 |
 |
Dear Herbert Thanks for your detailed explanation. I had missed the important point that it's the requirement on the authors to assent to open access after a year, which the proposed Bill seeks to abolish, that's critical here. I will go and sign the petition right now! Best wishes -- Ian On 16 February 2012 15:24, Herbert J. Bernstein <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > The bill summary says: > > Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting, maintaining, > continuing, or otherwise engaging 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; or > *(2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's > employer, assent to such network dissemination. * > > Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be > published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such > an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or > interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and to > which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an > arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or > editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely > required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the > course of research. > > ========================================== > > It is the second provision that really cuts the legs out from the NIH open > access policy. What the NIH policy does is to make open access publication a > condition imposed on the grant holders in publishing work that the NIH > funded. This has provided the necessary lever for NIH-funded authors to be > able to publish in well-respected journals and still to be able to require > that, after a year, their work be available without charge to the scientific > community. Without that lever we go back to the unlamented old system (at > least unlamented by almost everybody other than Elsevier) in which pubishers > could impose an absolute copyright transfer that barred the authors from > ever posting copies of their work on the web. People affiliated with > libraries with the appropriate subscriptions to the appropriate archiving > services may not have noticed the difference, but for the significant > portions of both researchers and students who did not have such access, the > NIH open access policy was by itself a major game changer, making much more > literature rapidly accessible, and even more importantly changed the > culture, making open access much more respectable. > > The NIH policy does nothing more than put grant-sponsored research on almost > the same footing as research done directly by the government which has never > been subject to copyright at all, on the theory that, if the tax-payers > already paid for the research, they should have open access to the fruits of > that research. This law would kill that policy. This would be a major step > backwards. > > Please read: > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/evo-eco-lab/2012/01/16/mistruths-insults-from-the-copyright-lobby-over-hr-3699/ > > http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/action_access/12-0106.shtml > > http://www.care2.com/causes/open-access-under-threat-hr-3699.html > > Please support the petition. This is a very bad bill. It is not about > protecting copyright, it is an effort to restrict the free flow of > scientific information in our community. > > Regards, > Herbert > > On 2/16/12 9:02 AM, Fischmann, Thierry wrote: >> >> Herbert >> >> I don't see how the act could affect the NIH open access policy. Could you >> please shed some light on that? >> >> What I read seems reasonable and I intend to ask my representatives to >> support this text. But obviously I am missing something and like to learn >> from you first. >> >> Regards >> Thierry >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >> Herbert J. Bernstein >> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:16 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Fwd: HR3699, Research Works Act >> >> Dear Ian, >> >> You are mistaken. The proposed law has nothing to do with preventing >> the >> encouragement people to break copyright law. It has everything to do with >> trying to kill the very reasonable NIH open access policy that properly >> balances the rights of publishers with the rights of authors and the >> interests of >> the scientific community. Most publishers fare quite well under a >> policy that >> gives them a year of exclusive control over papers, followed by open >> access. >> >> It is, unfortunately, a standard ploy in current American politics to >> make a >> law which does something likely to be very unpopular and very unreasonable >> sound like it is a law doing something quite different. >> >> Please reread it carefully. I think you will join in opposing this >> law. Science >> benefits from the NIH open access policy and the rights of all concerned >> are respected. It would be a mistake to allow the NIH open access policy >> to >> be killed. >> >> I hope you will sign the petition. >> >> Regards, >> Herbert >> >> >> On 2/16/12 6:29 AM, Ian Tickle wrote: >> >>> >>> Reading the H.R.3699 bill as put forward >>> (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03699:@@@L&summ2=m&) >>> it seems to be about prohibiting US federal agencies from having >>> policies which permit, authorise or require authors' assent to break >>> the law of copyright in respect of published journal articles >>> describing work funded at least in part by a US federal agency. I'm >>> assuming that "network dissemination without the publisher's consent" >>> is the same thing as breaking the law of copyright. >>> >>> It seems to imply that it would still be legal for US federal agencies >>> to encourage others to break the law of copyright in respect of >>> journal articles describing work funded by say UK funding agences! - >>> or is there already a US law in place which prohibits that? I'm only >>> surprised that encouraging others to break the law isn't already >>> illegal (even for Govt agencies): isn't that the law of incitement >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement)? >>> >>> This forum in fact already has such a policy in place for all journal >>> articles (i..e not just those funded by US federal agencies but by all >>> funding agencies), i.e. we actively discourage postings which incite >>> others to break the law by asking for copies of copyrighted published >>> articles. Perhaps the next petition should seek to overturn this >>> policy? >>> >>> This petition seems to be targeting the wrong law: if what you want is >>> free flow of information then it's the copyright law that you need to >>> petition to overturn, or you get around it by publishing in someplace >>> that doesn't require transfer of copyright. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> -- Ian >>> >>> On 16 February 2012 09:35, Tim Gruene<[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> Dear Raji, >>>> >>>> maybe you could increase the number of supporters if you included a link >>>> to (a description of) the content of HR3699 - I will certainly not sign >>>> something only summarised by a few polemic sentences ;-) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> On 02/15/2012 11:53 PM, Raji Edayathumangalam wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you agree, please signing the petition below. You need to register >>>>> on >>>>> the link below before you can sign this petition. Registration and >>>>> signing >>>>> the petition took about a minute or two. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Raji >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: Seth Darst<[log in to unmask]> >>>>> Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM >>>>> Subject: HR3699, Research Works Act >>>>> To: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rep. Caroline Maloney has not backed off in her attempt to put forward >>>>> the >>>>> interests of Elsevier and other academic publishers. >>>>> >>>>> If you oppose this measure, please sign this petition on the official >>>>> 'we >>>>> the people' White House web site. It needs 23,000 signatures before >>>>> February 22nd and only 1100 so far. Please forward far and wide. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oppose HR3699, the Research Works Act >>>>> >>>>> HR 3699, the Research Works Act will be detrimental to the free flow of >>>>> scientific information that was created using Federal funds. It is an >>>>> attempt to put federally funded scientific information behind >>>>> pay-walls, >>>>> and confer the ownership of the information to a private entity. This >>>>> is an >>>>> affront to open government and open access to information created using >>>>> public funds. >>>>> >>>>> This link gets you to the petition: >>>>> >>>>> https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/oppose-hr3699-research-works-act/vKMhCX9k >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> - -- >>>> - -- >>>> Dr Tim Gruene >>>> Institut fuer anorganische Chemie >>>> Tammannstr. 4 >>>> D-37077 Goettingen >>>> >>>> GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) >>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >>>> >>>> iD8DBQFPPM3kUxlJ7aRr7hoRAsKYAKDIs/jZHPBIV4AB2qrpBdXrSOn+VwCePabR >>>> Nm6+LK17jLJnPTqkjsQ4fV8= >>>> =a27t >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains >> information of Merck& Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, >> New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates Direct contact information >> for affiliates is available at >> http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be confidential, >> proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely >> for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are >> not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, >> please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from >> your system. >> >> >>