I'm not a lawyer, and it is some times since I delved deeper into the original text of the Berne convention, but I did a search on "Berne convention" scientific
, and the texts it found seem to agree that scientific works are included. Like this passage from the convention text, which I found at Wikiquote
The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramaticomusical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.
(also quoted by Aykoye)
So roughly speaking in all countries that adhere to this convention it would be allowed to quote a wide variety of texts according to the same rules that apply to literature. There are special rules concerning news and some types of juridical documents, but forum messages are not
expressly excepted from the general formulation above. The problem is only whether messages that are published online are covered by this old and dusty convention at all - after all it was written long before the internet was born, and even though it has been revised
in 1908 and 1928 (ie. 'The ROme convention') to take heed of Rapidly advancing technology during the early 20th century (...) such as sound recordings, photography, and cinematic developments (...)
these amendments also took place long before the advent of the internet. The changes did however cover things like radio transmissions.
It should be mentioned here that even FX didn't demand the full transmission of authors' right to him to material published at HTLAL - he did however claim the right to make copies himself or permit (or not permit) copy taking by others as it pleased him (which apparently never has happened). So basically people who published anything at HTLAL or here still have their authors' rights, but they have to some extent relinquished the control over the spreading of their formulations.
And what is then allowed (without express permission)? Well, this is covered by the term "fair practice": "it shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries"
. (my bold, same source)
The main problem here is to determine what "fair practice" really means, but length and relevancy would obviously be relevant factors. So basically when it comes to copying whole works the Berne Convention is there to protect the copyright owners, but on the other hand it does permit quotes within "fair practice". Since this forum is (juridically and physically) hosted in the United Kingdom and HTLAL in Switzerland it would be tempting to assume that it was the juridical formulations of either country that governed the rules concerning quotes (Wikipedia
has an article about the British rules), but quotes in a research paper produced in South Korea might also be subject to South Korean law - I simply don't know the answer to that question, but maybe somebody has found it somewhere.
As for the names of the copyright holders quoted the convention actually gives them the right to be mentioned by name (cfr. par. 10.3), but when it comes to discussing communication patterns in general
in a scientific treatise (rather than opinions) I can see the point in anonymizing the quotes. It is however a juridical grey zone.