Intellectual Property or Intellectual Propaganda?

Everywhere you look, everyone wants to stand up for something. People are Pro- life, choice, and pretty much any noun with a positive connotation. No one wants to be anti-anything, because those are the naysayers who are destroying our country, right?

But this entire concept of antithetical positives creates a false dichotomy that inaccurately describes the options. Who's going to say "Oh, I just despise life" or "There's nothing I hate more than choice"? Pretty much no one, in my opinion. And honestly, neither of those descriptors actually get to the fundamental issues of privacy, maternal health, and reproductive rights.

That's why, if you listen to the rhetoric, opponents of OA aren't opposing anything at all! They're just for intellectual property rights. But peel back the shiny label and the same malfunctioning product is there. And it's time we turn it right around and demand a full refund. Oppose closed access and contact your representatives about HR801!

Nathan

Following the money on HR801

Two days ago, I issued an urgent call to action concerning HR801, re-introduced by Congressional Representative John Conyers (D-MI), which would essentially reverse the NIH Open Access policy. I have much respect for Representative Conyers, especially on his health care policies. Thus, I was greatly disturbed upon hearing of this development.

I wanted to know why Conyers would do such a thing, and began investigating the money trail on Conyers' campaign contributions (thanks Alex for the idea!). What I came upon sank my heart. According to Open Secrets, Conyers' third single largest campaign contributor in 2008 was the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), whose "Key Bills of the 111th Congress" include HR801. Surprised? Shouldn't be. Money talks, and big money talks that much louder.

The AIPLA, like the bill it hawks, has a deceptive name. It seems the association is more interested in limiting public access to research it funded than protecting "intellectual property". Perhaps the AIPLA should consider the fact that, in essence, the research is the "intellectual property" of the taxpayers whose money went into it. But of course this private organization has the interest of its members closest to its mission; I only had hoped that Conyers would do the same for his constituents. Perhaps it is no wonder that the Congressional job approval rating averages less than 30%.

But don't let this news dishearten you. Conyers can't pass the bill on his own, no matter how much money he has behind him. Contact your Representatives and appeal to the better angels of their nature. Stop HR801 now, and in 2010 we can elect responsible persons to represent us.

Nathan

Stand for Open Access, Oppose HR801

The most painful defeat is an overturned victory. And this very well may happen if supporters of OA do not respond. Congressional Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has re-introduced a bill (HR801) that essentially would negate the NIH policy concerning depositing research in OA repositories.

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

Get the latest posts from OpenAccessBlog.com by entering your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner