1. DIGITAL FAIRNESS &
the FAIR USE EQUILIBRIUM
OR
Grand Central Station Recycles The New York TimesThe New York Times
(and other lessons from the 2nd
Enclosure)
Closing Keynote
Joint Conference on Digital Libraries
Rice University, Houston
May 27-31, 2003

2. [Suggested] Stages of Digital Library Development
Stage Date Sponsor Purpose
I:
Experimental
1994
NSF/ARPA/NASA
Experiments on collections of digital materials
II:
Developing
1998/199
9 NSF/ARPA/NASA, DLF/CLIR
Begin to consider custodianship, sustainability, user
communities
III: Mature
?
Funded through normal
channels?
Real sustainable interoperable digital libraries
Howard Besser. Adapted from The Next Stage: Moving from Isolated Digital Collections to
Interoperable Digital Libraries by First Monday, volume 7, number 6 (June 2002),
URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_6/besser/index.html

3. “There is no ‘left’ or ‘right’
in debates over copyright.
There are those who favor ‘thick’ protection
and those who favor ‘thin’. “
Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyright and copywrongs: the rise of intellectual properrty and
how it threatens creativity. New York, NYU Press, 2001, p.14.

4. “The field of knowledge is the common
property of all mankind “
Thomas Jefferson 1807

7. NEW YORK:
The New York Times has started replacing 70 open-framework newspaper recycling bins on Grand
Central's platforms and in the terminal with cages intended to make it difficult to retrieve free
papers, presumably sending readers to the newsstand. Fifty new bins have been installed with
metal mesh sides and tall, covered tops capped by a narrow chimney slot where newspapers can
be tossed in, but not easily pulled out. Other bins will be retrofitted. The cages have sparked 10
formal complaints from Metro-North Railroad riders, much more informal grousing and a fair amount
of ingenuity to thwart their intended effect.
Riders wishing to pass along their papers leave them folded on the cages' top. Those papers are quickly
snapped up by thrifty fellow commuters…
The Times first asked Metro-North to adapt its bins several year ago, but the railroad didn't want to pay
for the work, railroad spokesman Dan Brucker said. Now that the Times is footing the bill for
the retrofit and upkeep, Metro-North agreed to the change. The Times would not
release the cost, but Brucker estimated it would exceed $50,000. "How many papers do
you have to sell to make up the cost?'' Brucker said. "They have to not have them stolen and sell
80,000 papers at 75 cents apiece to break even, the way I figure it.'' Toby Usnik, director of public
relations for The New York Times Co., said the purpose of the project "was to keep people from
picking through the recycle bins.'' He declined to provide information about the paper's hoped-for
financial gain. Brucker conceded that the new bins held some advantages for the railroad, even
though they run the risk of alienating riders.
“The people who are selling newspapers in Grand Central are our tenants, and they are paying rent that
supports the transportation system, so it is logical to allow the Times, with definite perks for us, to
limit the free papers.''
The railroad first started recycling papers in 1991, saving $413,000 in garbage hauling fees. Almost
immediately, it became the nation's largest newsprint recycler, Brucker said, collecting five tons a
day. That figure quickly dropped to four tons, as riders took newspapers, and recycling, into their
own hands. The four-ton figure has held steady ever since, Brucker said.

11. Federal Judge Upholds
Giuliani's Policy on
Arresting the Homeless
Metropolitan Desk | December 29, 2000, Friday By DAVID ROHDE (NYT) 936 words
Late Edition - Final , Section B , Page 1 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Federal District Court Judge John S Martin upholds Giuliani
administration policy that allows police officers to arrest homeless people
who sleep in cardboard boxes in public; issue arises from suit filed by
Augustine Betancourt in 1997 when he was arrested, held, and strip-
searched after sleeping in Manhattan park (M) A federal judge has upheld
a Giuliani administration policy that allows police officers to arrest
homeless people for sleeping in cardboard boxes in public. Judge John S.
Martin Jr. ruled on Tuesday that a 1969 Sanitation Department regulation
barring people from abandoning cars or boxes on city streets could be
applied to homeless people sleeping in boxes.
. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40B1EFF3D5F0C7A8EDDAB0994D8404482

12. The law, in its majestic equality, forbids
the rich as well as the poor to sleep
under bridges, to beg in the streets, and
to steal bread.
Anatole France
(from The Red Lily, 1894)

13. August 30, 2002 BiodiversityBiodiversityCommonsCommons // WSSD
Market
Law
Norms
Architecture Information
“Modalities of Constraint”
on Open Access to Information
Adapted from: Lessig, L. Code and other laws of cyberspace. NY, Basic Books, 1999.

14. Law Market Norms Architecture
“Doctrine of
First Sale”
NYT vendors
(point of
sale)
Personal /
Common
Property
Trash Cans /
Recycle Bins
Copyright NYT Inc.
(business plan)
NYT
Mission?
Bin
Architecture
NYCRR Code
1085:6
Recycle Value “Fair Use”? Methodology:
Staff Clean-up /
Vol. Deposit
“Quality of
Life” Laws
Re-sale by
Homeless
Charity? Social Safety
Net?

16. A Flexplay DVD differs from a conventional DVD only in that it has a limited-time viewing
window that begins when the consumer chooses to remove it from its packaging. After the
allotted time, the disc becomes unreadable by the DVD player. For more information about
how the Flexplay technology works, click here.
Flexplay Benefits
By utilizing Flexplay DVDs, content providers gain the advantages of increased
distribution control while reaching a broader audience. Consumers, in turn, are
provided many new outlets from which to purchase rental-priced DVDs without the
need for returns or the incurrence of late fees. For more information on the benefits of
Flexplay technology, click here.
Flexplay Applications
Flexplay technology can be used in a variety of industries and applications including:
music, movies, video games, television and software. Flexplay DVDs are also suitable for
promotions and any other applications developed by Flexplay’s clients.
Persistence?  Flexplay DVDs
What is Flexplay?
http://www.flexplay.com/what_is.html

17. “Flexplay” : How it Works
• All DVDs are optically read via a laser beam. The laser beam
focuses through the surface of the disc onto an information layer
and is then reflected back to the DVD player’s photo detectors.
Because DVDs are optically read, the clarity and transmission of
light through the disc’s surface are critical to playback
performance.
Flexplay has developed a proprietary process that makes a
DVD unreadable by the DVD player’s laser beam after a pre-
determined time period lapses.
For more information on Flexplay's proprietary technology,
contact Flexplay at customer.service@flexplay.com.
http://www.flexplay.com/

18. New York Times
May 4, 2003, Sunday
NATIONAL DESK
Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN (NYT)
Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy, are quietly
financing the development and testing of software programs that would sabotage the computers
and Internet connections of people who download pirated music, according to industry
executives.
The record companies are exploring options on new countermeasures, which some experts say
have varying degrees of legality, to deter online theft: from attacking personal Internet
connections so as to slow or halt downloads of pirated music to overwhelming the distribution
networks with potentially malicious programs that masquerade as music files.
The covert campaign, parts of which may never be carried out because they could be illegal
under state and federal wiretap laws, is being developed and tested by a cadre of small
technology companies, the executives said.

19. ''There are a lot of things you can do -- some
quite nasty,'' said Marc Morgenstern, the
chief executive of Overpeer, a technology
business that receives support from several
large media companies. Mr. Morgenstern
refused to identify his clients, citing
confidentiality agreements with them. “
“Software Bullet Is Sought to Kill Musical Piracy”
Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times
May 4, 2003, Sunday

20. • “spoofing”: spreading copies of fake music
files across file-sharing networks…
• using ''chat'' features in popular file-
trading software programs by sending out
millions of messages telling people:
''When you break the law, you risk''When you break the law, you risk
legal penalties. There is a simple waylegal penalties. There is a simple way
to avoid that risk:to avoid that risk:
DON'T STEAL MUSIC.''DON'T STEAL MUSIC.''

21. • A program, dubbed ''freeze'' locks up a computer
system for a certain duration -- minutes or
possibly even hours -- risking the loss of data that
was unsaved if the computer is restarted.
• an attack on personal Internet connections, often
called ''interdiction'' prevents a person from
using a network while attempting to download
pirated music or offer it to others.
• ''silence'' scans a computer's hard drive for
pirated music files and attempts to delete them
• a “Trojan horse” rather than a virus, redirects
users to Web sites where they can legitimately buy
the song they tried to download

22. “A federal judge ordered Verizon to provide
the RIAA with the identities of customers
suspected of making available hundreds of
copyrighted songs. The record companies
are increasingly using techniques to sniff
out and collect the electronic addresses of
computers that distribute pirated music. “

23. U.S.Patents and Copyrights
Congress is authorized:
“To promote the Progress of Science and
the useful Arts, by securing for limited
times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries.”
U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 Clause 8

24. References to “Intellectual
Property” in U.S. federal cases
0
500
1000
1500
2000
"Intellectual
Property"
"Intellectual Property" 1 0 4 9 15 11 56 341 1721
1900-
1919
1920-
1929
1930-
1939
1940-
1949
1950-
1959
1960-
1969
1970-
1979
1980-
1989
1990-
1999
“Professor Hank Greely” Cited in Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in
a connrcted world. NY, Random House, 2001. P. 294.

25. Occurrences of the phrase “intellectual property” per
100,000 U.S. Federal Cases
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1900-
1919
1930-
1939
1950-
1959
1970-
1979
1990-
1999
"Intellectual
Property"/100K Cases
“Professor Hank Greely” Cited in Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a
connrcted world. NY, Random House, 2001. P. 294.

26. Patentable Subject Matter
“any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter or
any new and useful improvement thereof”
U.S. Code Section 101 (1982)

27. Total U.S. Patents
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998
Total Patents
Aharonian, Greg (Internet Patent News Service) 05-28-01 Personal communication. Cited in
Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connrcted world. NY, Random
House, 2001. P. 318-319.

28. “Software” Patents
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999
"Software"
Patent Class 364 &
395 Combined
Aharonian, Greg (Internet Patent News Service) 05-28-01 Personal communication.
Cited in Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connrcted world.
NY, Random House, 2001. P. 318-319.

29. Threats to the Public Domain in the Digital Environment
• U.S. Anti-Cybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act
(ACPA)
• U.S. Copyright Term
Extension Act in 1998
• U.S. Uniform Computer
InformationTransactions Act
(UCITA)
• Digital Millenium Copyright
Act of 1998 (DMCA)
• U.S. Collections of
Information Anti-Piracy
Act (CIAA) (1999)
• U.S. Security Systems
Standards and
Certification Act
(SSSCA).
• E.U. Database Directive
(1996)

30. “Patents proclaim exclusive right of use and,
often, nonuse. The suppression of invention
denies the rationale of scientific production
and diffusion.”
Robert K. Merton, “A Note on Science and Democarcy,” Journal of Law and Political
Sociology 1 (1942): 115,123.

31. Market + Technical Constraints: Information Gradient

32. GDP
$0.00
$5,000.00
$10,000.00
$15,000.00
$20,000.00
$25,000.00
$30,000.00
$35,000.00
$40,000.00
Luxembourg
Jersey
FaroeIslands
Kuwait
Chile
Belarus
Bulgaria
Peru
Jordan
Bolivia
Vietnam
Myanmar
BurkinaFaso
Comoros
GDP

33. 0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
8000000
9000000
10000000
Japan
Poland
China
Philippines
Kazakhsta
Mauritius
Morocco
Senegal
Uganda
Honduras
Tunisia
Northern
Banglades
Hosts
Internet Hosts

34. Internet_Users (1000s)
-20000
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
United
Netherlands
Austria
Greece
Egypt
Lithuania
Bangladesh
Uzbekistan
Sudan
Haiti
Paraguay
Suriname
Solomon
Guinea-
Micronesia,
Cayman
Niue

36. Julian Birkinshaw and Tony Sheehan, “Managing the Knowledge Life Cycle,”
MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (2) Fall, 2002: 77.
And then
?????

37. “The field of knowledge is the common
property of all mankind “
Thomas Jefferson 1807

38. November 11, 2002 BiodiversityBiodiversityCommonsCommons // World Heritage
A definition of the “Public Domain”
“The public domain is a range of uses of information that
any person is privileged to make absent individualized
facts that make a particular use by a particular person
unprivileged.”
Conversely:
“The enclosed domain is the range of uses of information
as to which someone has an exclusive right, and that no
other person may make absent individualized facts that
indicate permission from the holder of the right, or
otherwise privilege the specific use under the stated
facts.”
Yochai Benkler, “Free as the air to common use: First Amendment constraints
on enclosure of the Pulic Domain,” NYU Law Review Vol. 74 (May,
1999):362.

39. “Map of the public domain and adjacent terrain”
From: Pamela Samuelson, DIGITAL INFORMATION , NETWORKS & PUBLIC DOMAIN,
Presented at the Conference on the Public Domain, Duke University Law School, November, 2001

40. Public Domain or
“Commons”???
• A commons is a circumscribed
(limited/conditional) domain of use
• Protects patrimonial / property rights
required by owners as required by owners
• Is compatible with market mechanisms
• Can protect organizational/individual
“moral rights”

41. Public Domain or
“Commons”???
• A commons is a circumscribed
(limited/conditional) domain of use
• Protects patrimonial / property rights
required by owners as required by owners
• Is compatible with market mechanisms
• Can protect organizational/individual
“moral rights”

42. Digital Commons?
Digital resources as “public goods” are:
• non-rivalrous (near-zero cost for additional
increments of use)
• non-excludable (i.e.of potentially universal benefit)
• universally accessible (potentially)
• But economic inequities and newly
emergent legal/technical barriers may deny
these benefits
Reichman, Jerome H. and Paul F. Uhlir, Promoting Public Good Uses of Scientific Data: A
Contractually Reconstructed Commons for Science and Innovation.
http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/ReichmanandUhlir.pdf

43. Culture/ “Norms”: (Civil Society/Organizational/Individual)
Law and Policy: (Intl./Natl. / Private Sector / NGO )
“Architecture”: (Logical -Technical Solutions)
The Commons Framework:
Addresses all four “modalities of constraint”
Market / Economy: (Business Plans and Models)

44. Normative Change: Global Community
• At global scale it is essential to recognize barriers
to free and equitable sharing of data, information
and knowledge
• To accept the notion of fairness as fundamental
to international justice (and thus “fair use”)
• A clear consensus must be developed in support of
the Global Commons
• International Organizations have a critical role to
play as advocates and supporters

45. “The Death of Distance”???:
“denationalization”??? / “despacialization”???

46. Organizations
Networks of
practice
How does this
model apply at the
international
scale?

47. Well… Still…
“Collocation” & “Clustered Ecologies”“Collocation” & “Clustered Ecologies”
• Industrial clusters : South Lancashire
(Norman smiths, 1066 and all that…)
• Silicon [loc] – “Valley”, “Alley”, “Glen”,“Forest”
• “Fashion” cluster (Italy)
• Formula One cluster (London)

48. Knowledge Flows?
“Leaks”? or “Conscious Sharing”?
• Subcontracting
• Joint ventures
• Cross licensing
• Portfolio Sharing
• Collaborative Research Grants
• Universities (as vectors)
• PUBLIC DOMAINPUBLIC DOMAIN // COMMONSCOMMONS
• OPEN SOURCEOPEN SOURCE

49. Normative Change: Institutions
Business Planning”, “Mission Drift” and “Organizational
Self-Interest
– Popular rhetoric of “hard-headed”, “realistic”
“business planning” may confuse programmatic
efficiency, rigor and financial accountability with
narrowed mercantile/ proprietary interest
– These are not the same thing
– Governments and not-for-profit NGO’s exist because
they fulfill missions that are not reliably or
appropriately met by for-profit organizations
– For these, the ultimate measure of success is fulfillment
of mission (not revenue, per se)

50. The act to incorporate the American Museum of Natural History, which
passed the New York State Congress on April 6, 1869, states:
The American Museum of Natural History, to be located in the
City of New York for the purpose of establishing and maintaining
in said city a Museum and Library of Natural History; of
encouraging and developing the study of Natural Science; of
advancing the general knowledge of kindred subjects, and to that
end of furnishing popular instruction.
The 1996 strategic plan, adopted by the Board of Trustees on
December 10, includes the following statement of mission:
To discover, interpret, and disseminate -- through scientific research
and education -- knowledge about human cultures, the natural world,
and the universe.
Institutional Mission of a “Not-for-Profit”

51. Scientific Senate
Ad Hoc Committee of Data Access
Proposed Institutional Policy and Guidelines
on Access to Collection-based Information
Preamble
Through their collections natural history institutions house a permanent record of the
world's biodiversity, earth history, and cultural change, as well as, in their libraries and
archives, a written record pertaining to these subjects.
These collections serve as essential resources for a broad user community, from
scientists and other scholars who seek to understand and interpret the natural
world, to those concerned with preserving biological and cultural diversity, to
countries and peoples attempting to promote their well-being through sustainable
use and conservation of their natural resources, to societies in general through
educational outreach.
Because of the critical services that collections-based information provides to society, the
curatorial staff of the American Museum of Natural History endorses a policy that
makes data freely available in a timely way to the user community, with restrictions
to be noted below.
Collection-based information
For the purposes of this document, collection information is defined to be those data
(whether in electronic form or not) directly linked to the Museum's scientific
collections, including but not necessarily limited to specimen or object identification,
provenance, and disposition, such as is provided by catalogs, label information,
images and field notes deposited with collections, and other associated descriptors.
Excluded by this definition are unverified and preliminary data or notes as well as
interpretive data and conclusions that are derived from specimens/objects in the normal
course of scientific and scholarly research. It is assumed that free, open, and timely
access to these kinds of data will result from standard avenues of scholarly publication
and dissemination.
American Museum
of Natural History
Scientific Senate

53. http://diglib1.amnh.org

54. “Traditional scientific norms promote a public
domain of freely available scientific
information, independent choice in the
selection of research topics, and (perhaps
above all) respect for uninhibited scientific
invention.”
Arti Kaur Rai, “Regarding Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and
the Norms of Science,” Northwestern University Law Review 94 (1999): 77,
89-90.

55. • Individual creators of knowledge:
“moral rights” vested in created work
• Respect for the integrity and original
context (“provenance”) of work
• Acknowledgement
• Full accounting for use
• Respect for legitimate restrictions on use
“Normative Change”: Individuals

56. “Normative Change”: Individuals
• Commons planning must:
• Make careful provision for full and
appropriate acknowledgement of authors
and institutions
• Use best available tools and
methodologies to return sensitive and
detailed measures of impact

57. “The substantive findings of science are a product of social
collaboration and are assigned to the community. They
constitute a common heritage in which the equity of the
individual producer is severely limited. An eponymous law or
theory does not enter into the exclusive possession of the
discoverer and his heirs, nor do mores bestow upon them special
right of use and disposition.
“Property rights in science are whittled down to a bare minimum
by the rationale of the scientific ethic. The scientist’s claim to
“his” intellectual “property” is limited to that of recognition and
esteem which, if the institution functions with a modicum of
efficiency, is roughly commensurate with the significance of the
increments brought to the common fund of knowledge.”
Robert K. Merton, “A Note on Science and Democarcy,” Journal of Law and Political Sociology 1 (1942): 121.

58. “Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as
underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible
without a rich public domain.”
Vanna White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.; David Deutsch Assoc., 989 F. 2d 1512,
1514 (1993), 27. [dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski]

59. ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING IN SCIENCE
SEIZING THE MOMENT: SCIENTISTS' AUTHORSHIP RIGHTS IN
THE DIGITAL AGE
This new report is the result of a AAAS project that examined intellectual property issues
associated with electronic publishing in science. The emergence of electronic journals in
scientific publication has the potential to transform the management and communication
of scientific information, and stakeholders associated with scientific publishing are
engaged in assessing their promises and pitfalls. What seems clear is that electronic
publication is not likely to reach its full potential without a stable legal framework that
balances the protection of researchers' intellectual property with the open dissemination
and exchange of scientific information.
The report of the project describes the challenges that advances in information
technology pose for intellectual property law, and identifies a set of "core values" that
should be embedded in a system of scientific publishing. Those core values can serve as
a basis for defining a common ground on which all stakeholders can build new
publishing systems and legal frameworks. The report recommends new patterns of
licensing that will enable scientists and scientific publishers to build a publishing system
that will promote broad access to and use of scientific information, all within existing
copyright law. Guidelines for authors and publishers are offered for preparing licensing
agreements. The report was prepared by AAAS with the assistance of a diverse group of
experts representing the range of backgrounds and perspectives participating in ongoing
debates about the future of scientific publishing.
The project was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.
For more information, contact Mark Frankel.
Developing Practices and Standards for Electronic Publishing in Science
Defining and Certifying Electronic Publication in Science
http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/epub/epub.htm

60. WHO?

61. Peshawar, NWFP, Pakistan October, 1994
Consider the convergent legal, market, cultural and
technical forces that have shaped these lives…

62. Peshawar,
NWFP,
Pakistan
1994

63. In Pakistan:
Within the past 50 years
32 universities and more than 100 colleges,
training institutes and other specialized
institutions of higher education have
been founded
[Syed Haider Abbas Zaidi, “Higher Education Pakistan”
http://www2.unesco.org/wef/f_conf/000000e2.htm ]
Market + Technical Constraints :Information Gradient

64. College of African Wildlife Management
P.O. Box 3031
Moshi
Tanzania
Fax 255 55 51113
Tel 0811 520360
http://www.mweka-wildlife.ac.tz/
.
COLLEGE OF AFRICAN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, MWEKA
Market + Technical Constraints :Information Gradient

65. From: “xxxxxx” <xxxxxx@hotmail.com>
To: congoexpedition@amnh.org
Subject: RESERACH PAPERS REQUIRED
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 09:54:37 +0500
Dear sir,
I am a student of MSC. Veteterinay Parasitology in UAF(Pakistan).I need your help because of
that these research papers are not available & I could not purchase these research papers which
are mentioned in below list with related to some research topics which are below as
(1) Epidemiological evaluation of cattle lice/buffalo lice(or) Epidemiological studiessurey cattle lice
buffalo lice .
(2) Prevalence of cattle lice on calves (or) Prevalence of sucking & chewing lice on cattle
(3) incidence (or) Prevalence of sucking & chewing lice on cattleI will be thankfull to your if you will
send to me these research papers on my postal address (or) because of that I can not purchase
them.
(4) Taxonomical study of different species of cattle lice. Please send to me these research papers as
early as possible .
Postal address :Dr . xxxxxx House#xx, Street# xx, Bazar # x Razabab, Faisalabad Pakistan
Email address: xxxxx@ hotmail.com

66. RESEARCH PAPERS REQUIRED
1: Colwell DD, Clymer B, Booker CW, Guichon PT, Jim GK, Schunicht OC, Wildman
BK. Prevalence of sucking and chewing lice on cattle entering feedlots in southern
Alberta.Can Vet J. 2001 Apr;42(4):281-
2: Chalmers K, Charleston WA. “Cattle lice in New Zealand: observations on the prevalence,
distribution and seasonal patterns of infestation.” N Z Vet J. 1980 Oct;28(10):198-200.
3: Chalmers K, Charleston WA.”Cattle lice in New Zealand: observations on the prevalence,
distribution and seasonal patterns of infestation”. N Z Vet J. 1980 Oct;28(10):198-200.
[SNIP]

67. Article 17. Exchange of Information
1. The Contracting Parties shall facilitate the exchange of
information, from all publicly available sources, relevant to
the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity, taking into account the special needs of
developing countries.
2. Such exchange of information shall include exchange
of results of technical, scientific and socio-economic
research, as well as information on training and
surveying programmes, specialized knowledge,
indigenous and traditional knowledge as such and in
combination with the technologies referred to in
Article 16, paragraph 1. It shall also, where feasible,
include repatriation of information.
Convention on Biological DiversityConvention on Biological Diversity

68. “Common Knowledge”
Creating the Biodiversity Knowledge Commons
Business plan and implementation strategy
A proposal developed with contributions from
American Museum of Natural History
Biodiversity Conservation Information System
BirdLife International
Conservation International
Global Biodiversity Information Facility
Inter American Biodiversity Information Network
IUCN Environmental Law Commission
IUCN Species Survival Commission
IUCN The World Conservation Union
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
NatureServe
North American Biodiversity Information Network
Rio Tinto
Society for Conservation Biology
The Nature Conservancy
TRAFFIC International
UNEP- World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Wildlife Conservation Society

70. You're probably familiar with the phrase, "All rights reserved," and the little (c)
that goes along with it. Creative Commons wants to help copyright holders
send a different message: "Some rights reserved."
For example, if you don't mind people copying and distributing your online image
so long as they give you credit, we'll have a license that helps you say so. If
you want people to copy your band's MP3 but don't want them to profit off it
without your permission, use one of our licenses to express that preference.
Our licensing tools will even help you mix and match such preferences from a
menu of options:
Attribution. Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
and derivative works based upon it only if they give you credit.
Noncommercial. Permit others to copy, distribute, display, and perform the
work and derivative works based upon it only for noncommercial purposes.
No Derivative Works. Permit others to copy, distribute, display and perform
only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based upon it.
Copyleft. Permit others to distribute derivative works only under a license
identical to the license that governs your work.
Creative commons: Licensing Options
http://www.creativecommons.org/

71. When you've made your choices, you'll get the appropriate license
expressed in three ways:
1. Commons Deed. A simple, plain-language summary of the license,
complete with the relevant icons.
2. Legal Code. The fine print that you need to be sure the license will
stand up in court.
3. Digital Code. A machine-readable translation of the license that helps
search engines and other applications identify your work by its terms
of use.
If you prefer to dedicate your work to the public domain, where
nothing is owned and all is permitted, we'll help you do that, too. In
other words, we'll help you declare, "No rights reserved."
http://www.creativecommons.org/
Creative commons: Licensing Options (cont.)

72. International Applicability?
What legal standing will CC licenses have outside of the United States?
We and our lawyers have worked hard to craft the licenses to be
enforceable in as many jurisdictions as possible. That said, we can
not account for every last nuance in the world's various copyright
laws, at least not given our current resources. We hope, as our
resources and network of allies grow, to begin offering licenses
designed for specific jurisdictions sometime in 2003.
Please note, however, that our licenses contain "severability"
clauses -- meaning that, if a certain provision is found to be
unenforceable in a certain place, that provision and only that
provision drops out of the license, leaving the rest of the agreement
intact.
http://www.creativecommons.org/faq/#19

73. SO, What is being done? : Relevant Projects:
U.S. National Science Digital Library http://nsdl.org/
Open Archives Initiative http://www.openarchives.org/
WHO/ HINARI (BioMedical Information)
http://www.healthinternetwork.net/
Creative Commons (Creative Arts) http://creativecommons.org/
BioMed Central http://www.biomedcentral.com/
Free Medical Journals.com http://www.freemedicaljournals.com/
e-Print Archive http://arxiv.org/
AAAS: “Electronic publishing in science seizing the moment:
scientists' authorship rights in the Digital Age”
http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/epub/epub.htm

74. What the Commons might provide…?

75. SO, What is to be done?
Conservation organizations are asked:
to subscribe to Global Commons Principles.
Specifically:
– To commit to organizational knowledge assets (analog and
digital) to free, secure and persistently available use for non-
commercial (research, education, applied [conservation] )
uses (provided guarantees of organizational and individual
“moral rights”).
– To make implementation of the Commons an organizational
priority and commit significant institutional resources to
Commons development.
– To display the Commons logo as a part of organizational
displays (digital or analog).

76. “Intellectual property law assures authors the right to
their original expression, but encourages other to
build freely on the ideas that underlie it. This
result is neither unfair nor unfortunate: It is the
means by which intellectual property law
advances the progress of science and art. We give
authors certain exclusive rights, but in exchange
we get a richer public domain.”
Vanna White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.; David Deutsch Assoc., 989 F. 2d 1512,
1514 (1993), 31. [dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski]

77. "...organic processes have an historical contingency
that prevents universal explanation."
Richard Lewontin in The Triple Helix