- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] How Copyright Can Be Viewed As Anti-Property

by Newsletters

Concordo sul fatto che si tratta di un tema estremamente affascinante. In realtà, il regime di proprietà di molti beni (beni mobili non registrati) non prevede alcun sistema di registrazione. Prevede, invece il possesso. A sua volta, il possesso dei quid oggetto dei cosiddetti diritti di proprietà intellettuale è di solito eventuale (naturalmente, può ben verificarsi quando vi è coincidenza tra opera e supporto: pensiamo a un quadro di Monet). Al contrario, per i beni fisici è di regola la norma. Ne testimonia il fatto che, proprio in tema di beni fisici mobili e non registrati, la regola comunemente nota come "possesso vale titolo" può addirittura prevalere sul diritto di proprietà, nel nome dell'esigenza di tutelare l'affidamento dei terzi e assicurare certezza dei traffici giuridici. La mia personalissima opinione è che, dunque, non si possa parlare di diritti di proprietà, proprio per la caratteristica tradizionale dei diritti di proprietà: godimento di un bene fisico scarso (situazione di fatto riconosciuta da una norma molto ampia di diritto) e, soprattutto, possesso. Si può, invece parlare di diritti di esclusiva, ovvero diritti che permettono a un soggetto di decidere se permettere o meno la fruizione (situazione di fatto, derivante dal contenuto di ogni specifico diritto di esclusiva) del quid a un altro soggetto. Diritti di esclusiva di questo genere rendono opportuna la previsione di sistemi di registrazione, nel nome di tre principi, che creano limiti agli stessi diritti di proprietà "tradizionali": maggiore certezza in tema di titolarità dei diritti di esclusiva, maggiore certezza dei traffici giuridici, tutela dell'affidamento dei terzi. Questa riflessione è influenzata da un risalente ma interessante saggio di RMS ("Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive Mirage") http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html) nonché dall'interessante scoperta, durante la tesi, che in realtà il dibattito sulla natura dei diritti di esclusiva sulle creazioni intellettuali è sempre stato vivo e, in fondo, non è mai arrivato a una conclusione univoca e universalmente condivisa, né dalla dottrina, né dai legislatori (nazionali, comunitari e internazionali). Basti pensare all'evoluzione della durata dei diritti (un regime di proprietà dovrebbe portare a diritti perpetui, mentre finora tutti i tentativi di rendere perpetui i diritti di esclusiva sulle creazioni intellettuali - marchi esclusi - non hanno avuto successo), oppure alla distinzione dottrinale di Lessig tra proprietà e proprietà creativa alla luce della costituzione degli Stati Uniti. A presto, Valentin Il giorno 22/lug/09, alle ore 10:32, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > Mi permetto di aggiungere un fatto notissimo agli addetti ai lavori > ma che andrebbe ripensato (v. anche proposta Copyright 2.0 del > prof Ricolfi): il copyright e' l'unico diritto di proprieta' senza > un sistema di registrazione. > > Nel momento in cui questa mancata registrazione (di cui conosco i > motivi > storici, ecc.ecc., non li discuto) crea molti piu' problemi che in > passato, > occorre valutare attentamente l'opportunita' di reintrodurla > in tutti i casi in cui si chiede alla societa' (tramite lo Stato) > di tutelare una certa opera. > > Insomma: vuoi la proprieta'? Allora rendine quantomeno facile > la gestione (come si fa per tutti gli altri tipi di proprieta'). > "Clear title", come direbbe Lessig. > > juan carlos > > > Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> L'argomento e` effettivamente molto interessante. Tuttavia, temo >> che in ambito europeo (o meglio UE) le possibilita` di argomentare >> che il diritto d'autore non sia un diritto di proprieta` siano >> alquanto ristretti - si vedano i considerando 3 e 9 della direttiv >> 2001/29/EC (l'EUCD). D'altronde, almeno per l'Italia, considerare >> il diritto d'autore come un diritto di proprieta` ha i suoi >> vantaggi, specialmente se si considera l'art. 42(2) della >> Costituzione Italiana (il c.d. "articolo sovietico", come ebbe a >> definirlo il nostro attuale PdC). Saluti, Andrea On Wed, Jul 22, >> 2009 at 10:10:42AM +0200, Marco Pancini wrote: >>> >>> Interessante: http://techdirt.com/articles/ >>> 20090719/0108125588.shtml -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy >>> Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. >>> +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow >>> me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may >>> be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication >>> by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase >>> all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went >>> to the wrong person. Thanks. >>> _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/ >>> mailman/listinfo/nexa > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

July 22, 2009

Re: [nexa] How Copyright Can Be Viewed As Anti-Property

by Marcello Mustilli

July 22, 2009

Re: [nexa] How Copyright Can Be Viewed As Anti-Property

by Andrea Glorioso

In tema, mi permetto di segnalare che la Commissione Europea aprira` molto presto una consultazione pubblica sul seguito del programma i2010 (la parte "societa` dell'informazione" del programma di Lisbona). Il programma e` al momento noto, con la fantasia che ci contraddistingue, come "post-i2010". E` quasi certo che il tema della "creativita`", che include ovviamente i diritti di "proprieta` intellettuale" e il diritto d'autore, saranno oggetto di domande specifiche. E in ogni caso, come in tutte le consultazione, sara` possibile inviare dei "position paper" piu` elaborati. A presto, Andrea On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:32:53AM +0200, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > Mi permetto di aggiungere un fatto notissimo agli addetti ai lavori > ma che andrebbe ripensato (v. anche proposta Copyright 2.0 del > prof Ricolfi): il copyright e' l'unico diritto di proprieta' senza > un sistema di registrazione. > > Nel momento in cui questa mancata registrazione (di cui conosco i motivi > storici, ecc.ecc., non li discuto) crea molti piu' problemi che in passato, > occorre valutare attentamente l'opportunita' di reintrodurla > in tutti i casi in cui si chiede alla societa' (tramite lo Stato) > di tutelare una certa opera. > > Insomma: vuoi la proprieta'? Allora rendine quantomeno facile > la gestione (come si fa per tutti gli altri tipi di proprieta'). > "Clear title", come direbbe Lessig. > > juan carlos > > > Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> L'argomento e` effettivamente molto interessante. Tuttavia, temo >> che in ambito europeo (o meglio UE) le possibilita` di argomentare >> che il diritto d'autore non sia un diritto di proprieta` siano >> alquanto ristretti - si vedano i considerando 3 e 9 della direttiv >> 2001/29/EC (l'EUCD). >> >> D'altronde, almeno per l'Italia, considerare il diritto d'autore >> come un diritto di proprieta` ha i suoi vantaggi, specialmente >> se si considera l'art. 42(2) della Costituzione Italiana (il c.d. >> "articolo sovietico", come ebbe a definirlo il nostro attuale >> PdC). >> >> Saluti, >> >> Andrea >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:10:42AM +0200, Marco Pancini wrote: >> >>> Interessante: >>> http://techdirt.com/articles/20090719/0108125588.shtml >>> >>> -- >>> Marco Pancini >>> European Senior Policy Counsel >>> Google Italy >>> Corso Europa, 2 >>> 20122 Milano, Italia >>> Tel. +39 02 36618524 >>> Cell. +39.348.9946222 >>> pancini(a)google.com >>> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit >>> >>> This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this >>> communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please >>> erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the >>> wrong person. Thanks. >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> nexa mailing list >>> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >>> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >>> >> >> >> > -- 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

July 22, 2009

Re: [nexa] How Copyright Can Be Viewed As Anti-Property

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Mi permetto di aggiungere un fatto notissimo agli addetti ai lavori ma che andrebbe ripensato (v. anche proposta Copyright 2.0 del prof Ricolfi): il copyright e' l'unico diritto di proprieta' senza un sistema di registrazione. Nel momento in cui questa mancata registrazione (di cui conosco i motivi storici, ecc.ecc., non li discuto) crea molti piu' problemi che in passato, occorre valutare attentamente l'opportunita' di reintrodurla in tutti i casi in cui si chiede alla societa' (tramite lo Stato) di tutelare una certa opera. Insomma: vuoi la proprieta'? Allora rendine quantomeno facile la gestione (come si fa per tutti gli altri tipi di proprieta'). "Clear title", come direbbe Lessig. juan carlos Andrea Glorioso wrote: > L'argomento e` effettivamente molto interessante. Tuttavia, temo > che in ambito europeo (o meglio UE) le possibilita` di argomentare > che il diritto d'autore non sia un diritto di proprieta` siano > alquanto ristretti - si vedano i considerando 3 e 9 della direttiv > 2001/29/EC (l'EUCD). > > D'altronde, almeno per l'Italia, considerare il diritto d'autore > come un diritto di proprieta` ha i suoi vantaggi, specialmente > se si considera l'art. 42(2) della Costituzione Italiana (il c.d. > "articolo sovietico", come ebbe a definirlo il nostro attuale > PdC). > > Saluti, > > Andrea > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:10:42AM +0200, Marco Pancini wrote: > >> Interessante: >> http://techdirt.com/articles/20090719/0108125588.shtml >> >> -- >> Marco Pancini >> European Senior Policy Counsel >> Google Italy >> Corso Europa, 2 >> 20122 Milano, Italia >> Tel. +39 02 36618524 >> Cell. +39.348.9946222 >> pancini(a)google.com >> Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit >> >> This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this >> communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please >> erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the >> wrong person. Thanks. >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >> > > >

July 22, 2009

Re: [nexa] How Copyright Can Be Viewed As Anti-Property

by Andrea Glorioso

L'argomento e` effettivamente molto interessante. Tuttavia, temo che in ambito europeo (o meglio UE) le possibilita` di argomentare che il diritto d'autore non sia un diritto di proprieta` siano alquanto ristretti - si vedano i considerando 3 e 9 della direttiv 2001/29/EC (l'EUCD). D'altronde, almeno per l'Italia, considerare il diritto d'autore come un diritto di proprieta` ha i suoi vantaggi, specialmente se si considera l'art. 42(2) della Costituzione Italiana (il c.d. "articolo sovietico", come ebbe a definirlo il nostro attuale PdC). Saluti, Andrea On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:10:42AM +0200, Marco Pancini wrote: > Interessante: > http://techdirt.com/articles/20090719/0108125588.shtml > > -- > Marco Pancini > European Senior Policy Counsel > Google Italy > Corso Europa, 2 > 20122 Milano, Italia > Tel. +39 02 36618524 > Cell. +39.348.9946222 > pancini(a)google.com > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit > > This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this > communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please > erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the > wrong person. Thanks. > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- 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

July 22, 2009

[Fwd: [IRP] facebook and privacy - canada]

by J.C. DE MARTIN

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IRP] facebook and privacy - canada Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:02:20 +0100 From: Lisa Horner <lisa(a)global-partners.co.uk> To: irp <Irp(a)lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> Thought this might be of interest to people looking at privacy and social networking -- extracted from the EPIC newsletter... ======================================================================= [4] Canadian Commissioner Holds that Facebook Must Strengthen Privacy ======================================================================= The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada released a Report of "Findings into the Complaint Filed by the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic" against Facebook, Inc. The complaint was filed by the CIPPIC under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, and contained twenty-four allegations concerning a range of Facebook business practices. The PIPEDA covers privacy protections by private data holders, including the actions of third parties to whom the data holders provide information. It requires data holders to obtain individual consent for any use of such data, and requires data holders, upon request, to provide details regarding the nature of information held, and a list of all third parties to whom the information has been provided. The charges include allegations that Facebook fails to inform users: how it uses the personal information it collects; the extent of disclosures of such information to the more than 950,000 third-party application developers; of new uses of the personal data collected; of monitoring for anomalous behavior; and, of persistent cookies in mobile Facebook. The complaint further alleges that Facebook fails to allow for deletion (as opposed to deactivation) of user accounts or obtain consent from non-users for upload and storage of personal information. Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart stated that while Facebook has clearly made efforts to maintain user privacy, "we found serious privacy gaps in the way the site operates." Facebook has agreed to many of the Commission's recommendations, and has also proposed what the Commission calls "reasonable alternatives" to others. The company has not, however, addressed all of the recommendations, noting that under the current "statement of rights and responsibilities" it would have to consult users regarding changes to certain policies. The Commission, however, states in its report that "[w]hile we understand the importance Facebook places on user feedback, the legislative requirements and obligations imposed by the Act are not contingent on user approval." The Commission will review Facebook's new policies in 30 days to assess that the company is in compliance with the ruling. If Facebook's changes are unsatisfactory, the Commission can take the issue to Federal Court to enforce the recommendations. In June, the Article 29 Working Party warned about the dissemination and use of information available on Social Networking Sites for other secondary, unintended purposes. Earlier, in February, Facebook had announced that it was opening its site governance to user voting after the new Terms of Service were widely criticized, and were to be the subject of an EPIC complaint to the Federal Trade Commission. Facebook restored the old terms and sought user feedback on the new terms. About 75 percent of the users voted to adopt new terms re-drafted from user feedback. Under the updated terms, users have the right to "own and control their information." Facebook had also taken some steps to improve account deletion, to limit sublicenses, and reduce data exchanges with application developers. EPIC supported the adoption of the new terms. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: http://www.priv.gc.ca/index_e.cfm Report of Findings into the Complaint Filed by the CIPPIC against Facebook, Inc. under PIPEDA: http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2009/2009_008_0716_e.cfm Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA): http://www.priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2009/2009_008_0716_e.cfm#appendixB Article 29 Working Party Opinion of Social Networking Sites: http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/Opinion_SNS_090316_Adopted.pdf Facebook Privacy Policy: http://www.facebook.com/policy.php Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php EPIC - Facebook Privacy: http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ EPIC - Social Networking Privacy: http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/ ___________________________________________________________ *Lisa Horner* *Head of Research & Policy **Global Partners and Associates*** 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK Office: + 44 207 239 8251 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 *lisa(a)global-partners.co.uk <mailto:lisa@global-partners.co.uk>** **www.global-partners.co.uk <http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>** * _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP(a)lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetright…

July 22, 2009

How Copyright Can Be Viewed As Anti-Property

by Marco Pancini

Interessante: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090719/0108125588.shtml -- Marco Pancini European Senior Policy Counsel Google Italy Corso Europa, 2 20122 Milano, Italia Tel. +39 02 36618524 Cell. +39.348.9946222 pancini(a)google.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/googlepolicyit This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.

July 22, 2009

Pirate Bay ?

by Marco Ciurcina

http://www.dcia.info/news/newsletter_2009-07-13.htm Welcome Global Gaming Factory Please warmly welcome Global Gaming Factory (GGF) to the DCIA. GGF has the largest network of Internet cafes and gaming centers in the world and provides advertisers, software publishers, and service providers with unprecedented access to the large community of tourists and gamers that visit these centers. GGF's existing wholly owned subsidiaries, Smartlaunch and CyberCafePro, are the leading publishers of cafe management software that is used by thousands of cafes globally. GGF has agreed to acquire P4P Working Group (P4PWG) participant Peerialism, a technology company which has developed next generation file-sharing technology, for $13 million, and The Pirate Bay (TPB), one of the 100 most visited websites in the world, for $7.8 million. Following the completion of these acquisitions, GGF intends to launch new business models that will allow compensation to content rights holders and monetize the bandwidth contributed by P2P users. The responsibility for and operation of the TPB site will be taken over by GGF in connection with closing of the transaction, which is scheduled for August. Peerialism's product for video distribution over the Internet - PeerTV - enables content owners to distribute better quality video at significantly lower costs to many more viewers than alternative approaches. Cost savings are between 50% and 90% depending on network conditions, while the maximum number of simultaneous viewers is almost limitless. Its PeerNet helps broadband operators minimize network traffic by making better use of existing infrastructure. Large and popular content files are temporarily stored and distributed from local P2P-caches in the access networks, reducing peak traffic loads on weak links further up in the network. And finally, Peerialism's P2P Components are tools to build and analyze P2P networks: MyP2PWorld, a complete P2P network simulator; Link Assess, which measures the instantaneous quality of any link between two nodes; and Net Topology, A P2P component to help construct a locality-aware overlay network. Hans Pandeya, CEO of GGF, said, "As a result of the acquisitions of Peerialism and TPB, GGF will have a strategic position in the international digital distribution market. File-sharing traffic is estimated to account for more than half of today's global Internet traffic." He added that technology and broadband providers, service providers, search engines, and rights holders will all benefit from a clearer authorized downloading landscape. "GGF wants to accept the challenge to position itself as a respectable participant in the market and contribute to the Internet's infrastructure, with the goal to establish working models for cooperation and a clear allocation of responsibilities on market terms, respecting both intellectual property (IP) rights and the rights of privacy," the company said.

July 21, 2009

NY Times Op-Ed by JZ: "Lost in the Cloud"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

The New York Times July 20, 2009 Op-Ed Contributor Lost in the Cloud By JONATHAN ZITTRAIN Cambridge, Mass. EARLIER this month Google announced a new operating system called Chrome. It's meant to transform personal computers and handheld devices into single-purpose windows to the Web. This is part of a larger trend: Chrome moves us further away from running code and storing our information on our own PCs toward doing everything online - also known as in "the cloud" - using whatever device is at hand. Many people consider this development to be as sensible and inevitable as the move from answering machines to voicemail. With your stuff in the cloud, it's not a catastrophe to lose your laptop, any more than losing your glasses would permanently destroy your vision. In addition, as more and more of our information is gathered from and shared with others - through Facebook, MySpace or Twitter - having it all online can make a lot of sense. The cloud, however, comes with real dangers. (continued ...) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/opinion/20zittrain.html

July 20, 2009

Mark Cooper, "Round #1 Of The Digital Intellectual Property War"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

"Round #1 Of The Digital Intellectual Property Wars: Economic Fundamentals, Not Piracy, Explain How Consumers And Artists Won In The Music Sector" Mark Cooper, Director Of Research, Consumer Federation Of America Fellow, Center For Internet And Society http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5916 Abstract: v. qui sotto. Citato da Larry Lessig in "Remix" (nota 32 al Capitolo 5). ciao, juan carlos ABSTRACT Piracy may have been the solvent that dissolved the glue of an anticompetitive, anti- consumer market structure, but its magnitude has been vastly overestimated by the industry and the transformation of the industry is perfectly consistent with economic theory. With the advent of digital technologies, three quarters of the cost of producing a CD come under severe pressure. The fixed costs of distribution all but disappear and intermediary functions of promotion are transformed. The effort by record companies to keep singles out of the market and to keep CD prices high was a bald effort to use market power to prevent consumers from enjoying the benefits of more efficient distribution that would flow to them in a competitive market. The benefits were huge. The number of units purchased by the public has more than tripled – but the vast majority of units sold are singles and most are not owned by record companies. The average price per unit shipped has declined by 70 percent. Gains in consumer surplus are close to $6 billion in 2007 alone. The vast majority of artists were beneficiaries as well. Comparing the sales claimed by record companies to the sales claimed by digital distribution companies, it appears that for every single sold by a record company there are three additional songs sold by an unsigned artist. Of course, the dominant firms in the tight, music oligopoly and the handful of artists who benefits from the blockbuster/star system have suffered a reduction in the rents they collect.

July 19, 2009