- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

comunicazione di servizio: 1. indirizzo mittente; 2. dimensione allegati
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 23, 2011

Jan. 23, 2011

Rapida comunicazione di servizio: 1. se avete, come molti di noi, piu' di un indirizzo email, quando postate sulla lista nexa per favore controllate di aver settato come mittente l'indirizzo con cui siete iscritti alla lista; 2. se volete proprio inviare un allegato (invece che una URL), tenete conto che il limite e' 500K. Non voglio mettere di piu' per rispetto a chi accede alla lista in mobilita'. Ricordo a tutti che la soluzione principe per portare all'attenzione di tutti materiale esterno di una certa dimensione e' quella di inviare una URL con descrizione del materiale puntato: chi e' interessato, va a visionarlo per conto proprio. I messaggi provenienti da indirizzi sbagliati o con allegati troppo voluminosi verranno automaticamente scartati. Mailman provvedera', come sempre, a inviare una segnalazione d'errore automatica, cosi' da permettere di ripostare il messaggio con le modalita' corrette. Grazie mille, buona domenica, juan carlos

1 0

1st LAPSI AWARD - CALL FOR APPLICATIONS - BEST DISSERTATION ON PSI RE-USE
by Cristiana Sappa Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

Dear All, LAPSI Thematic Network organizes a 1st Award for the best dissertation on Public Sector Information re-use. Information on the 1st LAPSI Award call for applications is available here: https://www.lapsi-project.eu/call Feel free to forward this information to any interested party. Best Regards, Cristiana Sappa LAPSI and EVPSI project manager Post-Doctorial Researcher, Torino Law School Research Fellow, Nexa Research Center for Internet and Society

1 0

Fwd: STLR Publication: "The Google Book Settlement and the TRIPS Agreement"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: STLR Publication: "The Google Book Settlement and the TRIPS Agreement" Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:38:31 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Corbett <corbett(a)stanford.edu> To: stlr-update(a)lists.stanford.edu stlr.stanford.edu.png The Stanford Technology Law Review is pleased to announce the publication of the following article: Daniel Gervais, The Google Book Settlement and the TRIPS Agreement, 2011 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 1 Not long after Google announced in December 2004 that it would include in its search database the full text of books from a number of leading research libraries, two lawsuits—structured as class actions—were filed by a group representing mostly trade authors and a major publisher. One of the key issues was whether Google’s project was defensible as fair use. After several years of discussion, a proposed settlement was reached. It would have allowed Google to continue scanning copyrighted books into its search index and displaying the text to its users in exchange for the payment of license fees to copyright holders. The proposed display rules were contingent on whether a book was still in print. Additionally, rightsholders could opt out of the settlement either entirely, by requesting the removal of protected books, or partially, by modifying the default display rules. The proposed settlement came under intense scrutiny and criticism. A number of foreign rightsholders, and even foreign governments, opposed the deal. As a result, the settlement was amended significantly. One of the main differences between the original and amended settlements was the treatment of foreign rightsholders. While the original settlement applied to rightsholders in all countries, the amended agreement would only apply to foreign books published in Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom, or registered with the United States Copyright Office as of January 5, 2009. Conformity with international treaties and agreements to which the United States is party, in particular the Berne Convention and the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), has not been a major part of the discussions surrounding the proposed settlement but it is important because incompatibility with TRIPS might trigger a dispute-settlement case against the United States at the WTO and lead— should the United States lose the case partially or entirely—to trade-based retaliation. To mention two examples, in 2000 a WTO panel found that § 110(5)(B) of the Copyright Act was incompatible with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement (the so-called three-step test). As of this writing, the panel report has not been implemented, perhaps in part because a binding arbitration report determined that the level of injury caused by the exemption was extremely low. In a more recent case, failure by the United States to implement a panel report that found part of the cotton subsidies paid to U.S. farmers incompatible with WTO rules may lead to the removal of intellectual property protection for U.S. goods in Brazil. The unprecedented nature of the Google case, however, is that the incompatibility would not result from typical trade measures adopted by legislation or regulation but rather by a court decision. Generally, court decisions are immune (as a practical matter) from WTO review owing to their inter partes nature—that is, they are not measures or requirements of general application. The application of class action procedures, however, that would include a large number of foreign intellectual property holders as part of the covered classes, may open the Settlement to WTO scrutiny. International treaties may also be relevant directly in the domestic context. First and foremost, they may be invoked when the interpretation of a U.S. statute is unclear, in which case the interpretation most likely to comport with U. S. international obligations should be favored. Second, a treaty such as the Berne Convention may be directly applicable (“self-executing”). In applying TRIPS to the Google Book Settlement, the first question that comes to mind is whether the Original and/or the Amended Settlement constitute a prohibited formality under the Berne Convention, and thus also the TRIPS Agreement. The Amended Agreement—because it treats rightsholders in three foreign countries differently—raises two related questions, namely (a) whether the national treatment principle is violated, and (b) whether the proposed settlement is compatible with the most-favored nation clause. Let us sequentially consider both questions. The full article may be accessed and downloaded in .pdf form at the following URL: http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/gervais-google-books-and-trips.pdf Copyright © 2011 Stanford Technology Law Review. All Rights Reserved. Thank you to our hard-working editing team who worked on this article: Lead Editors James Freedman and Daniel Rojas, and Editors Ethan Forrest, Jane Kim, and Amy Motomura.

1 0

la cyber guerra è davvero una minaccia?
by Federico Guerrini Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

Ciao, vi volevo segnalare che su Internazionale di questa settimana c'è un bel pezzo di Seymour Hersh sulla cyber guerra vera o reale del futuro, e sugli interessi economici che sono in gioco in termini di finanziamenti alle agenzie di sicurezza e sui pericoli per la privacy Se ve lo siete perso, l'originale in inglese lo trovate qua: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/01/101101fa_fact_hersh Federico -------------------------------- www.federicoguerrini.com www.fbreloaded.it

1 0

recensione/intervista su Apriti standard
by Simone Aliprandi Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

Segnalo questa recensione/intervista relativa al mio libro "Apriti standard!" uscita nei giorni scorsi su ForumPA: http://saperi.forumpa.it/story/51184/apriti-standard-interoperabilita-e-neu… Un caro saluto a tutti. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org [in San Francisco till 30/03/2011]

1 0

Shareable: "The World's Top 10 Gov 2.0 Initiatives"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

*The World's Top 10 Gov 2.0 Initiatives* By Darren Sharp <http://shareable.net/users/darren-sharp> <http://shareable.net/blog/darren-sharp/feed> 01.19.11, 10:09am The Gov 2.0 movement continues to gain momentum around the world with a number of inspiring people, projects & ideas rising to prominence over the last year or so. Sometimes the most important innovations emerge from the periphery where creative citizens take a "do it first, ask for permission later" approach that can generate a wealth of benefits for the entire global community. So here's my pick of the world's best Gov 2.0 initiatives. What are your favourites? *10) SeeClickFix* SeeClickFix <http://seeclickfix.com/citizens> is a map-based citizen reporting platform that enables the public to report and track non-emergency related issues via web and mobile. Co-founder Ben Berkowitz developed the idea after getting frustrated with city hall's lack of response to graffiti in his local neighbourhood. Governments can access a [...] Continua qui: http://shareable.net/blog/the-worlds-top-10-gov-20-initiatives

1 0

Sarà l’Italia a dotarsi della migliore rete in fibra ottica in Europa?
by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

Mi date un commento? Stefano, Juan, altri? "FTTH Council Europe rivela i dati sul mercato della fibra ottica in Italia, offrendo un’anticipazione esclusiva prima della propria conferenza annuale che si terrà il prossimo mese a Milano, con il Patrocinio del Ministero Italiano dello Sviluppo Economico e del Comune di Milano. Nonostante per diversi anni l’Italia abbia manifestato una crescita lenta, il nostro paese resta uno dei più grandi mercati nel campo della fibra ottica in Europa. A fine dicembre 2010, sono oltre 2,5 milioni le abitazioni cablate e 348 mila gli abbonati che utilizzano la fibra ottica. Questi sono i dati preliminari rivelati da FTTH (Fiber to the Home) Council Europe durante la conferenza stampa tenutasi la settimana scorsa." Continua qui.... http://saperi.forumpa.it/story/51175/sara-l-italia-dotarsi-della-migliore-r…

2 1

[NEXA]Fede, Silvio e i numeri di telefono, oggi ci ha scritto il Garante della Privacy – La nota originale « Il Post Viola
by vale.it＠gmail.com Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

FYI http://violapost.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/fede-silvio-e-i-numeri-di-telefon… V

1 0

Fwd: Opinion of European Academics on ACTA
by J.C. DE MARTIN Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

Link diretto all'opinion: http://www.iri.uni-hannover.de/tl_files/pdf/ACTA_opinion_200111_2.pdf juan carlos Opinion of European Academics on ACTA http://www.iri.uni-hannover.de/acta-1668.html A group of prominent European academics has released today an opinion on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The opinion identifies the most critical aspects of ACTA and invites European and national institutions to carefully consider the opinion before ratifying the Agreement or withholding consent. The opinion is open for signatures until February 7, 2011. It will then be submitted to the European Parliament and other relevant European and national institutions. http://www.iri.uni-hannover.de/acta-1668.html All the best, Henning -- Dr Henning Grosse Ruse - Khan Senior Research Fellow Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Marstallplatz 1 D-80539 Munich Tel.: +49-89-24246-445 Fax: +49-89-24246-501 henning.gr-khan(a)ip.mpg.de <mailto:henning.gr-khan@ip.mpg.de> Please find some of my research online athttp://ssrn.com/author=1144871

2 1

Verizon sues FCC, says "net neutrality lite" rules illegal
by Andrea Glorioso Jan. 21, 2011

Jan. 21, 2011

1 0