Furthermore, as a follow-up to our previous conversations, Janet Haven from the Open Society Institute's Information Initiative sent me some supplementary questions in relation to their strategy (in which open science may or may not play a role, but it is now kind of short-listed as a potential major strategic element), on which I will briefly reflect here before passing on the ball to you.
Finally, a major scientific society asked me for input about the likely advantages and drawbacks of allowing, as per default, all content of the scientific sessions of their conferences to be broadcast live in any medium, and whether it would be sensible to make this a standard requirement whenever they sign the contract with the organizers of an upcoming conference.
I find the last item a bit daunting for tonight, so I will just link to a blog post on a related discussion (that of how to signal which way of broadcasting a conference is OK) and invite your comments, so that, hopefully, I can send them a useful reply within a few days.
The droit d'auteur is not tantamount to the copyright. The chinese system relates more to Civil Law than to Common Law : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png
Internet giant Google has issued a public apology to Chinese writers and admitted that it scanned books under Chinese copyright for its Google Books digital library project.
The Google books project has also raised objections from authors and publishers in the United States, France, Germany and elsewhere. Google reached a settlement with US authors and publishers last year over a copyright infringement suit filed in 2005.
Further Readings: http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/details/
At a time when we have the technologies to enable global access to and distributed processing of scientific research and data, legal and technical restrictions are making it difficult to connect the dots. Even when research and data is made public, it’s often locked up by regimes or contracts that prohibit changing file formats or languages, integrating data, semantic enrichment, text mining and more. These restrictions sharply limit the impact of published research, and prevent us from exploiting the potential of the Web for accelerating scientific discovery.
This video released by Creative Commons explains how you can contribute to a global cultural heritage and at the same time exercise copyrights to have a say on how your contributions live on when taken up by others.
Just stumbled upon this interesting suggestion - copyrights should be taxed:
This way, copyright claims would be treated more similarly to patent claims (upholding which requires substantial fees), and incentives would be provided to transfer copyrighted material (such as research articles) into the public domain.