On February 3rd, Representative John R. Conyers (MI-14) introduced H.R. 801, a bill also known as the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act.

According to the Congressional Record summary of the bill (as of 2/3/09), The 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.”

In sum, the bill would reverse the National Institute of Health (NIH) policy that allows government funded research to be easily available and accessible and copyright free. What is more disconcerting is that it would also extend to other governmental agencies from having similar open access policies. Theoretically if this were to pass, taxpayers who funded research in the first place would have to pay twice for the research: first to fund it and second to access it via a for-profit journal. Several associations, including the American Library Association, are against the bill.

For further reading, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation‘s legislative analysis post “Open Access” Policies Threatened by Copyright Bill.

update 3/24/09

The Open Access News has been following this bill and providing viewpoints on it:
Novelist Richard Roberts slams the Conyers bill (3/23)
John Willinsky on the Conyers bill (3/23)

Another site for those interested in knowing what projects the stimulus money might go towards is StimulusWatch.org. It’s an interesting site to poke around through and allows everyday folk to share their opinions about possible grant programs stimulus money might support.

From their website, StimulusWatch.org “was built to help the new administration keep its pledge to invest stimulus money smartly, and to hold public officials to account for the taxpayer money they spend. [They] do this by allowing you, citizens around the country with local knowledge about the proposed “shovel-ready” projects in your city, to find, discuss and rate those projects. These projects are not part of the stimulus bill. They are candidates for funding by federal grant programs once the bill passes” [emphasis added].

Unfortunately, many of the comments and discussion about projects geared toward libraries are not the most promising and somewhat disappointing…

Photo credit: USA.gov word cloud. (It includes the top 75 most used words on their website).

Technology has enhanced the opportunity for transparency in our government, but has it come at the expense of privacy?

The Obama administration talks a lot about transparency at the federal level. In his aim to increase public participation in government, Obama utilizes technology to make government more accessible — and transparent — to the public. He uses whitehouse.gov, transparency.gov, usaspending.gov, recovery.gov and many social networking sites (myspace, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc.) to provide updates, details and documents to the public.

Transparency in government serves many purposes; for example, it creates accountability, builds public trust and confidence and it creates an informed citizenry. As an information professional, I agree with the intent of transparency and advocate wholeheartedly for access to information for the very reasons stated above.

However, That doesn’t mean that transparency is without its issues – in fact, one major competing interest to transparency is privacy.

One interesting case study that highlights the tension between transparency and privacy is that of California’s Proposition 8 and the release of information on all donors involved pursuant to California’s campaign finance disclosure law, the Political Reform Act of 1974. This particular case study really brings home the challenges and contradictions between these two concepts.

Proposition 8 amended the California state constitution to recognize only marriage between a man and a woman, overturning the May 15, 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that same sex couples have a constitutionally protected and ensured right to marry. The Political Reform Act requires the state to disclose “the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to [political] campaigns” in the state of California (Sanders, 2009).

After Proposition 8 passed, a multitude of resources emerged thanks to the Political Reform Act. These resources – such as the SF Chronicle database or Eightmaps.com – publicly share information about those who donated money toward the measure. (The SF Chronicle’s database releases information on those who donated for or against the measure; Eightmaps.com’s interactive map focuses on those who donated toward the passage of Prop 8 only.)

As a result of their public “outing” from these resources, many individuals and businesses who donated to groups in favor of Proposition 8 assert they received harassment, were the target of consumer boycotts, picketing and even death threats (Wisckol, 2008)

Because of this, Proposition 8 proponents took their case to court – not in regards to their initial fight regarding same-sex marriage, but this time regarding their right to privacy. They unsuccessfully argued their case against California’s campaign finance disclosure law, citing that the Act led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents. The Prop 8 proponents’ request to throw out the law or shield the donor’s names was denied.

In summarizing the rationale for his decision, U.S. District Judge Morrison noted: “If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it’s a ballot measure” (Egelko, 2008).

The New York Times had a wonderful article regarding this case; they poignantly pointed out the clash between “political transparency and untarnished democracy versus privacy and freedom of speech” (Stone, 2008). Today’s technological advances allow for ease of opportunity for both privacy and speech, yet it compounds the problems that stem from their clashing ideals. Stone (2008) explains this concept, using Eightmaps.com as an example:

Eightmaps.com is the latest, most striking example of how information collected through disclosure laws intended to increase the transparency of the political process, magnified by the powerful lens of the Web, may be undermining the same democratic values that the regulations were to promote.

Is it possible that transparency can actually dissuade citizens from participating in democracy?

Is it possible to have a balance of transparency and privacy?

For more information:

Egelko, B. (2009, January 30). Prop 8 Campaign Can’t Hide Donor’s Names. The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved January 30, 2009.

Sanders, J. (2009, January 24). Prop 8 Donor Disclosure Dispute Heats Up. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved February 11, 2009.

Stone, B. (2009, February 8). Prop 8 Donor Website Shows Disclosure Law is a Two-Edged Sword. The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2009).

Wisckol, M. (2009, November 14). Prop. 8 leaders accuse foes of harassment, intimidation. OCRegister. Retrieved February 10, 2009.

Photo credit: Proposition 8 Protest in Sacramento from flickr member JoeandKelly. This image has a creative commons attribution 2.0 generic license

As I work on my govdoc paper, I’ll be sure to share the interesting documents, testimonials from hearings, committee reports, etc that I find.

Maybe Obama really is trying to make government cool again!

With Barack Obama’s plan for transparency, government information has expanded to social networking sites such as YouTube (which I described in an earlier post).

Is Scribd part of the action now? It sure looks like it! Barack Obama’s official inaugural address is now posted on Scribd for all to see, access, download, embed in webpages or blogs.

Could Scribd join the ranks as THOMAS and GPO Access? I don’t think so, but I must admit I am impressed with the idea of being able to download – or more so – embed government documents into a web page!

Barack Obama Inaugural Address

Of course I’m curious about the financial reports, so to practice my reference skills, I checked out the sites. Most interesting, however, was my foray to the Center for Responsive Politics. One of the lead stories on their page that caught my eye was a great picture of our president-to-be (in less than 24 hours!) with the caption of “Who’s paying for his inauguration?” Check out the link – it is really, really interesting!

The article breaks down where the money comes from – which states, industries, organizations and even which individuals donated.

Please note that OpenSecrets.org is a nonpartisan guide “to money’s influence on U.S. Elections and public policy.” As someone very well aware of how easy it is to “spin” things in politics, I recommend bookmarking this site.

Update 1/24: One of my other favorite non-partisan/independent organizations, factcheck.org, answered a recent question about Obama’s inauguration costs versus George Bush’s inauguration: Did Barak Obama’s inauguration really cost four times as much as George W. Bush’s?