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
|