Samuel Trosow wrote:
> The US Federal government actually does quite a bit to disseminate
> government works. There's the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP),
> GPO Access, and FirstGov.
Do published journal articles routinely appear in these?
Sally
Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Phone: 01903 871686 Fax: 01903 871457 E-mail: sec-gen_at_alpsp.org
ALPSP Website
http://www.alpsp.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samuel Trosow" <strosow_at_uwo.ca>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)
> The US Federal government actually does quite a bit to disseminate
> government works. There's the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP),
> GPO Access, and FirstGov.
>
> see:
> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ (homepage for GPO Access)
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/about.html
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/fdlp_fs.pdf
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/title44/chap19.html (setting
> out the text of Chapter 19 of Title 44 United States Code, the laws
> governing the FDLP)
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/title44/chap41.html
> (setting out the text of Chapter 41 of Title 44 United States Code, the
> enabling legislation for GPO Access and the locator services)
> and
> http://www.firstgov.gov/
> (official U.S. gateway to government information)
>
> The distribution system certainly could be much better and indeed more
> inclusive. For example, under current law, the US Federal Government
> retains a reserved interest in the copyright to all works resulting from
> federal funding. Unfortunately, this reserved right is routinely
> ignored by publishers when they request and receive exclusive rights or
> full copyright assignments in the work, and the government does not
> include these works in its distribution systems (something it apparently
> has the right to do under current OMB Circulars and Federal Regulations)
> This shortcoming is one of the main reason why further Congressional
> action is really needed.
>
> In addition to routinely ignoring the reserved interest retained by the
> US government, some publishers are actually so bold as to claim
> copyright on works that are clearly marked as public domain materials.
> (see for example, the June 2003 edition of journal Mitochondrion 2(6):
> 387-400, published by Elsevier. The paper clearly states that since the
> 10 co-authors are all public employees, the work is not subject to
> copyright. Nonetheless, the Copyright notice appears at the top of the
> article.)
>
> Samuel Trosow
> University of Western Ontario
>
> Sally Morris wrote:
> > Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> > "Most of the existing 24,000 journals would not
> > accept to publish public-domain texts"
> >
> > I think this is probably inaccurate. I would guess that practically
all of
> > those journals do publish works which are currently governed by the
Public
> > Domain status of US Government works.
> >
> > To my mind, the question really is whether either the authors or their
> > employer actually do anything to avail themselves of the works' Public
> > Domain status. No one seems to have been able to answer this question.
> >
> > If they don't, why should the Sabo Bill's extension of identical status
to
> > Federally funded works, in itself, be expected to achieve anything for
the
> > Open Access agenda?
> >
> > Sally
> >
> > Sally Morris, Secretary-General
> > Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
> >
> > Phone: 01903 871686 Fax: 01903 871457 E-mail: sec-gen_at_alpsp.org
> > ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)
> >
> >
> >
> >>[identity deleted] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I read your interesting reply to Joseph Pietro Riolo on the
> >>>digital-copyright list.
> >>>
> >>>I am thinking of writing a reply to this discussion too. I
> >>>think many people believe this is only a question of remuneration and
> >>>ego. In what we call the information age - or even the knowledge
> >>>society - I believe it is a very very important question to be able
> >>>to keep track of who did say what to whom about what. Otherwise
> >>>intellectual discussion would almost return to oral tradition with
> >>>the kind of distortion that comes with it.
> >>
> >>[I hope your further comments will be public, to undo the irony of the
> >>fact that without permission I could only reply to them here
> >>anonymously!]
> >>
> >>There are probably clever digital ways of tracking who posted what
> >>publicly. The public-domain problem is not just that. It's partly
> >>about "intellectual property" (for which Europe has rights-protection,
> >>independent of copyright, whereas the US does not) and partly about not
> >>needlessly constraining authors' right to submit their work to whatever
> >>journal they choose: Most of the existing 24,000 journals would not
> >>accept to publish public-domain texts. If that had been the only way
> >>to attain open access, it might have been necessary to consider it
> >>anyway, but since open-access self-archiving is completely compatible
> >>with copyright and copyright transfer (or licensing) to the journal
> >>publisher, there is no need whatsoever to force the public-domain
> >>constraint onto either authors or publishers. Trying to do so would
> >>only needlessly delay open access still further. The Public Access to
> >>Science Act (Sabo Bill) needs to be modified to mandate open-access
only,
> >>not public-domain.
> >>
> >>[By the way, I think that in a sense we *are* going back to the oral
> >>tradition -- but with its "verba volunt, scripta manent" handicap
> >>remedied by the public and permanent nature of PostGutenberg
"skywriting"
> >>http://www.interdisciplines.org/defispublicationweb/papers/6 ]
> >>
> >>Stevan Harnad
> >>
> >>NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
> >>access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
> >>the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
> >>
> >> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
> >> or
> >> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
> >>
> >>Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
> >
Received on Fri Sep 05 2003 - 18:54:06 BST