- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

European Interoperability Framework

by Philippe Aigrain

http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open- source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2620&blogid=14 This was already circulated, but looking at it in detail, it is a real ll-out offensive against real requirements of openness in standards and interoperability. It is clear to me that the proprietary lobbies represented in the ICT task force group http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/icttfm_en.pdf have got what they wanted. but it is unclear why we got no earlier alert from the few normally good people in it. We must send strong messages to Commission officers in particular to those we know have a real commitment to open standards and FLOSS. --- Philippe Aigrain Founder and CEO, Sopinspace, Society for Public Information Spaces

Nov. 25, 2009

Re: [nexa] Analysis of art. 1.3a

by Andrea Glorioso

Caro Paolo, grazie per l'analisi (e la traduzione). Mi fa piacere che Scambio Etico abbia un'opinione positiva del compromesso raggiunto (che, noto, non e` condivisa da alcuni europarlamentari del gruppo GUE/NGL). Un paio di commenti. (Solito disclaimer - lavoro per la Commissione Europea, ma qui esprimo le mie opinioni personali. Tra l'altro non lavoro direttamente sul Pacchetto Regolatorio per le Comunicazioni Elettroniche, altresi` noto come "Telecom Package"). >>>>> "paolo" == Paolo Brini <paolo.brini(a)iridiumpg.com> writes: > This is the promised translation into english of analysis of > art. 1.3 which replaces amendment 138 in the framework Directive > of the Telecoms Package. > http://bit.ly/8yZM08 - "Article 1.3a specifies in the first paragraph that the given provisions are addressed to Member States only. This is due to the strong opposition of the Council to avoid dispositions for National Regulatory Authorities." Secondo una giurisprudenza piuttosto consistente della Corte Europea di Giustizia (vedi, tra gli altri, il caso 152/84, Marshall v. Southhampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority; il caso C-438/99, Jiménez Melgar v. Ayuntamiento de Los Barrios; il caso C-103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v. Comune di Milano; il caso C-188/89, A. Foster and Others v. British Gas plc) il concetto di "Stato Membro" (e i relativi obblighi) include tutti gli organi dello Stato intesi in senso ampio. Da questo punto di vista, il rivolgersi agli Stati Membri (al di la` dell'uso dei termini successivi, come dall'analisi di Scambio Etico) copre anche le autorita` regolatorie per le telecomunicazioni. In tal senso, come mi pare noti anche Scambio Etico, il compromesso e` piu` ampio dell'emendamento originario. Tra l'altro, secondo me, il linguaggio usato non permette agli operatori economici di fare un po' come pare a loro (versione meno elegante del concetto di "self regulation") - o comunque non lo permette ne` piu` ne` meno dell'originario emendamento 138. - Riguardo alla relazione con la Convenzione Europea dei Diritti Umani, e` importante ricordare che la giurisprudenza della relativa Corte ha piu` volte ribadito che un'autorita` amministrativa *puo`* essere considerata un "tribunale" ai sensi dell'art. 6 della Convenzione. I casi in questione, pero`, non riguardavano decisioni su diritti fondamentali. - "Under some aspects, the Charter improves and reinforces the Convention" Sarei curioso di sapere quali sono questi aspetti, secondo Scambio Etico. - "With regard to the Net Neutrality, this article attenuates the block conditions under certain circumstances, using a very elegant system that turns the same articles proposed by the telcos against themselves. But there are thinner limitations (prioritization, cap and so on) that can not be prevented by this text." Mi sfugge in che modo l'applicazione di limiti di traffico (i "cap") riguardi la "neutralita` della rete". Puoi approfondire? A scanso di equivoci, non sono interesato in una difesa d'ufficio del pacchetto telecom (se non per osservare che e` uno strumento legislativo complesso, che comprende molti altri punti oltre a quelli oggetto di giustissima discussione nei mesi passati). Credo che un confronto tecnico (giuridico) su questi temi sia importante - abbiamo avuto anche troppa politica (nel senso dispregiativo del termine) su questo argomento. Grazie per i tuoi contributi (e per quelli di chiunque vorra` discutere). Ciao, -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali * * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal * "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation

Nov. 25, 2009

Re: [nexa] "Cittadini di tutto il mondo cliccate"

by a.dicorinto＠uniroma1.it

L'ho letto, mi sembra una proposta interessante. Certo se Internet non è ancora considerato diritto universale, auspicare che venga considerato come un diritto naturale è speranza da coltivare, ma temo lontana...O no?

Nov. 25, 2009

Analysis of art. 1.3a

by Paolo Brini

This is the promised translation into english of analysis of art. 1.3 which replaces amendment 138 in the framework Directive of the Telecoms Package. http://bit.ly/8yZM08 Ciao, Paolo

Nov. 24, 2009

Fw: [CREIS] JE Creis du 11 déc

by Mariella Berra

----- Original Message ----- From: chantal richard To: membres(a)creis.sgdg.org Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:24 PM Subject: [CREIS] JE Creis du 11 déc Bonjour, Voici la dernière version (encore non définitive) du programme de la Journée d'étude du CREIS http://www.creis.sgdg.org/journees%20d%27etude/JE2009/progje111209.htm Pouvez vous la diffuser largement merci -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Journée d'études CREIS-Terminal LA GOUVERNANCE D'INTERNET vendredi 11 décembre 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Campus de Jussieu Paris 5° Institut Jacques-Monod (IJM), tour 42, RdC Plan d'accès http://www.upmc.fr/FR/info/Venir_UPMC/05 INSCRIPTION : Accès gratuit, mais inscription obligatoire par courriel : le.creis(a)orange.fr 9h15 : Introduction et présentation de la journée 9h30 :Gouvernance Internet : les noms de domaine Odile Ambry ou Gérard Dantec (à préciser) ISOC France 10h30: La Charte des Droits de l'Internet Résumé Francesca Musiani, doctorante au Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI) à Mines ParisTech, où ses travaux de thèse portent sur les usages "alternatifs" des technologies pair-à-pair, membre du conseil scientifique du projet Vox Internet et auteur de "Cyberhandshakes", paru chez EuroEditions (Madrid, 2009). http://www.csi.ensmp.fr http://www.voxinternet.org 11h30 : "Penser la gouvernance de l'Internet : Pouvoir et institutionnalisation de l'usage des TICS " Résumé Amar Lakel, CREIS, Université de Bordeaux 12h30- 13h45 déjeuner 14h : à l'occasion de la remise du Prix du CREIS 2009 à Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam la lauréate présentera ses travaux de recherche : "L'utilisation des licences Creative Commons pour la diffusion par un intermédiaire : contrat complémentaire et responsabilité" Résumé http://www.ivir.nl/ 15h30 : AG extraordinaire CREIS Terminal 16h : AG ordinaire du CREIS Penser la gouvernance de l'Internet : Pouvoir et institutionnalisation de l'usage des TICS Résumé : Toute effectuation d'une action de communication est contextualisée par des dispositifs de pouvoir qui contraignent les jeux tactiques et stratégiques. Dans le cadre du développement de la communication électronique à l'échelle de toute une société, l'étude du développement de l'Internet nous a permis d'observer le repositionnement des appareils d'Etat en charge du gouvernement de l'ordre du discours. Le double héritage de Louis Althusser et de Michel Foucault est venu enrichir les théories du réseau et de la traduction de Callon et Latour pour nous donner la grille d'analyse d'une généalogie de nouveaux modes de gouvernance dans la société de l'information. Il s'est agi de voir comment des catégories d'acteurs, devenus porte-paroles de formations sociales (société civile, entreprises, institutions publiques) ont constitué un nouveau dispositif d'ordonnancement de la prise de parole publique. L'émergence de nouveaux dispositifs de pouvoir, dit de co-régulation, a travaillé tout autant les appareils d'interpellation et de mobilisation des acteurs que les appareils répressifs. L'ouverture des institutions publiques représentatives à l'espace des rapports sociaux dans de nouvelles formes de pouvoir nous a révélé une nouvelle physique du pouvoir. "L'utilisation des licences Creative Commons pour la diffusion par un intermédiaire : contrat complémentaire et responsabilité" Résumé : Les licences Creative Commons permettent aux auteurs de marquer leurs oeuvres en accordant plus de libertés au public que ne le prévoit le droit d'auteur par défaut. Différentes options prévoient au minimum une autorisation de copier et distribuer sans utilisation commerciale et en attribuant l'auteur. La combinaison des options disponibles produit 6 licences, les licences ont connu 4 versions, elles ont été traduites et adaptées au droit de plus de 50 juridictions. L'objectif initial de faciliter la réutilisation et de favoriser le partage et l'appropriation créative se trouve amoindri par les risques d'incompatibilités juridiques entre ces options, versions et juridictions. Les différences nationales reflètent notamment les écarts entre législations et pratiques nationales. Après une présentation de l'environnement et des utilisations des licences, nous inviterons une discussion à partir d'un exemple de variation entre versions et juridictions, les garanties apportées ou non par l'auteur. Les licences prévoyaient initialement une représentation que l'oeuvre ne constitue pas une contrefaçon à la connaissance de la personne qui offre la licence. Cette disposition a ensuite été supprimée. Est-il préférable de faire peser cette responsabilité sur la personne qui diffuse l'oeuvre, ou sur celle qui souhaite la réutiliser ? Une "charte" pour les droits des internautes? Perspectives et alternatives Les récentes discussions autour de liberté, sécurité et protection de la vie privée des individus sur l'Internet portent sur la nature même de ces droits - leur existence, attribution, reconnaissance - aussi bien que sur les procédures et instruments de leur légitimation. Notre attention se portera sur le débat concernant la création d'une "constitution" ou "charte" de droits pour l'Internet, et en particulier sur la partie de ce débat qui concerne le droit à la vie privée. Il s'agit ici d'analyser les raisons et perspectives qui sous-tendent ce projet de charte, ainsi que de le comparer avec formes alternatives de "protection" des droits des internautes - pour conclure sur la place de ce débat dans la gouvernance de l'Internet. Cordialement Chantal Richard Présidente du CREIS (Centre de coordination pour la Recherche et l'Enseignement en Informatique et Société) site web : http://www.creis.sgdg.org P Pensez environnement : n'imprimez que si nécessaire

Nov. 24, 2009

"Cittadini di tutto il mondo cliccate"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Cittadini di tutto il mondo cliccate* di Alessandro Gilioli /Internet non è un divertimento, ma un diritto umano fondamentale. Come la libertà d'espressione. Dagli Usa alla Scandinavia, nasce una nuova visione del Web. Che potrebbe entrare nelle Costituzioni/ Agli studenti di Shanghai Barack Obama lo ha detto a modo suo e senza girarci troppo intorno: "La libertà di accesso a tutti i contenuti on line ci rende migliori". Una frase semplice, che però nasconde una questione fondamentale per il futuro delle democrazie: il concetto di 'libertà d'impressione', che sta al XXI secolo come all'epoca illuminista stava il principio della 'libertà d'espressione'. A teorizzare la libertà d'impressione, 'rovesciando' l'articolo 19 della Dichiarazione dei Diritti umani dell'Onu, sono da anni due scienziati della politica canadesi, Marshall Conley e Christina Patterson, che hanno introdotto la formula sostenendo che "la Rete, facilitando la diffusione della conoscenza, incrementa la libertà d'espressione e il valore della cittadinanza". La possibilità di avere accesso al Web cioè accresce verticalmente la possibilità di farsi un'opinione e di manifestarla, grazie alla molteplicità di fonti, notizie e punti di vista frequentabili nel Web. [...] Continua qui: http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/cittadini-di-tutto-il-mondo-cliccat…

Nov. 24, 2009

Articolo del Ministro Brunetta "Perchè Internet ha bisogno di governance" - Affari&Finanza, La Repubblica 23 Nov 2009

by Antonella Giulia Pizzaleo

Buongiorno a tutti, vi segnalo un articolo di Brunetta sulla governance di Internet, pubblicato stamane su Affari e Finanza de la Repubblica. vi saluto, antonella http://www.repubblica.it/supplementi/af/2009/11/23/copertina/001late<http://goog_1258979506341> rales.html<http://www.repubblica.it/supplementi/af/2009/11/23/copertina/001laterales.h…> Perché Internet ha bisogno di governance RENATO BRUNETTA Ministro per la Pubblica Amministrazione e l'Innovazione L'importanza di Internet è talmente grande che è difficile prescindere dal suo funzionamento e sviluppo per il progresso dell'economia e della società. È in questo contesto che, da anni, si è iniziato a discutere di governance di Internet sul piano globale, anche nell'ambito di iniziative promosse dall'Ocse o dalle Nazioni Unite, come l'Internet Governance Forum (IGF), di cui nei giorni scorsi si è tenuta la quarta sessione a Sharm ElSheikh. In realtà la discussione non è, ad oggi, molto progredita perché resta poco chiaro l'oggetto stesso dell'analisi, essendo Internet, sotto l'azione dei suoi utilizzatori, una realtà in continua trasformazione. E questo dal punto di vista sia tecnologico che della sua estensione e trasformazione. Inoltre, la sua non territorialità pone il problema di chi siano gli attori autorizzati a discutere della sua governance. Sul tema, si affrontano due scuole di pensiero. La prima è quella dei "negazionisti", secondo la quale non esiste un problema di governance e il solo parlarne è dannoso. I "negazionisti" si appellano a tre argomentazioni: 1. ogni organizzazione istituzionale o comportamentale deve nascere, in e da Internet, in modo spontaneo, attraverso attività non coordinate degli utilizzatori; 2. Internet non è una singola rete organizzata da una o più entità, ma un vasto insieme di reti e di fonti di informazione eterogenee, che condividono una comune tecnologia, cioè il protocollo IP, e che quindi vi possono essere solo forme di autogoverno; 3. il concetto stesso di governance è dannoso perché aprirebbe ai governi e alle loro organizzazioni le porte di un regno "che non appartiene loro". La seconda scuola di pensiero critica questa impostazione difensiva sostenendo che si tratta di una visione vecchia del concetto di governance, che gli scienziati sociali ormai identificano in un insieme di regole e procedure condivise o collettivamente riconosciute, indipendentemente dal fatto che esse siano imposte dall'alto da qualche autorità o da un insieme di attori, anche privati. Questo approccio alla governance è posto al centro degli studi sulle regole di utilizzo dei "commons", cioè dei beni pubblici di accesso non limitato, come lo spazio esterno, lo spazio elettromagnetico e, un tempo, i mari. Tutti ambiti che richiedono una qualche forma di governance per tutelare l'interesse collettivo alla loro conservazione ed accessibilità universale. Studi che, come dimostrato dal premio Nobel per l'economia Elinor Ostrom, affrontano problemi centrali proprio delle economie della conoscenza. Esiste già oggi un'attività di coordinamento tecnico e di gestione giornaliera di funzioni chiave di Internet, quali la gestione dei domini e dei protocolli, affidata all'ICANN (Internet Corporation for the Assigned Names and Numbers), un'organizzazione non profit che ha sede negli USA. Questa gestione si basa su un modello di funzioni affidate al settore privato, gestite dal basso e che riconosce la molteplicità degli stakeholders. Ma il nodo della governance di Internet va oltre la sua gestione tecnica, seppur rilevante ed interconnessa con tutti gli altri temi. Seguendo la classificazione dell'UN Working Group on Internet Governance, accettata dall'Ocse, si possono identificare quattro grandi aree in cui raggruppare i temi rilevanti per le politiche pubbliche che hanno a che fare con Internet: 1. le infrastrutture tecniche e la gestione delle risorse critiche di Internet (tema sul quale si concentra la discussione relativa al ruolo dell'ICANN), 2. i problemi che riguardano l'uso di Internet (dalla cibercriminalità, alla sicurezza dei network e dei sistemi informativi, alle politiche di regolamentazione nazionali), 3. i temi che hanno un impatto più generale sulla società e sulle economie al di là di Internet, e sui quali vi sono istituzioni di vigilanza e di regolamentazione (dalla concorrenza, alla privacy, ai diritti di proprietà intellettuale), 4. lo sviluppo di Internet, il suo accesso universale, la sua dimensione sociale e di inclusione attraverso lo sviluppo di infrastrutture nazionali, l'accessibilità dei contenuti in modo da tener conto delle diversità culturali e linguistiche, la difesa dell'approccio opensource. È chiaro che l'importanza e la pervasività dei temi connessi alla governance di Internet pongono tutti di fronte a sfide e problemi di cui spesso è già difficile la definizione. Tuttavia, proprio il modo, in parte spontaneo ed anarchico ed in parte centralmente controllato, con il quale Internet ha fino ad oggi funzionato suggerisce che il primo passo per armonizzare una regolamentazione condivisa è partire dalle esperienze di governance di Internet che si possono registrare nel mondo. Analogamente accadde con il codice internazionale di navigazione moderno che trae origine dall'opera del giurista sardo Domenico Alberto Azuni il quale, incaricato nel 1791 da Vittorio Emanuele I di predisporre il codice della marina mercantile del Regno di Sardegna, raccolse nella sua opera Sistema universale dei principi del diritto marittimo in Europa le esperienze di regolazione della navigazione dei suoi tempi per poi utilizzarle nella redazione del codice marittimo e commerciale napoleonico. Il dibattito sulla governance di Internet è aperto a tutti gli interessati nello spirito della rete. L'importante è l'accordo sui principi fondamentali: libertà e universalità dell'accesso, libertà di espressione, sicurezza e stabilità della rete, concorrenza nel mercato globale dei domini, difesa del diritto alla riservatezza dei cittadini e della proprietà intellettuale. -- Antonella Giulia Pizzaleo mobile: +39 3496064133 email: pizzaleo(a)gmail.com skype: antonellagiulia

Nov. 23, 2009

stasera alle 21 "Rip! A Remix Manifesto" su Cult TV

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Vi segnalo che stasera alle ore 21 andra' in onda sul canale televisivo "Cult" la versione italiana del documentario "Rip! A Remix Manifesto", http://www.ripremix.com/. ciao, jc

Nov. 23, 2009

[Fwd: [ NNSquad ] What does an Internet Police State look like? The UK may show us!]

by J.C. DE MARTIN

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ NNSquad ] What does an Internet Police State look like? The UK may show us! Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:04:20 -0800 From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren(a)vortex.com> To: nnsquad(a)nnsquad.org What does an Internet Police State look like? The UK may show us! http://bit.ly/8ZXmMl (Boing Boing) If I may paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemoller: First they tapped the telephones, and I did not speak out--because I rarely used the telephone. Then they demanded that we all carry hi-tech ID cards, and I did not speak out--because the cards seemed oh so very convenient. Then they installed video surveillance CCTV cameras everywhere, and I did not speak out--because they told us that the cameras would fight crime and terrorism. Then they took control of the Internet, and I did not speak out--because they said that entertainment industry profits and monitoring of our Internet activities were much more important than individual freedoms. And then they came for me--and there was no way left to speak out at all. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator

Nov. 22, 2009

[Fwd: [A2k] In their own words: why they oppose the treaty to facilitate access and sharing of works for people with reading disabilities]

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Interessante leggere i modi coi quali si cerca di bloccare il tentativo di facilitare l'accesso alla conoscenza da parte di disabili. juan carlos -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] In their own words: why they oppose the treaty to facilitate access and sharing of works for people with reading disabilities Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:42:01 -0500 From: Manon Ress <manon.ress(a)keionline.org> To: a2k discuss list <a2k(a)lists.essential.org> References: <F30E8A9F-598C-4B01-89E3-69A428AC69F6(a)keionline.org> Yesterday I looked at WHO on earth would be opposed to a treaty to facilitate access and sharing of works for people with reading disabilities (Blog at: http://keionline.org/node/693) Today I looked at why. Let me know if you are interested in filing reply comments to the US Copyright office notice of inquiry. Manon In their own words: why they oppose the treaty to facilitate access and sharing of works for people with reading disabilities http://keionline.org/node/695 Now that we know who are the people opposed to an international treaty to facilitate access and sharing of accessible formats of works for blind people and people with reading disabilities, let’s read what their arguments against the treaty are. I was able to highlight 10 main arguments and you can check in their own words below if you do not believe me: Number 1, a treaty to facilitate access for reading disabled person is bad for copyright in general: it could “dismantle” the system. (Did the Chafee amendment dismantle US copyright, if so I did not notice)?) It is also a waste of resources, especially of WIPO’s resources, which is bad because WIPO has been so helpful in “helping developing countries” during the last two decades. Yes, this is a quote. A third “argument” is that it is not needed, it is not necessary, things are working great for people with reading disabilities. Let’s not “re-invent the wheel”. I guess less than 5% of what is published is good enough? The 4th argument (and there’s almost consensus on that one) is that the best for access for people with reading disabilities is that publishers help on a voluntary basis. Followed by statements about mission and commitments. Yes, it is working great since people with reading disabilities get less than 5% and the publishers recently decided to turn off text to speech on Kindle 2 because it might one day compete with audio books! Another almost consensual argument is that there are SO many issues other than copyright that are problematic, so why focus on copyright and exceptions to copyright? The argument was made by the US delegation at WIPO and since then it has become a mantra for the opponent of the treaty. So why talk about copyright? Well, I guess because this is being discussed at the World Intellectual Property Organization and the request for comments comes from the US Copyright Office and the US PTO among other reasons. Like the need to get access to information and knowledge without waiting for month or forever for permission to get a book in an accessible format? And why not a book made in another country for people with reading disabilities? I found it interesting that only one opponent of the treaty (JG) mentions the import and export issue (and only to say that it is not really "not" possible according to the law!). All the others (MPAA, RIAA, NS etc) are in total denial that the main point of the treaty is to make the import and export of works in accessible format possible...legal with certainty. It is really the main reason for people with reading disabilities to go for an international exception. To increase their limited collection of available titles, to not waste resources to make books in accessible formats in each country it is is wanted, an international explicit and certain exception is badly needed. Argument #6 is rarely expressed but is interesting: there is fear of “infringement and fear of loss of economic incentive for creation” from the publishers. Of course there is NO evidence that libraries and organization such as the Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic or Bookshare even tolerate anything close to a use without the right qualification (try, you’ll find out). And when it comes to “lack of incentives for creation” I am wondering how many US authors stopped writing when the Chafee amendments passed. I really would like to see evidence that writers stopped writing and publishers stopped making money. However, we have plenty of evidence that people with print disabilities do not have enough access even in the US where we have an exception! Argument # 7, the most commonly heard during “casual” talk at WIPO is that a treaty is “premature and even counter productive”. First, I was told and it is in the comments too, let’s try other ways to facilitate access. I am wondering what the people (probably now retired) who worked on the WIPO UNESCO meeting in the 80s would think about that. They already recommended a treaty as the solution to production and dissemination of accessible formats in 1983 and 1985. So 25 years is premature …or is it overdue? You pick, it depends if you are sighted or not I guess. Then you have a split among the opponents of the treaty: some say it is consistent, so consistent with existing international treaties…that it is not necessary. Others write that it is so inconsistent that it would create “ an irreconcilable conflict”. Either way, it is too hard, too complicated. I guess the WCT and WPPT were simple? Finally, and it is the best: Argument #10 the treaty is a “giant step”, it is a slippery slope...or is it too slow and complicated and would not do anything? You read their words and you decide. In their own words (JS= Jule Sigall for Microsoft, SM= Steven J. Metalitz for Association of American Publishers (AAP), Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA) Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA ), KK= Keith Kupferschmid for the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), JG= Jane C. Ginsburg and June M. Besek, for Columbia University; CC = Content Control groups but no name: Advanced Access Content Protection, Licensing Administrator, LLC, Content Management License Administrator, LLC, Digital Transmission License Administrator, LLC, DVD Copy Control Association 4C Entity, LLC, and NPR= National Public Radio: Joyce Slocum, Michael Riksen, Michael Starling, Julie M. Kearney, Gregory A. Lewis, FA=Fritz Attaway for MPAA. Argument #1 A treaty? Wrong strategy to facilitate access… and bad for copyright * -The proposed Treaty would reverse the basic policy established during 125 years of norm setting (FA) * -But among the strategies least likely to advance the goal of increased access by the blind and visually impaired is the path down which the draft treaty points: to begin to dismantle the existing global treaty structure of copyright law, through the adoption of an international instrument at odds with existing, longstanding and well- settled norms.(SM) * -While providing little or no real assistance to the intended beneficiaries, the proposed Treaty is vastly overbroad, is imprecise and inconsistent, and dramatically conflicts with both the policy and substance of existing international copyright norms.(FA) * -the text of the draft Treaty proposed last May is vastly overbroad, imprecise and contradictory, and in conflict with the letter and spirit of existing international copyright instruments. (FA) [yes, again] * Argument #2 A treaty? Wrong strategy and a waste of resource for WIPO (so good at helping developing countries though): * -No one, least of all the blind and visually impaired, would be well served if WIPO's resources were instead squandered on a divisive and ultimately unproductive exercise in imposing new global norms, fundamentally inconsistent with those that have marked the development of copyright law for more than a century. (SM) * Thus, even if member States succeeded in agreeing on the details of a supranational obligation to provide exceptions and limitations in favor of the visually impaired, past experience does not leave us optimistic that the result will in fact serve its intended beneficiaries. We do not mean to suggest, however, that WIPO cannot play an important role in ensuring the implementation of fair and reasonable exceptions for the blind and visually impaired in countries around the world. Over the past two decades WIPO has been instrumental in helping developing countries to formulate their laws. (JG) Argument #3: It's working great for the blind right now, why “re invent the wheel”: * -The existing legal framework is 1) flexible enough 2) proven to be working . The three-step test for exceptions and limitations to copyright protection, first adopted in the Berne Convention with respect to the reproduction right, and since adapted and extended to other rights in the TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Internet treaties, is fully capable of accommodating these adjustments. More precisely, there has been no demonstration that this authorization for the recognition of exceptions and limitations is too limited or too rigid to advance this goal.(SM) * -With each passing day, via the Internet and other digital technologies, the blind and visually impaired are being provided with more options, more alternatives and more opportunities.(KK) * -The greater flexibility provided by the time-tested approach of defining the scope of permissible exceptions better serves the long- term interests both of copyright owners and of the blind or visually impaired.(SM) * -Perhaps most disturbing about this proposed treaty-making effort is that there has been no showing that the three-part test is in any way inadequate to address the current access problems for the blind and visually impaired.6 Why re-invent the wheel, when we have a perfectly good wheel to use that is adequate to the task at hand. (KK) * -The comments from other parties filed in response to the first notice confirm that a binding international instrument would do little, if anything, to solve the practical problems facing the visually impaired with respect to gaining access to copyrighted works. (FA) * -The history of the software and digital content industries has shown that the answer to most technology-based problems lies principally in the stakeholders and the marketplace developing technical and business solutions. The software and digital content industry has worked with the blind community to reach consensus on ways to address numerous accessibility problems in the past (KK) * -There has been no showing that existing international copyright norms fail to provide adequate flexibilities to allow copyright limitations and exceptions necessary to make works accessible to the visually impaired and others with disabilities. (FA) * -The technological protection measures licensed by the undersigned groups have worked, individually and in combination, to allow hundreds of millions of consumers – including consumers with various disabilities – to enjoy audiovisual and other copyrighted content in new digital forms and over home networks.(CC) * -No evidence was offered that the flexibilities in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and other international copyright instruments are insufficient to permit member states to provide effective measures to facilitate access for the visually impaired geared to the particular needs of their citizens. (FA) * -For public radio, service to unserved and underserved audiences has long been central to its mission. (NPR) * - MPAA member companies have been actively involved for many years in providing voluntary solutions for the visually impaired, such as producing audio descriptions on motion pictures distributed theatrically and on DVD [...] A descriptive video version of the Disney movie, "Up," is currently available at the iTunes Store for blind patrons (FA) * Argument #4 The best for the people with print disabilities, is that it is voluntarily done by the publishers and other content owners: -Microsoft has taken voluntary steps for nearly twenty years to provide books in accessible formats (JS). * -As a result, Microsoft has a keen interest in making sure that the national and international copyright systems remain robust and effective in the digital age, for authors, publishers, distributors and users alike. Any solution to accessibility challenges must strike the right balance between removing barriers to making works accessible to people who are blind and others with disabilities in the most efficient way and preserving the important copyright incentives to the creation of books and other works. (JS) * -While Microsoft has not yet formed a position on the proposal or its specific provisions, we offer these observations about the underlying copyright issues from our experience in making copyrighted works accessible to those with disabilities. (JS) * -[examples of software and films} That activity is occurring without any explicit exemption in U.S. copyright law. (JS) * -The experience from other sectors like the software industry also highlights the concept that the best solutions to these problems are ones that rely primarily on the voluntary cooperation and collaboration of all interested parties, not specific mandates from the law.(JS) * -Another important aspect of voluntary mechanisms is that they help overcome impediments posed by national laws and borders. Where book publishers make available not only accessible versions of their works, but also copyright licenses that allow distribution by third parties in multiple countries, it becomes much easier for organizations like Reading for the Blind & Dyslexic and Bookshare to make the versions available, without the need to consult individual country laws to determine whether distribution can be made.(JS) * -Alternative approaches, such as the WIPO Stakeholders' Platform,may strike a better balance between the competing objectives of protecting copyrighted works and facilitating access through exceptions and limitations (NPR) * -The bilateral approach of mutual cooperation working within the marketplace is the best way to develop the technological solutions to the specific issues related to facilitating access to copyrighted works for the blind and visually impaired.(KK) * -WIPO is already doing much to address these issues, notably through the WIPO Stakeholders' Platform, an initiative that the signatory organizations strongly support.(SM) * -[WIPO's role is to do such as] encouraging harmonization of national laws around "best practices" where appropriate. (SM) * But: * -The treaty proposed by the World Blind Union follows the same basic approach embodied in the Chafee Amendment and the Section 110 exemptions by promoting access to copyright works specifically for the print and hearing impaired but otherwise promising to protect the work from further exploitation (NPR) * Argument #5 There are so many other issues, it is not really about copyright: * -[..]copyright law exceptions for people who are blind are not the only issue that affects how accessible books can be made more readily available....some of the other legal and non-legal issues that need to be addressed to improve the situation, such as lack of adequate funding and a need for better coordination among trusted organizations, educational institutions and publishers, to name a few (JS) * -As the USG statement points out, a number of "complex issues of law, technology, business, and human and financial resources" bear directly upon the accessibility question.(SM) * -It is important to note that the underlying cause of the issues purported to be addressed by the Treaty typically have nothing to do with copyright. No international instrument mandating copyright limitations and exceptions will meaningfully contribute to increased access, because the assumption that existing copyright law is an impediment to access by the visually impaired or other disabled people is wholly inaccurate[...] Measures that will truly facilitate access include greater funding for entities that distribute products accessible to the visually impaired, technological development and greater coordination among stakeholders. The focusing of attention and resources on an international instrument, at the expense of practical measures that would have a real world impact, stands to harm the interests of the visually impaired and other disabled people (FA) * -there are many considerations distinct from copyright protection that have a more substantial and direct effect on whether goods and services are made available in a way that is accessible to the blind and visually impaired. Focusing exclusively on copyright protection as a barrier to progress in this area is a mistake. And directing that focus on an international treaty is particularly unwise. (KK) * -The circumstances that impede access to copyrighted works by the visually impaired and others with disabilities are many and varied, but in most instances have nothing to do with copyright protection. (FA) * * Argument #6 Infringement and loss of economic incentive for creation * -The reticence of authors’ and publishers’ to license this activity is caused in part by fears that it may lead to infringement or otherwise undermine the economic incentive for the creation and distribution of books (JS) * -to the extent that the proposed Treaty would mandate gaping fissures in the current level of copyright protections with potentially devastating impact on incentives to create new works, society as a whole would be left with fewer works to access. (FA) * * Argument #7 A treaty? It’s premature, first, let’s try everything else (again and again)... * -First, book publishers should voluntarily make information available to the public about which of their titles are offered in accessible formats, and how intermediaries might contact them to obtain licenses to distribute those formats or additional accessible formats...Where it becomes apparent that publishers are unable or unwilling to make accessible versions available, the case for and contours of an appropriate copyright exception that is effective around the world becomes more clear and easily understood. (JS) * -the exception that would be mandated by the draft treaty has no real precedent in national law. Such a detailed mandate, drawn up without the benefit of practical experience in national legislation, is more likely to prove unrealistic or inflexible, and to need revision or recasting in a short period of time. Prudence counsels against including in an international instrument a mandatory directive to sail into these uncharted waters. (SM) * -It would be premature and counter-productive to prescribe in treaty form the very technologies and market that is facilitating, for the first time in human history, the very accessibility long sought by blind and visually impaired individuals. There is a real danger that these cooperative efforts could be adversely affected if WIPO or any government were to step in and attempt to create and implement copyright-specific mandates or exceptions that bind the hands of the stakeholders, especially those being proposed in the draft Treaty (KK) * * Argument #8 The treaty is not consistent * -the draft treaty takes the opposite approach, requiring signatories to enact extremely broad exceptions to copyright protection (such as those set forth in Article 4(a) of the proposal), which cannot possibly be considered consistent with the three-step test.(SM) * -the draft treaty recites (in Article 3(a)) that everything in it is consistent with the obligations of states under the Berne Convention, as well as the other copyright and neighboring rights treaties administered by WIPO. But the recitation rings false. To require a contracting party to adopt a sweeping exception, such as that outlined in Article 4(a), that would certainly fail to pass muster as even a permissible exception under Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention, Article 13 of TRIPS, Article 10 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), or Article 16 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), is to create an irreconcilable conflict. (SM) * * Argument #9 The treaty is not consistent and/or not necessary * -the permissive approach to exceptions in general – and the well- established three-step test in particular – has proven successful in bridging the gap between civil and common law legal systems. Consistent implementation of mandatory treaty provisions in the two types of legal systems, as well as in particular national variations upon them, has often been more problematic. The same could be expected in this case.(SM) * -Section 6 of this Proposal would require that individuals to be benefited by the new Treaty must be permitted “when necessary the right to circumvent the technological protection measure [applied to a work] so as to render the work accessible.” Such a broad new exemption obligation could fundamentally undermine the system of legal protection for technological protection measures that was created, and has been supported, by the anticircumvention provisions of the 1996 WIPO * -Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and the implementations of those treaties in domestic law, including, as noted above, in the anticircumvention provisions of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (CC) * -If the exceptions mandated by a new treaty were incompatible with the three-step test, then Berne art. 20 (incorporated in TRIPs via art 9(1)) would prohibit member States from enacting the treaty. Article 20 bars Berne member States from agreeing to provide a level of protection that is lower than that assured by the Convention’s substantive minimum protections. * -On the other hand, if the proposed exceptions are consistent with the minimum protections provided in Berne, then member States may implement them as a matter of domestic law, and there is no need for an international treaty. In sum, either the proposed treaty is ultra vires or it is unnecessary.(JG) * -The Treaty therefore allows a degree of flexibility, but only in the direction of providing greater “protections for the visually impaired” (i.e. exceptions), even where more narrow exceptions would suffice.(FA) * -With respect to importation, in fact, member States may, consistent with Berne-TRIPs, provide for the importation of copies of works in appropriate accessible formats. The Berne-TRIPs framework accommodates not only the production within a member State of accessible formats, but also the importation by one member State of accessible formats produced in another. As a result, an importation clause such as that proposed in art. 8 of the draft treaty may well be Berne-TRIPs-compatible, and for that very reason the clause could be adopted into national law under the current regime without the necessity for (and attendant disadvantages of) a new multilateral instrument.(JG) * -The TRIPs Agreement does not impose a higher level of protection in this regard. Importation controls under TRIPs arts. 44, 50 and 51 seem primarily to concern the lawfulness of the copy in the country of importation. Unlawful manufacture in the country of production is relevant to the classification of the copy as “pirated,” but the copy must nonetheless also be unlawfully made under the law of the country of importation, at least with respect to any TRIPs requirements that local customs officials block the importation. See Ricketson & Ginsburg, supra, paras. 11.77-11.80. (JG) * -Our analysis indicates that, while such a treaty (or parts of it) may be permissible, it is not necessary. Berne-TRIPs member States may currently, under their domestic law, implement all of the proposed treaty’s measures which are compatible with the Berne-TRIPs framework for national exceptions and limitations.(JG) * -a special treaty would not violate Berne art. 20, but would be unnecessary because the requisite limitations could be introduced into domestic law.(JG) * Argument #10 The treaty is a giant step...slippery slope...or it is too slow and complicated * -This brings us to the second unsound premise of the draft treaty: that even if an exception along the lines of Article 4(a) were consistent with the three-step test, this would not be enough to address the problem. Instead, the draft treaty goes one giant step farther, by mandating the adoption of such an exception in national laws. By requiring the recognition of a specific, detailed exception to copyright protection, the draft treaty would break the mold of every previous treaty instrument that forms part of the long-standing global framework of copyright norms.(SM) * -The Treaty would break new ground at WIPO by mandating one or more specific exceptions and limitations to copyright protection.(KK) * -the Treaty does not specify who may engage in the authorized exploitation of works. By contrast, the Chafee Amendment authorizes the reproduction and distribution of certain literary works by an "authorized entity," which is defined to mean a nonprofit organization or governmental agency that has a primary purpose to provide related services to blind or other persons with disabilities.(NPR) * -Viewed in context, the draft treaty appears to many as the not- so-thin edge of a wedge to be driven into the longstanding structure of global copyright norms. It advocates a U-turn in the approach to global copyright norms that would almost certainly not be restricted to the issue of access for the visually impaired, or even for the disabled community generally. Adoption of this proposal would be used to justify its radical approach — mandating in national law exceptions and limitations that reach far beyond what would be even permissible under global norms today — in many other fields of copyright law. (SM) * -the definition of “Disabilities Covered” in Article 15 applies to all disabilities without limitation. This language throws the door open to benefiting not just those with disabilities, but rather those whose disabilities are defined according to whether they are in some way impeded from accessing copyright works – including where the impediment may be from an external cause such as poverty or lack of access to technology.(FA) * -The draft treaty would turn this long-standing principle on its head, demanding that signatories limit copyright protection to an extent not even permissible under the existing treaties, and inviting them (in Article 2(d)) to go even further, to include "more extensive protections for the visually impaired and reading disabled." (SM) * -the impact of the treaty proposal would extend far beyond facilitating the access of blind and visually impaired people to the subset of works for which their particular condition presents an obstacle.(SM) * -Article 15(b) (signatories obliged to apply treaty to persons with "any other disability" to which an accessible format could be applied); (SM) * -it would be unwise to attempt to craft a new and potentially complicated international framework merely to address concerns that are likely to be addressed more rapidly and effectively by the marketplace than they could be by such a Treaty. The WIPO treaty- making process is inherently ill-equipped to effectively address many of issues that are certain to be raised. (KK) * -we are supportive of WIPO’s efforts being undertaken through its Stakeholders’ Platform. It would not benefit the copyright or blind and visually impaired communities to divert WIPO’s limited resources from these efforts in order to engage in a treaty-making exercise that would be conflict-ridden, time consuming, and lengthy and (at the end of the process) is unlikely to improve greatly (or at all) the existing situation. (KK) *************************************************************************** Manon Ress manon.ress(a)keionline.org Knowledge Ecology International 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel.: +1.202.332.2670, Fax: +1.202.332.2673 _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k(a)lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

Nov. 21, 2009