The Digital Factory for Knowledge E-Book
139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
This book explores how the technical upheavals of the 21st century have changed the structures and architecture of the creation, sharing and regulation of knowledge. From the new economic and technical models of production and dissemination of knowledge, the book deals with all new forms of valorisation. It also explains how the legislative deficit in the world and in Europe, around digital is being filled by new initiatives, such as the law for a Digital Republic, in France. It is therefore a book that provides a valuable follow-up to the book "The New Challenges of Knowledge", of which it constitutes the continuation and operational deepening.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 238
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Preface
Part 1: Scientific Resources and Data Economy
1 Data Production and Sharing: Towards a Universal Right?
1.1. The right to knowledge today: between attempts at universalization and “self-regulation” by the GAFA
1.2. Platform and scientific community rights: the absence of an upfront legal framework
1.3. The need to elaborate several types of legislation
1.4. Open Science: an achievable goal?
2 Data: a Simple Raw Material?
2.1. The new generation of data: management issues arising from ownership rights
2.2. How to transform these data into knowledge?
2.3. A new knowledge economy is necessary
2.4. International scientific publishing: high added-value services and researcher community
3 New Knowledge Tools
3.1. Sharing and uncertainty
3.2. Platform construction
3.3. Machine learning
3.4. Promising progress to be qualified…
Part 2: The Knowledge Factory
4 Economic Models of Knowledge Sharing
4.1. A quick historic overview
4.2. Property and/or sharing
4.3. An immaterial good capable of fueling the production of material goods
4.4. The large stakes of knowledge production
4.5. Development prospects allowing for new fields of study and more nimbly integrating researchers into the economic chain
5 From the Author to the Valorizer
5.1. The author and the valorizer: conciliation and efficiency of the interaction
5.2. One point on patents
5.3. The innovation cycle
5.4. The law for a Digital Republic
5.5. Scientific openness surpassing ancient legal tools
6 Valorization: a Global Geopolitical Stake
6.1. A multispeed competition
6.2. International cooperation in the scientific sector
7 Focus: the Chinese Patent Strategy
7.1. Chinese expansion
7.2. An inflation of Chinese patents
7.3. Some fallbacks in China nuancing its strategic position
7.4. Contestable and contested digital supremacy
8 Artificial Intelligence Policies
8.1. Policies concerning “strong” AI
8.2. Policies concerning “weak” AI
8.3. Policies concerning artificial intelligence safety
8.4. From practice to ethics: what is AI’s legal status?
9 New Formulations of Results and New “Markets”
9.1. Making universal: establishing common standards of expression
9.2. To adapt: from popularization to simplification
9.3. Developing the general state of knowledge with care
10 Open Science: a Common Good that Needs to be Valued?
10.1. A global challenge that must take the economy into account
10.2. A wide variety of public policies respond to this challenge
10.3. The French case and international rankings
10.4. The limits of the patent system and publication count
10.5. Investment tools aiming to correct these failures
10.6. How to measure innovation?
10.7. The application of research is not an end in itself
Conclusion
Appendices
Appendix 1: Extract from the CNRS White Paper: “The Work of Science and the Digital Field: Data, Publications, Platforms. A Systematic Analysis of the Law for a Digital Republic” . 111
A1.1. Preamble
A1.2. Summary
A1.3. Introduction
A1.4. Identification of pivotal concepts
A1.5. Platform
A1.6. Scientific writings
A1.7. Research data
A1.8. The concept of research data prior to the law for a Digital Republic: a concept from practice
Appendix 2: Extract from the CNRS White Paper “Open Science in a Digital Republic: Studies and Proposals for Law Application. Strategic Application Guide” 161
A2.1. Preface
A2.2. Introduction: sharing and freedom of analysis of scientific texts and data
Bibliography
List of Authors
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
1 Data Production and Sharing: Towards a Universal Right?
Figure 1.1. Legal architecture of knowledge: a typology of the levels of defining rights [MAU 15]
Figure 1.2. Survey at research units: the perception of the legal risks in connection with data. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/fabre/factory.zip
Figure 1.3. Open license logo and Open Source logo
Figure 1.4. Different combinations and logos corresponding to the types of Creative Commons licenses
4 Economic Models of Knowledge Sharing
Figure 4.1. Knowledge production and its specific forms: sharing, collaborative, and social and solidary economy
Figure 4.2. Immaterial goods and material goods
5 From the Author to the Valorizer
Figure 5.1. Forms of valorization and valorization strategies
Figure 5.2. Valorization of innovations in the law for a Digital Republic
Figure 5.3. The platform, meeting place of authors and users
6 Valorization: a Global Geopolitical Stake
Figure 6.1. Relative decline in civil research expenses in the United States
Figure 6.2. Research expenses vis-à-vis GDP: international comparisons
Figure 6.3. Tendential increase in Chinese public research expenses
Figure 6.4. Annual scientific production compared by volume (number of articles)
7 Focus: the Chinese Patent Strategy
Figure 7.1. Comparative growth of the number of patents
Figure 7.2. Comparative growth of the number of patents in China, organized by large fields of patent filings
Figure 7.3. China and the international competition in patent filing. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/fabre/factory.zip
Figure 7.4. China’s position in the digital industry
Figure 7.5. Number of patents verified and accepted from the number of patents filed: elements of comparison
9 New Formulations of Results and New “Markets”
Figure 9.1. Extensibility and “scaling up” of an innovation
Figure 9.2. Principles for formulating innovation architectures
Figure 9.3. Interoperability: actors and projects. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/fabre/factory.zip
Figure 9.4. Some examples of the many computer “code” languages
Figure 9.5. The difference in relation to time
Figure 9.6. Transaction economics and competition between the markets of scientific innovation
10 Open Science: a Common Good that Needs to be Valued?
Figure 10.1. An attempt to classify research expenditures by categories. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/fabre/factory.zip
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
C1
iii
iv
v
xi
xii
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
105
106
107
109
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
179
180
181
182
183
185
e1
The Digital Factory for Knowledge
Production and Validation of Scientific Results
Edited by
Renaud Fabre
Alain Bensoussan
in collaboration with
Lucile Collin
Marie Blanquart
Louki-Géronimo Richou
First published 2018 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2018
The rights of Renaud Fabre, Alain Bensoussan, Lucile Collin, Marie Blanquart and Louki-Géronimo Richou to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
© Copyright CNRS/DIST for pages 111 to 177
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018930648
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-241-0
Preface
The tidal wave of digital and new technologies has not spared the field of scientific research. The digital sector, an engine of innovation which facilitates progress and the exchange of results, is also the source of new social, economic and legal stakes. By coordinating the work of their students, Renaud Fabre, Director of Scientific and Technical Information at CNRS (French National Center for Scientific Research), and Alain Bensoussan, a lawyer at the Paris Appeal Court and an internationally renowned expert in the digital sector, have once again taken it upon themselves, with their students at Sciences Po, Paris, to present, analyze and grasp these different stakes that French research must face to maintain its standing in the digital era.
In a world where the economy is shifting towards the development of services and the production of data is spreading, two phenomena, both opposing and complementary, stem from the manufacturing of knowledge by scientific researchers: the Open Science movement and the need to reach the highest value for the results of scientific research.
Open Science upheaves the current economic models for sharing knowledge. This movement aims for the total, free sharing of scientific knowledge. Understood as a tool for scientific communities, accessible on digital platforms through performing research tools, data or scientific information is the object of various uses, exchanges, manipulations and treatments that overturn traditional notions of material and intellectual property rights. Some aspects relative to public research have been dealt with in France by the recent law for a Digital Republic, but numerous other issues persist: how do we ensure the quality of more and more abundant scientific articles? What are the methods for applying the law defined in favor of Text and Data Mining? Is science a common good or a resource with interest to be appropriated? What is the place of editors in the value chain and the scientific economy? Today, none of these questions can be given simple and categorical answers: every solution is in transition and, together, they create a future full of transformations.
Moreover, the valorization of scientific research has the central theme of granting an economic aspect to a research result. Currently, a large part of research projects are chosen according to the possible reuse of the technical innovation or the scientific advance that results from it in the industry or by a service company, the interest being to receive companies’ financial support. Research valorization largely passes as intellectual property, the textbook example being the patent. Yet, the patent suggests a monopoly and secrecy, the two aspects being theoretically opposed to the Open Science movement.
Can scientific progress only be brought about through economic considerations, to the detriment of public well-being, or vice versa? The geopolitical stakes are numerous, and international competition is intensifying with the entry of new actors, particularly China. What place should be given to the emergence of collaboration between States across Europe and also internationally?
The archetype of technical innovation bringing all of these issues together is artificial intelligence (AI). It currently does not lie within the framework of any legal norm. How should the contours of AI be defined? What should responsibility depend upon? AI raises social questions: does the undeniable economic potential of robots and their ability to improve the quality of humans’ lives justify the disappearance of jobs and the moral issues linked to creating a purely logical being supposedly superior or equal to man?
This book obviously does not allow us to clarify the tensions stemming from the digital sector and actualized in research between its quality as an economic tool and as a common good meant to serve us all. This book aims to address these different aspects and show that they are not necessarily incompatible.
Renaud FABRE
Alain BENSOUSSAN
January 2018
PART 1Scientific Resources and Data Economy
1Data Production and Sharing: Towards a Universal Right?
In 1968, Steward Brand, a biologist associated with the American counterculture, imagined the Whole Earth Catalogue. This tool, which took the form of a travel book, aimed to share knowledge between the hippie communities that read it and left behind it the hope for a universal spread of knowledge. Very quickly, starting in 1985, Brand launched an electronic version of the Whole Earth Catalogue, the Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link. This first bulletin board system, which then worked like a forum, brought the idea of the universal spread of knowledge to a whole new level. In fact, the dematerialization of the Whole Earth Catalogue allowed the territorial constraint of the previous experiment to be bypassed. In this, we can see very well that, despite the representation of a military development of the Internet, it continues to be influenced by the American counterculture [TUR 06] and, in essence, contains universalist values.
However, regardless of these universalist values that have fed the development of the Internet, the reality shows greater contrast today. The Web, founded on the principles of freedom and open sharing of resources, has in part taken on the aspects of classical liberalism, an economic line of thought that has largely supplanted the original ideals. Thus, if the Internet remains a place for the spread of knowledge, this knowledge is primarily lucrative and is undergoing privatization. Oligopolies are being formed by the concentration of scientific publishing houses, and platforms like Google Scholar dominate the market. This is why the regulations on knowledge are rudimentary; we are far from any perspective recognizing a universal right to access knowledge.
We have thus decided to consider this right to knowledge and its evolutions with a prospective approach: are we moving towards a universal right?
1.1. The right to knowledge today: between attempts at universalization and “self-regulation” by the GAFA
The Internet, through its deterritorialization, requires new regulations. In fact, the first obstacle to the implementation of a universal right of the Web is that the Internet, by its very nature, questions the principle of the territoriality of rights. The essence of rights as a regulation is founded on the idea that it is exercised in a given space, dominated by a sovereign power responsible for enforcing it. It is thus clear that the emergence of the Internet poses a certain number of questions concerning its regulation due to its global character.
In fact, the favored path to regulating the Internet remains the national path. Thus, with the Marco Civil da Internet [MAR 14] supported by Dilma Rousseff, Brazil proposed an innovative model concerning the recognition of Internet rights. We can also cite the digital law supported by the French Secretary of State Axelle Lemaire. In particular, Article 30 states that the copyright period should be reduced for public research, thereby allowing free access to the results of fundamental research. Unfortunately, we can also cite numerous examples where States failed to enforce intellectual property rights and to prevent the emergence of platforms offering protected content free of charge. In fact, servers need only be hosted in a lenient State for platforms to be kept online.
Ambitious attempts at multilateral regulation have failed on this point, which has led to the implementation of imbalanced regulation. For example, despite the creation of the IGF, a forum for Internet governance, it has not played the central, normative role that would have led to the emergence of a universal right to knowledge. Attempts at multilateral regulation have shown themselves to be impasses, as seen in the failure of the ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which was rejected by the European Parliament in 2012 [EUR 12]. However, despite the obstacles to a universal right to the Internet, the extraterritoriality of US law helps spread the hypothesis of self-regulation through GAFA1.
1.1.1.Towards the emergence of a universal right to knowledge subject to divergent economic thinking
In fact, we observe that the current tendency is regulation through a form of extraterritoriality of US law, which then imposes itself as the global web law. We can see this in the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) created by the Clinton administration in 1998, which regulates the assignment of domain names around the world. Likewise, the US Department of Justice led a large operation to close the Megaupload platform in 2012. Although this was based in Hong Kong, the US authorities felt that they were in a position to intervene because the data went through servers located in the United States.
Furthermore, we observe that the preferred method of regulation remains soft law, with, for example, the publication of official reports and nonbinding recommendations. Yet, it happens that, very often, these recommendations arrive a posteriori and aim to act and frame the existence of practices that evolve at an extremely fast pace concerning new technologies. In fact, those dominating the Web and creating it, GAFA, become their own regulators [PAR 12].
Maintaining this dynamic could create several important risks for the regulation and sharing of knowledge. In fact, it implies a predominance and reinforcement of American control over the Web, which remains concerning after the Snowden affair. On the contrary, the dominance of large groups makes this a “sixth continent”, partly placing oligopolistic businesses ahead of States, which poses a serious democratic problem. Finally, the right of GAFA favors the market and the logic of profitability, rather than promoting the development of open access to knowledge and its conception as a common good that should be freely accessible.
1.1.2.The recognition of a universal right to knowledge: a “realistic utopia”?
In light of the privatization of the Internet by GAFA, more and more militants are mobilizing so that knowledge will be recognized as a common good. A common good is an unrivaled good that is not exclusive due to its public utility. Since the early 2000s, as a reaction to neoliberalism, numerous actors have mobilized to defend this concept and it has spread to various domains, including knowledge.
On 27 July 2015, in Rome, the participants of a conference at the Italian Senate “Universality of human rights for the transition towards the State of law and the affirmation of the right to knowledge” launched an appeal for the recognition of a universal right to knowledge [NON].
In the wake of these alternative militants, numerous solutions are emerging to counter the vision of a closed, private Web, even taking on concrete realities. Thus, many universities have begun offering MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), editors are making more and more Open Access content available and a legal regime of copyright has even been created with the Creative Commons. A portion of knowledge can be found in open access today, a status which allows its democratization and reappropriation and nourishes the ideal of the recognition of a universal right to knowledge.
In conclusion, we can say that the current situation of Internet rights is in contradiction. If we admit that there is a need for the universal regulation of knowledge, there remains a preference for adaptations of national law. Despite the failures that we have seen, we are indeed moving towards global regulation. This will remain imperfect and present strong limitations because it will not be democratic. However, the utopia of a universal right to knowledge could become a concrete reality; it is supported by militants of the common good, and concrete actions show its possibility. Far from a radical reality, we are seemingly moving towards a hybrid model, where an imperfect right of GAFA will coexist with embryos of the right to knowledge, which are a minority but democratic.
1.2. Platform and scientific community rights: the absence of an upfront legal framework
1.2.1.A system partly caused by the development of the digital sector
The development of the digital sector has allowed the massive creation of new information as well as the improvement of new tools to process it. This revolution particularly concerns the scientific domain and especially STI (scientific and technical information). There are two categories of STI: the data forming the raw material for research and publications. STI is thus presented in every area of research, both in the starting phases and in the final product. There are two primary uses for it: for researchers, it is a tool, and for laboratories, it provides access to their information. Practically omnipresent, it is easy to highlight the importance that STI takes on in the sector and the new role as a facilitator that the digital sector has assumed.
The automation of many systems thanks to the development of computer technologies can also be observed. This greatly increases researchers’ capacities to carry out research on larger data corpora in a more driven and faster way.
Finally, the development of the digital sector has led to the emergence of the notion of the value of data, i.e. the perception of the pure digital product as having an economic value that can be exploited by shrewd investors. This is an interesting notion for both researchers and private businesses, which have sought to benefit from it a forteriori. Researchers can valorize their final product and reap the economic benefits, as well as scientific advances (e.g. commercializing a scientific discovery) and private businesses have the opportunity to draw on new technologies for greater profit.
All of this therefore leads to an evolution of the research system as such and the modification of the methods of functionality for those involved in the sector.
1.2.2.The now-fragile law attempting to protect the results of research
What we call “data” is made up of three distinct layers: base layer, basic content and constituent elements of the content. These elements fall under the protection of copyright, protection by sui generis law and the protection of the elements, respectively.
Figure 1.1.Legal architecture of knowledge: a typology of the levels of defining rights [MAU 15]
1.2.3.Intellectual property rights
The question of copyright must be regulated with the various right holders (authors of articles and journal editors) on a contractual basis before being incorporated into the base [MAU 15].
Copyright includes the monopoly of reproduction, including the adaptation of works. Publishers, the holders of the cultural rights on the scientific texts that they publish, can consequently forbid third parties, as well as authors, from partially or fully reproducing a product, as well as any translation, adaptation, transformation, arrangement or reproduction through any art or method [LEG 92b]. The publishing contract between a researcher and a publisher most often takes the form of a contract of adhesion. It foresees a cessation of the researcher’s copyright in favor of the publisher, generally in an exclusive and gracious manner, for use throughout the whole world and for the entire legal duration of the copyright. Numerous testimonies have allowed the publishers’ practice of having the signing of a copyright transfer form proven. This contract is written in such a way that it seems that only a lawyer specializing in copyright law could understand it. Researchers often sign it without even reading it because they do not have their institution’s support to provide a reasoned opinion and a means of defending their rights as a creator. Therefore, the speed of publication is a significant point in the framework of international competition and researchers do not always have time to implement an appropriate procedure for validating the contract.
The CNRS’s ethics committee, in a statement “concerning the relationship between researchers and scientific publishing houses” made on 31 January 2011 [CNR 11], describes this situation in the following way:
“The end of the copyright for an article accepted by the editorial committee of a journal, which may be based in one country or another, on a recommendation from one or more reviewers, is most often requested by the publisher as a courtesy. If an author refuses to sign the form ceding his/her rights as an author, the article, although it has been accepted by the editorial committee, will generally not be published”.
Some publishers, aware of the importance of making articles available for research and the tendency towards Open Science, give authorization for the article to be uploaded to an open archive after an embargo period (post-print) [CEN 16].
1.2.4.The notion of databases and protection by sui generis law
The notion of databases is defined in Article L112-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code [LEG 92a]: “Databases should be understood as a collection of works, data, or other independent elements, arranged systematically or methodically, and individually accessible by electronic or other means”.
The legal framework protecting data is defined by the provision of the European directive on databases from 11 March 1996 [EUR 96], transposed in France by the law concerning the legal protection of databases. This creates a so-called sui generis law in favor of the database’s producer. The database’s producer is defined as the person who takes the initiative and risk of the investment.
It can prohibit:
– the extraction of all or a substantial part of the content of the database;
– the reuse of all or a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial part of the content of the database;
– the extraction or repeated and systematic reuse of qualitatively or quantitatively insubstantial parts of the content of the database when these operations manifestly exceed the normal conditions for using the database.
For example, digital STI is accessible through scientific publishers’ databases. The publisher, in this case, is the producer of a database who can consequently prohibit all qualitatively or quantitatively substantial extraction from his/her database. Digital STI is also available through institutional databases, or even epijournals, Open Access databases. The producers of each of these databases are also holders of sui generis rights, who can prohibit all qualitatively or quantitatively substantial extraction [CEN 16].
The principles of sui generis law are as follows: if, in principle, the data are not individually protectable (save for specific cases), in the hypothesis that the data is protected by a private right (intellectual property rights, personal data rights, right to privacy), the aggregation of a significant amount of data can be protected, if necessary, by virtue of the sui generis rights of the database’s producer [CEN 16].
These provisions are unfortunately limited by the legal fuzziness that weighs on the notions of “data” and “platforms.” In fact, even if the database has a set legal definition, the notion of data is not defined precisely. The 22 December 1981 decision on the enrichment of the French language imposes the following definition: “representation of information in a conventional form meant to facilitate its processing”, but this is far from covering every possibility for the Internet.
The notion of platform has neither a statute nor a legal regimen. This absence of a definition leads to a certain legal insecurity already emphasized by the French National Digital Council in its notice from 13 June 2014 [CNN 16], as well as by the French State Council in its 2014 report, “Digital and Fundamental Rights” [CNN 16].
It was the law for a Digital Republic [LEG] that accomplished this definition, but in an indirect way, given that it is the activities of online platform users that allow a platform to be defined:
1) “the classification or referencing, through computer algorithms, of contents, goods or services offered or placed online by third parties;
2) the comparison of several parts with an eye to sell a good, provide a service or exchange or share content, a good or a service”.
Obligatory loyalty is also imposed upon the platform’s user.
