Information/Knowledge Commons
1. Andrius Gabnys
2. Huyen Dau
3. Darya Ladyzhyna
4. Ekaterina Mukhacheva
5. Taras Povorozniuk
6. Omar Rashwan
7. Jovita Stagniunaite
8. Luigi Russi
9. Laura Spina

Research Strategy:

1. Historical approach (Katia) - "Historical Development of Public Domain"
To analyze: international intellectual property agreements (WIPO organization/TRIPS agreement as contravertial document) and their development. Effect of legal rules development to public domain.

2. Genealogy approach (Luigi) - "Sibling Rivalry: Narratives of «Cultural Commons» at a Crossroads and the Future of Education"
Literature on the «cultural commons» appeas to be split in at least two camps, which differ in the breadth of the notion of «culture» they tend to associate with the existence of a «commons». On the one hand, narrow definitions of «culture» tend to crop up in discussions that are openly disengaged from politics, and which often feature the extensive use of elaborate analytical frameworks (the «analytical» school). On the other hand, broad definitions of «cultural commons» tend to abound in literature that is broadly traceable to the global resistance movement and is, therefore, characterised by a strong political element (the «radical» school).
My essay does the following, with respect to these two brands of «cultural commons» discourse. First of all, it considers how each brand seeks to appoint itself as the heir to a particular political or methodological position. Later, however, it tries to undo the «official» genealogy of each school, trying to show how the analytical school is - by virtue of its very technicality - prone to political use, as well as what the political substance of the more «radical» discourse on «cultural commons» really is. These ambiguities and contradictions are illustrated through the reference to a concrete example, i.e. the ongoing debate - in England - as to how best to guarantee a «sustainable future for higher education», as sparked by the recent «Browne review» on higher education funding.
3. Genealogy approach (Daryja) - "Internet's Impact to Creativity. Pros and Cons"
To analyze: How Internet allows us to have common sources and changes the possibilities to share information.Two narratives of the phenomena: advantages of cooperative creation (Wikipedia, Gamendo, Blogs) and disadvantages of amateur creation (how blog can be better than magazine??)

4. Semiotics approach (Omar) - "The Language that Creative Commons Speak to Us"
To analyze: Different regime for licensing creative works. How creative commons speak about their movement? What hides under the terms. "Skeptical view of a Worthy Pursuit" - as critics of creative commons.

5. Sociological approach (Jovita) - "Intellectual property". Does ownership encourage creativity?
To analyze: problem of knowledge ownership and is to try reveal why proprietary view towards knowledge and information appeared to be insufficient. To examine social changes that lead to establishing present system of intellectual property's regulation. The ultimate goal of this work is to introduce expanding self-regulation and determine the need of institutional framework to this regulation.

6. Interdisciplinary approach (Andrius) - "Derivative works. What extent of protection is reasonable?"
To analyze: two aspects: a) Art and Law and b) Science and Economics. Derivative works: can it happen that Law allows to destroy "art". Letting to play with works of art may lead to complete...... Creative Commons as the sort of licensing does not change anything in respect to ..... b) Having copyright long time ago lead to increased number of production and now protection of intellectual property works as "stopping" mechanism. Can information commons save our money and time?

7. Comparative approach (Laura) - "Freedom of information in the Internet/ national regulations.Wikileaks v. Gag law"
To analyze: Scandinavian counties v. Italy. The extent of information's protection. Wikileaks v. Gag law. Rectification of information which is deemed inaccurate.
Thesis Statement:
This paper explores the issue of freedom of expression in internet using the notion of information as a commons. It compares two models: the one adopted by Iceland and the Italian system on the other side. Those two Countries, even if they are geographically close and part of a common history which led to the institution of the European Union, are separated by deep cultural differences. In Italy, the Government approach to sharing information and culture in internet is seen with suspect and several times laws were suggested to control the phenomenon of spreading independent information on-line and in print. On the other side, in Iceland information is considered as an important and positive tool for improving democracy: during the last year, a special regulation concerning freedom of speech, the IMMI (Icelandic Modern Media Initiative), was enacted. This attitude is reflected, for example, by the protection of independent and common-pool resources as Wikileaks. The paper will first of all describe the notion of information as a commons; then I will briefly analyse the general features of the systems compared, and present the different approaches used by the Governments in those Countries.

8. Intentionalist approach (Huyen) - Richard Stallman as promoter of free software
To analyze: How he has become a promoter of such activity? What is his intention in promoting this movement? Is the later interpretation different from his intention? What are the reasons of this difference?

9. Policy paper (Taras) - "Open-Source Software as Information Commons. A Policy Paper"
Using particular example of “open-source code” principle in software industry in this paper we will identify current policy in software copyright protection in the countries of the European Union with the goal of finding alternatives to current regulation and identifying pros and cons of each. The last section of this paper will make concrete recommendations for governmental regulator in order to reach equilibrium between social needs and incentives for private investments.