- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

copyright and patent
by armeo＠mail.nexacenter.org Sept. 18, 2018

Sept. 18, 2018

carissimi, non entro nella complessa questione del copyright anche se vi lascio immaginare come la pensa uno che da decenni mette i suoi contributi in Rete assolutamente "liberi". (Vi rimando al sito "fare,polito.it" dove trovate molte centinaia di "learning objects free"). Ma sollevo una questione strettamente collegata: la questione del brevetto. Qualunque nuovo prodotto è frutto di fantastiliardi di innovazioni precedenti e non è possibile quantizzare l'importanza di una nuova idea. Inoltre, i brevetti depositati ogni anno sono milioni, per cui gli uffici brevetti approvano sempre qualunque proposta, con preferenza per le proposte delle aziende più importanti. Provate a fare una ricerca con parole chiave "patent" e "toilet". Infine, una causa brevettuale costa più di un milione di dollari al giorno, per cui nessuna inpresa piccola o media la può affrontare. Quindi i l'istituzione del brevetto favorisce le imprese più ricche e i sistemi paese più potenti con grave danno per il nostro Paese. Morale (nella speranza di salvarmi dal rogo degli eresiarchi): _l'istituto del brevetto deve essere abolito._ Raf

6 14

direttiva copyright
by Carlo Melzi d'Eril Sept. 17, 2018

Sept. 17, 2018

Carissimi, mi permetto di segnalare un breve intervento uscito ieri sul Sole 24 Ore. http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/mondo/2018-09-13/la-buona-informazione-che-g… Buona giornata a tutti avv. Carlo Melzi d'Eril ACCMS STUDIO LEGALE via Podgora 13 20122 Milano t. +39 02 54107715 f. +39 02 54114827 carlo.melzi(a)accms.it carlo.melzideril(a)cert.ordineavvocatimilano.it …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Nota di riservatezza : Il presente messaggio e gli eventuali allegati contengono informazioni strettamente riservate. Esso è riservato esclusivamente al destinatario sopra indicato, il quale è l'unico autorizzato ad usarlo, copiarlo e, sotto la propria responsabilità, diffonderlo. Si segnala, a chiunque ricevesse questo messaggio per errore o comunque ne avesse conoscenza senza averne titolo, che trattenerlo o divulgarlo a persone diverse dal destinatario è proibito. Grazie.

11 23

intermediati e Zipf
by attardi Sept. 17, 2018

Sept. 17, 2018

Ripropongo la questione dell'intermediazione (Quintarelli) e degli effetti della legge di Zipf (Attardi) nel mondo digitale, che mi pare meriti una più ampia discussione. Come fa notare Richard Bennett: Chris Anderson has been proved wrong. The Internet doesn’t increase sales of the long tail, it concentrates sales of blockbusters. Similarly, the Internet doesn't eliminate middlemen, it reduces their number and makes them more powerful; we’ve known this for ten years (https://hbr.org/2008/07/should-you-invest-in-the-long-tail) --

2 1

Philosophy & Technology, Volume 31, Issue 3 - Springer
by Diego Giorio Sept. 16, 2018

Sept. 16, 2018

Numero dedicato alla Cyberwar, alla deterrenza nel mondo virtuale e simili. Personalmente ho appena iniziato a scaricare il contenuto gratuito e non ho iniziato a leggere, ma credo possa essere di interesse pera altri nexiani. Buona domenica a tutti D. https://link.springer.com/journal/13347/31/3

1 0

Sony Finally Admits It Doesn’t Own Bach and It Only Took a Bunch of Public Pressure
by Alberto Cammozzo Sept. 16, 2018

Sept. 16, 2018

Se il "giudice" non sta nemmeno a Berlino, ma su Twitter... <https://www.eff.org/takedowns/sony-finally-admits-it-doesnt-own-bach-and-it…> Here’s the thing about different people playing the same piece of music: sometimes, they’re going to sound similar. And when music is by a composer who died 268 years ago, putting his music in the public domain, a bunch of people might record it and some of them might put it online. In this situation, a combination of copyright bots and corporate intransigence led to a Kafkaesque attack on music. Musician James Rhodes put a video <https://www.facebook.com/jamesrhodespiano/videos/232063150806956/> of himself playing Bach on Facebook. Sony Music Entertainment claimed <https://twitter.com/JRhodesPianist/status/1036929244654460928> that 47 seconds of that performance belonged to them. Facebook muted the video as a result. So far, this is stupid but not /unusually/ stupid in the world of takedowns. It’s what happened after Rhodes got Sony’s notice that earned it a place in the Hall of Shame. One argument in favor of this process is that there are supposed to be checks and balances. Takedown notices are supposed to only be sent by someone who owns the copyright in the material and actually believes that copyright’s been infringed. And if a takedown notice is wrong, a counter-notice can be sent by someone explaining that they own the work or that it’s not infringement. Counter-notices have a lot of problems, not the least of which is that the requirements are onerous for small-time creators, requiring a fair bit of personal information. There’s always the fear that, even for someone who knows they own the work, that the other side will sue them anyway, which they cannot afford. Rhodes did dispute the claim, explaining that “this is my own performance of Bach. Who died 300 years ago. I own all the rights.” Sony rejected this reasoning <https://twitter.com/JRhodesPianist/status/1039172935112638466>. While we don’t know for sure what Sony’s process is, we can guess that a copyright bot, or a human acting just as mechanically, was at the center of this mess. A human doing actual analysis would have looked at a video of a man playing a piece of music older than American copyright law and determined that it was not something they owned. It almost feels like an automatic response also rejected Rhodes’ appeal, because we certainly hope a thoughtful person would have received his notice and accepted it. Rhodes took his story to Twitter, where it picked up some steam, and emailed the heads of Sony Classical and Sony’s public relations, eventually getting his audio restored. He tweeted <https://twitter.com/JRhodesPianist/status/1039197601093103616> “What about the thousands of other musicians without that reach…?” He raises a good point. None of the supposed checks worked. Public pressure and the persistence of Rhodes was the only reason this complaint went away, despite how the rules are supposed to protect fair use and the public domain. How many <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/copyright-law-shouldnt-pick-winners> more <https://www.eff.org/takedowns/ten-hours-static-gets-five-copyright-notices> ways <https://www.eff.org/takedowns/topple-track-attacks-eff-and-others-outrageou…> do we need to say that copyright bots and filters don’t work? That mandating them, as the European Union is poised to do <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/how-eus-copyright-filters-will-make-i…>, is dangerous and shortsighted? We hear about these misfires roughly the same way they get resolved: because they generate enough noise. How many more lead to a creator’s work being taken down with no recourse?

1 0

NYT: "Mozilla Co-Founder's Brave Files Adtech Complaint Against Google"
by J.C. DE MARTIN Sept. 15, 2018

Sept. 15, 2018

*Mozilla Co-Founder's Brave Files Adtech Complaint Against Google** * By Reuters Sept. 12, 2018 COLOGNE, Germany — Brave, a privacy-focused web browser set up by Silicon Valley engineering guru Brendan Eich, filed privacy complaints in Britain and Ireland that could become a test case against search company Google and other digital advertising firms. The petitioners say they want to trigger an article in the new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requiring an EU-wide investigation, making it a test case for a new European Data Protection Board created to give the privacy regime more teeth. The GDPR seeks to ensure that individuals have greater control over the data that companies hold about them. Brave and the co-plaintiffs say Google and others are playing fast and loose with people's data. "There is a massive and systematic data breach at the heart of the behavioral advertising industry. Despite the two-year lead-in period before the GDPR, adtech companies have failed to comply," Brave's chief policy officer Johnny Ryan told Reuters. [....] Continua qui: https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/09/12/technology/12reuters-europe-priv…

2 1

Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free
by Vincenzo Mario Bruno Giorgino Sept. 14, 2018

Sept. 14, 2018

Condivido un articolo che mette con chiarezza sul tavolo la questione fondamentale della libertà nella produzione scientifica. Un saluto, Vincenzo Giorgino Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/13/scientific-publishing…

1 0

Caso Snowden, la decisione della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell'Uomo
by Guido Noto La Diega Sept. 13, 2018

Sept. 13, 2018

In allegato la decisione della ECtHR nel caso Snowden o Big Brother Watch v UK. A sorpresa, si fa per dire, il Regno Unito ha violato il diritto alla privacy nelle sue attività di spionaggio

1 0

How Technology is Hijacking Your Mind — from a Magician and Google Design Ethicist
by Alberto Cammozzo Sept. 12, 2018

Sept. 12, 2018

Bella sintesi, esempi chiarissimi. <https://medium.com/thrive-global/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-…> I’m an expert on how technology hijacks our psychological vulnerabilities. That’s why I spent the last three years as a Design Ethicist at Google caring about how to design things in a way that defends a billion people’s minds from getting hijacked. When using technology, we often focus /optimistically/ on all the things it does for us. But I want to show you where it might do the opposite. /Where does technology exploit our minds’ weaknesses/? I learned to think this way when I was a magician. Magicians start by looking for /blind spots, edges, vulnerabilities and/ /limits/ of people’s perception, so they can influence what people do without them even realizing it. Once you know how to push people’s buttons, you can play them like a piano. And this is exactly what product designers do to your mind. They play your psychological vulnerabilities (consciously and unconsciously) against you in the race to grab your attention. I want to show you how they do it. Hijack #1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices Western Culture is built around ideals of individual choice and freedom. Millions of us fiercely defend our right to make “free” choices, while we ignore how those choices are manipulated upstream by menus we didn’t choose in the first place. This is exactly what magicians do. They give people the illusion of free choice while architecting the menu so that they win, no matter what you choose. I can’t emphasize enough how deep this insight is. When people are given a menu of choices, they rarely ask: * “what’s not on the menu?” * “why am I being given /these options/ and not others?” * “do I know the menu provider’s goals?” * “is this menu /empowering/ for my original need, or are the choices actually a distraction?” (e.g. an overwhelmingly array of toothpastes) For example, imagine you’re out with friends on a Tuesday night and want to keep the conversation going. You open Yelp to find nearby recommendations and see a list of bars. The group turns into a huddle of faces staring down at their phones /comparing bars. /They scrutinize the photos of each, comparing cocktail drinks. Is this menu still relevant to the original desire of the group? It’s not that bars aren’t a good choice, it’s that Yelp substituted the group’s original question (“where can we go to keep talking?”) with a different question (“what’s a bar with good photos of cocktails?”) all by shaping the menu. Moreover, the group falls for the illusion that Yelp’s menu represents a /complete set of choices/ for where to go. While looking down at their phones, they don’t see the park across the street with a band playing live music. They miss the pop-up gallery on the other side of the street serving crepes and coffee. Neither of those show up on Yelp’s menu. [...]

1 0

Press protections might safeguard Google’s algorithms, even from Trump
by gianlucaquaglia＠gmail.com Sept. 11, 2018

Sept. 11, 2018

Press protections might safeguard Google’s algorithms, even from Trump By Jared Schroeder SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 PRESIDENT TRUMP INDICATED LAST WEEK that the White House is looking into regulating Google, Facebook, and Twitter because they are, he alleges, privileging voices that criticize him while suppressing his supporters’ ideas. He wrote, in a series of early morning tweets on August 28, that “Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation – will be addressed!” Trump’s suggestion that these companies are privileging certain information while suppressing other content followed similar accusations made by Infowars founder Alex Jones and other right-wing figures of bias against conservatives. How, exactly, would this blanket suggestion to regulate these companies work? When we’re talking about regulating the information that comes up in Google searches or appears in people’s timelines on Facebook or Twitter, we’re really talking about governing algorithms and the decisions they make about which information should be provided and prioritized. Regulating algorithms might seem like entirely new legal territory, since Google and its cousins are only two decades old. But a newspaper case from 1974 has quite a bit to say about whether the government can control, under the First Amendment, companies’ algorithms and how they produce and organize information. In Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the Supreme Court struck down a Florida law that gave political candidates the “right of reply” to criticisms they faced in newspapers. The law required the newspaper to publish a response from the candidate, and to place it, free of charge, in a conspicuous place. [...] il seguito https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/press-protections-might-safeguard-google…

2 1