- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence by David Ardia
by Andrea Glorioso July 12, 2010

July 12, 2010

Sempre su intermediari e responsabilità, a proposito dei "modello americano": http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/06/ardias_empirica.htm Technology & Marketing Law Blog « Payment Service Providers May Be Liable for Counterfeit Website Sales--Gucci v. Frontline | Main | Recent Anti-SLAPP Developments » June 30, 2010 Must-Read Empirical Study of 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence by David Ardia By Eric Goldman David S. Ardia, Free Speech Savior or Shield for Scoundrels: An Empirical Study of Intermediary Immunity Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 43 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 373 (2010) Let me start with the punchline: if you are interested in 47 USC 230 jurisprudence (and let's face it, who isn't???), then you need to read this article. In fact, clear your calendar for this afternoon. Although I am not completely sold on its conclusions, any cogent discussion about 47 USC 230 jurisprudential trendlines must acknowledge this article. David Ardia directs the Citizen Media Law Project, a frequent outlink on this blog. He undertook the heroic (and some might say ill-advised) task of finding and coding 47 USC 230 cases--a total of 184 decisions--and then generating some statistical conclusions from the dataset. This is not a project I would have undertaken because empirical research is such a quagmire, but we as a community of 47 USC 230 scholars and practitioners get the benefit of David's efforts. (I should note that David sent me a draft of this article last Fall, which sat unread in my inbox for 3 months. I then sent David an extremely lengthy and detailed set of comments about a week before his final edits were due to the law review. Some of my critiques are not news to David, but he may not have had a chance to fully address them based on my delayed feedback.) (I further note that I have not doublechecked David’s dataset or coding. For this post, I assume he did it “correctly.”) If you have limited time (the PDF is 134 pages), start on page 41 of the PDF, which is where the empirical discussions heat up. There is a lot to discuss and explore, but I will highlight two significant statistical conclusions. First, the paper calculates that 230 defendants win the defense "only" about 2/3 of the time, leading him to conclude that the statute "has not been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its critics lament." This is an interesting conclusion, but it leaves me wondering how this compares with the hypothetical calculation of cases where the 230 defense should have failed vs. the situations where it should have succeeded. Still, I am one of the people who thinks 230 is a free pass for defendants, so the successful batting average was lower than I expected. Second, the paper makes the following assertion on page 108: "many of the intermediaries that invoked section 230 likely would not have faced eventual liability under the common law because they lacked knowledge of and editorial control over the third-party content at issue in the cases. Given this prediction, one might question whether section 230 is necessary." Whoa! This is an important and implicitly troubling statement. The paper is positing an alternative scenario where 230 doesn't exist and arguing that we might not notice a difference. Of course, we know that other countries are having very different experiences with UGC due to the 230's absence. At the same time, US common law still differs from other countries' laws, so perhaps the US common law's trajectory would have reached a similar place. Having said that, for reasons the paper does explore, we are better off for having the statutory immunity than relying on common law developments. Furthermore, 230’s real brilliance is that it immunizes service providers *because they exercise* editorial control, which leads to better outcomes. I'll briefly mention two other stats that puzzled me. On page 59, the paper says: "in more than half of the section 230 decisions (58.8%), the speech at issue was not published anonymously." Later, on page 115, the paper advances the inverse stat: "41.2% of the decisions studied involved anonymous content." In theory, this means 40% of cases involve primary tortfeasors who can't be found, but I'm skeptical about this because successful online anonymity is really hard. After all, the AutoAdmit authors thought they were anonymous until they were de-anonymized. For more, see Paul Ohm's paper on reidentification. On page 117, the paper says "in more than half of the cases (55%), the content plaintiffs sued over was no longer available as of mid-2009," which suggests plaintiffs can get content takedowns despite 230 because the service provider voluntarily helps or the author takes the content down him/herself (or, in some cases, the court ordered the takedown). This brought to mind the Ripoff Report's refusal to remove content at the author's request, a relatively unique posture for UGC hosts. See Blockowicz v. Williams. The paper gives me another reason to remind you that SCU will be hosting a 47 USC 230 celebration on March 4, 2011, where I hope we will discuss cutting-edge research on 230 like this paper. More details to come, but mark your calendar now. If you are working on 230-related research that you think might be appropriate to present at this conference, please contact me. UPDATE: David's CMLP blog post on his article. ____________ The abstract: In the thirteen years since its enactment, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has become one of the most important statutes impacting online speech, as well as one of the most intensely criticized. In deceptively simple language, its provisions sweep away the common law’s distinction between publisher and distributor liability, granting operators of Web sites and other interactive computer services broad protection from claims based on the speech of third parties. Section 230 is of critical importance because virtually all speech that occurs on the Internet is facilitated by private intermediaries that have a fragile commitment to the speech they facilitate. This Article presents the first empirical study of the section 230 case law. It begins by providing a doctrinal overview of common law liability for intermediaries, both online and offline, and describes how section 230 modifies these doctrinal approaches. It then systematically analyzes the 184 decisions courts have issued since the statute’s enactment. The Article also examines how courts have applied section 230, finding that judges have been haphazard in their approach to its application. The Article closes by discussing the study’s findings and by offering some insights into how plaintiffs and defendants have fared under section 230. While section 230 has largely protected intermediaries from liability for third-party speech, it has not been the free pass many of its proponents claim and its critics lament. More than a third of the claims at issue in the cases survived a section 230 defense. Even in cases where the court dismissed the claims, intermediaries bore liability in the form of litigation costs, and it took courts, on average, nearly a year to issue decisions addressing an intermediary’s defense under section 230. Posted by Eric at June 30, 2010 08:38 AM | Derivative Liability

3 6

Re: [nexa] YouTube wins case against Viacom
by ugo.pagallo＠unito.it July 11, 2010

July 11, 2010

Oreste e Carlo, grazie per la segnalazione. Ho letto la sentenza e, comparata a quella del dott. Magi di Milano in Google-Vividown, questa di Louis Stanton di New York (Southern District) in Viacom vs. Google, è esemplare. Sul piano dei principi in gioco, nulla di nuovo rispetto a quanto abbiamo discusso al 18° mercoledì di Nexa (http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-18) dove trovate il link al mio articolo: v. solo § 4.2.2! Con i tempi che corrono, la sentenza ha però il merito di ricordare certe cose, in modo chiaro e conciso (30 pagine vs le 130 e passa del caso Vividown) In primo luogo, entra in gioco la clausola di salvaguardia (safe harbor) ex § 512(c) DMCA. La questione critica (p. 7) verte sulla conoscenza di fatto (actual knowledge) che i convenuti avevano di possibili violazioni del copyright degli attori. Al riguardo, viene escluso ogni dovere di vigilanza dei fornitori di servizi (service providers). Se è vero che tale actual knowledge non richiede necessariamente che il titolare di diritti avverta il fornitore dei servizi, lactual knowledge di questultimo va testato con il buon senso. Si tratta del red flag test illustrato a pp. 14-15 della sentenza. Così, da un lato, non basta che il (presunto) titolare avverta il fornitore di servizi circa una massiccia violazione dei propri diritti: la denuncia deve essere circostanziata e specifica (eg, lindirizzo della pagina web): v. p. 12. In questo caso, scatta l'obbligo del provider di attivarsi. Daltro canto, la responsabilità del provider non affiora nemmeno con il beneficio economico che ricava da unattività per la quale detto fornitore sa che, statisticamente, ci saranno inevitabilmente violazioni del copyright altrui. In questo caso, l'arricchimento non è illecito e, quindi, non si ha responsabilità, quando il violatore [dei diritti di copyright] ricorra allo stesso tipo di pagamento degli utenti che non violano diritti nellusufruire dei servizi del fornitore (Rapporto DMCA del Senato, ripreso a pag. 11 della sentenza). Cambiate copyright (qui in senso lato) con privacy è potete trarre le dovute conseguenze in nome dei principi dell'ordinamento: perché mai in Europa dovrebbe essere diversamente? Ciao a tutti, u. > > > ------------------ Messaggio originale ------------------- > Oggetto: Re: [nexa] YouTube wins case against Viacom > Da: oreste.pollicino(a)unibocconi.it > Data: Gio, 24 Giugno 2010, 1:55 pm > A: "Blengino" <blengino(a)penalistiassociati.it> > Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- Messaggio originale ----- > Da: "oreste pollicino" <oreste.pollicino(a)unibocconi.it> > A: "Blengino" <blengino(a)penalistiassociati.it> > Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Inviato: GiovedÃ¬, 24 giugno 2010 13:51:53 GMT +01:00 > Amsterdam/Berlino/Berna/Roma/Stoccolma/Vienna > Oggetto: Re: [nexa] YouTube wins case against Viacom > > > > > > ecco la decisione, > > > > a presto > > > > o. > ----- Messaggio originale ----- > Da: "Blengino" <blengino(a)penalistiassociati.it> > A: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Inviato: GiovedÃ¬, 24 giugno 2010 10:51:58 GMT +01:00 > Amsterdam/Berlino/Berna/Roma/Stoccolma/Vienna > Oggetto: [nexa] YouTube wins case against Viacom > > > > > Blog post linking to decision is live:Â > http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/06/youtube-wins-case-against-viacom… > > > WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2010 > > YouTube wins case against Viacom > > > Today, the courtÂ granted Â our motion for summary > judgment in Viacomâs lawsuit with YouTube. This means > that the court has decided that YouTube is protected by > the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act > (DMCA) against claims of copyright infringement. The > decision follows established judicial consensus that > online services like YouTube are protected when they work > cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage > their rights online. > > This is an important victory not just for us, but also for > the billions of people around the world who use the web to > communicate and share experiences with each other. Weâre > excited about this decision and look forward to renewing > our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas > and expression that billions of people post and watch on > YouTube every day around the world. > > Posted by Kent Walker, Vice President and General Counsel, > Google > > > _______________________________________________ nexa > mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > --- > Il messaggio che segue e' inserito automaticamente dal > server di posta > dell'Universita' Bocconi. > > Il 5 per mille per gli studenti meritevoli della Bocconi. > E' un atto volontario, non costa nulla e non sostituisce > l'8 per mille. > Scegli Bocconi: codice fiscale 80024610158. > > Please note that the above message is addressed only to > individuals > filing Italian income tax returns. > --- > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

4 5

US could learn from Brazilian penalty for hindering fair use
by Philippe Aigrain July 10, 2010

July 10, 2010

By Nate Anderson | Last updated about 15 hours ago Brazil has proposed a broad update to its copyright law (Portuguese) and it contains a surprising idea: penalize anyone who "hinders or impedes" fair use rights or obstructs the use of work that has already fallen into the public domain. A huge win for consumers? Sure, but it gets better. A moment's thought reminds us that most DRM schemes will eventually run afoul the above provisions, since they apply in perpetuity. That DRMed music file will still be DRMed even after the song has fallen into the public domain. So Brazil wants to ensure that DRM "has time-limited effects that correspond to the period of the economic rights over the work, performance, phonogram or broadcast." Once copyright has expired, DRM should, too. As if that's not enough, Brazil says that DRM can be bypassed in order to make any "fair" use of the work or in cases where the copyright has expired but the DRM has not. Contrast this with the US approach to copyright in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which said nothing about time-limited DRM and made circumvention illegal in nearly all cases, even when the intended use of the material would be legal. Brazil's proposal could be spun as something hostile to rightsholders, but it's not that simple. The law does provide protection for DRM; in general, it is illegal to remove, modify, bypass, or impair such anti-copying technology. It's just that rightsholders can't use DRM as a digital lock to give themselves more control over a work through technology than they have under the law. Treaties While some content industry lobbyists like to make arguments about "living up to international norms" on DRM to suggest that countries need to take a hard line on anticircumvention, the "international norms" allow plenty of leeway. The WIPO Internet Treaties, one of the key parts of this international consensus, require signatories to "provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law." DRM must be defended only when it restricts acts that are "not permitted by law." Since the law in places like Brazil, the US, and many other countries contains fair use or fair dealing provisions, those countries are authorized to allow DRM circumvention for those uses as long as general bypassing is disallowed. Given the nature of most fair use laws, plenty of murky cases will have to be examined by the courts. That's a slow, messy solution, but one that allows for flexibility and creativity; the "clean" alternative of simply outlawing DRM circumvention almost completely leads to the absurd situation where A US citizen can legally rip a CD to an iPod but breaks the law when doing the same with a DVD. Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor who highlighted the new proposal, sums it up as a properly balanced approach that doesn't buy into the "more is better" approach to copyright protections. "In other words, the Brazilian proposals recognizes what the Supreme Court of Canada stated several years ago," he writes, "over-protection is just as harmful as under-protection."

1 0

Brutta storia
by Paolo Brini July 9, 2010

July 9, 2010

Brutta storia quando si mettono le mani su ICANN in questo modo. Qual è il prossimo passo, assaltare i BGP router e mettere sotto controllo dei governi i RIRs e gli AS? http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-and-megaupload-escape-domain-seizure-by-… Ciao, Paolo

3 9

Libro: "Privilege and Property. Essays on the History of Copyright"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 9, 2010

July 9, 2010

Privilege and Property. Essays on the History of Copyright. Ronan Deazley, Martin Kretschmer and Lionel Bently (Editors) http://www.openbookpublishers.com/ Author: Ronan Deazley, Martin Kretschmer and Lionel Bently (Editors) Format: paperback ISBN: 978-1-906924-18-8 Other Editions Available: hardback - £24.95 digital(pdf) - £4.95 What can and can’t be copied is a matter of law, but also of aesthetics, culture, and economics. The act of copying, and the creation and transaction of rights relating to it, evokes fundamental notions of communication and censorship, of authorship and ownership – of privilege and property. This volume conceives a new history of copyright law that has its roots in a wide range of norms and practices. The essays reach back to the very material world of craftsmanship and mechanical inventions of Renaissance Italy where, in 1469, the German master printer Johannes of Speyer obtained a five-year exclusive privilege to print in Venice and its dominions. Along the intellectual journey that follows, we encounter John Milton who, in his 1644 Areopagitica speech ‘For the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing’, accuses the English parliament of having been deceived by the ‘fraud of some old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of bookselling’ (i.e. the London Stationers’ Company). Later revisionary essays investigate the regulation of the printing press in the North American colonies as a provincial and somewhat crude version of European precedents, and how, in the revolutionary France of 1789, the subtle balance that the royal decrees had established between the interests of the author, the bookseller, and the public, was shattered by the abolition of the privilege system. Contributions also address the specific evolution of rights associated with the visual and performing arts. The volume is a companion to the digital archive Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC): www.copyrighthistory.org Table of Contents. Introduction. The History of Copyright History: Notes from an Emerging Discipline, Martin Kretschmer, with Lionel Bently and Ronan Deazley. 1. From Gunpowder to Print: The Common Origins of Copyright and Patent, Joanna Kostylo. 2. ‘A Mongrel of Early Modern Copyright’: Scotland in European Perspective, Alastair J. Mann. 3. The Public Sphere and the Emergence of Copyright: Areopagitica, the Stationers’ Company, and the Statute of Anne, Mark Rose. 4. Early American Printing Privileges. The Ambivalent Origins of Authors’ Copyright in America, Oren Bracha. 5. Author and Work in the French Print Privileges System: Some Milestones, Laurent Pfister. 6. A Venetian Experiment on Perpetual Copyright, Maurizio Borghi. 7. Copyright Formalities and the Reasons for their Decline in Nineteenth Century Europe, Stef van Gompel. 8. The Berlin Publisher Friedrich Nicolai and the Reprinting Sections of the Prussian Statute Book of 1794, Friedemann Kawohl. 9. Nineteenth Century Controversies Relating to the Protection of Artistic Property in France, Frédéric Rideau. 10. Maps, Views and Ornament: Visualising Property in Art and Law. The Case of Pre-modern France, Katie Scott. 11. Breaking the Mould? The Radical Nature of the Fine Arts Copyright Bill 1862, Ronan Deazley. 12. ‘Neither Bolt nor Chain, Iron Safe nor Private Watchman, Can Prevent the Theft of Words’: The Birth of the Performing Right in Britain, Isabella Alexander. 13. The Return of the Commons – Copyright History as a Common Source, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer. 14. The Significance of Copyright History for Publishing History and Historians, John Feather. 15. Metaphors of Intellectual Property, William St Clair. Bibliography. Index. No. of pages: 450 No. of Illustrations: 11 Ronan Deazley is Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of On the Origin of the Right to Copy: Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteenth Century Britain (1695-1775) (2004) and Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language (2006, 2008). Martin Kretschmer is Professor of Information Jurisprudence and Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy& Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University, UK. His research includes a long-term project on artists’ labour markets and earnings funded by the Arts Council and Collecting Societies ALCS and DACS, as well as numerous interdisciplinary studies addressing specific policy issues (funders include European Commission, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the UK Strategic Advisory Board for IP Policy). Lionel Bently is the Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law at the University of Cambridge, and Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, Cambridge. His published works include: The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law (with Brad Sherman) (1999) and Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (2008). Lionel Bently and Martin Kretschmer are joint project directors of the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funded digital archive: Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900)<http://www.copyrighthistory.org>. Creative Commons License Privilege and Property. Essays on the History of Copyright edited by Ronan Deazley, Martin Kretschmer and Lionel Bently is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England& Wales License.

1 0

Re: [nexa] Brutta storia
by giorgio.giunchi＠cctld.it July 8, 2010

July 8, 2010

>----- Original Message ----- >From: andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it >To: paolo.brini(a)iridiumpg.com Cc: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >Data: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:26:33 +0200 >Subject: Re: [nexa] Brutta storia >In ogni caso il problema dell'indipendenza geopolitica >delle "critical Internet resources" e` un tema senz'altro >importantissimo. !!! come si dice a scacchi. E come dice Valeria Rossi : "...In realta', dal punto di vista puramente tecnico, per il funzionamento di Internet basterebbe anche un solo root name server..." Ma e' cosa buona e giusta che ... siano ben piu' di 13 :-} "... La standardizzazione del metodo di instradamento anycast applicato all'IP, ed in particolare applicato al DNS, consente dunque di presentare sulla Rete diverse istanze del medesimo soggetto, nella fattispecie del medesimo name server. Grazie a questo, il numero di root name server raggiungibili in Rete non è più dunque limitato a tredici, ma è ben più alto: alla data, il totale delle istanze di root name server in Internet è più di 100 distribuiti in altrettanti luoghi - strategici nella topologia di rete - che coprono tutti i continenti..." http://cctld.it/internetworking/html/rootserver_01.html Parlavo di scacchi, quindi di scacchiera ... In generale la mia opinione e' coordinamenti sovranazionali ad hoc a rango di uffici repressivi avverso *comportamenti* bipedi *possa* essere efficiente, mentre un coordinamento strutturale globale a rango di uffici legislativi, *non possa* essere efficiente : la mitica "legge globale sull' internet", sospetto, non e' una chimera, ma proprio un fraintendimento logico. La interconnessione di reti e' disintermediata e indiscriminata per accessi e contenuti - punto. E su questo - punto e' *impossibile* rimettere il dentifricio nel tubetto. Impossibile "logicamente", come diceva quello la', e ... al massimo ... "reale" ;-/ - come la barcata di risorse buttate via tutti i giorni nel pianeta - come le redirezioni che i provider impostano tutte le mattine h 10:00 alle pagine alert [senza bisogno di andare in Asia] di AAMS e Centro nazionale Antipornogragia. Giorgio :::::::

1 0

FLOSS 2020 roadmap revision process
by Philippe Aigrain July 8, 2010

July 8, 2010

The FLOSS 2020 roadmap is a strategy document for free and open source software and related policy whose initial version was drafted in 2008, and which is revised every year through a open collaborative process, the results being present at the Open World Forum in Paris (this year 30 September - 1st October 2010). To launch the revision process, 3 contributions are on-line at: http://www.2020flossroadmap.org/2010-version/ FLOSS as commons by David Bollier FLOSS in the BRIC countries by Michael Tiemann and Openness and freedom in cloud computing by myself. Comments and contributions welcome. Philippe

1 0

Responsabilita' Operatori Carte Credito per Contributory TM Infringement (Gucci vs Frontline Processing Corp. et Al.)
by Carmelo Fontana July 7, 2010

July 7, 2010

Vi segnalo questa interessante decisione della corte federale del south district di NY. http://techdirt.com/articles/20100627/1124369974.shtml Un caso in cui si discute di controllo, actual knowledge, inducement, etc. in tema di trademark infringement. Nel commento di Techdirt si argomenta l'esistenza di un safe harbor di fonte giurisprudenziale... Di recente pare che non si parli d'altro :) Il caso e' interessante perche' si distingue Perfect 10 vs Visa in base alla funzione dei sistemi di pagamento, qui considerati parte essenziale dell'infringement. BTW, mi ricordo che Fred Von Lohmann di EFF gia' un paio di anni fa diceva che era solo questione di tempo, e alla fine sarebbero arrivati li' dove sta il grano... Ciao a tutti, C.

4 4

NYTimes: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 6, 2010

July 6, 2010

From The New York Times: Taking the Mystery Out of Web Anonymity The Internet affords anonymity to its users, but that very anonymity is also behind the explosion of cybercrime that has swept across the Web. http://nyti.ms/cImKxb JC

2 1

22° mercoledì di nexa - luglio 2010
by Anna Piccitto July 6, 2010

July 6, 2010

*Libertà di espressione online in Italia* *Mercoledì 14 luglio 2010, ore 18 -- 20* (2° mercoledì del mese) *Corso Trento 21, Torino (primo piano)* *Ingresso libero* L'Italia è un terreno fertile per lo sviluppo di un Internet libero? O vi sono vincoli e barriere che, limitando la libertà di espressione attraverso meccanismi legali e commerciali, rischiano di inibire lo sviluppo del pluralismo online, di una Rete neutrale, di un accesso universale alla banda larga o di nuovi modelli di distribuzione di contenuti digitali? E qual è il peso della Rete, rispetto ad altri media comunicativi, nelle procedure decisionali di un paese che presenta un tasso di penetrazione di Internet tra i più bassi dell'Unione Europea e viene indicato da importanti osservatori internazionali come un paese /"parzialmente libero"/ in termini di libertà dei media? *Andrea Cairola <http://nexa.polito.it/fellows#cairola>* e *Corrado Druetta <http://nexa.polito.it/fellows#druetta>*, Fellows del Centro NEXA su Internet e Società, stanno lavorando ad un Libro bianco che indagherà la realtà italiana con un approccio multidisciplinare e flessibile, per cercare di fotografare lo "stato dell'arte" della libertà d'espressione online in Italia. Tra i temi trattati, figurano: /accesso universale, privacy, copyright, limitazioni costituzionali alla libertà di espressione, questioni infrastrutturali, alfabetizzazione informatica, Internet governance, neutralità della Rete, software open source, leggi sulla stampa e i media online, e-government e livello di penetrazione di Internet nella società italiana/. Il Libro bianco sarà completato nell'*autunno 2010*: l'incontro del 14 Luglio rappresenta un importante momento di confronto sulla prima bozza del progetto, in vista della stesura definitiva. Andrea Cairola e Corrado Druetta ne parleranno con i co-direttori, prof. Juan Carlos De Martin e prof. Marco Ricolfi, i Fellows e lo staff del Centro NEXA, nonché con tutto il pubblico interessato. Streaming video <http://nexa.polito.it/events> dell'evento. Letture consigliate * Guido Scorza (a cura di), /"La libertà nella Rete in Italia" <http://www.societapannunzio.eu/documenti/libroarancione/>/, Società Pannunzio, 2009. * Vincenzo Zeno Zencovich, /"La libertà di espressione. Media, mercato, potere nella società dell'informazione"/, Il Mulino, 2004. * Giuseppe Cassano - Alfonso Contaldo, /"Internet e tutela della libertà di espressione"/, Giuffré, 2009. * * *Ufficio Stampa Centro NEXA: *Anna Piccitto NEXA Center for Internet & Society Politecnico di Torino Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica Tel. +39 011 564 7245

1 0