The USA is under great pressure to earn non manufacturing income. One of the ways they do this is to strengthen and EXTEND the duration of IP protection laws. Look to the USA to lengthen copyrights and patents and trademarks so that they can keep sucking money from offshore wallets. We already know that big pharma might charge $10 per pill for Viagra in the USA, and charge $1 for that same pill in India, even as the pill has a cost of less than one cent. Pfizer tries to bamboozle us with innuendo saying only genuine Viagra by Pfizer works in their ads - other stuff will make your dick go black and fall off(just kidding). They try to block genuine Pfizer Viagra from being shipped to Canada/USA by their IP.
Pfizer and other pharmacos do this all the time.
And as for Disney, in 10,000 years, the Disney Corporation will be lobbying to extend their copyright on Micky Mouse to 10,200 years....
There are a number of ways Embassies, NSA typs organizations, political parties and organizations like Elsevier can use to create a uniquely coded pdf downloaded that links the subscriber's identity and the date of the download to an individual downloaded document. Bear in mind, all these documents will look superficially identical, same words, same images etc. A single line of text can probably encode 2-3 bits per 5 letter word by microkerning. This form of docu,ent control is used to trap leakers of data, as Elesvier desires. Afterwards the document can be scanned and the same software that created it can inspect the text spacings to identify who sent it. Steganography can also be used with photos.
To combat this, documents need to be OCR recognised and all words re-word processed to standard kerning. Images can also be stripped of steganographic data via projection and re-photographing with a slightly different resolution.
As to the precise ways used, it is hard to say, but if a number of different subscribers downloaded the same document at different locations as discrete subscribers that used the Elsevier API, which causes the system to create the uniquely coded document. With a few of these, they can be analyzed from the various methods used to create them, to see what means is used to encode them
This is an old an mature concept to control leaks in diplomatic circles. Every time they print a document every copy is unique, but to the untrained eye they all look the same, so if a leaker make a protocopy and hands it out a scan and some analysis of word and letter gaps will reveal the leaker. It only take a few changes to cover a group of- say 10 people. This was developed in the 80's when word processors came out on many desks. You could for years do this with early word processors and even by the letter press method by inserting sliver of spacers in between certain words/letters, but that was labor intensive. It is so common now, that leakers have learned to retype and paraphrase things they want to leak.
Universities need to obtain the rights to all papers and publish them. Each University and research body needs to establish an electronic publication format, plus a peer review process among themselves. These reviewers will be paid the same as what Elsevier pays. A aggregation service is needed. I think I will sugggest t to Google.
Think magazines, that is what Elsevier sells, and they do not buy the content. They now practice 'microkerning', which means that each copy they supply to a college in electronic format has the letter spacing and word spacing changed a little. It is a form of text based steganography. By this method they police the subscribers by threat of service withdrawal. Every researcher makes scans and sends to friends by e-mail for free. Whenever Elsevier finds one, that analyze it to see who made the scan = threat. That is the club they bear - a product of a forced monopoly that would take government copyrifght action to recify.
What governments should do is enforce zero copyright on publicly financed papers. Other paper financiers should do the same. It is in all their interests that papers all become open ASAP. It is only in Elseviers monopoly interest that the current systems persist.
There are a few drugs that are used as they come from plants. Salicylic acid, was turned into Acetyl Salicylic acid(aspirin) and Opium from poppies has evolved into many derivatives, and the fungi, in their battle against bacteria gave us penicillin and hundreds more from other fungi and their lab variations but most drugs in use now have come from scanning large numbers of compounds by mass screening method to find activity.
Gene sequencing looks like it will create the next wave of antibiotics, via synthesis and CRISPR methods that can use cells as factories for this and that.
The problem is the work needed to verify that a new drug is safe can cost $500 million. A number of drugs fail this screen and that is why the new drug pipeline is empty, almost.This can be paid by taxes or high drug prices while they are on patent. What would you choose? no testing or government pays?
Unrestricted growth of Marijuana would tend to lead to a genetically mongrelized crop with lower average THC and be prices at pennies per pound. There is a possibility that a sterile hybrid could be bred that would capture high THC as well as other attributes, so that breeders would have to buy new seed every year? I do not know enough about Marijuana genetics to know of and if sterile hybrid is at all possible. The seed hybridizers would have areas where they bred pure seed via controlled piollination.
Local growers could propagate non hybrid versions, but they would have to bag the female plants in some way to keep pollen out, and let air and CO2 in. Some plant baggers bag each flower cluster. They then spray some pollen from the desired strain on each set of florets to make the seeds for next year
True enough, what is needed is to revert the copyright to the authors, so Elsevier is stripped of those rights of ransom. In addition, declaring all prior academic publications as open sourced via changes to copyright laws should be done.
The Committee could strike a powerful blow against Elsevier et al, by adopting a policy that only scholarly articles submitted to Open Access Academic Publishers would be reviewed by the Committee. If they did this they would repeat and emphasize the creative act that made the Nobel Prize the most important body for advancing Science in history. Who could dare stand against them?
All the classic drugs, opium, belladonna, willow extract(salicylic acid) and so on were consumed as a misture, and did indeed vary greatly in efficacy. Turning them into drugs took careful fractionation and determination of the active ingredient. It is possible that there are several active components in the marijuana plant. Right now it is smoked, which destroys 70-80% of various components, and degrades them and makes tars which cause cancer in lungs. Skip to tobacco - legal, but also cancerous. Skip to nicotine puffers = safe way to inhale the active ingredient. Skip back to marijuana, extract the active ingredient(s) safely analyze whatever they are good for and then make each separate active ingredient available in the correct way to use whatever medical aspect it has - be it puffers or pills
No math has not changed, instead something far worse has occurred - the royalty stream has stopped as books are good year after year and unchanging - as it should be - HS math, Algebra and geometry is a stable topic. So these new books are created and the teachers who wrote them want them sold, the publisher wants them sold...need I say more. there is a need for a public domain set of math books, year by year, with online ability to read. Such books can have lives in decades and the only changes will be typos etc and wear and tear. That would give books printable in runs of 100,000 or more = low price.
The conflict in the system allows this, even promotes it. In college you even have profs printing books to sell to students directly.