Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles

[Laurent Romary]

I know correlation is not causation but there has been quite an increase in the 
number of documents deposited per year in https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr 
<https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/> since 2016 (the law was published in Sept. 
2016). See the diagram below. There has been quite some pressure from 
publishers during the preparation of the law indeed, but since, they’ve been 
quiet. Since the publication I have also observed more institutions speaking 
aloud about a possible deposit mandate or even implementing one (e.g. recently 
the engineering school CentraleSupelec) or the national higher education and 
research assessment institution HCERES announcing the it will base its future 
campaigns on publications available online in HAL.
Have a good day!
Laurent


> Le 26 mars 2018 à 09:52, Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen) <j.bos...@uu.nl> a écrit :
> 
> Dear Serge,
>  
> Thanks for this. It is very interesting because there are similar 
> developments in the Netherlands. Problem is that in the Dutch law (with the 
> new article 25fa of the Auteurswet: 
> https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-33308-11 
> <https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-33308-11>) there is no explicit 
> period stated. It just says “after a reasonable period”. In Germany the same 
> clause (38.4) states 12 months.
>  
> I wonder if French institutions or the CNRS have acted upon article 30 in any 
> way. Have institutional mandates changed because of it? Are libraries pushing 
> to get more AAMs in their repositories? Or are individual researchers perhaps 
> using this right to share their papers in repositories or academic social 
> networks. And also: have there been objections from publishers? Cases in 
> court? I would love to hear more about the situation in France.
>  
> Jeroen Bosman
> Utrecht University Library
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf 
> Of BAUIN Serge
> Sent: vrijdag 23 maart 2018 20:55
> To: Global List
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for 
> research articles
>  
> Hi there,
>  
> Just to let you know.
> In Autumn 2016, a law has been passed in France stating in its article 30, in 
> simple words, that the author of a research article retains the right to make 
> public his postscript.
> Embargo periods, if any, cannot exceed 6 months for STM and 12 for HSS.
> Article 30 overrides any contract.
>  
> Best
>  
> Serge Bauin
>  
> PS For those who like this type of literature, here a translation of this 
> article (might be not the final version, but the ideas are there):
>  
> “I. – When a scientific text arising from a research activity financed at 
> least half by funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public 
> institutions, by grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the 
> European Union is published in a periodical appearing at least once a year, 
> its author, even in the event of exclusive transfer of rights to the 
> publisher, has the right to make available free of charge digitally, subject 
> to the agreement of any co-authors, the final accepted version of his/her 
> manuscript, if the publisher itself makes it available free of charge 
> digitally or, failing this, at the expiry of a period starting at the date of 
> its first publication. This period shall be a maximum of six months for a 
> publication in the sciences, technology and medicine, and twelve months in 
> the humanities and social sciences.
>  
> “The version made available pursuant to the first paragraph must not be 
> subject to an exploitation as part of a publishing activity for commercial 
> purposes.
>  
>  “II – If data resulting from a research activity financed at least half by 
> funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, by 
> grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
> not protected by a specific right or by specific regulations, and is made 
> publicly available by the researcher, the research institution or 
> organization, its reuse is unrestricted. 
>  
> “III. – The publisher of a scientific text as mentioned in I may not restrict 
> the reuse of data from a research made publicly available as part of its 
> publication
>  
> “IV. –The provisions of this article are public policy and any clause to the 
> contrary is deemed to be unwritten."
>  
>  
>  
> De : SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu <mailto:s...@psu.edu>>
> Répondre à : Global List <goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
> Date : Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:48:52 -0400
> À : David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us <

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles

[Bosman, J.M. (Jeroen)]

Dear Serge,

Thanks for this. It is very interesting because there are similar developments 
in the Netherlands. Problem is that in the Dutch law (with the new article 25fa 
of the Auteurswet: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-33308-11) there 
is no explicit period stated. It just says “after a reasonable period”. In 
Germany the same clause (38.4) states 12 months.

I wonder if French institutions or the CNRS have acted upon article 30 in any 
way. Have institutional mandates changed because of it? Are libraries pushing 
to get more AAMs in their repositories? Or are individual researchers perhaps 
using this right to share their papers in repositories or academic social 
networks. And also: have there been objections from publishers? Cases in court? 
I would love to hear more about the situation in France.

Jeroen Bosman
Utrecht University Library
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
BAUIN Serge
Sent: vrijdag 23 maart 2018 20:55
To: Global List
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research 
articles

Hi there,

Just to let you know.
In Autumn 2016, a law has been passed in France stating in its article 30, in 
simple words, that the author of a research article retains the right to make 
public his postscript.
Embargo periods, if any, cannot exceed 6 months for STM and 12 for HSS.
Article 30 overrides any contract.

Best

Serge Bauin

PS For those who like this type of literature, here a translation of this 
article (might be not the final version, but the ideas are there):

“I. – When a scientific text arising from a research activity financed at least 
half by funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, 
by grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
published in a periodical appearing at least once a year, its author, even in 
the event of exclusive transfer of rights to the publisher, has the right to 
make available free of charge digitally, subject to the agreement of any 
co-authors, the final accepted version of his/her manuscript, if the publisher 
itself makes it available free of charge digitally or, failing this, at the 
expiry of a period starting at the date of its first publication. This period 
shall be a maximum of six months for a publication in the sciences, technology 
and medicine, and twelve months in the humanities and social sciences.

“The version made available pursuant to the first paragraph must not be subject 
to an exploitation as part of a publishing activity for commercial purposes.

 “II – If data resulting from a research activity financed at least half by 
funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, by 
grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
not protected by a specific right or by specific regulations, and is made 
publicly available by the researcher, the research institution or organization, 
its reuse is unrestricted.

“III. – The publisher of a scientific text as mentioned in I may not restrict 
the reuse of data from a research made publicly available as part of its 
publication

“IV. –The provisions of this article are public policy and any clause to the 
contrary is deemed to be unwritten."



De : SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu<mailto:s...@psu.edu>>
Répondre à : Global List <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date : Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:48:52 -0400
À : David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>>
Cc : Global List <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>, Schoolcom 
listserv <scholc...@lists.ala.org<mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>
Objet : Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research 
articles

Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny authors
that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.

Sandy Thatcher

P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP denied
the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind
of serendipity impossible to achieve?




On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick 
<dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> wrote:

We may actually be in agreement, Stevan

You say this ""100 years or so of copyright prote

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles

[BAUIN Serge]

Hi there,

Just to let you know.
In Autumn 2016, a law has been passed in France stating in its article 30, in 
simple words, that the author of a research article retains the right to make 
public his postscript.
Embargo periods, if any, cannot exceed 6 months for STM and 12 for HSS.
Article 30 overrides any contract.

Best

Serge Bauin

PS For those who like this type of literature, here a translation of this 
article (might be not the final version, but the ideas are there):

“I. – When a scientific text arising from a research activity financed at least 
half by funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, 
by grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
published in a periodical appearing at least once a year, its author, even in 
the event of exclusive transfer of rights to the publisher, has the right to 
make available free of charge digitally, subject to the agreement of any 
co-authors, the final accepted version of his/her manuscript, if the publisher 
itself makes it available free of charge digitally or, failing this, at the 
expiry of a period starting at the date of its first publication. This period 
shall be a maximum of six months for a publication in the sciences, technology 
and medicine, and twelve months in the humanities and social sciences.

“The version made available pursuant to the first paragraph must not be subject 
to an exploitation as part of a publishing activity for commercial purposes.

 “II – If data resulting from a research activity financed at least half by 
funds allocated by the State, local authorities or public institutions, by 
grants from national funding agencies or by funds from the European Union is 
not protected by a specific right or by specific regulations, and is made 
publicly available by the researcher, the research institution or organization, 
its reuse is unrestricted.

“III. – The publisher of a scientific text as mentioned in I may not restrict 
the reuse of data from a research made publicly available as part of its 
publication

“IV. –The provisions of this article are public policy and any clause to the 
contrary is deemed to be unwritten."



De : SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu<mailto:s...@psu.edu>>
Répondre à : Global List <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date : Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:48:52 -0400
À : David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>>
Cc : Global List <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>, Schoolcom 
listserv <scholc...@lists.ala.org<mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>
Objet : Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research 
articles

Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny authors
that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.

Sandy Thatcher

P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP denied
the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind
of serendipity impossible to achieve?




On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick 
<dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> wrote:

We may actually be in agreement, Stevan

You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something
scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just
foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."

I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors
are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+
copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."

We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles
should become public domain quickly.

As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that
directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public
Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not
see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.

David
http://insidepublicaccess.com/

At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote:
The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't
invent it, just adopt it.

And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever.

And "100 years or so of copyright protection&qu

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles

[SANFORD G THATCHER]

Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there
was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted
many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over
$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny authors
that possibility to earn extra income?  Of course, the market for anthologies
in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot.

Sandy Thatcher

P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal
article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies
for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the
public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP denied
the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind
of serendipity impossible to achieve?




On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick  wrote:
>
>We may actually be in agreement, Stevan
>
>You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something 
>scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just 
>foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."
>
>I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors 
>are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ 
>copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."
>
>We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles 
>should become public domain quickly.
>
>As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that 
>directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public 
>Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not 
>see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.
>
>David
>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>
>At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote:
>>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't 
>>invent it, just adopt it.
>>
>>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever.
>>
>>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly 
>>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on 
>>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America 
>>Great Again"...)
>>
>>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less 
>>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global 
>>warming in which DW does not believe...)
>>
>>On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick 
>><dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
>>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be 
>>changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short time.
>>
>>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public 
>>Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See 
>>below and also at 
>>http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html
>> 
>>. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy proposal.
>>
>>It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for 
>>profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection.
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>David
>>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Public Access limited copyright?
>>
>>
>>
>>The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my 
>>newsletter: "Inside Public Access"
>>
>>Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law 
>>to embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense.
>>
>>Â Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has 
>>written a thought provoking book and 
>>blog
>> 
>>article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: If we are going to make 
>>research articles publicly available then we should change the copyright 
>>law to do just that.
>>
>>Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada):
>>
>>"Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this body of 
>>knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other 
>>intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s lifetime)."
>>
>>What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian 
>>government has a public access program that is similar to the US program.
>>
>>The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a certain 
>>time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to 
>>dramatically shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely 
>>research 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles

[David Wojick]

We may actually be in agreement, Stevan

You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something 
scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just 
foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse."


I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors 
are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ 
copyright was misapplied to them in the first place."


We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles 
should become public domain quickly.


As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that 
directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public 
Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not 
see Congress gutting the journal publishing community.


David
http://insidepublicaccess.com/

At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote:
The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't 
invent it, just adopt it.


And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever.

And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly 
journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on 
them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America 
Great Again"...)


(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less 
glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global 
warming in which DW does not believe...)


On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick 
<dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be 
changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short time.


I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public 
Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See 
below and also at 
http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html 
. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy proposal.


It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for 
profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection.


Comments?

David
http://insidepublicaccess.com/




Public Access limited copyright?



The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my 
newsletter: "Inside Public Access"


Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law 
to embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense.


 Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has 
written a thought provoking book and 
blog 
article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: If we are going to make 
research articles publicly available then we should change the copyright 
law to do just that.


Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada):

"Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this body of 
knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other 
intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s lifetime)."


What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian 
government has a public access program that is similar to the US program.


The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a certain 
time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to 
dramatically shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely 
research articles in journals.


As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these articles OA 
(such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder mandate. Codifying 
this existing practice, without the funder limitation, would be easy as 
far as legislative drafting is concerned.


Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it having 
bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care argument for 
OA and the Republicans would like the innovation and economic growth argument.
The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make 
money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to 
them in the first place. We need the present limited embargo period of 12 
months to protect the publishing system, but that is all.


This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an attractive policy.

In fact Congress has already taken a step in this direction. Public Access 
originated in the Executive Branch, but Congress has now legislated it for 
the Departments of HHS (think NIH), Education and Labor.


One possible 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles

[David Wojick]

Stevan,

It is far easier for Congress to change the law than for every US researcher to 
insist on the proper version of CC BY, whatever that is. Plus CC BY still 
restricts use, hence access, for the author's lifetime plus 70 years.

David 

Ps: please forward this reply to the GOA list you posted your reply to.

On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:42 PM, "Stevan Harnad" (via scholcomm Mailing List) 
 wrote:

> The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't 
> invent it, just adopt it.
> 
> And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever.
> 
> And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly 
> journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on them 
> as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America Great 
> Again"...)
> 
> (And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less 
> glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global warming 
> in which DW does not believe...)
> 
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick  
> wrote:
> John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be 
> changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short time. 
> 
> I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public Access 
> newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See below and also 
> at 
> http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html 
> . Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy proposal.
> 
> It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for 
> profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> David
> http://insidepublicaccess.com/
> 
> 
> Public Access limited copyright?
> 
> The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my newsletter: "Inside 
> Public Access"
> 
> Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law to 
> embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense.
> 
>  Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has written a 
> thought provoking book and blog article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: 
> If we are going to make research articles publicly available then we should 
> change the copyright law to do just that.
> 
> Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada):
> 
> "Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this body of 
> knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other 
> intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s lifetime)."
> 
> What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian 
> government has a public access program that is similar to the US program.
> 
> The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a certain 
> time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to dramatically 
> shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely research articles in 
> journals.
> 
> As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these articles OA 
> (such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder mandate. Codifying 
> this existing practice, without the funder limitation, would be easy as far 
> as legislative drafting is concerned. 
> 
> Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it having 
> bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care argument for OA 
> and the Republicans would like the innovation and economic growth argument. 
> The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make money. 
> One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to them in the 
> first place. We need the present limited embargo period of 12 months to 
> protect the publishing system, but that is all.
> 
> This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an attractive policy.
> 
> In fact Congress has already taken a step in this direction. Public Access 
> originated in the Executive Branch, but Congress has now legislated it for 
> the Departments of HHS (think NIH), Education and Labor. 
> 
> One possible objection is that the 12 month embargo period is too short for 
> some disciplines. However, the publishers have had five years to raise this 
> issue formally with the US Public Access agencies and to my knowledge none 
> has done so. 
> 
> On the other hand, some disciplines are only lightly funded by the Public 
> Access agencies. In that sense their case has yet to arise and they can make 
> it in the legislative process. I imagine that if Congress were to move in the 
> direction of public access copyright there would be a lot of discussion.
> 
> Willinsky specifically mentions a Canadian government review of copyright law 
> that is presently getting underway. His book may even be timed for it. The 
> title of his blog article is Let Canada Be First to