Comments on: The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act is a lot of things, but fair ain’t one of them

By: The “fair copyright in research works” controversy « What Is Research?

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:39:23 +0000

[...] reply was severely trashed by Michael Eisen, Peter Subers, and Lawrence Lessig. Blog posts by Paul Courant, Molly Kleinman, and numerous others. Clearly, the bill hasn’t gone down well with a lot of [...]

By: The “Not” Fair Copyright in Research Works Act « The Bioinformationista

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:28:29 +0000

[...] Access has a great summary on their site. I said in my previous post that Paul Courant’s blog entry on this topic is a good read, and it [...]

By: Marc Klibanow

Marc Klibanow — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:18:48 +0000

Thank you Paul for furthering the democratization of publicly funded information. On another note this guy Adler appears to be quite a whore given that his prior gig was with the ACLU defending the freedom of information act. I guess restricting information pays better. http://www.cptech.org/events/learningtools04052004/bio/aa.html

By: Molly Kleinman » Blog Archive » The “Fair Copyright in Research Works” Act rears its ugly head again

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:05:34 +0000

[...] I was disappointed to learn yesterday that Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) reintroduced the “Fair Copyright in Research Works” Act despite the fact that it is neither fair nor supportive of research. As Paul Courant put it in his blog post about it the first time around, “the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act is a lot of things, but fair ain’t one of them.… [...]

By: Sunny Jim

Sunny Jim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:10:13 +0000

But surely publishers add something really valuable to academic work? They have consistently invested in the journals in which the research is published, and they pay for things like hosting platforms and technology. Much of the technology that makes OA a technical possibility (if not a realistic one) was developed by these odious publishers!

Offering information for sale is not the same thing as claiming ownership. They are not locking away or hoarding our reseach!

Jimbo

By: brunning@asu.edu

brunning@asu.edu — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:44:17 +0000

If STM publishers do business under a “dying business model” who are the “lots of people” who will pay for subscriptions?

By: pnc

pnc — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:48:26 +0000

Thanks, Timothy. I’ve corrected the link to Adler’s statement.

I think that the financial interest for publishers in regarding the NIH mandate is probably small — the mandate is actually quite weak, both with regard to the time period and because the final, published version is not required to be posted on PMC. That said, I expect that this is seen as the camel’s nose under the tent.

By: Timothy Vollmer

Timothy Vollmer — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:00:18 +0000

I agree with Buzzy’s comment on Adler’s quote, but it should be noted that those statements were not made as a part of the hearing testimony, but in a statement after the introduction of the legislation. There was some talk at the hearing that the NIH policy is one of the most liberal for publishers, because it grants a full 12-month embargo period (many others are shorter) before articles must be deposited in PMC. Paul, how much weight do you feel we can put into these economic arguments, specifically research that shows publishers financial interest in the work dries up after about a year?

By: Buzzy

Buzzy — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:59:54 +0000

Wow. Adler’s comment is quite possibly one of the most myopic I’ve seen from commercial publishers, and that’s saying a lot.

By: bowerbird

bowerbird — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:44:25 +0000

the gall of these publishers is astounding…

they actually believe they _own_ the content
that we were merely paying them to manage.
as if they had created it all, out of thin air…

it’s time to declare eminent domain on them.

-bowerbird