July 2011 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Remarks by Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Internet Governance Forum--USA
by Marco Pancini July 25, 2011

July 25, 2011

Vi consiglio questa lettura interessante. A presto. marco Source: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/remarks-assistant-secretary-st… July 18, 2011 Remarks by Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Internet Governance Forum--USA Washington, DC July 18, 2011 -As prepared for delivery- Thank you for the opportunity to speak once again at the IGF-USA. I want especially to thank Marilyn Cade for her work in pulling together the third edition of this meeting and I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak at each of these sessions. We are at a critical time in the history of the Internet. Last month I spoke at the Internet Society’s INET meeting in New York City where the question before the house was “What kind of Internet do I want?” I answered that I wanted an Internet that is open, innovative, growing and global and that continues to rely on the established global Internet institutions for guidance and direction. But in the last year we have seen more and more instances of restrictions on the free flow of information online, disputes between various standards bodies and even appeals from incumbent carriers in Europe for government intervention on the terms and conditions for exchanging Internet traffic. We have seen statements by international organizations and even some governments to regulate the Internet more directly. All of these events only strengthen my view that now is truly a time for all to get involved who are concerned about maintaining a vibrant and growing Internet and who want to preserve established global Internet institutions. When we speak of global Internet institutions, we are referring to multistakeholder organizations, like the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), that have played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet. A top priority of the Obama Administration, and in particular, NTIA, is to preserve and enhance the multistakeholder model that has been a hallmark feature of the global Internet institutions that have been responsible for the success of the Internet. Maintaining the openness, transparency, and user choice of today’s Internet can only be sustained and advanced in a world where all stakeholders participate in relevant decision making, not one where governments, or other stakeholders, dominate. We believe that preserving our existing institutions while extending this model to other aspects of Internet policymaking is important for ensuring the continued growth and innovation of the Internet. Today, I would like to discuss some recent events where we have made substantial progress on our goal to protect and enhance the multistakeholder process for Internet governance. First, many of you know that I have devoted a lot of time in speeches to the accountability and transparency of ICANN, the multistakeholder organization that coordinates the Domain Name System for the Internet. Starting last year, as one of its commitments to the global Internet community set forth in the Affirmation of Commitments, ICANN undertook a detailed review of its accountability and transparency. I had the privilege of participating on the team that conducted this review. It was truly multistakeholder, with members from around the globe including China, Egypt, and South America, representing elements of the global Internet community such as registries, registrars, users, and governments. The team completed its review last December and issued a report with 27 recommendations to the ICANN Board for improving accountability and transparency at ICANN. A little more than three weeks ago, at its meeting in Singapore, the ICANN Board adopted these recommendations as proposed by the review team. I am very pleased by the Board’s action, which demonstrates a commitment to improving the accountability and transparency of ICANN and to the multistakeholder process of Internet policymaking. Now the focus turns to ICANN management and staff, who must take up the challenge of implementing these recommendations as rapidly as possible and in a manner that leads to meaningful and lasting reform. These recommendations, when implemented in a thorough and meaningful way, will measurably improve the accountability and transparency of the organization. And while a lot of people worked very hard to get to this point with ICANN, I think the success of the effort so far illustrates an important point about multistakeholder organizations. Multistakeholder institutions derive their legitimacy from the support and active participation of all stakeholders. Accordingly, they are more likely than regulatory or treaty-based organizations to adapt to change and evolve when the stakeholders demand it. It is difficult to imagine employing a similar process to reform more traditional regulatory agencies as quickly or as thoroughly. The other big news in Singapore was ICANN’s decision to move forward to expand the number of generic top level domains, or gTLDs. While that decision may not have satisfied everyone, the process used by the Board to reach its decision is worthy of note. In response to long-standing concerns held by governments about the expansion proposal, the ICANN Board held a number of focused exchanges with the Government Advisory Committee to resolve as many of the issues as possible. These exchanges represented the first meaningful interactions between the GAC and the ICANN Board since ICANN’s inception and it is critical that the lessons learned through these recent interactions result in clear, predictable processes for the ICANN Board and the GAC going forward. >From our perspective, ICANN improved the new gTLD program by incorporating a significant number of the GAC proposals. The fact that not all of the GAC’s proposals were adopted does not represent a failure of the process or a setback to governments; rather, it reflects the reality of a multistakeholder model. More important is the fact that the ICANN Board now recognizes the need to bring governments into its multistakeholder policymaking in a more meaningful way. If we are to combat the proposals put forward by others, such as to grant the International Telecommunication Union the authority to veto ICANN Board decisions, we need to ensure that our multistakeholder institutions have provided a meaningful role for governments as stakeholders. A second major achievement of the last month was the action taken by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris at the end of June to adopt a set of Internet policymaking principles. The occasion was the OECD’s High Level Meeting on the Internet Economy for senior decision-makers from governments, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community and it was an unprecedented opportunity to advance the global consensus around the working multistakeholder model that we believe is critical to the Internet’s continued success. Participants at the meeting agreed to a communiqué on policy-making principles that will create the conditions for an open, interoperable, secure, and continually innovating Internet. The communiqué reflects a growing global consensus on the value of the multistakeholder approach towards addressing Internet challenges. The principles are not intended to harmonize global law, but rather provide a common framework for companies and governments as they consider Internet policy issues. The OECD member nations endorsed the policymaking principles as did the business and technical advisory committees. The civil society advisory committee could not endorse the entire document due to its concern with provisions relating to online protection of intellectual property. However, everyone supported the plank encouraging multistakeholder cooperation in policy development processes. So, with these actions in Singapore and Paris, where do we go next? What is the call to action for all of you? First and foremost, do not take the OECD principles as the end of the work. Really, we are just at the beginning. Reaching an agreement on the OECD language was a challenge, but our history with those member states and ideological similarities gave us confidence that we would eventually reach consensus. However, some other nations, many with less experience with the multistakeholder model, may be inclined instead to support treaty-based structures for Internet governance. It is our job to advocate for this model and highlight how this multistakeholder process protects their national interests. The United States is most assuredly opposed to establishing a governance structure for the Internet that would be managed and controlled by nation-states. Such a structure could lead to the imposition of heavy-handed and economically misguided regulation and the loss of flexibility the current system allows today, all of which would jeopardize the growth and innovation we have enjoyed these past years. The OECD’s policymaking principles are perhaps the clearest statement yet that the United States and like-minded nations oppose treaty-binding regulation of the Internet. Now our challenge is to convince the rest of the world of the advantages of the multistakeholder approach. Next November, the United States will participate in the ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). This treaty negotiation will conduct a review of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), the general principles which relate to the provision and operation of international telecommunication services. We can expect that some states will attempt to rewrite the ITRs in a manner that would establish heavy-handed governmental control of the Internet and cybersecurity. These are the countries that we, including all of us in this room, must reach to promote the multistakeholder model, and our work must begin right away. The IGF in Nairobi will provide us all with an excellent opportunity to get started on this important task. I will use speaking opportunities at the IGF and the Government of Kenya’s Ministerial meeting to explain why we feel multistakeholder Internet governance is so valuable to preserving and enhancing a dynamic Internet and how it can be most useful in countries with little tradition of employing it. My team at NTIA will also work extensively at the bilateral level over the next year to spread the message. We ultimately hope to attain a global consensus on Internet governance that will preserve an open, interoperable, secure, and continually innovating Internet. But we need your help. Before I close, I would like to remind everyone of the July 29th deadline for responses to NTIA’s Further Notice of Inquiry on the IANA functions contract. This process is the first comprehensive review of the IANA functions contract since the award of the initial contract in 2000. We have been conducting what I hope the community agrees is an open and transparent process on the contract. Based on comments received to our original notice, we have gone back to the global community to confirm that we interpreted correctly what was said in the comments. We set forth our tentative conclusions in response to the comments and then provided a draft Statement of Work for public comment. This is the first time NTIA has sought public input on the draft Statement of Work. In keeping with our commitment to the multistakeholder model, NTIA is actively seeking the input of global stakeholders. I encourage you to all carefully read the Further Notice and submit comments by the deadline. In closing, let me assure all of you that the United States government is committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking. We are encouraged by the fact that support for the model is the consensus view of the participants in this conference and we look forward to working with all of you to build a global consensus on this principle with nations around the world. Thank you. -- Marco Pancini | Senior Policy Counsel | pancini(a)google.com | +32.28948492 +32.473531203 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

caso Jammie Thomas-Rasset_ridotta la condanna
by MANTELERO ALESSANDRO July 24, 2011

July 24, 2011

Il giudice ha ridotto la precedente condanna da 1,5 milioni dollari a $ 54.000, affermando che "an award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling" http://goo.gl/jKg0U

1 0

Dusollier: "The relations between copyright law and consumers' rights from a European perspective"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 23, 2011

July 23, 2011

Mi era sfuggito questo studio di Severine Dusollier per il Parlamento Europeo rilasciato a dicembre 2010: "The relations between copyright law and consumers' rights from a European perspective" Scusate se era gia' stato segnalato. juan carlos DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGAL AFFAIRS The relations between copyright law and consumers' rights from a European perspective Abstract Consumers are considered as key stakeholders in debates and discussions surrounding copyright law. This note analyses the current relations between copyright law and consumers' rights in the European Union, in particularly whether consumers' interests are taken into account by EU and Member States copyright legislation. Recommendations are proposed to better integrate consumers' concerns in future revision of copyright law at EU level. Manuscript completed in November 2010. © European Parliament, Brussels, 2010. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies CONTENTS Executive SUMMARY 4? INTRODUCTION 8? Chapter 1. The consumer as a member of the public 11? 1.1. Copyright territoriality 11? 1.2. Access to information and culture 12? 1.3. Copyright exceptions 13? 1.4. User-created content 15? Chapter 2. The consumer as an end-user 17? 2.1. The private copy 17? 2.1.1. Evolution of the private copy 17? 2.1.2. Lack of harmonisation 18? 2.1.3. The relationship between private copy and the three-step test 18? 2.1.4. The lawful origin of the private copy 20? 2.1.5. The nature of private copy 20? 2.1.6. Private copy levies 21? 2.2. The lawful user 23? 2.3. Mandatory nature of copyright exceptions 24? 2.4. The rule of exhaustion and its digital application 26? 2.5.The consumer and the technological measures of protection 27? 2.5.1. Technological measures of protection and copyright exceptions 27? 2.5.2. Other issues in Technological measures 29? Policy recommendations 31? References 33? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Consumers are normally not concerned by copyright. Indeed, copyright is about exploitation of works, i.e. making available the works to a potential public, through direct communication or distribution of copies. Conversely, the end-use of a work, its acquisition and consumption (its reading, viewing or playing) has traditionally not been covered by copyright control and enforcement. Until recently, consumers' interests were thus equal to that of the general public, save for the private copy, that was the only copyright exception tailored to their needs. Their concerns aimed at ensuring a balanced copyright regime that could secure access to knowledge and culture. The digital evolution has however brought the consumer within the copyright realm. The main reason thereof is the extension of the reproduction right over temporary acts of copying that potentially covers any use of a work in a digital format. Contrary to over-the- counter sales, the provision of digital content on-line is generally made under end-user licensing agreements that define strictly what the consumer can do with its acquisition. The end-user being increasingly governed by copyright rules and licensing contracts, European copyright framework had to cater to the needs and expectations of consumers. Chapter 1 -- The consumer as a member of the public As a member of the public, consumers have a strong interest in an effective and limited copyright protection, ensuring the access to a vast range of digital content and guaranteeing their fundamental rights to expression and access to information and culture. A first obstacle in the provision of digital content to consumers has been recently put forward by scholarship and the European Commission: the territorial application of copyright appears to hamper the development of cross-border provision of digital services to the frustration of consumers. The lack of harmonisation of copyright regime in the European Union, and particularly of its exceptions, can also be explained by the territoriality governing copyright. Incomplete harmonisation makes unequal he European consumers confronted to some uses of copyrighted works but also prevents some valuable services (e.g. distance learning) from developing across the borders. This would add to the increasing expectation of consumers for an extensive access to information, culture and content, perceived as a basic right in the digital information society. Though the right of access to information can certainly not be claimed as such to get a free access to copyright works, it justifies to achieve a balance, within copyright regime, between owners and users rights, between protection of creation and limitations to that protection. To the extent the digital development has induced a strengthening of the rights of copyright owners, their impact of consumers', and more generally on public's access to culture and knowledge should be systematically accessed and the balance restored when needed. Copyright exceptions play a key role in that balance, particularly in the field of education, research and access to culture. The European acquis communautaire provides exceptions for libraries, museums, educational institutions, and people with disabilities to that effect. However, their transposition into national laws of the Member States is optional and has led to diverging scope and conditions. The fragmentation of copyright exceptions in the Internal market is prejudicial for the consumer who does not enjoy an equal access to culture depending on its place of residence. This is particularly worrisome for consumers with special needs who have to depend on different modalities to get an access to works adapted to their specific disabilities. Consumers' rights would be better accommodated by copyright exceptions whose transposition in Member States would be mandatory and uniform. Consumers have also taken the opportunity given by digital technologies to manipulate and adapt copyrighted works to their own creation. So-called user-created content takes a major part in web 2.0. but still lacks a clear copyright regime, specially concerning the possible exemption of such derived amateur creation from copyright enforcement or, conversely, concerning a possible attenuation of copyright clearance rules. Consumers wait for some certainty in that regard. Chapter 2 -- Consumers as end-users Digital technology gives copyright owners an increasing possibility to charge for every use of their works or to restrict and control the consumption and final use of the works by consumers. Copyright laws have been adapted somewhat to accommodate this new means of enforcement, restricting the private copy or its conditions, submitting some exceptions to the condition of a prior lawful use, or encouraging and protecting the recourse to technological means of protection. That places consumers in a weakened position and gives a renewed importance to his rights and interests to counteract such expansion of copyright control. Private copy A primary concern of the consumer lies in the private copying. Generally recognised as an exception in most (but not all) copyright laws, the reproduction for personal use has gained some impetus in the digital environment due to the ease of its making and the unprecedented quality of the copies obtained. Private copying also occurs more frequently to enable the consumer to enjoy the digital content he acquires. Indeed, most often, the consumer literally "makes" the tangible embodiment of the work he downloads and subsequent copies might be increasingly necessary to allow for using the work in different platforms, applications and formats, as each digital use might technically require a further copy. This has changed the scope and justification of the private copy. One consequence of that shift might be that, when compensating the copyright owners for the harm suffered from the making of private copying (the levies system), such copies, required by the digital format and whose harm is minimal or even non-existent, should not imply compensation. As such device-shifting or format-shifting are fundamental expectations of consumers of digital content, such copying should not be restricted in any way by copyright owners. As private copying now encompass copies that are technically required for consumers to be able to enjoy digital content, it should be further harmonised within the European Union and gives all European consumers the same scope and level of certainty. Certainty of the private copy can be endangered by a too broad application of the three- step test. This provision, included in the Information Society directive, limits the enactment of copyright exceptions to (1) certain special cases (2) which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and (3) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holders. National courts have sometimes applied the three-step test to the private copy when in practice, it seemed that the admissibility of making a digital copy would harm the normal exploitation of the work. It is difficult to understand how a single act of copying would counter the normal exploitation of a work, and submitting the exception to that further condition would create legal uncertainty for the consumer, particularly since the criteria of the test have never been defined in the European legislation or case law. The three-step test should be limited to a tool for lawmakers when adapting copyright exceptions and incidentally to courts to interpret the exact scope of an unclear legal provision, but it should not add supplementary conditions to copyright exceptions. Another source for uncertainty for the consumer is the requirement, existing in some Member States, of a lawful source for the private copy: the copy would be exempted under an exception only if it is made from a non counterfeited work. That requirement aims particularly to prevent the application of the private copy exception in illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing when users download works whose communication in such networks have not been authorised by copyright owners. The situation of the lawful source for the private copy, as well as for other exceptions, should be clarified. Conditioning each exception to the evidence of such source would constitute too great a burden for the consumer who might not have, in most cases, have the means to prove that the copy she has used in conformity of an exception was itself authorised. Other means could be found to fight piracy in peer-to-peer networks. Claims of consumers to acknowledge their genuine right to a private copy have been asserted before some national courts to no avail so far. Answers to the legal nature of the private copy are not easy and will differ from a Member State to another depending on their legal traditions. The intervention of the European lawmaker does not seem necessary on that point. Rather, the effective benefit of the private copy, particularly against attempts of copyright owners to restrain it by contract or technological locks, should trigger legal mechanisms to safeguard the exception in favour of the consumers, as will be developed below. A last point regarding the private copy exception relates to the levies system, designed in many countries to compensate the copyright and related rights owners for that use of their works and performances. Despite many recent attempts, the levies have not been harmonised, which unnecessarily fragments the Internal Market for reproductive technologies and devices and makes consumers unequal. A recent decision of the European Court of Justice justifies the collection of levies on any equipment sold to natural persons, whatever the purpose they will make thereof, but also implicitly calls for more harmonisation in that field. To cater to the concerns of consumers, the levies system should at the minimum assess the damage suffered by the copyright owners by the private copying to calculate an adequate compensation. Some private copying rendered necessary by digital technologies might be considered as being de minimis and lead to no compensation. The lawful user The expansion of contracts governing provision of digital content has added a condition to the benefit some copyright exceptions, particularly to software and databases: in some cases, only the lawful user of a work is entitled to exercise copyright exceptions. That condition of the lawful user, that also conditions the enforceability of exceptions against technological measures in the Information Society directive, can unduly restrain the rights of consumers depending on its definition. When defined as the sole licensee of the work, the lawful user will not apply to all consumers acquiring digital goods, who will then be deprived of some fundamental privileges of use. A better definition would be to link the lawful use with the lawful possession of a copyrighted work, even though it would require some evidence of that legitimacy from the consumer. The definition given by the Information Society to the lawful use is the broadest as it encompasses all uses authorised by the rightholder or not restricted by law. The notion of the lawful user should be restricted to limited situations as it potentially reduces the benefit of copyright exceptions for consumers and should be uniformly defined by the European copyright regime Mandatory nature of copyright exceptions The emergence of electronic licensing binding any consumer of a copyrighted work has also prompted a new issue related to the copyright exceptions: are those mandatory or can they be contracted out ? In the Software and Database directives, the European lawmaker has answered by making some exceptions of an imperative nature. Surprisingly in the Information Society directive, no provisions prevent copyright exceptions from being overridden by contract, and some elements of the directive even suggests the prevalence of contract over the exceptions. In the online provision of informational goods, non- negotiated and standard form contracts increasingly bind the consumers and grants limited rights of use, disrespectfully of copyright exceptions. A better protection of consumers' interests would require declaring copyright exceptions non-overridable, as in some Member States, or at least those exceptions conveying fundamental rights or public interests. Even the private copy should be made mandatory, as it has become a legitimate expectation of the consumers. The rule of exhaustion and its digital application The principle of exhaustion permits the further distribution or sale of tangible copies of a copyrighted work, once the distribution of such copies has been made within the European Union with the consent of the rightholders. It is not applicable to digital products provided online which creates a divergence that might not be understood by the consumer. A digital exhaustion could however be applied online, provided that the consumer effectively transfers the good and deletes any subsisting copy. It should be provided that the rule of exhaustion is of a mandatory nature and cannot be contracted out The consumer and the technological measures of protection The deployment of technological measures of protection (TPM) to protect digital works against unauthorised access and use has further restricted the rights of consumers. The Information Society directive has provided for a mandate for Member States to make some copyright exceptions enforceable against TPM, but this solution is rather limited and difficult to apply. The private copy exception is only covered by this mechanism if the Member States wish so, and the provision of works made available on-line on demand does not need to comply with copyright exceptions. TPM are also likely to raise issues of playability and interoperability for consumers, as they might interfere with the normal use of devices used by the consumer or not be compatible with them. Member States have provided fragmented answers to such issues, sometimes mandating a proper information on the application and effect of TPM by content providers. Consumers' interests would be better protected if European copyright regulatory framework specifically address such issues and encourage digital content providers to develop consumer-friendly TPM, complying with copyright exceptions, and notably the needs of disabled consumers, privacy and legitimate expectations of consumers related to transparency, security, playability and interoperability.

1 0

Sole24ore: "Telefonia e internet Italia fuori tempo sull'Agenda digitale"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

Su segnalazione di Mauro (grazie!). jc Telefonia e internet Italia fuori tempo sull'Agenda digitale Giovanni de Paola 20 luglio 2011 BRUXELLES La Commissione europea ha avviato una procedura di infrazione nei confronti dell'Italia perché non ha ancora applicato le norme sulle telecomunicazioni imposte da Bruxelles, tra cui figurano nuovi diritti relativi alla telefonia fissa, mobile e agli accessi internet. Tra le regole che avrebbero dovuto entrare in vigore il 25 maggio scorso, data stabilita dal Parlamento europeo e dal Consiglio dei ministri del l'Unione europea, ci sono il diritto dei consumatori (cittadini e imprese) a cambiare operatore di telecomunicazioni in un solo giorno senza cambiare numero di telefono e il diritto a una maggiore chiarezza riguardo ai servizi proposti e una migliore tutela dei dati personali in linea. «Se i diritti dei consumatori tutelati dalle nuove norme non saranno attuati nella pratica -- aveva preannunciato Neelie Kroes <http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/economia/2011-07-20/telefonia-internet-itali…>, Commissario europeo per l'Agenda Digitale europea -- adotterò i provvedimenti necessari nei confronti degli Stati e degli operatori per porvi rimedio». Insieme all'Italia a ricevere la lettera di messa in mora con cui la Commissione europea chiede informazioni e con cui inizia la fase contenziosa della procedura di infrazione, sono altri 19 Paesi membri dell'Unione europea. Infatti solo sette Stati dei 27 hanno dato piena attuazione alla nuova normativa: Danimarca, Estonia, Finlandia, Irlanda, Malta, Svezia e Regno Unito. [...] Continua qui: http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/economia/2011-07-20/telefonia-internet-itali…

2 1

Report Hargreaves sul futuro del copyright
by Marco Pancini July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

Nel caso non l'abbiate ancora fatto, vi consiglio la lettura del report sul futuro del copyright redatto dal Prof. Hargreaves per il Governo inglese (in allegato): http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/18/hargreaves-report-recommends-over… A presto. marco -- Marco Pancini | Senior Policy Counsel | pancini(a)google.com | +32.28948492 +32.473531203 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.

2 1

Intellectual property law and hackers
by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

1 0

New Research: Why People Share Content Online
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

*New Research: Why People Share Content Online* By Kelly McCartney <http://www.shareable.net/users/thekelword> <http://www.shareable.net/blog/kelly-mccartney/feed> 07.20.11, 10:06am The New York Times Consumer Insight Group, in association with Latitude Research, recently concluded a study -- /The Psychology of Sharing/ <http://nytmarketing.whsites.net/mediakit/pos/>. As a mass media company, their goal was to understand why consumers and social media users do what they do. Through conducting in-person interviews, a one-week immersion panel, and a survey of 2,500 sharers, they think they figured it out. In a nutshell, thanks to the advent and insurgence of social media, we each now share more content with more people more often and more quickly. It's the information age, after all. And one of the keys to the psychology is something the report calls "information management." It seems that, by sharing: * 85 percent "say reading other people's responses helps them understand and process information and events" * 73 percent of the respondents "say they process information more deeply, thoroughly, and thoughtfully" [...] Continua qui: http://www.shareable.net/blog/new-research-why-people-share-content-online

1 0

AGCOM: audizione Calabrò
by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

2 1

Fwd: una risposta alla siae x nexa
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

Ricevo dal prof. Peppino Ortoleva e volentieri inoltro alla lista, scusandomi per il ritardo. juan carlos -------- Original Message -------- Subject: una risposta alla siae x nexa Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:02:52 +0200 (CEST) To: J.C. DE MARTIN <demartin(a)polito.it> I dieci quesiti della SIAE sono inquinati da un vizio di fondo. In tutti, la SIAE si presenta come portavoce di tutti gli autori nessuno escluso, a favore in termini imparziali di ciascuno di loro, sostenitrice disinteressata del bene della produzione culturale. Il problema è che le regole di questa singolare "associazione" monopolista di Stato non sono né imparziali, né veramente aperte a tutti gli autori allo stesso modo; e che la SIAE è un carrozzone che si auto-riproduce da quasi centotrent'anni alla stessa maniera di tanti enti italiani, a cavallo tra pubblico e privato, tra difesa dichiarata di interessi collettivi e difesa concreta di interessi di piccoli gruppi. E non ha mai realmente riconsiderato le proprie regole pur essendo nata quando non esisteva il cinema, il fonografo di Edison era appena nato, e la prima macchina da scrivere Remington aveva meno di dieci anni. Quindi chi vuole risponda pure alle dieci domande, ma ricordiamoci di non attribuire alla SIAE il diritto di parlare a nome di tutti gli autori, di tutti i musicisti, di tutti coloro che producono idee.

3 2

Senato messicano, ACTA è incostituzionale
by Paolo Brini July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

In spagnolo le conclusioni del Senato messicano: <http://es.scribd.com/doc/60488789/ConclusionesACTA> Ciao, Paolo

1 0