chemistry."
Anyone here have informed legal commentary?
Also (and this is why I've posted it to foundation-l) - anyone interested in a bit of organisational outreach to work out what can be done about this?
That isn't hate. That is fear. The amount of money in large chemistry databases is significant. Wikipedia doesn't threaten that yet but has the potential to so do.
The copyright claim is hard to judge. A horrible mixture of database rights and more conventional copyright so yeah any legal commentary is going to need to be seriously informed.
In terms of open alternatives I supose the IUPAC systematic naming scheme would be closest but that is slightly problematical since it doesn't always produce consistent results.
On 08/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=997 They have a specific hate-on for Wikipedia:
That isn't hate. That is fear. The amount of money in large chemistry databases is significant. Wikipedia doesn't threaten that yet but has the potential to so do.
ACS is a non-profit. This won't help their egregious claim.
Pantone manage the trick of owning a proprietary industry standard and claiming a monopoly rent on it ... but what's tolerable for commercial printing is less reasonable when trying to claim a tax on the pursuit of pure scientific knowledge.
The copyright claim is hard to judge. A horrible mixture of database rights and more conventional copyright so yeah any legal commentary is going to need to be seriously informed.
I think we could quite easily say "Hahahahaha fuck off, make my day" and they know it. But a less nuclear option is worth exploring. To be nice and stuff.
- d.
On 08/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
ACS is a non-profit. This won't help their egregious claim.
Even non-profits need income sources . Chem abs funds rather a lot of ACS.
Pantone manage the trick of owning a proprietary industry standard and claiming a monopoly rent on it ... but what's tolerable for commercial printing is less reasonable when trying to claim a tax on the pursuit of pure scientific knowledge.
If they cared about that they would never have challenged pubchem.
Tax? taxes are generally meant to be affordable (just about). Chemical Abstracts is increasingly beyond the means of many universities. Ironically the switch to an electronic version which made it rather more useful appears to have made the price go up.
I think we could quite easily say "Hahahahaha fuck off, make my day" and they know it.
I think you meant to say the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram. I would really hate to try that without solid legal review.
But a less nuclear option is worth exploring. To be nice and stuff.
There are alternatives. Commercially Beilstein and ISI Web of Knowledge. Non commercially IUPAC and pubchem although IUPAC don't of course hold a database.
On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:56 AM, David Gerard wrote:
ACS is a non-profit. This won't help their egregious claim.
I've now consulted with Teh Wife. The following interesting facts come to light.
1) CAS numbers are not widely used in academic papers. They're largely used in commercial applications - catalog descriptions and industrial specifications.
2) Patent descriptions, apparently, would always use the CAS numbers. Which does seem significant, since the point of a patent description is to be publicly available.
3) CAS is friggin' expensive to get access to, in no small part because it is expensive for them to produce. Article reading for CAS is, at this point, a PhD-requiring job. Which is part of their protectivism regarding it, no doubt.
IANAL, so I'm not about to interpret any of these fascinating tidbits, though it does suggest that the straightforward scholarly non-profit source using another scholarly non-profit source argument might be a little weaker than it had initially seemed, given that CAS numbers seem to be used primarily in industrial settings.
-Phil
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL, so I'm not about to interpret any of these fascinating tidbits, though it does suggest that the straightforward scholarly non-profit source using another scholarly non-profit source argument might be a little weaker than it had initially seemed, given that CAS numbers seem to be used primarily in industrial settings.
If they're really suing people over using other numberings, then I, and I suspect many others, shall just have acquired a new hobby. The Scientologists have lost anyway.
- d.
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL, so I'm not about to interpret any of these fascinating tidbits, though it does suggest that the straightforward scholarly non-profit source using another scholarly non-profit source argument might be a little weaker than it had initially seemed, given that CAS numbers seem to be used primarily in industrial settings.
If they're really suing people over using other numberings, then I, and I suspect many others, shall just have acquired a new hobby. The Scientologists have lost anyway.
Oh, if they're doing that, fuck 'em.
-Phil
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
If they're really suing people over using other numberings, then I, and I suspect many others, shall just have acquired a new hobby. The Scientologists have lost anyway.
Oh, if they're doing that, fuck 'em.
Precisely ;-) One would hope they would not be that, ah, suicidally stupid. That sort of behviour tends to rouse the ire of people who previously didn't care.
- d.
On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:50 AM, geni wrote:
That isn't hate. That is fear. The amount of money in large chemistry databases is significant. Wikipedia doesn't threaten that yet but has the potential to so do.
The copyright claim is hard to judge. A horrible mixture of database rights and more conventional copyright so yeah any legal commentary is going to need to be seriously informed.
In terms of open alternatives I supose the IUPAC systematic naming scheme would be closest but that is slightly problematical since it doesn't always produce consistent results.
It should be noted, ACS is a non-profit professional organization that explicitly presents itself as fostering and aiding scholarly pursuits. That is to say, the original work is offered for nonprofit educational purposes. Our use of it is also for nonprofit educational purposes. There would, presumably, need to be some compelling issues to overcome that rather large hurdle, no? I mean, given that this is non-profit scholarly work on their part, they'd presumably have to establish how this is different from any other scholarly referencing.
More insight when the wife gets home in a few hours and can clarify the real-world use of CAS numbers.
-Phil
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Philip Sandifer wrote:
explicitly presents itself as fostering and aiding scholarly pursuits. That is to say, the original work is offered for nonprofit educational purposes. Our use of it is also for nonprofit educational purposes. There would, presumably, need to be some compelling issues to overcome that rather large hurdle, no? I mean, given that this is non-profit scholarly work on their part, they'd presumably have to establish how this is different from any other scholarly referencing.
Remember Wikipedia's fair use policy?
Supposedly, the reason we don't like fair use images is that even though they may be allowed for nonprofit uses, they mean that someone can't just copy a Wikipedia article and use it for their own purposes, which may involve profit.
Wouldn't nonprofit-only chemical numbers cause the same problem as nonprofit images?
On 08/03/2008, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Wouldn't nonprofit-only chemical numbers cause the same problem as nonprofit images?
I think you're edging toward asserting something you don't actually want to happen in the interests of making a point here.
- d.
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Supposedly, the reason we don't like fair use images is that even though they may be allowed for nonprofit uses, they mean that someone can't just copy a Wikipedia article and use it for their own purposes, which may involve profit.
The reason we don't like fair use images is that we prefer to use free content where possible.
Please come back when you have succeeded in establishing a copyleft chemical indexing system comparable to CAS numbers.
-Phil
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Supposedly, the reason we don't like fair use images is that even though they may be allowed for nonprofit uses, they mean that someone can't just copy a Wikipedia article and use it for their own purposes, which may involve profit.
The reason we don't like fair use images is that we prefer to use free content where possible.
Please come back when you have succeeded in establishing a copyleft chemical indexing system comparable to CAS numbers.
-Phil
CID AKA Chemical IDentifier from pubchem. Currently only 19,157,505 entries but give it time.
geni wrote:
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Please come back when you have succeeded in establishing a copyleft chemical indexing system comparable to CAS numbers.
CID AKA Chemical IDentifier from pubchem. Currently only 19,157,505 entries but give it time.
Right. And it is gonna take a bit more time. I've noticed they have real problems with uniqueness -- for example, it's hard to say whether thimerosal (CAS 54-64-8) is Pubchem sid 5908, 67361, or 16682923. (I think I found several other examples, back when I was attempting to correlate the two.)
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Philip Sandifer wrote:
explicitly presents itself as fostering and aiding scholarly pursuits. That is to say, the original work is offered for nonprofit educational purposes. Our use of it is also for nonprofit educational purposes. There would, presumably, need to be some compelling issues to overcome that rather large hurdle, no? I mean, given that this is non-profit scholarly work on their part, they'd presumably have to establish how this is different from any other scholarly referencing.
Remember Wikipedia's fair use policy?
Supposedly, the reason we don't like fair use images is that even though they may be allowed for nonprofit uses, they mean that someone can't just copy a Wikipedia article and use it for their own purposes, which may involve profit.
Wouldn't nonprofit-only chemical numbers cause the same problem as nonprofit images?
Probably yes. That's why fair-use should remain an argument of last resort. If we can establish that these numbers are not copyrightable, why should we need to resort to fair use.
Ec
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) objects to anyone encouraging the use of SciFinder - and STN - to curate third-party databases or chemical substance collections, including the one found in Wikipedia."
Well, their subject line was "discourages" and in this case, it is "objecting to encourage". So, basically, they are just stating that they do not like it, which we should note and continue to do what's best for Wikipedia. One might also spend a few hours to talk to them, telling that it should be in their own interest that a) the CAS numbers are mentioned in the articles and b) the numbers should be correct.
In the meantime, I extracted a list for 2200 chemicals from dewp that have their own CAS number mentioned in the template structure (thanks to Lars Aronssons script. I put that list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/CAS_valida... for reference purposes. Anyone with a (preferrably recent) dump of enwp could so the same for comparison reasons.
Mathias
David Gerard wrote:
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=997
They have a specific hate-on for Wikipedia:
"Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) objects to anyone encouraging the use of SciFinder - and STN - to curate third-party databases or chemical substance collections, including the one found in Wikipedia."
By an interesting coincidence, just this morning I've been working on my own little database of CAS numbers. You won't find, anywhere on the net, a nice little tab-delimited file of chemical information containing columns for name, formula, CAS number, etc., precisely because of this CAS claim on the copyright of their numbers. I was wondering how long it'd be until CAS complained about Wikipedia.
Whether they're non-profit or not, CAS acts precisely as jealous of its set of numbers as any other commercial database company. The impression I get is that this *is* a significant nuisance for chemists and other scientists. Other entities (I can probably find the details) have attempted to establish their own, freer sets of unique identifiers for chemical compounds, precisely in hopes of avoiding the cumbersome restrictions placed on the use of CAS numbers. But CAS has sued -- and I think successfully -- to discourage this, claiming either that they own the idea of a single master database of unique identifiers for chemical compounds, or that having a competing set of identifiers would sow confusion.
Whatever the legality of the situation, I'm betting Wikipedia isn't the first information service to have incurred CAS's wrath. We can certainly learn from the experiences of others. For example, here's a set of URLs I collected a little while ago which permit free web-based lookup, by name or CAS number, of information about chemicals, including their CAS numbers:
http://www.emolecules.com/ http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/ http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ http://chemfinder.cambridgesoft.com/
I get the impression that CAS is grudgingly tolerant of services which allow one-at-a-time, interactive lookup of chemicals, but what they're adamant about is that no one create a simple database of chemicals using the CAS number as a primary or secondary key. Wikipedia isn't quite one of those, of course, but you could do a decent job of creating one by writing a script to go through every article in [[:Category:Chemical compounds]] and extract the relevant information from the {{Chembox}} at the top -- precisely as I've currently got a script in the background doing.
I work with a guy who used to work at CambridgeSoft; on Monday I'll ask him what he knows about the CAS situation.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
but you could do a decent job of creating one by writing a script to go through every article in [[:Category:Chemical compounds]] and extract the relevant information from the {{Chembox}} at the top -- precisely as I've currently got a script in the background doing.
This is exactly what Lars Aronsson has already done: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LA2/Extraktor
mathias@tippyzwo:~/Research$ cat parameters.dewiki | grep "^Infobox_Chemikalie|" [...] Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|CAS|68-12-2 Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Beschreibung|farblose, leicht bewegliche Flüssigkeit mit schwach aminartigem Geruch Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Molare Masse|73,10 g·[[mol]]<sup>−1</sup> Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Aggregat|flüssig Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Dichte|0,94 g·cm<sup>−3</sup> (20 °C) Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Schmelzpunkt|–61 [[Grad Celsius$!°C]] Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Siedepunkt|153 °C Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Dampfdruck|3,77 h[[Pascal (Einheit)$!Pa]] (20 °C) Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Löslichkeit|gut in Wasser, Alkohol, Ether Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|RL 67/548/EWG|Ja Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|Gefahrensymbole|@(Gefahrensymbole:1) Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|R|@(R-Sätze:2) Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|S|@(S-Sätze:3) Infobox_Chemikalie|Dimethylformamid|4|MAK|10 ppm, 30 mg·m<sup>−3</sup> [...]
mathias@tippyzwo:~/Research$ cat parameters.dewiki | grep "^Infobox_Chemikalie|" | wc -l 49276
Works on a en.wp dump just as good (maybe with more data :) ).
Mathias
On 08/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
of CAS numbers. But CAS has sued -- and I think successfully -- to discourage this, claiming either that they own the idea of a single master database of unique identifiers for chemical compounds, or that having a competing set of identifiers would sow confusion.
OH REALLY.
Yeah, I can see that playing well when publicised.
Whatever the legality of the situation, I'm betting Wikipedia isn't the first information service to have incurred CAS's wrath.
We haven't actually incurred their *wrath* as such.
But if they've actually sued people to try to maintain a monopoly on the *idea* of numerical identifiers, I think they've just incurred ours. Do you have details or pointers to such?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 08/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
...But CAS has sued -- and I think successfully -- to discourage this, claiming either that they own the idea of a single master database of unique identifiers for chemical compounds, or that having a competing set of identifiers would sow confusion.
...if they've actually sued people to try to maintain a monopoly on the *idea* of numerical identifiers, I think they've just incurred ours. Do you have details or pointers to such?
I couldn't remember, but after a bit of poking around, I found it (of course) right within our own 'pedia. From [[PubChem]]:
The American Chemical Society tried to get the U.S. Congress to restrict the operation of PubChem, because they claim it competes with their Chemical Abstracts Service.
That sentence is sourced to http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/ news/acs_pubchem.html, which says
The American Chemical Society (ACS) is calling on Congress to "refocus" and curtail the NIH's PubChem, a freely accessible database that connects chemical information with biomedical research and clinical information, organizing facts in numerous public databases into a unified whole.
That page has several media citations from May-June 2005.
But I was wrong to say "sued", and I thought wrong when I said "I think successfully", because PubChem seems to be going strong (although I've found that PubChem numbers -- doubtless not coincidentally -- are useless for unique identification).
Steve Summit wrote:
I couldn't remember, but after a bit of poking around, I found it (of course) right within our own 'pedia. From [[PubChem]]:
The American Chemical Society tried to get the U.S. Congress to restrict the operation of PubChem, because they claim it competes with their Chemical Abstracts Service.
That sentence is sourced to http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/ news/acs_pubchem.html, which says
The American Chemical Society (ACS) is calling on Congress to "refocus" and curtail the NIH's PubChem, a freely accessible database that connects chemical information with biomedical research and clinical information, organizing facts in numerous public databases into a unified whole.
That page has several media citations from May-June 2005.
If they were so confident about having copyrights there would be no need for them to ask congress to impose these restrictions.
Ec
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Whether they're non-profit or not, CAS acts precisely as jealous
of its set of numbers as any other commercial database company. The impression I get is that this *is* a significant nuisance for chemists and other scientists. Other entities (I can probably find the details) have attempted to establish their own, freer sets of unique identifiers for chemical compounds, precisely in hopes of avoiding the cumbersome restrictions placed on the use of CAS numbers. But CAS has sued -- and I think successfully -- to discourage this, claiming either that they own the idea of a single master database of unique identifiers for chemical compounds, or that having a competing set of identifiers would sow confusion.
The claim on the idea would fall under "patents", would it not?
The Mangoe wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Whether they're non-profit or not, CAS acts precisely as jealous
of its set of numbers as any other commercial database company. The impression I get is that this *is* a significant nuisance for chemists and other scientists. Other entities (I can probably find the details) have attempted to establish their own, freer sets of unique identifiers for chemical compounds, precisely in hopes of avoiding the cumbersome restrictions placed on the use of CAS numbers. But CAS has sued -- and I think successfully -- to discourage this, claiming either that they own the idea of a single master database of unique identifiers for chemical compounds, or that having a competing set of identifiers would sow confusion.
The claim on the idea would fall under "patents", would it not?
It would, perhaps as some kind of business process. If that was the case then the normal 20 years of patent protection should have expired since the numbers were started in 1965.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=997
They have a specific hate-on for Wikipedia:
"Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) objects to anyone encouraging the use of SciFinder - and STN - to curate third-party databases or chemical substance collections, including the one found in Wikipedia."
Here's the situation in a nutshell, for those who don't have time to read the referenced blog entry (though it's an informative read).
There's an obvious need in chemistry for a short, easy-to-use, unique identifier for every chemical compound in use. You might think that the chemical formulas you learned in high school -- H20 for water, NaCl for salt, H2SO4 for sulfuric acid, etc. -- would suffice for this, but that system rapidly breaks down for larger molecules, both because it's increasingly cumbersome, and harder and harder to guarantee uniqueness when there are multiple distinct structures containing the same number of C's, H's, N's, and O's. Also there's a need for unique numbers for substances such as gasoline which are mixtures of different molecules and which therefore don't have single chemical formulas.
The good news is that there is a widely-used set of numbers providing the desired attributes: short, easy-to-use, unique. These are "CAS numbers", and they're a de-facto standard. Water is 7732-18-5, salt is 7647-14-5, sulfuric acid is 7664-93-9, gasoline is 86290-81-5. As I understand it, in published work on chemistry, everyone routinely uses CAS numbers to clarify the identities of the chemicals they're writing about; I believe journals tend to require this. The creation of the CAS database was obviously a huge undertaking, and CAS deserves rewards for the huge amount of work that has gone into it.
The problem, of course, is that CAS is trying to guarantee their rewards by forcing everyone who uses their numbers to pay various fees. Their need to underwrite their work (even though they're a non-profit) stands in direct opposition to humanity's need for these numbers to be free and open. The details are different, but in broad outlines the story is a sadly familiar one, well-known to any student of free and open information.
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Summit wrote:
I wrote:
The creation of the CAS database was obviously a huge undertaking...
According to [[CAS registry number]], "Around 50,000 new numbers are added each week."
And apparently the CAS database is staffed with PhDs these days, so it's not a trivial undertaking. There are reasons for the cost of access.
This may be a case of "don't shit where you eat." We are, for the most part, on the same side as ACS - we're all non-profit organizations seeking to increase knowledge. We don't necessarily have a lot to gain by using the CAS numbers and, in doing so, jeopardizing the development of the CAS system.
If, in fact, we would. But it's a non-trivial consideration, and a large part of why David's instinct that the nuclear option may not be ideal is probably wise.
-Phil
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
And apparently the CAS database is staffed with PhDs these days, so it's not a trivial undertaking. There are reasons for the cost of access. This may be a case of "don't shit where you eat." We are, for the most part, on the same side as ACS - we're all non-profit organizations seeking to increase knowledge. We don't necessarily have a lot to gain by using the CAS numbers and, in doing so, jeopardizing the development of the CAS system. If, in fact, we would. But it's a non-trivial consideration, and a large part of why David's instinct that the nuclear option may not be ideal is probably wise.
Indeed. Talking nicely is always a better start, particularly when you do in fact have a big stick.
- d.
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 05:26:37PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
And apparently the CAS database is staffed with PhDs these days, so it's not a trivial undertaking. There are reasons for the cost of access. This may be a case of "don't shit where you eat." We are, for the most part, on the same side as ACS - we're all non-profit organizations seeking to increase knowledge. We don't necessarily have a lot to gain by using the CAS numbers and, in doing so, jeopardizing the development of the CAS system. If, in fact, we would. But it's a non-trivial consideration, and a large part of why David's instinct that the nuclear option may not be ideal is probably wise.
Indeed. Talking nicely is always a better start, particularly when you do in fact have a big stick.
I am presuming that [[en:User:Walkerma]] is aware of all this, but I have never seen him on this list. He has talked about wikipedia at ACS meetings and might be the ideal person to talk to ACS about this, if that is needed.
Brian.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Summit wrote:
I wrote:
The creation of the CAS database was obviously a huge undertaking...
According to [[CAS registry number]], "Around 50,000 new numbers are added each week."
And apparently the CAS database is staffed with PhDs these days, so it's not a trivial undertaking. There are reasons for the cost of access.
This may be a case of "don't shit where you eat." We are, for the most part, on the same side as ACS - we're all non-profit organizations seeking to increase knowledge. We don't necessarily have a lot to gain by using the CAS numbers and, in doing so, jeopardizing the development of the CAS system.
We have as much to gain from using CAS numbers as using any unique identifier system (i.e. quite a lot). It is the most widely-used and complete system for chemical identification. Wikipedia articles which indicate CAS numbers hardly jeopardise the development of the CAS system. If anything, it promotes the system as the de facto standard.
CAS identifiers in Wikipedia articles helps our readers, helps Wikipedia, and helps CAS.
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=997
They have a specific hate-on for Wikipedia:
"Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) objects to anyone encouraging the use of SciFinder - and STN - to curate third-party databases or chemical substance collections, including the one found in Wikipedia."
The claim is that "CAS numbers are copyright CAS/ACS who have the legal right to regulate their use - as above." I find this idea highly dubious myself, though I wonder what countries it would legally fly in. Particularly given that "CAS identifiers have come to be accepted as a primary identifier system for chemistry."
Anyone here have informed legal commentary?
I don't have informed legal commentary, but my guess is -- and their actual comment bears this out -- that ACS's objections are due to the extremely stringent license requirements that one agrees to for when one subscribes to SciFinder. Basically, redistributing information from SciFinder/CAS Abstracts to other people who didn't subscribe (i.e. via Wikipedia, or otherwise) is almost certainly not kosher. I make this guess based on the rules that libraries agree to when they subscribe to SciFinder. There are nearly always specific provisions in the contract (not just for SciFinder, but for most databases and journals) that say who can get access to the data -- for instance, only the faculty, staff and students of a university. Obviously enough, the many glorious readers of Wikipedia are unlikely to fall into this faculty/staff/student classification.
Assuming this is true for most contracts they sign, then probably anyone systematically posting data from one of these systems is violating some provision of their contract. This doesn't have anything to do with copyright law per se, but it is a terms of use question.
The separate issue of CAS numbers being copyrighted is very unfortunate, but everyone is right that the CAS numbering and indexing and data organization scheme that is the core of SciFinder and related tools is very much the lifeblood of ACS, and they are afraid of losing it. Anecdotally, though the ACS is a nonprofit, they have historically not been inclined at all to go to open access/open licensing/open content schemes, unlike some other major publishers who are starting to see the wisdom of making information freely available. So I'm not sure that an appeal to their better nature would be terribly likely to work. But, it's always worth trying.
-- phoebe
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:17 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
....
subscribe to SciFinder. There are nearly always specific provisions in the contract (not just for SciFinder, but for most databases and journals) that say who can get access to the data -- for instance, only the faculty, staff and students of a university. Obviously enough, the many glorious readers of Wikipedia are unlikely to fall into this faculty/staff/student classification.
Assuming this is true for most contracts they sign, then probably anyone systematically posting data from one of these systems is violating some provision of their contract. This doesn't have anything to do with copyright law per se, but it is a terms of use question.
Er, and I didn't actually look at the chemistry page to see what all folks were proposing to do. As Ec & David Goodman and others have said, CAS numbers are available from lots and lots of sources, so simply reprinting the things -- rather than trying to get a lot of them downloaded/validated through SciFinder -- doesn't seem too bad. I'd be curious how things like the CRC handbook get them, actually. Do they have to license their use from CAS?
-- phoebe
On 10/03/2008, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:17 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
....
subscribe to SciFinder. There are nearly always specific provisions in the contract (not just for SciFinder, but for most databases and journals) that say who can get access to the data -- for instance, only the faculty, staff and students of a university. Obviously enough, the many glorious readers of Wikipedia are unlikely to fall into this faculty/staff/student classification.
Assuming this is true for most contracts they sign, then probably anyone systematically posting data from one of these systems is violating some provision of their contract. This doesn't have anything to do with copyright law per se, but it is a terms of use question.
Er, and I didn't actually look at the chemistry page to see what all folks were proposing to do. As Ec & David Goodman and others have said, CAS numbers are available from lots and lots of sources, so simply reprinting the things -- rather than trying to get a lot of them downloaded/validated through SciFinder -- doesn't seem too bad. I'd be curious how things like the CRC handbook get them, actually. Do they have to license their use from CAS?
-- phoebe
CAS numbers are available in independent, reliable, and usable resources other than SciFinder. Since the problem is with using SciFinder, and not the numbers themselves, this shouldn't affect our inclusion of CAS numbers in Wikipedia articles.
The following books are available, e.g.: *Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index 1996: 3 (1996 ed, Vol 3) *The ring index : a list of ring systems used in organic chemistry : a product of the Chemical Abstracts Service / by Austin M. Patterson, Leonard T. Capell, Donald F. Walker
There also seems to be a free look-up independent of ACS (http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/cas-ser.html). That said, this page is footed with "CAS registry numbers are copyrighted by the American Chemical Society. Redistribution rights for CAS registry numbers are reserved by the American Chemical Society. "CAS registry" is a registered trademark of the American Chemical society.".
The situation is confusing. If accessing these numbers using SciFinder is the problem (due to user agreements), there are alternative solutions. If claims that the numbers are copyrighted are legitimate, it may be a bigger problem. Aside from the issues of database and collative copyright, how copyrightable is an identifier of the form 74-82-8?
On 10/03/2008, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
The situation is confusing. If accessing these numbers using SciFinder is the problem (due to user agreements), there are alternative solutions. If claims that the numbers are copyrighted are legitimate, it may be a bigger problem. Aside from the issues of database and collative copyright, how copyrightable is an identifier of the form 74-82-8?
This is one where saying "sue if you feel lucky" is the nuclear option.
- d.
Oldak Quill wrote:
The situation is confusing. If accessing these numbers using SciFinder is the problem (due to user agreements), there are alternative solutions. If claims that the numbers are copyrighted are legitimate, it may be a bigger problem. Aside from the issues of database and collative copyright, how copyrightable is an identifier of the form 74-82-8?
If 74-82-8 is a copyrighted number when did it become copyright. It's not enough to say that it assumes the copyright date of the latest edition of the directory, and repeatedly renews that if that specific number first appeared in 1977. The public needs to be able to determine when the copyright on that number will expire.
Ec
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:17 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] CAS Discourages Using SciFinder to Help Curate Wikipedia
Oldak Quill wrote:
The situation is confusing. If accessing these numbers using SciFinder is the problem (due to user agreements), there are alternative solutions. If claims that the numbers are copyrighted are legitimate, it may be a bigger problem. Aside from the issues of database and collative copyright, how copyrightable is an identifier of the form 74-82-8?
If 74-82-8 is a copyrighted number when did it become copyright. It's not enough to say that it assumes the copyright date of the latest edition of the directory, and repeatedly renews that if that specific number first appeared in 1977. The public needs to be able to determine when the copyright on that number will expire.
Ec
------- The situation isn't confusing when you realize that you... cannot...copyright... a... directory... number :)
There is no such thing as a copyright on each individual bit of data in a database
The database enjoys a copyright. Copyright does not reside in each bit.
Will Johnson
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:17 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] CAS Discourages Using SciFinder to Help Curate Wikipedia
Oldak Quill wrote:
The situation is confusing. If accessing these numbers using SciFinder is the problem (due to user agreements), there are alternative solutions. If claims that the numbers are copyrighted are legitimate, it may be a bigger problem. Aside from the issues of database and collative copyright, how copyrightable is an identifier of the form 74-82-8?
If 74-82-8 is a copyrighted number when did it become copyright. It's not enough to say that it assumes the copyright date of the latest edition of the directory, and repeatedly renews that if that specific number first appeared in 1977. The public needs to be able to determine when the copyright on that number will expire.
Ec
The situation isn't confusing when you realize that you... cannot...copyright... a... directory... number :)
There is no such thing as a copyright on each individual bit of data in a database
The database enjoys a copyright. Copyright does not reside in each bit.
Sorry I should have said "were" instead of "is" in the first line. My use of the subjunctive would have made it clear to everyone that I damn well knew that.
Ec
On 10/03/2008, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
There also seems to be a free look-up independent of ACS (http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/cas-ser.html). That said, this page is footed with "CAS registry numbers are copyrighted by the American Chemical Society. Redistribution rights for CAS registry numbers are reserved by the American Chemical Society. "CAS registry" is a registered trademark of the American Chemical society.".
"Redistribution rights" is probably the key phrase here - without explicitly saying so, that seems to be the same sort of restriction as SciFinder places on the user. It just makes the lookup process no-charge...
On 10/03/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"Redistribution rights" is probably the key phrase here - without explicitly saying so, that seems to be the same sort of restriction as SciFinder places on the user. It just makes the lookup process no-charge...
If they have in fact taken care only to target people who've expressly made such an agreement, that's somewhat less objectionable, even if it's quite possibly a bad thing for science.
If they were caught attempting to intimidate third parties from recording numbers they knew of, or fourth parties from creating lists from numbers noted by the third parties, that would be an entirely different kettle of opprobrium.
- d.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
There also seems to be a free look-up independent of ACS (http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/cas-ser.html). That said, this page is footed with "CAS registry numbers are copyrighted by the American Chemical Society. Redistribution rights for CAS registry numbers are reserved by the American Chemical Society. "CAS registry" is a registered trademark of the American Chemical society.".
"Redistribution rights" is probably the key phrase here - without explicitly saying so, that seems to be the same sort of restriction as SciFinder places on the user. It just makes the lookup process no-charge...
Whether or not there is copyright, they are using contract law to protect their IP.
SciFinder License Agreement:
"...I acknowledge that I am permitted to: * Search only for myself and not for others or other origanizations. * Use only the LoginID and password assigned to me and not share these with any other person. * Store up to 5,000 Records and any one time. * Contribute my 5,000 Records into a Project Database for use by my Project team for the duration of the project. ..."
More information at:
http://www.cas.org/legal/infopolicy.html
-- John
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:17 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
....
subscribe to SciFinder. There are nearly always specific provisions in the contract (not just for SciFinder, but for most databases and journals) that say who can get access to the data -- for instance, only the faculty, staff and students of a university. Obviously enough, the many glorious readers of Wikipedia are unlikely to fall into this faculty/staff/student classification.
Assuming this is true for most contracts they sign, then probably anyone systematically posting data from one of these systems is violating some provision of their contract. This doesn't have anything to do with copyright law per se, but it is a terms of use question.
Er, and I didn't actually look at the chemistry page to see what all folks were proposing to do. As Ec & David Goodman and others have said, CAS numbers are available from lots and lots of sources, so simply reprinting the things -- rather than trying to get a lot of them downloaded/validated through SciFinder -- doesn't seem too bad. I'd be curious how things like the CRC handbook get them, actually. Do they have to license their use from CAS?
-- phoebe
CAS numbers are available in independent, reliable, and usable resources other than SciFinder. Since the problem is with using SciFinder, and not the numbers themselves, this shouldn't affect our inclusion of CAS numbers in Wikipedia articles.
The following books are available, e.g.: *Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index 1996: 3 (1996 ed, Vol 3) *The ring index : a list of ring systems used in organic chemistry : a product of the Chemical Abstracts Service / by Austin M. Patterson, Leonard T. Capell, Donald F. Walker
There also seems to be a free look-up independent of ACS (http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/cas-ser.html). That said, this page is footed with "CAS registry numbers are copyrighted by the American Chemical Society. Redistribution rights for CAS registry numbers are reserved by the American Chemical Society. "CAS registry" is a registered trademark of the American Chemical society.".
The situation is confusing. If accessing these numbers using SciFinder is the problem (due to user agreements), there are alternative solutions. If claims that the numbers are copyrighted are legitimate, it may be a bigger problem. Aside from the issues of database and collative copyright, how copyrightable is an identifier of the form 74-82-8?
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
Just so we're all clear: SciFinder is based directly off of the old CAS print indexes. It's just an electronic way of getting at the same data. And the highly complex indexing scheme behind the numbers is almost certainly copyrightable. I think someone looking at the intellectual property issues would probably consider the numbers in context.
-- phoebe