 Ja, mach du. Mach du alles, ne? Super. Sehr schön. Das ist ein bisschen... Auf der... Super. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, aber gar nicht. Ja, aber... Ja, aber... Ja, das ist... Ja, mach mal. Ja, mach mal. Ja, mach mal. Ja, ja. Ja, mach mal. Das ist gut. You can upload it on the page. On the page. Da ist ein Dropbox. Ja, you can upload it. So, das ist gut. Ja? Super. Ja, sehr schön. Das war sehr gut. Sehr gut. Okay, das mach mal. Ja, mach mal. Ja, mach mal. Mach mal. Ja, mach mal. Mach mal. Mach mal. Mach mal. Mach mal. Das ist nur schön. Hallo! Hallo! Okay, ich bin hier. Ja, los! Kommt auf die Kamera. Okay. Ja. Perfekt. So, wie war's lunch? Ich hab's schon gemacht. Ich hab's schon gemacht. Ich hab's schon gemacht. Ich hab's schon gemacht. Ich hab's schon gemacht. Perfekt. So, wie war's lunch? Nice. Ja, gut. So, ihr're really lucky, we're having this sunny weather here at campus. This campus can be a little bit depressing, due to the lack of greenery, where the weather is bad, but so hopefully tomorrow it will be nice too. We're still trying to figure out a location nearby, when we have lunch together, so we will announce this at the afternoon proceeds. For now, I would like to welcome you back, so in case the camera on. Ja, ja, super. And I'm very excited to announce Philip Huma, who used to be a researcher here. And can we get in English? Then it's the Martin for IPIT Law. IPIT Law together, he was working together with Professor Martin Binner, who is also part of our research institute. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today. And Philip is now at the University in Krims. And even though he has a super busy schedule, he agreed to come here today. And I'm very happy, it's our only legal talk. I hope that we will get some legal foundations of all the discussions around IP Law and maybe also around open access and how this can be interpreted. I'm not a lawyer. However, I have come to understand that the current IP Law that is being applied for scientific publishing, not everybody agrees that this should be interpreted this way. So maybe you can invite us a little bit, plus other use cases. Thank you. So thanks for the introduction. I will do my best. Thanks for the invitation. I'm very excited to speak here on this conference topic of academic publishing, copyright foundations and challenges. As mentioned, my main field of research is copyright law. And at the University of Krims we are also having a comprehensive research project on a blockchain implemented solution. It's called Data Market Austria, where we are working together with the Austrian Institute of Technology and with stakeholders from the business environment to provide a data trading platform which combines legal methods and also technical implementations of blockchain technology to make a sound and safe environment for trading data in the Austrian economy. So, it's very interesting for me to speak on copyright foundations here. I want to address challenges and potentials that I perceive when we talk about blockchain technology technical solutions and open science and science in general and want to especially focus on the perspective of copyright. So, when we talk about copyright in science in general it is always important to stress the basic principle that there is no copyright protection in the information, in ideas, in the knowledge, in the historical technical facts in data itself, so all of these subjects are not protected by copyright. These are the core principles of knowledge transfer of knowledge dissemination so there should not be a monopoly on these core aspects of knowledge of knowledge so there is no protection in this element, which also means whenever we talk about taking the information in knowledge of something that is protected and we take just the information, just the ideas, the principles out of it, this is not subject to copyright. However, we are very soon getting into the sphere of copyright protection so when we then talk about something that is protected by copyright, when we not take these core subjects, the information itself, but the information, the idea, the knowledge in the mediated version so whenever we have information that is now conveyed in a mediated form for example in a written document or in a oral speech or in pictures, then of course in copyright protection and copyright protection requires protected works, I just listed the most important for therefore the academic sphere for scientific publishing indicated the Austrian provisions the same was true for the German provisions of course the paragraphs are different, but in fact it's the same legal situation also in the other European countries the basic principles also on the international level you of course can have literary works protected by copyright, written documents, novels, scientific articles, papers, whatsoever oral speeches this also contains computer programs also computer programs, of course very important for science also protected as literary works in copyright also protection for diagrams, scientific, technical drawings illustrations, tables whatsoever so a wide area of works that can be protected as literary works we then of course can also have works from fine arts when we think of research papers, articles that may contain photographies so somebody took photography and inserted it in a research paper protected as a work of fine art in digital environment where we also can have moving images we talk about cinematographic works and that's also very important for science papers for articles we can also have collections so when we then have a research paper that's compiling also data and puts it together in a database and also this database itself can be protected by copyright the basic requirement for copyrights to subsist in this protected subject matter is that the elements constitute an original intellectual creation so what does this mean this means that it needs to be original in whatever form the courts usually interpret this not very strict which means they usually set a very low threshold of originality which means everything is protected that somehow contains the personality of the author which means as soon as the author has some room for unfolding his creativity which means that another person who may convey the same information might not do it in the same exact way for example when we write something down then we have copyright protection the European Court of Justice stated that when we have press articles and we take some extracts out of press articles we even may have copyright protection when we take 11 words so when we think of written documents as soon as we're talking about not only taking specific single words which are not protected but longer sequences like a sentence paragraph or whatever as soon as there is a succession of 11 words we regularly have copyright protection and so this illustrates that we're very soon and very fast talking about copyrights taking place in the scientific sphere now I want to address some potentials that I have received for blockchain implemented solutions in the copyright sphere I have compiled a first list of possibilities under the label of transparency of course we are often talking about transparency when we talk about blockchain technology this is insofar interesting from a copyright perspective as I already said we have a very low threshold of copyright so we have a lot of protected subject matter in the digital environment so as it must be some short tweets that's not protected as soon as we have some succession of words and phrases that's usually protected and copyright originates automatically through the creation of a protected word so it does not require any registration or whatsoever it does not require that we put the copyright symbol next to it automatically whether I want it or not so that's the basic principle and the ownership issues that are resulting out of this out of this are that the authors are owning the copyright which means the persons who are drafted created the copyright protected works this of course can get very complicated when we think of joint authorship because more usually than not nowadays people are working together co-jointly creating something which means if a research paper a scientific article is written by not one author but with many authors co-jointly writing on it then we have joint authorship with the results that all of the authors who contributed original intellectual creations are owning the copyright co-jointly that whenever now they want to use the copyright and they want to allow uses to somebody else they need to read a mutual agreement so this of course can raise very complex ownership issues also when existing works are then now adapted transformed translated whatsoever we also have the situation where we have multiple authorship we have then the adapted arranged work where we have the copyright both the original author is also his original work is still present in the adapted in the translated version but we also have the translator for example also contributed an original intellectual creation by translating in the work then we have two copyrights in this edited work we have the original author who is still present in the work and we have the translator the editor who is also owning copyright we also have can have protection for compilation databases already mentioned and what's more the complexity is further increased as we can also have neighboring rights which are some protection rights for other entities like for example entities who are producing photographs moving pictures of databases so we usually have a multiple of ownership issues in some protected subject matter and what's further complicating the issues it's not always the authors that are asserting their rights that are making use of the copyright because they are usually often granting user rights to publishers to collective management societies so the result of this is that we often have a situation where information who is actually entitled to use the work and licenses to use the work is not clear and it's not transparently stored in a database whatsoever we had some surveys where this was especially highlighted for online streaming services the complexity of the authorship issues so they actually don't know where they can clear the rights for providing the streaming service scientific publishing so when we only have literary works as we may have many many contributors which means that we may have a situation where the ownership issues are very unclear we don't know who owns the rights and this of course leads to transaction costs transaction costs means if I as a user want to use the work that is copyright protected I of course have to identify all the rights holders in my works and I have to contact them and arrange licensing solutions so this can of course be very expensive or very difficult and so a basic provision of blockchain implemented solutions that we are discussing in literature is that it may foster licensing solutions by lowering transaction costs for example by providing information on ownership and also by trusted time stamping for transparently storing the ownership of rights in a specific version of documents the problem however when we think of storing some information of ownership issues in a blockchain solution is the irrevocability of the solution because as we know something is stored in the blockchain I am not a technician so at least that's my understanding it's not possible to change the previous blocks so we may have the problem that we have incorrect information stored in the blockchain on the ownership of a specific right which is then of course problematic as copyright protects the moral rights of the authors and one of the moral rights of the authors is the right to protect the ownership so whenever somebody is contesting my authorship by stating that he or she owns the authorship in the work that I created I can file an injunction against the infringer and I can also claim removal of this infringing information and that's of course I don't know how this can be facilitated in a blockchain environment but I have incorrect information about ownership issues stored in a block and then somebody with the actual author the real author files an injunction and a claim for removal of this false information that's general in my perception the problem when we talk about storing data in blockchain because there is a P-Rise in data we usually think of data as something that is not protected but as I said we are very easily in an area where also data can be protected when we have like text snippets that are longer than 11 words or when we talk about maybe a patent law when we think of 3D printing files when we talk about trade secrets maybe when we talk about distributions of data so there are various IP-Rise which can be which can be involved when we just talk about storing data storing data in solutions that are not revocable which is of course very problematic in terms of complying with court orders that are ordering me to remove false infringing blockchain another issue that we addressed in our research project that's very technical from a law perspective we think a big potential of the blockchain solutions can also lie in transparency of licensed terms because when we have a negotiation process like for example we have our publisher who is negotiating licensed terms with a potential user we often have some unclear license terms especially when lawyers are involved we are very good at detecting unclear terms and detecting unfairities so one principle of solving unclear license terms is that the general civil law says that in bilateral contracts so when two parties are negotiating a contract an unclear statement is interpreted to the detriment of the person who has used it so the person who used an unclear term in a negotiation process then has the disadvantage that the unclear term is interpreted to his detriment in blockchain solutions is of course it can be interesting the drafting a negotiation process can be transparently stored because then we know who actually is responsible for inserting which licensed terms into the negotiation process and we can then take this into the consideration of interpreting the unclear license terms another important aspect that the blockchain can contribute in terms of copyright of course fostering compliance with licensing solutions we have the exclusive rights of the author we have the right of reproduction right of distribution which are at the center of granting licenses of making works available of putting works into dissemination as a return and we also have the making available rights in the digital sphere which are then the basic principles for granting users rights in terms of licenses these are usually secured by legal remedies I already matched them and these are usually secured by digital rights management technologies which means copyright protection mechanisms as we know it from physical objects like these or DVDs the problem of course is these factual copyright protection mechanisms can be circumvented and also in terms of enforcement we have the problem that it's very hard to detect in the digital environment the cost of monitoring uses are usually very high and of course enforcement, legal enforcement in anonymous environment is usually very problematic so blockchain may contribute here by providing watermark digital fingerprints of works and therefore foster license solutions may I interrupt you here a little bit I think everyone here in the room knows that not from a legal point of view but in general that smart contracts blockchain based smart contracts are a DRM tool for us the question is relevant in scientific publishing we have a lot of intransparencies we have a lot of middlemen that are benefiting from the works that are being produced that are being produced by scientists were being paid by the state yet other people the people are paying the taxpayers do not have access to this so I think for us really the biggest biggest question is what are the legal interpretations in that field and because unfortunately you were not here in the morning but we have a lot of startups that are working on solutions to make the processes more transparent more collaborative, more decentralized and the legal aspects of these things would be very interesting I mean you talk about the publishers if we talk about peer to peer publishing the focus of peer to peer publishing where do you see the greatest potentials and what are the greatest challenges when you talk from a copyright perspective you have the author maybe you may have joint authors they are the owners of the copyright and they cannot choose to grant licenses they may choose to publish which means granting licenses to third parties with maybe some license terms for providing reference or they may choose a publisher to do that for them so this is the core principle from copyright there are no peer reviewers or whatsoever, they are not involved in copyright we have either authors who are taking the open access view and grant creative comments licenses or you may choose to go to a publisher and grant an exclusive license to a publisher and then the publisher is making use of the license and granting use of rights to other entities what would be in a more complex case because smart contracts decentralized token based decentralized autonomous organizations would allow collaborative ways of publishing where the publisher is the code in the end and then you don't have one legal entity that is a publisher but you have maybe we open it to discussion with those people who are working on solutions I think the more complex part is when we actually get rid of with the solutions we don't need traditional publishing houses less and less and we have token based incentive systems and swarm review where the current borders are not clear anymore maybe some other questions from you guys one way of addressing that is to transfer the copyright to the body the government the differences between European copyright law and UK particularly with the moral rights in the author and my specific question would be because I'd really like to hear your knowledge on this for instance if I'm a copyright holder and I sign a contract and these are in conflict the contract says I will not publish this for 3 months or 6 months with let's say us in this room or with you with co-authors co-authors or with the publisher let's say the DAO is the publisher and the DAO wants to exploit the information for 3 months and the copyright holder so rather than having to transfer the copyright I might sign a contract saying I will not publish for 3 months what are the restrictions between my rights in copyright and now the contractual rights and the moral law for that is this too complicated do you simply have to transfer the copyright over to be able to do anything sophisticated in the blockchain space we have another comment or question maybe we collect this before I had the blockchain my strategy was copyright so if we are almost talking out of it in common law as if I can talk to you but the whole thing from what I've seen this is the emphasis on the opposite of what blockchain is trying to do as researchers we're not trying to stop people from accessing our rights we want them to it's the publishers are getting in the way and what people want is attribution of the fact that their ideas have been taken so I think it would have been the next point wrong for everyone ok shall we now do the discussion no no let's do the attribution ok so my next point would have been I talk now about commercial exploitation but it's also important copyright and also blockchain solutions can be important in open science relation because we often talk about when we think of open science copyright is hindering to my point of view that's not the case because we copyright we have not only copyrighted to protect commercial interests but also moral interests and when we talk about open science moral interests are at the very center of publishing of incentives for example when you think of the right of attribution we here have this living document which you of course know and this requires me to give appropriate reference to the authors if I want to cite this document in terms of copyright I have to cite every author who contributed more than 11 words I do not have to cite the people who just provided some remarks did some editing or some changed the color in the text but I need to cite all of them who contributed more than 11 words that's also required by the citation light also in such open science issues it would be very helpful for me to have like a proof who are the authors of this document and especially who are the authors of the document in the current specific version because if I am citing this paper today I need to have legal certainty because if I have tomorrow 3 other point 3 new right holders who contributed so that I can prove I cited the persons who were the right owners I cited this document and do not infringe the right of somebody who contributed after I used the right so that's also in an open science environment where we have copyright issues to take into consideration I think I'm over my time now because of the discussion I have some other issues with libraries but the interest is more in another direction maybe we open it collect a few questions because I think there are some legal questions unfortunately some of the startups open it maybe we ask the startups how they how they want to resolve the copyright I mean now is the right moment to ask do you rely on CC buy or do you want to haven't thought about it yet or is the answer we just say so we publish the reviews we publish the work and we say must be an open nuts license so that's our way so we enforce if you don't put your work on an open nuts license we are not going to publish CC buy so so when you are using CC buy for this blockchain publishing platforms then you are good but if I use it then of course I have to cite the right author okay it's like wrongly attributed in some blockchain then you can't change it you can't change it and if I wrongly cite them then I'm liable for independent of network agents so if I have a document that says you need to cite this and this author and then I cite it in the way but actually I encounter somebody a third party wrote it and it's a real author and I'm also liable for copyright infringement okay is there a way around that like a trick or some legal trick so somebody who has the best intention if I'm acting in good faith I'm not liable for damages so if somebody entertains damages for me then I'm in good faith I don't have to pay damages but anybody can force me to take like an infringing copy down and if I have made a document and I cited somebody wrong whether I'm responsible or not he can claim like an injunction which means I must refrain in the future and also must correct this wrong information as far as possible blockchain doesn't mean it's immutable it's just like you've got a pile of claims of copyright claims and you've got an audit trail so you can say at this time in history it was claimed that I was the copyright holder but later on we found and you just make a link between those so just because you're using an immutable data structure doesn't mean you're using an immutable legal structure the other so just on that injunction can you give us one example where someone's actually got a court glad for this for this particular thing I don't have examples in the legal exactly the only ones that I know is where it's been a publisher involved but normally you can publish something the only times I've heard of anyone going to court are you willing to take the risk? yeah okay we looked at our chance to gain court I'm sure everyone in the room has gone over the speed limit at some point and thought I'm not going to get caught okay if you're willing to take the risk I mean if the university the viewers willing to take the risk to say we have a repository and we're putting stuff up there there is liability every university does that yeah but they also have to face the risks if something went wrong yeah but they worry all that that will happen is that they'll say it hasn't happened you can't cite an example I don't know an example I wouldn't know an example if you say I'm willing to take all the risk I mean I'm talking about the legal situation yeah but there's legal it's real life yeah it's your decision to take them can I ask you a question we have for example here two guys who are building science route and you gave your presentation before so when you are building your platform or your solution when it comes to copyright issues etc do you have do you have experts you work with to code the law existing laws into your solutions or are you building how are you conducting the design of your system we don't have experts at the moment we plan also to see as we go okay so I think yeah seriously be hiring so I think the big potential correct me if I'm wrong and basically what you've been saying is that we have existing copyright laws and smart contracts or this technology allows us to embed enforcement or embed these rules into a smart contract which has the advantage that is also auto enforceable and then I don't have to think about compliance and everything happens on the fly and if lawyers work together with software developers this would be perfect because I think and this is why we invited you there is a body of knowledge and there is actually a real life and law that you need to know this the reality of existing laws and designs according to this I see the challenge and please could you elaborate on this is that we live in a world of national legal silos and I see the problems much more in that and maybe you could answer yeah that's true we don't have an international copyright yet blockchain is like kind of as the next generation internet or as the driver in the next generation internet in the decentralized web and it's like which law applies in a peer to peer network of actors and how can we consolidate or can we consolidate at all because startups want to build things now before there is legal certainty and your role is to say what could happen in the worst case scenario and this is the discussion that we are having right now so are there any practical tips that you can give like building a decentralized system that should be applicable in all jurisdictions is there the possibility at all or what should we focus on currently we don't have an international not even European harmonized copyright law we have 28 different copyright systems in the European Union which are harmonized to a certain level but of course if I'm now making a work available on the internet which means I put something on the internet and that's available on a worldwide basis I may infringe the copyright in every country where the work can be downloaded which means I actually if I make something available on a worldwide basis I have to comply with all of the copyrights in all countries where the work can be downloaded that's the reason why we have geoblocking where we have some geographical restrictions for making it available only in specific in specific countries for example I actually wanted to talk about maybe some fields of copyright law where the technology may come in so of course you may say this is only a theoretical major but that's the law that's why I'm trying to get a life rule in my point of view it's not advisable to just build like a technological environment that doesn't care about the law YouTube did it as well and now they're changing the European copyright law that YouTube becomes compliant but my point is that people aren't wanting to use the law in the way that it was traditionally used they want them to do it differently so it's not people saying oh I want to stop people from using it I want to facilitate people to use it but that's what this is the example of creative commons it's not even impossible this is like a contract that's just made on the fake so like with moral rights you can completely undermine creative commons like publishing my artworks and creative commons but someone uses my artwork in a context that I disagree with and so against the context of that artwork I can take it to court of a creative moral right this happens a lot with art I don't know so much about academic papers but even though it's publishing creative commons it's free to reuse as well you can still undermine the framework of the country so creative commons doesn't even solve these problems there's just some good faith and this is how you go in every picture just because there are exceptions and there will be a bad hat in certain jurisdictions doesn't mean the work by hundreds of lawyers in multiple jurisdictions over many years addressing exactly the issues you're talking about so there's already an organisation that has young lawyers in multiple jurisdictions in copyright we've been through this process already just because there's an odd exception doesn't mean that it's an incredibly valuable tool for the community to use by saying that there's an odd exception you can't automatically enforce these things with smart contracts which is sort of because there's an odd exception automatic enforcement it's all commended okay, so um, to sum it up you wanted to bring examples of where we can use I address these issues where we as lawyers are talking about blockchain solutions so where we can maybe have technical solutions that are and that's not about not all of this is about like in reg uses I mean you talk about if copyright law of the law Das ist nicht der Fall. Es ist nur, dass man den richtigen Insektiven verabschieden kann, für die man benutzt. Denn wenn wir über moralische Werte reden, dann muss es sein, wenn man auch über die Ökoscience sprechen kann. Denn wenn ich eine Ökoscience-Ambaristin bin, dann kann niemand einfach meinen Artikel benutzen, ohne mich zu verabschieden. Ich sage, okay, ich habe nicht eine Rehmineration, aber zumindest muss ich gegen die Autorin sein. Und ich will niemanden, der sagt, er ist die Autorin der Welt. Ich meine, die ganze Diskussion, über die Verabschiedung von Verabschieden, und die Verabschiedung von Verabschieden. Natürlich in bestimmten Fällen, aber das ist nicht eine fundamentale Idee. Ich glaube, die Frage ist Verabschiedung von Verabschieden. Die Frage ist, was die Herausforderungen sind. Ja. Einer der vielen Juristiken. Viele Juristiken. Ich finde, es sind die richtigen Autoren, die ich bedenken muss, die mit der Verabschiedung von Verabschieden, dass ein Werk vielleicht unter der Komplexität der Verabschiedung von Verabschiedern ist. Aber die richtigen Autoren, wenn du das in den Code embedest, kann das automatisch gemacht werden. Ja, genau. Das ist das, was ich dazu geholfen wollte. Ja. Aber das größte Problem, das wir nicht lösen, ist die multiple jurisdiction problem. Wir sprechen über IP-Blocking in der decentralized Web, wenn wir vielleicht IPFS haben, wirklich auf und auf und funktionieren. IP-Blocking, vielleicht sind es neue Werte für IP-Blocking, aber das könnte ein Herausforderung sein, Geoblocking. Ja. Sobald wir keine Harmonisation haben, wie lange wir keine Harmonisation haben, haben wir immer die Herausforderung, wenn wir etwas Available machen in einem speziellen Land, in dem das nicht von der Verabschiedung oder mit den Lizenzen nicht verabschiedet ist, dass die Lizenzen differenziert werden, als andere Länder, da haben wir Probleme. Denn wir haben den Prinzip der Territorialität in der Verabschiedung. Wir haben Harmonisation, wir wollen Harmonisation in der Europäischen Union, aber es gibt viele Unterschiede zwischen den Mitgliedern, also wir sind nicht sehr weit, in terms of Harmonisation, aber an der internationalen Stelle, wir sind sehr, sehr weit in den Harmonis-Copyright-Level. In der Blockchain, in der Crypto-Cloud oder in der Realistik, da gibt es keinen Weg, zu lokalisieren, in Konten. Lokalisieren, in terms of Restriction, in dem es existiert, und ich muss nur in den Ländern, in denen es accessible ist, kompliziert sein muss. Aber ich kann nicht sagen, ich bin nur Subjekt für die Austrian Copyright-Law und mache es auf der Internet. So, dass es, es kann nicht genau über die Geografik gefordert werden. Ist das klar? Researchers don't care about the Geografik. We haven't since like the origins of the disclosure. Most researchers have. We're doing it 300 years before the incident. I think, yes. So, the question is, when and where researchers would like to provide open access, does that in any way, shape or form, infringe existing laws? For the first time, we have the technology where we have so low transaction costs, where we can make compliance and enforcement of rights management happen at very low costs, where we in the future might not need traditional publishers. So, maybe two more questions? Yes. Would it maybe possible to create a copyright exactly for blockchain technologies for open science? Yeah. You have a special license exactly for this purpose. Of course you can draft, of course you can draft a special license specifically for using academic words. But you still have the problem, if you make it available on the Internet, you don't know how the Spanish copyright law is interpreting this license or how the Spanish copyright law or maybe the Brazilian copyright law is drafted. If this license is interpreted there, what exceptions do they have? I mean, we have exceptions for libraries, we have exceptions for teaching uses, for private copying, but there are totally different circumstances. I don't care how it's interpreted in Spain. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care ... who has much ... I would say… Who has lots of money, he has lots of lawyers. He cares about the Spanish copyright. I don't care. I provided to the blockchain and I said, all right, we use it if you want. I don't care at all.technic or Failure. And just say, what if you incorporated something… I didn't care about that. What did the затем offers the University ein Brustwerk in der Brasilien-Koperoid-Lampe ist, dass du nicht allowst, unter der Brasilien-Koperoid-Lampe zu machen. Das ist nicht der Publisher, sondern du hast mein Fotograf geschaut. Und bei der Brasilien-Koperoid-Lampe bist du nicht allowed zu sein mein Fotograf. Also ich habe einen Erfringerung unter der Brasilien-Koperoid-Lampe weil du mein Verkauf in der Brasilien-Konferenz in der Brasilien-Konferenz befindest. Wir haben, du hast versucht etwas zu sagen. Was ist das für ein Zeichen? Es gibt immer einen Zeichen, der aus dem Grunde des Submissions ist. Warum haben wir uns das zu meinen... Was ist das für ein Zeichen? Aus dem Grunde des Submissions ist es ein Publikum. Wenn ich das auf dem Grunde des Submissions bin, sollte das nicht sein. Das ist ein Publikum. Wenn du mein Foto in deinem Papier fängst, Saiting me is the author of the photograph, you are infringing my copyright. That's also, that's, that's, that's also, that's... Ja, ja, das ist... Der Tourist fängt auf sein. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Ja, ja, ja. Nicht all, okay. Thank you, thank you. Okay. So thank you very much for coming. Giel Kessler, he is working at the library here at the University of Vienna. And we'll be talking from a practical experience. The daily issues with buying publications, right? Yes. Thank you for this introduction and for that invitation to give some views from the library perspective. Yes, my name is George Kessler. I'm working at Green Economic and I'm working for more than 20 years now in the field of information services and libraries. This is my working space, my office in this building. We are very proud that we have this fascinating building from Saarantid as a library building. It's called the Library Learning Center. The library is in the center of the campus, in the center of this building. And it's a great pleasure to have such an environment to provide the library services. Okay, Blockchain. To be honest, I'm not an expert in Blockchain. I've discussed with Alfred Todes some aspects of Blockchain. I've learned today a lot. But I will concentrate on issues of topics in the library, in the library community. We already discussed open access, but I will not tell you a lot about Blockchain. So, what are my topics? I've short overview and insight. What does a modern library do in the time of the internet and in the time of electronic resources? I would like to emphasize on the most important communication tool in science. It's called the digital system. At the end, I will tell you a little bit about the technologies and the systems in libraries. I also have questions to the Blockchain community, where there are possibilities to work together. Yes. Everything is electronically. The internet is in place. So, what are the libraries doing in these times? First, the library is still a place, a place to learn, a place to study. We have a building with more than 1.500 places. In the morning, the students are rushing in, and in the evening at 10 o'clock, the students are rushing out. So, there is a need for a place to learn, to study, and to collaborate together. The second thing is, as for a hundred years, libraries are collecting and providing content. Obviously, we have now more electronic content and printed content. We have already more than 70% of our budget spending for electronic formats. But, this amount is not only spent for journals, journal articles of these kind of publishers. We have a lot of electronic offerings and financial databases and the data that we are providing in databases. So, we have a broad range of collections and media that we are providing. But, most important, the modern library is a service organization. So, to get the old-fashioned image of the library as a gatekeeper or middleman, we have a modern organization with service-as-service orientation. And we're supporting the main processes of the university and the main processes of learning, teaching and research. So, all the search engines, all the workshops, all the e-learning systems we're providing, all the support, all our home access activities are in support of our organizations and our users that are here at this university. Okay, let's come to the scholarly publishing system. What is the main problem? We've discussed it already in the morning. We have a very high market concentration in the market for journal publishing. When you look at the left side of this graph, you see that in the 70s only 15% of the articles were published by the five major publishers in this time. When we look further to the year 2013, so 40, 50 years later, nearly 60-70% of all articles that are published in Social Sciences and in Humanities are published by five publishers. You know the names of the publishers. It's as if they're spring of nature. They wereched some years ago. It's Wiley, Interim, Francis and Safe. So, these are the major players in the field of electronic publishing for the journals. You see the graph for Social Sciences and Humanities, but there's a similar development for Natural Sciences and Life Sciences, even worse, so the concentration is very, very huge. The concentration, we're not before scholarly publishing, is not just with the journals and not just with the books and ebooks. When you look, for example, at the Elsevier, Elsevier is a huge platform where all the ebooks and all the journals are provided Science Direct, but they have a lot of other services and tools and providing them to the research institutions and to the universities. Scopus is a database where you can search for all the publications of all publishers and have also competing metrics to the impact that they are developing new metrics for evaluating the diplomatic field. Cyber is a tool that they are providing for institutions for the management of universities, to evaluate researchers, to evaluate institutions, to evaluate the whole universe compared to other universities. They are providing another tool called PURE. I think someone mentioned it already in the morning. It's a current research information system where the university can collect all the publications and call their projects there to work. They inquired Plum Plum X was an alternative metrics system and now Plum Analytics and this not just development but also acquisitions of other companies that developed specific things. Mendele was an independent research, independent, how do you say, reference management system and collaborating system and it's all ready owned by Elsevier. SSRN and PPRESS are published independent of Maxis Publishers, they were acquired by Elsevier, I think two years ago. I've been, she's for labs, notebooks for labs. So it's not just in the market for journals and articles but the big players in scholarly publishing I'm trying to do is to cover the whole life cycle of research with several tools and the tools are integrated into each other. There are interfaces between them when you own a license already to science, direct to the scope of society. It's easy to be pulled into the system, into this ecosystem and it's not easy to get out of it. So, why are these publishers, these five major publishers are so strong and have so much power. It's the market structure that is common in other industries as well, information industry, technology industries. We have fixed costs and very low marginal costs. We have economies of scaling place. We have stock network effects and login effects. So there is a tendency in this market as it is with social networks, with telecommunication industry and other industries that there is a monopolization of oligopolistic market structure. But in the scholarly research system there is an additional very strong force that is giving the publishers much more power and this is the incentive system in place in the universities. This is a paper published some years ago in the Common Week in the WIRE Journal. It's a journal from Wiley. And they asked the established economists what they are willing to give up, what they are willing to sacrifice for immediate article published in the American Economic Review, one of the most prestigious journals in the field of economics. So they are not willing to give up their right arm but the result of this research was that they are willing to give more than half of their time. Without cheating they can have immediate publication in this journal highlighted. And I think this is very important to discuss when we are talking about disrupting the publishing system because we heard in the morning that there are initiatives, for example to pay the authors for their content. But this research gives them a hint that it's not that they want to be paid. They are even prepared to sacrifice their health because they get something for it. They get no financial reward but they get social capital, a lot of social capital when publishing in high-rank journals. And this incentive structure is the reason why these big publishers are in place and why it's so difficult to change the system. It's on the personal level also forced to publish these journals because they want to get a job promotion and a career in their field. It's an institutional level that the institute is evaluated by their publications in high-rank journals. Also for the university it's better to have publications of their researchers in these journals because when you are talking to the ministry it's better to have a good ranking and not dropping down in the ranking of international comparisons of universities. So I think there are technical points like blockchain and so, but you also could be aware that there are social, economic and incentive issues to address when you want to disrupt the system. What is the system? What are the business models that are now in place? When you look on the timeline we began in the 90s with single print substitution. There was a print substitution once in each journal. It was ordinary in the 90s. Then began with the beginning of the internet there were the combined print and electronic subscriptions away they were very subscribed to. The electronic format made it possible that the publishers could bundle journals to packages the subject packages or other packages the whole publication output of an publisher for example. Also in the 2000s the libraries began to cooperate to join together national consortiums to negotiate with the publishers together and this is the term that is discussed as a big deal so their national wide contracts with the publishers where I would say the advantage of this national consortiums are that the content that is available for the institutions in this closed system is much more and the payment was increased not so much. In the last years we began to discuss with the publishers not just the reading side getting access to the subject journals but also publishing. So there are now in Austria for example read and publish these in place with four of the five big publishers so we can publish means that we can read all the journals of the publisher and all the researchers of the universities can publish without additional costs open access to these journals. Parallel to this development of the left side there is the evolving open access world with several business models in place began with self archiving and repositories very good there are non-commercial ways to open access where the costs are covered by institutions or by member fees or by the societies and there is the commercial side of open access so the big publishers also implemented journals where they are offering when someone wants to publish open access either by automatic processing charges so paying for each article to be published and there is no subscription fee and the access is free for all or with the big deals that are already mentioned. You can imagine that in the open access when there are big discussions and intense discussions which way is the best to open up the system and to come further to an open access world and all these discussions are under the impression of private sharing from the researchers and piracy platforms like ZAIA and you can imagine that the publishers are monitoring this development very closely and already some legal acts or also technical acts in place to try to put this away. It's not the time now here to discuss the details of piracy and sharing but what you have to say is not a sustainable it's not a sustainable business model but yes maybe we can discuss it after this speech. When you want to disrupt the system and when you want to build up a new publishing system and publisher you have to be aware that it's not just about sending the text from the author to the reader but the big publishers are in place because they do some things good they do the registration and when you want to disrupt the system you also have to meet these minimum requirements to be successful so the registration function of publishing systems is who was the first with this idea it's like an patent system the certification was the research done properly but it's usually done by peer review or when you have a strong brand in the subject fields where peer reviews are not common like the law subject law departments then you have a strong brand for example an editorial board where you can do the certification the dissemination is important the author and the reader wants to have a good dissemination system electronic dissemination system with powerful platforms with better data with search engine optimization use of statistics and so on and as was also mentioned in the morning there is the function archiving so you want to be sure that an article that you have published will be still available in 20 years and you have to build up a system that is at minimum doesn't meet these environments it has to be quick just the work process to be very smooth that your system is accepted and it should be inexpensive not that expensive that is with the big publishers yes this was my point few in my perspective for the scholarly publishing system especially for the for the journal system one slide to the topic systems and technologies in the library the library is not just buying the subscription of journals and giving access to doing the math there are a lot of technologies and systems in the library in operation I don't want to mention all of them and when I prepared for this speech and thought about blockchain and so on I was wondering which of these tools do you want to replace this blockchain for example from the blockchain community where the same is we want to disrupt the system we want to replace all the technology that is in place it's the new internet so the question, my question is which of these tools can be replaced by blockchain technology is it another tool that we are also using for specific functions where the user is confronted is it a tool that is in the front in the back end of the system so this would be my question to you what do you think that library and libraries and library technology and blockchain are connecting yes I'm looking forward for your comments and the discussion I have a question for you to get an idea do you have any metrics on what you spend on journals what we are spending on journals is there a metric that you can apply on journals such as first year um I cannot discuss the figures what we are doing regularly with all electronic sources between cost per downloads and cost per use analysis and looking whether that what we are spending for these resources whether they are also used what this figure is I don't know why at this university we have a very huge usage of all electronic resources and the figures are good so can you give percentages or proportions with this cost per downloads for example oh yeah there are figures when you are beyond one euro cost per download it's a very good figure and we know in the consortia a little bit of usage in other universities so I have no bad feeling about this expense just because the resources are used very hard it is more in terms of finding the market price for blockchain if you are going to charge it I think the problem is it is very difficult to find a market price for electronic products at all because the marginal costs are zero and there is price differentiation in this market so they are selling the same product to a small university at the Fachhochschule to the university very expensive what is the price for an electronic product they have to cover the costs that's the one they want to make profit to make a lot of profit but the individual price of electronic products of other products like flights are differentiating very broad and it's not easy to find the right price it's often a question what are you willing to pay and what is the institution what can the institution be for such specific content I have a question the university is a public institution why is it not transparent how much the library is spending on such resources how is that transparent standard libraries transparent for their whole budget which is split it up for journals and electronic resources and books and so on but not specific applications not specific but alternatives in general library on all journals electronic or in print not books we have not an acquisition budget of around 3 million euros and the thing we are spending 700-800.000 for journals in print and electronic but as I said this is interesting for development for their universities like our universities they are spending a lot of money for financial data and it's more than this some that I just mentioned sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry Ja, man kann das von... Der Termin-Impakt, für Beispiel, ist in der Package mit der Web of Science Database. Ich frage mich, ob die Expans für Web of Science-Database sind? Nein. Der Index ist nicht eine Wehrleber-Alone, sondern eine Wehrexpansion, sondern eine Wehrleber-Database mit der Web of Science-Database. Es ist ein Etho. Es gibt andere Metzger, wie diese, die von Elze Dettel 3 auf der Web sind. Es war eine andere Frage. Ja. Wenn ich das direkt anschaue, dann weiß ich nicht, ob es eine gute Idee ist, wenn die Marketing-Publisher auf den Big Publisher zu erhöhen ist. Nein. Ja. Wir brauchen Kompetition. Was wir erwarten, ist, dass wir einen großen Teil der Publisher auf die Web haben. Wenn es kein Big-Team ist, dann sind es schon Big-Teams. Für Publisher. Was für Publisher? Für Publisher. Also, die Diskussion ist auch in Deutschland. Die Diskussion ist auch über Publisher oder Publisher in der Regelung. Wenn ich das verstanden habe, dass die deutschen Librärier sagen, dass wir genug haben, dann haben wir die gleichen Bands. Aber wir wollen die Journalisten accessieren. Wir wollen die Publisher, die die Publisher betrachten, für alle von uns. Ich denke, das ist eine Statistik. Ich habe kein Insicht, aber ich verstehe es. Ich verstehe, dass es ein Problem für die kleinen Publisher sein könnte. Für Publisher und Publisher von Open Access, die wollen starten und in dieses Business gehen. Denn die Incentivstruktur ist, die Publisher mit Elsewhere, Wally und so weiter. Aber was ich mit diesem Saitis sagen wollte, ist, dass man dieses Problem adressieren muss. Die Incentivstruktur. Wenn die Incentivstruktur der Universität nicht ist, wenn wir die Universität finanziell betreffen, wenn wir diese hohen Produkte produzieren, aber wenn wir, wenn wir, wenn wir, wenn wir die Publisher in einem kleinen Publikum betreffen, oder mit Open Access, dann wird diese Incentivstruktur zu den Fällen des kleinen Publikums geändert werden. Vielen Dank für die Zeit in diesem elevativen Raum, die Incentivstruktur, die wir alle von technologischer Zeit haben. Ich möchte darüber denken, weil es sehr komplex ist, was wir in diesem Raum haben. Aber ich denke, mit den Publikums und Universitäten ist es eigentlich das, was die Incentivstruktur betreffend ist, die Publikum in einem Haus, oder sowas, wenn man einen Konflikt macht. Wir haben auch so viele Recherche selbst. Vielmehr, wenn wir über die Gespräche sprechen, aber wir haben, man kann sich sehr auf die Springer, aber nicht diese, wie Sie sagen, wenn wir, aus Ihrer Sicht, die Finanzen sind auch immer relevant, ich glaube, wir müssen die Budget ergeben. Wenn wir in einer Situation, wo die Autos für die Arbeit waren, für eine Audeau, oder, wenn das Publikum in einer Universität ist, dann könnten wir über dieses additionale Revenue dieses Recherche aber in die Budget der Universität so dass wir ein Incentiv für die Universität lang zu verändern, für das System, wo die Autos sind, rewardiert. Mein Punkt mit der Halftum ist, dass ich denke, es ist nicht nur für die Finanzen, sondern auch nicht für die Universität. Es ist nur für die Sozialkapitalität, wir für die Nobelreise, diese Journal, es ist mehr wichtig, als das Geld, das Sie für eine Art für eine spezielle Politik haben. In einem Weg, als wir da waren, war es eine 100% Backe der Bikbalkonvention. Nein, ich glaube, ich glaube, was Sie sagen, ist komplett, der takeaway aus Ihrem Wort ist, Blocking ist ein Tool, eine Technologie, die vielleicht mehr Publischmethode gibt, die wir in dem Morgen diskutiert haben, aber es wird nicht, wie lange die KPI, die Incentives der Universität ist, in ein paar Publikationen in einem bestimmten Journalisten zu publishieren. Die Monopole dieser bestimmten Journalisten werden nicht gebrochen. Und ich glaube, es ist ein Tool, der die Frage ist, wie man starten kann, bei bestimmten Journalisten, oder wie man starten kann, die Incentives-Systeme, die Universität by Universität, und das andere ist, aber man wird nur das, wenn man Alternative-Systeme hat, die es gelangt und praktisch sind. Ich glaube, es wird ein gradualer Prozess. Ich weiß nicht. Ich glaube, in der Publikation ist es das Gleiche, das wir uns hierher kommen, mit ihnen zu kommen, mit ihnen zu beobachten, mit ihnen zu integrieren, mit ihnen zu verabschieden, vielleicht wird das ein großer Publikation und ein weiteres Projekt. Das letzte, das ich hier habe. Das andere Institut für die KPI, das ist wirklich wichtig, die Dinge wie die Royal Societies in der Royal Country. Wenn man ein Mitglied der Asthma-Scientistik sein sollte, sollte man die Publikation verabschieden. Das Institut hat kein Problem sagen wie das, wenn es für die Science ist. Die Universität ist in eine schwierige Strategie. Aber das Royal Body oder die Science-Body, der Riemann ist, die Struktur der Science sollte kein Problem sein. Wenn sie ihre Politik verabschieden, andere Menschen müssen das verabschieden. Es wird nie passieren, weil die Royal Society auf das Internet verabschieden wird. Wir reden nicht um Geld, sondern um die Menschen zu verabschieden. Wenn man eine Community stark genug hat, um die Intrigenz zu kommen, gibt es eine andere Chance. Aber wenn man die Struktur verabschieden kann, kann man die Science verabschieden. Ich zeige immer, diese erste ICO für den Forschungsprojekt. Wenn wir jetzt Struktur und Guidelines für unsere ICOs und Science oder Ideen für die Ideen und diese Plattform, kann man die Struktur verabschieden. Es ist anders als die Revolution, wie mit den Universitätskommunikationsdienst-Publikums, die der Autos oder der Publikums verabschiedet werden. Jetzt sind wir in der Situation, eine neue System zu bauen. Sie verstehen nicht zu Beginn. Sie verstehen, was es ist, das zu passieren. Aber wir haben ein Start in einem Jahr oder zwei Jahre. Mein Grim ist, dass ich auch in den 90er-Jahren alt bin, wenn es eine Menge Fantasien gibt, was sich die Web verändern wird. Ja, sicher. Das Zentrum der Session-Argumenten war in diesem Jahr in diesem Jahr auch. Und jetzt haben wir Amazon und Facebook. Ja, das ist gut. Das ist das ökonomische Modell der Web. Das ist der einzige Weg, um Geld zu machen. Wenn du das nicht verabschiedest, desto ökonomischer Sustainability für diese Projekte, und wenn du sie erst mal starten kannst, dann werden wir die Web gegen die Web enden. Wir müssen die ökonomischen Konsequenzen des Publikums verabschieden. Ja, okay. Ich bin froh, jetzt John Tennant zu beobachten. John Tennant, er ist der Parliantologist, der Dinosaurs-Researcher. Er ist ein Blogger. Er ist ein Blogger, der Fossil und Schiff ist. Aber zu den meisten von euch, er ist bekannt als der Open Science Blogger und der Founder der Open Science-Multi-Online-User-Quart. Ja, plus enough. Ja, okay, thank you very much. Und er ist ein König, ein Subtitel, das ich wirklich mag. Ja, okay, thanks, thank you. Ja, thanks, thank you for inviting me here to be a bit provocative about blockchain for science. So, I'm going to try and do that quite heavily. I am a paleontologist, so not a blockchain expert. So, fair with. Hopefully you want to open sciences. We've heard a lot about the technical aspects of it this time. Which is like, rigor, transparency, the reproducibility crisis. These were fairly common things that came up throughout the course of today and in past publishing events. But no one's really talked about the socio-cultural aspects of science today. Which are things like inclusivity, equality, accountability, freedom, fairness, justice and truth. And these are sort of like the underpinning principles of the open science movement. Which I see sort of blockchain being part of. But no one's talked about these. So it's kind of strange that we've missed that out. Ja, that's also like my stuff anyway. Also, we haven't really talked much about governance. So when this was announced on Twitter this event. We had a librarian from the U-Tact and the comms wrote to us also, they both chime in and basically say that you can't replace human led governance with the blockchain. It's fairly naive to think that you can do something like that. And hopefully they want to be convinced through the recordings and talks today that blockchain can be a sustainable replacement for current governance structures and scholarly communication. So far again, I don't think we've mentioned that. In any case, I think we're all pretty clear that the future of scholarly publishing has to be decentralised. And not just decentralised, but out of the hands of spring nature and also the hotel in France and all of the others. But as this came up so many times in the conversations today alone, I don't think half of you understand the problems that you're trying to solve. Sorry to be a bit harsh, to get that talk on copyright. So, we've solved for about 300 years through a process called citation and it's worked pretty well. I think someone else wrote to raise that point as well. Nevertheless, I think generally we have the same sort of long-term vision and strategic missions in an in-class. So I stole this from the Blockchain the science website. Things like reproducibility, continuous research and data autonomy, which is a part of governance and through innovation. But the thing which is really confusing me and a lot of researches I speak to is why does any of this stuff require Blockchain? Because this stuff was happening before Blockchain was even a thing. Blockchain isn't like a magic bullet queue. When I ask people why is Blockchain so important, they typically come up with by the way, there are a lot more references in this. So if nobody watches that, then you're not going to understand much of this talk. When people come up and say, why do we need Blockchain? And they give the answer, well, it's distributed. So are things like Torrents, another peer-to-peer network like Wikipedia. It's a mutual point. One thing that the history of science has taught us is that consensus is actually really a good thing. So if you need to achieve consensus to map something onto the Blockchain, that's actually pretty anti-scientific and doesn't fit in with what history teaches us about the scientific process. Do this. I think we're going to hear about that. It does this very effectively already. Safety centralisation. That does this. It doesn't rely on the Blockchain. It's a peer-to-peer immutable network. Very similar to what Blockchain is, but just not on the Blockchain. It saves a lot of time and a lot of money and a lot of effort. Sorting the trust issue is one that came across as well. Anybody who believes that Blockchain is going to solve trust doesn't work like that. Apple, any researcher, will tell you this. Transparency, yes. But transparency doesn't require the Blockchain. Okay? Yeah, there's a lot of VC in Blockchain, which I guess is why a lot of people are at it as well. Just that last week as well, there was a really great research paper, which I encourage you all to read by Chris Arbrook and Rina Van Zelt. They describe a novel method of skilled communication based around more granular decentralized Methods of Skoldy Publishing in an open source Platform based on data. All of the traits with people saying that Blockchain is good for Skoldy Publishing just without the Blockchain, thereby using existing structures and procedures and standards that scientists are already familiar with to basically just do what they're doing in a better way already. I haven't read the paper fully, but I've read about building basically in line with what everybody else is saying today, but just not on Blockchain. So my thing is, you can't just go out there and just stick Blockchain on a scientific concept. I'm not expected to be a magic solution. I've seen papers in Peer Jane and stuff recently saying we're going to solve the gun control crisis on the Blockchain or we're going to solve overfishing I think we need to slow down and really think about the problem that we're trying to solve because you're not going to solve Reproducibility using Blockchain you're going to solve Reproducibility by teaching researchers about proper research standards from when they become master students or PhD students. The big one is about ownership and I'm glad that people just raised the issue of copyright before. You're not going to win in big publishing before. Like, there are deeply entrenched and profoundly corrupt copyright systems around the EU and the US which the entire industry which you're trying to disrupt is going to fight tooth and nail and pour millions and millions of dollars into making sure that you don't disrupt it. So good luck with that. In the EU in particular they don't give a toss about evidence was the EU is taking is basically based on lobbying efforts from the scholarly publishing industry and other media industries and in fact the European Commission they can any research which speaks the other way so you're fighting against an incredibly corrupt system and when you talk to researchers as well about copyright they're pretty low on the knowledge level when it comes to this. So, in order to understand what copyright transfer agreement was they still believe that they own copyright after they have transferred it through a publisher. It's bizarre, if you try to explain to a researcher that cyber is illegal because it breaches copyright although they're not allowed to share their own research papers online because of cyber copyright away they're just like when did I do that and they don't get it and if they do get it often we don't care and we tell people that blockchain is main benefit to a researcher it's all about them retaining ownership of their research they're going to be like well don't I do that anyway don't I have ownership of my work anyway I'm going to be like no and you're going to cry when you realize how silly they are big publishing by the way does anybody here work for spring and nature in this bet we've developed a protocol for what peer review on the blockchain might look like this was a couple of years ago with a combination of authors a few months ago spring and nature decided that they were going to build that so they've already sort of jumped the gun here spring and nature are now officially on the blockchain Fernando and Francis recently joined them as publishers in the world basically building all of the systems that you're designing at the moment except within the current system that you cannot disrupt because of the yeah, that's really bad that goes basically against everything which science needs right now imagine just everything being on the blockchain as these publishers move into service oriented business models you are basically going to be using blockchain based services where you will not only be the content provider but you'll be the product and the consumer yourself and it's the last thing science needs and how long until also they're going on the blockchain I can't wait to see pure cyber high bench scopeless and all of these where you are basically to suck it into thinking that you're going to retain some form of ownership over your research but really at the same time you're just giving it to Elsevier so that they can sell it back to you right now the impact factor came up and journal brands I love how you're all talking about tokenised incentives and things like that not a single one of you has mentioned how to actually get these new incentives recognised in formal hiring promotion and research grant schemes because I just love the idea of a research site but I publish like all of this stuff and I got like 3 bitcoins for it and then they're just like great this guy published so you've got that you're talking about an alternative but you haven't created a formal way of getting it recognised yet and that is again fairly nice to do yeah you have to slave this if anyone has ideas on how to do that not just by creating alternative incentives but by getting research funders to actually manage the development of those incentives around blockchain then you might actually be on to a winner or we could just tell ourselves hahaha yeah build it and they will come it's like the greatest policy that tech startups in the academic realm suffer you can come up with the greatest idea ever and a lot of the ideas we've heard today are fantastic ideas but we haven't really heard much about the people like it was great when Iris spoke and so they had 10,000 registered users already wait till the end but you know how many people actually have a user base who actually use these new services that we're using as a primary like service for publishing and I don't think many of you do and Artifacts built an actual working platform how many users did you get in your first couple of weeks that bit despite the fact that what you built how many uses did the internet get in the first couple of weeks yeah this is slow and it took a lot of development and a lot of web consortia I don't think there are any blockchain consortia yet but yeah at the moment I believe that the technology is advancing much faster than the average researchers understanding of it academics this is just a quick 50% of academics are more stupid than the average academic is that not on syncing most of them don't understand copyright most of them don't understand publishing most of them don't understand peer review most of them don't understand how the impact factor is calculated and it's the system of cultural inertia if there was a way to defeat the impact factor maybe people who have been fighting against it in the last 50 years wouldn't be successful in doing so but we haven't been it's getting more entrenched providing an alternative system that works better is not going to help the incentive system is backwards and we're asking too much of researchers in terms of risk but yeah like you just said people don't think the web would work people also predicted that so we're generally researchers in general are making predictions about the future of technology if you look 5 years ago people said open access was never going to happen if you look 2 years ago the peer review was never going to happen if you look 6 months ago people said pre-printed never going to happen right now people like me are saying blockchain for science is never going to happen and each of these predictions have been basically generally wrong so yeah a lot of people in this room might end up working for those large progressives oh yeah oh they should probably reconsider their career path their career path but yeah people keep saying my target audience are researchers researchers are an incredibly diverse bunch including humanists, social scientists philosophers, political scientists biologists, physicists, chemists all of their own cultural norms social processes different ways of communicating different ways of interacting for each one of those communities to adopt again is oversimplifying things so for example a great example of how not to do that was the initial website which was launched about 6 months ago both of them built really great platforms tailored towards a specific scientific community not only does it make your marketing much much easier but it also means that you can provide tailored bespoke solutions for exactly the problems so when somebody says science is facing a reproducibility crisis that's basically a lie quantitative psychology is facing a reproducibility crisis some aspects of medicine are facing a reproducibility crisis pretty sure no one's tested it for chemistry or physics or geology or anything yet so you can't just say this is a solution for all scientists so the risks of basically I feel like if we continue in the same sort of trajectory the risks of that would just end up replicating the present system including all of its downfalls so we'll just end up recreating