Difference between revisions of "Notes on the Research Works Act"

From Harvard Open Access Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
   |}
 
   |}
  
= The bill itself =
+
== The bill itself ==
  
 
* The [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr3699 Research Works Act] (HR 3699) would repeal the [http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ OA policy] at the [http://www.nih.gov/ NIH] and block similar policies at other federal agencies.  
 
* The [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr3699 Research Works Act] (HR 3699) would repeal the [http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ OA policy] at the [http://www.nih.gov/ NIH] and block similar policies at other federal agencies.  
Line 15: Line 15:
 
** [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr3699 THOMAS]
 
** [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr3699 THOMAS]
  
= Sponsorship =
+
== Sponsorship ==
  
 
* The RWA was introduced in the House of Representatives by [http://issa.house.gov/ Darrell Issa] (R-CA) and [http://maloney.house.gov/ Carolyn Maloney] (D-NY) on December 16, 2011, and referred to the [http://goo.gl/GP0m0 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform].
 
* The RWA was introduced in the House of Representatives by [http://issa.house.gov/ Darrell Issa] (R-CA) and [http://maloney.house.gov/ Carolyn Maloney] (D-NY) on December 16, 2011, and referred to the [http://goo.gl/GP0m0 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform].
Line 25: Line 25:
 
* [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00000078 According to OpenSecrets], Elsevier is the second-to-the-top contributor to Maloney for the 2012 campaign cycle.
 
* [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00000078 According to OpenSecrets], Elsevier is the second-to-the-top contributor to Maloney for the 2012 campaign cycle.
  
= Publisher opposition =
+
== Publisher opposition ==
  
 
* The [http://www.publishers.org/ Association of American Publishers] (AAP) [http://goo.gl/aaVnw endorsed] the RWA, and lobbies for it in the name of its [http://publishers.org/members/ members]. However, the AAP did not consult its members before endorsing the bill, and we don't know how many AAP members actually support it.  
 
* The [http://www.publishers.org/ Association of American Publishers] (AAP) [http://goo.gl/aaVnw endorsed] the RWA, and lobbies for it in the name of its [http://publishers.org/members/ members]. However, the AAP did not consult its members before endorsing the bill, and we don't know how many AAP members actually support it.  
Line 53: Line 53:
 
*# [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science]. See the January 24, 2012, [http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/oawg-on-3699.pdf announcement] it issued jointly with nine other US organizations.
 
*# [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science]. See the January 24, 2012, [http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/oawg-on-3699.pdf announcement] it issued jointly with nine other US organizations.
  
= Action against the RWA =
+
== Action against the RWA ==
  
 
* See the [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/action_access/12-0106.shtml action alert] against the RWA from the [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org Alliance for Taxpayer Action].
 
* See the [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/action_access/12-0106.shtml action alert] against the RWA from the [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org Alliance for Taxpayer Action].
Line 59: Line 59:
 
* See the [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/207/support-the-open-access-movement-stop-the-research-works-act/ petition against the RWA], online since roughly January 14, 2012.
 
* See the [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/207/support-the-open-access-movement-stop-the-research-works-act/ petition against the RWA], online since roughly January 14, 2012.
  
= Discussion =
+
== Discussion ==
  
 
* At the [http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_tracking_project OA Tracking Project], see the articles and comments tagged with [http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.rwa oa.rwa].
 
* At the [http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_tracking_project OA Tracking Project], see the articles and comments tagged with [http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.rwa oa.rwa].
  
 
* At [https://plus.google.com/ Google+], see the posts tagged with [https://plus.google.com/s/%23rwa #rwa].
 
* At [https://plus.google.com/ Google+], see the posts tagged with [https://plus.google.com/s/%23rwa #rwa].

Revision as of 15:43, 26 January 2012

The bill itself

  • The main section (Section 2) is brief: "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."

Sponsorship

  • According to MapLight (Money and Politics Light), Elsevier has given two campaign contributions to Issa and 12 to Maloney for the 2012 campaign cycle. Out of 31 contributions Elsevier has made to House members for this cycle, 14 or 45% have gone to Issa and Maloney.

Publisher opposition

  • This section tries to track the publishers who have publicly opposed the bill.
  • AAP members who apparently oppose the RWA, but whose positions require confirmation
    1. University of Chicago Press. In a January 17, 2012, comment on Richard Poynder's blog, Arno Bosse reports that the U of Chicago Press told him that it does not support RWA. But Bosse doesn't speak for the press and doesn't quote a statement from the press.
    2. Cambridge University Press. A week after CUP told Richard Poynder that "it is too early for us to make any public statements" on RWA, Poynder was allowed (January 17, 2012) to share this statement from Peter Davison, CUP's Director of Corporate Affairs: "Cambridge University Press has submitted testimony to the United States Office of Science and Technology in response to the Request for Information (2011-28623) on subjects related to HR 3699. Our testimony is not identical to the position adopted by the Association of American Publishers. In particular, we write: ‘We support all sustainable access models that ensure the permanence and integrity of the scholarly record... The Bill as proposed could undermine the underlying freedoms expected by and of scholarly authors....’ "

Action against the RWA

Discussion