December 2011 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Website knows what you've illegally downloaded
by fabio chiusi Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

Che ne pensate? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45646527/ns/technology_and_science-security/?oc… Ciao, f.

1 0

Fwd: [ NNSquad ] The real YouTube pirates: Firms that claim public domain footage as their own!
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 13, 2011

Dec. 13, 2011

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ NNSquad ] The real YouTube pirates: Firms that claim public domain footage as their own! Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:09:11 -0800 From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren(a)vortex.com> To: nnsquad(a)nnsquad.org The real YouTube pirates: Firms that claim public domain footage as their own! http://j.mp/vLcZqE (Guardian) "Malamud's 146-page report from FedFlix to the Archivist of the United States documents claims that companies such as NBC Universal, al-Jazeera, and Discovery Communications have used ContentID to claim title to FedFlix videos on YouTube. Some music royalty collecting societies have claimed infringements in "silent movies". ... YouTube offers very little help for FedFlix. ContentID's dispute resolution mechanism allows FedFlix to contest these claims under only three circumstances: first, ContentID has generated a false match (that is, the video isn't what ContentID thinks it is); second, the uploader has the right to the file, as demonstrated by written permission from its proprietor; or third, the use is acceptable under the US doctrine of fair use, or its counterpart in other laws, fair dealing. But FedFlix can't contest on any of these bases. ContentID isn't mistaken - the files are exactly what ContentID thinks they are. But no rights holder can send a written permission notice to YouTube about these files, because they have no rights holders - they are in the public domain. The posting of these files isn't "fair use". Fair use is a copyright infringement that is lawful because it serves some allowed purpose. FedFlix's posting of public domain files is not a copyright violation, so they can't be fair use. Malamud's report documents these troubles in Kafkaesque detail." - - - I've heard from persons who shot their own videos in their own houses, using ancient classical music they performed on their own instruments, who have gotten multiple Content ID hits and strikes. When they attempt to contest, the false "rights holders" simply takedown again. Most of these people don't have the resources to hire lawyers to go further, and escalating such issues with Google is an exercise in frustration for most of them. On the other hand, Google is between a rock and a hard place on this. The amount of new video flowing into YouTube each day is vast, and only automated systems can deal with them effectively. YouTube's Content ID has been an honest attempt to hold back far more draconian content control schemes (such as SOPA/PIPA) which would do even more damage. Note that I'm not even talking here about arguments over "fair use" -- right now we're discussing materials that are public domain or owned wholly by the uploaders. I have my own ideas on how to deal with this unbalanced situation, but in the current SOPA/PIPA environment aimed at giving even *more* power to the entities that abuse Content ID, et al., it hardly even seems worthwhile to discuss my concepts regarding this now. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren(a)vortex.com) http://www.vortex.com/lauren Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org Founder: - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com _______________________________________________ nnsquad mailing list http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad

1 0

Gigaom: "Why Spotify can never be profitable: The secret demands of record labels"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Why Spotify can never be profitable: The secret demands of record labels By Michael Robertson, MP3tunes Dec. 11, 2011, 9:00am PT 68 Comments <http://gigaom.com/2011/12/11/why-spotify-can-never-be-profitable-the-secret…> Imagine a new hot-dog selling venture. Let's also say there's only one supplier to purchase hot dogs from. Instead of simply charging a fixed price for hot dogs, that supplier demands the HIGHER of the following: $1 per hot dog sold OR $2 for every customer served OR 50 percent of all revenues for anything sold in the store.In addition, the supplier requires a two-year minimum order of 300 hot dogs per day, payable all in advance. If fewer hot dogs are sold, there is no refund. If more than 300 hot dogs are sold each day, payments to the supplier are generated by calculating $2 per customer or 50 percent of total revenues, so an additional payment is due to the supplier. After the first two years, the supplier can unilaterally adjust any of the pricing terms and the shop can never switch suppliers. Would this imaginary hot dog establishment be able to generate a profit? Never, because the economics are one-sided. The supplier will always elect the formula that captures the largest amount of money for themselves, completely disregarding the financial viability of the store. If the store miraculously managed to generate a profit, the landlord would simply raise the rates after two years. Such economic demands may be imaginary for the hot dog business, but they are the stark reality that every digital-music subscription service such as Spotify, Rhapsody, MOG, Rdio, and others must confront. These details aren't well-known because digital music service deals are always wrapped tightly with strict non-disclosure agreements. For the first time, people are talking, and these previously secret demands are being made public. [...] Continua qui: http://gigaom.com/2011/12/11/why-spotify-can-never-be-profitable-the-secret…

1 0

Fw: [Creis_Terminal] Fwd: Info DEL/CNRS : colloque à Alger,mai 2012
by Mariella Berra Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

----- Original Message ----- From: Chantal richard To: CREIS Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 5:00 PM Subject: [Creis_Terminal] Fwd: Info DEL/CNRS : colloque à Alger,mai 2012 -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Info DEL/CNRS : colloque à Alger,mai 2012 Date : Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:20:00 +0100 De : INFOS Réseau DEL/CNRS <info.del.cnrs(a)free.fr> Pour : destinataires inconnus:; -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Fwd: Tr : bonjour Date : Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:39:39 +0100 (CET) De : Fabienne Greffet <Fabienne.Greffet(a)univ-nancy2.fr> Pour : Gérard LOISEAU <loiseau(a)univ-tlse2.fr> Pour les collègues du réseau DEL Bonjour à tous Une collègue algérienne sollicite des spécialistes des réseaux sociaux soit comme membre de comité scientifique, soit comme contributeur à un collqoue qui aura lieu à Alger en mai 2012. Cf. documents ci-dessous et joints pour se manifester si vous êtes intéressés. Bien à vous, Fabienne Bonjour, Je vous envoie ces documents pour solliciter votre participation au comité scientifique et aux travaux du colloque que l'université d'Alger compte organiser au mois de mai. J'espère que vous serez intéressé (e) de coopérer avec nous. La directrice du labo et présidente du comité d'organisation est ouverte à toute information. Cordialement. -- Gérard Loiseau, CERTOP/CNRS (loiseau(a)univ-tlse2.fr) Stéphanie Wojcik, Université Paris-Est, Céditec (stephanie.wojcik(a)u-pec.fr) Réseau de recherche "Démocratie électronique" / Research network "Electronic Democracy" www.certop.fr/DEL Pour vous désabonner, envoyez un mail à loiseau(a)univ-tlse2.fr" / "To unsuscribe from the DEL mailing list, send an e-mail to loiseau(a)univ-tlse2.fr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Creis_terminal mailing list Creis_terminal(a)lecreis.org https://listes.globenet.org/listinfo/creis_terminal

1 0

EU e open data: lunedì l'annuncio
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Come forse sapete, lunedì (dopodomani) la Commissione Europea annuncerà il futuro della Direttiva Public Sector Information (aka, open data). Se volete prepararvi all'annuncio qui http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm trovate, oltre a molto altro: - a survey on existing findings on the economic impact of public sector information conducted by the European Commission in 2011 (Vickery study) the overall direct and indirect economic gains are estimated at EUR140bn throughout the EU. Increase in the re-use of PSI generates new businesses and jobs and provides consumers with more choice and more value for money; - A Communication on Open Data (versione provvisoria); - A proposal for a revision of the Directive (provisional version); - A proposal for a revision of the Commission's rules on access to the information it holds (provisional version). Buona lettura! juan carlos

2 1

Fwd: [IP] from Dyson -- ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] from Dyson -- ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:19:41 -0500 From: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Esther Dyson* <edyson(a)edventure.com <mailto:edyson@edventure.com>> Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [IP] ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post To: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net <mailto:dave@farber.net>> Cc: ip <ip(a)listbox.com <mailto:ip@listbox.com>> Dave - Thanks so much for reposting this. I know everyone is concerned (and justly) about SOPA right now, but ICANN is unaccountable to anyone except its own coterie of registries, registrars, trademark lawyers. In theory, it's accountable to the public, but the public pays no attention.... So, everyone, please pay attention! In 5 years, people will use Google et al. instead of URLs anyway, but in the meantime a TLD 1 percent is going to get rich by confusing and "protecting" the 99 percent. here is my own written testimony for the Senate Commerce Committee hearing last week: Thank you,Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchinson, esteemed Senators, Committee staff and others, for your attention to this important issue.As a private citizen with a variety of affiliations but beholden to no single employer or institution, I am honored to be here today. My name is Esther Dyson. I was the founding chairman of ICANN's board, from its inception in September 1998 until late in 2000. I continued as a member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee for a year or two after that, and subsequently went on with the rest of my life.I am a casual user of domain names; I have a couple registered that I don't use, and then I have owned and used edventure.com <http://edventure.com> since before my ICANN tenure.As an investor, a board member of non-profit and for-profit companies and as a user of the Internet, I do have a substantial interest in freedom of speech and freedom to innovate. Other than that, I have no particular business interests in the domain name system, and I paid my own way here today. Moreover, unlike most of the public, I have the private resources, the time and the insider knowledge to come here to give you what I hope you will find to be an informed and useful perspective. I come as a loving critic to improve ICANN, not to bury it. *Some brief history* When I joined the board of ICANN back in 1998, the majority of its members had almost no experience with the Internet and attempted to serve the interests of a broad public.At the time, our primary mission was to break the monopoly of Network Solutions (which managed .com among other registries), first by separating the functions of registry (which manages the list of names in a particular top-level domain) and registrar (which resells second-level domain names to the public). We succeeded in that, and we also managed to launch a few new TLDs, including .biz, .info, .museum and .coop. Of those, only .biz and .info have had much success.Separately, a number of creative people – whose initiative I sincerely applaud – made special-purpose TLDs out of country codes (ccTLDs) such as .tv (Tuvalu), .md (Moldova), .ly (Libya) and most recently .co (Colombia). At the same time, it's fair to say that .com retained its first-mover advantage as by far the leading TLD.Users instinctively type COMPANYNAME.com <http://COMPANYNAME.com> into their browsers. I myself was a big fan of the concept of new TLDs. I believed that it would broaden the market, encourage innovation (as with the repurposed ccTLDs I mentioned above)...and besides, why should ICANN enforce artificial scarcity? But I have since changed my mind.Now I would like to explain why, and finally to suggest some paths forward. *Why I changed my mind – Confusing to the public* After my two-year term as chairman of ICANN expired in 2000, I joined the At-Large Advisory Committee.Our mission was to make sure the voice of the ultimate users – not just the sellers, resellers and buyers of domain names – was heard.That turned out to be an almost impossible task.Naturally enough, normal members of the public did not have the time or interest (or funds) to involve themselves in ICANN's business.Despite numerous attempts, we failed to atttract more than a few thousand people at best to our various meetings, online conversations, requests for comment and the like.Our online message board was mostly painful to read.When I finally resigned from the ALAC, I too found ICANN too removed from my daily interests to pay much attention to its activities. *Why I changed my mind – Lack of oversight* Our premise for new TLDs was that we would select registry managers who would add value to theirTLDs and monitor the behavior of their registrars, who would in turn make sure that the registrants followed whatever requirements the registries imposed.In fact, the business overall has become one of sleazy marketing practices, front-running (where registrars or related parties buy names for their own accounts, competing unfairly with their customers) and a high proportion of spammy domains.Unfortunately, the ease and lack of accountability with which someone can buy a domain name has led to a profusion of spam, phishing and other nefarious sites. There's no reason to think the situation would be any better with the next set of new TLDs; there would simply be more of them. And as the case of .xxx shows, many of the second-level domain-name purchasers who do have honest intentions will probably be more interested in defensive registrations rather than adding value to the system.(One such case is that of Meetup.com <http://Meetup.com>, out of whose office I work and on whose board I sit. Meetup has attempted to register Meetup.xxx, but has been told the name has been reserved on the "premium queue" to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Even more perversely, Meetup cannot even bid at auction for its own trademarked name unless it somehow becomes registered as a member of the "adult community," which is at odds with the very nature of its business and the very reason it sought to reserve the name. Meetup's only remedy ultimately will be to file an expensive and time-consuming trademark lawsuit.) *Why I changed my mind – Misallocation of resources* Our initial assumption was that new TLDs would be relatively cheap.But ICANN's current plan envisions an expensive application process and expensive registrations. The amount of money likely to be spent on these new TLDs - both by new applicants and registrants, and by incumbents protecting their names - is huge, at a time when businesses and consumers are just scraping by.I believe in innovation, but only if it adds value. In this case, most of the new domains would simply add friction. As with .xxx, where many of the registrants are actually companies who want to make sure their name is /not /used in .xxx, I predict that many or most of the new registrations will be defensive.Marriott.com <http://Marriott.com>, for example, works fine; why do they need marriott.hotels except defensively?(Or why do they need to own .marriott?) The rationale is that there's a shortage of domain names... but actually, there's a shortage of space in people's heads.When you add, for example, .hotel, you are not creating new space; you are carving up the «hotel» space in people's heads into .com and .hotel.So was that Marriott.com <http://Marriott.com> or Marriott.hotel?or dyson.com <http://dyson.com> or dyson.hotel? if I decide to rent out my apartment.Consumers will inevitably be confused, and the primary beneficiaries will be Google, trademark lawyers...and of course the registries and registrars. In short, it's as if you owned a field, and you paid a border guard.Now the border guards want you to pay separately for each little chunk in your field; it's still the same field, but now it's carved into ever-smaller pieces. To use my own small field as an example, the field was originally called edventure.com <http://edventure.com>.Now the new chunks could be labeled edventure.angel, edventure.blog, edventure.nyc, edventure.post, edventure.fin .... and perhaps I'll also be solicited to buy the TLD .edventure so that some educational or editorial group won't get hold of it. In the end, new domain names are somewhat like derivatives: They add complexity and transactions and lots of rights and obligations without actually creating anything of value. *Context: Innovation can happen without new TLDs* I have heard from people who say that the new TLDs will lead to great innovation.I once thought so too.I had visions of .fin as high-value, highly secure TLD for regulated financial services, for example. Right now, there are people who want to launch .eco and .green as the foundation of a «green» marketing campaign that would purportedly do untold good for the world at large.But what's wrong with edventure.com/green? <http://edventure.com/green?> Meanwhile, there is innovation in namespaces, but it comes with overall innovation.One of the best and simplest examples I can think of is twitter, where I am @edyson or http://twitter.com/#!/edyson <http://twitter.com/#%21/edyson>- a fine use of an /existing/ TLD. *Remedies ....* Of course, my task here does not end with complaining.What should be done?First of all, it is not the role of Congress to tell ICANN what to do. ICANN is accountable to the worldwide public, not to the US Government (except through one limited contract).But it /is/ the role of Congress to shed light on issues of public interest, and to suggest politely that ICANN follow through more fully on its acknowledged obligation to solicit public feedback.As I discovered during my time at ICANN, it's hard to get the public interested in these matters.(In that respect too, domain names are like derivatives.) As I mentioned, ICANN has indeed followed the process of soliciting public opinion, but I do not believe they have obtained «informed consent,» in the sense that people actually understand the issues. *Much broader consultation with the public* Therefore, although personally I would like to see ICANN simply abandon this program, I have been told again and again that this is not «realistic.» If that is indeed the case, I would recommend that ICANN rapidly re-launch its consultation process with much broader outreach.Perhaps these hearings and the subsequent press coverage will help to inform the broader public and shade ICANN's approach to new TLDs. *Much stronger front-end protection* At the same time, ICANN could offer much broader and easier protection (from similar-sounding TLDs) to existing registrants, akin to what ICANN itself has and what the Red Cross is asking for.Of course, this would obviate much of the interest in the new domain names, but it is a proper obligation for ICANN to undertake, in my opinion. *Conclusion* The current domain name system in some ways is an accident of history.ICANN was created to regulate it, independently of any government and on behalf of the Internet – and world - community as a whole.Just as with fishing rights, communications spectra, taxi medallions and other «commons,»there's a delicate balance between too few and too many domain names, which this new initiative may well upset if it goes forward without more serious study.As the old saying goes:If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I would welcome any questions. On Dec 12, 2011, at 9:46 AM, David Farber wrote: > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO… > > ICANN reports to no one — a decision made when the group was created > during the Clinton administration to protect Internet independence. > The group has made some adjustments in response to concerns, including > creation of a trademark clearinghouse and a “rapid response” process > to allow legitimate rights holders to quickly knock out imposters. > Officials have said that some nonprofits may be permitted to pay lower > fees. > > Although the plan has been six years in the making, it is not ready > for prime time. ICANN officials acknowledge that they are still > working out some details, including certain protections for trademark > holders. The Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies > have expressed concerns about enforcement. > > ICANN should not approve new names until enforcement and protection > issues are resolved. Even then, it should approve at most a few, to > allow the marketplace to absorb and weigh the changes. ICANN would be > wise to move slowly; its legitimacy and Internet efficacy are at stake. > > snip > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/124966-899eea08 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?& > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&> > Unsubscribe Now: > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20111212094620:0B2BF592-24D0… > <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20111212094620:0B2BF592-24D0…> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Esther Dyson edyson(a)edventure.com <mailto:edyson@edventure.com> c/o Meetup HQ 632 Broadway, 10th floor New York, NY 10012 USA www.edventure.com <http://www.edventure.com> www.flickr.com/photos/edyson <http://www.flickr.com/photos/edyson> @edyson Always make new mistakes! Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/14798382-eb93fc78> | Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-58a8a…> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=14798382&id_secret=14798382-…> [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>

1 0

Giorno del Pubblico Dominio 2012
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Carissimi, ormai e' all'orizzonte il prossimo Giorno del Pubblico Dominio, il 1 gennaio 2012! Quest'anno entreranno nel pubblico dominio (a meno che si applichi qualche diavoleria legale, sempre possibile, purtroppo) autori tra cui (mia selezione personale): * Henri Bergson (filosofo) * Robert Baden-Powell (fondatore dei Boy Scout) * James Joyce (scrittore) * Virginia Woolf (scrittrice) * James Frazer (antropologo) * Rabindranath Tagore (filosofo, poeta, premio Nobel) * Louis D Brandeis (giudice corte suprema USA) * Gaetano Mosca (scienziato politico e altro ancora) * Marina Ivanovna Cvetaeva (poetessa e scrittrice) (se ne scovate altri di famosi, diffondete! Idem per eventuali errori nella lista di cui sopra) Qualcuno pensa di organizzare un incontro, anche molto semplice, presso la propria scuola, biblioteca, centro di quartiere? Se si', postatelo in lista: anche quest'anni, infatti, saremo lieti di usare il sito http://publicdomainday.org/ per condividere informazioni e iniziative in tutto il mondo. Sullo stesso sito trovate informazioni sugli eventi 2010 e, soprattutto, 2011. Un caro saluto, juan carlos

3 4

REMINDER: Conferenza NEXA su Internet & Società 2011 - I posti disponibili sono ormai pochi
by Giuseppe Futia Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Vi ricordiamo che il *17 dicembre 2011* si svolgerà la Conferenza NEXA su Internet & Società sul tema "Dati aperti su una Rete aperta". http://nexa.polito.it/conf2011 *I posti disponibili sono ormai pochi, iscrivetevi al più presto su*: http://nexa2011.eventbrite.com/.

1 0

Fwd: [A2k] 16 December 2011: KEI side event @ 8th WTO Ministerial Conference: The TRIPS Agreement and Copyright
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

In merito al 3-step test. juan carlos -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] 16 December 2011: KEI side event @ 8th WTO Ministerial Conference: The TRIPS Agreement and Copyright Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:00:09 +0100 From: Thirukumaran Balasubramaniam <thiru(a)keionline.org> To: a2k(a)lists.keionline.org This side event is open to those credentialed to attend the 8th WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. http://keionline.org/node/1338 16 December 2011: KEI side event @ 8th WTO Ministerial Conference: The TRIPS Agreement and Copyright Friday, 16 December 2011 Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) side event @ 8th WTO Ministerial Conference Geneva Room B, Centre William Rappard, World Trade Organization Rue de Lausanne 154 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM The TRIPS Agreement and Copyright Knowledge Ecology International Introduction TRIPS, the copyright 3-step test, and exceptions to rights Hannu Wager, World Trade Organization: What does the 3-Step test for copyright mean, in the context of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, and how does it differ from the 3-Step tests for trademark or patent rights. James Love, Knowledge Ecology International: Is there a need to redefine the TRIPS 3-Step test for copyright TRIPS and remedies for copyright infringement James Love: What is the flexibility in Article 44 of the TRIPS for implementing liability rules for access to copyright, outside of the 3-Step test? TRIPS and the Appendix the Berne Convention Viviana Munoz, South Centre Are the copyright flexibilities under TRIPS referenced Appendix to the Berne Convention sufficient to address concerns about access and development in an era of enhanced enforcement of copyright? -- Thiru Balasubramaniam Geneva Representative Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) thiru at keionline.org Tel: +41 22 791 6727 Mobile: +41 76 508 0997 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

1 0

EC: "Digital Agenda: Turning government data into gold"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Non mi piace un granché la metafora alchemica, ma si vede che anche la pubblicità vuole la sua parte. Comunque, ottimo annuncio! juan carlos *Digital Agenda: Turning government data into gold * Brussels, 12 December 2011 -- The Commission has launched an Open Data Strategy for Europe, which is expected to deliver a EUR40 billion boost to the EU's economy each year. Europe's public administrations are sitting on a goldmine of unrealised economic potential: the large volumes of information collected by numerous public authorities and services. Member States such as the United Kingdom <http://data.gov.uk/> and France <http://www.data.gouv.fr/> are already demonstrating this value. The strategy to lift performance EU-wide is three-fold: firstly the Commission will lead by example, opening its vaults of information to the public for free through a new data portal. Secondly, a level playing field for open data across the EU will be established. Finally, these new measures are backed by the EUR100 million which will be granted in 2011-2013 to fund research into improved data-handling technologies. These actions position the EU as the global leader in the re-use of public sector information. They will boost the thriving industry that turns raw data into the material that hundreds of millions of ICT users depend on, for example smart phone apps, such as maps, real-time traffic and weather information, price comparison tools and more. Other leading beneficiaries will include journalists and academics. Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes said: "We are sending a strong signal to administrations today. Your data is worth more if you give it away. So start releasing it now: use this framework to join the other smart leaders who are already gaining from embracing open data. Taxpayers have already paid for this information, the least we can do is give it back to those who want to use it in new ways that help people and create jobs and growth." See Mrs Kroes video quote here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlcFKPyiRuw>. The Commission proposes to update the 2003 Directive on the re-use of public sector information by: * Making it a general rule that all documents made accessible by public sector bodies can be re-used for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, unless protected by third party copyright; * Establishing the principle that public bodies should not be allowed to charge more than costs triggered by the individual request for data (marginal costs); in practice this means most data will be offered for free or virtually for free, unless duly justified. * Making it compulsory to provide data in commonly-used, machine-readable formats, to ensure data can be effectively re-used. * Introducing regulatory oversight to enforce these principles; * Massively expanding the reach of the Directive to include libraries, museums and archives for the first time; the existing 2003 rules will apply to data from such institutions. In addition, the Commission will make its own data public through a new "data portal", for which the Commission has already agreed the contract. This portal is currently in 'beta version' (development and testing phase) with an expected launch in spring 2012. In time this will serve as a single-access point for re-usable data from all EU institutions, bodies and agencies and national authorities. *Background* Open Data is general information that can be freely used, re-used and redistributed by anyone - either free or at marginal cost. The Commission's proposal today would operate in full respect of rules on the treatment of personal data. Studies conducted on behalf of the European Commission show that industry and citizens still face difficulties in finding and re-using public sector information. That is to say, open data is largely undeveloped in Europe. In the important sector of geographical information, almost 80% of the respondents to Commission surveys say that they are prevented from making full use of information held by public bodies. Reasons include high fees, non-transparent rules and practices regarding re-use, a lack of transparency on what type of data is held and by whom, and exclusive licensing agreements which may have the effect of undermining competition. In its 'Digital Agenda for Europe <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm>' the Commission identified the re-use of public sector information, alongside fast and ultra fast internet access, as key to delivering a Digital Single Market. Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:345:0090:00…> introduced a first set of measures to make it easier for businesses to obtain access and permission to re-use government-held information. It also brought about a process whereby governmental agencies lowered the fees charged for obtaining the information. Today's proposal extends access and widens the coverage of the Directive. More information: See MEMO/11/891 <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/891&format=…> European Commission Open Data website <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm> Digital Agenda website <http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda> Neelie Kroes' website <http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/> Follow Neelie Kroes on Twitter <http://twitter.com/neeliekroeseu> http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1524&format=H…

2 2