The bill's name in no way reflects its purpose: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act. A more apt title would go something similar to Fallacious Companies in Research Win Again, in order to retain its possible acronym. Jennifer McLennan, Director of Communications over at SPARC, issued a letter in which she outlines the five key characteristics of the bill, quoted below:
H.R. 801 is designed to amend current copyright law and create a new category of copyrighted works (Section 201, Title 17). In effect, it would:
1. Prohibit all U.S. federal agencies from conditioning funding agreements to require that works resulting from federal support be made publicly available if those works are either: a) funded in part by sources other than a U.S. agency, or b) the result of "meaningful added value" to the work from an entity that is not party to the agreement.
2. Prohibit U.S. agencies from obtaining a license to publicly distribute, perform, or display such work by, for example, placing it on the Internet.
3. Stifle access to a broad range of federally funded works, overturning the crucially important NIH Public Access Policy and preventing other agencies from implementing similar policies.
4. Because it is so broadly framed, the proposed bill would require an overhaul of the well-established procurement rules in effect for all federal agencies, and could disrupt day-to-day procurement practices across the federal government.
5. Repeal the longstanding "federal purpose" doctrine, under which all federal agencies that fund the creation of a copyrighted work reserve the "royalty-free, nonexclusive right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work" for any federal purpose. This will severely limit the ability of U.S. federal agencies to use works that they have funded to support and fulfill agency missions and to communicate with and educate the public.
In the letter, McLennan goes on to encourage all those involved in and impacted by the OA movement to take action and contact their representatives in order to rally opposition to this bill. A draft letter text is available. I encourage all to participate and take a stand to defend OA and public access to scientific research.
Nathan
Posts
Open access rules people, let do it!
ReplyDeleteRT
www.anon-tools.us.tc
Some politicians think swearing an oath to the constitution means protecting the federal government. The federal government is obviously more interested in protecting itself from the rights of the states and the people. Time to instruct our federal government, read the 10th amendment to the constitution. Oh, and you don't need a lawyer (high speed notary public) to explain it to you.
ReplyDeleteIf we taxpayers are paying for the research, why should private publishers profit?
ReplyDeleteIt surprises me to see such a bill sponsored by a Democrat-- it's usually the Republicans who want to help private companies.
I also read today where Obama is trying to prevent Rove from having to testify. What is going on here? Are (we) Dems truly the same as the GOP, just wearing slightly less-expensive suits?
ReplyDeleteI just called my Rep, Diane Watson (D), in California. Let's get calls into as many Reps as possible!
ReplyDeleteThank you Jesse! Every single call or email or letter can make a difference. And they are all very much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteYou've been linked from Boing Boing, here: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/16/scientific-publisher.html
ReplyDeleteWhy is Conyers pushing this bill? Who is he serving with this bill? Is there a money trail?
ReplyDelete