USACM Calls on Pres Clinton to Veto HR 2265

PRESS RELEASE

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1997

COMPUTER SCIENTISTS URGE PRESIDENT CLINTON TO VETO LEGISLATION
RESTRICTING FLOW OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION

Computer scientists fear that legislation rushed through in the closing
days of Congress may inadvertently criminalize many scientific publications
that are freely available on the Internet today. They are calling on the
President to veto the measure.

The Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Committee (USACM) said
that the legislation could lead to criminal prosecutions against
scientists, educators and others who do nothing more than share their own
articles on the Internet with students and colleagues.  According to USACM
Chair Dr. Barbara Simons, "This legislation was hurried through Congress,
was poorly drafted, and is likely to have many unintended consequences."

The "No Electronic Theft Act" would criminalize the copying of materials
which are currently protected under the well established U.S. doctrine of
Fair-Use. According to the Act, any person who infringes a copyright
willfully, by the electronic reproduction or distribution of one or more
copies which have a total retail value of more than $1000 dollars, will be
subject to a criminal prosecution.

The scientists say that an essential element of research is that papers
be reviewed by others.  Scientists submit papers describing their research
to scientific journals which facilitate the peer-review process.  The
journals then print the reviewed papers and thus own their copyrights.
Since the Internet's development, researchers have used it to make their
research widely available to others in their field.  According to the
letter, "Under the No Electronic Theft Act, an author who posts their
research on the Internet, and whose documents are frequently read on-line,
could be subject to criminal prosecution."

USACM argues that the No Electronic Theft Act will have a chilling effect
upon the free speech of scientists and professionals in universities and
research labs.  Universities may forbid scientists from publishing their
research on- line, or reading and reviewing other scientist's research
on-line, to avoid the potential of massive copyright litigation.

According to Dr. Simons "This legislation is clearly contrary
to the White House's stated goal of avoiding Internet regulation. We
believe it is inconsistent with the Administration's policy to promote
dramatically expansive laws for the Internet where other less burdensome
means may be available to address copyright concerns."

The Association for Computing (ACM) is the largest and oldest professional
association of computer scientists in the United States.  ACM's U.S. Public
Policy Committee (USACM) facilitates communications between computer
scientists and policy makers on issues of concern to the computing community.

For more information, Please contact:


Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM: 408/256-3661, simons@VNET.IBM.COM
David Farber, USACM:  215/898-9508, farber@cis.upenn.edu
Lauren Gelman, Associate Director, USACM, 202/544-4859, gelman@acm.org

http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/

_____________________
November 25, 1997

President William J. Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Clinton:

	The Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Committee
believes that the  "No Electronic Theft Act" (H.R. 2265), which is now
before you, does not adequately reflect the nature of the new digital
environment and will have a  negative impact on the rich scientific
communications that have developed on the Internet in many fields,
including computer science.  For this reason, we are asking you to veto the
legislation. We agree that copyright holders have a legitimate need to
protect their intellectual property.  However,  we are concerned that the
bill was rushed through both Houses of Congress without careful
consideration of its unintended consequences.

	We are concerned the Bill may:

*	Restrict scientists and other professionals from making their
research available on the Internet for use by colleagues and students.
Most scientists do not own the copyright on their own materials.  Instead,
that copyright ownership is retained by the scientific journal which
peer-reviews and publishes the research.  Under the No Electronic Theft
Act, an author who posts their research on the Internet, and whose
documents are frequently read on-line, could be subject to criminal
prosecution.  If the bill becomes law, scientists may have to choose
between having their work peer-reviewed or making it widely available.

*	Criminalize the transfer of information that is currently protected
under the U.S. 'fair use' doctrine.  Copyright law is derived from the U.S.
Constitution and is intended to advance "science and the useful arts."  The
fair-use doctrine protects reading and nonprofit copying and thus allows
scientists and educators to openly exchange information.  H.R. 2265 does
not explicitly protect the "fair use" privilege which makes this open
exchange of scientific information possible.

*	Chill free speech in universities and research labs. The
terminology used in the Bill, including "willfully" and "for profit," are
not defined; it is unclear what the parameters of a criminally prosecutable
copyright infringement are.  As a result, it is likely that many
institutions will mandate that all copyrighted documents be removed from
the net to avoid having to defend copyright infringement prosecutions.

	We hope that you will veto this measure and ask your staff to work
with Congress during the next session to develop more sensible legislation.


Sincerely,

Dr. Barbara Simons Chair,
U.S. Public Policy Committee
Association For Computing


The Association for Computing (ACM) is the largest and oldest professional
association of computer scientists in the United States.  ACM's U.S. Public
Policy Committee (USACM) facilitates communication between computer
scientists and policy makers on issues of concern to the computing
community.

cc:	Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.
	Ira Magaziner, Senior Adviser to President
	Brian Kahin, Office of Science Technology and Public Policy.
	Henry J. Hyde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee
	John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee
	Howard Coble, Chair, Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee,
House Judiciary 	Committee
	Orrin G. Hatch, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
	Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
	John Ashcroft, Chair, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights
Subcommittee, Senate 	Judiciary Committee
	Mike DeWine, Chair, Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition
Subcommittee, Senate 	Judiciary Comittee
	Representative Virgil H. Goode
	Representative Barney Frank, House Judiciary Committee
	Representative Christopher Cannon, House Judiciary Committee
	Representative William Delahunt, House Judiciary Committee
	Representative Elton Gallegly, House Judiciary Committee
	Representative Bob Clement

USACM Washington Office wrote:
> Computer scientists fear that legislation rushed through in the closing
> days of Congress may inadvertently criminalize many scientific publications
> that are freely available on the Internet today. They are calling on the
> President to veto the measure.
...
> The "No Electronic Theft Act" would criminalize the copying of materials
> which are currently protected under the well established U.S. doctrine of
> Fair-Use.

No problem. The government can begin legislating exceptions for 
people with money or influence, and create another government 
spawned cottage industry.

> USACM argues that the No Electronic Theft Act will have a chilling effect
> upon the free speech of scientists and professionals in universities and
> research labs. 

No shit, Sherlock! 
Were those living in the Ivory Towers of higher (priced) education
under the impression that Clinton only wanted middle and lower-class
Austria, that Reno only wanted Waco and Microsoft, that Freeh wants
us all, but that his Puppet Masters are reigning him in out of their
sense of decency and integrity, rather than because he's exposing too
much of the goobermint's End Game, and making the sheeple nervous?

"They came for the Jews, and I wasn't a Jew..."

Maybe computer cientists should be required to take a couple 
of history  classes on their way to our better and brighter 
technological future.
The alternative, if they are not afraid to step off of the well-lit
mainstream media streets of the Information Highway, is to take a
few detours to the increasingly out-of-the way InterNet roadside 
stands of 'we the people', who are always the first to hear the
loud sounds of the Jackboots from their ground-level, computerized
cardboard shacks. 

> According to Dr. Simons "This legislation is clearly contrary
> to the White House's stated goal of avoiding Internet regulation. We
> believe it is inconsistent with the Administration's policy to promote
> dramatically expansive laws for the Internet where other less burdensome
> means may be available to address copyright concerns."

Golly, now we have Dr.'s named something other than Vulis figuring
out that WYSIWYG is not in the government specifications.
Could it be that the echoes of the Jackboots in the stairwells of
the Ivory Towers are causing the high and mighty minds of America
to feel The Fear (TM) of the average citizen who is waiting for
the sounds of the boots being laid to his or her own door?

> The Association for Computing (ACM) is the largest and oldest professional
> association of computer scientists in the United States.  ACM's U.S. Public
> Policy Committee (USACM) facilitates communications between computer
> scientists and policy makers on issues of concern to the computing community.

They are picking us off one at a time, Barbie Doll. Unless the ACM
is ready and willing to defend freedom of speech for Sally Slut, 
who wants to put 'swingers' pictures of her and her spouse on the
InterNet, then Sally is not very likely to help you tug your skirt
back down while Bad BillyC and his pals are trying to pull it up
as their little government peckers sing a rousing chorus of, "We're
from the government, and we're here to help you."

Welcome to the real world...

TruthMonger
~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix
"WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld
"InfoWar"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/infowar3
"The Final Frontier"

> For more information, Please contact:
> 
> Barbara Simons, Chair, USACM: 408/256-3661, simons@VNET.IBM.COM
> David Farber, USACM:  215/898-9508, farber@cis.upenn.edu
> Lauren Gelman, Associate Director, USACM, 202/544-4859, gelman@acm.org
> 
> http://www.acm.org/usacm/copyright/
> 
> _____________________
> November 25, 1997
> 
> President William J. Clinton
> 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
> Washington, DC 20500
> 
> Dear President Clinton:
> 
>         The Association for Computing's U.S. Public Policy Committee
> believes that the  "No Electronic Theft Act" (H.R. 2265), which is now
> before you, does not adequately reflect the nature of the new digital
> environment and will have a  negative impact on the rich scientific
> communications that have developed on the Internet in many fields,
> including computer science.  For this reason, we are asking you to veto the
> legislation. We agree that copyright holders have a legitimate need to
> protect their intellectual property.  However,  we are concerned that the
> bill was rushed through both Houses of Congress without careful
> consideration of its unintended consequences.
> 
>         We are concerned the Bill may:
> 
> *       Restrict scientists and other professionals from making their
> research available on the Internet for use by colleagues and students.
> Most scientists do not own the copyright on their own materials.  Instead,
> that copyright ownership is retained by the scientific journal which
> peer-reviews and publishes the research.  Under the No Electronic Theft
> Act, an author who posts their research on the Internet, and whose
> documents are frequently read on-line, could be subject to criminal
> prosecution.  If the bill becomes law, scientists may have to choose
> between having their work peer-reviewed or making it widely available.
> 
> *       Criminalize the transfer of information that is currently protected
> under the U.S. 'fair use' doctrine.  Copyright law is derived from the U.S.
> Constitution and is intended to advance "science and the useful arts."  The
> fair-use doctrine protects reading and nonprofit copying and thus allows
> scientists and educators to openly exchange information.  H.R. 2265 does
> not explicitly protect the "fair use" privilege which makes this open
> exchange of scientific information possible.
> 
> *       Chill free speech in universities and research labs. The
> terminology used in the Bill, including "willfully" and "for profit," are
> not defined; it is unclear what the parameters of a criminally prosecutable
> copyright infringement are.  As a result, it is likely that many
> institutions will mandate that all copyrighted documents be removed from
> the net to avoid having to defend copyright infringement prosecutions.
> 
>         We hope that you will veto this measure and ask your staff to work
> with Congress during the next session to develop more sensible legislation.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Dr. Barbara Simons Chair,
> U.S. Public Policy Committee
> Association For Computing
> 
> The Association for Computing (ACM) is the largest and oldest professional
> association of computer scientists in the United States.  ACM's U.S. Public
> Policy Committee (USACM) facilitates communication between computer
> scientists and policy makers on issues of concern to the computing
> community.
> 
> cc:     Vice President Albert Gore, Jr.
>         Ira Magaziner, Senior Adviser to President
>         Brian Kahin, Office of Science Technology and Public Policy.
>         Henry J. Hyde, Chair, House Judiciary Committee
>         John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee
>         Howard Coble, Chair, Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee,
> House Judiciary         Committee
>         Orrin G. Hatch, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
>         Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
>         John Ashcroft, Chair, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights
> Subcommittee, Senate    Judiciary Committee
>         Mike DeWine, Chair, Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition
> Subcommittee, Senate    Judiciary Comittee
>         Representative Virgil H. Goode
>         Representative Barney Frank, House Judiciary Committee
>         Representative Christopher Cannon, House Judiciary Committee
>         Representative William Delahunt, House Judiciary Committee
>         Representative Elton Gallegly, House Judiciary Committee
>         Representative Bob Clement

CypherPunks Press <cp@dev.null> writes:
> Golly, now we have Dr.'s named something other than Vulis figuring
> out that WYSIWYG is not in the government specifications.

Did somebody say "Dr. Atila T. Hun"?  Not to mention Dr. Fred Cohen.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps