Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

[SophiaZoe]

Help stop the reversal of the NIH Public Access Mandate - act by 2.28

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at 2:58pm

Dear Fan of PLoS.org,

We need you to act in support of public access, again.

There's a bill before congress that needs opposing, it's called H.R. 801 or the "Fair Copyright in Research Works Act". You can find out all about what to do here http://www.taxpayeraccess.<wbr>org/action/HR801-09-0211.h<wbr>tml or see below.

Some of its likely impacts would be a reversal of the NIH public access policy (which is really working, with 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts being made available to the public per month) and it would make it impossible for other agencies to put similar provisions in place.

If you live in the US, please contact your representative, all the documentation that you need is below and if you don't, then ask a friend, colleague or family member who lives here to contact their rep or just email your opposition to stacie@arl.org.

Make your voice count by taking action.

Best wishes

​

I am a "fan" of PlosOne on Facebook and this was one their FB page. I hope it's not a dupe, and if it is, I offer my apology, but if the Flubie community is not yet aware of this bill we need to be, and being aware, we need to make our voices heard.

 

[sharon sanders]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

It is our tax money that pays for most of the research.

We have paid for access.

Thanks for posting.

Information is power.

We should have the power to determine our own fate. We need information to do this.

Open Access is important to the public health of the world.


:earth:

 

[Laidback Al]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Traditionally, information derived from research projects wholly or partially funded by the U.S. Government was not subject to copyright. As I understand this amendment to Section 201 of title 17, recipients of federal funds, that is U.S. taxpayer dollars, would be allowed to copyright research information and would not be required to make it freely available.

U.S. citizens who fund such programs should consider whether they wish to allow private individuals, institutions, or corporations to receive copyright benefits at the expense of taxpayer dollars.

links: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h801/text

Text of H.R.801

Back to Bill Details
HR 801 IH
<center>111th CONGRESS
</center> <center>1st Session
</center> <center>H. R. 801
</center> To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to works connected to certain funding agreements.
<center>IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
</center> <center>February 3, 2009
</center>

Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
<hr><center>A BILL
</center> To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to works connected to certain funding agreements.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the ?Fair Copyright in Research Works Act?.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING EXTRINSIC WORKS.

• (a) In General- <usc-reference title="17" section="201" paragraph="">Section 201 of title 17, United States Code</usc-reference>, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ?(f) Limitations on the Federal Government-
  

  • ?(1) LIMITATIONS REGARDING FUNDING AGREEMENTS- No Federal agency may, in connection with a funding agreement--
    • ?(A) impose or cause the imposition of any term or condition that--
      • ?(i) requires the transfer or license to or for a Federal agency of--
        • ?(I) any right provided under paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of section 106 in an extrinsic work; or
          ?(II) any right provided under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 106 in an extrinsic work, to the extent that, solely for purposes of this subsection, such right involves the availability to the public of that work; or
        ?(ii) requires the absence or abandonment of any right described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) in an extrinsic work;
      ?(B) impose or cause the imposition of, as a condition of a funding agreement, the waiver of, or assent to, any prohibition under subparagraph (A); or
      ?(C) assert any rights under this title in material developed under any funding agreement that restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of rights under this title in an extrinsic work.
    Any term, condition, or assertion prohibited under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) shall be given no effect under this title or otherwise.
    ?(2) CONSTRUCTION-
    
    • ?(A) CERTAIN OTHER RIGHTS NOT LIMITED- Nothing in paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II) shall be construed to limit the rights provided to the copyright owner under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 106.
      ?(B) NO NEW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION CREATED- Nothing in this subsection provides copyright protection to any subject matter that is not protected under section 102.
    ?(3) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection:
    
    • ?(A) EXTRINSIC WORK- The term ?extrinsic work? means any work, other than a work of the United States Government, that is based upon, derived from, or related to, a funding agreement and--
      • ?(i) is also funded in substantial part by one or more other entities, other than a Federal agency, that are not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party; or
        ?(ii) represents, reflects, or results from a meaningful added value or process contributed by one or more other entities, other than a Federal agency, that are not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party.
      ?(B) FEDERAL AGENCY- The term ?Federal agency? means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government.
      ?(C) FUNDING AGREEMENT- The term ?funding agreement? means any contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a Federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a Federal agency, in whole or in part, for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities.?.
  (b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a) applies to any funding agreement that is entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  (c) Report to Congressional Committees- Not later than the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall, after consulting with the Comptroller General and with Federal agencies that provide funding under funding agreements and with publishers in the private sector, review and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the Register?s views on <usc-reference title="17" section="201" paragraph="f">section 201(f) of title 17, United States Code</usc-reference>, as added by subsection (a) of this section, taking into account the development of and access to extrinsic works and materials developed under funding agreements, including the role played by publishers in the private sector and others.
  (d) Definitions- In this section:
  
  • (1) EXTRINSIC WORK; FEDERAL AGENCY; FUNDING AGREEMENT- The terms ?extrinsic work?, ?Federal agency?, and ?funding agreement? have the meanings given those terms in <usc-reference title="17" section="201" paragraph="f_3">section 201(f)(3) of title 17, United States Code</usc-reference>, as added by subsection (a) of this section.
    (2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term ?appropriate congressional committees? means the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

Link to Section 201, Title 17 --
Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

And specific links to section 106:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

 

[SophiaZoe]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Couldn't have said it better myself F1.

 

[gsgs]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

what's the opinion of the political parties ?
Is it Obama's initiative ?

PLOS, pubmed/medline,genbank ?

 

[mixin]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Not an Obama idea. apparently it's been in existance for a while:

The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act
A proposal to reverse the NIH Public Access Policy and prohibit public access to publicly funded research in the United States. Introduced in 2006.

John Conyers seems to like this bill quite well, since he is re-introducing it. I wonder why?

September 16, 2008
On September 9, Representative John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary, introduced legislation that would amend U.S. copyright law, overturn the NIH Public Access Policy, and effectively make it illegal for other U.S. federal agencies to enact similar policies. The proposed legislation is the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR6845).

http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/fcrwa.html

 

[JJackson]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

I have been reading a bit about this in an attempt to understand why Conyers keeps pushing this bill. I am still confused. Given his voting record and position on other issues his position on this and IP rights seems odd.

He introduced it last session as H.R. 6845 (same bill). This link is to a fairly lengthy reasoned argument against the premises on which the original bill is based and this link contains an update and links to open letters from 46 law professors and another from 33 Nobel laureates all of who seem to think it is a bad idea.

 

[Ronan Kelly]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Bill Blocking NIH Public Access Policy Draws Fire
by Jocelyn Kaiser on 11 January 2012, 5:35 PM | 0

A little-noticed proposal in Congress to block a federal policy requiring free access to biomedical research papers went big time today, adding fuel to a long-running debate in the blogosphere.

Writing an opinion piece in The New York Times, biologist Michael Eisen attacks H.R. 3699, the Research Works Act. The bill, introduced last month by Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Carol Maloney (D-NY), would bar any agency from requiring that federally funded researchers post their peer-reviewed or edited papers on the Internet. The provision would invalidate the National Institutes of Health's 4-year-old "public access" policy, which requires that NIH grantees submit copies of their peer-reviewed manuscripts for posting in Pubmed Central.

Eisen, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, is a founder of the open-access Public Library of Science, which charges authors rather than subscribers for publication costs. He argues:

If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece. In other words, taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results.

...
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/bill-blocking-nih-public-access-.html?rss=1

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Research Bought, Then Paid For
By MICHAEL B. EISEN
Published: January 10, 2012

Berkeley, Calif.

THROUGH the National Institutes of Health, American taxpayers have long supported research directed at understanding and treating human disease. Since 2009, the results of that research have been available free of charge on the National Library of Medicine’s Web site, allowing the public (patients and physicians, students and teachers) to read about the discoveries their tax dollars paid for.

But a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last month threatens to cripple this site. The Research Works Act would forbid the N.I.H. to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece. In other words, taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results.

This is the latest salvo in a continuing battle between the publishers of biomedical research journals like Cell, Science and The New England Journal of Medicine, which are seeking to protect a valuable franchise, and researchers, librarians and patient advocacy groups seeking to provide open access to publicly funded research.

...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html?_r=1

 

[Ronan Kelly]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

H.R.3699 -- Research Works Act (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 3699 IH

112th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 3699
To ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private sector.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 16, 2011

Mr. ISSA (for himself and Mrs. MALONEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform


A BILL
To ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private sector.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Research Works Act'.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AGENCY ACTION.

No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage 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 of such work; or
(2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) AUTHOR- The term `author' means a person who writes a private-sector research work. Such term does not include an officer or employee of the United States Government acting in the regular course of his or her duties.
(2) NETWORK DISSEMINATION- The term `network dissemination' means distributing, making available, or otherwise offering or disseminating a private-sector research work through the Internet or by a closed, limited, or other digital or electronic network or arrangement.
(3) PRIVATE-SECTOR RESEARCH WORK- The term `private-sector research work' means 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 United States Government (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code), 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. Such term 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3699:

 

[sharon sanders]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Thanks Ronan. An unbelievable travesty. Paying twice. Do we live in a greed culture, or what?

In addition, there should be a requirement that all journals be translated into several other languages as most research in the world is published only in English.

 

[Laidback Al]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

I have to agree with the comment about a culture of greed in the USA.

US citizen should be outraged that research that was funded by their taxes dollars is not available for free viewing.

As the wealthiest nation on earth, the USA could afford to continue to maintain free open access to these research results, and in a gesture of goodwill, make these results freely available in other non-English language outlets.

 

[Emily]

Re: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=807
Elsevier-funded NY Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney Wants to Deny Americans Access to Taxpayer Funded Research
By Michael Eisen | January 5, 2012

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/elsevier-funded-ny-congresswoman-carolyn-maloney-wants-to-deny-americans-access-to-taxpayer-funded-research/

So I urge you to call/write/email/tweet Representative Maloney today, and tell her you support taxpayer access to biomedical research results. Ask her why she wants cancer patients to pay Elsevier $25 to access articles they?ve already paid for. And demand that she withdraw H.R. 3699.

Contact info at link.

Maloney has been the top recipient of Elsevier contributions, though plenty of other others in Congress are on the list including the bill co-sponsor.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00345793&cycle=2012

Reed Elsevier Inc Contributions to Federal Candidates 2012
Issa, Darrell (R-CA) $2,000
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $6,000

Reed Elsevier Inc Contributions to Federal Candidates 2010
Issa, Darrell (R-CA) $2,000
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $5,000

Reed Elsevier Inc Contributions to Federal Candidates 2008
Issa, Darrell (R-CA) $1,000
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $7,300

Reed Elsevier Inc Contributions to Federal Candidates 2006
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $1,000

Reed Elsevier Inc Contributions to Federal Candidates 2004
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $1,000

Another example of why Congress is out of touch with the fact that citizens cannot afford to pay for public research and then pay their cronies for the stolen privilege of reading the results.