Utterly asinine bullshiat. No one who supports this should ever be re-elected.

To be fair, the secrets of the Adeptus Mechanicus can't be discussed with possible heretics.

Open Publishing! Wooo!

I'm so sick of these damn Republicans putting extra burdens on scientists to appease lobbyists. Fark those-- wait, a Democrat is doing this? Well that's different than.

/because rather than "fark those guys" I would be saying "fark that guy"
//different!
///toss his ass out

god, Conyers is an asshat...

He's a congressman, they exist to introduce stupid, crazy legislation. Its actually not a bad thing that they do this. It is also why there are several layers of checks on crazy legislation.

Call me if this makes it out of committee

This is perfectly in line with current right-wing thinking. Reading stuff to learn is hard so therefore we should not expose people to that.

Perhaps they could tack on mandatory sterilization to this bill for anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

File charges first. Then toss his ass out.

CravenMorehead: This is perfectly in line with current right-wing thinking. Reading stuff to learn is hard so therefore we should not expose people to that.

Perhaps they could tack on mandatory sterilization to this bill for anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

He's a Democrat. Not all dumbassery is motivated by the left-right spectrum; good old-fashioned corruption is bipartisan in nature.

blahpers: File charges first. Then toss his ass out.

This isn't exactly related, but do you think if they made censorship a crime punishable by imprisonment the person that wrote the law would be arrested, as well as the arresting officers, etc?

Limit the public access to knowledge - part of the new democratic takeover of total control of the people. While the economy is in free fall watch the democrats try to take away all your freedoms. Scary indeed.

From the comments section:

# Uncle Al Says:
March 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am

The House of Reprehensibles is perpetually up for lease. Have every university library tell publishers it will cancel subscriptions to free funds for Washington lobbying. Bothering the House of Reprehensibles is silly - you cannot drown a fish (except for keeping sharks stationary).



... Can someone help me understand WTF this person is trying to say?

Falcc: blahpers: File charges first. Then toss his ass out.

This isn't exactly related, but do you think if they made censorship a crime punishable by imprisonment the person that wrote the law would be arrested, as well as the arresting officers, etc?

Sorry, I don't follow.

CravenMorehead: This is perfectly in line with current right-wing thinking. Reading stuff to learn is hard so therefore we should not expose people to that.

Perhaps they could tack on mandatory sterilization to this bill for anyone who thinks this is a good idea.

Except Conyers is a Democrat. But thanks for your input, it was useless.

OozoSoozo: From the comments section:

# Uncle Al Says:
March 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am

The House of Reprehensibles is perpetually up for lease. Have every university library tell publishers it will cancel subscriptions to free funds for Washington lobbying. Bothering the House of Reprehensibles is silly - you cannot drown a fish (except for keeping sharks stationary).



... Can someone help me understand WTF this person is trying to say?

Senile? I just met 'er!

CravenMorehead: This is perfectly in line with current right-wing thinking. Reading stuff to learn is hard so therefore we should not expose people to that.

Perhaps they could tack on mandatory sterilization to this bill for anyone who thinks this is a good idea.


Yeah! Stupid conservative Republican John Conyers and his science-hating ways!

OozoSoozo: From the comments section:

# Uncle Al Says:
March 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am

The House of Reprehensibles is perpetually up for lease. Have every university library tell publishers it will cancel subscriptions to free funds for Washington lobbying. Bothering the House of Reprehensibles is silly - you cannot drown a fish (except for keeping sharks stationary).



... Can someone help me understand WTF this person is trying to say?

A little bit of knowledge hangs from the rope that was cut down prematurely

Sounds like Conyers needs a Hawaiian cockpunch.

Conyers is a super tool.


/Reparations.

There are journals that charge people to publish in them???

Not in biomedical research. Not any reputable journals, anyway.

Anyway, there's no good rationale for this legislation, but there is a major downside to open access publications and that is that the bar to get published in them is much lower. Somewhat dilutes the quality of research.

well if any Philadelphia area farkers are interested Conyers is speaking at 10:30 am tomorrow at 1001 Locust St. downtown on the Jefferson U campus. It's a healtcare-related talk, but I'm sure you'll be able to express your distaste personally if you want after the talk.

Falcc: OozoSoozo: From the comments section:

# Uncle Al Says:
March 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am

The House of Reprehensibles is perpetually up for lease. Have every university library tell publishers it will cancel subscriptions to free funds for Washington lobbying. Bothering the House of Reprehensibles is silly - you cannot drown a fish (except for keeping sharks stationary).



... Can someone help me understand WTF this person is trying to say?

Senile? I just met 'er!



Sorry, I broke the holy hell out my elbow Tuesday night and am all hopped up on pain meds. I need to be spoonfed my explanation. Are you saying that that post makes no damn sense? Because that's what I thought, too.

Edsel:
Anyway, there's no good rationale for this legislation, but there is a major downside to open access publications and that is that the bar to get published in them is much lower. Somewhat dilutes the quality of research.

Hey, the kids from (insert state school here) need a place to publish stuff too.

They can cost a fortune: The Astrophysical Journal costs over $2000/year...

I pay for the Astrophysical Journal Online, but it doesn't cost any $2000. And, yeah, I don't want you reading it for free, Socialist Freeloader!

blahpers: File charges first. Then toss his ass out.

File charges for what? Following the powers enumerated to Congress as provided by the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 8:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Lost Thought 00:
A little bit of knowledge hangs from the rope that was cut down prematurely

Green ideas sleep furiously?

The cow meets the wounded chicken behind the moonlight?

Apples are good but spam is tasty?

10 yard penalty for improper of use the "not so fast" headline meme.

Doc Lee: blahpers: File charges first. Then toss his ass out.

File charges for what? Following the powers enumerated to Congress as provided by the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 8:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The scientist who wrote the paper is the author, and he's the one who would be banned from publishing his own work. Please explain how this section applies.

What I want to know is why there aren't criminal penalties for anyone that votes for unconstitutional legislation that becomes law. Bet if there were repercussions you'd see lawmakers being a lot more careful.

/Freedom of speech and association, bah humbug

TheOther: I pay for the Astrophysical Journal Online, but it doesn't cost any $2000. And, yeah, I don't want you reading it for free, Socialist Freeloader!

OK, fair enough. We're also not paying for the research itself. NIH research budget: 0. NASA research budget: 0. DOE research budget: 0. Getting the picture now, free market boy?

Great Caesar's Toast: What I want to know is why there aren't criminal penalties for anyone that votes for unconstitutional legislation that becomes law. Bet if there were repercussions you'd see lawmakers being a lot more careful.

/Freedom of speech and association, bah humbug

Because when you have Scalia and Thomas deciding what's constitutional, you start to see the problem.

blahpers: The scientist who wrote the paper is the author, and he's the one who would be banned from publishing his own work. Please explain how this section applies.

That's not what the proposed bill says at all. It's almost exactly the opposite of what you said. The short summary:

Fair Copyright in Research Works Act - Prohibits any federal agency from imposing any condition, in connection with a funding agreement, that requires the transfer or license to or for a federal agency, or requires the absence or abandonment, of specified exclusive rights of a copyright owner in an extrinsic work.

Prohibits any federal agency from: (1) imposing, as a condition of a funding agreement, the waiver of, or assent to, any such prohibition; or (2) asserting any rights in material developed under any funding agreement that restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of copyright rights in an extrinsic work.

Defines "funding agreement" as any contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a federal agency for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities.

Defines "extrinsic work" as any work, other than a work of the U.S. government, that is related to a funding agreement and is also funded in substantial part by, or results from a meaningful added value contributed by, one or more nonfederal entities that are not a party to the funding agreement.

Manfred J. Hattan OK, fair enough. We're also not paying for the research itself. NIH research budget: 0. NASA research budget: 0. DOE research budget: 0. Getting the picture now, free market boy?

I probably pay roughly as much for the NIH, NASA, and DOE research as you do, chief. If you want extra access, you pay for extra access.

blahpers: Falcc: blahpers: File charges first. Then toss his ass out.

This isn't exactly related, but do you think if they made censorship a crime punishable by imprisonment the person that wrote the law would be arrested, as well as the arresting officers, etc?

Sorry, I don't follow.

I believe it could be best explained by Mr. Rick James..

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

OK. Time for Mr. Conyers to go bye-bye.

TheOther: Manfred J. Hattan OK, fair enough. We're also not paying for the research itself. NIH research budget: 0. NASA research budget: 0. DOE research budget: 0. Getting the picture now, free market boy?

I probably pay roughly as much for the NIH, NASA, and DOE research as you do, chief. If you want extra access, you pay for extra access.

Unless you're worried about Obama increasing your taxes, you're not. No public access to the results, no public funding (sooper seekrit stuff excepted, of course). It was Al Gore who started that up, and it was one of his best ideas. Frankly, I feel kinda dirty hanging out in a thread defending Gore, but there we are.

CossackMossis: To be fair, the secrets of the Adeptus Mechanicus can't be discussed with possible heretics.

Look, if they're researching anything at all, there's already a huge problem.

People in Congress are as good with their understanding how science works as they are with how the economy works.

Edsel: There are journals that charge people to publish in them???

Not in biomedical research. Not any reputable journals, anyway.

Anyway, there's no good rationale for this legislation, but there is a major downside to open access publications and that is that the bar to get published in them is much lower. Somewhat dilutes the quality of research.

Plenty of reputable journals go by the author pays model. PLoS is author pays. PNAS is author pays. Journal of Biological Chemistry is author pays.

atlanta_ufo: People in Congress are as good with their understanding how science works as they are with how the economy works.

Science? They don't even get copywrite law.

Diogenes: atlanta_ufo: People in Congress are as good with their understanding how science works as they are with how the economy works.

Science? They don't even get copywrite copyright law.

//facepalm

Science? They don't even get copywrite law.

Not to be confused with copyright, a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information.-stolen from Wikipedia

Doc Lee: Science? They don't even get copywrite copyright law.

//facepalm

///dammit

Doc Lee: blahpers: The scientist who wrote the paper is the author, and he's the one who would be banned from publishing his own work. Please explain how this section applies.

That's not what the proposed bill says at all. It's almost exactly the opposite of what you said. The short summary:

Fair Copyright in Research Works Act - Prohibits any federal agency from imposing any condition, in connection with a funding agreement, that requires the transfer or license to or for a federal agency, or requires the absence or abandonment, of specified exclusive rights of a copyright owner in an extrinsic work.

Prohibits any federal agency from: (1) imposing, as a condition of a funding agreement, the waiver of, or assent to, any such prohibition; or (2) asserting any rights in material developed under any funding agreement that restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of copyright rights in an extrinsic work.

Defines "funding agreement" as any contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a federal agency for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities.

Defines "extrinsic work" as any work, other than a work of the U.S. government, that is related to a funding agreement and is also funded in substantial part by, or results from a meaningful added value contributed by, one or more nonfederal entities that are not a party to the funding agreement.

So the bill isn't as bad as the summary said. It's still bad.

There is a reason why House leadership overturned decades - centuries, actually - of precedent and removed Conyers from a leadership post. Pelosi knew that Conyers was not fully competent, and was willing to risk the anger of the entire chamber to award a position based on merit and not seniority.

Right wingers love to hate Pelosi, but she's been brave enough to do what almost no other Speaker has done - strip committee assignments and chairmanships due to poor performance.

The bill does the exact opposite of what the headline and article suggest.

If you read the actual text of the bill, what the bill does is forbid federal agencies like the NIH from assuming copyright ownership of texts produced with their funds.

Yes, this means the NIH couldn't make the work available online *without the express consent of the authors*. But it doesn't force the authors to publish in any particular place at all.

Right now, the NIH could force the scientists to surrender copyright to the government on a work produced by federal funds. This bill would forbid that.

Wow. I really stepped in it, didn't I? Chalk it up to weed.

captainktainer: So the bill isn't as bad as the summary said. It's still bad.

How is it bad at all? It gives the authors full control of their works, by making it illegal for the federal government to force them to turn over copyright.

Sum Dum Gai: captainktainer: So the bill isn't as bad as the summary said. It's still bad.

How is it bad at all? It gives the authors full control of their works, by making it illegal for the federal government to force them to turn over copyright.

The linked Financial Times piece makes some pretty damning points, if they're correct.

Sum Dum Gai: How is it bad at all? It gives the authors full control of their works, by making it illegal for the federal government to force them to turn over copyright.

Because it also means that Americans will once again have to pay for access to research that we funded. It removes taxpayer rights.

Our tax dollars pay for that access. We should have the opportunity, a year later, to read that research, free of charge. Otherwise it's just an unaccountable subsidy.

attackingpencil: The linked Financial Times piece makes some pretty damning points, if they're correct.

If. The Financial Times is... not so great.

"How is it bad at all? It gives the authors full control of their works, by making it illegal for the federal government to force them to turn over copyright."

It's bad because it's the public's research. Not in a million years would Merck fund research and then agree that they'd have to pay to read the results. Or Stanford. Or a think tank. Publicly funded research should be available to the public without paying an additional fee.

That said, this is in no way a constitutional issue as others have intimated. It's not treason, nor is it morally repugnant. It's just poor policy.