VCU hosted a fascinating lecture by Brian Nosek today. Nosek is a professor at UVA and the co-founder of the Center for Open Science. One interesting idea he discussed is the value to science of researchers sharing data and participating in open science. Can this ethos of openness apply to other areas of intellectual property, such as copyright? Creative Commons (which has a science commons as well) is one answer. But Nosek discussed the benefits of researchers sharing not just their conclusions but their data and the other (rejected) tests run on the data. Is there an analog in copyright? If Taylor Swift were to release not just her latest single but also the hours of tape, rejected banjo part, and second-best drum track, would that benefit other musicians? And what if she were to release them in a digital form that other musicians could build on? Most fans would shrug, but some might learn a lot about music. In the small world of podcasts, Song Exploder is based on the idea that hearing an artist talk about the component parts of a composition is entertaining and educational. Why does open access to banjo tracks seem less likely to happen than sharing of data in biomedical trials?