October 2018 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Proposta di Legge per nazionalizzare gli internet exchange?
by Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) - lists Oct. 2, 2018

Oct. 2, 2018

La ratio del presente disegno di legge, che definisce la reteinternetcome bene comune che deve essere tutelata e salvaguardata anche a beneficio delle generazioni fu- ture, è quella di*affidare alla pubblica amministrazione, la gestione degli IXP*(«inter- net governance»), in quanto questi nodi rappresenterebbero un punto cruciale del fun- zionamento diinternetnel Paese e quindi diventerebbero fattori strategici di interesse nazionale. http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/DF/339210.pdf

5 4

Regulating a World in Transition (Call for Papers) TILT, May 15-17, 2019
by Ugo Pagallo Oct. 1, 2018

Oct. 1, 2018

FYI https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/t… https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/11d6299f-4ea0-4b39-bc88-a4631c3288… Cheers u.

2 1

From Copyright Term to Super Bowl Commercials: Breaking Down the Digital NAFTA Deal
by Blengino Oct. 1, 2018

Oct. 1, 2018

Canada and the U.S. reached agreement late yesterday on a new <https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexic o-canada-agreement/united-states-mexico> NAFTA (now renamed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement or USMCA) ...the agreement will have significant implications for intellectual property, digital policy, and broadcasting. Canada has agreed to extend the term of copyright, saved the notice-and-notice system for copyright infringement claims, extended the term of protection for biologics at significant long-term cost to the health care, agreed that Internet companies are not liable for third party content, extended border measures on counterfeiting, and promised to drop the CRTC policy that permitted U.S. commercials to be aired during the Super Bowl broadcast. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/10/from-copyright-term-to-super-bowl-commerc ials-breaking-down-the-digital-nafta-deal/

1 0

The Drone Revolution Shakes Up Tort Law
by Alberto Cammozzo Oct. 1, 2018

Oct. 1, 2018

The advent of drones has led to calls for new law to regulate the skies. One such proposal from the Uniform Law Commission is causing a stir in the United States. <https://www.cfr.org/blog/drone-revolution-shakes-tort-law> [...] The draft act contains two fundamental proposals. First, it contains a “new bright line” rule. Any intrusion—even those that cause no harm—by an unmanned aircraft into airspace above private property up to 200 feet without the owner’s consent constitutes a trespass, with exceptions, including for conduct during emergencies or pursuant to a court order. Second, the draft act creates the tort of acquiring images, recordings, or physical or electronic impressions of private acts or trade secrets with a drone in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person, excluding acquisitions protected by the First Amendment or that conform to the Fourth Amendment, a warrant, or court order. The proposals provoked criticism, especially from drone companies and industry associations [PDF] and alliances [PDF]. Negative reactions included, among others, assertations that the draft act: Interfered with the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the nation’s airspace and to pre-empt state and local regulations on drones; Ignored that existing tort law on aerial trespass developed with manned aircraft in mind, which requires a showing of substantial interference with property rights, is very appropriate to apply to drones; and Created new rules on property and privacy rights that will spawn litigation and uncertainty for drone operators and inhibit innovation and development of commercial opportunities. The draft act has defenders too. Jason Snead of the Heritage Foundation argued that the act’s “bright line aerial trespass standard balances the interests of the nascent [unmanned aerial systems] sector with the traditional rights of property owners to exclude unwanted intruders from their property.” Reginald Govan, former FAA chief counsel, dismissed the notion that the FAA’s rules had pre-empted state and local governments from regulating how drones affect property rights. Govan also argued that, absent federal legislation, state governments have the authority “to protect privacy through trespassory tort doctrines,” as proposed by the draft act. [...]

1 0