 I'm happy to have seen this morning a panel of experts who seem to agree on issues, which is quite extraordinary, I think, having realized what it's doing on all the stuff. I would very much appreciate it if we can have a lively session. Everything seems to be arranged, but I'm sure there will be many questions if we start hooking at the details for the topics that have been brought to the table this morning. I will give the floor to anyone with a question to one of these picnic experts presented this morning. You see more and more journals that not only publish your publication, but also the data sets that are linked to that, or really the original data set. In Belgium, in our universities like that, the data set is owned by the university because research results are owned by the university while the copyright of the article that is owned by your firm. So how do they have to handle this when they give their rights to the publisher? Then you have the data that they are not owner of. How do they have to do that? And how do publishers have to deal with that? It's quite complex. Can everyone understand the question? Anyone want to see it? I ask you. They're all you. I don't know. Is there a second model called? Yes. Of course the question is to the data is the same as we discussed this morning. First I have to think who is the owner of the data separately from the article we wrote. The question is data copyright protected or protected by the general's wide. If it's copyright protected, which is rather rarely the case, would be the one who collected the data, put the effort into collecting the data in a clear way. If it's protected by database, what is more likely than the question turns out who is the owner of this database wide in the data. Just presuming that data you collected were put into a database. There's different things to think about. First was the producer, the owner of the database wide is the one who took the risks in investment. So it could be the university, the university who paid for this effort. It could be the party funding institution who paid for it. It could be co-producers, co-owners of this rights. If it's like this that they are the owner of this database wide, then they would have to run this wide also be publisher. There's another notion we have to think about. The effort of collecting the data or retrieving the data from somewhere as such is not sufficiently constituted database wide, but only efforts would really go directly into the collection of data for putting it into the database. Anything before that, like for example, I talked about the collection for weather forecast data, meteorological data, very difficult for that. All the efforts you put into collecting this data is not relevant for the database wide, but only as soon as you start collecting directly for the database and putting it into the database becomes relevant. So there's a good chance that the data is free to collect great. It all depends on which kind of data you have and at which stage of data collection you are. Whether they have to be producible at some point. Well, yeah, I'd like to pursue the thinking further. Assume two assumptions. Other, the data is not protected, but the university owns the visit. I mean, they have it. If I summarize your question is that you have two different entities who want to license one thing under hopefully one license. So you have one author and one institution. How to go about this? Question back to you. Does the university of Kent have an own access policy that either the institution or the author have to live by? There might be agreements to be reached between the author and the institution to license both their individual outputs under the same terms, even if the owners are different. I don't think that is the case. If you do have an open access policy for publications, you are still working on policies on data. So what would that be the best way to make sure that they are really good harmonized? Well, apply the 4.0. But also make sure that the university also has an open access policy on research data and by implementing that open access policy aiming at a specific license, the CC By, for example. UK was very drastic when it came last April with the decision. It was the research councils of the UK imposed a golden access, a golden road policy on everyone who gets a grant from the research councils in the UK. Well, that created a lot of turmoil, not from the beta science, but from the social science. And now they're trying to patch things up slowly but surely, trying to calm everyone down, that it won't affect their authorship, won't affect their moral rights, et cetera. But I guess this again goes back to the bold statements that the UK is making together with the text of data mining efforts and efforts to modify the law to allow text data mining. But the RC UK came with the policy saying, well, now it's not the green road. I guess hopefully you all know what the difference is between the green road and the golden road. But the UK went to the most drastic route. This ensures that there's more communality between all the players that they have to abide and live with common terms of licenses and that they go to the same direction. That would solve your problem, I think. If I can just add one observation that probably kind of emerged but it has not been spelled out, is that in these aspects a proper policy is one that doesn't leave the researcher alone. So what we cannot create is a system where the researcher in itself is on the one side bound by this type of regulatory or legislative interventions to public in open access, but at the same time he has, and then we can define the obligation to publish with a publisher who requires a different type of, let's say, closed license, because for example in terms of promotions, tenure, et cetera, that you have to publish in these ABC journals, otherwise it won't be considered as important your publication. So under this point of view I think that the role of the university as an institution and to back up the researchers to tell them our scientific assessment and evaluation will be based not only if you publish in this journal, which is very good but is a typically closed traditional model. But we also consider, and I think this is part of the European Commission's recommendation that scientific evaluation, professional progressions, promotions need to take into proper account the fact that researchers publish in open access. And that's key because you have to create this incentive and you have to help researchers not abandoning them in a situation where there is no way for them to comply with two different obligations, one to go, for example open access and the other to have to deal with a publisher that doesn't want that, offer this crazy thing that they call Golden Road, but it's not, which is the author pays model, which is only one potential avenue for Golden Road. But Golden Road and author pays are two different models that not necessarily has to exist. They could exist most of the times, but that's a publisher invention, the fact that you have to buy back your rights to open access publish. This doesn't have to be like that. I just wanted to, well I agree with Thomas, but I think that I could even say this more strongly that by experiences that most researchers, they don't want to think about copyrights, they don't want to think about licensing, they don't want to resolve all these legal issues when they publish. They simply want to publish and sometimes they just want to perform their obligation to get the so-called points to be able to present to their institution. So that means that not only the institution should pack up the researchers, but I think to some extent the institutions should do most of the work for them. That means that the open access policy should be more in terms of an open access mandate, but not just simple obligation to publish an open access, but also a detailed specification for the authors may be even a choice, a choice of a licence for them or just an explanation what are their options so that the licences are interoperable and so on and so on. So the institution should go not only for the open access policy, but maybe kind of a ready-made tool box for a researcher to apply, to call, for example, to go to the publisher who already prepared draft contract and similar things that the researchers would not have to think or would not have to find lawyers for them. Does the question come first? It's okay. Okay, my question is the following. Yes, the university should pack up this open access, should pack up the way the researcher has to survive within this new era of open access, I agree. But there is a crucial issue, I think, as a researcher, that the open access infrastructures, the whole lira, does not have a very developed review process. And the big issue for an academic institution and a researcher is to publish in high-quality journals. High-quality derives from a long tradition of a very strong review process. So there is a crucial missing link, as I see it, that should be developed further or maybe it's already developed and I don't know about it. Bwm, are you asking this question to Lucy? To Lucy. Thank you. Well, I guess the answer to this is that it's evolving. And it may evolve in different speeds in different sectors of science. I can't put numbers on which, but I know that some sectors of science, peer-reviewed open access journals are high-quality. But in some sectors of science, people choose to publish in these open access journals because of their higher quality of the rest. The thing is, open access is a very recent business model for publishers or for royal communities, scientific communities. So of course, new journals open access, they need to establish their reputation and they need to establish in a transparent way how they go ahead with peer-reviewing. But I think this might take time. But if the good, renowned professors in their field engage also in the open access movement, they will be part of the editorial boards of good open access journals. They will encourage and heighten the quality of those open access journals. It's a moving... I agree, but there is a transition period that is very costly for the researcher. And also for the good researchers that are the editors. It's a big decision to give one very good traditional journal as an associate editor to go to a new, with high potential open access journal. So it needs a bit of incentives, it needs motivation, I think. It's a little out of scope for this discussion, but we want to focus on the legal aspects. So I will continue. Thank you for... OK, you have a question? So maybe I should... Yeah, it might be from the technical university of Denmark. Yes, I think that was also very much out of scope. I mean, we should really spend our time discussing the legal issues here. I mean, first of all, it's complicated enough. So bringing in this whole social area of culture and all that, of science into it, as well that brings on even more complexity. Of course, it's an integrated part of the legal system, I don't know. One thing I'm wondering about, because I think it's very... In the end, Moose, you talked about looking at the repositories, how many of them actually provide information about what license they provide their content under? And those repositories were repositories with publications in them. So basically, I'm wondering what can actually be done in that area. Because repositories, they may be there to provide a place for the green road for open access to provide a place to parallel publish stuff. And most of that, published in traditional journals, high impact journals, is really licensed with the publisher. So they are using the exception in the copyright agreement with the publishers to actually put the stuff into the repository, which then brings on the question that actually all that stuff, or not all of it, but none of it, is actually the copyright. It's owned by the publisher. But because they have the exception, you can put a version of an article into a repository. But what can actually be done at that? That's the big question. And the thing is that all those, you have that 85%, basically can't really give you an exact license because they can't double-license them. They can't say, well, the copyright is owned by the publisher, and then I put a CC by-license on that as well. That's not possible. So the question is... What can we actually do with that? And to whom? Well, to me. I feel concerned by this question. I think what we can do is a bit the same thing as all the libraries and the museums out there who have items in their collections and they don't know what the right status of is. I think the basic, the first step is rights labeling. And that's something that I don't know of yet. Julia Fallen here is swimming in for at least three years. You're absolutely right about what you're saying. That repositories, they're gathering material all via the green road and that they don't own the rights. But the very first thing that they can do is to have a field in their metadata saying, indeed, well, what you can and cannot do. We might be surprised. There might be publishers who are willing, indeed, to at least maybe not go all the way CCBi, but they might be willing to go CCBi, non-derivative, non-commercial. But it's a lot of work to go back in the... I mean, it's still the same task as for museums who want to digitize their collection and make the metadata available. Libraries would need, according to this scenario, to go back and put a field in their metadata about the rights label. But if we start thinking about this and not accepting the percentage of 85% as a given, but saying this is something that we'd like to work on and we'd like to improve now from today and on, we can add this field in the metadata and we can also probably negotiate agreements with publishers that after a period of embargo, the public might be allowed to do a CCBi, non-commercial, no-derivative. So for the future and on, it might be easier, of course, than going back for the whole content of the collection. But we need to start asking ourselves the question, what do we want to achieve? It's not just enough to put it in the repository if you don't know what you can do with it. It's the same for Europeana. It's no use to have access to no objects if you don't know what you can do with them. So rights labeling in the sense is the key. Maybe it's a good point to add something to what Thomas said in the morning, also the difference between the version 3 and 4 of Creative Commons. You asked the question, what happens afterwards, and of course if you take data from a protected database and use it for your own database, you can create new rights for yourself under version 3 where a database right is not included. You would be free to use this data also in a commercial way. That was the thought and thinking of the drafters of 3.0. They thought excluding them or waiving the rights would be enough to get rid. Waving the rights would be enough to get rid of the database right, which is not true, because somebody else who uses it later in the distribution chain can use it for freely as he wants, also in a commercial way. Version 4.0 takes care of this point, so this copy left effect will be further down in the chain also under version 4. This is a very important part of this version 4.0. Can I just make a small comment? I think I just want to explicitly stress that access is not sufficient. I think it should have been clearly visible from what we were talking about, the problems that open air infrastructure has, that it uses accessible repositories and accessible datasets. But especially when it comes to data mining, the fact that these repositories are accessible is not sufficient to conclude that they can be used and reused in the infrastructure. So the policies of some journals that take away your copyrights but allow you to put something to make available in a repository are not sufficient from this point of view, because this does not mean that by putting something in the repository you can license reuse of that. And certainly we cannot bypass it for some journals, but at least for some we can, because some of them are parts of universities which can declare their policy, which can declare that they do not take away copyrights, they just take a non-exclusive license, and then under the open access mandate the researchers supply to open access a bit more. But there will be some sets of such publications which will still be burdened and will not be able to be including projects such as open air. We have time for one more question. Prisoner. So you said you can't wait. Okay, I'll bring the microphone to us. I'm not able to hear. So it's a question on the version 3, version 4. You said that if people can't wait i ddweud y dyfodol er mwyn amllunio eu cymaint. Mae'n mynd i ni'r ddarparu yma, y pethau'r tîm lle bydd y dataebau hynny a', ddylai'n dyfodol llywodol, a twisted fel y dyfodol yma, chan yn dduw i gael ein bod yn lle i'w dweud i'w newid, ond rydyn ni'n ddweud y contentau yn ôl o ddod ni yw rhan Cynllun. A'r ddigon o bwysig o'r cyffredin o'r cyfrun? Mae'r ddweud o'r cyfrinarau a gwylwch, So, mae sy'n detall sy'n achrod Can, once the 4.0 are out, can a 4.0 be applied on the same database? Yes, if you had the title to apply a 3.0, meaning you are the right holder, then you are the right holder also to apply a 4.0, to apply whatever you want, because you are the right holder, so you can decide what to do and because the licenses are non-exclusive. So you can apply as many licenses if you want, including dual licenses model, if you want. I think part of the question was also, is it technically difficult? Well, it's the same thing as applying 3.0. You go on the website, creativecommons.org, you click on license, they ask you three questions, whether you allow or not commercial uses, you allow or not the creation of derivatives, and if he has under which conditions, for the version 3, the jurisdiction, and you have to choose in that moment a European jurisdiction, and then they ask you some more information regarding, which is not mandatory, but regarding the metadata, so a name of author, publication, type of publication, etc. You click license, you obtain the HTML code that you can apply to the website, and also link to the entire license, and to the common date that we saw the screenshot before. Switching to the 4.0 means going through the whole selection process again, right? Yes. So it's not just the switch of one button, it's going through the license chooser again. It takes literally 30 seconds. However, if you have a lot of garrisons, then it's, yeah. I think it's a good moment to bridge through on this panel. You have really a chance, which is right there on Venus, so we'd now went on to Venus and that. Yeah, thank you. I think we have a last point in our legal session today to have a little bit of panel discussion looking into the future. I think we should not only discuss among ourselves, but also take questions in between, if you have some questions to make it a bit more interactive. I think we've finished at a point where we can continue our discussion about one question would be like compatibility of different license. There are so many different license models now on the market, and is it a big problem to have compatibility? And also one question I would like to raise maybe to Thomas mainly, the version 4.0 of the CC is meant to be, you mentioned that it's not adopted to the laws of different countries anymore, like used to be with the 3.0. And as far as I remember, GPA was very much dominated by American law. So is it now different with 4.0? Is it more international? Is it possible to have like international license or will there be problems with national law more than we had with 3.0? Thomas may be losing also. So interoperability, there are a lot of licenses, that's true, and that's why we recommend to use one, which doesn't mean that there are not other licenses that are actually fit for the purpose. In our study we actually analyzed a few of them, but to maintain some sort of uniformity grants the higher level of interoperability, and that's an important thing. Now that being said, is also true that Creative Commons, especially 4.0, made clear that the obligation to license under the same license is not limited to the same license, but to the same or an equivalent license. And then there was a debate, but an equivalent license is a link to the website where are listed what are believed to be a license that are equivalent. That's of course for the outbound part. So if you take Creative Commons 4.0, you want to re-license it, you have to use the same or one of these listed one, so it gives you this possibility. Inbound, meaning if the database is licensed under some open access license and we can apply the Creative Commons, it depends of course on what the specific license says. There are many that has this compatibility clause as well, or they either recognize explicitly Creative Commons, or they give the parameter to determine what is an equivalent license. But in that case, we should look at the specific wording of the license. That's another reason why to me it's good to make reference to one model. Wikipedia uses it, it's a lot of university uses it, so it works, and a lot of people recommend it, and I know that you agree to stick with it if it works. 4.0 is to, well, there has been a lot of effort into the drafting process to make it as international as possible, and we have to agree that to a great extent this has been achieved. It's true that some passage, some interpretation might still create different reactions among lawyers from the two shores of the Atlantic, that's true. I mean, we have having a few of these debates right now, but I would say that, for example, to define specific concepts, we try to use burn convention wording, for example, and of course you know how it is hard to convince, for example, Americans to rely on the burn convention wording. I think that you might still identify maybe some, let's call, Americanism, but I don't think that they would create a problem, hopefully. Of course there's still a difference between, for example, common law and continental law systems, and is there not a need to really adapt, again, the license a bit to national law, or would it work like it is and you don't have to make any adaptations again, maybe Lucy? Well, I'm rather confident that the licenses drafted now will work in both traditions, and I would like to emphasise what Thomas has pointed out, that the drafting process is the result of consultations among the Creative Commons affiliates worldwide. So you have people who really devoted time to react and to react to drafts and consult from Australia, to Japan, to Taiwan, and everyone in between to the US. Of course we gave the drafters in the US a course on database rights, on moral rights at some point. We did at least the Dutch group and other groups in Europe and other groups elsewhere have really done their best to really make clear why the choice of one word instead of another word would be preferable. I'm rather satisfied with the draft that's coming out, and I don't think it's influenced that much by traditions, and that's a big difference from the GPL. GPL is traditionally drafted in the US, they consult a small circle of people in the US, but not abroad, and the Creative Commons process was entirely different. Any questions from the audience at that point? You can ask anything. This morning I had breakfast at a discussion with Thomas, and I'm working in a library, and we are at Homer Strong in Economics at our university, and we signed for some contracts with Thomas and Boykers, and basically if I read the contract I'm allowed not even to share metadata with all the researchers. Thomas says, just don't sign a contract, which is a very practical recommendation, but as in the libraries we're often sort of the middle man, I can't go into my research and say, hey, I've heard we shouldn't sign that Thomas won't sign a contract anymore. So how to make this practical and workable, that's a question of mine. The second question is from a more technical perspective. If you put a resource, if you put something behind a DOI, and open air would have to resolve all the data sets that go behind a DOI, I don't have a clue what is behind a DOI. That could be a simple fact, or it could be a complete database, knowing what is in that database, as you were saying, you have no idea what's in our repositories, how to make progress with that. Is checking on DOIs an institution? No. That's to you. So who runs for the microphone? I run for the microphone. It's coming out of questions. Mould it at me. Mould it at me. Thank you very much. Well, Rob, I'll answer your first question. I'll leave the second to Crystal. Something that I've been advocating in some of the talks on open access that I give is, first message, publishers in the mid to long term will have to adapt. So, I realize it's not the task or not the sole task of the researchers to negotiate better license terms with their publisher. That's why I feel that it would be the task of higher level from department level, faculty or university level, even grant. I don't know. I don't think the grant, but at least to help negotiate with the publisher's model contracts. That's also one way to get the people of your university, not the library, you're not in a place to negotiate those contracts. Second one, not faculty or the college from the student administration board with the task of negotiating better licensing terms with some of the key publishers. And then the information has to go back down again to the level of the individual researchers saying, now we have a model contract, this is what I would like to use from now on. And the publishers have to be made aware of all this because even as a law scholar, sometimes I want to upload an article or submit an article. Submitting an article now takes place all electronically and you're only capable of submitting your article if you click the little box I agree with these terms. Now you can't change that unless somebody higher up changes it for you. Yeah, just intermediate observation before passing to question number two. That decision to sign the contract or not has nothing to do with the law. No, but... No, let me finish. It's not about concepts, it's about... Yeah, no, but what I want to say is basically what Lucid just expressed. This is not a legal problem, right? I mean a lawyer can assist you or a legal analysis can assist you on determining why and how to sign a good contract in a way that... But the decision cannot come from us, cannot... I mean it's a strategic decision that the university or the research institution has to take at the highest level because it's one of the most important future policies, strategic research decision that they can take. You know, I know, I'm just underlying the aspect. I know, I'm just saying that most of the time the law is seen as the key to fix the problem, right? Which not really, we can explain where there are obstacles and how to overcome, but this aspect in particular is connected with... As we, you know, and probably many of you know much better with the whole business model, vision of the research that the comment you were making before are perfect. But you know, to go up an access is not as, you know, an entire institution is to have a completely different view of the role of science in society. It's not just about, you know, getting cheaper subscriptions and that will take, you know, time and commitment. That's true, but yeah. Well, recently I had a very passionate speech of Professor Eben Moglen, who said something like Thomas. He said, just say no. He said, not only you shouldn't accept such contracts as we have discussed, but you should say no to the whole system which does not allow some activities which we consider more or less, well, basic for the existence of the science and the society. And obviously in the ideal world the university wouldn't sign such a contract. And in the ideal world everyone would say no, but in the world that we live in some people just think that, well, okay, maybe it's not our problem and so on. So the such contracts are being signed. And obviously this means that when you accept a contract where you try to deal with, where you try to use a work subject to some exclusive rights, and you accept the fact, obviously you have to accept it because you are bound by the law and you accept the fact that there are some limitations on the use of this material, and if you want to make it more reusable, more accessible, you have to clear the rights. And obviously that's the question of the cost of the clearing of rights. And you can do it individually, but you can also think about some kind of a technical system which could try to help you in solving this, in clearing the rights. And creative commons has, apart from the human readable version, apart from the lawyer's readable version, also has the computer readable version of licenses, and made that some solution that if we, like Lucy said, when we start, the first step is to clearly mark what are the rights, what are the limitations, and maybe then computers could help us sorting out what's the interoperable, what's the possible way to use resources coming from the distant sources. But this actually reminds me of, well, we had a joke during communist times, I think it's in all these countries that were more or less in this camp, that the question is, what's communism? And the answer is that communism is a regime that boldly solves problems which are not existent in other regimes. And I think that we are in a status, in a stage with copyright law that we are, and actually we don't have to, we should not forget that creative commons is not that solution, but creative commons was designed as a kind of a patch on the system. And I like to think about creative commons as a tool for making people realise how much the problem, how big the problem is because of the current copyright regulation, not actually to solve all the problems. We should not forget about this. The question for you was on DOI. When you resolve the DOI and then you find out, you don't know what to find out. And so as I understand that you have a problem because you can find out something which is protected, you can find something which is protected. So we have questions. You sort of answered the question out there, but still, I mean I'm looking at the very short term when you're like, what should we do now? I mean basically a lot of the stuff we're doing already now with the whole OEI, harvesting data from repositories that are distributed is basically not legal. But we're doing it still, I mean and it's working and no one is really complaining. So what's the risk assessment? I mean should we just continue and just, you know, hopefully time is solved with the problems that we have? So that's basically the question. My idea was, if provided that the resource behind the DOI is clearly marked with a license or some other description, then you could use some kind of a technical tool which would tell you what you can do with the resource. And obviously you have the question whether the mere resolving of the DOI somehow involves, somehow infringes the right, but then I don't think that anyone would come up with a clear answer to that. But actually we're both down in practice to the risk assessment because as you just said many things are being done in the scientific environment and no one complains. As a lawyer I experienced a kind of, I don't know, a schizophrenia that I come to people and I tell them that there are exclusive rights, we have to license them, but they give me a blank stare and they say that, well yes, but everyone does it. And well, I don't think that any lawyer would tell you okay, so do it, don't care, but you should take this practical risk assessment under consideration. Well without forgetting that you should also think about the same policy for clearing the rights, but obviously every time you clear the rights you come to the place where either you want to invest another euro in clearing the rights a bit more or you are just satisfied with your risk. So I think every institution just has to take to establish the level of risk that's accepted for them. I think it does not know how much risk there is. What is the risk of it? We don't know what's the real risk of continuous what we do now. So the remedy, I think there are two points. One is that as long as your activity is insignificant usually you don't get sued. But since in our opinion our activity will not be insignificant because we will be a competing working model for the future at some point it will be significant and at that point you want to have clear the right because otherwise you get sued and that's what you want to avoid. What's the risk? Well it's hard to say beforehand but to a very basic point of view there are two remedies that are available once you're found infringing copyright. Injunctive relief and damages. Injunctive relief means you have to stop. Damages it means that you have to pay the damages. Now in this case it's also true that we could even argue that since we are in Europe there are not statutory damages, we are in a scientific environment, the money that eventually university could be found to have to pay it's hard to say but would not be in the terms of millions as in the United States. But that's maybe not even the most important problem. The very important problem is that you stop doing that. You cannot continue. Regardless of the amount of money that you pay unless the right holder plaintiff decides that you can go ahead you have to stop and you don't want that. So that's why I think we need to work on all fronts negotiating model contracts with publishers but then going ahead with what we're doing anyway. But would it just be great to have that one big giant case which just made it really popular that we need open access? Yes, yes. So that won't do it. So that's the risk assessment. There won't be a publisher that's going to sue anyone doing this. Are they really scared you? At the moment probably also because from the point of view of the image it's tricky but you cannot rely on this. I think we just have a couple of minutes. Is it just to this question? What you said is in all fronts and we have heard that library perspective, the researchers, the scholarly societies, how about the funders? What is their role in this situation? Because now there is, for example, we were last week in the Global Research Council in the regional meeting and they are talking about their supporting open action in research data and publications mainly. And they are talking about action plans. What is there? So from the legal perspective, what can they do? Now they have virtual organization that they are all together and they are funding this data. So can they do something? Or is it like the libraries that they can't? No, just don't sign. Can they have any means of pushing, any legal means? To see? That's a tricky question. The tough get going. I don't think that legally funders can do much. They can only exercise influence and exercise their policy consistently and go your way and push in the right direction. They can send a message that they will fund projects where researchers are involved or institutions are involved who really support and live the principles of open access so which would actually reward the people publishing in open access in journals that may score slightly lower than others. So those are messages. It can send really strong messages but legally I'm not sure that funding agencies are in a position to legally do stuff. I think the last two minutes, which was used for the last round of statements, I would like to, Christopher, open up the field already to a more general view on copyright. And there's a lot of discussion going on now on copyright in general, especially related of course to the questions of internet. We changed copyright. There was movement in the US to completely abolish copyright. I think Europe is not so radical but still thinking about different options, how to deal with the problems we have, get rid of this idea of copying. Copying is traditional technology, not really digital, doesn't fit any more in this environment. So in the broader context, we are also maybe moving through some sector specific regulations. So what do you think will copyright look like in ten years? Will we have an exception for research area in general from copyright? Or what do you think how it will develop? Maybe Lucy first. What I'm dreaming or what I think? Maybe both. Well, the dream would be to have one uniform European copyright system where you wouldn't be looking at the national systems of 28 member states but at just one global European copyright that would have a single set of limitations exception. And in my dream we would also have a catch clause in the type of fair use defence, catching all the situations that do not neatly fall within the exceptions but that would justify according to a set of criteria to be exempted from the application of the copyright. Now that's the dream, to have something coherent and flexible enough to be workable and to work not only for science because come on, we're talking here about reforming copyright for the purpose of science but copyright regime needs reform not only on this front but on almost all of the fronts. So the copyright regime needs to be reformed period. So we need to push the wagon coherently forward. What I think might happen depends on the time frame maybe before I retire we will have something workable in line with my dream. But within the next 5 to 10 years we may have another list of limitations that might be slightly more flexible but we won't have this coherent European framework I don't think. There are too many obstacles in terms of legal traditions, in terms of cultural dimensions of each country, in terms of complexities because there are so many players and stakeholders. I mean you all know what the stakeholders are in the scientific area. We'll multiply that by all the copyright industry area. It's a nightmare. Anyway, so over 5 years well hopefully something a bit more workable in certain areas. Yes. Well yes I think the European legislator will not be able to harmonize the European copyright completely within the next 5 or 10 years. But I think an important fact in the harmonization is the European Court of Justice who actually harmonizes the copyright where it isn't harmonized. For example the ECJ already harmonized the term of work and its infobar decision and this is something that is not harmonized by European directives. So I think a strong factor on the European harmonization of copyright is also the European Court of Justice. Since the perforphone go back to me, I agree that the ECJ plays a fundamental role here also. But sometimes the ECJ has the talent of launching bombs. Yes very much. Very much. And it needs more competence also. I'm afraid for the bombs that the ECJ may launch and I'm also afraid that the ECJ action is not governed by democracy, by the democratic process. It's a set of judges who decide in this case the law applies and that it's by interpretation applied everywhere. But it's not a democratic process. They don't care, they trust it. So beware for the bombs of the ECJ. OK, so I think I want to use this last chance to speak to make it clear that I'm not convinced that we should abolish copyright. That's not my conclusion here. But I think what we can expect in either five years or maybe ten years time is that we will maybe look back in the history of copyright which evolved from a set of specific rights. It started with the rights to coffee and then it evolved into a property right which covers almost every use that you can imagine. And maybe we could somehow bring the balance back to the rules. And then I just want to say that I'm coming from a jurisdiction that seems that we have or we had such a rule that there are certain people who do not have to think about copyright. They want to do certain things with copyrighted work. Like librarians, like scientists, etc. And the problem is not that the copyright exists for them. The problem is that they are forced by the current copyright regime to think about it. And you can move this problem away from them by carefully drafting or redrafting the limitations or exemptions or maybe some other way to bring the balance between the private and the public interest in copyright law. And I am quite optimistic. I would like to see that done in the next five to ten years. Just two seconds. I would like to add one more point. I think we should also be more open in copyright to self-regulation which would shift the regulation a bit from the contractual level like licenses not to the legislative level of laws but intermediate. So we have the interest group sitting together and agreeing on some points more flexible than the legislator could do it. Of course there has to be a legislative framework. All participants have to be present, involved, but I think there should be more flexibility also in copyright like we have seen now in data protection developing to have self-regulation in place. So about future of copyright we saw everything we are ready so there is a data I can add. What I would like to see in the future of research in five or ten years an open access transparent model of webometrics may be supported by some European institution Open Air Plus somehow in a way in which we can develop indexes such impact factors but better based on open and accessible tools so that the necessity to sign that contract is not there anymore. And that I think would be to go beyond the current model and that's something that we really need because that would offer the right incentive. I think that's a good closing statement.