Published on

UNIT411 V. Research Works Act

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. BIBLIOTHEKSPOLIZEI | UNIT 411Research Works ActAKA Greedy Bastards Get Greedier
  2. 2. This ManDarrell Issa (R-CA)
  3. 3. And This WomenCarolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)
  4. 4. GrrrrrrWant to take research which is federally fundedor rather funded by you and make sure that it is not publicly available.
  5. 5. Poop ListWhat lunatic support this madness?Association of American Publishers & Copyright Alliance
  6. 6. Who is opposed?Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition the Alliance for Taxpayer Access the American Library Association the International Society for Computational Biology
  7. 7. And….
  8. 8. Again…“But a bill introduced in the House of Representatives lastmonth threatens to cripple this site. The Research WorksAct would forbid the N.I.H. to require, as it nowdoes, that its grantees provide copies of the papers theypublish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the billpasses, to read the results of federally fundedresearch, most Americans would have to buy access toindividual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece. In otherwords, taxpayers who already paid for the researchwould have to pay again to read the results. ”
  9. 9. Who buy a Politician to do something so shady?• If passed, the Research Works Act (RWA) would prohibit the NIHs public access policy and anything similar enacted by other federal agencies, locking publicly funded research behind paywalls. The result would be an ethical disaster: preventable deaths in developing countries, and an incalculable loss for science in the USA and worldwide. The only winners would be publishing corporations such as Elsevier (£724m profits on revenues of £2b in 2010 – an astounding 36% of revenue taken as profit).
  10. 10. Preventable Deaths? “Closed access means people die. I don’t thinkanyone can deny the truth of that conclusion. If adoctor, a patient, a planner, an engineer, cannotread the appropriate literature then they makesuboptimal decisions. And that means people die.So the balance is: If we want a closed accesspublishing system then we have to accept that theprice is people’s lives.”
  11. 11. One more time dammit…“Elsevier-funded NY Congresswoman CarolynMaloney Wants to Deny Americans Access to Taxpayer Funded Research”
  12. 12. Issa is pro OPEN AKAOnline Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act
  13. 13. OPEN? (Squint Hard!)“The OPEN Act was proposed as an alternative to the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), whichwas approved by the United States Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2011, and theclosely related Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was introduced by House JudiciaryChairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) in November. After an initial description on December 2as an outline of possible approaches authored by a bipartisan group of elevenlawmakers,[14][15] a draft text was made public on December 8, 2011 in advance of aHouse Judiciary markup of the SOPA Act the following week. The OPEN Act seeks tostop transfers of money to foreign websites whose primary purpose is piracy orcounterfeiting, whereas SOPA and PIPA also seek to require Internet providers andsearch engines to redirect users away from viewing the sites. The PROTECT IP Actproposed to do this by blocking domain name resolution, whereas SOPA imposes abroader requirement for network providers to "prevent access by its subscriberslocated within the United States" including blocking by IP address and possibly deeppacket inspection.[3]”
  14. 14. Now go tell them what you think.