Those two sentences have no connection. You do not further the cause of the public domain by attacking certain derivative works that some people find useful. If people need semantically analyzed works, then they should make semantically analyzed works.
Nonsense. PG has a long history of running into problems with people who claim to have made a useful contribution to a "derivative work" when in fact all they are trying to do is bung up the works to keep copies from being made. The academic community is not more immune to this behavior than anyone else. The keyword you use above is "useful." Is this "academic work" useful? Nope. It's just another excuse to find another way to lock up books which are out of copyright so that the public cannot in practice use that which is already theirs -- namely everything that has risen to the public domain. And you cannot use the book in the university's library anymore either -- because they dispose of the physical copies once they have digitized them.