| Back to Bulletins index | Back to INAG-62 Contents page |
The long-standing tradition of "free and open access" to ionosonde and other STP data is under threat from legislation and treaties that are designed to meet the grave international problem of piracy of computer-based material, such as software, cassettes and compact disks. With the aim of solving this problem, treaties have been drafted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Directive has been issued by the European Union (EU), and legislation is in course of introduction into the U.S. Congress. Similar measures may exist in other countries.
The European Union Directive 96/9 gives legal protection to "databases" (meaning collections of "independent works, data or other material arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means"). Chapter II ("Copyright") protects the databases themselves, but the contents of databases - i.e. the actual data - are to be covered by a new form of protection, the "Sui generis" right (Chapter III). EU member states must implement Directive 96/9 by January 1998. They are permitted to allow dispensations for scientific and educational use of databases, but it is thought that the EU will press national governments to adopt a very restrictive approach that may well prevent scientists from freely using data in the traditional way - in particular, by collating and re-assembling data from a variety of sources. The "sui generis" right is especially worrying; it seems ill-defined, open-ended and all-embracing, and might be used to acquire property rights over long-established data sets that are widely regarded as being in the public domain. Moreover, restrictions may be placed on data exchange with countries that do not have similar laws.
The new "copyright measures" have many similar features:
The scientific Unions have repeatedly advocated the principle of free and open exchange of data at minimum cost. This principle is based on the idea that data have no inherent commercial value. The present practice was formulated for the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958 and has stood the test of time. It works to everyone's benefit. In general, the countries that contribute most to the system, by operating observatories and data centres, also make the heaviest use of data. It has never been considered worth trying to establish "gains" or "losses" in the data handling system. The data are archived in data centres and are freely available to scientists and engineers at minimum cost, largely through World Data Centres and FAGS Centres. For their part, most research scientists are generous in allowing others to use their data.
The new copyright and "sui generis" measures, with their emphasis on "rights" and "payment", raise the spectres of a commercial "data market" and of "intellectual property rights" in scientific data. These risks are greatest where (as increasingly happens) data operations are privatized or contracted out. The consequences may be especially serious for science in developing countries, which are least able to meet the cost. It should be noted that the "fair use" dispensations from "sui generis", that may be given by national legislation, will not necessarily allow scientists to collate data from different databases, in the manner in which so much ionospheric research depends.
The concept of a commercial "data market" (ideologically attractive to some politicians and economists) threatens long-term and academic research. Since practical benefits of research may not appear for some years, it is extremely difficult either to attach monetary value to the data or to recover the great costs of acquiring and archiving data - even supposing there is any real advantage in so doing. In consequence, cash-limited projects are forced to use fewer data, even if the science requires more. Measures for "cost recovery" (e.g. "pay-per-use" systems) lead to a situation in which short-term commercial value becomes the only criterion for collecting data. Long-term research becomes difficult or impossible, and environmental trends may go undetected.
In STP and some other branches of science, it is highly doubtful whether "cost-recovery" ever works. It merely recycles and dissipates funds between users and funding agencies. Its inevitable administrative burdens are mostly borne by the scientists. As these burdens are not highly visible, managements may ignore them in order to make the "cost recovery" appear spuriously "profitable": it is not difficult to conceal $50's worth of work consumed in selling $10's worth of data.
The scientific community must act to ensure that its work can proceed without new legal, administrative and financial burdens. It is vital to maintain a "public domain" in scientific data and data services, free of individual property rights, and to ensure that data in this public domain remain freely and openly accessible. Agencies that support scientific research, such as NASA, NOAA, ESA and counterparts in other countries, should be asked to affirm or re-affirm that data obtained with their funds will be subject to free and open access (with allowance for reasonable time-limited "first use" privileges where necessary). Some treaties and agreements already provide "free and open access"; they should be exploited. Reasonable objectives are:
Time is short! Acts, Treaties and Directives will
be imposed soon! Try to find out the situation in your own country,
and do your best to influence it!
| Back to Bulletins index | Back to INAG-62 Contents page |