If "UKCoRR's voice may not be overly loud (yet)" then I'm glad to see Gareth trying to make it louder. But I have some concerns in this case. Does this post confuse SOPA and RWA? They seem to be referred to interchangeably, connected by AAP. Gareth concludes by committing UKCoRR to oppose SOPA, but not RWA.
More pertinently, since this is the voice of UK repositories, what can repositories do beyond oppose SOPA and RWA (presumably both)? There are implications in the proposed legislation that are hugely negative for repositories, of course, but there is also a need to guard against instinctive reactions - anti-publisher inevitably but with e.g. calls to abandon library journal subscriptions (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html?) - that are also ultimately antithetical to repositories.
In promoting and protecting the role of repositories in this highly-charged atmosphere, UKCoRR should also consider carefully the wider effects of the proposals with reference to the interdependencies of green open access on which they depend.
Oppose the proposed legislation for the detriment it seeks to introduce and lay open the indefensible complicity of the publishers who support it, without defusing that message by invoking old enmities.
Steve Hitchcock
WAIS Group, Building 32
School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit
Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379
On 11 Jan 2012, at 12:07, Tate, Dominic wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> You may be interested to see a blog post from the UKCoRR Chair, Gareth Johnson, in response to this matter:
> http://ukcorr.blogspot.com/2012/01/sopa-and-app-dumb-and-dumber-publishers.html
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Dominic Tate
> UKCoRR External Liaison Officer
> Phone: 01784 276619
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 08 January 2012 00:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying Again To Wag The Public Research Dog
>
> ** Cross-Posted **
>
> Full hyperlinked text:
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html
>
> EXCERPT:
>
> The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699):
> "No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that -- (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work."
>
> Translation and Comments:
>
> "If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes "private research" once a publisher "adds value" to it by managing the peer review."
>
> [Comment: Researchers do the peer review for the publisher for free, just as researchers give their papers to the publisher for free, together with the exclusive right to sell subscriptions to it, on-paper and online, seeking and receiving no fee or royalty in return].
>
> "Since that public research has thereby been transformed into "private research," and the publisher's property, the government that funded it with public tax money should not be allowed to require the funded author to make it accessible for free online for those users who cannot afford subscription access."
>
> [Comment: The author's sole purpose in doing and publishing the research, without seeking any fee or royalties, is so that all potential users can access, use and build upon it, in further research and applications, to the benefit of the public that funded it; this is also the sole purpose for which public tax money is used to fund research.]"
>
> H.R. 3699 misunderstands the secondary, service role that peer-reviewed research journal publishing plays in US research and development and its
> (public) funding....
>
> Continued at: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
> On Fri Jan 6 16:43:10, Jennifer McLennan wrote:
>
>> Subject: [GOAL] Take Action: Oppose H.R. 3699, a new bill to block
>> public access to publicly funded research
>>
>> A new bill, The Research Works Act (H.R.3699), designed to roll back
>> the NIH Public Access Policy and block the development of similar
>> policies at other federal agencies has been introduced into the U.S.
>> House of Representatives. Co-sponsored by Darrell Issa
>> (R-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), it was introduced on December 16,
>> 2011, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
>> Reform.
>>
>> Essentially, the bill seeks to prohibit federal agencies from
>> conditioning their grants to require that articles reporting on
>> publicly funded research be made accessible to the public online.
>>
>> The bill text is short and to the point. The main point reads:
>>
>> "No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or
>> otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that --
>> (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any
>> private-sector research work without the prior consent of the
>> publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective
>> author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author,
>> assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work."
>>
>> Supporters of public access to the results of publicly funded research
>> need to speak out against this proposed legislation. Contact Congress
>> to express your opposition today, or as soon as possible.
>>
>> For contact information and details on how to act, see the Alliance
>> for Taxpayer Access Action Center at: http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action.
>>
|