On Monday 12 October 2009, sankarshan wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Anivar Aravind > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Some of the special interest groups we identified are also listed on same > > page > > I took a quick look at the SIGs and, it appears that there is no group > for "content". By content, I indicate the umbrella term that covers > both creative content and, educational content ie. textbooks and the > like. Is there a need to have one or, should this be covered in an > overlapping fashion by the other SIGs ?
Independent. Particularly as we have had no consensus with the issue of data (software, data, content, training methods etc) created as a result of public funding. As it stands now, academic and research institutions allow copyright (and afaik patent rights) for research and associated content to rest with the author (and institution?). This inspite of the fact that the institution and scientist is publicly funded. One reason is that the scientist is forced to assign publishing and distribution rights to the journals, especially with reputed journals. This situation has changed somewhat, with most journals now accepting non exclusive rights, subject to being paid a fee for publishing. Dr. Nagarjuna suggested that this cost should be included in the application for grants, to circumvent the issue. There is also the issue of 1) content created by government employees outside of their work mandate, being subjected to many unnecessary restrictions. 2) Archival content reposited with the GOI ( AIR, DD, etc) being parcelled out exclusively to private entities. (quotes of the Mahatma sold to Rajshri films, ISRO data). 3) Content created by artists being paid by the government. 4) Concern that a revenue stream from royalty obtained from published works will suffer. The above needs to be discussed and a new sig is necessary. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
