 Hello and welcome everyone. This is our second event for our copyright for open science series and open air initiative exploring a sustainable and just a model for open science. This time we're going to focus on the US landscape and we're going to discuss fair use and statutory licensing. And our invited moderator today will be John Willinsky, professor at Stanford University and before I hand over to him I would like to very quickly go through some housekeeping notes with you. So our session today will be recorded and we will make the recording publicly available shortly after our session. If your microphones muted during the session feel free to unmute and turn on your cameras for the Q&A at the end of the session and you can always use the chat box, if you would like to share a question or some comments with our speakers and moderator. If you're on Twitter and would you would like to tweet about the session you can use the hashtag C4OS and TacoBener and with this I would like to hand over to you, Professor Willinsky, thank you. Thank you Athena. Let me welcome everyone as well. In fact, let me welcome you to turn your cameras on so that we can have an audience of difference and approach perhaps but I appreciate doing it live with people. So I want to thank Padromas Sabos for the support that OpenAir has provided for this series on copyright for open science. Today the focus is on the US and Canada. I'm a Canadian and David is as well so I want to welcome that aspect. We're looking at this concept of the legal approaches to open science and overall title of from fair use to statutory licensing. But our focus is largely on open science and open access. I want to open with two comments, two statements. I have to say and I do want to apologize that the gender balance is completely missing from this panel and I thought we had put an end to all male panels but we haven't in this case but we certainly did work and try hard to get some of that and one of the people we invited was Alondra Nelson, Dr. Alondra Nelson who's the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. On August 25th, OSTP issued a policy directive with regard to access and in particular for removing the embargoes on the NIH and federal government research sponsored research. And in that statement. And in that statement, we have her comments. And she says, let me quote, when research is widely available to other researchers and the public, it can save lives, provide policymakers with the tools to make critical decisions and drive more equitable outcomes across every sector of society. People fund tens of billions of dollars of cutting edge research annually. There should be no delay or barrier between the American public and the returns on their investment in research. And I want to balance that with a statement that I read yesterday in the New York Times. This is from Claire Farrell, who's the co founder of Extinction Rebellion, which is a climate protest organization. And she says, which she's quoted as saying yesterday. And to me this has a lot to do with advocating for a democracy that isn't just more inclusive and more representative in terms of her protest, but more just, but also and more just, but also wanting to have a democratic society where more people have better access to the truth and to information, and to really understand what needs to happen, and why. I'm very encouraging for someone like myself who's been working for 25 years in this space known as open access. I'm afraid I remain deeply concerned that our best strategies to date have yet to deliver more than a third of the research litter in a literature, not litter please. More than a third of the research literature in an open form, although greater proportion of more recent work is open and it's increasingly so. We are short on a clear path to open access as a key element and open science. What has changed is that we now have a consensus among scholarly communication stakeholders by which I mean researchers, publishers, librarians, scholarly societies and funders that open access is a critical part of a new era of open science. And it asks me now that there is time, there is a time for a coordinated effort among these parties, and I welcome open air and creating this opportunity to bring together librarians, legal scholars and publishers to consider where we are in this process of doing the best for science, and whether it may be time to join together and considering legal remedies for the shortcomings and delivering the desired good open access in a timely fashion, at a fair price, given what it could mean for addressing our current climate emergency the next pandemic, and even the rise of generative artificial intelligence. At this point I want to turn to the speakers who have generously decided and have participating in this event. So it was worthwhile. They're going to respond to two statements. I'm going to give each of them a chance to speak and I'll introduce them in turn, but let me share with you first the, the statement that will be guiding their initial thoughts. Let's start with the open science aspect of this seminar, the digital air transformation of research. Sorry, the digital air has transformed research, and in the process. We are framing a new right to research. This involves the right to do research utilizing new forms of text and data mining, as well as the right to the research through open access. So by asking the participants how would you judge the current state of these rights to what factors would you attribute their progress and the challenges they face. Do you have a sense of how text and data mining and or open access will continue to unfold over time. What would the endpoint of any look like that's a lot and I ask you to be choosy and come in where you wish on these questions, but your perspectives are important for an understanding of how we sit with the public with publishers with librarians and with intellectual property scholars. Now, turn first to Jonathan band. Jonathan helped shape the laws governing intellectual property and the internet through a combination of legislative and appellate advocacy. He has represented clients with respect to the drafting of the digital millennium copyright act, the stop online private Privacy Act, as well as being working in the area of the Marrakesh Treaty the anti counterfeiting trade and trans specific partnership agreement. Mr band is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. In 2017 he received the American Library Association's L Ray Patterson copyright award. He holds BA Magnum cum lad at from five belted to and five to five bed at five beta Kappa please from Harvard College and JD from Yale Law School from 1985 to 2005. Mr band worked at the Washington DC office of Morrison and Forrester, including 13 years as a partner. But in 2005 he established his own law firm, Jonathan, please the floor is yours. Thank you very much, john and open air for for having me. You know, these are very, very big questions and easily could, you know, talk about it for an hour. But I'll try to just give some very high level thoughts in a few minutes. And first I must preface my remarks by saying that I'm a copyright lawyer, I am not a researcher, you know, I'm not a scientific researcher I'm not a really an academic and so I'm not, I'm in the legal and policy trenches and not in the sort of publishing or academic trenches. So, one, one one should assess my views with with that with that caveat. So, with respect to the first question, the right to do research for example text and data mining in the United States are sort of like good news and bad news certainly relative to the situation in Europe. So the good news is, we have the fair use doctrine it's an exception that's in our copyright act which is codification of over 100 years of us copyright law but it's really derives from the English copyright law and the and the fair dealing provision there. And that allows it's sort of a flexible provision that allows a court to decide that an act is fair. And over the last 30 years, the courts in the United States have interpreted and applied a fair use extremely generously and broadly. So if you if you were a copyright law so actually when I was a when I studied copyright law in law school and let's say around 1980. You know I spread a certain group of cases and had a certain understanding. And if you had a copyright lawyer from the, you know, 1970s. And then fast forwarded to here they would be shocked at the, the change in the fair use jurisprudence and how much it has allowed and fair use was used to be applied in a much much narrower way so there's really been a reduction of fair use and certainly rights holders often argue that it's, it's, you know, the pendulum has come too far and that it's courts are misapplying or over applying for use. Of course, that that applies until their suit for infringement at which point they are very happy to rely on all of the fair use jurisprudence as of all, but the key point is that it is very broad. And, and has allowed for courts to accommodate the, all the changes that come with technology and and have been able to really allow fair use to be not as much of an impediment in the way of research and so. For example, the case law in the, you know, there have been several cases where sort of assembling the database for purposes of text and data mining has been found to be a fair use. So the courts have been very responsive, and have been really, you know, accommodate it allowed copyright to accommodate digital technology and generally and research in particular. To some extent the courts have had to do it because Congress has not been able to I mean our Congress is it's, it's always dysfunctional and to some extent it's been dysfunctional by design, but it's very hard to get anything through Congress, particularly in the last 20 30 years. And as a result. Congress has not been able to, you know, accommodate the digital technology to the extent the courts have. And so the courts have had to play play that role. So that's the good news is that the courts are doing it and certainly. Because, you know, everyone's and while you'll have, you know, the, you know, the, the, the, the EU bureaucracy will come up with another directive, you know, most recently the copper and the digital single market market directive which has various provisions but but overall it is a much more rigid system less flexible. So that's the good news that the courts have been interpreting copyright law. Well, the bad news is that we do not have really this concept of contract override that that has been developed in in Europe. And as a result, one could, if one uses a license, if one licenses the tech, the information and then in the license prohibits uses then the best it's uncertain whether that license is enforceable that license term and at worst it's, it is enforceable and you're not able to engage in that activity and so to the extent that a lot of, even even if, even if we're talking about a material on the open web that you just find you're scraping a website but if the website has a, if the website has a browser license that prohibits the use the text and data mining of the technology of the information, then, you know, there's a good chance that that you were to text and data mine that you might be, you know, you run the risk of being found to be in breach of contract. So, so we don't have the, whereas in Europe, there are many, both at the directive level and then at the individual country level there's a lot of, there's contract override provisions which basically say that a contract is contrary to an exception is not enforceable. And so in that sense, the right to research is, once it's defined in Europe, it's more solid, because it doesn't matter what the license says. On the other hand, here we might have broader, more flexible rights from a copyright perspective, but it's very easy for the publisher to, to limit them, then just very quickly because I know I'm going over my time but just very quickly on the second part on the, you know, the open access part, well, we'll talk more about that later. I'll just say that I share to some extent, John's disappointment that open access hasn't gone as fast as I think all of us would have hoped, you know, it is making progress that is moving forward, but not as quickly as one would like and and we need to sort of explore why that is and how do we solve that problem. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. I'm going to turn now to Kyle K Courtney. Kyle K Courtney is a lawyer and a librarian serving as the copyright advisor for Harvard University Library. He is a published author nationally recognized speaker on the topic of copyright libraries and the law. The reading has appeared on copyright has appeared in Politico the Hill Library Journal American libraries and other publications. He's a co author of white paper on control digital lending. He has a fellowship at NYU law Engelbert Center on innovation law and policy and is a member of the US Supreme Court bar, an advisor to the American Law Institute's project on the restatement of copyright, a co founder and board chair of library futures distinction and intellectual property law and an msl is Kyle, please. What are your views. Thank you so much. And again thanks to open air as well. So it's a it's a cruel twist to have two copyright lawyers and a low limit themselves to five minutes on these topics but I'm going to do my best. Well, no, I do have a science degree so maybe I am furthering open science a little bit my master's information science. So, I'd say that the right to research is the newest approach to the current laws that we have and and hitting on what Jonathan said to a certain extent, perhaps even addressing the problem and updating those laws but that advocacy behind the push for the right to research to me is very exciting right this happening across the globe. I love that. I firmly believe the fundamental underpinning of any US based right to research as it exists is based on the current laws that we have here in the United States and as Jonathan pointed out that provides the framework for many types of these uses that we're looking at. And, and certainly because we're in the US, and that's the focus of today and the in the title was a known fair use. Fair use is invoked at the key component of this right to research so it has a fairly good track record of providing academics researchers journalists doctors and citizens, the rights they need to both acquire and complete their work. And as we've seen in various surveys, law review articles that that have examined the scope of fair use here in the United States, since this is introduction into the copyright act. There are fairly predictable outcomes. If you're fair use that you're proposing falls in favor of, you know, two, or maybe three of those four factors. The challenge of course here I think is that, and I think it's a challenge all cultural and knowledge institutions and library archives and their users. Right, that challenge is certainly licensing our patrons are the researchers authors and creators of the open science movement but they're hitting the same walls that we're hitting from the perspective of these libraries. I would say that licensing culture is slightly out of control and starting to encroach into the fabric of fundamental fair uses in service of greater open science and education so that's one of the barriers that I see open science does not benefit from a very restrictive license culture right, but as I firmly believe there are good licenses and bad licenses right. We can have licenses that further open science and also contribute to the purpose of the license here. The fact that this market analysis exists of whether or not something is licensed as a bearer creates a problem for legitimate TDM research, non consumptive uses of copper and materials. And you know you texted data mining falls in this camp certainly but there's a variety of different methodologies by which open science is gaining access to this material or needs to gain access to material to do something new and different. So I think there's a presumption that there should be a license and if there's not a license that activity has to be licensed and that's, that's my kind of fear and it looks like licensing research uses might be the next great money to drive profits in areas where they've gone down and you know print sales are down and things like that so that's a concern and one challenge. Since many of the publications that we're talking about are driven by private for profit firms that don't necessarily have a stake in the outcome of open science, but they have a great stake in their stock prices or shareholders right so it's a conflict. However, one remedy that's been in effect here to mitigate this, this influence of strong licensing and pricing is certainly open access we've seen open access proliferate across academic institutions and now into the publishing field. And, but as we know open access has been one answer, but not necessarily the answer to the problems that are raised by the right to research. And open access is based on a fundamental principle that the writer, the creator of the scholars in the best position to make decisions about their work and what they're producing and US copyright act gives them a nice non exclusive license to share with academic institutions for everyone to gather up and I and I consider this one of the more powerful provisions in the copyright law to maintain some control over your copyright, but also meet the researchers gold for wide dissemination and use all while promoting the progress of science and useful arts which is the ultimate goal. And the scholars are doing this writing rights for something other than profit right. There's a moral high ground here and we'll talk about that I think in the next question, but as far as reaching an end point. I think we're very much at a fork in the road right now with the rise of, you know, licensing only culture and the use of new and efficient technologies that help and promote research and publication. I think we're looking right over the precipice right. But as to the part of, of, of, general instance question about is there an end game where is the endpoint. I don't think there's an end there's a variety of options that we're staring at which is why we're having this meeting here today which is why the right to research is growing. But many of us on this call, agreed to this. Sisyphusian lifestyle, right, and we've been doing it so I think we're always going to be pushing the rock up the hill in the open science space. And this is an opportunity to kind of separate the two right that we can still have dissemination of knowledge and make it available same life, and also satisfy what appears to be the market forces that are affecting that so that is just about five minutes. Very good. Well, that's perfect. Let me take the moderator's license and just make it clear to the audience that the, there's a distinction between fair use and open access that needs to be made that fair use is a limited right that was introduced into American copyright law in 1976, and there was a certain importance with regard to photocopying that was the age of photocopying in the 70s, and with allowed for the copying of a typically a single article with a photocopier and fair use has been expanded as Jonathan points out but it. The question of open access is access to the entire literature, which is not something that is ever going to be covered by fair use its access to a body of work that is needed for by a researcher. So it's not just, I just want to be clear that these are two paths towards open science, and it's not as if one is going to be adequate to take care of both, or at least fair use is not going to be adequate let me put it that way so little intervention here but, but let me go back to our process at this point we're fortunate enough to bring in after hearing from the legal side both from the practical legal work that Jonathan does and the, the counseling that Kyle provides Curtis is our next speaker and he is the associate university librarian for scholarly communications and collections at Iowa State University, he oversees collections and is an active in the effort to transform scholarly communications and I can attest to that. His work focuses on advancing open access controlling prices and increasing transparency. He currently chairs the open access 2020 US working group, and is involved with several other groups working to transform scholarly communications, including the subscribe to open community practice, where a number of us are involved. Curtis, I welcome your views. Thanks, open air for for having me on. Not often I mentioned to john. When we just before the webinar started I'm not often on panels talking about copyright and be absolutely clear. I am not a copyright expert I deal with copyright as it relates to licensing and collection and open access work and my comments will be within that channel. Quickly, Iowa State is a is a mid sized US research institution. We've been pursuing open access agreements trying to convert our traditional subscription span to supporting open access and to date. Our agreements are making about 25% of the articles coming off campus open access so those are license agreements through the library so our faculty don't have to pay anything to publish. So I definitely believe the, the ability to participate in open science and to benefit from open science continue to be severely restricted libraries are in a really weakened position when they need to negotiate back rights through the terms that we argue with with publishers about. That's the case if we're trying to, you know, get our preferred text and dining in data mining clause in an agreement. It's the same with price. Basically when these rights are given away to publishers, libraries are not in a very strong position to get any of them back. We have some successes and we have a lot of failures. I think that the, the right to publish open access. When we think about these, these rights to research I don't think there is a right to publish open access and any meaningful legal or practical way and an example of that. You know here at Iowa State we have an agreement with the publisher widely so one of our faculty members who wants to publish with widely the library will pay the charges to make that article open access. You drive down the road from Iowa State's campus about 20 minutes. You can be on the campus of Des Moines area community college, a faculty member at the community college who wants to publish with widely. They do not have an agreement. So if they want to publish that faculty member is going to have to pay for that probably out of their own pocket. That's a problem of the unfunded author who may be at a at an under resourced institution they may be unaffiliated. That's a problem in the US it's a problem at our tribal colleges that are historic black colleges and universities and I think we all know it's a problem. You know in many parts of the world so this is just a huge huge issue. In fact, I think it's an it's an embarrassing problem for us to have, because when you think about, you know, the, the organizations that are responsible for this, this place that we're at you know these are our universities. They're our scholarly societies they're our funders. And when you look at these organizations across the board what you will see is that they will have statements saying that they care about equity that they care about an inclusion and yet, you know, here we are. But with all that said I do think that we have been making some progress with open access I think there's been a lot of innovation I think models like subscribed open it's already been mentioned I'm sure Richard will talk more about it. I really encourage subscribed open will deliver equity both for authors and for readers and that's really important and other positive things you know if you didn't know it. As of last week, we are officially in the US in the year of open science, according to the OSTP and that's really really exciting to see this administration pushing open science the new guidance coming from the OSTP this is all great. But I balance all of that like that optimism with just, you know, I'm not cynical about this but I just think that when we look at the OSTP guidance I think it's likely going to prompt, you know, revenue driven publishers to move, you know, kind of faster toward an article economy where they will receive upfront payment for those articles before they become publicly accessible. And what could this look like well it could look a lot like And when I say publishers like I work a lot with Richard and I respect annual reviews and I respect a lot of publishers so I'm going to talk more. When I talk publishers during this session. I'm thinking more of the revenue generated commercials and large non commercial publishers and I have a feeling that they're going to be morphing into something more like mdpi. And if you're not familiar with mdpi. They are a volume based publisher faculty on my campus love them. We're seeing explosive rates of article growth. How anybody can pay for that, you know, sustainably I have no idea. And if we see wily spring or nature the rest of them pursuing that path. It's going to be. I don't know it's not going to be great and I have a lot of worries about it. These publishers are going to try to collectively grow like this overall article pie. And then there's going to be, you know, competition and air quotes. For growing their individual slices of this pie but we know that the big dominant publishers both commercial and non commercial have gigantic advantages in this competition so we will see more consolidation. So, ending on my really negative note on where this is all heading. I think revenue will continue to be the driver. Advancing open science may figure prominently in these types of profit driven publishers marketing materials, but in reality, open science will be incidental. If it's a consideration at all. And that's where the notice cynicism definitely comes through for me. Curtis, thank you so much we needed that critical I wouldn't call this skeptical or cynical I but it that critical perspective. Particularly from the library representing faculty representing students representing public communities as a state institution so I very much welcome. And that regard let me turn at this point to David fewer to the back to the legal side of things or at least the JD. David is a general counsel of the University of Ottawa Samuelson, Glasgow, a Canadian internet policy and public interest clinic. This is Canada's only public interest technology clinic. CIP PIC what an acronym. It's mandated to advocate for a balance and policy and law making on issues arising out of new technologies. And David joined in 2004 he graduated with a BA in 93 with an LLB in 96 and a masters of law degree 97 often University of Toronto but he has he has court at the federal court practice law national firms in Vancouver and Ottawa and appeared as a council before all levels of Canadian courts up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada. David thank you for agreeing to appear and to contribute here and I turn the floor over to you. Thank you. Thank you, John. Thank you to open air for inviting me as well. Yeah, our mouth full of the name, we go by civic up here CIP PIC civic. It's much easier. Yeah, actually talking about appearing before the Supreme Court every time I do I have to have this discussion with them we're known as civic. Our mandate involves an awful lot of copyright we do. I've been doing basically somewhere between 50 and 100% of my practice, focusing on copyright for 20 years the 20 years I've been here at the clinic. That experience has not made me an optimist for getting socially optimal copyright solutions in place in Canada. We've had more success we have found in Canada in the courts in advancing kind of a public interest perspectives on copyright. In Canada, talking about the right to research we would primarily look at that concept is falling under for fair dealing or into the user. The user rights groups of exceptions and limitations in the Copyright Act Canada has a very interesting and somewhat unique perspective on copyright developed over the last two decades, starting with a big Supreme Court decision just after the turn of the millennium where we see copyright as really being an attempt to balance interests user interests on the one hand and owner interests or author interests on the other. And almost any attempt to to legislate or to address. You know, copyright issues before the courts before Parliament is going to be couched in this language of balance it's actually interpreted an interpretive principle of the Copyright Act in Canada it's it's that strong a view. We look at research rights or text and data mining in particular which we're looking at here is going to be looked at from that perspective. The primary tool for for for protecting research in in the text and and data mining content context is going to be fair dealing it's our equivalent of fair use. Looks roughly after after 20 years of consistent Supreme Court decisions, kind of advancing the scope of user interests under fair dealing it looks very similar to fair use. Same kind of ideas are at play. We have a six factor test whereas in the states you have for everything in Canada has to be a little bit more regulatory a little bit more complicated so that's the approach. And it's a fairly strong users right. I would be pretty confident. In any lawsuit going up to the Supreme Court, you know, where or even commercial text and data mining was that issue that there'd be a strong claim that that kind of activity would be covered by fair dealing for the purposes of research or education and one of the other purposes in the in the fair dealing provision. Others don't share my my view. And they think that kind of the expansive nature of text and data mining the fact that it uses the entirety of the work that it's, you know, and not just a work but libraries of work. The scope of mining as an activity potentially takes it outside of fair dealing. I'm not so skeptical. The court has the courts in Canada over the last 20 years have shown kind of a willingness to be. Let's call it open minded or mindful of what is actually necessary to achieve the outcome in the use it issue and so I still think that fair dealing is probably the best home for text and data mining in Canada. Not having been said there are those who disagree and have been advocating for kind of a safe harbor provision in Canada. I'm somewhat skeptical of that route, whenever strong user interests have come before Parliament, we haven't necessarily fared well. They've often been limited they've often been qualified or additional requirements put in place that aren't necessarily consistent with the outcome that any particular dealing requires. It's actually a strategy of kind of authors interest within government to make exceptions. Difficult to use. And so I'm a little bit skeptical of this approach in Canada. You know, there's a question, you know, what is the future what does the end game look like there is no end game to copyright in Canada that is one thing I've learned. It's the likeliest to become something that's explicitly addressed if we do see movement in Parliament that there was a recent consultation that looked at AI and copyright and did make some, you know, have a discussion about text and data mining. But I think it's most likely to come to head in Canada if it goes to the courts. That's where that's where that will happen and how that will happen is likely a collective in Canada, you know, a collective administration collective rights administration entity would seek a tariff on, you know, data mining of music, for example, it's to be honest, I had to place a place a bet that's where I think it will become an issue in Canada. And then the second most likely place is internationally it's difficult to get copyright legislation in Canada, I described it as blood sport to John not too long ago. And where we do see a significant movement on Canadian copyright revision is when we enter into some international trade agreement that requires some some elements and so I can imagine a text and data mining limitation or exception with qualifications built around it being something that happens internationally that we have to deal with. On open licensing, the position in Canada is, well, it's relatively strong it's not that all of Canada's post secondary funders require, you know, open open access publishing, but the tripartite, the try agency policy that the three big major funders of Canadian academic research have made a requirement that all peer review journal publications resulting from funding to the agencies will be freely available within 12 months of publication and that's been a huge boost to the to the open access movement in Canada. It's far from perfect as I said, certainly far from all of our funders requiring this. But there's greater awareness of these factors that you know when my organization puts in a funding application we always, you know, include funding, you know, funding line items to deal with that. That having been said, there is a good argument that to be made and we're going to get to this in the second part that if there's a particular policy objective policy solution that we want to arrive at. It's got to be done legislatively open publishing is kind of open access publishing is kind of almost like a hack it's a hack of copyright in the same way that Creative Commons is a hack of copyright. And it requires, you know, all parties to the transaction to get involved if we really wanted to focus on making scientific research kind of universally accessible, even in the academic context, then that will require a deeper discussion. Leave it at that. I've always stated that's the idea that would have been more research is needed and a deeper discussion but I want to say about the endpoint because I did introduce that and it does sound. I'm not trying to suggest there'll be an end to copyright legal action or the courts I don't want to put anyone out of business here, certainly not yourself or Jonathan and or Kyle and that practice. I don't want to arrive at end points I referred to the 1976 copyright act in the US. It provided a kind of endpoint on photocopying. Not entirely satisfactory but it was a resolution and it hasn't been challenged in any serious I mean it was as far as photocopying was going to go. So I think that's partly what I was heading for in that in that aspect but let's let's continue on this first question and at this point we have our final perspective from Richard Gallagher and here we have the publishers side of things. Richard is the president and editor in chief of the nonprofit publisher annual reviews that has already been referred to in a very favorable way by Curtis. He spent 10 years, Richard did an immunology research at Trinity College Dublin, before moving into publishing. He has held senior positions at science. One of the top journals in the field where he led the Europe office and at nature and other of the top journals, where he was the chief biology editor and publisher. Since joining annual reviews in 2015 he has led the development of a new of new journal titles. He's overseeing the launch of the bilingual general science publication. He's a global magazine and he has participated in creating the subscribe to open approach to open access publishing. Richard, we welcome your views at this point. Thanks very much john and thanks also to open air for organizing this really interesting discussion. I'm at the question of copyright reform as a potential solution to the problems that I'm facing rather than having a very deep understanding of the issues that it would raise and so this has been very educational for me. I would say that I'm not speaking on behalf of publishing. Generally, I actually share the concerns that Curtis raised about the big commercial publishers and so there's a very specific topic on what one small nonprofit publisher is doing in terms of open access. I'll concentrate on the right to access research through open access and end with a couple of comments on the right to perform research via text and data mining. In this case, making content open access is really a corollary of our institutional mission annual reviews as a nonprofit publisher, dedicated to synthesizing and integrating knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society. There's a question that open access supports the progress of science. I think the benefit to society of open access is mostly seen as indirect flowing from the improvements for researchers and their research. But I wonder whether open access should have other direct impacts who besides the research community should have the right to access research. I think the answer is everyone, policymakers, business and labor leaders, practitioners, educators, parents, people with elderly parents, all of us can benefit from open access in a very direct way, but there are obstacles. The literature is really difficult to navigate, it can be fearsomely complex, it's terse, it's jargon ridden. So even if it isn't behind the paywall, open science can't be described, I think as fully accessible and that's something that we need to address. Given annual reviews, expertise in synthesizing complex issues, we are aiming to bridge this gap between science and society, and there are three components to this effort. The first is to make all of our content open access, it's the foundation. The second is to summarize the reviews that we publish for different audiences, such as policymakers, CEOs, activists, as John mentioned earlier, and we're working to provide information that they will find useful in a format that they want. And third, again, as John mentioned, we want to contribute to science journalism through a noble magazine. That content is also free to read and republish. And the articles are appearing in the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and BBC Future site, the Smithsonian magazine, and many other outlets republish them, making high quality scientific information available to readers via their medium of choice. So open access publishing, I think, is necessary for the new right to access research, but I don't think it's completely sufficient. We must also deliver research to non research communities. So our approach to open access funding, which which John and Curtis mentioned, we use subscribe to open whereby research and teaching institutions continue to subscribe to our content on the understanding that it's published open access using CC by licenses. I think that you can see that there are some similarities between john's proposal for copyright reform. And in the sense of who's paying for the for the work. Subscribe to open a certain benefits over the current most used approaches to fund open access, which are APCs and transform, transform, transformative agreements, especially in terms of equity. And it's now being used by more than a dozen smallish publishers and certainly not by any of the large publishers. This year it's our intention to make all 51 of our journals open access, and we are on track to make that happen. The conversion to open access is really underpinned by a very strong sense of partnership between us and our library customers. More generally, it's supported by a subscribe to open community of practice where representatives of libraries publishers, funding agencies, and the research community work together to develop the approach. To say at this exact moment in time, there's real optimism in our little corner of the enterprise. But if I look to the medium to long term, both for annual reviews and for academic publishing as a whole. I anticipate a great amount of turbulence. There may be scores of different approaches to open access to juggle. There may be real existential questions about the future of the academic literature, and it's certainly not helped by the overly commercial nature of the sector as a whole. For someone that needs to protect the legacy of a 100 year old organization, and to consider the future of 100 employees livelihoods. Too exciting at the moment, I think. This is the reason that I'm interested in ideas for comprehensive strategy based on copyright reform. I think that that's one way of creating some stability. Turning to text and data mining obviously knowledge discovery through data mining is an incredibly powerful approach that will accelerate science. Our role is to be a useful partner in the ecosystem. So we support these efforts to the best of our ability and we do so by following the recommendations of the International Council of Medical Journal editors. As a review publisher, we actually have fairly limited experience in making author data sets available. It's usually just written reviews that we publish. What casual reading around the subject is that there are challenges and that these are beginning to be addressed. I do suspect that as with open access, ensuring equity will be the intractable problem, more so than technical difficulties or funding issues to be overcome. So this will include avoiding unintended negative consequences or the use of data mining for nefarious purposes. And I'm really not sure how to assess and ensure equity in the area of data mining text mining is a bit closer to home for us. Of course, that's happening all the time without any intervention on our part. We do have restrictions on bot traffic on our products, but specific projects agree to have access and with our content host, or hosting organization at upon. I really have to mention chat GPT it's the talk of the steamy at the moment and I think it's certainly going to evolve into something that will assist in the creation of our content. And also maybe evolve into something that competes with us which is another concern on the horizon. So in conclusion, I maybe in contrast to others think that the right to research is kind of lumbering along in the right direction. Small publishers tend to support it, but we have to be careful that it doesn't stand on our toes or completely knock us off our feet on its way on its way along. All of the stakeholders need to get more closely aligned. This is one step towards doing that I think. And I think it's important that we ensure that the benefits of open science are broadly available across society and not just to the research community. Thank you Richard that was a lovely summary of all the issues in fact, with a particular perspective of a publisher of the integrity and quality of the annual reviews. Excellent. We're going to turn at this point in fact to some of the issues that you raised and the others have raised and turn more specifically with regard to copyright. And that is the possibilities of what can be done here the statement that you've been asked to respond to is that there is the role the copyright plays and might play in the pursuit of open science, because it has been nearly 50 years since Congress introduced a limited exception to the US Copyright Act that I've already referred to, which makes allowances for photocopying, and which did address the needs of science but there's been very little to the law, I would argue at least with regard with regard to promoting the progress of science since then. Do you feel that this is a cause for concern that is that the copyright law is overdue for changes and updating with regard to the digital era that we've now been introduced. I believe that this the changes that we face in terms of digital publishing are something that is best left to the market and market forces to sort out. Do you see a potential case for reconsidering copyrights role in open science, or looking for possibly other forms of government or regulatory action on this front. Given this interest in copyright review what hopes and apprehensions do you have, would you have sorry, if Congress were to consider how the copyright act could better serve societal interest in promoting the progress of science in the digital era. We'll go back in the same order but without the introductions. Jonathan band I turn to you. Sure. So thank you very much. So again, trying to be brief on a very broad topic, but as a general matter as I said I you know I think, you know the fair use doctrine has been flexible and has been applied well by courts I trust courts, much more than I trust Congress to deal with this or probably just about anything else. But with respect to the specific issue of open access and how do we promote open access and what is the best way to promote open access. So I have a bit of an anecdote on that sort of on an adjacent issue but I think it illuminates this issue so I'd say about 15 years ago I went in with some of my clients and representatives of library associations. We went in to meet with someone on the House Judiciary Committee as staffer. What we were talking about was, you know, the mergers, all the different mergers that were going on in the scholarly publication field which you know sort of on, you know, an ongoing concern consolidation monopolization and then also how that all was leading to the increasing price of journals which has been certainly an enormous, an issue of enormous concern to libraries. And, you know, we sort of were explaining to the staff or the, the overall situation how you know you have, you know, researchers get grants and they create, you know, they create articles, and do research right articles, they then license those articles to publishers and publishers charged libraries have the subscription fees and those, those subscription fees keep on increasing dramatically. And the staffer said, so let me get this right. So you guys create the content. You guys then do the peer review for the publishers. And then you buy it back and you're you're basically you're giving your content away to the publishers and then you're buying it back. And we said, yeah, I guess, you know, that that's basically what's going on we create it we edit it and then we pay for it. And, and you know, he looked at us like we were sort of like these silly little children. And he said, this is your problem. This isn't my problem. This isn't Congress's problem. This is your problem. You have the power to fix it. Don't bother us. All right, you fix it. No one here is going to have the slightest bit of patience or interest to help you take care of your own problems. And, you know, sadly, I think, you know, he's right. I mean, and with open and that that's what he wasn't referring specifically to open access both open access is kind of even worse right because that's where the, the government is paying for the creation of the content. And, and then we're, you know, we feel that we don't, you know, the output isn't sufficiently open. But, but it's in and when I say it's our problem it's not I'm not just referring just to the Academy but it's, I think it's also the funders right you know the institutions that are funding the government institutions that are paying for the creation of all this content, you know, they're part of the solution to, but it really is our problem. We need to work with them, you know, you know, the, the, the, the Academy and the funders need to work together to come up with a more sustainable solution. And that sustainable solution may, you know, it's certainly involve, you know, a small society publishers. Right, I mean, you know, clearly, clearly the academic societies and they're probably you know those non commercial publishers certainly should be part of the solution, you know, whether it's getting direct funding from the granting agencies or the grant includes, you know, it's built in or something, you know, and it's certainly easy enough for the large, you know, the NIH to sort of decide how it wants to fund the publications to make sure it's sustainable. But, but, but to sort of involve copyright law for a non copyright problem right I mean, you know open access was an all is an alternative to copyright, and it's an alternative to copyright that arises, because it's, it's all government funded right the institutions that are creating it it's our government funded the institute you know the people who receive the grants or guys it's all government money, and the libraries are government funded and so, given that it's all a government funded universe, the government with us needs to come up with a an efficient solution to make sure that everyone who needs to get paid gets paid, so that this you have a sustainable model but to sort of involve copyright law and then to involve sort of more middle men so not long do you have commercial publishers getting involved in deciding that they deserve to get all you know, in perpetuity their share of the money but even, you know libraries paying for subscription I mean it's a much more inefficient way of doing so I really think, you know, we need to understand what exactly the problem is with make sure that we're it's more sustainable, and then come up with solutions that would be sustainable solutions, but since, again at the end of the day it's all, you know, it's a it's a it's you know the academy, and, and the funders, you know they need to sort of figure out what the best way is and go forward. And let me just touch on just in closing the last one's point about well you know there's consensus ever there's consensus that open science is best and I said, you know, I would respond. There is consensus to a certain point or to a certain level, but but you still have you know academics are you know that they believe in the abstract and open science but you know if if Nature magazine comes along and wants to publish their, their article and it's not it's closed but they're there, you know, they feel that that's important for their career to publish in Nature magazine and and, and if you know if they think it's good to be with Oxford or Cambridge or whoever, you know, university press this very close they will do that, and they'll happily sign over their rights without a second thought. And so, again in the abstract everyone believes open science is the better approach but when it comes to what's like what's good for me in my career, everyone sort of runs off and does their own thing. And so, until at the end of the day, we get our house in order. We, we can't expect other people to help us. And, and also, again, let me say if we get Congress involved in the solution. It's going to be a lot worse than we think, you know the solution will probably be worse than the problem. Okay. Okay, Jonathan, thank you for that. Thank you for setting up the discussion. Kyle, I turn it over to you at this point. Thanks. Jonathan now that committee assignments are largely shaken out at least on the house side maybe we'll have some enlightened staffers in the near future. I think John's story there illustrates the perfect capitalistic system in which they're working right. It's not our problem because the systems being exploited for the workers and system for profits and it's not in favor of open science like this is your problem the systems exploiting workers and what are we going to do about it. And that's a far cry from where copyright came from right. So, you know, copyright was so important in this country's founding at least that it made it into the Constitution, right, you know they invented the post office and they had constant, and they had copyright and that's great. And the ideal language that we've been repeating here but I want to repeat again was to promote the progress of science these far so progress of science. In fact the first copyright act 1790 was an act for the encouragement of learning, which is just a great title right dissemination which was necessary. So, the question that our gracious host asked is, I think it presupposes that 50 years have resulted no action or behalf of the users on behalf of open science. And this limited section was was photocopy short started as photocopies but certainly in reality the last several amendments the copyright act have been driven by for profit market forces. As opposed to individuals researchers or cultural institutional needs that actually have a greater stake and in open science and can make a contribution to it so when there's a bill introduced, generally that would purely benefit the public. Assume close to the core of copyrights, true beating or true purpose at least as I see it, it does not always make its way through the legislative process, if there's no money on the end, right, and there's an imbalance in the representation in the form of lobbyist dollar figures expenditures that moves legislation into the realm of another money making scheme and that certainly I echo john's concerns there. Now, thankfully, we've seen this reference twice apparently both here and in Canada, the courts have been the true champions and guardians of the purpose and promotion of science the useful arts and fair use here is seeing its expansion into new and interpretations, just as you know the development of transformative fair use over the last 30 years. So just because Congress has an active doesn't mean there hasn't been progress in the promotion of and pursuit of open science. But I will add that courts are equally as susceptible to market forces at the time right, they have bigger lawyers on the other side maybe they have more money, they have more time to expend this. Congress considered how the copyright act could better serve social interests in the accomplishing the goal of open science. It would have to do it in a manner that bucks the trend of current congressional legislation right it would have to be, you know, devoid of the lobbyists that seem to control that particular industry as we tracked the billions of dollars that are spent in influence in our lectures every year we know this, and we're often outgunned in terms of influence that's just the reality right. But this is despite our moral high ground and I'll go to that point is the moral high ground enough that open science would save lives. And I'm hoping that's always a convincing argument, open access by the way would save lives to right in the same way it's taken 20 years to take hold, getting this information to the doctors to the scientists that can treat their patients this is great. If you track copyright legislative greatest hits the last few decades. Right we have the case act small claims court which some think is a troll factory. We've had the, the teach act which is supposed to enhance copyrighted works and online learning but it came or more out like a burdensome regulation. You know, I was on a PhD dissertation committee a few years ago, and the student was examining whether the last few decades of copyright legislation has promoted the progress of science and the useful arts and I'll summarize the dissertation briefly, and it was no. I have the same concerns that there is a legislative solution here. But if they were to go in and do this we would have to win the argument through this moral high ground which I think is the best argument for open science but not necessarily the legislative winning argument. So I'll, I'll hold there because there's going to be a lot of other great comments on this. Okay, I want to give everyone an opportunity Curtis from your perspective. Yeah, thank you john. So, I don't feel leaving copyright accommodations for science to be sorted out by the market would be a good idea at all there's a. I guess we call it an alignment problem between the values of open science and the values of, you know, purely market based approach as pursued by, you know, revenue hungry publishers. I think open science advocates want to accelerate and improve science and knowledge creation, you know they want to. They want to position research so it can better address, you know the problems that the many many problems that people on the planet are facing and the market forces and scholarly publishing seem to me primarily to be about preserving and growing revenue returns first you know and again you know we hope that open science comes in is a second in those considerations. I do see some interest from stakeholders I would think there would be interest in some stakeholders and reconsidering copyrights role in open science I think the rules were working under and other folks on this call know a heck of a lot more about this than I do but standing on the sidelines I mean these the copyright rules look completely dated and like they were not written for the world that we live in today, but what would it take politically to actually get reconsideration reform moving you know I have a lot of reservations about what our current politics would produce and hearing you know what Kyle and Jonathan have to say makes me even more nervous. I think there'd be great risk of special interest capturing that process, I just feel like you know as Kyle was saying about the lobbyist and things it's just seems like we would open up. We would open up something and we may not be happy with what comes out the other side I feel like it would in some ways at some point be out of our control but if we were to do it like there's obvious low hanging fruit that we could pursue you know shortening a copyright getting done with these retroactive extensions. Figuring out what to do to make orphaned works open, you know so there's a lot of things we could accomplish. But I guess I would move back to my previous concerns about you know these market forces that are in that opening question and the alignment problem between open science and you know revenue focused publishers. When we talk about you know the consensus around making these changes and doing something with copyright. I don't see the big commercial and the big, you know nonprofit publishers who really want to you know preserve and grow their revenue. I don't see them supporting this like I think the situation that they're in today is they're still making all of their money. To open up the can of worms for copyright reform would introduce a lot of uncertainty. I think for them to, to take part in this process I think it would be because the current market is uncertain the current market is risking the revenue. And even with the OSTP memo that's coming on. I think that the publishers are adapting enough that I think they're very happy with being able to continue on with the status quo so I don't think that's a stakeholder group. In particular the big revenue hungry publishers that would be interested in this, but I, I believe what Richard said you know we need a comprehensive approach and if one part of that is pursuing copyright. I don't have any consideration and reform. I'm all for it because I just think we have not figured out how to do this yet and we need to try as many things as we can to try and get to where we want to be. I want to thank you, Curtis for touching on my position as it turns out so I appreciate that. Keep the conversation moving we do want to have some time for questions at the end so that's probably why I'm speeding through but do take your time, David, and in addressing this question about copyright and bring that Canadian perspective in in terms of legislative approaches or regulatory approaches or however you see it. Yeah, thanks. So I think what what we've heard I've got. I have some skepticism about the ability of the marketplace to address kind of our broader public policy objectives around science. You know the ultimate objective here is not necessarily you know an efficiently operating publishing marketplace for for works of science or works of the arts. But instead truly the advance of science and the arts. And I do think there is role, especially in a place like Canada if we can move this discussion outside of the kind of the control of the traditional copyright policymakers in the government and we kind of bring broader perspectives to bear on this particular and maybe we could we could achieve some success, but that that hope I guess is is a squash like a bug by my experience of doing copyright policy work in Canada. I do think that this is an issue that that this is a policy question that should be addressed based on the best evidence we have about what it's easy outcomes we desire. And I think always think it's worthwhile to have that discussion. But, you know, given the interest in copyright policy review and what kind of happens. You know when we do that in Canada, I'm skeptical we do have to break it out of kind of the traditional confines of how we do copyright policy revision in Canada. So I have faith in mandatory licensing. In theory, it does operate well it can operate well the point was made earlier that this is, you know, largely government funded research by people who are funded by the government to do this research paid by the government to do this research it's reviewed by people who are paid by the government. It's ultimately used again by government funded researchers, though of course it's a broader community than that. You know, that you think that there would be an interest in having a solution that that kind of takes those that reality in perspective but the reality in Canada is that, you know, the real copyright policy advocacy and the practices of the institutions that oversee copyright policy just make me skeptical to just make me think that much as we hear from the other commentators that this is a process that's likely to be sidetracked and that the real policy objective, the copyright policy requirements and whatnot is likely to get lost and put aside by the interest of the publishing industry and by the interests of certain authors, you know, who have very loud voices in copyright policy in Canada and get ears as a result. For example, in Canada that's likely is to be placed in charge of administering any kind of compulsory license doesn't have a great track record of appreciating and understanding the wider needs of the academic community writ large. They've taken us to court time and time again and lost time and time again on these issues. One solution might be to have educational institutions form their own collective for administration of these kinds of these kinds of licenses. It's not that, you know, it's one size fits all. Second, the copyright board, which is a tariff administrating institution in Canada. Again, it doesn't have a great track record of appreciating copyrights balance. Again, it's it's overturned time and time again by the federal repeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, precisely on user rights issues the kinds of the kinds of race that we're talking about here. So, I've got some skepticism about the institutions that we would look to to oversee these kinds of solutions. These are practical concerns that would require reform, I think to address. And then finally, from a more, I don't know, let's call it a, you know, a jurisprudential perspective I worry about the impact on fair dealing outside of this community. I'm saying that this activity with respect to these stakeholders is a compensable activity. What does that mean for other stakeholders dealing with similar rights, you know, outside of this community. Will we see fair dealing, you know, you know, narrowed, which is a concern. You know, here we're treating, you know, in a mandatory license scheme we're treating this as a liability right right basically a right to get paid elsewhere though copyright remains a property right right the right to exclude. And in an academic institution that's particularly problematic, the right to the right to exclude is the right to control uses, which is completely antithetical to the mission of the of the university and so we've got some kind of fundamental concerns about fair dealing with entitlements in this space. And for that reason I think, you know, and that reason and the tremendous success we've had defending fair dealing before the courts. I think, I think kind of leads me to conclude that that fair dealing remains our best and strongest hope for kind of asserting kind of a community of rights within this space. That's the end of the discussion. It just means that there's a very strong counterpoint in this discussion. Yes, we're not sure of counterpoints but one more is absolutely welcome David for sure. Richard, let me turn it over to you to conclude the this part of the presentation. And I'll be brief. I mean, I think there's an urgent need to stabilize and regularize the conversion to open access. I've spent half my time over the last four or five years developing this strategy that allows one small company to convert to open access. And this has been replicated company by company. Also, as cortisol attest institution by institution, funder by funder, so much energy is being used that could be much better directed in genuine service to science and society. The copyright reform looks or looked like it might provide a comprehensive, stable, potentially even handed solution. And I haven't come across other possible ways to achieve this perhaps the one nation, one subscription approach in India has some characteristics that that might be of interest. But like others have said, I definitely don't believe that market forces would provide healthy conditions for open science. It would accelerate consolidation and commercialization and really heighten the tension between right to research and the maximization of profits. And that's where we are on open access. And this far if we'd relied on market forces I think it was the intervention, and most particularly of coalition s let's drag this to where we are now. Having said that there's obviously concerns about copyright reform as a tool. I'd be worried about surrendering autonomy and to the central body. I'd like to know a lot more about the music modernization act and how the various stakeholders that were impacted by that have have felt that it's worked for them before we would, before we would abandon this because there may be blueprint there that we could that we could use. I think another concern is that this should be a coordinated, whatever we do needs to be coordinated across the world. It's not something I think that us or the US Congress should set the blueprint for. You mentioned UN body might become involved, but I think that if there's going to be legislative action there should be simultaneous legislative action in different parts of the world to make it an equitable and comprehensive solution for everyone. So it struck me as a bold proposal that could provide stability and direction. And I would love to see more discussion of the concept I've certainly learned a lot about the downsides and in this conversation. Yes. Okay, just to jump in a little bit at the end but I, in doing so, let me invite the audience, those who remain with us to pose some questions in the chat. And while they do. So I would just address Richard's question with the international aspect and point to the Marrakesh Treaty, where countries agreed to introduce on behalf of hearing impaired and visually impaired, rather impaired readers and and participants and intellectual discourse to have legislation that supported their needs and interests in terms of copyright that protected their interests. So there are examples of international agreements to have a uniform policy globally. That's to brief a summary of it but it's a starting point. So are there questions from the audience for these few minutes or how about questions from panelists across. Not everyone has taken the same position, I must say. And so maybe there are questions. I think Jonathan for example that I thought it was interesting that the anecdote that was a lovely way to start by the way a nice very much focus the mind. It's your problem. But then so much of it is the government's involvement in terms of research funding it is the government's problem. And if the government is involved in a deal that is not working well then a government response seems a reasonable course and legislation is only one government response. There are other regulatory mechanisms besides legislation. So let me. How do we resolve that conundrum that it is not the government's problem but it is the government's problem. It is very much the government's problem but but I think what the staff was suggesting it was sort of like the funding agencies and the grant recipients and so the academy I mean he's sort of saying was their problem meaning it wasn't his problem as a member of you know the staffer of Congress and that that it is this this problem can be solved entirely by the granting agencies and the academy sort of sitting down and figuring out out and deciding that this is a priority. It doesn't they don't need anyone else's help they don't need Congress, you know because they they already have the money right I mean the NIH, you know, they're already appropriated you know the, you know the 30 billion 40 billion whatever it is and they decide how to allocate that and they could just make sure that it's allocated in such a way that some of it is, you know, upfront is allocating gets to the, the publishers who, you know, they've decided or they are really in coordination with the, the Academy decided are going to be, you know, the, the, you know, the publishers that would. I mean that the NIH is Richard's a very good example with 53 or 50 odd titles, only one or two or maybe three are involved in NIH research funding and there's a great deal of research outside of that. And from my perspective at least the efficiency of the research investment I think is one thing but the betterment of research more generally. So giving the taxpayers their value which has been one of the approaches to open access is, is a perspective. But I think it loses sight that the progress of science is in everybody's interest and isn't simply an investment question, a return on investment question. Thanks. I don't want to monopolize the conversation with Jonathan what. John, can I ask you a question. Please, after after looking at your book last night, this statutory licensing approach. To me there's like two potential difficulties with it so one is there needs to be, and there's a lot but two that I would just like to ask about one is like there's a registry where there needs to be agreement on what those decisions go into a registry to qualify for compensation. The other is who pays and that's what that's a question I'm going to ask you because I think it might be quick but so funders and institutions contribute. What about corporate users and individual users and the local high school. So who's in and who's out as far as who contributes to this. This would be something to be decided I don't want to make all the decisions but my sense is there would be a threshold of use for an institutional user. The lab and R&D lab at Microsoft or at Tesla would be an institutional user of research and I could be established we do track these things. So, the price itself there would be a court of appeal there would be in Canada copyright board in the United States copyright judges. And so libraries would have for the first time, a chance to exercise their privilege as a willing buyer, instead of a hostage being a subject to a hostage situation. So that to me is a really a positive part of this statutory licensing. The question about the registry just very briefly is a matter and I appreciate it coming from you Curtis is librarian because I see the library profession the information science behind library. Librarians work is something that does determine what is research, what is a quality article in terms of research what do we want to support as an library so those decisions that librarians have always made academic librarians research librarians would be part of this process. There would be appeals and there would be changes over time of course, but compared to the music industry where I do take a lot of examples we are much more sophisticated around the nature of our work. We have a science with regard to it. We're much more sophisticated around the ownership and attribution of our work compared to the music industry. So I think we're in a good position there but this is a too little a form and and we do have a, I should say, in Athens we are next meeting of this group of copyright for open science is on February 9. We're having a hybrid meeting but with some in person components in Athens at the Onassis Center and would be a wonderful opportunity to continue. The proposal that you've introduced very nicely at the end perfect timing Curtis is a great segue to the Athens where there will be a full opportunity. Curtis has just put a link in my book is open access through the direct to open program at MIT which is based on the subscribed open model that Richard helped introduce. I'm going to quickly draw everything to a closer in the final minutes by thanking our speakers, Jonathan and Kyle and Curtis and David and Richard. It has been a pleasure to have you here. I want to also thank open air again, particularly Athena and prodromus terms of their support. There's no one to mark their calendar the time zones I'll never get right. But I think essentially on February 9, it will, you can tune in between 1230 and 530 Eastern European time. But there's more information at the same place that you registered for this event. There's more information on the Athens event. I've never said that February is the best month to visit Athens, but it is relatively, shall we say tourist free at that time, and the Acropolis could be yours. So, at any rate, let me close at this stage Athena, do you want to have a final word or two for our audience. Thank you, John. Now I think you covered everything you can find the registration link on the chat. I'll also link to our dedicated web page. Yes, hey up to date. And Athens is never not busy as well, but it is a good month I think and the weather is quite pleasant at the moment so it will be nice. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you all.