I did not see any mention of Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) and would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on it..
I think we are all very supportive of the Creative Commons movement. It is unfortunate in a sense that it has to exist. The fact that the default is for works to be under copyright is one of the worst changes to the law in recent memory. It would be far better if copyright existed only for those that actually wished to claim it. Creative commons does an enormous service by at least providing a simple and clear way of renouncing parts of copyrights. I use it extensively for my own work. Far better of course just to get rid of copyright.
I think Open Access Journals, Institutional Repositories and Creative Commons Licensing are as innovative as the Open Source movement for software, challenging the current system and opening doors for creation and competition.. Again these topics were not covered in the book and I would be really interested in learning about your opinions on these movements. (Any chance for a second edition?)
Don't know about a second edition...the first hasn't been out that long. Professional journals are a scandal that we've discussed occasionally on this blog. The issue has somewhat limited connection to copyright - more to do with the fact that commercial publishers own the reputations of scientific journals. I'll be posting more on open source publishing shortly.
Also I'd be interested in your take on the somewhat recent events of - the HR-801 Fair Copyright Act and the AM/FM Radio Royalty Bill.
HR-801 Fair Copyright Act is a bill pushed by commercial publishers to undo NIH policy that forces scientific work paid for by government grants to be open access after a period of time. The idea that the government pays for research that is then put under lock and key is both offensive and from a policy point of view stupid.
The AM/FM Radio Royalty Bill seeks to force radio stations to pay royalties to copyright owners. Was there something here broken that needed to be fixed? This is the central reason that I oppose intellectual monopoly in all of its forms. Once you have it, there is constant lobbying to grab more and more, regardless of whether it fulfils the purpose of promoting science and the useful arts.
