you pay for it, THEY own it, if this idiot has his way...

[acroyear]

Conyers reintroduces bill to kill NIH Public Access Policy:

John Conyers (D-MI) has reintroduced his publisher-backed “Fair Copyright Act” which would effectively end the NIH Public Access Policy by eliminating the government’s right to impose conditions on grants that would give the government the right to distribute works arising from federally funded research.

As many have pointed out, the whole premise of the bill is absurd. Publishers are arguing that the NIH has taken their copyright. But, of course, if that were true, they would already have protection under federal copyright law, and they would be suing the government. Instead, they are pushing legislation that would actually remove the governments right to distribute work it funds, thereby clearly demonstrating that they believe the government’s action is perfectly legal under copyright law.

What is particularly galling is that Conyers held hearings on this bill last year, in which a LOT of important issues were raised about the bill, and there were many on the committee who were skeptical about it. So, what does Conyers do with all that useful feedback? He ignores it, and introduces exactly the same bill in the new Congress. One hopes such an ill-conceived piece of public policy would have no hope when Congress has many more important things on its hands, but one never knows. Let’s hope it dies in committee. But just to be safe, let the members know how you feel.

Comments

[sequentialscott.livejournal.com]

I think that the public access policy is a good one and don't want to see them change it. Charges for individual papers range from about $15 to $50. Subscriptions to the journals run in the thousands.

Publishers can ask authors to specify a moratorium of up to a year (I think) in which their articles aren't available to the public. Only after that period do they show up in PubMed Central, which is the database through which the public has access to the papers.

Not that it's related to the politics of the thing, but I designed the user interface that scientists use to send in their papers and thus comply with the law. The policy was initially written to simply "recommend" that scientists receiving grant money submit their papers. Congress had to go back and specifically say that it was required. I have to say that the politics of the situation did make the UI design more complicated because requirements more often than they otherwise would have. We also had to design for more contingencies.

[sequentialscott.livejournal.com]

*** "requirements CHANGED more often than they otherwise would have."

[crimsontom.livejournal.com]

All I can say is having originally been from Michigan and the suburbs of Detroit, Conyers is an ass. Complete ass. Can't stand him and the people of Detroit should know better than to keep electing this tool.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Douglas Adams, the great quotable: "Well, they think that if they don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might win."

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, one of the prime architects of the NIH Open Access policy -- Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus -- happens to be one of Obama's newly appointed co-Chairs of his council of Scientific Advisors. As well as a former director of NIH and architect of the NIH Squared initiative. So it's not like the policy is lacking in defenders in the right places...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

so a veto is possible, and a proposed veto would keep it from leaving committee in the first place.

still, there is that whole "why propose the same bill without modifications" problem, that there would be no other reason other than he'll keep doing it hoping one of these days nobody notices and it gets passed. isn't that what they call insanity?