Sorry if this was already discussed or not, but the US Supreme Court did make note in the past year or two that sequential data (like genes, for example) cannot be patented or else copywritten, as it would be akin to laying claim to nature.
On the other hand, there are definitely questions as to the nature of data. For example, content on YouTube has been known to be taken down over copyright claims, although civil law would tell us that a difference of 20 seconds would turn that data into a new piece of work. Granted, if x-researchers somehow achieved the EXACT same phase space in their data collection in time, we shouldn't be asking about copyright, but miracles instead. On Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Karsten Hilbert <karsten.hilb...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:24:07PM +0200, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > >> It's an extremely fine line to walk. And greed, stupidity, >> and fear will make worse of it. > > At least in recent years a movement has arisen to demand and > try to make mandatory publication of unrigged facts, > regardless of license. > > Karsten > -- > GPG key ID E4071346 @ gpg-keyserver.de > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130925203522.gc4...@hermes.hilbert.loc > > >
