 |
 |
Pedro, Well it worked for me (and I see many others) without a zip code. I see that someone else typed "Bayreuth" in the zip code field - so I suspect you can type anything there! Cheers -- Ian On 16 February 2012 16:31, Pedro M. Matias <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Can non-US residents sign this petition? You need a Whitehouse.gov account > and in order to register you have to provide a U.S. (I presume) zipcode. > > > At 15:37 16-02-2012, Ian Tickle wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Industry and Medicine Applied Crystallography > Macromolecular Crystallography Unit > ___________________________________ > Phones : (351-21) 446-9100 Ext. 1669 > (351-21) 446-9669 (direct) > Fax : (351-21) 441-1277 or 443-3644 > > email : [log in to unmask] > > http://www.itqb.unl.pt/research/biological-chemistry/industry-and-medicine-applied-crystallography > http://www.itqb.unl.pt/labs/macromolecular-crystallography-unit > > Mailing address : > Instituto de Tecnologia Quimica e Biologica > Apartado 127 > 2781-901 OEIRAS > Portugal >