Scientists Realizing That EU Ruling On Copyright & Links Just Made Science Much More Difficult
from the to-promote-the-progress-of-science dept
Last week, we wrote about a terrible copyright ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU, which basically says that any for-profit entity that links to infringing material can be held liable for direct infringement, as the "for-profit" nature of the work is seen as evidence that they knew or should have known the work was infringing. We discussed the problems with this standard in our post, and there's been a lot of commentary on what this will mean for Europe -- with a variety of viewpoints being expressed. One really interesting set of concerns comes from Egon Willighagen, from Maastricht University, noting what a total and complete mess this is going to be for scientists, who rarely consider the copyright status of various data as databases they rely on are built up:Now, realize that in many European Commission funded projects, with multiple partners, sharing IP is non-trivial, ownership even less (just think about why traditional publishers require you to reassign copyright to them! BTW, never do that!), etc, etc. A lot of funding actually goes to small and medium sized companies, who are really not waiting for more complex law, nor more administrative work.A recipe for disaster indeed.
A second realization is that few scientists understand or want to understand copyright law. The result is hundreds of scholarly databases which do not define who owns the data, nor under what conditions you are allowed to reuse it, or share, or reshare, or modify. Yet scientists do. So, not only do these database often not specify the copyright/license/waiver (CLW) information, the certainly don't really tell you how they populated their database. E.g. how much they copied from other websites, under the assumption that knowledge is free. Sadly, database content is not. Often you don't even need wonder about it, as it is evident or even proudly said they used data from another database. Did they ask permission for that? Can you easily look that up? Because you are now only allowed to link to that database until you figured out if they data, because of the above quoted argument. And believe me, that is not cheap.
Combine that, and you have this recipe for disaster.
This is, of course, not the first time we've noted the problems of intellectual property in the science world. From various journals locking up research to the rise of patents scaring off researchers from sharing data, intellectual property keeps getting in the way of science, rather than supporting it. And that's extremely unfortunate. I mean, after all, in the US specifically, the Constitution specifically says that copyrights and patents are supposed to be about "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts."
Over and over again, though, we see that the law has been twisted and distorted and extended and expanded in such a way that is designed to protect a very narrow set of interests, at the expense of many others, including the public who would benefit from greater sharing and collaboration and open flow of data among scientific researchers. Having the CJEU make things worse in Europe isn't going to help Europe compete -- and, unfortunately, it does not look like those in Europe looking to update its copyright laws understand any of this yet.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedantry time
For those of you who don't regularly parse 18th century English, a modern translation of that line is "promoting the progress of knowledge and applied science."
Still fits, but not quite in the way it appears at first glance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I still think "home cooking is killing restaurants and it tastes delicious" and that everybody should "download a car" when possible.
Ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Science and Protectionism
As a person with more than one college degree in Engineering, I've tried for years to pin-down ANYONE who can point to a reputable sampling source, and get a copy of their 'green-bar data' (the raw readings themselves). Ever since the owner of the Weather Channel flat-out claimed in the mid-2000's that 'Climate Change is a Farce'. I wanted to see the data, understand the data, chart the data and try to understand why their 'Ice Age' never came, nor did 6-foot sea level rises arrive by 2000. I wanted to fathom how they could be so 'off' about their predictions, but have such wisdom from 'so much collected data' that it took multiple mainframes to crunch it all. The answer I have found, after 10 years of searching, is that either 1.) the data really doesn't exist at all; 2.) the data is so conflicting it is highly interpretational to any who sees it; or 3.) that it just flat-out doesn't support what they are claiming.
While point number 2 speaks to 'depends on what the data is, where it was collected and who owns it', point number 3 says that upon disclosure, it would refute everything they are trying to push. Both 2 and 3 say that it is privately held, fiercely protected, and thus, might even be considered 'national security' in interest.
Either way, you can't get to it, you're not going to be allowed to look at it, and you can forget asking. NOW BELIEVE THE PARROTS AND STOP DOUBTING IT. This is what protectionism over information will get you - be a sheep, or get slaughtered in the court of public opinion. It really does have a purpose (data being owned and protected), and it is NOT IN YOUR BEST INTEREST that this is allowed to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science and Protectionism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Science and Protectionism
Now those satellite readings do show the earth is getting warmer... just slightly. What that means remains to be seen. And we almost certainly will see as humans don't seem to be in any hurry to do anything about the temps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Science and Protectionism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Science and Protectionism
Yeah... no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science and Protectionism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Science and Protectionism
And thats were the experts in any field come in. Climate science has spent years investigating the various adjustments needed to bring data in line with all the other sources. Papers get published and peer reviewed. Later scientists repeat experiments. Further experiments refine the data. THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS.
The fact is climate data is always being revised as methods improve. And almost without fail those adjustments make the situation worse not better. Of course when adjustments do improve the situation certain media outlets jump on the stories as proof that every other study is wrong.
Anyone can repeat these experiments, papers are widely published and available for anyone who really wants to.
So 1) Isn't true. It's easy to find
2) That is why it takes years of study and experiment to understand the data
3) It does support what they are saying to a high degree of certainty. Models change regularly as new science becomes available.
And this is why the EU ruling is such a problem. It will take the information out of public view making people even more distrusting of how Science works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scientists publish findings for individuals to share and build upon. Hollywood publishes movies for individuals to pay for without reusing.
Scientists do their jobs for the greater good. Hollywood does their jobs for the greater dollar.
And both are doing the right thing with respect to their fields. Copyright and IP are simply not equipped for a one size fits all approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LINK BLOCKING JUJITSU
.
Like someone versed in jujitsu/ judo would effect!... using the "accumulated momentum" of an opponent who is determined to strike, can be used to unbalance that opponent! Thusly, using the MAXIMUM WEIGHT of such an opposing force as I've described, could topple the "OPPONENT" to linking! In other words, the bigger the opponent, THE HARDER THE LANDING! Let us pursue the issue of "link blocking" IN ITS EXTREME FORM!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sharing of scientific data
"The project started with the philosophy that much academic information should
be freely available to anyone. It aims to allow information sharing within
internationally dispersed teams, and the dissemination of information by
support groups."
The CJEU has outlawed the founding philosophy of the Web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]