Royal Society of Edinburgh Politics and Science. Friday 24th April 2009

IInteresting things:

From Frayn

After Copenhagen play was written two letters were uncovered.

Bohr's letter to Heisenberg. Because of the controversy caused by the play, Bohr's letter was released early by the family. (It had been stored under conditions not to be released until 2012). This shows that Heisenberg ADMITTED to Bohr that he was working on a nuclear bomb programme -- so H admitted this to a known opponent of Germany, and he knew that B would report this activity to the allies. So H was clearly more sympathetic to the Allies than would appear.

A little later Heisenberg's letter to his wife was uncovered. H had written this while IN Copenhagen so this account is the least clouded by memory. He didn't post the letter (too dangerous) it but delivered it to his wife when he returned. It shows H went to dinner at Bohr's house as soon as he arrived AND on the day after the visit to the Institute (when they had the argument) AND on the day the after! H records that on the third visit they had a great time with H playing Mozart and Bohr reading aloud. So the only thing that both H and B agreed about -- that the meeting on the evening of the visit to the Institute ruined their friendship -- wasn't true! They had both misremembered this after the event.

Recently, the German historian (Karish??) has uncovered that there was also a secret Nazi Hydrogen (fusion) bomb programme! (Heisenberg was working on fission). His competitor on the fission programme was also secretly involved with the fusion programme, as was another character who was kept at Farm Hall. Neither of them ever gave any indication to the other scientists that they were involved on that project. The fusion prog ran a test in the Baltic and another in Germany (at Ordrift??). The last one probably went wrong and there were many deaths from radiation burns and poisoning. The fusion prog did well enough that the SS took it under their wing. In the last weeks of the war the SS moved papers and command out of Berlin. The plan was to go to a stronghold set up in the Alps. Instead they were heading to Ordrift(?) -- a last ditch attempt to hole up with the fusion programme? Speculation that one of the reasons the Nazi's didn't surrender when they had plainly lost was because they thought there was a chance of creating a Hydrogen bomb?

Frayn had been in correspondence with Jeremy Bernstein (editor of the American edition of the Farm Hall transcripts) and so has found himself on the coat tails of a an email distribution list of distinguished scientists including Freeman Dyson.

The RSE event itself was full of about 40 clones of Jackie and Richard from Oxford. Considering we were in Edinburgh even the accents were the same.

A highlight of the dramatised reading of the Farm Hall transcripts was that, after the reading the British report explaining that the rooms were bugged and so the British could 'read the Germans' minds', the opening bit of dialogue went:

'Do you think they have hidden microphones?'

Heisenberg: 'Naw. The the British are too old fashioned.'

One of the best characters was a bloke called Otto Hahn. He really was shuffling between guilt and being an party animal. He was the guy who actually discovered the principle of fusion in 1939 and so wondered if he should have committed suicide rather than tell anyone. He also resigned from his post in protest at Jews being sacked. After the news of Hiroshima he was inconsolable with grief until given loads of drink which the major reckoned put him on a more even keel. While at Farm Hall he was awarded the Nobel Prize and there was speculation about going Sweden to collect it if he promised not to tell anyone where he was being kept. Trouble is, he had friends in Sweden with very good cellars and he couldn't promise not to let things slip once things got social with the wine. Turns out the guy who was was reading this part was Friedrich Hirzebruch -- founding Director of the Max Black Institute for Mathematics.

Other readers:

-- Sir Michael Atiyah who, when he was President of the Royal Society, was the chap who got the Farm Hall papers declassified.

- John Finney (emeritus prof at UCL) who is Chairman of British Pugwash. In the discussion after the reading he mentioned that at Los Alamos, none of the scientists working on the Manhattan project (with the exception of Rotblat) thought for a moment about the real implications about what they were doing. It only hit them when the first test explosion was held -- such it is that our moral imagination always lags behind novelty.

Anyway, what I call a good Friday night out.

Pre-show talk with Michael Frayn: Thu 23 Apr at 6pm

AA few stories from Frayn's talk on the Thursday night.

Frayn's success in the theatre.

1. His first stage appearance was in a Gogol play in Russian (he was a student of Russian at Cambridge). He had a minor non-speaking part, but on exiting the stage he couldn't get the door to open. After minutes of trying he was so desperately pulling the door that he almost pulled the set down. It was only then that he could work out what they were shouting to him from behind the stage, which was 'push!'.

He never acted again.

2. It was a real big thing for the Cambridge Footlights to get picked up for a transfer to London -- potentially career making -- and it always happened. The yearFrayn wrote the revue they were NOT selected. He gave up on theatre and as a columnist always took the mickey out out plays and theatre as revenge.

3. He went to Germany to see the first production of Copenhagen in Germany -- a big event because it was going to tour around the country. It was performed as a circus act -- with Bohr literally doing backflips, Heisenberg walking a tightrope, and Margarete banging away loudly on a typewriter whenever there was boring physics talk. He told his agent there was no way he was going to have dinner with the cast after the show. But it was a one horse town and there was only one restaurant. It was eat with the cast or have no dinner. After wrestling with his conscience and his stomach, Frayn had dinner with the cast and pretended he'd enjoyed the production.

See trailer

See discussion in Bohr, Hesienberg

Copyright and the Emperor's Clothes - Simulacra, Baudrillard and the End of Intellectual Property. Lecture by Prof. Dr. Thomas Hoeren. Munster Univ.

At the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh. Wed 17th June, 2009

Not being a legal bod, let me at least see if I can get the pieces in order...

There is no copyright on ideas.

1. British (and therefore US) Copyright law is to protect the investor.

2. EU tradition is copyright law is to protect the 'real creator'. The 'originator'.

How does EU law reconcile the two approaches?

First attempt was the UK approach to software development -- which gives the legal right for all the developers be listed.

Second attempt was in the area of databases. (The person who developed this law is now banned from the US.) The directive on legal protection of databases tries to combine approaches 1 and 2. Where the db is treated as a literary work and needs to be original content. And the concept of a 'maker' was introduced to protect the investor (employer.)

The directive also introduced the concept of 'reciprocity'. That is, USA databases only get legal protection rights if they accept the law of the directive for EU databases.

Case 1. The British Horse Racing Board (/Agency) -- First application of the Directive in practice by the European Court of Justice.

The cost of running the BHRB database is £4m per year. But William Hill bookies are using it without making any contribution. Protection is for the investment of gathering the data, not creating it. Extraction and re-utilisation of the data has to be for a 'substantial part' (undefined) of the db. As William Hill only use the winners they were in the clear.

Case 2: German Anthology of German Poetry.

A prof though of the idea of getting someone to compare three collections of german poetry to determine which were the most popular German poems between 1700 and 1900. This research was funded by the University of Freiberg.

Then Direct Media made their own collection of the most popular poems between 1700 and 1900 on a CD. The collection was slightly different to the Univ db but they admitted referring to the db as one of the sources while compiling their list.

The Prof AND the university sued Direct Media.

The court decided that the prof was a copyright holder because it was his idea. (Descpite the fact that ideas are not protect by copyright law!). But if data is stored on the internet there is an explicit aknowledgement that the information is being made freely available.

First time ever a German Univ has sued for copyright. (Traditionally in Europe, Univ don't get copyright protection.) But this was protection of the investment.

Direct Media argued they had not 'extracted' the data but simply referred to it. The European Court of Justice Advocate General ruled that the broadest interpretation possible should be given to protect databases. So 'extraction' is not cut and paste. Extraction protection is greater than copyright holder protection. (Which is not the 'broadest possible interpretation.) Plus, the univ has rights to the work even if the Prof (who has the copyright) wanted to give the data away.

The way out is to have an Information Law, of which copyright is subsidiary. The EU db directive was intended to encourage economic activity. In a study of EU database companies the conclusion was the law had NO economic benefit. However it was considered 'too expensive' to remove the directive!

Over wine:

1.Brussels has no Law Library. So if an individual wants to bring attention to something he has to pay out of his own pocket to send the books to each individual. (Guess what the lobby companies do!)

2. There is no record kept of the revisions of the legislation. So you cannot track what was changed after which meeting with X lobbyist. (The lobbyist are usually faxed the first draft of the legislation.)

Afterthought:

The advantage of law by precedent.

In the case of EU law such as this directive there is no mechanism to trigger to changing or clarifying it.

Reference: Congress