September 2009 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Pam Samuelson: "DOJ Says No to Google Book Settlement"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 22, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

Pamela Samuelson Professor, UC Berkeley Posted: September 20, 2009 06:18 PM The U.S. Department of Justice filed a "Statement of Interest" on September 18 recommending that Judge Chin disapprove the Proposed Settlement Agreement in the Authors Guild v. Google case. Although DOJ recognized that the public would benefit from greater access to books if the settlement was approved, it has concluded that the agreement in its current form does not satisfy legal requirements. The DOJ recommended that the litigants modify the agreement in some important respects before Judge Chin considers approving a settlement of the case. This is the most significant development since the settlement itself was announced. [...] Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/doj-says-no-to-google-boo_b_…

1 0

Interessante articolo su Liberation
by Marco Pancini Sept. 22, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

Vi segnalo quest'articolo sul caso Vividown pubblicato ieri su Liberation: http://www.ecrans.fr/Un-proces-crucial-pour-le-futur-d,8103.html A presto. marco -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

1 0

Repubblica: "Guna, nel mondo dell’omeopatia vince la strategia del "copyleft""
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 22, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

Guna, nel mondo dell’omeopatia vince la strategia del "copyleft" CHRISTIAN BENNA È il copyleft in provetta la ricetta giusta per prevenire e curare i malanni di stagione. Anche per chi investe fino al 20% dei ricavi in ricerca e sviluppo. Alessandro Pizzoccaro, amministratore delegato di Guna Spa, ne è talmente convinto da aver lanciato la campagna "No Patent" su tutta la gamma di farmaci sfornati dalla sua azienda. Ogni innovazione tecnologica, di prodotto e di processo industriale ottenuta dai laboratori della società milanese viene immessa sul mercato senza protezione brevettuale, come pure è copyleft, senza diritto d’autore, ogni nuova pubblicazione editoriale, scientifica e divulgativa edita da Guna. L’imprenditore lombardo motiva così la sua decisione: «Si tratta di una scelta di business, prima ancora che di filosofia aziendale e di responsabilità sociale d’impresa. Il sistema brevettuale del farmaco, oltre che poco etico, è anticompetitivo. Perché impedisce l’ingresso di nuovi operatori e non stimola l’innovazione, rifugiandosi nella difesa del brevetto. Noi vogliamo cambiare questo trend. Più concorrenza, più ricerca scientifica. Con un beneficio per tutta la comunità». [...] Continua a: http://www.repubblica.it/supplementi/af/2009/09/21/economiaitaliana/015kada…

1 0

Nuovo libro: "Delete - The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 22, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDbsjwj2KOU Princeton University Press

2 1

NY Times: "Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 22, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

September 21, 2009 Google Working to Revise Digital Books Settlement By MIGUEL HELFT http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html For months, Google and its partners in a class-action settlement that would allow the company to create a vast digital library appeared unmoved by a rising tide of opposition. Google and its settlement partners — the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers — argued that the agreement would not harm competition, and said they were confident that it would be approved in its current form by a federal court. But the Justice Department, in a filing on Friday, made clear that the parties were busily negotiating modifications that would address some of the concerns raised. Those negotiations are likely to accelerate now that the Justice Department has said that it too believes the settlement raises serious legal issues and has urged the court not to approve it without changes. Legal experts say the new round of discussions, and the government’s intervention, are almost certain to delay an agreement that Google and the other parties were eager to see ratified quickly. “The news out of this is that there are frantic negotiations going on in back rooms right now,” said James Grimmelmann, an associate professor at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, which raised antitrust and other objections to the settlement. “The parties are scared enough to be talking seriously about changes, with each other and the government. The government is being the stern parent making them do it.” Google, the guild and the publishers’ association said they were encouraged by the department’s view that the settlement offered many benefits, adding that they looked forward to addressing the department’s concerns. “Clearly, the Justice Department is saying ‘find something that would make this near universal library happen,’ ” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. But Mr. Aiken said it was premature to discuss how the parties would proceed. The Justice Department’s filing on Friday, echoing other critics, said that the settlement could give Google a virtually exclusive license to millions of out-of-print “orphan books,” whose rights holders were unknown or cannot be found, making it impossible for anyone else to build a comparable digital library; the interests of some class members, including authors of orphan works and foreign authors, might not have been adequately represented; and the efforts to notify class members about the settlement might have been inadequate. But unlike some of the more strident opponents, who have argued that the settlement is so flawed that it must be rejected, the Justice Department said it hoped the accord could be fixed so that its benefits — most notable the unprecedented access to millions of out-of-print books it would offer — could be achieved. And it said the parties appeared willing to make changes to address such concerns. Laying out a path forward, the department said some of its antitrust concerns could be mitigated by “some mechanism by which Google’s competitors’ could gain comparable access to orphan works.” And it said that concerns about the fair representation of some authors could be addressed if some rights for Google to profit from out-of-print books were granted only if their authors agreed, rather than by default. Legal experts suggest that proposal could prove to be a sticking point, as it would not allow Google to offer a comprehensive library. But even the Justice Department suggested there could be other solutions. Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University, said a judge was unlikely to approve the current settlement, “hence, it is also very likely that the parties will revise the settlement in an effort to secure its approval.” Judge Denny Chin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has given the parties until Oct. 2 to respond to the objections and has scheduled a hearing on the case for Oct. 7. But some experts say the case is likely to be delayed well beyond that, as changes to the settlement are likely to require members of the class to be notified, a process that could take months. And even after that, a resolution may not be immediate. “Whatever action the district court takes, there could also be appeals,” Mr. Gavil said. “So I think we are probably still a ways off from a truly final resolution.”

4 3

QdN: "Why would EU sacrifice Internet Freedoms?"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/why-would-eu-sacrifice-internet-freedoms Act now! EU citizens must ask their ministers and EU Council representatives to adopt firm positions to protect citizens' fundamental rights and defend Net neutrality. Why would EU sacrifice Internet Freedoms? Submitted on 21 September 2009 updated: Sept 21th.The list of MEPs that will be part of the EP delegation conciliation committee is now official. Paris, September 21th 2009 - The conciliation of the EU "Telecoms Package"1 will begin in a few days. 27 Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the executive branches of the 27 Member States will negotiate the text in closed-doors meetings. The outcome of these discussions will shape the future of Internet users' freedoms in Europe. EU citizens must ask their representatives to adopt firm positions to protect their citizens' fundamental rights and defend Net neutrality2. The Conciliation procedure regarding the revision of the five directives included in the "Telecoms Package" will likely begin on September 28th. Yet, one week ahead of the negotiations, the names of the 27 Members of the European Parliament who will be part of the committee are still unknown. Also, the second half of the committe is comprised of representatives from each 27 Member States for the Council of EU. These diplomats from Coreper3 will defend the positions ordered by the ministers in charge of the Telecom package in their home country. Both the rapporteur Catherine Trautmann and Åsa Torstensson, the minister in charge from the Swedish Presidency of the EU Council who will lead the negotiations, announced that they wanted to close the negotiations as soon as possible. They also expressed their will to only deal with the contentious "amendment 138"4, and not to discuss Net neutrality, which is very much at risk in the current version of the text. When at the same moment, in the United States, the Obama administration is making a radical move towards protecting Net neutrality5, their decision could have disastrous consequences for EU competitivity, innovation and citizens' freedoms. More than 50 NGOs from 12 Member States signed the Open Letter "We must protect Net Neutrality in Europe!"6 in less than a week. EU citizens can act now by inquiring after their ministers in charge7 on these two specific questions: * Why should the EU accept infringement on Net neutrality voted in second reading in the Telecoms Package 8 and how do they intend to correct them? * Why should the EU renounce to the protection of EU citizens' fundamental rights voted twice by the European Parliament in "amendment 138"9? "It is very important for the democratic process to shine light on this disturbingly opaque conciliation negotiation. Together, we can act to make sure that governments and MEPs cannot ignore EU citizens' fundamental rights, but also make them accountable for the decisions they make. It is crucial for European lawmakers to install a solid protection for Net neutrality." concludes Jérémie Zimmermann, spokesperson for the advocacy citizen group La Quadrature du Net. 1. 1. See our quick guide to conciliation procedure: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/telecoms-package-preparation-for-a-third-rea… 2. 2. To learn about the importance of Net neutrality, read http://www.laquadrature.net/en/it-is-crucial-to-save-net-neutrality and our work-in-progress dossier: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net_neutrality 3. 3. http://europa.eu/scadplus/glossary/coreper_en.htm 4. 4. Amendment to the Framework directive stating "Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent." 5. 5. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125329467451823485.html 6. 6. http://www.laquadrature.net/en/we-must-protect-net-neutrality-in-europe-ope… 7. 7. Everyone can participate by filling this list of the ministers and Council representatives: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Contact_the_E.U_Council 8. 8. Universal Service directive, article 20.1.b (second paragraph) "information on any other conditions limiting access to and/or use of services and applications,..." and art. 21.3.b "inform subscribers of any change to conditions limiting access to and/or use of services and applications,..." Look at the evolution of Universal Service Directive on http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Diff_Universal_Service_Pa… 9. 9. Both in First reading, under the influence of the French Presidency, and during the second reading during the Czech Presidency, the Council rejected "amendment 138" without publicly giving any explanation.

1 0

Festival del Diritto (Piacenza, 24-27 settembre 2009)
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

Segnalo che giovedi' ha inizio a Piacenza il Festival del Diritto, il cui responsabile scientifico e' il Prof. Stefano Rodotà (Garante del Centro NEXA): http://www.festivaldeldiritto.it Il tema di quest'anno è "Pubblico/Privato" (vedere qui sotto l'introduzione del prof. Rodota'). Tra gli appuntamenti piu' "nexiani", segnalo i seguenti (senza alcuna garanzia che non mi sia sfuggito qualcosa: controllate voi stessi il programma!): 25.09, ore 10:30: "L'e-democracy per i giovani" 25.09, ore 11:00: "Il diritto d'autore nell'era di Internet" (Buonomo, Gambino, Monti, Ricolfi) 25.09, ore 15.00: "Le tutele penali nel web tra frodi e furti d'identità" (Corasaniti, Lattanzi, Mandalari) 25.09, ore 17:00: "PA 2.0: cittadini nella rete" (Belisario, Calderoni, De Cindio, Guidi, Rossi) 25.09, ore 19:00: "L'algoritmo al potere" incontro con l'autore Alberto Abruzzese 26.09, ore 11:00: "Condividi la conoscenza. Le tecnologie per un futuro comune" (Cortiana, De Martin, Ferri Pancini) 27.09, ore 09:30: "Conoscenza" di Giorgio Resta ciao, juan carlos PUBBLICO/PRIVATO La dicotomia “pubblico/privato”, fondamentale per il mondo moderno, coinvolge vari ambiti della vita umana associata e interessa diverse forme di sapere, ma nasce nel diritto, da esso trae il suo senso originario e in esso si sviluppa come grande strumento di organizzazione istituzionale della società. “Pubblico” è lo spazio del potere legittimo moderno, che accentra, razionalizza, amministra, contrastando i particolarismi di eredità feudale. “Privata” è la sfera della libertà della persona e della proprietà che può esistere e svilupparsi nelle condizioni di sicurezza e pace sociale garantite dallo Stato moderno. Oggi i confini, una volta così netti, tra ciò che è “pubblico” e ciò che è “privato” si sono fatti confusi, porosi, opachi, rendendo talvolta indistinguibile o ambivalente la dicotomia concettuale. Le forme attuali della cosiddetta globalizzazione hanno liberato risorse economiche e sociali, ma anche aperto problemi difficili da affrontare con gli strumenti classici del diritto “pubblico” e tuttavia ineludibili. Allo stato attuale la distinzione “pubblico/privato” deve essere profondamente ripensata alla ricerca di un punto di equilibrio tra interessi generali e particolari, ragioni della comunità e progetti di vita individuali. Senza quel punto di equilibrio non si dà neppure la possibilità di una condivisione minima fondata sul riconoscimento delle libertà, in società accentuatamente pluraliste quali quelle contemporanee, caratterizzate inevitabilmente tanto da forti differenze e tensioni, quanto da spinte potenti all’omologazione e al particolarismo. Dai beni comuni alle privatizzazioni, dalla tutela dell’interesse generale alle nuove forme del potere, dalle banche alla formazione, dalla televisione alla sanità, alla religione: è di questo che discuteremo a Piacenza, per capire il nuovo fuori dai luoghi comuni. Stefano Rodotà Responsabile scientifico del Festival del Diritto

1 0

"FCC Proposes New, Awesome, Net Neutrality Rules"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

http://consumerist.com/5364181/fcc-proposes-new-awesome-net-neutrality-rules FCC Proposes New, Awesome, Net Neutrality Rules By Ben Popken, 11:46 AM on Mon Sep 21 2009, 2,701 views The FCC today proposed new rules to protect and preserve "net neutrality," the idea that ISPs must treat all users the same and not prejudice against different types of customers. In a speech, Chairman Julius Genachowski supported adopting the "Four Freedoms" first articulated by the FCC in 2004 not just as principles but as formal rules, and adding two more: "non-discrimination" and "transparency." The big networks are, naturally, incensed. More specifically, the new principles are: 5) Non-discrimination — broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. 6) Transparency — providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. And to recap, The "Four Freedoms" are: 1) Freedom to Access Content: Consumers should have access to their choice of legal content 2) Freedom to Use Applications: Consumers should be able to run applications of their choice 3) Freedom to Attach Personal Devices: Consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes 4) Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information: Consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans." With the fifth principle, it;s like they're staring directly at Comcast.

1 0

oggi a Torino: “Diritti d’autore e tecnologie: solo i corsari navigano in Internet?”
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 21, 2009

Sept. 21, 2009

21 settembre 2009 ore 17 presso il palazzo della Rai Convegno : “Diritti d’autore e tecnologie: solo i corsari navigano in Internet?” In un mondo in cui la modellazione e la distribuzione dei contenuti stanno cambiando rapidamente e la comunicazione di tipo multimediale rappresenta un formidabile strumento di veicolazione delle opere dell’ingegno umano, il convegno propone una riflessione su un tema cardine che l’evoluzione dei media ha portato con sé: il rapporto dialettico tra la tutela rigorosa della proprietà intellettuale e la diffusione senza vincoli agli utilizzatori finali. L’introduzione del digitale e di Internet hanno creato nuovi modelli di business e nuove modalità di utilizzo dei contenuti, con il passaggio dalla distribuzione e vendita di beni tangibili alla diffusione e commercializzazione di diritti di accesso alle opere. Mentre le “media company” rincorrono le nuove strategie ampliando il ventaglio delle tipologie di diritto e creando format capaci di sfruttare pienamente le potenzialità offerte dai mezzi di comunicazione non tradizionali, il Web ha sviluppato una nuova concezione di fruibilità che si avvicina sempre più all’utente finale, offrendo liberamente cultura e conoscenza. E’ possibile trovare le condizioni in cui possa esistere un modello equilibrato che tuteli al contempo gli interessi dei distributori e dei consumatori? Qual e’ la rotta da seguire perché il mare di Internet possa diventare una opportunità per tutti? Coordinatore Leonardo Chiariglione, Presidente Gruppo MPEG e Amministratore Delegato della società CEDEO.net Partecipano (in ordine alfabetico) Caterina Caselli, Presidente Sugar Music Srl Dori Ghezzi, Presidente della Fondazione Fabrizio De André Rob Kirkham, Head of Copyright Contracting BBC (Regno Unito) Michael McGuire, Analista della Società Gartner Group (USA) Stefano Quintarelli, Presidente Reeplay.it, pioniere di Internet e già presidente della Associazione Italiana Internet Provider

2 1

Progetto Publius
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

Nel caso vi fosse sfuggito, date un'occhiata al sito del progetto Publius, ovvero "Essays & conversations about constitutional moments on the Net collected by the Berkman Center", http://publius.cc/ Tra gli altri interventi recenti, un saggio di Yochai Benkler: "Capital, Power, and the Next Step in Decentralization" http://publius.cc/capital_power_and_next_step_decentralization/091609 ciao a tutti, juan carlos

1 0