|
 |
New Bill Would Forbid Copyright Transfer as a Condition for Federal Funding
The public access battle lines have been redrawn: if passed, the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR 6845), now officially introduced, would essentially bar agencies of the federal government from requiring the transfer of copyright, whole or in part, as a condition for receiving public funding. The pending legislation was the subject of a congressional hearing today, as first reported by LJ late last week.
The text of the brief, but sweeping copyright bill, first posted yesterday afternoon on the Public Knowledge blog, proposes that: “No Federal agency may, in connection with a funding agreement…impose or cause the imposition of any term or condition that requires the transfer or license to or for a Federal agency any right provided under [copyright law].”
That means, if passed, measures like the recently enacted NIH public access policy, which requires investigators who accept taxpayer funds to deposit their final papers in the PubMed Central repository and give the agency a non-exclusive right to offer free access within a year, would be prohibited. It was unclear, however, if the bill would directly affect the current NIH policy, as the bill appears to apply to future policies.
In its first statement since LJ broke the news of the pending bill, introduced after months of heavy lobbying from publishers, officials at the Professional and Scholarly Publishing (PSP) Division of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) praised the measure as protecting “the rights of authors and publishers of copyrighted, peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.” The NIH policy, the statement said, forced publishers to “surrender their peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, without compensation, for worldwide online distribution.”
“Government does not fund peer-reviewed journal articles—publishers do,” Allan Adler, AAP VP for government and legal affairs said in a statement, adding that HR 6845 would help “preserve the incentives for peer-review publishing."
But at a legislative hearing on the law held today, SPARC executive director Heather Joseph, one of four witnesses (see story below), explained to a congressional subcommittee that peer review was done by fellow scientists on a volunteer basis, without compensation, and that publishers’ investment was limited to the administrative task of “sending some emails.” Another witness, American Physiological Society executive director Martin Frank, did not disagree, but said that APS spent $13 million annually to publish 14 journals, and that “sending those emails” accounted for about 20 percent of his publishing costs ($2.6 million).
NIH director Elias Zerhouni told lawmakers that NIH spent about $300,000 in taxpayer money for every paper produced, and that he simply sought to maximize the return on that investment for the public, and for scientists. “This is not an issue of economic impact. This is not an issue of peer review,” he concluded. “This is about control.”
|
|
At Hearing, Witness Says NIH Policy Will “Destroy” Commercial Scientific Publishing
At a hearing held today, ostensibly held to discuss H.R. 6845, the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, focused almost entirely on the current NIH public access mandate. Not only was the legislation motivating the hearing barely discussed, the testimony and the questions asked by committee members looked far more to the economic future of science publishing than to public access to taxpayer funded research.
In his remarks, NIH director Elias Zerhouni, the first witness, strongly defended the NIH mandate saying there was “no real evidence of any deleterious impact” on publishers, and said in no uncertain terms, despite publishers claims, the policy did not impinge on copyrights. Zerhouni said that his mandate was aimed to maximize the return on investment for the public, which funds the research, and for the scientific community.
In his testimony, former Register of Copyrights Ralph Oman, said he didn’t “have a dog in this fight,” but clearly had a favorite breed: Oman bluntly told lawmakers that in his opinion, the NIH mandate would “destroy the market” for commercial scientific journals, and cause a “dilution” of copyright. Oman said that Congress directed the NIH to provide access “consistent with copyright law,” a phrase lobbied for and added to the NIH mandate by publishers, which the current policy does not do. Perhaps Zerhouni “misunderstood,” Oman said, noting that Congress directed him to address “public access” not “free public access.” In written testimony worthy of a presidential campaign TV commercial, Oman suggested that “the hairy snout” of government be kept out of science publishing, drawing a good-natured rebuke from Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
SPARC executive director Heather Joseph, (a late addition to the witness list who was announced just this morning) did address the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, saying its passage would negatively impact the public’s access to critical healthcare information funded by taxpayers. She then amplified Zerhouni’s testimony, saying the policy did not run afoul of copyright law, and would not effect library cancellations, because of the embargo period allowed by NIH. “After a year, scientific information is old,” she testified. No library, she said, could cancel subscriptions and simply wait to access research a year later via NIH. She also added a moving personal note, telling the committee that her five year-old son was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and about the information she was able to access, thanks to the NIH policy.
Anchoring the day’s testimony the American Physiological Society’s Martin Frank, a noted opponent of the NIH policy, bluntly reiterated publishers’ longstanding complaints: “The NIH has become a publisher,” Frank said, asserting the NIH was now competing with scientific publishers, taking unfair advantage of publishers’ value-added efforts in editing and peer-review, and diminishing copyright. Frank also testified that he believed in free access after 12 months, but not as the NIH has currently implemented, suggesting that an alternative model, closer to the America COMPETES Act, under which the National Science Foundation offers abstracts and links to publisher content, was preferable to satisfy public access concerns.
The hearing, a surprise addition to this month’s legislative calendar, offered no new insights, nor did it raise any new arguments in the now four-year old debate of public access. The difference, however, is that despite the familiar discussion, a sweeping copyright law now hangs in the balance.
Nevertheless, the hearing was not especially charged, and lawmakers on the committee (the hearing seemed sparsely attended by other lawmakers) limited themselves to polite, safe questions in their allotted time. In one revealing moment, however, committee chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) cautioned Zerhouni, who in speaking on the power of technology asserted that “Congress wouldn’t want to outlaw Google in order save Altavista.” Citing Viacom’s infringement suit over YouTube, Berman warned Zerhouni to be careful with his Google comparisons.
|
|
Controversial Bill To Expand Copyright Enforcement also Gets Hearing
While the House of Representatives was considering a bill that would prohibit public access policies like the NIH’s, the Senate also held a hearing today on another controversial copyright initiative, S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008. Advocacy group Public Knowledge’s Alex Curtis called the September 11th hearings blitz “a perfect storm of bad copyright legislation.”
S. 3325 is the Senate version of the House’s PRO-IP Act (Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act), a bill loudly opposed last year by the library community. If passed, the bill would dramatically raise the statutory damage levels for copyright infringement, allow for forfeiture of assets for circumvention of DRM—regardless of whether infringement has been proven—and greatly expand enforcement powers, creating a cabinet-level copyright position and giving the Department of Justice the power to file civil suits.
The House bill, introduced in December, 2007, passed unanimously in the House Judiciary Committee in May, 2008. Backed by the strong lobbying of the entertainment industry, it was introduced by the same legislators now sponsoring the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Howard Berman (D-CA), chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.
In a letter to the Senate this week, the major library organization voiced concern with some of the bill’s draconian provisions. It called Section 101 of the bill, which gives the Attorney General the power to bring civil suits against alleged infringers, “an enormous gift of federal resources to large copyright owners,” noting that the recording industry has “threatened or filed over 30,000 lawsuits against individual consumers,” in recent years, raising the specter of taxpayers assuming the cost of the RIAA’s controversial legal blitz or, perhaps, Viacom’s $1 billion suit against Google. “There is absolutely no reason for the federal government to assume this private enforcement role.”
Although heavily supported by the entertainment industry—including the Association of American Publishers (AAP)—the bill faces significant opposition from many of the nation’s top intellectual property scholars, as well as the technology sector and the library community. “People who reasonably believe that what they are doing is a fair use,” officials at the Electronic Frontier Foundation blogged this spring, “shouldn’t face ruinous liability if a court doesn’t agree with them.”
Librarians, meanwhile, have argued that the bill is simply unnecessary. “Just eight years ago, Congress increased the maximum levels of statutory damages by 50 percent,” noted Douglas Newcomb, chief policy officer for the SLA (Special Libraries Association), in a letter to Congress sent on behalf of the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA). “We believe that a further increase at this time is completely unwarranted. Rather, [Congress] should be exploring whether to limit statutory damages.”
|
|
ProQuest, Google Announce Major Newspaper Scan Plan
ProQuest and search giant Google this week announced an agreement to digitize millions of pages of content from ProQuest’s vast newspaper microfilm archives. But unlike its library book scanning strategy, Google’s newspaper plan has the blessing of publishers, one of which called the deal a potential “financial windfall.”
The ProQuest/Google partnership will focus on creating searchable electronic versions of smaller newspapers otherwise unlikely to be digitized, making them available on the open web via Google’s News archive search. Under the deal, Google will underwrite digitization costs—which have not been detailed—in return for revenue based on ads displayed alongside the newspaper page images.
Digitization has begun with content ProQuest has full rights to digitize and make available online, including mostly orphaned publications and those in the public domain. For newspapers in the ProQuest archives still bound by copyright, Google and ProQuest execs say they will work to reach further agreements, allowing publishers to choose whether to keep articles behind a pay-per-view wall, or whether to enter into a royalty-sharing agreement based on ad revenues. “Until now, finding a workable economic model for libraries and publishers has been challenging,” said Rod Gauvin, ProQuest senior VP of publishing. “This model overcomes that hurdle, unlocking a wealth of content for libraries and Internet users with unique research needs.”
Google hopes to digitize potentially hundreds of millions of pages over the next few years, ProQuest VP of publishing Chris Cowan told LJ, adding that the deal leaves significant room to differentiate its Historical Newspapers product, which contains such publications as the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, as a premium product. In contrast to the mass-scanning that will be done by Google, ProQuest editors check headlines, first paragraphs, and captions. Metadata is also added, and tags describing whether the scanned content is an article, opinion piece, editorial cartoon, etc.
ProQuest also stressed that the agreement will not affect long-term preservation plans for the microfilm collection, and vowed to continue improving and expanding its Historical Newspapers collection independently…
|
|
Architecture on Parade
If you have an academic building project completed between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, make sure it is included in Library Journal’s annual December Architectural Issue. Projects can be submitted online or on paper. Academic project forms can be submitted or downloaded at www.libraryjournal.com/AcademicArch2008. The deadline is October 14, 2008. If you need more information, email Bette-Lee Fox at bl.fox@reedbusiness.com or call 646-746-6802.
|
Best Sellers in Language, January, 2008–present, as compiled by YBP Library Services
(13-digit ISBNs in brackets)
- Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World
Baron, Naomi S.
Oxford University Press
2008. ISBN 0195313054 [9780195313055]. $29.95
- Treasure-House of the Language: The Living OED
Brewer, Charlotte
Yale University Press
2007. ISBN 0300124295 [9780300124293]. $35.00
- Uncovering Hidden Rhetorics: Social Issues in Disguise
Brumett, Barry
Sage Publications
2008. ISBN 1412956919 [9781412956918]. $64.95
- Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach
Montgomery, Martin Editor
Routledge
2007. ISBN 041535871x [9780415358712]. $125.00
- Blackwell History of the Latin Language
Clackson, James
Blackwell
2007. ISBN 1405162090 [9781405162098]. $105.95
- Language Development and Age
Herschensohn, Julia Rogers
Cambridge University Press
2007. ISBN 0521872979 [9780521872973]. $110.00
- Problematizing Identity: Everyday Struggles in Language, Culture, and Education
Lin. Angel M.Y.
Lawrence Erlbaum
2008. ISBN 0805853383 [9780805853384]. $90.00
- Punctuation: Art, Politics, and Play
Brody, Jennifer Devere
Duke University Press
2008. ISBN 0822342189 [9780822342182]. $74.95
- Rhetorical Refusals: Defying Audiences' Expectations
Schilb, John
Southern Illinois University Press
2007. ISBN 0809327899 [9780809327898]. $35.00
- New Perspectives on Language and Sexual Identity
Morrish, Liz
Palgrave Macmillan
2007. ISBN 1403937966 [9781403937964]. $74.95
- Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice
Cohen, Andrew D.
Oxford University Press
2007. ISBN 0194422542 [9780194422543]. $30.50
- Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice Among Latina Youth Gangs
Mendoza-Denton, Norma
Blackwell
2008. ISBN 0631234896 [9780631234890]. $89.95
- Union of Diversity: Language, Identity and Polity-Building in Europe
Kraus, Peter A.
Cambridge University Press
2008. ISBN 0521859395 [9780521859394]. $90.00
- Sinographies: Writing China
Hayot, Eric
University of Minnesota Press
2008. ISBN 0816647240 [9780816647248]. $82.50
- Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction
Langacker, Ronald W.
Oxford University Press
2008. ISBN 0195331958 [9780195331950]. $125.00
- Language Report
Dent, Susie
Oxford University Press
2007. ISBN 0199233888 [9780199233885]. $26.50
- Linguistic Philosophy: The Central Story
Hallett, Garth
State University of New York Press
2008. ISBN 0791473619 [9780791473610]. $74.50
- Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction
Heine, Bernd
Oxford University Press
2007. ISBN 0199227764 [9780199227761]. $215.00
- Out of Style: Reanimating Stylistic Study in Composition and Rhetoric
Butler, Paul
Utah State University Press
2008. ISBN 0874216796 [9780874216790]. $24.95
- Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory
Gentzler, Edwin
Routledge
2008. ISBN 0415774519 [9780415774512]. $170.00
Library Journal Academic Newswire
Contributing Editor: Andrew R. Albanese
Phone: 646-746-6852 E-mail: aalbanese@reedbusiness.com
Editor: Francine Fialkoff
Phone: 646-746-6807 E-mail: fialkoff@reedbusiness.com
Executive Editor: Rebecca Miller
Phone: 646-746-6725 E-mail: miller@reedbusiness.com
News Editor: Norman Oder
Phone: 646-746-6829 E-mail: noder@reedbusiness.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe send an e-mail to Unsub_Academic_Newswire@email.libraryjournal.com
TO SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to Academic Newswire or our other newsletters
Subscribe to Library Journal magazine
ARCHIVE
Read past issues
PRINT
You must change your print settings from portrait to landscape to print this page.
VIEW OUR PRIVACY POLICY
Click here
QUESTIONS?
If you need further assistance with your newsletter subscription, please contact our Online Support Staff.
Send editorial questions about this newsletter to: aalbanese@reedbusiness.com.
RBInteractive: onlineads@reedbusiness.com, (888) 7RBI-WEB.
PRIVACY MANAGER: privacymanager@reedbusiness.com
Reed Business Information 2000 Clearwater Drive Oak Brook, IL 60523 | Fax: 630-288-8394
© 2007 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2008 Library Journal. All rights reserved.
"Library Journal" is a registered trademark. "Library Journal Academic Newswire" is a trademark.
|
