October 2009 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Libro sulla relazione tra scienza e tecnologia

by David Orban

Ad Agosto era uscita un'intervista con l'autore nella serie TechNation della NPR http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail4226.html David Orban skype, twitter, linkedin, sl, etc: davidorban On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:20 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > October 20, 2009 > Books on Science > > Rethinking What Leads the Way: Science, or New Technology? > > By JOHN MARKOFF > > Consider what the state of science would be without the microscope, the > telescope, or a more recent technical advance like automated DNA sequencing. > > There would still be science, rooted in human perception and reason. But > it would be far less potent than modern science, which has > technologically expanded the senses, and with computers, the intellect, > to explore and decipher reality, from the universe itself to the most > elusive subatomic particle. Higgs bosons, anyone? > > The popular view is that technology is the handmaiden of science — less > pure, more commercial. But in “The Nature of Technology: What It Is and > How It Evolves,” W. Brian Arthur, an economist, reframes the > relationship between science and technology as part of an effort to come > up with a comprehensive theory of innovation. In Dr. Arthur’s view, the > relationship between science and technology is more symbiotic than is > generally conceded. Science and technology move forward together in a > kind of co-evolution. And science does not lead. > > [...] > > Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/20books.html > > juan carlos > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

Oct. 20, 2009

Libro sulla relazione tra scienza e tecnologia

by J.C. DE MARTIN

October 20, 2009 Books on Science Rethinking What Leads the Way: Science, or New Technology? By JOHN MARKOFF Consider what the state of science would be without the microscope, the telescope, or a more recent technical advance like automated DNA sequencing. There would still be science, rooted in human perception and reason. But it would be far less potent than modern science, which has technologically expanded the senses, and with computers, the intellect, to explore and decipher reality, from the universe itself to the most elusive subatomic particle. Higgs bosons, anyone? The popular view is that technology is the handmaiden of science — less pure, more commercial. But in “The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves,” W. Brian Arthur, an economist, reframes the relationship between science and technology as part of an effort to come up with a comprehensive theory of innovation. In Dr. Arthur’s view, the relationship between science and technology is more symbiotic than is generally conceded. Science and technology move forward together in a kind of co-evolution. And science does not lead. [...] Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/20books.html juan carlos

Oct. 20, 2009

SAVE THE DATE (2): 1a Conferenza Annuale NEXA / CCIT2009

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Buongiorno a tutti, vi ricordo che il 28 novembre 2009 avra' luogo, come preannunciato, la prima conferenza annuale del Centro NEXA su Internet e Società. Il programma è in corso di ultimazione, con argomenti come Copyright 2.0, neutralita' della rete, anonimato in rete, licenze collettive estese e Public Sector Information. Ci sara', inoltre, una sessione su Creative Commons, CCIT2009, che fara' il punto di CC in Italia. La sera si terra' un CC Music Party che si prennuncia notevole (speriamo di superare quello del 2005, che ancora molti ricordano). Infine, segnalo che il giorno precedente, venerdi' 27 novembre, sempre al Politecnico, si terra' un OpenAccessDay, con al mattino un corso di diritto di autore per ricercatori e al pomeriggio un convegno su open access e ricerca. Keynote speech di Jean-Claude Guedon (Univ. di Montreal) dal titolo: "Research needs Open Access to work well: internalist and externalist perspectives." URL: http://openaccessday.biblio.polito.it/ cordialmente, juan carlos

Oct. 20, 2009

Analisi della bozza di dichiarazione sulla net neutrality della Commissione EU

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=424&Item… The European Commission's net neutrality con | Print | Written by Monica Horten Oct 19, 2009 at 08:31 PM The European Commission has circulated a draft declaration on "net neutrality". But is the ability to make comments on the restrictive behaviour of network providers such as BT or Deutsche Telekom, the same thing as enforcing net neutrality? Or is it just intended to dupe European citizens who are demanding a principle of net neutrality in the Telecoms Package? [...] juan carlos

Oct. 20, 2009

[Fwd: Internet Pioneers Speak Out on Net Neutrality]

by J.C. DE MARTIN

http://lauren.vortex.com/ Internet Pioneers Speak Out on Net Neutrality 15 October 2009 Honorable Julius Genachowski Chairman, Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC Via email Dear Mr. Chairman: We appreciate the opportunity to send you this letter. As individuals who have worked on the Internet and its predecessors continuously beginning in the late 1960s, we are very concerned that access to the Internet be both open and robust. We are very pleased by your recent proposal to initiate a proceeding for the consideration of safeguards to that end. In particular, we believe that your network neutrality proposal's key principles of "nondiscrimination" and "transparency" are necessary components of a pro-innovation public policy agenda for this nation. This initiative is both timely and necessary, and we look forward to a data-driven, on-the-record proceeding to consider all of the various options. We understand that your proposal, while not even yet part of a public proceeding, already is meeting with strong and vocal resistance from some of the organizations that the American public depends upon for broadband access to the Internet. As you know, the debate on this topic has been lengthy, and many parties opposing the concept have systematically mischaracterized the views of those who endorse and support your position. We believe that the existing Internet access landscape in the U.S. provides inadequate choices to discipline the market through facilities-based competition alone. Your network neutrality proposals will help protect U.S. Internet users' choices for and freedom to access all available Internet services, worldwide, while still providing for responsible network operation and management practices, including appropriate privacy-preserving protections against denial of service and other attacks. One persistent myth is that "network neutrality" somehow requires that all packets be treated identically, that no prioritization or quality of service is permitted under such a framework, and that network neutrality would forbid charging users higher fees for faster speed circuits. To the contrary, we believe such features are permitted within a "network neutral" framework, so long they are not applied in an anti-competitive fashion. We believe that the vast numbers of innovative Internet applications over the last decade are a direct consequence of an open and freely accessible Internet. Many now-successful companies have deployed their services on the Internet without the need to negotiate special arrangements with Internet Service Providers, and it's crucial that future innovators have the same opportunity. We are advocates for "permissionless innovation" that does not impede entrepreneurial enterprise. We commend your initiative to protect and maintain the Internet's unique openness, and support the FCC process for considering the adoption of your proposed nondiscrimination and transparency principles. Respectfully, Vinton G. Cerf, Internet Pioneer Stephen D. Crocker, Internet Pioneer David P. Reed, Internet Pioneer Lauren Weinstein, Internet Pioneer Daniel Lynch, Internet Pioneer PDF Version of This Letter Posted by Lauren at 02:53 PM

Oct. 19, 2009

"Illegal Downloads 150x More Profitable Than Legal Sales"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

"Illegal Downloads 150x More Profitable Than Legal Sales" Written by Ernesto on October 09, 2009 Unlike most people might think, piracy is not necessarily a bad thing for copyright holders. In fact, German pirate-tracking outfit DigiRights Solutions shows that copyright holders can earn 150 times more money from illicit downloads than from iTunes and other legal stores. Continua qui: http://torrentfreak.com/illegal-downloads-150x-more-profitable-than-legal-s… juan carlos

Oct. 18, 2009

Re: [nexa] No 3 strikes in Germany

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Thanks for pointing that out, Philippe. best, jc Philippe Aigrain wrote (on 17-10-2009 9:55): > It's a very nice declaration, but quite old. Philippe > > J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: >> "It's Official: No Three Strikes In Germany (Update)" >> >> http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-966.html >> >> [...] >> >> "I don't think that (Three Strikes) is a fitting model for Germany or >> even Europe. Preventing someone from accessing the Internet seems >> like a completely unreasonable punishment to me. It would be highly >> problematic due to both constitutional and political aspects. I'm >> sure that once the first disconnects are going to happen in France, >> we will be hearing the outcry all the way to Berlin." >> >> Germany's Secretary of Justice Brigitte Zypries >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > >

Oct. 18, 2009

[Fwd: [A2k] Pamela Samuelson replies to Brin's Op Ed: Google Books Is Not a Library]

by J.C. DE MARTIN

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] Pamela Samuelson replies to Brin's Op Ed: Google Books Is Not a Library Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:19:30 -0400 From: Manon Ress <manon.ress(a)keionline.org> To: a2k discuss list <a2k(a)lists.essential.org> Pam Samuelson in HuffPo writes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_… Sergey Brin published an op-ed in the New York Times last Friday likening the Google Book initiative to the famous ancient library of Alexandria. Brin suggested that Google Books would be "a library to last forever," unlike its Alexandrian counterpart that was ravaged by fire. A digital library containing all the world's knowledge is a laudable goal; just ask Brewster Kahle, who established the Internet Archive in 1996, years before Google was founded, and who has worked tirelessly to create it as a non-profit true digital library. Unlike the Alexandria library or modern public libraries, the Google Book Search (GBS) initiative is a commercial venture that aims to monetize millions of out-of-print books, many of which are "orphans," that is, books whose rights holders cannot readily be found after a diligent search. David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer, has estimated that about twenty per cent of the books in the GBS corpus are orphans, but other estimates are higher. Even twenty per cent, however, equals millions of books. Under the settlement announced last October, Google and the publishers and authors who sued it for infringement agreed to hold on to the revenues made from sales and licenses of orphan books for five years, but thereafter to pay the monies out to registered rights holders--that is, to people who had neither written nor published the books in question, a pure windfall for them. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has objected to this part of the deal, as have several states. If Google Books was just a library, as Brin claims, library associations would not have submitted briefs expressing reservations about the GBS settlement to the federal judge who will be deciding whether to approve the deal. Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to GBS contents. Google is obliged to set prices in conjunction with a newly created Registry that will represent commercial publishers and authors. Prices for these subscriptions are to be set based on the number of books in the corpus, the services available, and prices of comparable products and services (of which there are none). Given that major research libraries today often pay in excess of $4 million a year for access to several thousand journals, they have good reason to be concerned that Google will eventually seek annual fees in excess of this for subscriptions to millions of GBS books. This is because Google will have a de facto monopoly on out-of-print books. The DOJ has raised concerns that price-setting terms of the GBS deal are anti-competitive. Besides, Google can sell the GBS corpus to anyone without anyone's consent at any time once the settlement is approved. If Google or its successor in interest decided to price gouge or shut the GBS service down, there is nothing in the proposed settlement agreement that would prevent them from doing it. Brin and Google's CEO Eric Schmidt have also been saying publicly that anyone can do what Google did--scanning millions of books to make a corpus of digitized books. They perceive Google to have just been bolder and more forward-looking than its rivals in this respect. But this claim is preposterous: By settling a lawsuit about whether scanning books to index them is copyright infringement or fair use, Google is putting at risk the next guy's fair use defense for doing the same. And if one of Google's rivals aims to develop a commercial database like GBS when it starts scanning, it won't have a fair use leg to stand upon. Nor is there any reason to believe that any lawsuit against a rival could be settled on comparable terms to those Google has obtained in the current deal. The DOJ has urged the parties to find some creative ways to allow others to obtain a comparable license from the settling class of authors and publishers. Brin forgot to mention another significant difference between GBS and traditional libraries: their policies on patron privacy. The proposed settlement agreement contains numerous provisions that anticipate monitoring of uses of GBS content; so far, though, Google has been unwilling to make meaningful commitments to protect user privacy. Traditional libraries, by contrast, have been important guardians of patron privacy. When you enter a library, you can search for books without anyone tracking your queries, you can read whatever is available for as long as you want without anyone monitoring your intellectual privacy, and you can check books out knowing that the records of what you've checked out will be protected from disclosure by state laws and by librarian ethics obligations. Google has commercial incentives to store and process data about what you read, how long you read it, and what you read next, and then serve you ads that it thinks are appropriate given the searches you have just done. That Google will serve ads alongside search results that yield GBS results is not surprising for the open Internet searches that users will do. But Google is now pressing university partners to accept ads even for the institutional subscriptions. Anyone aspiring to create a modern equivalent of the Alexandrian library would not have designed it to transform research libraries into shopping malls, but that is just what Google will be doing if the GBS deal is approved as is. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_… *************************************************************************** Manon Ress manon.ress(a)keionline.org Knowledge Ecology International 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Fax: +1.202.332.2673 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

Oct. 18, 2009

Re: [nexa] No 3 strikes in Germany

by Philippe Aigrain

It's a very nice declaration, but quite old. Philippe J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > "It's Official: No Three Strikes In Germany (Update)" > > http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-966.html > > [...] > > "I don't think that (Three Strikes) is a fitting model for Germany or > even Europe. Preventing someone from accessing the Internet seems like a > completely unreasonable punishment to me. It would be highly problematic > due to both constitutional and political aspects. I'm sure that once the > first disconnects are going to happen in France, we will be hearing the > outcry all the way to Berlin." > > Germany's Secretary of Justice Brigitte Zypries > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

Oct. 17, 2009

Fw: [CREIS] Parution du dernier numéro de Terminal

by Mariella Berra

----- Original Message ----- From: Jacques Vetois (au lieu de chantal richard <le.creis(a)orange.fr>) To: membres(a)creis.sgdg.org Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 7:37 PM Subject: [CREIS] Parution du dernier numéro de Terminal Le numéro 103-104 de la revue Terminal est paru. Deux thèmes se partagent ce numéro. Un nouvel activisme sur l'Internet ? Le Net est depuis ses débuts un champ considérable d'actions et d'affrontements au sujet des libertés en matière de création et d'utilisation de l'information. A l'heure actuelle, l'activisme appuyé sur les réseaux s'est à la fois assagi et démultiplié. Il songe moins à détruire le système qu'à constituer des alternatives crédibles au capitalisme dominant. Sa visée est pédagogique (apprendre à pratiquer et à s'autogérer), économique (construire des modèles post-marchands), technique (se réapproprier les outils numériques), écologique (respecter l'environnement), politique (échapper à l'emprise des Etats et des partis), culturelle (vivre autrement). Le dossier que publie Terminal évoque l'ébauche de cette tendance, certainement appelée à de multiples évolutions. Les NTIC et le développement durable Nous savons maintenant que les bases matérielles de notre civilisation ne seront plus assurées à moyen terme si nous poursuivons le développement actuel basé sur une consommation de toujours plus de ressources en énergie et matière première. Face à la crise économique actuelle et devant le risque climatique qui s'intensifie, la notion de développement durable semble une réponse qui fait l'unanimité des responsables politiques et économiques. Pressés de préciser d'une manière plus concrète leurs propositions, beaucoup ajoutent : « Grâce à la croissance verte soutenue par les NTIC ». Les NTIC ont-ils quelque chose de spécifique à apporter au développement durable ? Seront-elles au coeur des nouveaux dispositifs qui naîtront de cette crise ou resteront-elles un facteur d'habillage de technologies anciennes ou modernes revisitées ? Leur généralisation apportera-telle les gains d'efficacité promis ? Les deux articles de la rubrique Stratégie de ce numéro ouvrent un débat de fond qui doit prendre une ampleur croissante dans le contexte économique, social et politique qui est le nôtre. Terminal revue trimestrielle- N° 103-104 24 rue de la Chine 75020 PARIS Courriel : terminal(a)ras.eu.org URL : http://www.terminal.sgdg.org éditée par les Editions L'Harmattan ISBN : 2-7475-9738-1 Eté 2009 240 pages Sommaire numéro 103-104 Editorial Edvige, un outil au service d'une politique : "surveiller et punir" Félix Paoletti Dossier : Net'activisme Un nouvel activisme sur l'Internet ? Michel Burnier 1ère partie : Internet et démocratie locale Faire de la politique sur Internet Francine Bavay et Jérôme Desquilbet Activisme sur Internet et discours stratégique autour de la propriété intellectuelle Yana Breindl et François Briatte Le débat étasunien sur la neutralité des réseaux de l'Internet Stéphane Couture Une protestation environnementale entre événementiel et média alternatif Dominique Carré Pour une nouvelle donne numérique : des données à la donation Sophie Gosselin et Alex Haché 2ème partie : L'expérience du Net'activisme Les sites de l !économie solidaire : un média alternatif pour contourner un espace médiatique central dominé par l !idéologie libérale ? Eric Dacheux et Khaled Zouari De l'espace public et de la démocratie participative en France et au Québec Quentin Delavictoire L'open publishing face au mythe participatif Yannick Estienne Le phénomène des blogs dans le monde arabe Khadija El Bouchikhi Des internautes iraniens contre le changement de nom du Golfe Persique : une lutte pour la reconnaissance Shadi Zabet Nouvelles technologies et altermondialisme : un mode de communication organisant ? Florence Carion Stratégies Nouvelles technologies de l'information et de la communication et développement durable Jean-Benoît Zimmermann TIC domestiques et développement durable : une même logique ? Iwan Barth et Sébastien Leroux Infrastructure numérique et environnement : l'impossible domestication de l !effet rebond Fabrice Flipo et Cédric Gossart

Oct. 16, 2009