RE: NIH issues

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Scott,

I went back to read the proposed legislation again, and I must say that I
don't read it as you did.  But I am no lawyer and would not be surprised to
discover that I have this wrong.

Could a lawyer weigh in on this?

Assuming I am reading it properly, then the proposed law is going too far,
in my opinion, though it is still immensely superior to what it would
replace.

If I am reading the proposed legislation incorrectly, then the new law is a
fair and just solution to the problem.  Indeed, I can't imagine why anyone
would oppose it.

Joe Esposito

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of T Scott Plutchak
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:33 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: NIH issues

As I read your hypothetical, the reporting requirements you define don't
meet the definition of "extrinsic work" so HR 801 wouldn't apply. Perhaps
the most intriguing part of the bill is that second definition of "extrinsic
work" -- how do you measure "meaningful added value" and are there
circumstances under which it rises to the level that justifies a copyright
claim?  Kevin argues that it doesn't, because it doesn't materially affect
expression, and he may be right.  But it seems to me that there is still a
value transfer that needs to be recognized or justified in some fashion.

Here's the link if you want to take a look:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c1114iW6Lh

As for Bolano (and Ann can edit this out if I'm going too far afield), I
read 2666 during several weeks in January and found it one of the greatest
novels I've ever read, and I don't say that lightly.  I'm halfway through
Savage Detectives now, and while it is not as vast and ambitious in scope,
the quality of the writing, imagination and characterizations is just as
fantastic.

T. Scott Plutchak

Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences University of Alabama
at Birmingham tscott@uab.edu http://tscott.typepad.com
http://beardedpigs.net



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:47 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: NIH issues

Scott,

"Slightly more than 60%" is pretty good.  It's more than Obama got.  I
expect to see my picture on a new government security.
The "Esposito" bond does not pay interest; it asserts it.

BTW, I share your interest (!) in Roberto Bolano.

Concerning your blog post, I just read it.  It's terrific and I recommend it
to anyone interested in this issue.  I am myself not at all in the Heather
Joseph camp on this one, but I don't know if I am wholly or partly (60%?) on
the Marty Frank side.  Let me put this hypothetical to you.

A governmental agency (the NIH or anything else) says to a
researcher:  "We are prepared to grant you $500,000 to study snails. As a
condition of this grant, you are required to file a detailed report of your
research; a template for this report will be provided to you.  That report
will be placed on a Web server managed by our agency.  Anyone can use this
material any way they wish for any purpose including commercial
exploitation, provided that they cite you, cite the agency, and don't change
a word without your permission.  You may also do anything you want with this
material, provided that you cite the agency.  You alone may change the
content."

Will the proposed bill allow for this hypothetical?

I am not asserting that this situation would be a desirable one; that's for
the agency to determine.  My question is what latitude there would be under
the law.

Joe Esposito