To claim that copyright is "killing" science is pure hyperbole, but his actual point is valid. I didn't watch TFV, but based on the mention of open access journals, I assume his point is the usual complaint that the millions of dollars universities give to Elsevier, Nature Publishing Group, et al. to buy access to journal articles their scientists write (based on research typically funded by the public), could be better spent on actual research. Here's an article about a recent spat between the University of California and NPG over these fees: http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-California-Tries-Just/65823/

Open access journals allow the same peer review process and attribution as the current model, the only trouble is the author is asked to shoulder the expense of the publication process (usually around $1000). Things are already moving in the right direction on this. Compare PlosOne (open-access) and Nature (paywall). See also the open access rules from the NIH: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm

On the topic of IP that translates into consumer goods and services, you have the Bayh-Dole act which allows universities to profit on developments made with publicly research funds. Unfortunately, because any research is built on other research, you have things like the patenting of a test for breast cancer gene BRAC by a single company, when most of the work that led to the test's development was publicly funded, and conducted at a range of different institutions. Now those instutions have to pony up to continue working on essentially the same research they were already doing. See http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/James.html

I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls but you apparently have no idea how science publishing works. Let me explain it to you. 1 Scientist writes a manuscript and submits it to online journal, forfeiting their copyright in the process 2 Journal sends the manuscript to another scientist who reviews it and provides suggestions for free. 3 Scientist revises the manuscript and submits it to the journal again 3 Journal posts revised manuscript on their website. 4 Anyone who wants to see it has to pay around $30 (or be a member of an academic institution that spends millions on licensing these articles). 5 The scientist who created the IP sees no part of that money I wrote a paper and published it in a journal. Because my institution does not pay for access to this journal, if I want to view that article, the journal expects me to pay $30. The reason that scientists write these papers is not because they earn any compensation from readers (since they don't), but to communicate the information to their peers (or more cynically to lengthen their CV so that they can get more funding). They really couldn't care less how much the journal charges to read it. If anything, open-access (read: free) journals have a wider audience, which most scientists prefer. Please explain how you think the outrageous fees science publishers charge contributes to science in the least.

At least in America, it's far worse than that. The people who raise the chickens for market make about 5c / pound. The rest is profit for the meat company and the market http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_serfs_of_arkansas

For lattice graphics, get Lattice: Multivariate Data Visualization with R, by the author of the lattice package in R. However, I would recommend instead the ggplot2 package, and the book ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis by its author. ggplot has all the functionality that lattice does, it produces prettier plots by default, and its easier to specify graphs and edit them with a minimal change in code.