Comments on: H.R.801 Threatens Open Access Requirement for Gov’t Funded Research

By: H.R.801: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

H.R.801: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:57:51 +0000

[...] Comment on H.R.801 Threatens Open … [...]

By: Federal Research Public Access Act Reintroduced | Disruptive Library Technology Jester

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:29:25 +0000

[...] Representative John Conyer’s proposed “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act” (discussed earlier on DLTJ). The differences between the two bills are described below. The major change is the exclusion of [...]

By: Xark!: The newspaper suicide pact

Xark!: The newspaper suicide pact — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 05:47:40 +0000

[...] Some publishers of science journals got Rep Conyers to (unsuccessfully so far) attempt to amend copyright law to prohibit NIH from requiring funded research be [...]

By: Peter Suber, Open Access News

Peter Suber, Open Access News — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:00:25 +0000

[...] Peter Murray at Disruptive Library Technology [...]

By: the Jester

the Jester — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:46:52 +0000

Lorraine -- The answer probably goes back a number of years. H.R.801 in this congressional session isn't the first time this language has been proposed. The wording is nearly identical to H.R.6845 from the previous congressional session. Rep. Conyers submitted a statement for this previous version to the Congressional Record (the daily compilation of the activities of congress) on September 10, 2008 (select the second entry -- "Introduction of the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act of 2008"). In a summary by the the American Institute of Physics (a supporter of this legislation) of a hearing for H.R.6845 before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, there is this:

Conyers, the author of the bill [H.R.6845] and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had no doubts. He spoke of the "very questionable premises" surrounding the establishment of the NIH policy, and criticized the House Appropriations Committee for its action [in drafting the NIH policy enabling legislation] and its "zero" communication with his committee.

Maybe it is a turf battle between congressional committees. Maybe it goes deeper. According to MAPLight.org, this bill (both in the previous session and in the current session) is supported by the "Book, newspaper & periodical publishing" industry, and that industry has given $20,218 to Rep. Conyers from 2003 to 2008. That is more than most of the other committee members. Representative Wexler, a co-sponsor of the legislation, received $21,300. Please do let us know if you hear back from Rep. Conyers!

By: Lorraine

Lorraine — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:59:10 +0000

Dear Jester, I have sent a letter to several Michigan journalists asking them to explain why HR801 is such a very bad idea–especially here in Michigan since the governor has emphasized the importance of developing life science businesses as one way to counter the dismal auto industry problems. One journalist has responded with the following:

“Help us speed up the research a bit: What is your understanding of the other side of the issue? That is, why would Conyers want to do this? ”

I should note that in my email to the journalists I specifically wrote:

There is nothing fair or reasonable about this act and I cannot think of one good reason for why he [[Conyers] sponsored this bill.

Please help. How would you and/or your readers respond to this question? I have sent a fax asking Rep Conyers why he sponsored this bill but have not received a reply.

Lorraine