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:

Enrico Stura <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:17:20 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (420 lines)

I am strongly in favour of Open Acess, but Open Access is not always helped
by lack of money for editing etc.

For example:
Acta Crystallographica is not Open Acess.
In one manner or another publishing must be financed.
Libraries pay fees for the journals. The fees help the International Union
of Crystallography.
The money is used for sponsoring meetings, and some scientists that come
 from less rich
institutions benefit from it.

Open Acess to NIH sponsored scientific work will be for all world tax
payers and tax doggers as well.
OR May be you would suggest that NIH sponsored work should be accessed
only by US tax payers with a valid social security number?
The journal server will verify that Tax for the current year has been
filed with the IRS server. A dangerous invasion of privacy!
The more legislation we add the worse off we are.

If the authors of a paper wants their work to be available to the general
public there is Wikipedia.
I strongly support an effort by all members of ccp4bb to contribute a
general public summary of their work on Wikipedia.
There are Open Source journals as well.

I would urge everybody NOT to sign the petition. Elsevier will not last
for ever, and the less
accessible the work that they publish, the worse for them in terms of
impact factor.
In the old days, if your institution did not have the journal, most likely
you would not reference the work
and the journal was worth nothing.
We are the ones that will decide the future of Elsevier.  Elsevier will
need to strike a balance between excellent
publishing with resonable fees or not getting referenced. A law that
enforces a copyright will not help them.
They are wasting their money on lobbing.

The argument that NIH scientist need to publish in High Impact Factor
Journals by Elsevier does not hold up:
1) We should consider the use of impact factor as a NEGATIVE contribution
to science.
2) Each article can now have its own impact factor on Google Scholar,
independent on the journal it is published in.
3) Even for journals not indexed on PubMed,  Google Scholar finds them.

I hold the same opinion for the OsX debate.
Don't buy Apple! Use linux instead. When enough people protest where it
really hurts the
company, they will no longer have the money to lobby the American
Congressmen.
If they make an excellent product, then they deserve the money and quite
rightly they
can try to build a monopoly around their technology. I fight that, I use
LINUX.

By signing petitions we acknowledge the power of the legislators. This is
another form
of lobbing. If we disapprove of lobbing we should not engage in the
practice even if we give
no money.
We have more powerful means of protest. The 24 Hour shutdown of Wikipedia
meets my approval.

There is also patenting. How do we feel about it?
Some of the work I have done has also been patented. I do not feel right
about it.

There is MONEY everywhere. This ruins our ability to acqure knowledge that
should be free for everybody.
But since it costs to acquire it, it cannot be free.
LAWS should be for the benefit of the nation. But legislators have the
problem of money to be re-elected.
Can we trust them?
Can we trust their laws?

Companies also play very useful roles. Some companies less so.
But at least they work for a profit and thus they must provide a worth
while service.
This is not true for politicians.


Enrico.


--
Enrico A. Stura D.Phil. (Oxon) ,    Tel: 33 (0)1 69 08 4302 Office
Room 19, Bat.152,                   Tel: 33 (0)1 69 08 9449    Lab
LTMB, SIMOPRO, IBiTec-S, CE Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette,   FRANCE
http://www.chem.gla.ac.uk/protein/mirror/stura/index2.html
e-mail: [log in to unmask]                             Fax: 33 (0)1 69 08 90 71

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:47:26 +0100, Paula Salgado
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> May I also suggest reading these:
>
> https://intechweb.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/selected-reading-on-research-works-act-why-you-should-care/
>
> https://intechweb.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/open-access-on-a-string-cut-it-and-it-will-grow-back/
>
> Can non-US based scientists sign the petition, btw?
>
>
> There are also several blogposts and discussions around regarding RWA
> and subsequent calls for boycotts of publishers that support it. A few
> examples (mostly from the UK):
>
> http://cameronneylon.net/blog/the-research-works-act-and-the-breakdown-of-mutual-incomprehension/
>
> http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/
>
> http//www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/elsevieropenletter
>
> http//occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/02/12/an-open-letter-to-elsevier/
>
> And my (very) personal views on the matter:
> http://www.paulasalgado.org/archives/423
>
> Best wishes
> Paula
>
> 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

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


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

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