 Čakaj, večo. In pričačam moj prezentacij, vznikam moj kolega in friči na obježenje projekte. Zelo sem zelo več zelo. Zelo sem zelo več zelo. Pri hranju, da smo se v tudi v svetu po vitalijskih ljube, tako... ...mačaj za moj englički. Tako, da vse pravam, da so tega oprej na pomejnje. Zvukovite, ki ste, PHD, ...zvukovite tako reakciju. Prof. Caso, oprej na oprej. Tudi je bilo zelo površen. ... sorry, but I have to publish in the core journals. Bye-bye. I think on one end this reaction depends on the lack of information of open access. On other end, probably, it depends on bad policies about the relationship between open access and evaluation of research and academic career. I think we share the same drink. We imagine a world with open, decentralized, multilingual open databases and open scientific databases. My argument is to realize this kind of world of open databases, we have to break the monopoly power of closed, proprietary databases. And to break this monopoly power, it is necessary reform copyright law, we generally write, but also reform and rethink policies about open access and the relationship between open access and evaluation of research. In the first part of my presentation, I briefly summarize the monopoly power of databases, closed, proprietary databases, and some side effects of this monopoly power. In the second part of my presentation, I used Italian experience to show some bad policies about open access. And in the last part of my presentation, I described some good policies about open access. From my point of view, copyright law is a sort of a zombie, is a legal tool, probably obsolete and useful only to certain traditional business models based on the right of reproduction. And this kind of a zombie is against the science. If you want to know more details about this history, you can read the last article of Jerome Reichman and Ruth Okedigi. You can find on Social Science Research Network an open access repository in the Social Science field and 120 pages about the collision between copyright law and science. Ok, what are closed proprietary databases? What is the dark side of the force of the proprietary closed databases? A mix of legal tools, copyright law and suigenerist rights, license agreement and technological protection measures or digital rights management. These kind of legal tools enable a perfect control of the data, of the data. Also the back files and the retrospective content. Through this kind of control, perfect control of the data, the closed proprietary databases can do some business models, in particular you know very well the bundling, the so-called big deal. And third point, this kind of control is related also to the evaluation of the research and the science. I named, I called, bibliometric power. According to Robert Arton, 42% of all scientific journals are published by three publishers, Elsevier, Blackwell, Wiley and Springer. And I think this kind of monopolistic power has a deep impact on the pluralism of science. Think about, for example, to the dominance of English in the science field. This is not a revenge of Roberto Caso. But in the field of evaluation of research, the power of the proprietary databases is probably stronger, because we face two huge databases about the evaluation of the research. Easy Web of Science of Thomson Reuters and Scopus of Elsevier. Ok. The Italian experience. What is the Italian experience about the policies? This is the standard Italian politician. Is a parody of a famous Italian politician. I don't remember the name Silvio Berl... Man, I don't remember. In Italy, we don't have any open access mandate at the government ground. And we have few exhaustive institutional policies about open access. Usually not mandatory. So this is a very unfriendly legal environment for the open access. In this context, the ministry of the research and the national agency of evaluation of the university and research, AMBUR, is the name, has delivered a regulation about the research assessment exercise and national scientific qualification, the first step for the tenure track in Italy. This is a policy or a sort of policy or a show, because the only two point of reference in the field of research evaluation is Easy and Web of Science in the bibliometric scientific sector. In not bibliometric scientific sectors, we have a sort of a classification for very rigid and flexible of the quality of scientific journal, ABC. And last but not least, a rigid taxonomy of the scientific product. Article in Journal, chapter in book, monograph and so on. The last point is the impossibility to submit in the research assessment exercise the preprint or postprint. You have to submit in the internet, secure internet only the publisher version of article. This is a policy against open access. But in Italy we are trying to change the landscape and with some other colleagues, I think in particular to Maria Chiara Piovatolo, Antonello Derobio, Paola Gallimberti, Paola Gartulio in La Ria Fava and so on. I don't remember all the name but most of them are female and are women. We are trying to change this landscape. It's very hard task. I like gold road but I prefer to stress the importance of green road in these aspects related to the government policy. Legal core of open access is the following. The author retains the right to license in open access mode. There is a deposit in institutional or disciplinary repository and the last step is the Creative Commons licenses or other permissive licenses to enable, use, reuse, copy and so also modify the materials. I think we need this kind of policy at the institutional level but the ideal policy is a multi-level policy. A government mandate to open access, exhaustive institutional policies and the use of open access publications and data for research and scientific assessment. Only through this kind of policies in my point of view is it possible to reach a world of open scientific databases. A world in which we face unbundling interoperability, redundancy, open data offer to new kind of metrics and peer review. So a world of that data in metadata as comments. But from my point of view, this is a question not only about the law. It is overall a question about ethics and social norms, norms of science. But as Nudel said, it's only my point of view. Thank you for your patient attention.