Mae cwestiynau i'w hanes.  Always difficult to understand questions sometimes acoustically. So you think if the entire population is in favour of going to war how difficult it is for conscientious objectors? No, it's how the conscientious objector responds to his family group because families were broken up by this. And they were saying to him, if we all did this we would lose immediately. So you are looking after your conscience and letting all your fellow guys go out to get shot. And it's quite difficult psychologically to deal with that questioning. You should probably prevent that situations like that emerge in the first place. There should be a sufficient number in a country who holds the opinion that we are not going to war against another country and we are not collective enemies or collective friends with somebody else. Yes, if you have a situation where the overwhelming majority in one country wants to go to war and you resist it, then the best thing is somehow to be a fellow traveler to do absolutely nothing. You don't have to volunteer to go to war even though all your neighbours do go to war. You can tell your kids, no we will not participate in that even though all our neighbours and your friends do go to war. If you have a situation where the overwhelming majority is in favour of it doing it, then all you can do is try to stay private as long as you can protect whatever is dear to you and hope that the whole thing goes over and you are still alive. Just a little something to add. There's a very nice movie of an Italian director, Womini Conto, about World War I. It's one of the hardest anti-war movies that were ever made and in fact he was tried because it was an offence to the Italian army, the movie. In a scene of the movie one of the soldiers says, we are all armed to the teeth. What we should do is point the guns not to the Austrians on the other side but to our officers behind and the war would end in a minute. This should be the attitude no matter what the other people think because war is always a useless slaughter. Even if you are just one conscientious objector against all the rest of the country, you are still right. It doesn't matter what the other think. Nonetheless, you might not want to risk your own life if you know that you are completely alone. Even if you can shoot your officer but you know that they will retaliate. So there has to be a realistic assessment of what the situation is. In my speech that I give on Sunday afternoon I will address these problems to a certain extent. Yes, sometimes the best thing is I give up. That's it. There's nothing I can do about it. But you have to make an assessment of the situation as it exists and depending on that assessment your decision might be this way or that way. But in any case I would recommend that you try your very best to stay out of all of this. Sometimes that is all you can do. If I have a big bully living next to me, sometimes the best thing is to simply say I have to just be on peaceful terms with this guy. I hate this guy. I wish the guy would be dead. But I'm not in a position that I can kill him. He will likely be more successful than I am. I was just about to say that turning guns on officers didn't seem to work very well in Russia, if I remember right. A critical question to Hans and then I'd really like to get Anthony's view as well as the body historical narrative. Hans, you talked about how a Ukrainian libertarian should see the whole thing. Now I know quite a few Ukrainian libertarians and Russian libertarians as well. And maybe surprisingly maybe not a single one I've talked to agrees to this kind of radical neutrality. But interestingly all the Ukrainian and Russian libertarians I talked to agree with each other on seeing the Putin gang and the society surrounding it as the bigger threat. And the Russian libertarians rather leaving Russia and the Ukrainian libertarians rather staying in Ukraine. Are you demanding something utterly unpatriotic and unhistorical of them? Or how do you explain that anecdotal evidence I'm trying to share with you? Or have you met a single Ukrainian libertarian that shares this approach or is able to remain neutral? I do not know every Ukrainian libertarian. I'm pretty sure that they have different opinions when it comes to some of these questions. Obviously a libertarian living in the Don bus might have a very different position than somebody living in Lemberg or Lyf as it is called right now. The Ukrainians are not one homogeneous blob of people. So some of the Ukrainians have no interest whatsoever at the Don bus and they would be gladly giving it up. Others of the opinion we have to defend the borders under all circumstances as they exist historically. Even though historically of course the borders of the Ukraine have continuously shifted. The Soviet Union was the one who gave parts of Slovakia to the Ukraine. They gave parts of Romania to the Ukraine from Poland parts were taken away and given to the Ukraine. Now to pretend that all of them have identical interests is obviously wrong. So I would just simply say to these people, do you care about all of the Ukraine? Give me an argument why all of the Ukraine in the present borders has to be defended. Or are you actually only interested in whatever defending Galicia? Which was traditionally part of the Austrian Empire for instance. So the same thing applies by and large to a country like Germany. Not all Germans have the same idea about what Germany should be like. Germany existed in the 19th century consist of 39 states. Most of the people identified with very small units. They did not identify with all of Germany. So to them I would simply say what is your objective? What part are you willing to defend? If you are willing to defend the entire Ukraine as it is right now then I think you would make a big mistake insofar as you override the will and the wishes of large parts of the population who would rather want to have a rather different solution to this conflict. Good afternoon and thanks for the talks. They were amazing, the ones that I managed to catch. From a practical perspective what is the panel's opinion on what is happening in New Hampshire in terms of the free state project moving oodles of people into the state to take control of the local politics. Thanks. The free state project of New Hampshire is very interesting. The idea is very simple. Let's move as many libertarians as possible to one state in the US and so even without doing anything and with the same legislation, with the same structure it will affect some changes. We had a similar idea in Italy. There are very small cities where you have 30 people living there and they even give you money to, if you go there and take up your residency there and we thought we could move there a thousand people and we set up a libertarian city. The mayor could make all police officers so we could be all armed although it is forbidden in Italy so it's an interesting model of trying to do something. I think no one has the right recipe to set up freedom in our unfree world as Harry Brown would phrase it. But anything goes. Just a little note on Raheem's question. I think we must stop being attached to national states. National states are just an artificial construction of historical forces which are way beyond what we believe, at least we libertarians believe about how you should live in society. If I am Ukrainian, Russian, it doesn't really matter. Ukraine for example was the theatre of an ongoing war about languages and both parties, the Ukrainians forbid the people to speak Russian and vice versa and there have been shifts in population so to say that there is some sort of unity but this is true of any country. I come from Italy. Italy is not one country. It is an artificial construction which was organized mainly by the British and French Secret Service in the 19th century and we share some common cultural heritage and maybe a little bit of common language and that's it. The best way for Italy would be to explode in many different states and I would say in many different individuals, sovereign individuals and this could be the way out of the mess we are in. I made that point, the decision to go to war and what war to conduct, in which way to conduct it should be done on the smallest scale possible. Yes, sometimes you have no choice, you have to just do what the central government tells you and then you just give up but nonetheless, yes of course I would defend the village in which I live. I would even take up weapons in order to defend my immediate neighborhood but whether I would defend somebody living thousands of miles away from me that I have never met and who might have committed all sorts of provocations against other people to go to war for fools that have caused these types of problems that I would refuse.  Everybody defends their wives, their kids and things like this but I don't necessarily want to defend the wives and kids of people who might have committed rights violations that I personally despise and this is what you have of course in all collective big scale wars going on. Ukraine is not one homogeneous blob of people. They have people that have very different views of who is right and who is wrong and yes the first insight always has to be we do deal with gang leaders on both sides. None of them loves us very much. None of us would, none of them would help us in any way. Why should I help any of them in their conflicts that they have with other gangs? If they force me to do it, yes I might do it.  That requires in any case a decision that you have to make for yourself in some specific situation, in some specific location where you are and based on the assessment of what the world is like, who is on whose side, who will come and rescue you or who will come and attack you if you do such and such. There is no uniform recipe that works in all sorts of situations. All I can say is I wish you luck defending your house against tanks. If the tanks are there, they are there. Again, this will be a topic that I will bring up on Sunday. It depends on small, every attacker needs support in public opinion of his own population, so to speak. Without some reason you cannot persuade any population to support going to war. There must be popular opinion behind it to a certain extent and you need an excuse. Small units give you very little reason to attack them. Why don't people attack Liechtenstein? This is a teeny country. The Swiss could roll over there in one day and take it over. The Germans could take over Luxembourg in one day. Why don't they do it? Because they would not find any support in public opinion in Germany that would justify such an attack. People would say, why in the world would we attack Luxembourg? Why in the world would attack Switzerland, Liechtenstein? The smaller the units are, the more difficult it is to find a justification for it. The larger the units are, the more easy it is to find a justification. In the Ukrainian case, they mistreat the Russian-speaking population. Of course, Russia has an excuse now to come to the rescue of the Russian-speaking population. The smaller the units, the more difficult to find an excuse to attack. People do need an excuse for an attack. Even gang attacks in cities usually have some sort of justification why gang A starts beating up gang B or vice versa. I see your point, but again, there is no uniform recipe in order to prevent any type of war going on. The only thing that we can do is minimize the risk of wars. To minimize the risk of wars, one method of that is to decentralize the political units because the smaller they are, the more difficult it is to find a reason to go over and attack them. I have a question for Professor Hopper as well as the other two speakers. In your lecture, you mentioned about the underperformance of the Ukrainian economy of Ukraine as versus Bulgaria or other eastern bloc countries. But one past, this conference, a past participant, he told me is very important for Ukraine to join NATO, not necessarily the EU, but NATO, because without the security guarantee from NATO, there wouldn't be a long-term investment like infrastructure, talking about more than 20 years of commitment. So that explains the underperformance of Ukraine versus the other countries. So what is your take on that? Not all countries joined NATO Switzerland is not a member of NATO, for instance, Austria is not a member of NATO, for instance. NATO, I think, did have some rationale as long as the Soviet Union existed as some sort of at least allegedly defensive alliance. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the raison d'être of the NATO basically disappeared. What the Russians did, the Russians withdrew all their troops from East Germany. I mean, keep that in mind. The Russians, all the troops that East Germany was occupied with Russians, they withdrew all the troops, not a single one was left. The Americans did not withdraw their troops from West Germany. They still have atomic weapons stationed in West Germany. So NATO basically had no reason to continue on after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union also withdrew all of the troops from other countries that they previously belonged to their empire. There were no Russian troops anymore in Poland. There were no Russian troops anymore in the Czech Republic or in Slovakia, as far as I know. There were no Russian troops anymore in the Baltic countries. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved. The Russians could have said, just as you keep NATO, we keep the Warsaw Pact. They didn't do that. NATO made promises to the Russians that they would not expand NATO further to the East. Even though that was not fixed in some official agreements, it was the understanding of the Russians that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO taking place. In fact, of course, it has taken place. Russia was surrounded increasingly by NATO members, and that NATO is not a defensive organisation was also proved by what they did in Serbia, for instance, where there was something similar taking place. Provinces wanted to secede and something like this, and there they just went in and attacked the Serbs. They had basically the same justification or the situation was basically the same as in the Ukraine case, except that in the Serbian case, of course, it was a good thing that they intervened in this situation. It was considered to be a bad act. As far as economic development is concerned, you don't need to be a member of NATO in order to economically develop. As I said, Switzerland is the richest country in Europe, has never been a member of NATO. That the Ukraine is the worst of all of these countries indicates that the level of corruption in that country is much higher than it was, for instance, in the Baltic countries. The Baltic countries, yes, they are economically far more successful than the Ukraine. They became free of the Soviet Empire at the same time. So you can be successful as a small country. Lichtenstein is even more successful than Switzerland is, it is even smaller. That the Ukraine ranks below Albania. Albania is also not a member of the NATO, by the way. That is a striking performance that indicates that in terms of corruption, Ukraine is no better than Russia is. I'm not saying that Russia is a great country or anything like this. I'm just saying the difference between the two is not all that great. They are used to widespread corruption. There are large regions that wanted to be part of Russia or at least wanted to have granted some autonomy to speak Russian in these territories and not be told by Ukrainians. No in schools, no Russian can be taught anymore. Ukrainian has to be taught and so forth. The Ukraine is an artificial place. One of the big heroes in the Ukraine is Stepan Bandera. Stepan Bandera cooperated with the Nazis when they invaded the Soviet Union at that time. Stepan Bandera had three goals.  He wanted to have a homogeneous Ukrainian nation. When the Nazis discovered that he did not want to be a protectorate of the Germans but wanted to have a purely Ukrainian place, then they arrested him, put him in a concentration camp. He survived it, he died in Munich. He is considered to be a hero in the Ukraine. They have monuments erected for him, streets named after him. The Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, who is now a vice foreign minister for the Ukraine, Melnik, was one of the most impudent person in Germany, always demanding this and insulting all sorts of people who were of different opinion. Under normal circumstances, he would have been immediately expelled from the country as a diplomat. He went to the grave of Stepan Bandera in Munich and celebrated him. There are some reasons to be sceptical about this view that the Ukraine is a Western country. They defend our freedom and so forth. They don't defend anybody's freedom.  Zelensky has arrested all sorts of oppositions. He doesn't do anything differently than what Putin does in his country.  All sorts of people were dismissed and invitations were revoked from the famous singer. They cancelled most of her contracts because she had once met Putin and didn't distance herself from Putin sufficiently. Nobody has ever distanced themselves from any Ukrainian who has committed these types of atrocities that they have committed Ommas just like the Russians do. So treat them equally. That's all I'm asking. Just a few words. I don't think that belonging to a military alliance can have any connection with economic development or at least not directly. Then I'm very sceptical about the phrase economic development. What sort of economic development? Capitalism doesn't exist anymore and so economic development in a normal fashion doesn't exist as well. We live in a world of cronism, of privileges given to certain industries of a huge financial system which lies on top of the real economy. So what is economic development anyway? I remember a famous interview by Milton Friedman in 2003. He visited Italy and the interviewer asked him what were the strengths of the Italian economy and he said tax evasion and black markets. This should be our attitude. Black markets are true markets. All the rest is just cronism. Alessandro, thank you for your speech. Outstanding. I wanted to direct your attention towards the end. You made mention of the psychological mechanism as the key line of effort. Within that, first is the exposure to better ideas and second would be civil disobedience. I think you're really spot on with that. Even under official security dialogue, think tanks and initiatives there's a focus now on cognitive warfare, this term that's being bandied about quite a lot. So even the state is focusing on that cognitive aspect in an overt fashion. And with that in mind, what is the method of breaking out of conditioning and then second, would you also place any type of institutional arrangements, changing institutions within society if you had any goals to move towards rather than just breaking existing conditioning and civil disobedience? Well, psychological conditioning is the main instrument of ruling. I cited Desmet's book about the psychology of totalitarianism and there he quotes a book by Ellenberger about the unconscious and he quotes a very interesting studies about the shamanic deaths. So in certain primitive villages, the shaman kills you by enchanting, by saying some enchantment and he says that the victim actually dies because both the whole village, the victim and the shaman, they are all convinced that there exists this power and this is exactly the same situation we have. We are not much different from the primitive dwellers of villages. We have a whole big superstructure which was religious until a certain time and now it's way more complicated with all our institutions and democracy and all these things but at the end of the day it's still a psychological way of conditioning people into believing that they have to obey that the ones who have the titles of presidents, of rulers, of ministers and so on have the right to demand obedience from you. So disobedience is the first thing. Institutional changes. I think the single most dangerous institution which hampers our freedom would begin at least, it's an impossible task to change this world so we always turn around the same problem but anyway the single institution where I would begin are central banks. In fact there is an experiment going on now in Argentina. There is an outspoken Libertarian candidate Javier Millay and he pledged that the first thing he will do is abolish the Argentinian central bank and dollarize Argentina or better to say try to establish a free money situation like in Hayek's book, The Nationalization of Money. This could be an experiment. Anyway, taking away the power from central banks and from financial institutions could be the way to begin. It's hard, it's close to impossible. I am very skeptical as well as Hans told us today about the project of establishing a new currency of the BRICS countries somehow tightened to gold. It's very difficult but still this is the first and fundamental question in my opinion. I want to get briefly back to Tony's remark. How do you defend yourself if they come with a tank? How do you defend yourself against your defenders who also have tanks? Szilenski also has tanks. If you don't participate, I smash you with my tanks. Putin says, I smash you with your tank, it's my tanks. I cannot defend myself against a tank but I cannot defend myself against a tank of my own people either who defend the entire nation. Just briefly, I pass you on. I think the second amendment should extend also to tanks so you should be entitled to have a tank. Again, I would say life is often a tragic choice between two bad alternatives but there may be a better and a worse alternative. When I vote, I don't vote for the person I like. I vote for the person I least despise. Okay, but that was my point with the Ukrainian people too. They should just be left and make the decision who they despise less. I'm not sure, the answer will be always Putin. It will be very frequently also. I despise Szilenski even more than Putin. I agree perfectly. There is no recipe that we can avoid these things entirely and sometimes there is no way that we can make a decision that makes us perfectly happy and perfectly safe. In life we must make compromises that are sometimes... To nobody's personal liking but appear more suitable in this situation and less suitable in others, I don't think we have much of a disagreement on all of this. Okay, I have a question for Alessandro. I really enjoyed your lecture on sovereignty and state of exception. My question is two-fold. First, about Schmidt. Do you think Schmidt's view that the sovereign is he who decides the state of exception? Do you think that view applies only to the modern, the Weberian nation state that arose after the Reformation because as you know in the Middle Ages, Schmidt himself says that the phenomenon of sovereign dictatorship arose during the French Revolution. So the sovereign is also the dictator. This concept of sovereign dictatorship didn't exist in the Middle Ages. So my first question is do you think Schmidt's... Perhaps we could even say his understanding of politics is attributable only to the modern Weberian nation state or can you generalize it to all states including pre-modern states? My second question is what do you think about the classical legal tradition? So the classical legal tradition says that the purpose of law, should be oriented towards the common good. This is an idea that you find in Aristotle. With political modernity you get the idea that... with Hobbes for example, Hobbes says that elects the transfer of rights to the absolute state occurs because in the state of nature men are warring with one another and the state rules by brute force. They surrender to the law, which is a kind of all positivistic conceptions of law arise from this. Whereas the classical legal tradition, which emphasizes the common good, says that all laws should be established in such a way that the purpose of law is to allow for the flourishing of the political community, to allow for the realization of the common good. I asked this question because you said the purpose of the law should be to protect our liberty. But the conception of liberty that you proposed in your lecture or talk, I think was a kind of negative conception of liberty, where it's the common good, the classical legal tradition views liberty as positive. It's the ability to realize one's inner possibilities, which pertains to the whole political community and ultimately the political community scene is having one shared common good. You find this in Aristotle and Saint Thomas. Those are my two questions. What do you think about Schmidt's thesis applicable to pre-modern states as well, and what are your views on classical legal tradition? It's called common good constitutionalism now in the United States with legal theorists like Vermeul, Adrian Vermeul. I just wanted to get your thoughts on that. Yes, Schmidt is quite clear about the fact that he thinks that the idea of sovereignty is especially to Jean Baudin and his book about the Republic and to Thomas Hobbes. He says that it is a modern conception. In fact, the medieval states with this hierarchy between kings or emperors and the pope on the other side with an inbuilt mechanism of limiting the power of the political rulers was quite different. The king in the medieval tradition was subject to the law, and the law was represented mainly by religious authority or religious principles. The medieval ruler was never a ruler in the modern sense. In fact, making up laws, you could say making fiat laws as we have fiat money, was not in the realm of the possibilities for a medieval ruler, so it was completely different. Schmidt is quite clear about this derivation of the modern sovereignty from the tradition of the 17th century, and in fact he sees an acceleration after the French Revolution, which in fact not only the French Revolution, but let's say it's the paradigm of getting rid of the personal sovereign, and substituting the personal sovereign for an abstract concept. At this time and with the rise of democracy and of modern states, you have these gangs of robbers who are in competition against one another in order not to be the owners of the states, as Hans Hopes said in his democracy book, but just to reap all the benefits to be the user-fructuraries of the states. This is one of the reasons why we are in the present situation. As far as the second question is concerned, I don't think that the common good approach is a good approach to define law and to find a solution about the problem of law. In fact, there is the famous definition in Roman law, which is use est ars bony et equi, ne minem ledere sum cuicue tribue, which means the law is the art of good and equity. It's the precept never to harm any other human being, and to recognize private property, because to recognize to anyone what is his means respect for private property. So this definition is very close to what we define the non-aggression principle, and so I would say the purpose of the law is not the common good, but it is the individual good. It is the defense of individual rights, and with this in mind you can establish a just legal system in my opinion. There's a word about the purpose of law. The purpose of any norm is in a way to avoid conflicts among people. The purpose of law is to make it possible that peaceful relationships exist between different individuals with different interests that they have. I think what the modern libertarians do is they did not really discover anything new. The basic rules are really simple. Every person is sovereign as far as his own body is concerned, can do to another person's body only if he is asked to do that. That is one element of making for peaceful relationships. The second is if there is scarcity in the world and people can fight over who is the owner of this or who is the owner of that, then if we want to have peace from the beginning of mankind on, then the idea, lox idea basically applies whatever has been unowned before becomes owned by the person who makes first use of it because only the first user can acquire this thing peacefully because there was nobody else there. Then transfers of property have to be voluntary and all present ownership of people must go back either to original appropriation, which does not longer exist by enlarge that we have passed that age, or through voluntary exchange. There are then of course sometimes questions did that originate that what I own right now in this entirely peaceful way and there the rule has to be whoever holds it presently has a better claim and anybody who comes along it says no that had been stolen from my grandparents by your grandparents and because of that you don't own it then the burden of proof has to be on the person who disputes present ownership. So any type of proof, when people say, once upon a time the Rhineland was occupied by Romans and they took it away from some Germans that might well be the case but the person who claims this right now must show that he is a direct descendant of the German person that had been exploited by the Russians at that time and the question is simply a time question. In East Germany for instance when the expropriations were taking place records existed of what people owned before. It would have been easy for instance for East Germany to restore the original owners to their property because they had titles. It was far more difficult to do that in the Soviet Union because the time when they took over was far further back in the past and lots of records simply did not exist anymore. So there how you privatise for instance collective property is a more difficult question. I have written on these questions too how that can be resolved in a way but it is completely different from a situation where you have clear records. The reparations questions for instance of slavery that they start in the United States. In most of the cases it is simply ridiculous. You cannot show that my grandparents did this to your grandparents I am the direct descendant of this and because of that that is my property. These are just all vague claims I can claim any type of thing I want if that is the only thing that you have to show. The burden of proof is on those people who change the current arrangement of property. What we all can do nowadays is of course yes the taxes that the government collects out of which they pay their salary those are things that currently happen so I can clearly show they have no government official in Germany, in England or in the United States has title to any of these things that they take away from me. None of them. We cannot show that we are the owner of Germany. Where are your documents? You are the ones that have some claim to Germany as it is. Has any person ever conducted a contract with you that stipulates that 10%, 20%, 50% of your own income you have to deliver to me? No, they can't do that at all. But as I said, things that happened way back in the past the past is past, there is not much to do unless you can just present clear cut proof that you were harmed by this and you go down the line and say here it happened and these are actually stolen goods and because they are stolen goods they have to be returned to me. So I think the purpose of law is to make peace among people and the rules how to make peace and how to create peace from the beginning of mankind to the end the rules exist. Yes, people break these rules and then we have to find a way how to deal with people who break the rules how to deal with criminals and how to deal with states how to deal with bullies next door how to deal with attacking warring countries and so forth but what is needed in order to create peace what sort of rules should exist is by and large clear that there are cases where certain problems arise for that we have lawyers and judges who look at the case specifically and investigate exactly this is what happened this is the witness that he has this is the witness that he has and so forth but the principles of creating peaceful relationships among mankind are worked out by countless theoreticians for hundreds of years I'm not in complete agreement with Locke's views but essentially is right to hear a psychiatrist talk about history and to witness last year during PFS a student of Hulsman give a lecture about supposedly economics but it was merely empirical research which had no theoretical or useful knowledge at all I want to ask the question what is your attraction to history because to me it seems that for economics it's clear that we do not need history to derive the rules of praxeology economics can be known without this thing it's like logical mathematics you don't need any type of history to it also to live a good life the patients come to you as a psychiatrist with moral problems, ethical problems, psychological problems and I understand that a lot of the problems are to give some kind of meaning to the past but in essence isn't finding out what is moral finding out what is the good life for you isn't that also in essence a priori doesn't the knowledge of how to live a good life has its epistemological basis in a priori reasoning, rational philosophy do you not understand another person just as good as you understand yourself doesn't any testing, any experience an sich cannot bring you any knowledge of the good life so also ethics, we all know here I hope that indeed the fundamental principle of law is that you can do with your means whatever you want and I can do with my means whatever I want but this is not something that is testable either you cannot go out in the world and try and see if we try it another way we have to deduce it I question just I love a good story and you can learn something from a good story but history itself, what is the attraction of history itself and is it really truly necessary to know anything about history in order to live a good life in order to not harm anybody's rights in order to live a just life with other people I think if you don't know anything about history I agree perfectly with you then you are just living animal life in a way they also don't know anything about history but I'm not quite sure if I understand all the implications of your question I just wanted to point out what libertarianism is not to tell you what a good life is like they only tell you what should be punishable and punishable offences and what should be considered to be sins or bad behavior I'm a controversial figure in the libertarian movement too because many libertarians tend to be leftist libertarians people can do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anybody but imagine you have neighbors who just only stink up their own place who have table manners that makes you throw up when you see them eat so there is far more to a decent and good life than just abstaining from aggression against other people I know quite a few libertarians I would not want to be their neighbors under any circumstance and I know quite a few people that are not libertarians that I would consider to be perfectly behaving neighbors with whom I would like to live in close proximity so the question to what makes for a good life is something where I do not feel qualified to give a definitive answer that you have to find out yourself the minimum requirement is that you adhere to these libertarian principles but those are just the minimal requirements as I said I have met libertarians I would not touch them with a pole but you could have reached these libertarian principles and you probably did without having to test it and without having to use history so I suppose that we are listening to the history talks because it teaches us something else about life which then maybe brings us closer to a better life but then isn't reaching that point in reaching a moral good life ultimately also not testable and also just an a priori kind of science an a priori reasoning again look you need history in order to even know the options that you have right now what possible good lives are there for you in this situation you must understand what you inherited from your parents what is yours, what did they do before what did the neighbors of your parents do before all of these things are important to know in order to make your decision what would be a good life for me in this particular situation I was very glad to hear that Hans doesn't have the answer to how we should live the good life come on I'm a very modest person I think your attitude is a kind of complete rationalism which does not work I don't think man will ever understand himself fully I certainly hope he never understands himself fully because some people are going to have much better understanding than others and you can be sure that that understanding will be used for no good but you sound rather like Mr Gradgrind at the beginning of Dickens's hard times and he starts by saying facts alone are what are needed in life facts are everything and you're implying that principles are everything now a man without principles is a scoundrel but a man with only principles is a fanatic so you need experience of life and that experience of life can be vicarious through reading history after all you might start having great ideas it's very unlikely that those ideas will never have been thought before it's very unlikely that nobody has ever tried putting your ideas into practice and it might help you to see that they haven't worked in the past and in the western world socialism for example has made great inroads into youth as if no one had ever tried these things before so I think history is of some use I think we should stop this session now Tony's remark about a man without principles is a scoundrel a man with only principles is a fanatic I think I perfectly agree with that assessment we should all take that home as profound advice and with this I will end this session and remind you that James Henry will now present a little preview a few minutes of his video on the Dutch farmers fate and if you want to stay after the preview you are free to do so and if you prefer to jump into the pool you are also free to do that I have no principles when it comes to this and because of that I don't think I'm a scoundrel


Just recently my wife's uncle Bo was in town and his background is trimming trees, getting up in trees and cutting limbs off and things like that. And so while he was in town, she decided to ask him to come over and to help clear some of these overhanging limbs and dead limbs off this tree. The only deal is that Uncle Bo was about 137 years old. To make matters worse, she compounded it by asking her Uncle Michael to also come and help. Now Uncle Michael has some heart issues, I don't know, maybe he's had like seven, eight, nine heart bypasses, something like that. Anyway, we're talking about a combined 200 years of experience, right? These guys are born in 1800 or something like that. These are ancestors. And so the problem that I had was I really didn't feel like doing any work that day but because they were coming over it, I didn't want to have them getting hurt and that happening kind of on my watch. And so I put on my clothes and I want to go out there and just make sure they didn't get hurt. I figured that I would have to be the one that would have to get up in the tree or something like that. And so I put on my clothes and go outside and what do I see? Uncle Michael's back there in the back, on the side of the house in the bushes pulling twigs and pulling branches and vines and stuff down. And I'm looking for Uncle Bo and where is he? He's up in the tree. I mean these two senior citizens, they're working. So it went from me making sure that they don't get hurt to me sitting down watching them staying out of the way so I don't get hurt. And so what's a guy like me to do, right? Well, I did with any man in my position would do. I sat down, I watched him and then once they left, I took all the credit. Sometimes we forget how valuable older people are. Now I can say that because I'm getting up there myself.  It's because my hair decided to leave on its own. I know what it's like to get older and there was a time where I didn't look at getting older too finely, right? I admired my youth and there's an old saying you've heard it before that says youth is wasted on the young. Why is that? Well, because when you're young, you've got all this vim and vigor, all this vitality. But the one thing you're lacking in many cases, no, not in many cases, in every case is a lot of wisdom, a lot of experience. You can be smart, but being smart doesn't bypass wisdom. How you handle the things that you know. Even someone who maybe has been to school and they're in their late teens or early 20s, even early 30s, I would take the person that's got some more experience in life over that person. And there's these different stages in life. When kids are growing up, they learn some things and they want to share it. They feel like they're getting smarter. And then when they get in their 20s, oh my God, it's hard to tell them anything, right? Because they feel like that they've got answers to everything. But then they get to their 30s. You think 20s were bad. In your 30s, you feel like I'm an adult, right? More so than I was in my 20s. I've got a little bit of experience. Maybe I'm married, got a couple of kids. And so now I feel like I'm on par. I'm equal with those that are older. But those of us who have been around the block a couple of times, maybe you're like me, you've got adult children. My oldest is third. I've got grandkids. I've got three grandkids. And so if you're like me, you get into your 40s and your 50s and you start looking back and rather than being the 30 something who thinks that they know a whole lot. In your 40s and 50s, you begin to realize that all the stuff that you thought that you knew, you don't really know that much anymore. Now, when you get in your 30s, after a while, you start seeing some things, especially in your 40s, you start speaking just the way that your parents spoke to you. And you're wondering, man, where did that come from? Well, that's what you call wisdom. That's what the Bible calls wisdom. In Job, the Bible puts it like this. He says that wisdom belongs to the aged. Proverbs 16 puts it like this. Gray hair is a crown of glory. It is gained in a righteous life. Now, it didn't necessarily mean that you have to have gray hair. And of course, if I had some hair up there, you'd see that a lot of it is gray. Some of that is just because you're old. Men don't necessarily mean that because you're old that you have some wisdom. But the one thing you won't see is a lot of wisdom in someone who's young. It doesn't mean that young people can't be wise and they would maybe be wise for their age. But the Bible makes it clear that we ought to respect the age of people as they get older.  And then go back five years from then where you wiser five years prior. And then five years prior to that. And they would all say, sure. Well, just like you got wiser as you aged, so too did the 40 year old, the 50 year old, the 60 year old. Why am I saying this? The Bible says, listen to advice and instruction that you can gain some wisdom in your later years. And so fools despise instruction. And God is clear that younger folks ought to look to older people to gain some wisdom. Maybe the older person may not know as much as it pertains to technology or how do you do certain things?  I thought that it always meant someone is literally laughing out loud. I just found out what a DM is because those haven't been the most important things to me. And so the younger folks will look at me and think that my God, where's this guy been? So, but don't let someone, because you're young, despise you because of your youth, as Paul is telling Timothy, you can get so high-minded and so big-headed and so reliant on what you've learned in school because you've picked up a few degrees here and there and you've learned a trade that now you've got a full grasp on the world. Well, no, that's not how it works. When Uncle Michael and Uncle Beau were finished, they were showing me how to, the proper way of using a chainsaw. I thought they just put the thing down and just start cutting. And they told me no and they showed me the right way to do it. And because even though they were older, I would have been the foolish person trying to say, yeah, I know I can figure this out. Well, I know enough to know what I don't know. Ultimately, all wisdom comes from above.  You may have a grandmother or a great-grandmother or a mother or a father, or someone that's a little bit older than you that you can go to and talk to and ask for advice. Maybe it's with children, how do they raise their children? How it is in terms of taking care of the house or maybe running a business, things like that, how you deal and interact with people. Oftentimes, you learn some things that you carry over in life and it can be beneficial. So I just want to encourage one of the older people to be a source of inspiration and wisdom to the younger. But to those who are younger and who feel like maybe that you've got this thing figured out, one, you don't. But two, don't neglect using the resources, namely older people that God has given you. Amen.


Everybody forced here ripping Yeah, I did it this time two boxes For Jonathan L Jonathan has 20 23 Bowman chrome University football hobby in 2023 tops chrome update Baseball hobby good luck Jonathan. Let's go ahead and get started That's like loose like Hold it enough to where you can see like the Penis like rap or something like that. You know I mean Tops rap All right, I guess theoretically they could Oh nice, we're Jalen right refractor first bowman auto How much number to 499? The right Jalen He's one of the right brothers Then it's late. You can definitely fly green shimmer in a 99 Sam Harbin For sure There's rumors that he did sign with Tops or like fanatics. I guess which I guess tops would fall under that because fanatics owns tops But I don't know I don't know table He had an exclusive with upper deck. I don't know if he signed an exclusive with anybody But he would have had to sign at some extent to sign a card like that. He can only sign upper deck cards if he's still in that deal, so Singleton refractor May he just may he just may Extractor Ryan O'Keefe Yeah, that's what I would assume estimate There's gonna be a lot of that talk going around with guys going through Non-license to license so like basically top slash fanatics Because they're gonna have the money and it's like a drive and the reasoning to do it Like if they have the license and they can do it, then they will refractor first L.T. Overton Shimmer will Johnson. Come on Sam Hartman base auto Solid autos. Let's see a big color here though refractor Jason Marshall first moment. We're getting Jason Marshall I Fractor Austin Jones, I think it's on max right now. I'll probably have to watch it sound Yeah Purple first woman Corey Forman the 399 Steve's only communicating in emojis now Great. He's toast buddy. He's toast. Thank you Steve for your Input sir Although he's the only person chatting Hemmins table him and table. Yeah, so it's a one and you two want to twitch right now Yep, if somebody came in on liked our stream like 35 times fracter Oscar Del me likes if we get to 82 So real estate like 125 put it down better Fuchsia mini diamond Casey Thompson out of 150 Steve Can you just go create like 30 accounts and go like this dream dude? Someone's hate watching and dislike this dream that many times What a life to live that would be So-so box of BCU. Let's see TC update Come on debut patch But but but But So You're calm down over here. You're saying that a lot Scared away all of the the families Reese's piece of Maguire green refractor James McCann out of 99 Great card action stars Ohtani Prism refractor rookie of Andrew Nardi to gnarly Nardi J rod feature stars refractor rookie brewer Hicklin Gunner on the 88 all-star Garrett Cole. All right, we'll see you later, man Hi Steve Rookie debut refractor Riley green That's insane table. That is wild. I Almost don't believe that is crazy Gunner Henderson action stars That would explain a lot about Pinini soccer recently though. Oh and Miller refractor a mr. T black fine. I was pulled. That's cool mr. T a Peaceful prison rookie Joey Weimer. You sure it's not clubber lane Alvarez all-star judge Devil Williams refractor diamond dominance Shohei Ohtani SP for you Jonathan there we go very very nice Pretty sick action stars of cunea makes this a pretty good box Legumina rookie refractor rookie debut refractor Joey Weimer Gunner Henderson Titans rookie refractor auto Cal Stevenson the 499 Tyler Alexander refractor prism rookie debut Yuri Perez Contra and that will do it appreciate it Jonathan congrats on the Ohtani. We'll get these cards out to you


out of the water. I'm your lifeguard, Alicia Anderson, and welcome to the Fort Report. Say, do you know why elephants can swim wherever they want? Because they always have trunks with them. No? Well, how about this one? Where do ghosts like to swim? Lake Erie. No, again. OK. Well, I guess those jokes aren't very funny. Well, neither is water safety. So let's look at what you can do to help with drowning prevention. While you do that, I'm going to go see the new Baywatch movie. Sorry. Texas is number one in the nation for pool drownings. And that's not necessarily a statistic you want to be at the top of. Tarrant County specifically is third in the state for pool drownings as well. So we're trying to combat those numbers. Two seconds is too long. Two seconds is too long to leave a child in the water unsupervised when people are in the water. Someone, a water watcher, needs to be completely focused on what is happening in the pool. No phones, no iPads, no books to read. It's a lot easier to prevent a tragedy than deal with the tragedy after it's happened. Fort Worth Drowning Prevention Coalition offers swim safe programs. We get kids and adults in the water who don't know how to swim and teach them to be comfortable in the water so that they can self rescue. We also have a dry land education portion where we take parents and caregivers and have somebody teach them about CPR, about how to properly watch the water, the rules of being around water, how to use a life preserver, all the things that you can do that are simple in order to address the drowning prevention issue. Visit fwdpc.org for more information about swim safe programs and volunteer opportunities with Fort Worth Drowning Prevention Coalition. Here's a look at other events happening in and around Fort Worth in the next few weeks. For a listing of more events and city meetings you can always check the calendar at the city's website.


FNN The Tiger financial news network news update Hi everyone Basel Chapman here on this wednesday 30th of of march We're looking at one more day to go to get their closing candle for the monthly chart So for the dollars up 50 points at 30 set five thousand three 44 It would have just seemed being a natural thing to have some kind of a pullback today But I did have a Chapman wave a Tringage reading a high reading that suggested there should be at least a 90 11 point rally in the s&p from some kind of a low Well, we've certainly got that because the s&p right now is trading down just six points at 46 25 Having been down to 46 14 Very nice nine point move on the upside and we're looking at yesterday being a leg d at 46 27.63 Can we get above that today? I want to see that candle close fabulously by tomorrow thursday at four o'clock for the monthly march candle in the s&p We're looking at the qqq Been a little weaker earlier on still down about dollar 50 at 369 and 19 It's an all egg b and the Chapman methodology a buy signal that gets upgraded to a buy mode Which it did at the close yesterday Suggest there should be a c and a d four higher peaks. We've got that in the down the s&p. So the lagging Index so far is the iwm just in terms of the notation of the Chapman wave methodology and you still you're in a leg d in the iwm Trading at 211 0.53 just down a tad if we can get to the two 15s by next week That's going to be really good goal that a big move down today It's rallying some it's up 20 at 1937 stuck in a range in this lower range Um, I think it's just consolidating huge gains. We're looking at crude oil same thing Let me just show you something very interesting if we go to the uh, let me just do this quickly if I can There it is. So if you go to the 10-minute chart if you're looking at crude oil What a nice rally from earlier this morning, uh from the 104 55 level the continuous contract goes to the 200 period moving average to get stuck there Finally breaks out now to 108 and look at gold Gold's doing the same thing get stuck at the orange 200 period moving average in the 10-minute chart now It's moving up nicely. It's up 20 and the tlt and that's the big issue. Yeah, it's a tlt It's trading down 30 since 130 144 That's going to be an issue and and yields are still very high. So you can anticipate higher yields still to come


Hi everyone, my name is Pena and I work within the research data management team at UK Data Archive. We are based at University of Essex and my main responsibilities are to oversee ethical and legal aspects in data sharing and not only the guidance as well as the training covering this. In this session I will focus on intellectual property rights in the context of research and I'll begin by explaining briefly what secondary data is, which is then followed by discussing what rights might there be in research and I'll also discuss some issues that are very important in this context such as establishing right ownership challenges sharing social media data and national variation in copyright. I will also discuss some best practice steps to ensure rights compliance when it comes to share your data for future use and finally I will point you to the resources that may be useful. I'll answer your questions at the end and if you have any specific project related questions you can always email me, my email address is at the last slide. So IP rights are the rights that are granted to creators of works that are the result of human intellectual creativity, something that is created using your mind for example a story, an invention, an artistic work or a symbol and there are different types of IP rights that includes trademarks which is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design or expression that identifies products or services of a particular source from others and another is patent which is another type of IP right it is an exclusive right granted for an invention. Third type of IP right is registered designs, a registered design protects only the shape or appearance of a product and it gives its owners the exclusive right to the design of that product and the final type is copyright which is the protection offered for creative works such as books, music, literary works and of course your research data. You get some types of protection automatically others you have to apply for and as you are aware that we will be focusing on copyright as it is most relevant to our work. Now let's begin with what is secondary data. Unlike I'm sure all of you are aware with it so unlike primary data which is collected by a researcher directly from the original source, secondary data is an existing data gathered from studies, the ways, experiments that have been run by other people or for other research. For example, existing data available at archives or from government or organizations, essays, views or information available on the social media. So just a quick question. If you can, sorry, go to the Mentimeter using the code 64324927 and answer just one question if you have used or plan to use secondary data or you can write into the chat. You can use Mentimeter on your mobile phone. So couple of people have answered so far. So that's good. If you have used or plan to use secondary data, then that means that you can gain something out of today's workshop for sure. So majority of you so far, that's great. You can keep this Mentimeter on because I will be using throughout the workshop with the same code. So that's perfect. Thank you for on screen. So that's good if most of you have used or plan to use secondary data. So the two most relevant types of rights applicable to the secondary data sources are copyrights and database rights. And I'll talk you through to both of these in today's session. Mostly it will cover copyright, but I will touch upon database rights as well. So the first section covers the copyright and research data. The copyright is an intellectual property right assigned automatically to the works creator. It prevents unauthorized copying and publishing of an original work. And the creator is automatically the first copyright owner, unless there is a contract that assigns copyright differently, or there is written transfer of copyright signed by the copyright owner. It can vary nationally, but under the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, copyright applies to original literary, dramatic musical, artistic works, sound recordings, films, broadcasts, cable programs, typographical arrangements, publications, databases, and so on. So intellectual property rights affect the way both you and others can use your and others' research data. And these issues should be considered at the outset of any research project. In the context of primary data, if you plan to share it for future reuse, you need to consider how you want your data to be used by other researchers or students. You can specify this by licensing the data to match the intended use. So various types of licenses for sharing data have been developed by the data archives. For example, here at UK Data Service, we facilitated three levels of access for data, open access, safeguarded access, and controlled access. You can, I have added links to these access frameworks on the last slide, where you can read more information from our website. So coming back to this, in the context of secondary data, if a researcher wishes to share research data by publishing or disseminating them, all the right holders need to be identified, and the necessary copyright permissions be granted for data to be shared. So what the researchers do not realize is that they are allowed to use the data from several sources for their personal use. But when it comes to data sharing, they need to obtain permission from the data owner. And you can say that fair dealing exemption may apply, but in this context, if they have restricted their data to be shared to the third parties, fair dealing exemption does not apply to this. So in the UK, copyright arises automatically once the work is created. So to enjoy copyright protection, the work must be original. That is to say it must be your own work, not copied from someone else. And there is no copyright in ideas or facts, only in the way those ideas are expressed, such as diagrams, tables, and so on. So as researchers, when you need to obtain copyright clearance, please bear in mind that you do not need copyright clearance if you incorporate the factual data in your own words, in a structure owned by yourself. You may not need to obtain permission if you are making a copy and utilizing that copy for your own research, as long as it is not made available to others or citing from the research data. However, you need copyright clearance if you are going to include the secondary data in a publication or plan to share that data with other people. It also applies to incorporating secondary data in your own database that you intend to share with others. So there may be other rising issues. For example, where personal data is concerned, not only the permission from the person who has created the work is required, but permission from all the people whose personal data is in the work is required, for example, in the context of diaries. So copyright and research data is a complicated topic. However, I have tried to highlight some important issues when it comes to data sharing. For example, researchers need to keep in mind certain issues such as rights ownership challenges when using social media data and national variation. Before I go to this information, let's go to Mentimeter again for some quick questions using the same code. So what do you think who owns the right? If someone is doing a project research project in the university, is it the university or a staff employee who owns the right to the data that is being created while you are in an employment? Any thought? I'll answer these and then there are a few questions related to the right ownership. So majority of you have said it's the university and some of you think that it employs. Some people are still on screen, so I'll wait a few more seconds before going to the next. Yeah, so it's clear that most of you, apart from a few, thinks that it's the university who owns the right. So the next question is the university or the student. For example, students working on research projects, PhD students. So mostly people go for students. The last one, what do you think who owns the right? Is it a research funder or a researcher? Yeah, so majority thinks that it's researcher. So thank you for your answers. Coming back to this, yeah, so you need to bear in mind that who's on IP ownership will depend on national law, first of all, and individual institution policies as well. And it may vary from country to country. However, as a general, the copyright in a work is initially owned by the works creator. But this isn't always the case. If a work is created by an employee in the course of his or her employment, the employer owns the right unless otherwise agreed upon differently. So those who answered that university owns the right, they were right. But it could be different if it was agreed upon differently. So many universities or research centers claim ownership of any IP that is generated by academic staff in the course of their employment. And also when IP is created using substantial institutional resources. So and also went to or more authors prepare a work with the intent to combine their contributions, the authors are considered joint copyright owners. So in terms of the students, most universities recognize as a general principle that students who are not employees of university own the IP rights in the works that produce purely based on knowledge received from lectures and teachings. So however, they may some circumstance, there may be some circumstances where ownership has to be shared or assigned to the university or a third party. Typically these include sponsored students, students working on research thesis or publications in collaboration with academic staff. So you can say that it depends, but mostly it is with students. So research funders may also wish to exert some came over rights, although in most cases IP rights are attributed to the researcher unless an output becomes commercially viable. So if a university research project has commercial collaborators, there may be joint IP rights in the research output, which are best handled via legal contracts or consortium agreements. And researchers should clarify ownership and rights relating to research data or sources, both for primary and secondary data being used before embarking on research. So because this in turn will help determine how those data can be published and accessed in the future. So the best practice is to find out the ownership as soon as possible. So how can you find out who owns the rights? It is not that hard to find out. If you are affiliated to an university or research center, there should be a staff in there who deal with the ethical and legal compliance in research like REOs or you can find it looking at the applicable national IP law, IP policy of the university and the individual contractual agreements among the university's PRIs, creators and sponsor or as a last resort seek legal advice to be compliant. Because failure to do so can cause serious issues for the future uses of your research, such as its dissemination and future related research projects or profits associated with it. So the next issue to consider is the copyright considerations when using social media data. I'm sure you all are very well aware that what social media is, it is an umbrella term used for internet based or mobile applications that allow users to form online social networks. Some of the very popular social media platforms include Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn. However, the most widely used among these in the context of research is Twitter and LinkedIn. The data is usually obtained through the application programming interface APIs of the social media platforms. APIs are provided by social media platforms to enable controlled access to their underlying functions in data. And API acts as an interface between the social media platform and a consumer of social media data. The Twitter streaming API allows researchers and collecting institutions to obtain tweets generated by users in real time. Thus, accessing data through APIs provides the most authentic record of social media. So the social media data available on the platforms includes individual posts, tweets, what people share on a day-to-day basis, how people comment on posts and tweets, show their opinion and behavior, their likes, dislikes, visual content such as photos and videos, their interests, social interactions, networks and what is the current trend in any context through the data on ratings. So these different platforms poses a wide variety of functions that appeal to a different audience. They all create a by-product of valuable data about the users who interact with them. So again, time for a couple of questions on LinkedIn, Peter, using the same code. Have you ever been involved in a research that involves social media data? So majority of you have not, just like me, but recently I'm aware that it's a fantastic data, very valuable data in a real time. So some of you have been involved, so that's good. So, so far what you have listened to in this session, what do you think would be the copyright issues using social media data? Any thoughts? Yeah, verifying the truth, that's right people. So far, people think that they are different what they pose on the social media to the originally who they are, who owns the data, third-party material, permissions, yeah, that's right, permissions, licensing terms, that's right. Ownership, identifying the owner, getting permission to use, data protection, yeah, most of the answers are around ownership, that's great. Verifying sources, privacy, objections, more answers, yeah, that's right. Verifying sources, deleting posts, that's right. If somebody, you have taken the data, somebody has deleted that post, you cannot access that historical data, yeah, that's true. Thank you. Thank you for your answers, coming back. Yep, so you are right, most of the answers are just perfect. The terms of use for the most commonly used social media platforms are similar in terms of how they deal with intellectual property rights. So you were right, content is protected by copyright in the same way as books and journals, whatever you post on these platforms is considered your creation, your content. So these platforms clearly states that the users have copyright for their own content. You are the copyright holder of your tweets or Facebook posts, though you are the copyright holders, but when you agree to the terms and conditions to create your account on these platforms, you sign an agreement that gives the site a license to freely use the work for a variety of purposes, including an opportunity for researchers to access the data for academic research. So researchers using social media data need to abide by the terms and conditions of the platforms for API developers. However, terms and conditions of these social media data platforms or API developers play an important role in terms of the future uses of data. So you can use it, but when it comes to future uses of data, such as publishing or archiving, then there is a problem. So I will be using Twitter as an example, as it is the most widely used social media platform across the world, and it is relatively easy for researchers to collect data from it. So as an open platform, the majority of posts are available to public view, and researchers can collect large numbers of tweets in a very short period of time via the platform's API. However, though it is a valuable source for research, but researchers face challenges when it comes to publishing social media data or archiving it for future use. So after a researcher or research team has created a data set, it is not usually possible for them to deposit that data set with an archive or collecting institution for reuse. For example, Twitter policy restricts form sharing any data they obtain from the API and also from storing data in a cloud. The policy does, however, allow the archiving of tweet IDs, the unique number given to an individual tweet or user ID, the number assigned to Twitter gum holders. Other researchers would use a tweet ID to recreate a data used in a previous study, but only if Twitter continues to provide access to that historical data. It is not ideal, but at least it provides the better solution than sharing no information at all about data sources for published study. And besides this, there may be another challenge. Researchers use different methods to access social media data from APIs, different tools, different platforms, different types of APIs, and different resets with different services which create very diverse type of data set. So individual researcher use different methods to clean or organize their data as well as different tools and methods for analyzing their data. And in addition to the IDs associated with associated with the data set information about how the raw data was collected and how it was cleaned, it is also important. And it will be required for recreating the data set or understanding how and why it has been altered. So therefore the archiving of data set identified is more effective if the processes used to create them are also documented. Twitter places particular restrictions on the form in which tweets may be published requiring certain items of data to be retained in the published form. The forced retention of this material may pose a challenge to privacy. For example, if you need to quote some tweets while publishing, you cannot anonymize the tweets as Twitter does not allow modification in the content. You need to use the full tweet as it is. So it's really hard if you plan to share your data. Here I have added a useful checklist by UCL, though it is for the reviewers, but it can be useful for the researchers who wish to use social media data. I let you quickly read it. Quite a useful checklist. So I know there isn't enough time to read it, but you are going to have the slide so you can in your own time. Now another important point to keep in mind is they're copyrighted in the international context. Just a quick question. You don't need to go to Mentimeter. Just use the chat function in which country you are carrying out your research. UK, Jamaica, that's interesting, Switzerland, Australia, Germany. Yes, most of you are from UK, but we have people from Germany, Australia, Switzerland, Jamaica. So quite a mix. So someone doing a comparative study globally, Nigeria, US focus groups. Thank you. So we do have a diverse background. So every country has its own copyright laws, but over the years there has been extensive global harmonization of copyright laws to treaties and agreements. These treaties and agreements establish minimum standards for all participating countries. This system leaves room for local variation. And one of the most significant international agreement is the Berne Convention. Though it was signed originally in 1886, but it has since been revised and demanded on several occasions. And this treaty lays out several fundamental principles upon which all participating countries have agreed. And one of those principles is national treatment, which means that all countries must get foreign works the same protection they give to the works created within their borders. So assuming the other country is a signatory. Besides this, the minimum standards also include the type of work protected duration of the copyright limitations and exceptions. So the most important thing to bear in mind is that the national laws are built on the similar basic standards, but there may be variation on a country level in terms of type of work duration and exception. This is an interesting map which gives you an idea of differences in copyright duration around the point. I just leave you for a couple of minutes to have a look on this map. So we can have a look at the map from a continental perspective and we can clearly see patterns of same duration with small exemptions. For example, in Europe, all countries with the exception of one adhere to life plus 70 years as copyright duration and valor is not part of the EU has a shorter duration, which is life plus 50 years. And in comparison in Africa, we can observe more variability with Angola and Libya with only life plus 25 years, Yemen life plus 30 years and also the only country marked as plus life plus 99 years. And under the 1996 law copyright in Ivory Coast lasted for 99 years after the death of the author. But under the 2016 law, this duration was dropped down to 70 years. So overall, we can see the continent is dominated by life plus 50 years. And on the other side, on the Asian continent, we can observe a few countries which respect the default ban convention, which is lifetime plus 50 years. And Tajikistan, North Korea and Vietnam, they do have this. And in South America, Columbia stands out with life plus 80 years and similar with the Europe dominated by life plus 70 years.  So you can see that despite international agreements, there is a national variation. So you always need to check what the national copyright law is where you are conducting research. So now I will talk you through to the database rights as this is also relevant in this context. According to the UK's Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulation 1997, a database is a collection of independent works arranged in a systematic or methodical way that database rights protect and reward the creation and arrangement of a database. Database may be protected by both copyright and database right. And for database right to apply, the database must be the result of substantial intellectual investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the content in an original manner. So that's the rule for the database law to be applicable. Simply entering facts into a spreadsheet would not count as substantial effort, but translating or synthesizing and coding information from multiple sources would. The author's time, scale and labor would need to be directed to the selection and arrangement of the database over and above gathering the information. So the database right is an automatic right and protects databases against the unauthorized extraction and reuse of the contents. If a researcher uses parts of a data from a database as well as the structure in which those data are held to create another dataset, they should obtain explicit copyright and database right clearance before they publish the data. You always need to check the terms and conditions of the database that you are using. If you plan to use secondary data, always ensure that you consider these questions. Who the copyright holder of the dataset is? Are there any database rights? Can you use these data sets and in what way you can use these? Are you allowed to archive and publish them in a data repository? And if not, you may need to seek further permission to distribute material you do not own because if you do not get permission, you may need to remove copyright material before publishing or sharing, which is a hassle. So here I have added a copyright scenario for you. So imagine a researcher has used secondary data sources for a research project and he intends to share his data for future reuse. And it's a real researcher. We do get data from him in our collections. He used World Bank and Microsoft academics, just I have mentioned here just two resources, but he has used several others as well. So as he has used secondary sources and he plans to share that data with us, so he should check whether he is allowed to share the data he has used from these sources. He needs to check the terms and conditions of these sources. The terms and conditions of the sources are usually at the very bottom of the webpage, but sometimes they don't need effort to find out. So I think we haven't got enough time that you can go to these websites and check yourself the terms and conditions. So I have added here the screenshot of the lessons conditioned from the World Bank. And you can read that. It is mentioned here that there is no restriction on sharing the data with the third parties so that the information he has gathered from World Bank website is fine to share with us or archive with us. So that should be okay. Here is a screenshot from the Microsoft academic. And here you can see that it is mentioned that you cannot modify, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, and so on. And you may need to obtain permission before you archive the data obtained from this website. So if you are planning to use or have used, already used secondary data, and you plan to share with it, you always need to check the terms and conditions, because most of the time these secondary sources do allow researchers to use that data for their personal use, but they are not allowed to share it. So always, you have always, you need to check with it. And here on this slide, I have added links to our web pages. On copyright and access levels, I have also added a useful template, which is called variable information log for data sets being deposited that includes secondary data sources. Researchers are advised to prepare a variable information log describing these resources. So this log not only allows others to understand and use data correctly, but also ensures that repositories can check the appropriate terms and conditions applicable to onboard sharing. So like you see here that this information log should include the variable name, its source, how it was collected, brief description, any restrictions noted on it further. So that's very useful. And these are some of the useful resources I have added on two slides in the context of copyright, which you can explore in your own time. These are very useful resources. Yeah, so if you can go back to the mentee meter and answer a couple of questions. So what do you think if the research project has several researchers from different organizations, there will be joint copyright owners who are still coming in? The majority of you think that it's a joint copyright ownership, which is right, but some of you have said maybe so that's right as well. When two or more authors prepare a work with the intent to combine their contributions into inseparable or interdependent parts, the work is considered joint. Work and the authors are considered joint copyright owners, but exceptions may occur if there is an increment that it will be dealt differently than the answer is maybe, but yes, it will be joint copyright. And what do you think if a researcher incorporates secondary data into his own database, does he need copyright permission? The majority of you thinks that it depends and some of you thinks yes and someone thinks no. Yeah, I think it depends is the answer. You may not need to obtain permission if you are making a copy and utilizing that copy for your own research as long as it is not made available to others or citing from the research data. However, you need copyright clearance if you are going to include the secondary data in a publication or plan to share that data with other people. And it also applies to incorporating secondary data in your own database that you intend to share with others. And it always depends on the terms and conditions that you need to check. Maybe it is openly available just as we see in the example from the World Bank. So another scenario, what do you think? If you have discussed a prospective research with your colleague, are you a right holder in this scenario? That's good. Everybody thinks no. I think that's an easy one because yeah, it's a no, clear no because ideas are not protected. The work must be recorded in a material. And what do you think? Do you need to apply for the IP rights? That's an easy one, I think. The majority of you thinks that no. Some of you thinks yes. And the answer is no because copyright and database rights are automatic. If you have created something, you do not have to apply for it. It's an automatic right. So what do you think could be the right issues if you use COVID-19 live data available at Worldometer's website? I'm sure everyone is familiar by now with the COVID-19 live data website known as Worldometer. If you are using data from this website, what could be the right issues? Any thoughts? Getting permission for any personal information? Yeah. Snapshots and updates, personal data, that's right. National variations, that's right. Any more thoughts? Using the data for what it was not intended for, that's right. You must acknowledge the site. Personal information, regular updates, yeah. Yeah, exactly how much information you can use. And I think in this case, most of all you need, as I mentioned, you need to check the terms and conditions such as, I think creators have to cooperate in database, right? So you need to check the terms and conditions of using information, whether it is freely available for personal use, whether you are allowed to share it, whether you can modify it, whether you can incorporate the data available on this website into your own database and when you incorporate it into your own database, whether you are allowed to share that information or that database on any website. So these sort of things need to be checked. In a project where we collect diary data, what are the copyright concerns here and how could they be settled? Any thoughts on that? Any thoughts? Personal data, the diary data is considered personal data consent for sharing informed consent, that's true. Authorship and ownership, perfect. Yeah, anonymity, that's right. It could be sensitive personal data, true and original owner, yeah, perfect. Confidentiality is an empty issue, that's right. Is it keeping consent from persons, permissions for reuse, that's right. Yeah, that all of the answers, everything is correct. So you can use the information obtained in the discussions for your own research, obviously after the permission from the owner. However, when it comes to data sharing or publishing, you need to obtain permission from the participants to share their personal information. You need to obtain consent to share the information and permission to use the data for future research. So all of you are right. So what are your thoughts in this scenario? A researcher uses international social survey program data obtained from these two archives, these data are freely available to registered users. The researcher incorporates some of the ISSP data within a database containing his own research data. So any thoughts on copyright in this scenario? So needs to check licenses for sharing, publishing the data, that's perfect. May need copyright clearance of sharing own database, that's right. Labeling ISSP data and your own data. Yeah, some researchers, they do incorporate data from third sources into their own data. They choose some variables, incorporate these into their own, how much data is being incorporated, how much individual original thought. Yeah. Yeah, the researcher needs to consider obtaining a copyright license, that's right, is the data available to share may need permission, that's true. Will depend heavily on how data can be reused is only describes access, that's right. Terms of use, you must cite. Yeah, citation is important if they have allowed to share it. Yeah, check the data is correct permissioning. Yeah, that's excellent. Yeah, obtaining copyright license, that's right. So perfect answers. So it's again the same as previous, although the ISSP data are available for free to all researchers, this does not mean that the data can be published on a website. And through this made available to other people, the data can be incorporated into a database and used for personal analysis, but permission should be obtained before putting this database on a website, providing attributions. Yeah, that's important as well, when you have permission. So, yeah, that's true. So how would you obtain copyright for your research outputs? That's that's I think the last question. Any thoughts? Ask the content or the author, look at the source information to determine the copyright holder to check. Yeah, that's right. If you are using research, now I think it's just for your own research outputs, I meant because research outputs does not necessarily have the secondary data in it. It's just the research outputs, your own research outputs. Yeah, that's right. You don't need to obtain copyright, because as I said, copyright is automatic. It is applied automatically, that's right. You don't need to apply. Yeah, you need to add see the copyright symbol, your name and date, that's right. You need to set up the licenses anyway, that's that's true. And you do not need to apply. It is automatically applied. Yeah, symbol, copyright symbol, year and names of the donors, that's right. Yeah, that's perfect. Thank you very much for all your responses. And thank you all for attending today's session.