March 2010 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] documentazione su caso Google-Vividown

by Paolo Brini

Il 03/03/2010 14:19, marco scialdone ha scritto: > Grazie per la segnalazione Paolo. > > Piano piano si comincia a valutare l'accaduto con maggiore serenità e meno > tifo da stadio. > > Continuiamo a ragionarci. > Scusate, ho sbadatamente dimenticato il link che ritenevo più importante! :) http://elvlog.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/the-google-files-in-italy-a-short-su…

March 3, 2010

Re: [nexa] documentazione su caso Google-Vividown

by marco scialdone

Grazie per la segnalazione Paolo. Piano piano si comincia a valutare l'accaduto con maggiore serenità e meno tifo da stadio. Continuiamo a ragionarci. M. 2010/3/3 Paolo Brini <paolo.brini(a)iridiumpg.com> > Dear Philippe, > > perhaps we should take into account that there's a flaw in the > e-commerce Directive? > > http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10805 > > > > Il 28/02/2010 21:21, Philippe Aigrain ha scritto: > > Paolo Brini a écrit : > >> Trovo discutibili queste due frasi (la seconda agghiacciante): "nel > >> servizio Google Video, Google non è un intermediario ... perché non si > >> limita a mettere in comunicazione i soggetti in modo indifferente ai > >> contenuti immessi, come fa eBay per esempio, ma trae un vantaggio > >> economico dai contenuti, attenzione, che veicola con il servizio di > >> Google Video, e così tratta i dati". Tralasciando il riferimento a eBay > >> che pure non mi pare corretto, non capisco tecnicamente come il > >> trattamento automatico dei dati (per esempio, nel caso di tutte le > >> piattaforme che ospitano video, conversione di qualsiasi formato video > >> uploadato in Flash) faccia uscire l'hosting dai parametri dell'art. 14 > >> della 2000/31, ma soprattutto non capisco l'automatica implicazione > >> "scopo di lucro-->trattamento dei dati". > > > > I share your critical view of this reasoning (that Google would not be > > a mere intermediary), but I would also point to the fact that this > > notion is NOT the basis of the "mere conduit" protection in European law. > > > > This protection defined in whereas 43 and 44 and article 12.1 00/31/CE > > DO NOT exclude the case where the information service provider would > > benefit economically from the nature of the contents that are object > > of the service, provided that it > > (a) does not initiate the transmission; > > (b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and > > (c) does not select or modify the information contained in the > > transmission. > > > > Philippe > > > > Philippe Aigrain > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- Avv. Marco Scialdone Blog: http://scialdone.blogspot.com Site: www.computerlaw.it PEC: marcoscialdone(a)ordineavvocatiroma.org BlackBerry PIN:20D30DDB My profile: www.linkedin.com/in/marcoscialdone CC Network: https://creativecommons.net/marcoscialdone/

March 3, 2010

Re: [nexa] documentazione su caso Google-Vividown

by Paolo Brini

Dear Philippe, perhaps we should take into account that there's a flaw in the e-commerce Directive? http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10805 Il 28/02/2010 21:21, Philippe Aigrain ha scritto: > Paolo Brini a écrit : >> Trovo discutibili queste due frasi (la seconda agghiacciante): "nel >> servizio Google Video, Google non è un intermediario ... perché non si >> limita a mettere in comunicazione i soggetti in modo indifferente ai >> contenuti immessi, come fa eBay per esempio, ma trae un vantaggio >> economico dai contenuti, attenzione, che veicola con il servizio di >> Google Video, e così tratta i dati". Tralasciando il riferimento a eBay >> che pure non mi pare corretto, non capisco tecnicamente come il >> trattamento automatico dei dati (per esempio, nel caso di tutte le >> piattaforme che ospitano video, conversione di qualsiasi formato video >> uploadato in Flash) faccia uscire l'hosting dai parametri dell'art. 14 >> della 2000/31, ma soprattutto non capisco l'automatica implicazione >> "scopo di lucro-->trattamento dei dati". > > I share your critical view of this reasoning (that Google would not be > a mere intermediary), but I would also point to the fact that this > notion is NOT the basis of the "mere conduit" protection in European law. > > This protection defined in whereas 43 and 44 and article 12.1 00/31/CE > DO NOT exclude the case where the information service provider would > benefit economically from the nature of the contents that are object > of the service, provided that it > (a) does not initiate the transmission; > (b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and > (c) does not select or modify the information contained in the > transmission. > > Philippe > > Philippe Aigrain > >

March 3, 2010

Re: [nexa] Fwd: [IP] Lessig presentation silenced (again)

by David Orban

L'audio è tornato. Naturalmente il punto rimane... http://twitter.com/lessig/statuses/9880062624 David Orban skype, twitter, linkedin, sl, etc: davidorban On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:11 PM, J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Lessig presentation > silenced (again) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:44:48 -0500 From: David Farber > <dave(a)farber.net> <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip > <ip(a)v2.listbox.com> <ip(a)v2.listbox.com> > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Richard Forno <rforno(a)infowarrior.org> <rforno(a)infowarrior.org> > Date: March 2, 2010 12:55:03 PM EST > To: Undisclosed-recipients: <>; > Cc: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> <dave(a)farber.net> > Subject: Lessig presentation silenced (again) > > Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation > from the not-this-again... depthttp://techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0354498358.shtml > > Nearly a year ago, we wrote about how a YouTube presentation done by well known law professor (and strong believer in fair use and fixing copyright law), Larry Lessig, had been taken down, because his video, in explaining copyright and fair use and other such things, used a snippet of a Warner Music song to demonstrate a point. There could be no clearer example of fair use -- but the video was still taken down. There was some dispute at the time as to whether or not this was an actual DMCA takedown, or merely YouTube's audio/video fingerprinting technology (which the entertainment industry insists can understand fair use and not block it). But, in the end, does it really make a difference? A takedown over copyright is a takedown over copyright. > > Amazingly enough, it appears that almost the exact same thing has happened again. A video of one of Lessig's presentations, that he just posted -- a "chat" he had done for the OpenVideoAlliance a week or so ago, about open culture and fair use, has received notice that it has been silenced. It hasn't been taken down entirely -- but the entire audio track from the 42 minute video is completely gone. All of it. In the comments, some say there's a notification somewhere that the audio has been disabled because of "an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG" (Warner Music Group) -- which would be the same company whose copyright caused the issue a year ago -- but I haven't seen or heard that particular message anywhere. > > However, Lessig is now required to fill out a counternotice challenging the takedown -- while silencing his video in the meantime: > > While you can still see the video on YouTube, without the audio, it's pretty much worthless. Thankfully, the actual video is available elsewhere, where you can both hear and see it. But, really, the fact that Lessig has had two separate videos -- both of which clearly are fair use -- neutered due to bogus copyright infringement risks suggests a serious problem. I'm guessing that, once again, this video was likely caught by the fingerprinting, rather than a direct claim by Warner Music. In fact, the issue may be the identical one, as I believe the problem last year was the muppets theme, which very, very briefly appears in this video (again) as an example of fair use in action. But it was Warner Music and others like it that demanded Google put such a fingerprinting tool in place (and such companies are still talking about requiring such tools under the law). And yet, this seems to show just how problematic such rules are. > > Even worse, this highlights just how amazingly problematic things get when you put secondary liability on companies like Google. Under such a regime, Google would of course disable such a video, to avoid its own liability. The idea that Google can easily tell what is infringing and what is not is proven ridiculous when something like this is pulled off-line (or just silenced). When a video about fair use itself is pulled down for a bogus copyright infringement, it proves the point. The unintended consequences of asking tool providers to judge what is and what is not copyright infringement lead to tremendous problems with companies shooting first and asking questions later. They are silencing speech, on the threat that it might infringe on copyright. > > This is backwards. > > We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company. We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas -- not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model. We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright. > > Situations like this demonstrate the dangerous unintended consequences of secondary liability. At least with Lessig, you have someone who knows what happened, and knows how to file a counternotice -- though, who knows how long it will take for this situation to be corrected. But for many, many, many other people, they are simply silenced. Silenced because of industry efforts to turn copyright law into something it was never intended to be: a tool to silence the wider audience in favor of a few large companies. > > The system is broken. When even the calls to fix the system are silenced by copyright claims, isn't it time that we fixed the system? > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > >

March 2, 2010

Fwd: [IP] Lessig presentation silenced (again)

by J.C. DE MARTIN

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Lessig presentation silenced (again) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:44:48 -0500 From: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip <ip(a)v2.listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Forno<rforno(a)infowarrior.org> Date: March 2, 2010 12:55:03 PM EST To: Undisclosed-recipients:<>; Cc: Dave Farber<dave(a)farber.net> Subject: Lessig presentation silenced (again) Bogus Copyright Claim Silences Yet Another Larry Lessig YouTube Presentation from the not-this-again... dept http://techdirt.com/articles/20100302/0354498358.shtml Nearly a year ago, we wrote about how a YouTube presentation done by well known law professor (and strong believer in fair use and fixing copyright law), Larry Lessig, had been taken down, because his video, in explaining copyright and fair use and other such things, used a snippet of a Warner Music song to demonstrate a point. There could be no clearer example of fair use -- but the video was still taken down. There was some dispute at the time as to whether or not this was an actual DMCA takedown, or merely YouTube's audio/video fingerprinting technology (which the entertainment industry insists can understand fair use and not block it). But, in the end, does it really make a difference? A takedown over copyright is a takedown over copyright. Amazingly enough, it appears that almost the exact same thing has happened again. A video of one of Lessig's presentations, that he just posted -- a "chat" he had done for the OpenVideoAlliance a week or so ago, about open culture and fair use, has received notice that it has been silenced. It hasn't been taken down entirely -- but the entire audio track from the 42 minute video is completely gone. All of it. In the comments, some say there's a notification somewhere that the audio has been disabled because of "an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG" (Warner Music Group) -- which would be the same company whose copyright caused the issue a year ago -- but I haven't seen or heard that particular message anywhere. However, Lessig is now required to fill out a counternotice challenging the takedown -- while silencing his video in the meantime: While you can still see the video on YouTube, without the audio, it's pretty much worthless. Thankfully, the actual video is available elsewhere, where you can both hear and see it. But, really, the fact that Lessig has had two separate videos -- both of which clearly are fair use -- neutered due to bogus copyright infringement risks suggests a serious problem. I'm guessing that, once again, this video was likely caught by the fingerprinting, rather than a direct claim by Warner Music. In fact, the issue may be the identical one, as I believe the problem last year was the muppets theme, which very, very briefly appears in this video (again) as an example of fair use in action. But it was Warner Music and others like it that demanded Google put such a fingerprinting tool in place (and such companies are still talking about requiring such tools under the law). And yet, this seems to show just how problematic such rules are. Even worse, this highlights just how amazingly problematic things get when you put secondary liability on companies like Google. Under such a regime, Google would of course disable such a video, to avoid its own liability. The idea that Google can easily tell what is infringing and what is not is proven ridiculous when something like this is pulled off-line (or just silenced). When a video about fair use itself is pulled down for a bogus copyright infringement, it proves the point. The unintended consequences of asking tool providers to judge what is and what is not copyright infringement lead to tremendous problems with companies shooting first and asking questions later. They are silencing speech, on the threat that it might infringe on copyright. This is backwards. We live in a country that is supposed to cherish free speech, not stifle it in case it harms the business model of a company. We live in a country that is supposed to encourage the free expression of ideas -- not lock it up and take it down because one company doesn't know how to adapt its business model. We should never be silencing videos because they might infringe on copyright. Situations like this demonstrate the dangerous unintended consequences of secondary liability. At least with Lessig, you have someone who knows what happened, and knows how to file a counternotice -- though, who knows how long it will take for this situation to be corrected. But for many, many, many other people, they are simply silenced. Silenced because of industry efforts to turn copyright law into something it was never intended to be: a tool to silence the wider audience in favor of a few large companies. The system is broken. When even the calls to fix the system are silenced by copyright claims, isn't it time that we fixed the system? ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

March 2, 2010

[NEXA]Pronuncia tedesca in tema di data retention.

by vale.it＠gmail.com

http://ktar.com/?nid=49&sid=1269407

March 2, 2010

Fwd: [Air-L] Italian Conference on Free Software - call for participation

by Andrea Calderaro

Ciao a tutt* credo che questa non sia ancora passata in lista. Inizio messaggio inoltrato: > Da: Stefano De Paoli > Oggetto: [Air-L] Italian Conference on Free Software - call for participation > > The main goal of The Italian Conference on Free Software is to > consider the state of the art of Free Software in Italy. > > This is the 4th edition of the Conference, that was first held in > Cosenza in 2007, in Trento in 2008 and in Bologna 2009 . Coherently > with the previous edition, the focus of the Conference is on the > involvement and coming together of people actively interested in > research about Free Software, in Free Software development, and in the > promotion and spread of Free Software. All the thematic areas related > to Free Software are considered relevant, ranging from economic > aspects to legal, from technical to ethical, social and philosophical > subjects. > > The Conference will be held on 11 and 12 June 2010, in Cagliari, Sardinia > http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cagliari+sardin… > > Different types of sessions and events are planned, in order to have > enterprises, public organizations, universities, research centers, > developers and citizens meet each other and start working together. > > See the conference Website with Call for Papers and Participation (in Italian) > http://www.confsl.org/confsl10/index.php/call-for-papers > > > Please circulate this email to interested people and colleagues. > > > > -- > My institutional page > http://www.nuim.ie/nirsa/people/postdocs/stefano_de_paoli.shtml > _______________________________________________ > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ _________________________________ Andrea Calderaro Department of Social and Political Sciences European University Institute Italy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERSONAL PAGE: http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/calderaro CV: http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Researchers/calderaro/CalderaroCV.pdf Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

March 2, 2010

Fw: La LUISS adotta una politica istituzionale Open Access

by Mariella Berra

----- Original Message ----- From: "Oriana Bozzarelli" <oriana.bozzarelli(a)unito.it> To: <arnaldo.bagnasco(a)unito.it> Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 10:02 AM Subject: La LUISS adotta una politica istituzionale Open Access > Vi segnalo una notizia, a mio parere, importante: > > La LUISS, Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi > Sociali Guido Carli, con delibera del Senato Accademico, > ha adottato una politica istituzionale mandataria per il > deposito dei metadati bibliografici e delle copie > elettroniche di tutti i lavori scientifici prodotti dai > docenti dell'Ateneo nell'Archivio aperto istituzionale, > LUISSearch. > > La policy adottata si riconduce al modello ID/OA > (Immediate Deposit/Optional Access), anche noto come Dual > Deposit/Release Strategy, che prevede il deposito > immediato delle pubblicazioni accettate dagli editori, > corredate dai metadati bibliografici, che saranno resi > immediatamente disponibili ad accesso aperto. La > disponibilità dei testi integrali ad accesso aperto sarà > immediata o soggetta ad un periodo di embargo in accordo > con le politiche editoriali. > > La policy prevede tuttavia un altro passaggio che può > costituire un precedente importante nella necessaria > integrazione degli Archivi Aperti istituzionali nelle > procedure di deposito dei prodotti scientifici soggetti a > valutazione della ricerca. La LUISS ha stabilito infatti > che, a conclusione di un periodo di transizione di dodici > mesi, "l'Archivio istituzionale diventerà il principale > strumento e punto di accesso per l'attività di valutazione > del personale docente e di assegnazione di risorse > finanziarie ai progetti di ricerca portati avanti > all'interno dell'Ateneo ed esclusivamente i documenti > depositati in LUISSearch andranno a costituire la lista > ufficiale delle pubblicazioni correlate al curriculum di > ciascun docente. > > La politica adottata dalla LUISS sembra quindi andare > nella direzione suggerita dalle Raccomandazioni su L'Open > Access e la valutazione dei prodotti della ricerca > scientifica del gruppo OA della Commissione Biblioteche > della CRUI e già intrapresa altrove, come dimostrano gli > esempi britannico, australiano e spagnolo. > > Per prendere visione del testo si vada alla URL: > http://eprints.luiss.it/Policy-LUISS-2010.pdf > > Cordialmente > > > Dott.ssa Oriana BOZZARELLI > ---------------------------------------------------- > Catalogazione libro antico a stampa > Risorse elettroniche > Sito web > > Biblioteca Interdipartimentale Gioele Solari > Università degli Studi di Torino > via Sant'Ottavio, 20 > 10124 Torino > http://library.unito.it/solari-tabacco/index.php > > tel. 011.6703287 > fax 011.6703258 > email: oriana.bozzarelli(a)unito.it > > >

March 1, 2010

Lessig - Internet è Libertà - 11 marzo 2010 - Camera dei Deputati -

by J.C. DE MARTIN

** ** *CAPITALE DIGITALE* *Idee per il Futuro* /un progetto di sviluppo ideato e prodotto da/ *Telecom Italia - Fondazione Romaeuropa - Wired* - *Assessorato Politiche Culturali e Comunicazione Comune di Roma* *In collaborazione con LUISS, Università La Sapienza (Cattid) e Provincia di Roma* *- E con il supporto di Creative Commons e **Centro **Nexa su Internet & Società -* 11 marzo 2010 ore 15.00 Sala della Regina Palazzo di Montecitorio Roma** * * *Internet è libertà* *Perché dobbiamo difendere la Rete*** * * *Gianfranco Fini*, saluto e introduzione Prof. *Lawrence Lessig* (Harvard University), *"Il web e la trasparenza tra ideali e realtà"*** Ne discutono:* Franco Bernabè, Umberto Croppi, Fiorello Cortiana, Juan Carlos De Martin, Paolo Gentiloni, Stefano Quintarelli, Paolo Romani * * *Modera e conduce:* * *Riccardo Luna*

March 1, 2010

R: Via libera al decreto Romani

by Masera Anna

l'abbiamo data anche noi su LaStampa.it ... http://www.lastampa.it/cmstp/rubriche/girata.asp?ID_blog=30&ID_articolo=732… ecco l'ansa: Siti Internet tradizionali, blog, motori di ricerca, versioni on line di quotidiani e riviste restano fuori dalle nuove norme del decreto su Internet e tv varato oggi in via definitiva dal Consiglio dei ministri. Il nuovo testo - che ha recepito alcune osservazioni delle commissioni parlamentari competenti - specifica anche che l'autorizzazione generale per i servizi tv a richiesta «non comporta in alcun modo una valutazione preventiva sui contenuti», ma si limita a individuare il soggetto che la richiede con una dichiarazione di inizio attività. Sul fronte dell'audiovisivo, tornano gli obblighi di programmazione di prodotto italiano ed europeo per tutti gli operatori (compresa la pay-tv), nonchè le quote di programmazione e di investimento previste per la Rai. Ecco le principali novità, così sintetizzate in una nota dal ministero dello Sviluppo economico. 1) Internet - Viene chiarito a quali servizi audiovisivi deve essere applicata la disciplina prevista dalla Direttiva, con un elenco dettagliato delle attività escluse (tra cui i siti Internet tradizionali, come i blog, i motori di ricerca, versioni elettroniche di quotidiani e riviste, giochi on line). È stato specificato che il regime dell'autorizzazione generale per i servizi a richiesta (diversi dalla televisione tradizionale, con palinsesto predefinito) non comporta in alcun modo una valutazione preventiva sui contenuti diffusi, ma solo una necessità di mera individuazione del soggetto che la richiede con una semplice dichiarazione di inizio attività. 2) Produzione audiovisiva - Sono stati reintrodotti gli obblighi di programmazione per tutti gli operatori (compresa la pay-tv), nonchè le quote di programmazione e di investimento previsti per la Rai e l'accorciamento dei tempi per l'emanazione del regolamento nel cui ambito dovranno essere fissate le sottoquote in favore della cinematografia nazionale, non solo per quanto attiene agli obblighi di investimento, ma anche di programmazione. 3) Tutela dei minori - Vengono recepite anche condizioni che rafforzano la tutela dei minori, soprattutto per quanto riguarda la pornografia, inequivocabilmente estesa a tutte le piattaforme di trasmissione. 4) Ordinamento automatico dei canali - Si semplifica e si omogeneizza il posizionamento dei canali televisivi sul telecomando. È stata infatti prevista una sinergia tra l'Autorità per le garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (che predispone un 'piano di numerazionè con criteri di salvaguardia in favore dell'emittenza locale) e il ministero (che in sede operativa assegna i rispettivi numeri ai fornitori di contenuti televisivi), con potere di sospensione fino alla revoca dell'autorizzazione in caso di inosservanza. Si ritengono così superate le preoccupazioni espresse dall'emittenti locali in relazione ad una possibile scarsa visibilità della propria programmazione nell'ordinamento automatico dei canali fornito all'utenza. ________________________________ Da: nexa-bounces(a)server-nexa.polito.it [mailto:nexa-bounces@server-nexa.polito.it] Per conto di Blengino Inviato: lunedì 1 marzo 2010 16.26 A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Oggetto: [nexa] Via libera al decreto Romani http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2010/03/01/news/via_libera_al_decreto_r… Da Repubblica.it apprendo la notizia che però non compare sul sito del Governo, né in vero il Decreto appare all'ordine del giorno del CdM n°84. Nella conferenza stampa non se ne fa cenno dunque.......è probabile che sia vero.

March 1, 2010