JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB Archives

CCP4BB Archives


CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB Home

CCP4BB  February 2012

CCP4BB February 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Fwd: HR3699, Research Works Act

From:

Ian Tickle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ian Tickle <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:37:57 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (269 lines)

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.
>>
>>
>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager