If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(Discover) Asinine So, Congress, which of you think scientists should be able to publish where they want? Whoops, not so fast there, Conyers   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 75
More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2436 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2009 at 6:02 PM   |  Make this a Fark FavoriteFavorite    |   share: Share on OMGTWITTER WEB2.0share on StumbleUponshare on Facebook  more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!

75 Comments   (+0 »)


Fark.com's  Political Inclination Thermometric Analyzer:
100.00% Fascist 3.28% Fascist
Archived thread
First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
RemyDuron 2009-03-06 06:03:52 PM  
Utterly asinine bullshiat. No one who supports this should ever be re-elected.

 
CossackMossis 2009-03-06 06:04:19 PM  
To be fair, the secrets of the Adeptus Mechanicus can't be discussed with possible heretics.

 
Mentat [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 06:06:43 PM  
Open Publishing! Wooo!

 
Falcc 2009-03-06 06:09:54 PM  
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

 
Longtime Lurker 2009-03-06 06:10:07 PM  
god, Conyers is an asshat...

 
Lost Thought 00 2009-03-06 06:11:11 PM  
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

 
CravenMorehead 2009-03-06 06:11:25 PM  
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.

 
blahpers 2009-03-06 06:11:58 PM  
File charges first. Then toss his ass out.

 
blahpers 2009-03-06 06:13:14 PM  
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.

 
Falcc 2009-03-06 06:15:01 PM  
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?

 
modestlivinglegend 2009-03-06 06:15:02 PM  
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.

 
OozoSoozo 2009-03-06 06:16:34 PM  
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?

 
blahpers 2009-03-06 06:16:42 PM  
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.

 
Lt. Cheese Weasel 2009-03-06 06:17:13 PM  
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.

 
Falcc 2009-03-06 06:17:41 PM  
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!

 
GilRuiz1 2009-03-06 06:17:49 PM  
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!

www.roxburynews.com

 
Lost Thought 00 2009-03-06 06:18:27 PM  
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

 
jwbathe [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 06:19:20 PM  
i335.photobucket.com

Sounds like Conyers needs a Hawaiian cockpunch.

 
Phil Herup 2009-03-06 06:20:13 PM  
Conyers is a super tool.


/Reparations.

 
Edsel 2009-03-06 06:20:20 PM  
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.

 
Longtime Lurker 2009-03-06 06:21:42 PM  
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.

 
OozoSoozo 2009-03-06 06:21:46 PM  
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.

 
Lost Thought 00 2009-03-06 06:22:54 PM  
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.

 
TheOther [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 06:23:32 PM  
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!

 
Doc Lee 2009-03-06 06:23:39 PM  
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;"

 
OozoSoozo 2009-03-06 06:23:43 PM  
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?

 
poot_rootbeer 2009-03-06 06:28:02 PM  
10 yard penalty for improper of use the "not so fast" headline meme.

 
blahpers 2009-03-06 06:28:15 PM  
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.

 
Great Caesar's Toast 2009-03-06 06:30:33 PM  
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

 
Manfred J. Hattan 2009-03-06 06:33:50 PM  
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?

 
Longtime Lurker 2009-03-06 06:33:57 PM  
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.

 
Doc Lee 2009-03-06 06:37:35 PM  
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.

 
TheOther [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 06:42:20 PM  
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.

 
Peter von Nostrand 2009-03-06 06:47:00 PM  
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.

 
Diogenes [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 06:48:08 PM  
OK. Time for Mr. Conyers to go bye-bye.

 
Manfred J. Hattan 2009-03-06 06:49:12 PM  
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.

 
CaesarSneezy 2009-03-06 06:49:21 PM  
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.

 
atlanta_ufo 2009-03-06 06:51:00 PM  
People in Congress are as good with their understanding how science works as they are with how the economy works.

 
Doc Lee 2009-03-06 06:52:36 PM  
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.

 
Diogenes [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 06:54:57 PM  
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.

 
Doc Lee 2009-03-06 06:57:04 PM  
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

 
TheOther [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 06:58:42 PM  
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

 
TheOther [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 06:59:50 PM  
Doc Lee: Science? They don't even get copywrite copyright law.

//facepalm


///dammit

 
captainktainer 2009-03-06 07:01:25 PM  
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.

 
Sum Dum Gai 2009-03-06 07:01:25 PM  
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.

 
Diogenes [TotalFark] 2009-03-06 07:03:55 PM  
Wow. I really stepped in it, didn't I? Chalk it up to weed.

 
Sum Dum Gai 2009-03-06 07:06:08 PM  
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.

 
attackingpencil 2009-03-06 07:09:13 PM  
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.

 
captainktainer 2009-03-06 07:11:21 PM  
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.

 
Manfred J. Hattan 2009-03-06 07:15:02 PM  
"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.

 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all


[Continue Farking]