- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Fwd: [A2k] 75+ Profs Call on Obama to Halt ACTA
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Sean Flynn" <sflynn(a)wcl.american.edu> > Date: 29 ottobre 2010 03.48.01 GMT+02.00 > To: <a2k(a)lists.keionline.org> > Subject: [A2k] 75+ Profs Call on Obama to Halt ACTA > > Over 75 Law Profs have signed a sharply worded letter to president Obama calling for the opening of the process for considering ACTA. > > The letter calls on the President to "direct the USTR to halt its public endorsement of ACTA and subject the text to a meaningful participation process that can influence the shape of the agreement going forward." > > The original letter was drafted and circulated by > > Chris Sprigman, University of Virginia, 434-249-4345 > > Dave Levine, Elon University, 336-279-9298 > > Sean Flynn, American University, 202-294-5749 > > This afternoon at a public consultation on ACTA and the right to health, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to health commented that the process for creating acta appears to violate international human rights obligations for ensuring participation in law making affecting access to medicines and other health issues. > > Blog version: > > http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/over-70-law-profs-call-for-h… > > > President Barack Obama > 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW > Washington, DC 20500 > > Dear President Obama: > > As academics dedicated to promoting robust public debate on the laws and public policies affecting the Internet, intellectual property, global innovation policy and the worldwide trade in knowledge goods and services, we write to express our grave concern that your Administration is negotiating a far-reaching international intellectual property agreement behind a shroud of secrecy, with little opportunity for public input, and with active participation by special interests who stand to gain from restrictive new international rules that may harm the public interest. > > Your Administration promised to change the way Washington works. You promised to bring increased truthfulness and transparency to our public policy and law, including the Freedom of Information Act. You promised that wherever possible, important policy decisions would be made in public view, and not as the result of secret special interest deals hidden from the American people. > > Your Administration's negotiation of ACTA has been conducted in stark contrast to every one of these promises. In the interest of brevity, we'll focus here on the three principal ways in which your Administration's negotiation of ACTA undercuts the credibility of your previous promises. > > First, ACTA's negotiation has been conducted behind closed doors, subject to intense but needless secrecy, with the public shut out and a small group of special interests very much involved. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) has been involved in negotiations relating to ACTA for several years, and there have been drafts of portions of the agreement circulating among the negotiators since the start of negotiations. Despite that, the first official release of a draft text took place only in April, 2010. And following that release the USTR has not held a single public on-the-record meeting to invite comments on the text. Worse, in every subsequent meeting of the negotiating parties, the U.S. has blocked the public release of updated text. The U.S. often has acted alone in banning the distribution of the revised text, contrary to the strong majority view of other negotiating partners to promote public inspection and comment. Because the negotiations have operated on a consensus basis, the U.S. vote against transparency has been dispositive. > > This degree of secrecy is unacceptable, unwise, and directly undercuts your oft-repeated promises of openness and transparency. Rather than seeking meaningful public input from the outset, your Administration has allowed the bulk of the public debate to be based upon, at best, hearsay and speculation. Yet, ACTA is a trade agreement setting out a range of new international rules governing intellectual property; as the G-8 called it, a "new international framework." It is not (the claims of the USTR notwithstanding) related in any way to any standard definition of "national security" or any other interest of the United States similarly pressing or sensitive. The Administration's determination to hide ACTA from the public creates the impression that ACTA is precisely the kind of backroom special interest deal - undertaken in this case on behalf of a narrow group of U.S. content producers, and without meaningful input from the American public - that you have so often publicly opposed. > > Second, the Administration has stated that ACTA will be negotiated and implemented not as a treaty, but as a sole executive agreement. We believe that this course may be unlawful, and it is certainly unwise. > > Now that a near-final version of the ACTA text has been released, it is clear that ACTA would usurp congressional authority over intellectual property policy in a number of ways. Some of ACTA's provisions fail to explicitly incorporate current congressional policy, particularly in the areas of damages and injunctions. Other sections lock in substantive law that may not be well-adapted to the present context, much less the future. And in other areas, the agreement may complicate legislative efforts to solve widely recognized policy dilemmas, including in the area of orphan works, patent reform, secondary copyright liability and the creation of incentives for innovation in areas where the patent system may not be adequate. The agreement is also likely to affect courts' interpretation of U.S. law. > > The use of a sole executive agreement for ACTA appears unconstitutional. The President may only make sole executive agreements that are within his independent constitutional authority. The President has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, the core subjects of ACTA. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property. ACTA should not be pursued further without congressional oversight and a meaningful opportunity for public debate. > > The USTR has insisted that ACTA's provisions are merely procedural and only about enforcing existing rights. These assertions are simply false. Nearly 100 international intellectual property experts from six continents gathered in Washington, DC in June, 2010 to analyze the potential public interest impacts of the officially released text. Those experts - joined by over 650 other experts and organizations - found that "the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators." The expert statement notes that: > > * Negotiators claim ACTA will not interfere with citizens' fundamental rights and liberties; it will. > * They claim ACTA is consistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); it is not. > * They claim ACTA will not increase border searches or interfere with cross-border transit of legitimate generic medicines; it will. > * And they claim that ACTA does not require "graduated response" disconnections of people from the internet; however, the agreement encourages such policies. > > Academics and other neutral intellectual property experts have not had time to sufficiently analyze the current text and are unlikely to do so as long as there is no open public forum to submit such analysis in a meaningful process. Rather than create such a forum, the USTR has released text accompanied by the announcement that the negotiations are finished and the time for public comment, which was never granted in the first instance, is over. This is not meaningful, real-time transparency, and it is certainly not the kind of accountability that we were expecting from your Administration. We know enough to know that ACTA's provisions are of significant interest to the general public, because they touch upon a wide range of public interests and are likely to alter the substantive law governing U.S. citizens. It is clear that before ACTA negotiations proceed further, Congress must be involved. > > Third, and finally, we are concerned that the purpose that animates ACTA is being deliberately misrepresented to the American people. The treaty is named the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement". But it has little to do with counterfeiting or controlling the international trade in counterfeit goods. Rather, this agreement would enact much more encompassing changes in the international rules governing trade in a wide variety of knowledge goods - whether they are counterfeit or not - and would establish new intellectual property rules and norms without systematic inquiry into effects of such development on economic and technical innovation in the U.S. or abroad. These norms will affect virtually every American and should be the subject of wide public debate. > > Our conclusion is simple: Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and meaningful consultative process, in public, on the record and with open on-going access to proposed negotiating text and must reflect a full range of public interest concerns. For the reasons detailed above, the ACTA negotiations fail to meet these standards. > > While you cannot go back in time, you still have the opportunity to allow for meaningful public input, even at this late date. Accordingly, we call on you to direct the USTR to halt its public endorsement of ACTA and subject the text to a meaningful participation process that can influence the shape of the agreement going forward. Specifically, we call on you to direct USTR to: > > 1. Signal to other negotiators that the U.S. will not sign ACTA before the conclusion of a meaningful public participation process and another round of official negotiations where public participation is encouraged; > 2. Hold a meaningful open, on-the-record public hearing on the draft text, the results of which will be used to determine what proposed changes to the agreement the administration will propose; > 3. Renounce its position that the agreement is a "sole executive agreement" that can tie Congressional authority to amend intellectual property laws without congressional approval and instead pledge to seek congressional approval of the final text; > 4. Consider reforms to the USTR's industry trade advisory committee (ITAC) process that would allow for a wide range of official advisors; > 5. Propose new language for the creation of the ACTA Committee that would require open, transparent and inclusive participation that takes into account the viewpoints of other stakeholders, including inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations, in line with the principles of the World Intellectual Property Organization's development agenda. > > > Signed, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brook Baker > Northeastern University School of Law > > Derek E. Bambauer > Brooklyn Law School > > Mark Bartholomew > University at Buffalo Law School > > Barton Beebe > New York University School of Law > > Yochai Benkler > Harvard Law School > > Heidi Bond > Seattle University > > Denis Borges Barbosa > Catholic University, Rio de Janeiro > James Boyle > Duke University School of Law > > Annemarie Bridy > University of Idaho School of Law > > Dan L. Burk > University of California, Irvine > > Diane Cabell > Berkman Center, Harvard University > > Michael A. Carrier > Rutgers Law School-Camden > > Michael Carroll > American University Washington College of Law > > Brian W. Carver > UC Berkeley School of Information > > Colleen Chien > Santa Clara University School of Law > > Andrew Chin > University of North Carolina School of Law > > Margaret Chon > Seattle University School of Law > > Susan Crawford > Cardozo Law School > > Michael Davis > CSU College of Law > > Alexander S. Dent > The George Washington University > > Alex Feerst > Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society > > Giusella Finocchiaro > University of Bologna > > William Fisher > Harvard Law School > > Sean Flynn > American University Washington College of Law > > Dave Fagundes > Southwestern Law School > > Jon M. Garon > Hamline University School of Law > > Michael Geist > University of Ottawa School of Law > > James Gibson > University of Richmond > > Shubha Ghosh > University of Wisconsin School of Law > > Debora J. Halbert > University of Hawai`i at Manoa > > Robert A. Heverly > Albany Law School of Union University > > Cynthia Ho > Loyola University of Chicago School of Law > > Dan Hunter > New York University School of Law > > Peter Jaszi > American University Washington College of Law > > David R. Johnson > New York Law School > > Amy Kapczynski > UC Berkeley School of Law > > Alex Leavitt > Comparative Media Studies, MIT > > Lawrence Lessig > Harvard Law School > > David Levine > Elon University School of Law > > Jake Linford > Florida State University College of Law > > Michael J. Madison > University of Pittsburgh School of Law > > Mark McKenna > Notre Dame Law School > > Hiram Meléndez-Juarbe > University of Puerto Rico Law School > > Gabriel J. Michael > The George Washington University > > Viva R. Moffat > University of Denver College of Law > > Michael R. Morris > University of Edinburgh > > Ira Nathenson > St. Thomas University School of Law > > Tyler Ochoa > Santa Clara University School of Law > > Kevin Outterson > Boston University > > Dr Luigi Palombi > Australian National University > > Frank Pasquale > Seton Hall School of Law > > Malla Pollack > co-author, Callmann on Unfair Competition > > Kenneth L. Port > William Mitchell College of Law > > David G. Post > Beasley School of Law, Temple University > > Srividhya Ragavan > University of Oklahoma College of Law > > R. Anthony Reese > UC Irvine School of Law > > Jerome H. Reichman > Duke Law School > > Betsy Rosenblatt > Whittier Law School > > Patrick S. Ryan > University of Colorado at Boulder > > Pam Samuelson > UC Berkeley School of Law > > > Jason M. Schultz > UC Berkeley School of Law > > Susan K. Sell > The George Washington University > > Jessica Silbey > Suffolk University Law School > > Brenda Reddix-Smalls > North Carolina Central University School of Law > > Christopher Sprigman > University of Virginia School of Law > > Elizabeth Stark > Yale University > > Katherine Strandburg > New York University School of Law > > Talha Syed > UC Berkeley - Boalt Hall > > Deborah Tussey > Oklahoma City University School of Law > > Jennifer M. Urban > UC Berkeley - Boalt Hall > > Yousuf A Vawda > University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa > > Jonathan Weinberg > Wayne State University > > Darryl C. Wilson > Stetson University College of Law > > Jane K. Winn > University of Washington School of Law > > Mark Wojcik > John Marshall Law School > > Peter K. Yu > Drake University Law School > > Diane L. Zimmerman > New York University School of Law > > Jonathan Zittrain > Harvard Law School > CC: > > The Honorable Max Baucus > Chairman > Senate Committee on Finance > > The Honorable Chuck Grassley > Ranking Member > Senate Committee on Finance > > The Honorable Ron Wyden > Chairman > Senate Committee on Finance > Subcommittee on Trade, Customs, and > Global Competitiveness > > The Honorable Mike Crapo > Ranking Member > Senate Committee on Finance > Subcommittee on Trade, Customs, and > Global Competitiveness > > The Honorable Sander Levin > Acting Chairman > House Way and Means Committee > > The Honorable Dave Camp > Ranking Member > House Ways and Means Committee > > The Honorable John S. Tanner > Acting Chairman > House Ways and Means Committee > Subcommittee on Trade > > The Honorable Kevin Brady > House Ways and Means Committee > Subcommittee on Trade > > The Honorable Patrick Leahy > Chairman > Senate Committee on the Judiciary > > The Honorable Jeff Sessions > Ranking Member > Senate Committee on the Judiciary > > The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. > Chairman > House Committee on the Judiciary > > The Honorable Lamar Smith > Ranking Member > House Committee on the Judiciary > > > > > > > The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton > Secretary of State > > The Honorable Gary Locke > Secretary of Commerce > > Victoria Espinel > U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator > > David Kappos > Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property > Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office > > Alan Hoffman > Deputy Chief of Staff > Office of the Vice President > > Cameron F. Kerry > General Counsel > Department of Commerce > > Geovette E. Washington > Deputy General Counsel > Department of Commerce > > Marc Berejka > Senior Policy Advisor > Office of the Secretary > Department of Commerce > > Quentin Palfrey > Deputy General Counsel for Strategic Initiatives > Department of Commerce > > Andrew McLaughlin > Deputy Chief U.S. Technology Officer > > Phil J. Weiser > Deputy Assistant Attorney General > Department of Justice > > Miriam Sapiro > Deputy U.S. Trade Representative > > Lisa Garcia > Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for > Intergovernmental Affairs > > Daniel Weitzner > Associate Administrator > Office of Policy Analysis and Development > > Andrew Reynolds > Acting Science and Technology Adviser to the > Secretary of State > > > Sean Flynn > Associate Director > Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property > American University Washington College of Law > 202 274 4157 > www.pijip.org > > _______________________________________________ > A2k mailing list > A2k(a)lists.keionline.org > http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

1 0

standard aperti: nuovo libro e nuovo progetto
by Simone Aliprandi Oct. 29, 2010

Oct. 29, 2010

Annuncio l'imminente uscita del mio nuovo libro "Apriti standard! Interoperabilità e formati aperti per l'innovazione tecnologica". Il sito ufficiale dell'iniziativa editoriale è http://www.aliprandi.org/apriti-standard . A breve verranno comunicate le date della disponibilità in libreria e degli eventi di presentazione. Il libro sarà rilasciato con licenza Creative Commons by-sa. Se volete contribuire alla promozione dell'inziativa, oltre al sito ufficiale, potete anche diffondere la "like-page" di Facebook ai vostri contatti: http://www.facebook.com/pages/StandardApertiit/154792307896018 Il libro accompagna l'inaugurazione di un nuovo progetto divulgativo da me curato specificamente dedicato all'idea di standard aperto e di interoperabilità. Il sito del progetto (per ora ancora in costruzione) è http://www.standardaperti.it/. Sono ben accetti commenti e suggerimenti. Un cordiale saluto a tutti. -- Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org

1 0

Lettera aperta di accademici a Obama per non firmare ACTA
by David Orban Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/academic-sign-on-letter-to-o… ...direct the USTR to halt its public endorsement of ACTA and subject the text to a meaningful participation process that can influence the shape of the agreement going forward... David Orban skype, twitter, linkedin, sl, etc: davidorban

1 0

Provare a uscire dai salotti internettiani
by Marco De Rossi Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

Vi segnalo un mio post con cui lanciamo (come Oilproject) una compagna per spiegare ai non addetti ai lavori il problema della libertà di espressione sulle piattaforme private indipendenti (non solo Facebook). I prossimi articoli saranno scritti dagli studenti di Oilproject e dagli altri dello staff. Voi in questa lista non troverete certamente nulla di nuovo nell'articolo, ma magari vi interessa condividerlo o partecipare al dibattito: http://www.shannon.it/blog/una-questione-di-democrazia/ Prima si inizierà a parlarne fuori dai salotti internettiani, prima possiamo sperare di trovare una soluzione. Buona serata, scusate il self-spam -- Marco De Rossi Oilproject - Be Free To Learn ( http://www.oilproject.org/ ) Pangloss: Poteva andar peggio, poteva piovere ( http://pangloss.info/ )

1 0

Audizione oggi a Brussels - live streaming in corso
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

Live streaming adesso e fino alle 17:00 dell'audizione pubblica a Bruxelles del Comitato di Saggi su come migliorare la presenza online della cultura europea e' disponibile qui: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/index_… Oggi pomeriggio avro' 5' per parlare a favore del pubblico dominio in qualità di coordinatore della rete europea COMMUNIA. Juan Carlos

1 0

Fw: Libro per Paolo Zocchi
by Mariella Berra Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

Network Email ----- Original Message ----- From: Occasione perduta? To: mariella.berra(a)unito.it Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 12:04 PM Subject: Libro per Paolo Zocchi Occasione perduta? knowledge society: Libertà, eGov, Imprese Un messaggio a tutti i membri di Occasione perduta? Oggi ho pubblicato il libro di Paolo Zocchi, disponibile in libreria ma anche http://occasioneperduta.ning.com/profiles/blogs/il-senso-dellinnovazionehtt… essendo sotto licenza Creative Commons. Flavia Visita Occasione perduta? al: http://occasioneperduta.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network Per controllare le e-mail che ricevi su Occasione perduta?, fai clic qui

1 0

Lives put at risk by Communications Data Retention
by Paolo Brini Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

A report published on 8 October 2010 by German civil liberties activists reveals that human lives are put at risk by the retention of all telecommunication data. According to the report, the data retention policy has endangered scientific research, caused unemployment, encouraged corruption, promoted the abuse of personal data and hindered the prosecution of crime. The report gives examples of cases when the registration of communication data failed to help the police in stopping criminals and how criminals might have used more discreet ways of communicating and internet cafes to disguise the origin and destination of messages. http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.20/data-retention-lives-risk Ciao, Paolo

2 1

Fwd: Invitation to attend meeting 'Open Data and Re-use: what is happening at local levels in Europe?- Rennes, France, 29 November 2010
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

Ricevo e volentieri inoltro (nononstante l'HTML...) juan carlos -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Invitation to attend meeting 'Open Data and Re-use: what is happening at local levels in Europe?- Rennes, France, 29 November 2010 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:57:13 -0400 From: ePSIplatform <no-reply(a)epsiplatform.eu> Reply-To: ePSIplatform <no-reply(a)epsiplatform.eu> To: Juan Carlos <demartin(a)polito.it> Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. <http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=351afeace62f913b40a794a0c&id=f47b7a0d06&…> Open Data and Re-use: what is happening at local levels in Europe? <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a7…> Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to send you an open invitation to participate in our upcoming meeting in Rennes. The meeting is jointly organised by Rennes Metropole, Le Conseil Régional Bretagne, Fing, the PSI Alliance, /e/-mégalis, GFII and ePSIplatform. Meeting Theme: *Open Data and Re-use: what is happening at local levels in Europe?* Meeting Date: *29th November 9.30 -- 17.00 *(CET) Location: *Hôtel de Rennes Métropole, 4 avenue Henri Fréville, Rennes* Google Maps <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> With the focus on national data catalogues it is easy to overlook the potential value of local data for economic, social and democratic benefits. Yet a huge amount is generated locally in the provision of services for citizens. A network of local data initiatives is now opening up and to encourage this we are holding a meeting in Rennes, a city which has taken a lead in opening up local data. All are welcome and there is no charge for this event. *The Target Audience* The event is aimed at:: * Stakeholders that produce data: - Local authorities; - National public services; - Public organisations, public service providers; * Stakeholders that reuse data: - Private: national, international, local businesses, start-ups - NGOs, citizens - Academic: universities, engineering schools, design schools... * Media. More meeting information including the agenda and online registration is available at: www.epsiplatform.eu. <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> * *Register for the Meeting Online <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…>* Twitter Hash Tag for the meeting: #PSI_Local <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> For those needing to organise their own accommodation and look around Rennes, you may wish to contact the Rennes Tourist information: www.tourisme-rennes.com <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> For more information or any questions or to indicate your interest in participating in one of the panels or as speaker from the floor, please contact: Pauline Pollard, European Public Sector Information Platform (ePSIplatform) - rennes(a)epsiplatform.eu <mailto:rennes@epsiplatform.eu> Regards, Rob Davies (on behalf of the ePSIplatform) *Rennes Metropole,* www.rennes-metropole.fr <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> *Conseil Régional Bretagne*, www.bretagne.fr <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> *Fing*: fing.org <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> *GFII*: www.gfii.asso.fr <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a7…> *PSI Alliance:* www.psialliance.eu <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a7…> */e/-mégalis* www.e-megalisbretagne.org <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> *ePSIplatform*: www. epsiplatform.eu <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a7…> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Visit the European Public Sector Information (PSI) Platform for more information about the one-stop shop portal. http://www.epsiplatform.eu/ <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> Contact: Rob Davies, European PSI Platform rob.davies(a)mdrpatners.com <mailto:rob.davies@mdrpatners.com> The European PSI Platform is funded under the European Commission's eContentplus programme <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=351afeace62f913b40a79…> Please do not reply to this email message. Should you want to unsubscribe to the ePSIplatform newsletter or notification options click 'unsubscribe' link below. To deactivate your password at any time, please send a message to carol.usher(a)mdrpartners.com <mailto:carol.usher@mdrpartners.com> Unsubscribe <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage1.com/unsubscribe?u=351afeace62f913b40a7…> demartin(a)polito.it from this list | Forward to a friend <http://us1.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=351afeace62f913b40a794a0c&id=f47…> | *Our mailing address is:* MDR Partners 2b Fitzgerald Road Mortlake London, England SW14 8HA Add us to your address book <http://epsiplatform.us1.list-manage.com/vcard?u=351afeace62f913b40a794a0c&i…> /Copyright (C) 2010 MDR Partners All rights reserved./

1 0

Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf
by Giovanni Battista Ramello Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

Per quanto personalmente sia favorevole alle tesi sostenute, il lavoro di Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf è oggetto di un forte dibattito giacché i dati usati non sono disponibili a chi ha chiesto di controllare le stime empiriche e sono stati sollevati , almeno nella comunità degli economisti, forti sospetti di addomesticamento che hanno un po' inquinato il valore del lavoro. Per chi fosse interessato, lascio due link che rinviano alle critiche di Stan Liebowitz, grande protagonista del dibatto su economics of copyright http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014399 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1155764 Cordiali saluti Giovanni

3 3

ArsTechnica: "ACLU: Net neutrality needed to keep ISP "wolves" at bay"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

La storica associazione USA a difesa dei diritti civili si esprime sulla neutralita' della rete. juan carlos ACLU: Net neutrality needed to keep ISP "wolves" at bay By Nate Anderson <http://arstechnica.com/author/nate-anderson/> | Last updated 6 days ago Are Internet service providers more like wolves, foxes, bridge owners, or priests with the "sacred role of making available to citizens a forum for speech and self-expression"? According to the American Civil Liberties Union, ISPs are like all four; it's the government's job to make sure that they behave more like the priests than like the wolves, foxes, and discriminatory toll collectors. In an analogy-stuffed new paper <http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/NetNeutrality_report_20101019.pdf> (PDF) on network neutrality, the ACLU argues that the Internet has now entered its "third stage." The first stage was the dial-up era, where a million ISPs bloomed across the US and competition was rampant thanks to common carrier regulation of the telephone network. In the second stage, the "constant vigilance and loud campaigning of Internet activists" kept network neutrality provisions in play even as the regulatory basis for them crumbled. Now we come to the third stage, where "the giant for-profit companies that now dominate Internet access do not want to be constrained by network neutrality rules." Thanks to a 2010 court decision in favor of Comcast, the FCC has lost much of its ability to enforce nondiscrimination principles on the Internet. Combine this with the recent rise of deep packet inspection hardware, and the ACLU foresees a brave new world of filtering and control "which could fundamentally alter the architectural structure of the Internet." [...] Continua qui: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/aclu-net-neutrality-needed-…

1 0