Copyright and Open Access: Reconsidering University Ownership of Faculty Research

In 2001, a group of prominent scientists urged a boycott of scholarly journals that refused to provide free online access to research articles within six months after publication. In an open letter to colleagues they pledged to publish in, edit or review for, and personally subscribe to only those scholarly and scientific journals that complied with their demand. They defended their stand with the proposition that [a]s scientists, we are particularly dependent on ready and unimpeded access to our published literature, the only permanent record of our ideas, discoveries, and research results, upon which future scientific activity and progress are based. Over 30,000 scientists from 177 countries signed the pledge to boycott. It did not work. Librarians are also unhappy with the current state of scholarly publishing. An annual subscription to some academic journals exceeds $20,000, forcing many university libraries to cancel hundreds of titles.4 The irony of the current system is not lost on university administrators, who complain that commercial publishers obtain research papers for free from university faculty, enlist other faculty as unpaid referees and editors, and then charge exorbitant prices to sell the results back to the universities that paid for the research in the first place. The benefits of open access to scholarly research seem largely beyond debate. Whether that access can be achieved without seriously disrupting the production and publication of scholarly research, however, is a different matter. Proposals have generally taken two forms. One advocates reliance on a new generation of open-access journals committed to offering free online access to users. Funding, and the reluctance of researchers to forgo the prestige of publishing in established journals, pose major challenges for this approach. Another approach centers on self-archiving —the deposit by authors of published articles in an accessible electronic archive, whether a personal website, institutional repository, or discipline-wide archive. Here the law of copyright presents a major obstacle. Researchers typically assign the copyright in their work to the journal that has agreed to publish it. Any subsequent uploading of the work by a self-archiving author to a publicly accessible website may well infringe the publisher\u27s copyright. The usual rejoinder urges faculty to be better stewards of their copyrights. However, even researchers knowledgeable about copyright are a poor bargaining match for the giant commercial publishers that dominate the industry. This Article makes a more controversial suggestion. Universities should exercise their legal right to claim ownership of copyright in the research publications produced by their faculty. Only universities can wield sufficient leverage to compel fundamental change in scholarly publishing. Although traditionally an anathema to faculty, university ownership of copyright in research can be implemented without undermining academic freedom or the economic and reputational interests of university faculty

Dean Harvey Perlman

A tribute to Professor Harvey Perlman and his accomplishments as dean of the University of Nebraska College of Law

Fair\u27s Fair: An Argument for Mandatory Disclosure of Technological Protection Measures

Section 1201(a)(1) of the Copyright Act prohibits the act of circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work, including, for example, by-passing password protection or encryption intended to restrict access to paying customers. Section 1201(a)(2) prohibits the manufacture or sale of any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing access controls on copyrighted works. Additionally, § 1202(b) prohibits the manufacture or sale of products, devices or services primarily designed to circumvent a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner --for example, a technological measure intended to prevent reproduction of a copyrighted work. Both the justification and breadth of the anti-circumvention provisions were quickly challenged. The ban against circumvention devices, for example, can prevent many users from making a fair use of protected works. The problem illustrates a more general threat. A legal prohibition against circumventing the protective measures adopted by copyright owners leaves those owners with virtually absolute control over the terms of use. Technological restrictions backed by the force of law, coupled with contractual restraints imposed on users as a condition of granting access, allow owners to avoid the limitations on their control that have defined the traditional balance of copyright law--limitations like first sale, fair use, and the absence of protection for facts and ideas. Few dispute that the law should be alert to insure adequate incentive to create in the face of new technologies for reproduction and dissemination. However, if the fundamental goal of copyright remains the Progress of Science , as the Supreme Court continues to assure us, leaving copyright owners with complete control over every use of their work is probably not for the best. The courts are not likely to take the lead in preserving an efficient balance between protection and access; poor public policy is not itself unconstitutional. Congress too is unlikely to withdraw or substantially reduce the support it has extended to technological self-help measures through the DMCA. One means of maintaining a reasonable equilibrium between owners and users does remain. The system runs on the users\u27 money. The market for works, if functioning properly, can provide users with the leverage to insure adequate access. If owners wrap their works too tightly, users can decline to buy. However, the power that users can exert through the market depends on the quality of the information they have about the existence and effect of the technological protective measures deployed by owners. Owners should be required to disclose that information as the price for invoking the DMCA\u27s protection against circumvention and circumvention devices. After examining the legal and political background of the anti-circumvention rules, this article analyzes the economics of disclosure and proposes a version of mandatory disclosure that appears consistent with both the objectives of the DMCA and the legitimate expectations of users

Dean Harvey Perlman

A tribute to Professor Harvey Perlman and his accomplishments as dean of the University of Nebraska College of Law

Umbilical Cord Tissue-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Inhibit T Cell Response to Peptide

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) have been shown to possess immunomodulatory properties that highlight their potential as a cellular therapy for autoimmune disease. We propose to examine the in vitro potential of stem cells derived from umbilical cord tissue to suppress the effector functions of human auto-reactive T cells. While the mechanism(s) of suppression of T cell function are not fully understood, it has been hypothesized that MSC-derived immunosuppressive soluble factors and cell-to-cell contact are important. We developed an in vitro culture assay to assess the effects of umbilical cord derived MSC (TC-MSC) on T cell function. Various doses of low-passage TC-MSCs were adhered to collagen-coated 96 well plates or in the lower chamber wells of transwell plates. HLA-matched EBV transformed B cells were pulsed +/- with appropriate autoantigenic peptide and cultured with adherent MSC or in the upper transwell chambers with the appropriate T cell clone. After 48 hours, cells were stained for CD4 and stained intracellularly for IFN-γ and analyzed by flow cytometry. We observed decreased T cell effector function with MSC co-culture and this was partially restored by separation of MSC and T cell+B cell+peptide in the transwell. We examined if prostaglandin E2 derived from the MSC also contributed to decreased T cell effector function. The inclusion of a COX-2 inhibitor in the culture system led to partially restored T cell effector function. We conclude that TC-MSC-derived soluble factor(s) and TC-MSC:T cell contact both contribute to the TC-MSC’s immunosuppressive effects. Primary TC-MSC isolates (with no prior cell culture) will also be tested in this system to determine if they possess similar immunosuppressive effects as adherent, cultured TC-MSC. These studies will pinpoint the functional mechanisms of the TC-MSC immunomodulatory properties on T cell effector function and may suggest avenues of enhancing MSC function in the treatment of autoimmune disease

Law professors want hearing, vote on Garland

Dear Senator Fischer and Senator Sasse, We write this as citizens, but we all teach at the University of Nebraska College of Law. We hold different political viewpoints and disagree frequentIy with each other on political and legal issues. As law professors, however, we share a deep commitment to the rule of law and an impartial judiciary. We therefore urge you to hold confirmation hearings and a vote on President Obama\u27s Supreme Court nominee, Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland