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