|
|
Post by dopeydog on Mar 3, 2009 13:05:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Mar 5, 2009 20:43:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 7, 2009 0:15:28 GMT
Silencing opposition is the first step to tyranny. A bit of humor, source forgotten.  |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Mar 10, 2009 19:57:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Mar 11, 2009 16:10:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 11, 2009 19:31:19 GMT
Gee, the way I read the summary, it seems to say that the Federal government can't require someone to give away all of their work simply because the government funds all or part of it. I don't see it prohibiting the free publication of works.
Now, I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, I'm asking "What am I missing?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 11, 2009 20:27:12 GMT
Gee, the way I read the summary, it seems to say that the Federal government can't require someone to give away all of their work simply because the government funds all or part of it. I don't see it prohibiting the free publication of works. Read the text of H.R.801 (Thomas summary follows). Currently, if it is funded by the taxpayer it must be available to the taxpayer (exceptions to topics such as nuclear warhead design apply). No "pay-to-play". (FOI: Freedom of Information Act) Forget the nonsense about contributions from journal publishers. Ignore the misuse of the word "Fair". It permits Mann et al to hide their work behind copyrights.
H.R.801Title: To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to works connected to certain funding agreements. Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 2/3/2009) thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.801:" 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." thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00801:@@@d&summ2=m&Call or write your congressman! |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 12, 2009 4:21:43 GMT
I still read it as if it is a government agency, this does not apply. If a non-government entity gets funding, the funding can't be made contingent on the release of the material into the public domain.
Without knowing the history of the bill, they seem to be trying to keep proprietary info developed by private entities with US government funding as copywritable by the scientist(s) involved.
For instance if BioGeneCompany gets federal funding for Stem Cell research, they get to keep the info (ie The money, baby), not the public.
But hey, I could be wrong. Often am.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 12, 2009 4:59:11 GMT
I still read it as if it is a government agency, this does not apply. If a non-government entity gets funding, the funding can't be made contingent on the release of the material into the public domain. Without knowing the history of the bill, they seem to be trying to keep proprietary info developed by private entities with US government funding as copywritable by the scientist(s) involved. For instance if BioGeneCompany gets federal funding for Stem Cell research, they get to keep the info (ie The money, baby), not the public. But hey, I could be wrong. Often am. Steve McIntyre has had to use FOIA to force data to be released. The latest is Santer et al 2008 www.climateaudit.org/?p=4445If he didn't get it, the likelihood of nailing down the errors with Santer's "research" would have been low. Steig (Antarctica) is also refusing to cooperate. McIntyre submitted a paper exposing Santer's garbage with respect to the ubiquitous "hot spot" which warmers now claim doesn't matter ;D . www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991So much for "peer review". |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Mar 13, 2009 11:18:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Mar 13, 2009 19:43:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 13, 2009 20:10:17 GMT
So instead of burning coal, we should be making it?
I noticed they didn't indicate how much energy is required to process a tree. Does that mean that we will need to build a coal plant nearby to produce the energy needed to convert the trees into coal? Nuclear?
Good grief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 13, 2009 23:18:29 GMT
... If a non-government entity gets funding, the funding can't be made contingent on the release of the material into the public domain. Without knowing the history of the bill, they seem to be trying to keep proprietary info developed by private entities with US government funding as copywritable (sic) by the scientist(s) involved. Ron, you seem to be a reasonable person, and as such, may assume that bureaucrats will be reasonable like yourself. However, this law seems to be pretty broadly worded - read as stretchable. Let's add to the mix a) politically-motivated government bureaucrats, b) hungry establishment fund applicants ready to deal to get federal funds and c) the usual pack of clever lawyers. For instance: 1) EPA can regulate pollution. Bureaucrat claims CO 2 must be a pollutant. Viola! CO 2 becomes a pollutant. Green plants protest, to no avail.  2) University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) keeps temperature records from Aqua and Terra satellites. Bureaucrat offers funding to UAH if it will assert that its methods are proprietary and copyright its processes, methods and data. Pay-to-play triumphs. 3) Ditto for contractors running satellites (Space Environment Technologies - SORCE). I am not saying that this situation exists for 2) and 3). I don't know their arrangements. I am saying this law may enable the powers that be in government to cover their tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 14, 2009 3:15:39 GMT
... If a non-government entity gets funding, the funding can't be made contingent on the release of the material into the public domain. Without knowing the history of the bill, they seem to be trying to keep proprietary info developed by private entities with US government funding as copywritable (sic) by the scientist(s) involved. Ron, you seem to be a reasonable person, and as such, may assume that bureaucrats will be reasonable like yourself. However, this law seems to be pretty broadly worded - read as stretchable. Let's add to the mix a) politically-motivated government bureaucrats, b) hungry establishment fund applicants ready to deal to get federal funds and c) the usual pack of clever lawyers. For instance: 1) EPA can regulate pollution. Bureaucrat claims CO 2 must be a pollutant. Viola! CO 2 becomes a pollutant. Green plants protest, to no avail. 2) University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) keeps temperature records from Aqua and Terra satellites. Bureaucrat offers funding to UAH if it will assert that its methods are proprietary and copyright its processes, methods and data. Pay-to-play triumphs. 3) Ditto for contractors running satellites (Space Environment Technologies - SORCE). I am not saying that this situation exists for 2) and 3). I don't know their arrangements. I am saying this law may enable the powers that be in government to cover their tracks. Potentially its worse than that - the 'material' could also mean the results of the research. So if the research becomes embarrassing it is withheld as intellectual property of the agency concerned. Obama has recently said that science would be open and unwelcome results would be released even if the politicians did not want it. So that confirms that my suspicion is probably correct. To quote the BBC TV series 'Yes Minister' - "Never believe anything unless it has been officially denied"(also ascribed to Bismark) |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 14, 2009 5:22:43 GMT
"This could be done if biochar were incorporated into the carbon markets making it more profitable to bury rather than burn." LOL! more profitable to bury!!! Lord Help Us!!! |
|
