The Conyers bill is back [restricting access to research we paid for]

Open Access News ^ | February 04, 2009 | Staff

[antiRepublicrat]

Yesterday Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) re-introduced the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act.  This year it's H.R. 801 (last year it was H.R. 6845), and co-sponsored by Steve Cohen (D-TN), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Robert Wexler (D-FL).  The language has not changed. 

The Fair Copyright Act is to fair copyright what the Patriot Act was to patriotism.  It would repeal the OA policy at the NIH and prevent similar OA policies at any federal agency.  The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where Conyers is Chairman, and where he has consolidated his power since last year by abolishing the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.  The Judiciary Committee does not specialize in science, science policy, or science funding, but copyright. 

The premise of the bill, urged by the publishing lobby, is that the NIH policy somehow violates copyright law.  The premise is false and cynical.  If the NIH policy violated copyrights, or permitted the violation of copyrights, publishers wouldn't have to back this bill to amend US copyright law.  Instead, they'd be in court where they'd already have a remedy.  For a detailed analysis of the bill and point by point rebuttal to the publishing lobby's rhetoric, see my article from October 2008.

I'll have more soon on ways to mobilize in opposition to the bill and support the NIH and the principle of public access to publicly-funded research.  Meantime, if you're a US citizen and your representative is a member of the Judiciary Committee, it's not to early to fire off an email/fax/letter/phone call to your representative opposing the bill and defending the NIH policy.  You can find ammo here:

• the open letter from 46 law professors objecting to "serious misstatements relating to copyright law" in the publisher arguments against the NIH policy, September 8, 2008
• the open letter from 33 US Nobel laureates in science defending the NIH policy against the Conyers bill, September 9, 2008
• my article on the bill from October 2008
• the OAN posts on the bill from the last time around

Labels: Hot

[antiRepublicrat]

There are policies in government that say if the taxpayers paid for research, then the taxpayers get to see the research they paid for with no additional charges. This bill will kill that.

Democrats supposedly for the people? Nope, beholden to the copyright cartel as usual.

[antiRepublicrat]

The Copyfraud ping: copyright, patent and trademark law, mainly as applied to the digital age, especially their abuse.
If you want on or off the Copyfraud Ping List, Freepmail me.

[YOUGOTIT]

While Robert Wexler (D-FL) claims he is from Florida he has never lived here. He lives in New York and only uses the home of relatives in Palm Beach County as his address here in Florida.

He is a anti-American of the first class and should have been thrown out of the House as he is direct violation of the Constitution which says one must live in the area that they are elected from.

[Piquaboy]

I am sure that FR is on a list of things to get rid of by the Socialist Rats.

[PapaBear3625]

If the taxpayers paid for the research, then the resulting report is work for hire, and the taxpayers own the copyright. The copyright office says "If a work is a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner of the copyright unless there has been a written agreement to the contrary signed by both parties."

[MissEdie]

If this crap passes, would this stand in the way of a FOIA request regarding research and findings?

[nitzy]

I think the more ridiculous part is that the authors of the article give away the article to the medical journals while receiving no payment. Regardless if the research is funded by taxpayers or private industry, the authors make no money on the scientific literature describing the research. They do it for the professional recognition and the advancement of knowledge regarding the subject. The publishing journals then claim ownership and charge you $20 to read an article about research that you funded and the researcher who did the work has given away.

[PapaBear3625]

I think the more ridiculous part is that the authors of the article give away the article to the medical journals while receiving no payment.

In academia, research does not count towards professional reputation unless it is published in a "peer reviewed" journal. The Internet is undermining the business model of the "peer reviewed" journals. They can copyright their edited and formatted copy of the scientist's research report, but the original report is the property of the United States which financed the research.

[sportutegrl]

I believe that the correct term for him would be CARPETBAGGER.

[nitzy]

I understand that. I meant it is even more ridiculous that the journals have done nothing to earn the right to claim ownership of the research. They did not even pay the researcher for the right to print it. They have no leg to stand on in their claim other than, “That’s the way it has always been done.”

[scrabblehack]

I’m not sure about the medical journals but some of the others actually have page charges (the author’s employer pays for the article to be published).

I’m not prepared to say the journals do nothing. They do coordinate the peer review, as is pointed out in the Aoki letter.

[nitzy]

The way that I understand it is that the medical journals are petitioning the government (Conyers) to make it illegal for the researchers to send their research to anyone else for publishing after they have sent it to be peer reviewed. If the journal coordinated a peer review, that part should not be reprinted but the researcher should be able to do anything they want with their own work.

[SunkenCiv]

Rep. Conyers wants science to be secret… or you will pay
DiscoverMagazine | 3/6/09
Posted on 03/06/2009 5:47:17 PM PST by LibWhacker
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2201115/posts

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from February. But there's a more recent one, so I'm going to ping this one, with a link to the update already posted above. It's one of those rare four-list ping topics.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from February. But there's a more recent one, so I'm going to ping this one, with a link to the update already posted above. It's one of those rare four-list ping topics.

---

· Google ·

---

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from February. But there's a more recent one, so I'm going to ping this one, with a link to the update already posted above. It's one of those rare four-list ping topics.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic ·

Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Note: this topic is from February. But there's a more recent one, so I'm going to ping this one, with a link to the update already posted above. It's one of those rare four-list ping topics. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[sourcery]

In other words, this vile Snivil Serpent wants to add yet more “special rights” to a privileged nobility who own intellectual “property”, while denying such rights to the taxpayers who paid the bills to produce it!

[SuperLuminal]

"In other words, this vile Snivil Serpent wants to add yet more “special rights” to a privileged nobility who own intellectual “property”, while denying such rights to the taxpayers who paid the bills to produce it! "

Exactly so!