Reminder why the term 'fair copyright' is subjective

For those who are running under the banner of "Fair Copyright for Canada", they should take a look at US bill HR6845: “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act”.

According to an email I just received from the Public Library of Science:

On September 11, 2008, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Rep. John Conyers, D-MI) introduced a bill that would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's DOA, mostly

I ran across this bill last week, when I was researching the bills I wrote about then. This one doesn't seem to be going anywhere. See this for example. Techdirt has also covered it recently here.

After the US election it could always receive more priority, but right now this doesn't seem to be a major concern.


There was a good guess with the tabling of Bill C-61 that there would be a general election before it could get anywhere. That didn't mean that it wasn't worth analysing, it meant that we needed to figure it out and then talk about it during the election.

Is that happening in the USA? Are people talking to their potential candidates and telling them that they think it is unfair for the results of government funded research to become proprietary to the corporate welfare recipient?

Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.