- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Barnier on copyright
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 7, 2012

Nov. 7, 2012

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-785_en.htm?locale=EN Making European copyright fit for purpose in the age of internet Reference: SPEECH/12/785Event Date: 07/11/2012 Launch event of the CEPS Digital Forum Taskforce on Copyright in the EU Digital Single Market / Brussels 7 November 2012 Enter Ladies and Gentlemen, First of all, allow me to thank CEPS, Karel LANNOO, Staffan JERNECK, and also Giuseppe MAZZIOTTI, for this invitation. The European Single market is celebrating its 20thanniversary. This should not be a pretext for nostalgia. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to assess and improve the way it works: * To make sure it plays its part in the economic, social and technological transformations of the 21stcentury. * To make sure it helps us to deliver on our objective: a highly competitive social market economy. Is the Single Market working to unlock the potential of the digital economy to the benefit of all ? This is an example of the questions we must ask ourselves. When it was created in 1992, one million computers were connected to the internet worldwide. In 2016, that number will be 10billion: 10 000 times more! In 1992, we never imagined that one day we would be able to read our favourite newspaper, discover new music or watch a film anytime, anywhere, on any device - a laptop, a tablet or a phone. We could not imagine the opportunities. Or indeed the challenges that would arise. In particular from a European perspective. Copyright is at the heart of these opportunities and challenges. Why? Because it is the engine behind the diversity, the creativity and the innovation which can be delivered to all of us though internet. Therefore we must ask ourselves: it is fit for the digital age? Our legal framework has of course evolved since 1992, including for copyright. The Information Society Directive of 2001 introduced copyright rules for the digital age. And it remains largely valid today. Does this mean that we have found the optimum balance between: * The widest possible access to quality content for Europeans; * Fair remuneration for creators; * Sufficient incentives for those that invest in creation, * And legal certainty for content distributors? I do not think so. I am aware of the problems and the frustration of EU citizens when trying to access content on line. * Why is it that they cannot access services available in other Member States if they are willing to pay for it? * Why is it that too often they cannot watch their home news or favourite TV programs from the moment they step outside their country? Consumers are not the only ones facing difficulties. * Think of newspaper publishers that see the content they produce being used by others to attract consumers on the net and generate advertising revenues. * Think of broadcasters that invest heavily in sports rights or other quality content and see their signal distributed in the Internet without their agreement. * And finally, think of those entrepreneurs that want to use the Single Market to launch new services and to innovate. How long will it take the nextSpotifyorDeezerto obtain the licences they need to launch an online music service? And what about tomorrow's European equivalent toNetflix? Will it know where to start to get the online rights for all those European films which are gathering dust on a shelf somewhere? Do not get me wrong: I amnotin the business of blaming copyright for everything that does not work in the Internet. I am alsonotin the business of denying that rules need to be modernised and adapted where the evidence is there. What I want is a more rational debate. A frank exchange to identify practical and sustainable solutions to precisely-identified problems. We all know that there are many reasons for these problems. Many have nothing to do with copyright: inadequate broadband capacity, the commercial choices of service providers, the cost of payment services are only a few. But I am determined to ensure that copyright is not among the obstacles. Copyright cannot be a barrier. It must be an enabler. I want to ensure that it remains a modern and effective tool: * To support creation and innovation; * To enable access to quality content across the borders; * To foster investment in our economy, freedom of information and cultural diversity. What do I mean by this ? First, I want a copyright framework that facilitates the access of all Europeans to their heritage. The Internet is a unique chance for a "second life" for works which are simply "out of distribution". Just think of the "Europeana" project, which went from 2 to 19 million items digitized between 2008 and 2011. We can make the dissemination of these works easier. We can do it by a combination of limitations to rights -- when justified -- and easier licensing. Notably via collective management. Member States should also play their role. Together with my colleagues Neelie KROES and Androulla VASSILIOU, we have worked to make sure that the key building blocks are there: * The Directive on orphan works was adopted just a month ago. It establishes a limitation to copyright with cross border effects, a novelty in the copyright acquis. It will lead to the establishment of a European registry of orphan works. Another importantnovelty. In parallel, the Memorandum of Understanding on Out of Print Books is starting to be implemented: an outstanding example of how an innovative approach to licensing can benefit to all. * We also issued a Recommendation to Member States inviting them to step up their efforts for the digitisation of cultural material. I continue to encourage Member States and stakeholders to make use of these building blocks. I also believe that arrangements similar to the Memorandum of Understanding are the way forward to facilitate access to the thousands of European films that are forgotten because they are out of distribution. Secondly, I want a copyright framework that passes the "Single Market test", making more content available to more citizens, cross-border. Let's face it:the digital revolution has not yet lived up to expectations in the European context. The online offer varies greatly. It depends on the sector -- compare the offer of music or games with the offer of films -- and it depends on the Member State. And consumers are often denied access or redirected to their local websites when they try to access content across borders. But again, let's not be naive. There are numerous reasons behind this lack of cross border access, starting with the commercial strategies of Internet distributors and platforms. Some of these strategies may be legitimate. Others, as underlined by the Court of Justice in the "Premier League" case, are not. In any event, the territoriality of copyright, and the complexities of licensing, should not constitute a barrier -- or a comfortable excuse -- for anyone. We have taken a very important step forward with our July proposal for a Directive on the collective management of rights. This directive will address one of the most severe copyright-related difficulties for the cross-border provision of content : the licensing of music rights by collecting societies. The current fragmentation affects not only music service providers but all those using music as part of their services: broadcasters, providers of online film streaming services, etc. They all need multi-territory licences. The ball is now in the court of the co-legislators. The European Council asked for swift progress. And rightly so: a Single market cannot be based on a purely national administration of rights. But we need to push further to improve European citizens' cross-border access to content and the portability of the services they subscribe to at home. This is a complex issue. But we need to act on it. I am not here to tell content providers how to run their business. And I am very mindful of the deep complexities linked to the financing of certain premium content such as films. But it is unacceptable that Europeans are confronted online with the borders we have been dismantling in the physical world for 50 years. As Single Market Commissioner, I cannot accept this. This is why I want to work with all relevant stakeholders to find concrete solutions on the ground. I have also asked my services to start assessing whether there is a need for further legislative intervention in this area. We also need to look at the full implementation of other important Single Market instruments such as the Services Directive. Thirdly, I want a copyright framework that provides the right incentives for those that create and invest in content and that ensures the right balance with other policy objectives such as education, research or innovation We need an equilibrium. Copyright enables rights holders to function in commercial markets. Removing rights goes quite far: it removes rights holders ability to authorise the use of their content, or to gain reward for their investments. So when can a limitation on these rights be justified? And when should users better acquire a licence to use others' rights for their own commercial gain? I am open to discuss this and to evaluate the need to update our system of limitations to copyright. I have already done this with the Orphan Works directive. I continue to do it at international level in the context of the current negotiations on a Treaty for the benefit of the visually impaired. Going forward I want to see if more harmonisation is needed to update the existing limitations and to ensure their cross border effect. For instance does it still make sense that a European library cannot lend a book to someone just because he or she happens to be across a border? But let me be crystal clear: I do not share the view of those that think copyright protection should be weakened so others can develop new commercial services free of cost. This would simply amount to legislating for free-riding: shifting wealth from the content industries -- many of which are based in Europe creating jobs and paying taxes here -- to other industries. This cannot be right. We need to ensure that bargaining power and the capacity to invest and innovate remain fairly distributed along the value chain. If this is not the case, we all lose, in the end. The right balance between rights and limitations is one that preserves the necessary incentives for licensing. Again, I want to discuss with all stakeholders how to create win-win situations. To develop innovative services while respecting copyright and the market opportunities it provides : from "one click" licences for small users to model licensing clauses for text and data mining. Fourthly, and finally, A copyright framework that continues to provide incentives must include meaningful enforcement. With the crisis it is more than ever necessary to eliminate illegal business models that are based on IP infringing activity. This is how we can pave the way for legal offers, especially by innovative start-ups and SMEs. This is also how we transform "informal" economy jobs into real, sustainable job opportunities. So this is my vision, A vision in which copyright supports creation, and creation supports distribution and innovation. To make progress, there can be neither taboo subjects nor miracle solutions: modernising the regulatory framework is not a taboo subject in the same way that exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors are not miracle solutions. The resolution of many of the problems I have referred to remains in the hands of the main actors in the market. I want to work with industry, and I want industry to work together. To redouble our efforts. This is why I will propose to launch a new partnership with industry, "Licensing Europe": to deliver concrete progress. From mapping the problems to delivering pragmatic solutions. We want to guarantee European citizens' access to quality content. We want to make it possible for creators to make a living from their work and for service providers to propose innovative business models. To achieve this we must base our proposals on precise data and serious analysis. And we must engage all parties concerned in the process, in a spirit of partnership. So I very much welcome the CEPS initiative to set up a task force on copyright in the digital single market. I am convinced that it will be a very relevant input in our work and I will closely follow the course of its discussions. We will also be discussing these issues soon with my fellow Commissioners. We need to agree on the best way forward between now and the end of our mandate. So my recommendation at this point is simple: watch this space! Thank you for your attention.

1 0

I piani di Hamadoun I. Touré (ITU)
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 7, 2012

Nov. 7, 2012

Editoriale per Wired del Segretario Generale dell'ITU. juan carlos U.N. Must Lead Internet Regulation Effort * By Hamadoun I. Touré * 11.07.12 * 1:45 PM // With over 90 percent of the world's people now within reach of mobile phones, the challenge today is bringing internet access to the /two-thirds/ of the world's population that is still offline. This challenge is compounded by the need to ensure connectivity is affordable /and/ safe for all. If we can achieve this, all the world's citizens will have the potential to access unlimited knowledge, to express themselves freely, and to contribute to and enjoy the benefits of the knowledge society. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which is the United Nations specialized agency charged with coordinating global information and communication technology (ICT) resources such as satellite slots and international wireless spectrum, will host the World Conference on International Telecommunications <http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx> (WCIT-12) in Dubai next month. The goal? To review the International Telecommunication Regulations <http://www.internetsociety.org/itr> (ITRs) global treaty last considered in 1988 -- and which forms the basis for our increasingly connected world of communications today. Our world has changed dramatically in the past 25 years, and nowhere more dramatically than in the domain of information and communication technologies. [...] Continua qui: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/head-of-itu-un-should-internet-regulat…

1 0

Fwd: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos!
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 7, 2012

Nov. 7, 2012

Il bel discorso che Carlos Afonso ha tenuto - in rappresentanza delle organizzazioni della società civile, dei movimenti civili e degli individui attivi nei processi di Internet governance - durante la cerimonia di apertura dell'IGF di Baku. E' possibile seguire l'IGF da remoto: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/remote-participation/connect-now juan carlos -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [governance] Great speech, Carlos! Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 04:53:16 -0200 From: Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser(a)cgi.br> Reply-To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser(a)cgi.br> Organization: CGI.br To: governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> CC: Carlos A. Afonso <ca(a)cafonso.ca> Your Excellencies, Mr Wu Hongbo, Under Secretary General, Undesa, Chairman minister Ali Abatov, Secretary Chengetai Masango, in the name of whom I wish to salute all present authorities; ladies and gentlemen: I have been assigned the honorable task of speaking in the opening ceremony of this IGF in the name of civil society organizations, social movements and individuals active in Internet governance processes, many of them involved in these processes since the inception of WSIS nearly 10 years ago. Several of them collaborated with me in drafting the following statement. We believe that the absence of gatekeepers and the open, global communication enabled by the Internet is crucial to realize the promise of Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To impose restrictions (legal or otherwise) to the free flow of information is and has always been contrary to the individual human right to freedom of expression. We therefore oppose efforts to create "national Internets," or to block and filter Internet access in ways that deny individuals access to applications, content and services of their choice. All attempts to deem certain forms of communication and information illegal and restrict or block them must follow established, transparent, due processes of law and should not involve prior restraint. We oppose efforts to militarize the Internet, or any actions that would foster a destructive and wasteful cyber arms race among governments or private actors. We consider the covert use of exploits and malware for surveillance or attacks to be criminal regardless of whether they are deployed by governments, private corporations or organized criminals. We are skeptical of efforts to subordinate the design and use of information and communication technology to "national security" agendas. We believe that Internet security will be achieved primarily at the operational level and that national security and military agendas often work against rather than for users' security needs. In the processes of policy formulation, we emphasize the need to prioritize dialogue with policy makers over their subordinated law enforcement agencies. Global governance institutions should not be restricted to states, so we welcome the additional participation in global policy making that multi-stakeholder processes provide. But we caution that multi-stakeholder participation is not an end in itself. Opening up global governance institutions to additional voices from civil society and business does not by itself ensure that individual rights are adequately protected or that the best substantive policies are developed and enforced. In the informal spaces created by pluralist institutions, it is possible that powerful governmental and corporate actors can make deals contrary to the interests of Internet users. Multistakeholder processes, while involving all interest groups, must incorporate and institutionalize concepts of due process, separation of powers and user's inalienable civil and political rights, and governmental decision-making ought to take into account the inputs of all participants of such pluralist processes. Let us remind ourselves that participation goes beyond representation, and participation in decision-making goes beyond just debates and dialogues. Regarding the ITR review process to be concluded in Dubai (and here I use the standard terminology the technical community defines to refer to the different components of the network): We agree that the internet layer and the layers above it (transport layer and applications layer) should not be included in any way in the regulations, while the free flow of Internet packets should be guaranteed in the link layer, in line with network neutrality in which Internet packets are never touched by the operators providing the physical connectivity infrastructure. Let the Internet flourish freely to the benefit of those who live at its edges, which are all of us. Thank you. === On 07/11/12 04:44, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I hear many people really liked your speech yesterday, at the opening > session. In fact, one of the government reps told me this morning it > was THE BEST among all speeches of all guest speakers. > > I also was asked to get File version of your speech, Carlos, to be shared. > > To confess, I was not able to listen you since I was have some > preparatory meeting for Emerging Issues main session, so I also need > your speech in print/file. I am sure there are many others like me. > > Many thanks, > > izumi > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org >

1 0

E ora cosa succede alla #salvasallusti sulla diffamazione in discussione al Senato? Dalla Commissione all’Aula e viceversa in poche ore.
by fulvio sarzana Nov. 6, 2012

Nov. 6, 2012

Il DDL salva-Sallusti sulla riforma della diffamazione, dopo un iter movimentato in Aula, giace in Commissione Giustizia al Senato ed è oggetto in queste ore di un’aspra discussione al fine di trovare un punto di incontro tra le diverse interpretazioni. La Commissione in verità parrebbe non trovare un punto di incontro e lo scenario più realistico che si prospetta è il seguente. Dai lavori della Commissione viene fuori un testo condiviso esclusivamente sul punto di cui all’articolo 1, ed in particolar modo solo sulla questione su cui è inciampato il senato, ovvero l’emendamento Mugnai sulle pene accessorie ai giornalisti, che dovrebbe essere arrivato a questa formulazione. art. 1 1.700 (testo 5) Balboni, Mugnai al comma 1, lettera a), capoverso “art.13″, sostituire il comma 4 con il seguente: “4. Il giudice, in caso di condanna per il delitto di cui al comma 1 puo’ applicare, tenuto conto della gravita’ dei fatti, la pena accessoria dell’ interdizione dalla professione di giornalista per un periodo da uno a tre mesi. In caso di nuova condana, il giudice puo’ applicare, tenuto conto della gravita’ dei fatti, la pena accessoria dell’interdizione dalla professione di giornalista da uno a sei mesi. Ad ogni ulteriore condanna pe ril reato di cui al comma 1, commesso nei due anni successivi alla precedente sentenza di condanna, il giudice puo’ applicare, tenuto conto della gravita’ dei fatti, la pena accessoria dell’interdizione dalla professione di giornalista da un mese a un anno”. Continua su www.fulviosarzana.it <http://www.fulviosarzana.it/> ************************************* Avv. Fulvio Sarzana di Sant'Ippolito Studio Legale Sarzana e Associati Via Velletri, 10 - 00198 Roma Tel. +39 06 3211553 Tel. +39 06 97614489 Fax. +39 06 97256424 skype fulvio.sarzana <http://www.lidis.it/> http://www.lidis.it ************************************* This message and any file transmitted are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please You should not copy or disclose the contents to any other person. For further information please visit our website at <http://www.lidis.it/> http://www.lidis.it .

1 0

Understanding the Emergent Regulatory Framework Governing Public Sector Data - Amsterdam, 7-9 November 2012
by Giuseppe Futia Nov. 4, 2012

Nov. 4, 2012

Understanding The Emergent Regulatory Framework Governing Public Sector Data ESF Exploratory Workshop - SCSS <http://www.esf.org/activities/exploratory-workshops/workshops-list/workshop…> Convened by: Mireille Marie Madeleine van Eechoud (NL), Lionel Bently (UK), Jos Dumortier (BE), Katleen Janssen (BE) Location: 7-9 November 2012, Amsterdam, Netherlands *Prof. Marco Ricolfi will hold a presentation on the topic of Intellectual Property* Information is the currency of democracy, so it is said. Emanating from different sources and informed by an array of policy objectives, the law on public information is mushrooming and rapidly becoming complex. So is the potential for inconsistencies and conflicting norms. This workshop brings together legal scholars from different disciplines to debate the contours of this new field of research, and explore which legal theories and methodologies can take us forward to a better understanding of the myriad legal issues implicated in access, dissemination and use of public sector data and the way they relate. The program of the workshop is available at: https://nexa.polito.it/nexacenterfiles/esf-workshop.pdf

1 0

Consultazione MISE su WCIT 2012 (Dubai)
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 3, 2012

Nov. 3, 2012

Non mi sembra sia già passato in lista, mi sembra importante. Scadenza: 19 novembre. juan carlos Telecomunicazioni internazionali: consultazione regolamento prorogata di un mese http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic… Il Dipartimento per le Comunicazioni, in collaborazione con l'Istituto Superiore delle Comunicazioni e delle Tecnologie dell'Informazione, ha avviato una consultazione aperta a tutti i soggetti interessati sulle proposte di revisione normativa del trattato internazionale delle telecomunicazioni, firmato a Melbourne nel 1988 da tutti i paesi del mondo nell'ambito dell'Unione Internazionale delle Telecomunicazioni. È possibile esprimere le proprie valutazioni, anche plurime, sull'intero testo del trattato, utilizzando il file da scaricare. La chiusura della consultazione, inizialmente prevista per il 19 ottobre 2012, è prorogata di un mese, fino al *19 novembre 2012.* La consultazione s'inserisce nel corso della Conferenza Mondiale sulle Telecomunicazioni Internazionali, che si terrà a Dubai, dal 3 al 14 dicembre 2012, in seno all'Unione Internazionale delle Telecomunicazioni, l'organismo ONU competente in materia. L'attuale accordo internazionale è stato sottoscritto a Melbourne nel 1988 e si è reso pertanto necessario provvedere ad una sua revisione, in un contesto tecnologico, economico e sociale radicalmente mutato. Nell'attuale fase di grandi e rapidi mutamenti, dove si è verificata una progressiva estensione dei perimetri entro cui l'individuo svolge le proprie attività e gli spazi discrezionali interni sono sempre più condizionati dall'ambiente globale, anche i processi di revisione normativa internazionale richiedono la più ampia partecipazione e condivisione di tutti i soggetti coinvolti, cittadini, imprese, associazioni e pubblica amministrazione. Il testo ufficiale del trattato è in lingua inglese e pertanto è raccomandabile, nei casi in cui si desidera proporre una modifica o un nuovo testo, utilizzare la lingua inglese. Per ciascuna proposta di modifica si avrà a disposizione una specifica area di testo, denominata note, dove si potranno indicare in lingua italiana le proprie ragioni e motivazioni. E' comunque sempre possibile inviare le proprie proposte anche in lingua italiana, così come, nell'apposita area, il proprio commento. Il file compilato, anche per la parte anagrafica, dovrà essere inviato attraverso una casella di posta elettronica certificata (PEC) al seguente indirizzo: proposta.itr(a)pec.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it <mailto:proposta.itr@pec.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it> /Nota operativa per la compilazione: nel file scaricabile, in formato excel, sono contenute tutte le indicazioni per un agevole utilizzo. Per il suo funzionamento è indispensabile attivare le macro all'apertura del file./ Le comunicazioni fornite dai soggetti che aderiscono alla consultazione non precostituiscono alcun titolo, condizione o vincolo rispetto ad eventuali successive decisioni. Responsabile del procedimento: *dott. Mauro Fazio* -- Divisione I Staff Dipartimentale

2 2

NYTimes: Data Shows Twitter Posts That Resonate With Electorate
by J.C. DE MARTIN Nov. 2, 2012

Nov. 2, 2012

http://nyti.ms/PpSYl7 NYTimes: Data Shows Twitter Posts That Resonate With Electorate Twitter has introduced an interactive map showing which of the presidential candidates’ posts drove the most engagement. (not only typed on the go, but also subject to the influence of a capricious spelling corrector - apologies for any typos)

1 0

L'abrogazione dell'adozione dei libri di testo scolastici come metafora - mondopen
by Marco Baldassari Nov. 1, 2012

Nov. 1, 2012

http://www.egovnews.it/articolo/16953/L-abrogazione-dell-adozione-dei-libri… Totalmente favorevole!! (nella legge precedente i testi dovevano gia' essere online nel 2o12) Unleash creativity in open education. Chiedo a tutti di spingere al massimo in questa direzione.

2 1

Ars Technica: "How a Supreme Court ruling may stop you from reselling just about anything"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

How a Supreme Court ruling may stop you from reselling just about anything /Wiley v. Kirtsaeng/ may be the IP case of the decade---affecting all from eBay to libraries. by Joe Mullin <http://arstechnica.com/author/joe-mullin-2/> - Oct 29 2012, 0:00am CET On Monday, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that pits a major textbook publisher against Supap Kirtsaeng, a student-entrepreneur who built a small business importing and selling textbooks. Like many Supreme Court cases, though, there's more than meets the eye. It's not merely a question of whether the Thai-born Kirtsaeng will have to cough up his profits as a copyright infringer; the case is a long-awaited rematch between content companies seeking to knock out the "first sale" doctrine on goods made abroad (not to mention their many opponents). That makes /Wiley v. Kirtsaeng/ the highest-stakes intellectual property case of the year, if not the decade. It's not an exaggeration to say the outcome could affect the very notion of property ownership in the United States. Since most consumer electronics are manufactured outside the US and include copyrighted software in it, a loss for Kirtsaeng would mean copyright owners could tax, or even shut down, resales of everything from books to DVDs to cellphones. [...] Continua qui: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/a-supreme-court-clash-could-cha=…

1 0

Video: "RAP NEWS 15: Big Brother is WWWatching You (feat. George Orwell)"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 31, 2012

Oct. 31, 2012

http://youtu.be/o66FUc61MvU juan carlos

2 1