June 2018 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Academics Against Press Publishers’ Right: 169 European Academics Warn Against It
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 2, 2018

July 2, 2018

Tutti pagati da Google, naturalmente. juan carlos -------------- https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/ *Statement from EU Academics on Proposed Press Publishers’ Right* We, the undersigned <https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/#signatories> 169 scholars [of whom 100 are full professors] working in the fields of intellectual property, internet law, human rights law and journalism studies at universities all over Europe write to oppose the proposed press publishers’ right. Article 11 of the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, as it currently stands <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&referen…> following negotiations in the EU Council and Parliament, is a bad piece of legislation. ***Why?* * The proposal would likely impede the free flow of information that is of vital importance to democracy. This is because it would create*very broad rights of ownership in news* and other information. These rights would be territorial – there would be one for each Member State. The rights would be owned by established institutional producers of news. And in each Member State, the new right would sit on top of all the other property rights that such publishers of news already enjoy: copyrights, database rights, broadcast rights and other related rights. * This proliferation of different rights for established players would make it more expensive for other people to use news content. *Transaction costs* would be greatly increased, as permissions would need to be sought for virtually any use. Even using the smallest part of a press publication (except perhaps for strictly private use) would mean payment would be due to an institutional news publisher. * That means, the proposal would be *likely to harm journalists*, photographers, citizen journalists and many other non-institutional creators and producers of news, especially the growing number of freelancers. * The people most likely to benefit would be the big established news institutions. If they should benefit, this is likely to *exacerbate existing power asymmetries in media markets* that already suffer from worrying levels of concentration in many Member States. That said, it is not clear that even these big news institutions would benefit. Similar rights introduced in Germany and Spain were not effective. * The proposed right would provide no protection *against ‘fake news’*. * There is *no sound economic case* for the introduction of such a right. An additional intellectual property right would not change the fundamental problems that news institutions face. They would still have to compete with many other actors for consumer attention, advertisers and hence revenue. *Problems with the Initial EC Proposal* The academic community is virtually unanimous in its opposition to the European Commission’s proposal for a press publishers right. We commend to you the previous critical interventions from Bently /et al/, Danbury, the European Copyright Society, Geiger /et al/, the Max Planck Institute, Peukert, van Eechoud, and the Study conducted by Bently, Kretschmer /et al/ for the JURI Committee in September 2017. We agree with the supporters of this right about one thing: *journalism matters, and quality journalism matters even more.* As public watchdog and forum for public debate, the traditional print press plays a vital role in democratic societies, but so do newer online media. All actors in the media ecosystem enjoy freedom of expression, as guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. This proposal will do nothing to help journalism, but seriously risks doing disproportionate harm to media creators, to smaller publishers, to SMEs seeking to innovate with online media services, to citizens and to society at large. Inventing new rights is not the solution. In order to appreciate why the balance is so clearly against this proposal, it is important to understand that *press publishers already have very significant rights in their publications*. They own enforceable rights in much of the material in a publication by virtue of assigned copyright (or exclusive licences), through national rules on employer ownership or collective works, and through the EU wide /sui generis/ right in databases (a term broad enough to cover all newspapers). This is already a formidable arsenal. Even without the introduction of the proposed right, it is unlawful (and when done knowingly and with a view to profit, often criminal) for third parties without licence (or a defence) to reproduce or make available copyright-protected material. The reproduction or making available of small parts of such material may also be unlawful, where those parts are themselves creative. The EU’s /sui generis/ right in databases not only gives investors in collections of material the right to prevent wholesale copying, but also to prevent the systematic extraction of insubstantial parts. While press publishers are very well protected already, the Commission did identify particular problems for German press publishers in relying upon authors’ rights in articles and photographs. As a result of German rules and procedure, it is administratively cumbersome and time-consuming for press publishers to rely on such rights. Documentation is required from authors in respect of the rights in each and every item in a publication. However, a German procedural problem deserves a German solution, not one at a European Union level. That is exactly what has occurred with the one year /Leistungsschutzrecht/ introduced in Germany. There is no need for the other 27 Member States to swallow the German medicine, the efficacy of which is so far wholly unproven. The proposed right would not improve the economic position of press publishers elsewhere. There is no basis for the suggestion that an “EU wide right” (in fact, separate rights for each MS) would improve the bargaining position of press publishers vis- á-vis platforms: they already have authors’ rights and the EU’s /sui generis/ right in databases. If it has any effect, the recognition of a press publishers right would strengthen their bargaining position with respect to authors and creators, a relationship which is hardly one of economic equivalence as it stands. However, such a right may well exacerbate existing media concentration problems, not least because media outlets would themselves have to seek permission from one another for the use of publications (and parts of publications), thus placing SMEs at a bargaining disadvantage. There is also no basis for thinking this proposal will tackle “fake news”: indeed, the opposite seems likely. If certain users of platforms such as Twitter are prohibited from circulating the links posted by subscribers to online, publicly accessible, quality news, the chances are that such users will circulate information derived from other sources. The creation of rights so as to restrict further the circulation of quality news would simply play into the hands of producers of “fake news”. This will not, as Mr Voss’s amendment to recital 32 implies “guarantee the availability of [re]liable information” so much as guarantee the dominance of fake news. In contrast, one thing is clear: the proposed right will be harmful. Adding yet another layer of protection will create uncertainty, both as to coverage and as to scope. The proposed right is not subject to a requirement of investment (by contrast with the existing protection or databases) or an originality threshold (as applies to copyright). As a consequence, the proposed protection would extend to virtually any use, even of the smallest part of a news item or other content. It has been suggested that the right will prevent the re-use of snippets from, and hyperlinks[1] <https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/#_ftn1> to, publicly available websites. If these claims turn out to be true, the new right will also harm freedom of expression and freedom of art, and impede innovation. Even if they turn out to be unfounded, the duplication of protection will create congestion and make clearances more complicated. These harms are further exacerbated by the prospect that the new right would last for a full twenty years, that is, long after the publication has any value as ‘news.’ *Rapporteur Voss’s Proposed Amendments Will Make Matters Even Worse* As the legislative process reaches a crucial stage, various amendments have been tabled that make the proposed right even more harmful. In particular, the proposals of the JURI rapporteur, Axel Voss, are positively dangerous. These would: * Extend the right to “news agencies”; * Extend the rights conferred beyond reproduction and making available to encompass rental, lending and other forms of distribution to the public (Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2006/115/EEC); * Create an unwaivable right for the benefit of press publishers to fair and equitable remuneration as a result of all uses of their publications – even licensed ones. If it had not come from such an influential source, we would not take these three suggestions seriously. The first proposal is fundamentally misconceived, because press agencies do not produce press publications (the subject of the rights recognised in Article 11(1)). If the effect of the proposal is to give rights in any item included within a press publication to both press publishers and news agencies, the result will be yet another layer of licensing. For example, even if a press publisher were to permit re-use of a publication, any content within the publication deriving from a news agency would need a distinct licence. The second proposed change, which extends the press publishers’ rights to cover public lending, rental and distribution to the public, would seem to be designed to capture for press publishers a share of funds available for ‘e-lending’ by public libraries (following the /VOB/ decision of the CJEU). This extension would either require the allocated funds to be increased to remunerate press publishers, or would inevitably leave authors and book publishers with a smaller slice of the cake. The third Voss amendment would give press publishers unwaivable rights that European Union law does not even recognise for individual authors, photographers or journalists (Indeed, Article 15 of the proposed Directive would not create anything close to this, only allowing authors to claim “appropriate” remuneration where their contractually-agreed remuneration was “disproportionately low”). It is absurd to suppose that press institutions are less able to look after their own bargaining interests than individual authors. If press publishers license their rights cheaply, it is not the legislature’s task to save them from their own bargains. Indeed, it may well be in press publishers’ best interests to license their rights for nothing, relying on other business models to profit from their investments. It is not for the EU legislature to dictate particular business models to economic entities. Indeed, the Spanish precursor of Mr Voss’s initiative attracted widespread criticism on this basis. However, Mr Voss does propose two useful amendments. First, the suggestion that the right “shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users” is welcome because it is the first recognition that, *if there is to be a new EU right, there is no reason why exceptions to that right should not also be mandatory*. That said, like his other amendments, the proposal is flawed. In particular, the addition of the term “legitimate” to “private and non-commercial” leaves users with no certainty as to where they stand. Moreover, there is no sense as to how this “exception” relates to the optional private copying exceptions in Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/29. Second, Mr Voss’s proposal *that journalists should receive a share of any remuneration raised* is consistent with the goals of article 15 of the proposed Directive, though it will be virtually impossible in practice to identify (i) whether remuneration results from rights in the content (for which the author has already received contractual remuneration) or from the rights in the press publication itself, and (ii) the “appropriate share” of any additional revenue. *Conclusion* We call on all MEPs to oppose the Commission proposal, and with yet more determination, Mr Voss’s amendments. It is time to reject, once and for all, this misguided legislative reform. /[1] <https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/#_ftnref1> Of note, the usefulness of a ‘naked’ link (mere URL) on the web, or in other applications like ftp, is very limited as it offers the reader little useful information on the resource to which the link directs. Hence, it is customary to use link descriptors, snippets or thumbnails to assist the user in determining whether the resource linked to is worth consulting. For example, without some additional information a user will not know that <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593> directs to the EC proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, COM/2016/0593 final./ *Professor Marco Ricolfi *Chair of Intellectual Property, Turin Law School, Italy* * *Professor Raquel Xalabarder *Chair on Intellectual Property, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.* * *Professor Mireille van Eechoud *Professor of Information Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

1 1

Fwd: [liberationtech] Invitation to Sign Open Letter regarding Amazon's Rekognition
by Alberto Cammozzo June 30, 2018

June 30, 2018

Nel caso fosse sfuggito a questa lista. Alberto -------- Original Message -------- From: Peter Asaro <peterasaro(a)sbcglobal.net> Sent: June 27, 2018 3:40:42 PM UTC To: liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Subject: [liberationtech] Invitation to Sign Open Letter regarding Amazon's Rekognition (Apologies for Cross-posting) Invitation to Sign an Open Letter from Academics and Researchers to Amazon Amazon <https://gizmodo.com/amazon-workers-demand-jeff-bezos-cancel-face-recognitio…>workers have come out against Rekognition, an AI-driven face recognition technology offered through Amazon's AWS cloud service. This type of low-cost face recognition technology <https://medium.com/s/story/amazon-needs-to-stop-providing-facial-recognitio…>threatens to make every individual identifiable in any private or public space with cameras, and opens up a host of severe threats to civil liberties and human rights. The workers have been <http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/18/technology/amazon-facial-recognition/index.…>joined by Amazon shareholders, and <https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/05/22/coalition-letter-amazon-regarding-facia…>a coalition of over 70 civil rights and human rights groups. While Rekognition is not (yet) a military application, it is being sold to police departments, and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Amazon provides essential cloud services (with embedded AI features) also to the <https://www.palantir.com/solutions/defense/>Palantir company which in turn provides AI services to police departments and the US military, including an <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-09/peter-thiel-s-palantir-w…>$879M contract for the US Army's new intelligence IT system. <https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/some-quick-thoughts-on-the-public-discussi…>Amazon's response to these protests has been weak, saying people shouldn't use its Amazon Rekognition software illegally, but offering no mechanism for oversight as to how their services are used. And so we are asking you to sign on to an Open Letter to Amazon management, calling on them to stop providing their Rekognition system to governments and law enforcement, to stop providing AI cloud services to companies that provide such services to police departments and militaries, including Palantir, and to establish ethical guidelines and transparency and accountability measures for the AI services that they do provide. You can read the full letter and add your signature here: <https://www.icrac.net/open-letter-to-amazon-against-police-and-government-u…>https://www.icrac.net/open-letter-to-amazon-against-police-and-government-u… Sincerely, Peter Asaro, Kelly Gates, Woodrow Hartzog, Lilly Irani, Evan Selinger, and Lucy Suchman ______________________________________ Peter M. Asaro, PhD | THE NEW SCHOOL ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DIRECTOR OF THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN MEDIA STUDIES SCHOOL OF MEDIA STUDIES <http://www.newschool.edu/>THE NEW SCHOOL 79 5th Avenue, Room 1619, New York, NY 10003, USA p | 212 229 8903 x 3902, <mailto:asarop@newschool.edu>asarop(a)newschool.edu f | 212 229 5357 The New School <mailto:asarop@newschool.edu>asarop(a)newschool.edu www.peterasaro.org <http://www.twitter.com/PeterAsaro>@PeterAsaro AFFILIATE SCHOLAR CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY <http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/>STANFORD LAW <http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/>SCHOOL AFFILIATE MEMBER 4TU CENTRE FOR ETHICS AND TECHNOLOGY <http://ethicsandtechnology.eu/member/asaro-p-peter/>UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE

1 0

I: Sweden commits to Open Science with new Open Access publishing deal
by gabriele elia June 29, 2018

June 29, 2018

mi sembra rilevante rispetto a discussioni anche di questi giorni saluti g Sweden commits to Open Science with new Open Access publishing deal Swedish researchers can now publish their articles in Frontiers’ Open Access journals<https://www.frontiersin.org/about/journals-a-z?utm_source=G-BLO&utm_medium=…> through a simplified process with discounted fees, thanks to a national agreement announced today between Frontiers and the National Library of Sweden (NLS), on behalf of the organizations participating in the Bibsam Consortium. <https://twitter.com/share?url=https://sciencebusiness.net/network-news/swed…> <https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://sciencebusiness.net/ne…> <https://plus.google.com/share?url=https://sciencebusiness.net/network-news/…> <mailto:%20?subject=Sweden%20commits%20to%20Open%20Science%20with%20new%20Open%20Access%20publishing%20deal&body=Sweden%20commits%20to%20Open%20Science%20with%20new%20Open%20Access%20publishing%20deal%0A%0Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fsciencebusiness.net%2Fnetwork-news%2Fsweden-commits-open-science-new-open-access-publishing-deal> <https://sciencebusiness.net/network-news/sweden-commits-open-science-new-op…> ________________________________ Swedish researchers can now publish their articles in Frontiers’ Open Access journals<https://www.frontiersin.org/about/journals-a-z?utm_source=G-BLO&utm_medium=…> through a simplified process with discounted fees, thanks to a national agreement announced today between Frontiers and the National Library of Sweden (NLS), on behalf of the organizations participating in the Bibsam Consortium. This Open Access Framework Agreement underscores the commitment of the Swedish research community to make research freely available in an unrestricted manner to researchers, students and all citizens worldwide. In addition to a centralized invoicing process that covers the publishing fees (article processing charges), researchers at participating organizations benefit from a discount. This is the first Nordic agreement of its kind and follows the Austrian Open Access framework publishing agreement<https://blog.frontiersin.org/2017/12/20/open-access-publishing-deal-univers…> between Frontiers, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) and the University of Vienna in late 2017. https://sciencebusiness.net/network-news/sweden-commits-open-science-new-op…

2 1

GDPR in salsa californiana? California Passes Sweeping Law to Protect Online Privacy (NYTimes.com)
by gabriele elia June 29, 2018

June 29, 2018

The new law grants consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them, why they are collecting that data and with whom they are sharing it. It gives consumers the right to tell companies to delete their information as well as to not sell or share their data. Businesses must still give consumers who opt out the same quality of service. It also makes it more difficult to share or sell data on children younger than 16. The legislation, which goes into effect in January 2020, makes it easier for consumers to sue companies after a data breach. And it gives the state’s attorney general more authority to fine companies that don’t adhere to the new regulations. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/technology/california-online-privacy-law… [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/06/29/business/29CAPRIVACY-dress/29CAP…]<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/technology/california-online-privacy-law…> California Passes Sweeping Law to Protect Online Privacy<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/technology/california-online-privacy-law…> www.nytimes.com The attempt to provide regulatory oversight of the tech industry’s data collection is considered the most comprehensive in the nation.

1 0

Quintarelli: "Intermediati digitali, unitevi"
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 28, 2018

June 28, 2018

Stefano Quintarelli (garante Nexa) ha pubblicato sul Foglio un importante articolo dal titolo "Intermediati digitali, unitevi": https://www.ilfoglio.it/tecnologia/2018/06/24/news/intermediati-digitali-un… Nell'articolo trovo un'ulteriore passo in avanti delle importanti riflessioni che Stefano sviluppa ormai da anni (e che ha anche esposto in forma libro, v. "Costruire il domani", Antonio Tombolini Editore, 2017). Personalmente ho trovato particolarmente bella e convincente la descrizione degli "intermediatori" che si trova nella sezione dell'articolo intitolata "Dalla parte dei monopolisti/oligopolisti immateriali". Concordo anche con le soluzioni che prospetta nella parte conclusiva dell'articolo. Trovo invece poco convincente - ma forse per limiti miei - la sua proposta di pensare a una contrapposizione tra informazione da una parte e capitale e lavoro (insieme) dall'altra. In ogni caso, articolo di grande valore, grazie Stefano! juan carlos

5 11

BBC releases computer history archive - BBC News
by J.C. DE MARTIN June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44628869 BBC releases computer history archive Ian McNaught-Davis presented a programme on Micro computers and how to use them A slice of computing history has been made public, giving people the opportunity to delve into an archive that inspired a generation of coders. The Computer Literacy Project led to the introduction of the BBC Micro alongside programmes which introduced viewers to the principles of computing. It included interviews with innovators such as Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak. The BBC hopes the 1980s archive will encourage today's youngsters to become involved in computing. With the release of the archive, viewers can now search and browse all of the programmes from the project. They will be able to: watch any of the 267 programmes explore clips by topic or text search run 166 BBC Micro programmes that were used on-screen find out the history of the Computer Literacy Project Matthew Postgate, the BBC's chief technology and product officer, said: "This archive offers a fascinating and nostalgic glimpse into an important milestone in the history of computing. "The hardware may have changed, but the principles still apply - which also makes it a unique resource for teaching and learning that will hopefully encourage a new generation of computer users." [...] (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

1 0

Seminari dei Garanti Nexa (Frischmann, Guédon, Guibault) | 29 giugno, Torino
by Nexa Media June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <https://nexa.polito.it/2018/02/bfrischmann> NEXA Venerdì 29 giugno 2018, ore 14.30 - 16.30 Sala lettura Biblioteca Centrale di Ingegneria <https://www.polito.it/ateneo/sedi/index.php?bl_id=TO_CEN03&fl_id=XPTE&rm_id…> Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, Torino https://nexa.polito.it/2018/02/bfrischmann Re-Engineering Humanity Speaker: Prof. Brett Frischmann (Villanova University) Discussant: Philippe Agrain (Sopinspace) In this wide-reaching, interdisciplinary book, Brett Frischmann and Evan Selinger examine what’s happening to our lives as society embraces big data, predictive analytics, and smart environments. They explain how the goal of designing programmable worlds goes hand in hand with engineering predictable and programmable people. Detailing new frameworks, provocative case studies, and mind-blowing thought experiments, Frischmann and Selinger reveal hidden connections between fitness trackers, electronic contracts, social media platforms, robotic companions, fake news, autonomous cars, and more. This powerful analysis should be read by anyone interested in understanding exactly how technology threatens the future of our society, and what we can do now to build something better. [MELANDRI] Venerdì 29 giugno 2018, ore 16.30 - 17.45 Sala lettura Biblioteca Centrale di Ingegneria <https://www.polito.it/ateneo/sedi/index.php?bl_id=TO_CEN03&fl_id=XPTE&rm_id…> Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, Torino https://nexa.polito.it/2018/04/jcguedon Recasting the learned periodical in open access: from kingmaker to community content as king Speaker: Prof. Jean-Claude Guédon (Université de Montréal) Silently, learned periodicals have seen their nature shift between 1950 and 1990: society and academic publishers have been displaced by international, commercial, publishers. Digitization has allowed revisiting the processes accompanying learned communication, and has given rise to the Open Access Movement. After first resisting this trend, commercial publishers (and others) have come to embrace open access, but, so doing, have also tried to reshape it to their advantage (e.g. the hybrid journals). Meanwhile, funding agencies, both private and public, are beginning to see that their role too can shift. Deconstructing the "publishing function" is opening up new, improved, vistas for learned communication, while offering the promise of a better economic context for research institutions, libraries, and most learned societies. [MELANDRI] Venerdì 29 giugno 2018, ore 15.00 - 17.00 Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza, Campus Luigi Einaudi, aula H2, secondo piano, D4, Lungo Dora Siena, 100 A, Torino. https://nexa.polito.it/2018/03/lguibault Copyright Law’s Impact on Scientific Research Speaker: Prof. Lucie Guibault (Dalhousie University) Discussant: Massimo Durante (Università degli Studi di Torino) This lecture examines how the European rules on copyright affect scientific research, in particular through text and data mining (TDM). TDM is an increasingly popular research method that uses computational capacity to query mass quantities of information in order to produce new knowledge. TDM involves the reproduction of the information to be queried. The question arises whether this practice amounts to an infringement of copyright. The lecture will analyse the rules in force in selected Member States and will take a critical look at the relevant provisions of the Proposal for a European Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.” [MELANDRI] See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved>

1 0

Unmasking A.I.'s Bias Problem
by Antonio Vetro' June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

Nulla che non sia già stato discusso in questa lista, ma a mio parere degno di essere segnalato. http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/longform/ai-bias-problem? Antonio V.

1 0

Re: [nexa] nexa Digest, Vol 110, Issue 29
by Vladimir Obretenov June 25, 2018

June 25, 2018

Hello Marco, Hello colleagues, Is the use of trojan virus regulated by law, CPP, as an investigative measures? Best wishes, Vladimir >-------- Оригинално писмо -------- >От: nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it >Относно: nexa Digest, Vol 110, Issue 29 >До: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >Изпратено на: 25.06.2018 13:00 Send nexa mailing list submissions to nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it You can reach the person managing the list at nexa-owner(a)server-nexa.polito.it When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of nexa digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Pubblicazione n. 2/2018 - Rivista di diritto dei media (Bassini, Marco) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:42:19 +0200 (CEST) From: "Bassini, Marco" marco.bassini(a)unibocconi.it > To: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Subject: [nexa] Pubblicazione n. 2/2018 - Rivista di diritto dei media Message-ID: 989064970.17549455.1529919739163.JavaMail.zimbra(a)unibocconi.it > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Cari tutti, segnalo la pubblicazione del n. 2/2018 della Rivista di diritto dei media, disponibile a questo link: http://www.medialaws.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rivista0218-giugno.pdf Un caro saluto Marco Marco Bassini Dipartimento di Studi Giuridici "Angelo Sraffa" Università Commerciale "L. Bocconi" Via Roentgen, 1 20136 Milano Stanza 1-C1-07 Direct +39.02.5836.5611 Mobile (ITA) +39.329.2478832 Mobile (US) +1.518.965.9671 View my LinkedIn profile View my SSRN page View my Academia.edu page --- Dai il tuo 5x1000 alla Bocconi. Aiuta gli studenti meritevoli a costruire il proprio futuro. CF 80024610158. www.unibocconi.it/5x1000 Please note that the above message is addressed only to individuals filing Italian income tax returns. 5x1000 is a percentage of Italian personal income tax that taxpayers can allocate to Universities, scientific research and non profit organizations. ---

3 2

Pubblicazione n. 2/2018 - Rivista di diritto dei media
by Bassini, Marco June 25, 2018

June 25, 2018

Cari tutti, segnalo la pubblicazione del n. 2/2018 della Rivista di diritto dei media, disponibile a questo link: http://www.medialaws.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rivista0218-giugno.pdf Un caro saluto Marco Marco Bassini Dipartimento di Studi Giuridici "Angelo Sraffa" Università Commerciale "L. Bocconi" Via Roentgen, 1 20136 Milano Stanza 1-C1-07 Direct +39.02.5836.5611 Mobile (ITA) +39.329.2478832 Mobile (US) +1.518.965.9671 View my LinkedIn profile View my SSRN page View my Academia.edu page --- Dai il tuo 5x1000 alla Bocconi. Aiuta gli studenti meritevoli a costruire il proprio futuro. CF 80024610158. www.unibocconi.it/5x1000 Please note that the above message is addressed only to individuals filing Italian income tax returns. 5x1000 is a percentage of Italian personal income tax that taxpayers can allocate to Universities, scientific research and non profit organizations. ---

1 0