From Michael S. Hart" References: <1246110798.4922.406.camel@localhost> Message-ID: There are lessons the great thinkers of history have learned at great expense, and some of us are trying to ignore them. First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. We must hang together or assuredly we shall hang separately. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jul 2 03:28:57 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:28:57 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] BBN Gets $30M DARPA Award to Teach Machines to Read References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A3AC84D.62A8CD8B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A4C1B69.FF75833E@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (So will this be publicly-available technology? -- Seth) > http://bbn.com/news_and_events/press_releases/2009_press_releases/pr_machine_tran BBN Technologies Awarded $30 Million in Defense Funding to Teach Machines to Read Cambridge, Mass., June 22, 2009 — BBN Technologies, an advanced technology solutions firm, has been awarded $29.7 million in funding by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under the Machine Reading program in a contract awarded by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The goal of the Machine Reading program is to develop a revolutionary, automated reading system that bridges the gap between naturally occurring text and the artificial intelligence reasoning systems that need such knowledge. Although this intelligent learning system would initially be used to automate military intelligence analysis, it could also enable a variety of civilian applications. For example, as more and more of the world’s libraries are converted to digital text, this system could provide unprecedented access and automated analysis, allowing for vastly expanded cultural awareness and historical and cultural research. Under this contract, BBN will leverage its expertise in natural language processing and distillation to develop a universal text engine that captures knowledge from text and transforms it into the formal representations required by artificial intelligence systems. A central goal of the research effort is to develop techniques that can generalize across the linguistic structure and content of diverse documents to extract relations and axioms directly from text rather than relying on a knowledge engineer to encode such information. A related goal is to develop techniques capable of performing such automatic extraction of text at the massive scale available on the World Wide Web. Over the course of the five-year program, BBN’s system will be tested against increasingly complex targets, including its ability to learn axioms from text and to read and digest vast quantities of Web text. Prem Natarajan, vice president, Speech and Language Processing, BBN Technologies, said, "The machine reading system that DARPA envisions is not evolutionary, but revolutionary. Such a system could eliminate many of the impediments to stability that our military faces such as a lack of understanding of local customs, and give us the ability to assess global technology developments continuously." About BBN Technologies BBN Technologies is a legendary R&D organization that leverages its substantial intellectual property portfolio to produce advanced, repeatable solutions such as the Boomerang shooter detection system. With expertise spanning information security, speech and language processing, networking, distributed systems, and sensing and control systems, BBN scientists and engineers have amassed a substantial collection of innovations and patented solutions. BBN now employs over 780 people in seven locations in the US: Cambridge, Massachusetts (headquarters); Arlington, Virginia; Columbia, Maryland; Middletown, Rhode Island; San Diego, California; St. Louis Park, Minnesota; and O'Fallon, Illinois. For more information,visit www.bbn.com. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Mon Jul 6 19:21:54 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:21:54 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] DOJ Opens Review of Telecom Industry References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A5240C2.EA66806A@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124689740762401297.html DOJ Opens Review of Telecom Industry By AMOL SHARMA JULY 6, 2009, 12:42 P.M. ET The Department of Justice has begun an initial review to determine whether large U.S. telecom companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. have abused the market power they've amassed in recent years, according to people familiar with the matter. The review of potential anti-competitive practices is in its very early stages, and it isn't a formal investigation of any specific company at this point, the people said. It isn't clear whether the agency intends to launch an official inquiry. Among the areas the Justice Department could explore is whether wireless carriers are hurting smaller competitors by locking up popular phones through exclusive agreements with handset makers, according to the people. In recent weeks lawmakers and regulators have raised questions about deals such as AT&T's exclusive right to provide service for Apple Inc.'s popular iPhone in the U.S. The Justice Department may also review whether telecom carriers are unduly restricting the types of services other companies can offer on their networks, one person familiar with the situation said. The scrutiny of the telecom industry is an indication of the Obama administration's aggressive stance on antitrust enforcement. The Justice Department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, has said she wants to reassert the government's role in policing monopolistic and anti-competitive practices by powerful companies. The statute that governs such behavior – the Sherman Antitrust Act – was used by the government in cases against giants ranging from Standard Oil to Microsoft Corp. But it lay essentially dormant during the Bush years, with the agency bringing no major case. Now Ms. Varney plans to revive that area of U.S. law, and the telecom industry is among several sectors – including health care and agriculture – that are coming under scrutiny, the people familiar with the matter said. She is already tackling one high-tech area by investigating Google Inc.'s settlement with authors and publishers over its Book Search product. Through a spasm of consolidation and organic growth, AT&T and Verizon have become the two dominant players in telecommunications, with the largest networks and major clout over equipment makers. Combined, they control 90 million landline customers and 60% of the 270 million U.S. wireless subscribers. They also operate large portions of the Internet backbone, ferrying data across the country and overseas. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. Some antitrust experts said the government would have a tough time opening a Sherman Act case against telecom providers if it chooses to do so. To bring a case, the government must show that a company is abusing its market power. "It would be a very hard case to make," said Donald Russell, a Washington attorney who reviewed a number of major telecom mergers as a DOJ antitrust lawyer in the Clinton Administration. "You don't have any firm that's in a dominant position. Usually, you need to show a firm has real market power." Write to Amol Sharma at amol.sharma@wsj.com From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Jul 8 11:59:32 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:59:32 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (This is a supremely succinct, lucid statement from Christian Engstrom, the Pirate Party candidate newly elected to the European Parliament. He presents the crossroads at which we stand, and thereby provides us an argument that illustrates its own inherent strengths against the prospects of palladiated computing and using "anti-counterfeiting" as a rubric for eradicating the valid traditions and most important characteristics of copyright. -- Seth) > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87c523a4-6b18-11de-861d-00144feabdc0.html Copyright laws threaten our online freedom By Christian Engström Published: July 7 2009 18:10 If you search for Elvis Presley in Wikipedia, you will find a lot of text and a few pictures that have been cleared for distribution. But you will find no music and no film clips, due to copyright restrictions. What we think of as our common cultural heritage is not “ours” at all. On MySpace and YouTube, creative people post audio and video remixes for others to enjoy, until they are replaced by take-down notices handed out by big film and record companies. Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down. This was never the intent. Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current regime has even more damaging effects. In order to uphold copyright laws, governments are beginning to restrict our right to communicate with each other in private, without being monitored. File-sharing occurs whenever one individual sends a file to another. The only way to even try to limit this process is to monitor all communication between ordinary people. Despite the crackdown on Napster, Kazaa and other peer-to-peer services over the past decade, the volume of file-sharing has grown exponentially. Even if the authorities closed down all other possibilities, people could still send copyrighted files as attachments to e-mails or through private networks. If people start doing that, should we give the government the right to monitor all mail and all encrypted networks? Whenever there are ways of communicating in private, they will be used to share copyrighted material. If you want to stop people doing this, you must remove the right to communicate in private. There is no other option. Society has to make a choice. The world is at a crossroads. The internet and new information technologies are so powerful that no matter what we do, society will change. But the direction has not been decided. The technology could be used to create a Big Brother society beyond our nightmares, where governments and corporations monitor every detail of our lives. In the former East Germany, the government needed tens of thousands of employees to keep track of the citizens using typewriters, pencils and index cards. Today a computer can do the same thing a million times faster, at the push of a button. There are many politicians who want to push that button. The same technology could instead be used to create a society that embraces spontaneity, collaboration and diversity. Where the citizens are no longer passive consumers being fed information and culture through one-way media, but are instead active participants collaborating on a journey into the future. The internet it still in its infancy, but already we see fantastic things appearing as if by magic. Take Linux, the free computer operating system, or Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Witness the participatory culture of MySpace and YouTube, or the growth of the Pirate Bay, which makes the world’s culture easily available to anybody with an internet connection. But where technology opens up new possibilities, our intellectual property laws do their best to restrict them. Linux is held back by patents, the rest of the examples by copyright. The public increasingly recognises the need for reform. That was why Piratpartiet – the Pirate party – won 7.1 per cent of the popular vote in Sweden in the European Union elections. This gave us a seat in the European parliament for the first time. Our manifesto is to reform copyright laws and gradually abolish the patent system. We oppose mass surveillance and censorship on the net, as in the rest of society. We want to make the EU more democratic and transparent. This is our entire platform. We intend to devote all our time and energy to protecting the fundamental civil liberties on the net and elsewhere. Seven per cent of Swedish voters agreed with us that it makes sense to put other political differences aside in order to ensure this. Political decisions taken over the next five years are likely to set the course we take into the information society, and will affect the lives of millions for many years into the future. Will we let our fears lead us towards a dystopian Big Brother state, or will we have the courage and wisdom to choose an exciting future in a free and open society? The information revolution is happening here and now. It is up to us to decide what future we want. The writer is the Pirate party’s member of the European parliament. From Michael S. Hart" References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: How To Argue Against Copyright by Michael S. Hart Founder Project Gutenberg, Inventor of eBooks When it comes to copyright, there are some truly worldwide answers to the questions concerning "Who pays for copyright" and "who will be limited by copyright." "Everyone," is the answer. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls," when it comes to paying copyright, "it tolls for thee. . . ." Everyone pays for copyright, either in cash or ignorance, or both. Billions of of people pay. . .while the numbers of people who live off copyright royalties are few and far between. The result is that, either way, the public has no public domain. There is no way for the billions to have access to information and knowledge that is kept so secret by so few, away from so many. We all pay for copyright. Who gains? Robert James Waller, The Duke of Madison County. "The Bridges of Madison County" is a best seller. Here is a book that could have been written in a single day, week, or month, that's how short it is. Yes, for the rest of history, at least as it appears under current United States Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Waller, and his heirs, and then their heirs, and then their heirs, are entitled to millions & millions & millions of dollars. . .actually Mr. Waller has already received millions & millions & millions of dollars. . .but a point to understand here is that copyright in The Information Age should be understood to be creating a "Landed Information Age Gentry." There is only one job in the world that entitles the worker to pay for the rest of one's life. The creation of copyrighted material. A government sponsored monopoly. I won't go into government sponsored monopolies here, that is done over and over by far more articulate defenders of Capitalism. Copyright is the only job that can pay forever for one item. Everyone else, even the mostly highly paid sports heros, must show up next year and do it all over again, if they want to get paid. When it comes to a permanent income: There is only one. . . . I Leave It To YOU To Choose Your Favorite Arguments, Remove Those You Dislike To Create Your Own List Of Arguments From The Below: Who gains from copyright? Who loses from copyright? These two questions, without much in the way of assistance from an army of other arguments that follow, are enough to convince anyone who has an even remotely open mind that copyright must be limited, and limited to a very short term when compare to human lifetimes. The out and out fact is that billions of people pay for copyright, and pay and pay and pay, thousands of times per year mostly likely in cash for the 3.4 billion in the upper crust, and these will see they're joined by the 3.4 billion in the lower crust when it comes down to missing out on information that would be public domain. Even if you are the richest person in the world, both in cash, and in information flow, there are things you will miss because limits have been placed on distribution, you just will never hear of them because their distribution is intentionally too narrow. We've heard horror stories about the loss of millions of dollars & pounds & francs, etc. worth of information, simply because it will have been proven this information was held too tightly, so tightly it now does not survive, any more than dinosaurs, we have only the few relics left behind, but the major corpus has passed away. In the very same sense, when we look at publication of information as the preservation of civilization, then we must beware of how to stop the loss of civilization in such a manner, as when books were designed to be out of print in six weeks, newspaper were saved for limited periods, movies were allowed to rot in their cans, etc. Any movie buff can tell you how Jack Valenti, the man who compared home video to The Boston Strangler, used to plead with billions on the Academy Awards [Oscars] show to look under their bed, in their garages and attics, etc., for lost movie reels so Hollywood, whose attitude towards preservation was "only for best sellers." who now is in the "business" of trying to recapture was was truly left for the rats and mice. . . . These works, if found and handed over to Hollywood, would never be part of the public domain, for Hollywood would insist THEY owned a 100% interest in the recovered films, even if they had trown those films away earlier. The result is that, either way, the public has no public domain. There is no way for the billions to have access to information and knowledge that is kept so secret by so few, away from so many. "The Information Age?" "For whom?" It is the very nature of The Internet that anything ever digitzed, in any publicly readable format, could literally go to everyone in the rest of history. This is what the new copyright laws are trying to stop. Copyright was invented solely for one reason, and only one reason, as a reactionary political move against The Gutenberg Press. Before The Gutenberg Press there was a monopoly on publication for the scribes, they pretty much controlled who could read what; then in those days that was easier than it is today, for only 1 percent of the population could read, and, other than the nobility, no one cared who read what, mostly because only the nobility, and scribes of course, were likely to be able to read. Copying anything was legal, simply because when it came down to it only the rulers and the churchmen knew how to copy anything. It was pretty much a private insider deal all around. Johannes Gutenberg made it a public deal with mass production. For the first time books appeared in the public marketplace. Not only that, but the price fell from that of an average family's farm to a fraction of a percent of previous prices. Literally overnight major portions of the public began to read. The church was literally up in arms about this and began burning a whole blacklist of books, sometimes piling them up around authors, and carrying out the entire enterprise in the public squares. For years the church denied such a list even existed. In addition, the church wanted to regain its monopoly on The Bible and other holy scriptures, references, commentaries, etc., so they could [mis]interpret them at will to manipulate the public. Unless you are familiar with how much of The Bible was [mis]quoted as political times changed and the church wanted to sway public or private opinion one way or another, this may not have the impact I feel when I read these reports. When the first attempts at copyright were made, they were made for ONLY the benefit of "The Stationers Guild" and this was obvious to all concerned, so the lobbying for a copyright "patent" failed and failed and failed and failed and failed and failed and failed, for a period of ~250 years from Gutenberg to Queen Anne. The reason it failed was because their was never an alliance among The Stationers, The Church, and the nobility, and also because The Stationers wanted so very much: they wanted all rights to all the publications of all history, with no rights to the authors. How silly, eh? Not quite so silly. . .they almost got it!!!!!!! All of the reigning monarchs, even through The Interregnum and The Restoration, from the last three Henrys through Elizabeth and then William and Mary, even through such a troubled ~250 years history, the Kings and Queens of Britain refused The Stationers requests to make public publication illegal. The Stationers failed, and failed, and failed again. But they never stopped trying. could you blame them??? I can!!! What they wanted was a return of their historic monopoly over book publication, in fact over all publication, even posters or flyers. However, as stated, they never stopped trying, and finally after a dozen and a half monarchies, they got a monarch weak enough to say yes to their offer of censorship, restriction and monopoly, along, just barely, with a small concession to the authors. Copyright owners like to pretend that this offer to the author was something great on the part of The Stationers, but in reality it's mostly just an illusion, as were nearly all author's right even to my own lifetime. The publishers decided what would get printed. The authors had no rights until after 14 years. The vast majority publications was out of print in 14 years, still is today, for that matter. However, after ~250 years of having failed, and failed, and failed yet again, The Stationers finally got their copyright and the book total dropped from 6,000 to 600 literally overnight when that law, known as "The Statute of Anne," became a reality. We have been stuck with it ever since. And more. And more. And more. The 14 year copyright was effectively only 14 years for most as it was, and is, unlikely for anything to still be in print afterward. Let's just add one year to the average for those and say copyright averaged 15 years. This copyright term was pretty much adopted by everyone during the revolutions of the 1700s, including the United States and France. * Written July 4, 2009, starting the 39th year of Project Gutenberg. From rms@gnu.org Wed Jul 8 19:34:43 2009 From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:34:43 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom In-Reply-To: <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (message from Seth Johnson on Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:59:32 -0400) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: That stopping people from sharing requires total surveillance is a good and strong argument, but it should not be our main argument. Even if it were possible to completely prevent people from sharing without surveillance, through some kind of DRM system, it would be wrong to do so. Not wrong because of secondary consequences, but wrong because the goal is wrong. Sharing is good! From Michael S. Hart" References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Richard Stallman wrote: > That stopping people from sharing requires total surveillance is a > good and strong argument, but it should not be our main argument. By all means, let's hear what the main argument should be!!! > _______________________________________________ > Upd-discuss mailing list > Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss > From rms@gnu.org Thu Jul 9 12:52:57 2009 From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:52:57 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom In-Reply-To: (hart@pglaf.org) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: > That stopping people from sharing requires total surveillance is a > good and strong argument, but it should not be our main argument. By all means, let's hear what the main argument should be!!! By all means, read the rest of my message. From mail@glenstark.net Thu Jul 9 15:13:58 2009 From: mail@glenstark.net (Glen Stark) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:13:58 +0200 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom In-Reply-To: References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> > Even if it were possible to completely prevent people from sharing > without surveillance, through some kind of DRM system, it would be > wrong to do so. Not wrong because of secondary consequences, but >wrong because the goal is wrong. Sharing is good! Hmm. I thought Engstroem did a good job pointing out that the goal is wrong: "Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down. This was never the intent. Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current regime has even more damaging effects... ". Good, he seems to weight the privacy issues heavier than the cultural issues, but I see this as reasonable strategy on his part (whether Machiavellan or because he genuinely prioritizes the issues as stated). The average western citizen is quite indoctrinated by the idea of "intellectual property". Speaking about the deleterious aspects of copyright law, and the spurious and harmful nature of modern copyright law quickly triggers a great many people's 'crank response': the eyes glaze over, and you're arguments fall on a deaf ear. A lot of people really think copyright violation == theft, and therefore changing copyright law parses to legalizing theft. It's absurd, but it's enormously difficult to penetrate this cultural barrier. On the other hand, more and more people are becoming aware and concerned by the negative effects of governments and corporations snooping into our private communications. It's my completely informal and unscientific opinion/observation that more people are actively concerned with this issue than are concerned with the plundering of the public domain. I think linking the two issues is therefore sound strategy, as it brings the eyes of a wider audience to the cultural aspects of copyright law. Perhaps the right way to approach this is to bring up the secondary effects (which most people are more aware of) and then lead into the primary effects (which most people don't seem to think about). On an aside note, I've been thinking about why people aren't more concerned about what's happening to the public domain. I've come up with a few thoughts, which perhaps some of you might find interesting to read. In no particular order: 1. It's enormously difficult to quantify culture, or to determine if a particular cultural innovation is a positive or a negative influence. Bringing up the subject of corporations plundering or culture sounds like commy kook talk to a great many people. 2 People in western societies are accustomed to evaluating something's worth in terms of financial value. For example, our economies health is measured in terms of GDP. Things that genuinely affect people, like security, stability, job satisfaction, unemployment, etc, are considered secondary figures. Making culture exchangeable without financial transaction decreases the GDP, therefore it's bad for the economy, never mind that as a side effect we're producing more (and in my mind better) culture without the limits on the distribution mechanism. I see this as being a generalization of the broken window fallacy. 3. A lot of people aren't even aware of what the public domain is. I recall a story from the comic "Ego and Hubris" by Harvey Pekar. In it a character tells the story of a professor giving a lecture about copyright law. They discuss Shakespeare, and someone asks what happened to the copyright on Shakespeare's works. The professor replies that he imagines that one of Shakespeare's descendants must be getting royalty checks (like that would be a good thing!). The protagonist is outraged that the prof doesn't even know what the public domain is. Now this story is supposedly non-fiction, so I have to agree with the protagonist. That kind of ignorance at that academic level is shocking. I do however expect that kind of ignorance in most people I meet. I'd say about 90% of the people I speak with hear the phrase "public domain" for the first time from my lips. 4. The theft from the public domain is done pre-emptively. It's not like Elvis's stuff was in the public domain, and then got taken out. It was in copyright, and people made damn sure that it never left copyright, so the masses didn't notice. 5. It's the lottery. It's the same reason Americans haven't implemented a strong inheritance tax. They all live for the dream of being wealthy without having to work, never mind that mechanisms like that undermine the assumptions and motivation system of a market based economy. It's like W. Buffet said: We don't give the gold medals to the children of Olympic athletes. So why should we give royalties to the children of authors? Worse yet, why should we give them to some corporation in perpetuity? I'm sure there are other mechanisms at work. Cheers, Glen From Michael S. Hart" References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> Message-ID: Some serious errors below: On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Glen Stark wrote: > > Even if it were possible to completely prevent people from sharing > > without surveillance, through some kind of DRM system, it would be > > wrong to do so. Not wrong because of secondary consequences, but > >wrong because the goal is wrong. Sharing is good! > > Hmm. I thought Engstroem did a good job pointing out that the goal is > wrong: "Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down. > This was never the intent. Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not > restrict it. No. . .think about why Queen Anne was the only monarch weak enough to give The Stationers their proposed copyright after 250 years of this not happening. Anne was so weak she needed censorship and it was an unholy copyright alliance between Anne and The Stationers. THIS WAS THE INTENT! "Encourge culture" was just a smokescreen and has continued to be. "Restrict culture" was obvious as the number of books on the shelf dropped from 6,000 to 600 literally overnight. "Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it." Do not believe the propaganda The Stationers and their successors, all the way to WIPO, tell you. . .their purpose is 99% one sided. mh From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jul 9 23:10:24 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:10:24 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A566AD0.EA64D1DF@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Hello all -- anybody in New York who wants to call out the ICANN's "Implementation Recommendation Team" for their attempt provide tools for abusing trademark while they roll out the new Global Top Level Domains, needs to REGISTER BY TOMORROW here: > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ And then show up THIS MONDAY (sorry for the shouting, but those are the key terms in this message) at the Millenium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street. See the blurb below my signature from Kathy Kleiman, among those who have been there from the inception of ICANN and watching out for all of us. (Others in other cities, check out the schedule of meetings and get ready -- they are hitting several cities in a rapid fire fashion this month.) The MPAA and International Trademark Association have had a hand in ICANN from its inception, when they prevailed in establishing the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. Now, along with rolling out new global Top Level Domains, trademark holders are ramming through a new process that goes well beyond that. They are pulling out the stops to get ICANN to implement what will in practical terms amount to a huge revision in the nature of trademark, backed by strong action on the part of ICANN. Along with a new "Uniform Rapid Suspension System" to shut down sites quickly, they are establishing ICANN as playing the role of policing trademarks -- which by law is the trademark holders' responsibility. Domain names don't match up with trademark law -- DNS is about giving symbols one universal address. Language is not. You don't trademark "Apple" -- you reserve the use of that trademark to market a particular kind of goods or service. Thus we have Apple Computers and The Beatles' Apple music company. Or Sun Oil in Canada, a completely separate company from Sun Oil in America -- and certainly not the same as the Sun computing company. And trademark is also subject to fair use and of course free speech. While of course this becomes a tool for draconian action in the area of domain names, it also sets the stage for a major revision in the basic conception of trademark policy, allowing this to extend further. Seth Johnson (Random Internet Activist) ICANN Public Consultation: Should New Top Level Domains Include Broad New Trademark Protections? On Mon, July 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will hold a public consultation at the Hudson Theatre, Millennium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, to discuss the "rules of the road" for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), future competitors to .COM, .ORG and .NET. A group of trademark attorneys, representing large brand owners, in May wrote a report calling on ICANN to create broad new trademark protections before opening up new gTLDs. A. IP Clearinghouse: a massive database of registered and unregistered trademark rights created by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 12-16 B. Globally Protected Marks List: a list of global marks created and maintained by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 16- 22) C. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): A ultra-fast takedown service with little notice or time to respond by domain name registrants (IRT, pp. 25-37) These proposals have been criticized as outside the mission and scope of ICANN, a technical body, and outside the protections and limits of trademark law. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency writes "We fear the impact of the IRT Proposals on free speech and fair use online. Trademark owners don't own strings of letters, they have a trademark for specific goods and services. Basic words like APPLE, TIDE, SUN and TIME belong to all of us. Many important domain names will be lost, or worse, blocked before they can be registered." Approval of the IRT Report is being rushed through ICANN with minimal opportunity to comment. It is vital that ICANN hear comment as soon as possible, and Monday is an opportunity to speak. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency will be hosting a breakfast at the Millennium Hotel on Monday morning. Please contact NCUC Co-Founder Kathy Kleiman, kathy@kathykleiman.com , for more details. Registration to speak on 7/13 at this link (deadline 7/10): http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ IRT Report: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm IP Justice Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00210.html EFF Australia Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00179.html Noncommercial Users Constituency Website with comments: http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/ From rms@gnu.org Thu Jul 9 23:18:54 2009 From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:18:54 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom In-Reply-To: (hart@pglaf.org) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> Message-ID: No. . .think about why Queen Anne was the only monarch weak enough to give The Stationers their proposed copyright after 250 years of this not happening. Wasn't the Stationers' Guild's monopoly ENDED by the Statute of Anne? From rms@gnu.org Thu Jul 9 23:19:18 2009 From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom In-Reply-To: <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> (mail@glenstark.net) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> Message-ID: Hmm. I thought Engstroem did a good job pointing out that the goal is wrong: "Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down. To criticize the enemy's goal is to say, "Sharing is good, and people's right to share must be respected." The words you have quoted stop short of saying this. Instead they say, "Stopping people from sharing retards techological progress". That is attacking a side effect. Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it. That statement is valid, but it too avoids a clear defense of sharing. It too focuses on side effects -- though they are closer to the central issue than the previous side effects. Speaking about the deleterious aspects of copyright law, and the spurious and harmful nature of modern copyright law quickly triggers a great many people's 'crank response': the eyes glaze over, and you're arguments fall on a deaf ear. It's absurd, but it's enormously difficult to penetrate this cultural barrier. In my experience it is not so hard. Plenty of people are willing to listen to the idea that sharing is good, when I present it in my speeches. (See audio-video.gnu.org.) Surely I am not the only one who can do it. On the other hand, more and more people are becoming aware and concerned by the negative effects of governments and corporations snooping into our private communications. It's my completely informal and unscientific opinion/observation that more people are actively concerned with this issue than are concerned with the plundering of the public domain. You are probably right about that, but what conclusion should we draw? If we assume that the lack of interest in our issue is permanent and irremediable, that would lead to the conclusion you stated: that we should argue against side effects of the enemy's proposals. This may work to defeat a particular proposal. For instance, arguing about privacy could convince privacy advocates to oppose a specific plan for copyright enforcement which also threatens privacy. But that is as far as it goes. These privacy advocates won't be interested in our enemy's next plan which has no privacy implications. I have seen organizations follow this "pragmatic" short-term reasoning for a decade, so I see its weakness. Attacking side effects can sometimes defeat a proposal, but it does not build a base of support for our cause. In the long term, the way a political movement wins support is by communicating its central ideas. That's what we must do to win. Instead of assuming people will never care about freedom to share, we have to arouse their concern. Fortunately we have a tremendous audience just waiting to hear what we stand for. Tens of millions of people do file sharing. They know how useful it is. But many of them don't mentally dare to defend what they do, because they have never seen anyone dissent from the copyright lobby's position that sharing is wrong. All it takes is for them to hear someone make a clear and rational defense of the right to share, and some of them will become our supporters. And then they will oppose ANY attack on sharing, whatever side effects it may or may not have. And they will defend our cause in discussions and help change more of the brainwashing. From Michael S. Hart" References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Richard Stallman wrote: > No. . .think about why Queen Anne was the only monarch weak enough > to give The Stationers their proposed copyright after 250 years of > this not happening. > > Wasn't the Stationers' Guild's monopoly ENDED by the Statute of Anne? The Stationers' Guild's monopoly was ended by The Gutenberg Press. The Stationers immediately began lobbying for a "royal patent" via which they hoped to regain their monopoly by declaring all others' rights to publish [pretty much anything and everything] illegal. No, I'm not kidding, it's really disgustingly ugly of you read the actual histories of what took place. All the kings and queens for 250 years, including Cromwell, of all people, refused to give the Stationers any kind of deal, so books, and other forms of publishing took off via Gutenberg presses. Anne, feeling she needed to stop commentaries on her reign, gave a go ahead for what became the first real Western copyright. A few, very few, had been tried, but failed, both because no one obeyed & also because no one enforced what were so obviously bad laws. Might I suggest an hour of reading up on this??? Thanks!!! Michael S. Hart Founder Project Gutenberg Inventor of ebooks Recommended Books: Dandelion Wine, by Ray Bradbury: For The Right Brain Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand: For The Left Brain [or both] Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson: To Understand The Internet The Phantom Tollbooth, by Norton Juster: Lesson of Life. . . If you ever do not get a prompt response, please resend, then keep resending, I won't mind getting several copies per week. From rms@gnu.org Sat Jul 11 19:30:14 2009 From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:30:14 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom In-Reply-To: (hart@pglaf.org) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> Message-ID: All the kings and queens for 250 years, including Cromwell, of all people, refused to give the Stationers any kind of deal, so books, and other forms of publishing took off via Gutenberg presses. What I have read before is just the opposite, but I do not have a reference to cite. Might I suggest an hour of reading up on this??? I've read about it before, but I don't have time or access to search for a reference. I hope someone else can do so. From Michael S. Hart" References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jul 2009, Richard Stallman wrote: > All the kings and queens for 250 years, including Cromwell, of all > people, refused to give the Stationers any kind of deal, so books, > and other forms of publishing took off via Gutenberg presses. > > What I have read before is just the opposite, but I do not > have a reference to cite. > > Might I suggest an hour of reading up on this??? > > I've read about it before, but I don't have time or access to search > for a reference. I hope someone else can do so. I find it difficult to understand how you could be fooled quite so thoroughly by people rewriting history, whether it is from 1700's, or from modern times. The Stationers tried to get everyone to believe this law was their ruination, but I've only run into two people in my whole life, who actually believed them, you being the second one. You really must make time to research this if you expect anyone to believe you know what you are talking about, and look over failed, even if passed, attempts, as well, to see just how much they would have screwed everyone out of any right to copy ANYTHING if allowed via many of those 250 years of efforts. You have to realize that The Stationers actually WROTE the laws as that was the way "patents" worked in those days, you wrote up what you wanted and lobbied/submitted it for royal approval, and I hate to tell you, but it still happens more that way today than most of us would like to think. The Statute of Anne gave The Stationers incredible power that they did NOT have before then, the ONLY thing it gave the people was an opportunity AFTER the first 14 years, and ONLY if the authors were still alive. . .their own "copyright" was worthless if they died-- and also worthless if the material went out of print, which was in fact the case for the vast majory of works, so there was not quite anything for the average author after the first 14 years. . . . You really must read up on this. . . . From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Jul 15 12:16:21 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:16:21 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Key Questions for Sotomayor (or Any SCOTUS Nominee Today) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A5DBA85.E1CE7E07@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (The item below may seem tangential to the area of information freedom at first, but I think its implications and relevance will be very clear with only short reflection. It is a letter from POCLAD to the Judiciary Committee with questions for Sotomayor that they also recommended for the Alito hearings. I don't think they need to depict the Supreme Court's exercise of authority quite the way they do, and while there is a relevant case imminent, I think they do not need to emphasize the issue of campaign contributions so much as they seem to. The issue they are illustrating could easily have enormous, broad appeal across the political spectrum. There are *many* issues they are touching upon, related to corporations, the commerce clause, sovereignty and self-determination, the issues many of us are dealing with in the international arena, the economy, trade and the market, governance, democracy, and the general abyssmal condition that the world is in right now, that POCLAD could also easily allude to, that would resonate with all of us. -- Seth) > http://www.poclad.org/media/SenJudiciaryReSotomayor.pdf Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy Instigating democratic conversations and actions that contest the authority of corporations to govern Box 246 S. Yarmouth, MA 02664 www.poclad.org people@... 508-398-1145 OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE US SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE from the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) July 14, 2009 Dear US Senate Judiciary Committee Members, The Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) calls on you to continue your questioning of US Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor's position on the larger issue of this nation's democracy, trampled by the rights and powers of corporations to govern, have so far been left untouched and unexplored in Senate confirmation hearings. The vast majority of non-criminal cases to be brought before the nine robed ones of the Supreme Court in the next few years will relate to matters of corporate "rights," protections, and dominance and their impact on the rights of human beings in this so-called democracy. It is appropriate, therefore, that questions be asked concerning the doctrines of corporate autonomy and authority that insulate these collections of capital and property from control by the people and their legislatures - a control that existed at one time in this nation. Have the judiciary's efforts been so successful over the last 200 years to find corporations within the US Constitution and bestow constitutional "rights" upon them that current lawmakers fail even to question this democratic and illegitimate reality? Indeed, for two centuries Supreme Court justices, the closest institution we have to Kings and Queens, have been at the center of affirming and expanding corporate rule and placing corporations well beyond the authority of the people. We hope you do not concur with this history and its consequences. We hope the questions on the following page are asked of nominee Sotomayor during her Senate hearings. Only after she responds to these concerns and her answers promptly made available to the general public and to all U.S. Senators should voting on her confirmation occur. It should be noted that these questions were the same that we requested be put to Judge Samuel Alito during his January, 2006 confirmation hearings. To our knowledge, none of them were asked. The appointment for life of a person who will assume a position of vast and seemingly ever growing power in our society demands an exhaustive review of every issue area that he/she is likely to address in the high court. Corporate constitutional rights and their impact on our rights as self-governing human beings certainly qualify as one such area of questioning. This decision is of the utmost importance to the fate of the country. Respectfully, The Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy Attachments: Questions for Supreme Court Justice Nominee Sonia Sotomayer Quotes from Previous Supreme Court Decisions and Justices on Corporations Questions for Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor First a bit of background. In a 1978 case, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court decided, 5 to 4, that business corporations -- just as flesh and blood like you and me -- have a First Amendment right to spend their money to influence elections. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented. "It might reasonably be concluded," he wrote, "that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere." The late Chief Justice went on to write: "Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist." -- Do you believe that corporate money in our elections poses "special dangers in the political sphere"? -- Do you believe "that liberties of political expression" are necessary "to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist"?" -- Do you believe that money is speech? Or is it property? In 1886, only eighteen years after the people ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court had before it Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The issue was whether the Amendment's guarantee of equal protection barred California from taxing property owned by a corporation differently from property owned by a human being. Chief Justice Morrison Waite disposed of it with a bolt-from- the-blue pronouncement: "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny any person the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." The conferring of Fourteenth Amendment rights on the corporate form appeared in a clerk's headnote to the case. -- How would you characterize the Court's refusal to hear argument in a momentous case before deciding it? -- Was the "person" whose basic rights the framers and the people sought to protect through the 14th amendment to the Constitution the newly freed slave? -- Was the "person" a corporation? -- Is a corporation a person "born or naturalized in the United States"? -- In proclaiming a paper entity to be a person, was the court faithful to the intent of the framers of the Amendment and to the intent of the people who ratified it? -- How would you characterize the court's refusal to hear argument in a momentous case before deciding it? -- Would you describe the court's action in Santa Clara as conservative? As radical? As open-minded? -- Would you characterize the Court's Santa Clara action as being an example of judicial activism? --- Quotes from Previous Supreme Court Decisions and Justices on Corporations Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911): All who recall the condition of the country in 1890 will remember that there was everywhere, among the people generally, a deep feeling of unrest. The nation had been rid of human slavery-- fortunately, as all now feel--but the conviction was universal that the country was in real danger from another kind of slavery sought to be fastened on the American people: namely, the slavery that would result from aggregations of capital in the hands of a few individuals and corporations controlling, for their own profit and advantage exclusively, the entire business of the country, including the production and sale of the necessities of life. Liggett Co. v. Lee 288 U.S. 517 (1933) (dissent by Justice Brandeis): The prevalence of the corporation in America has led men of this generation to act, at times, as if the privilege of doing business in corporate form were inherent in the citizen; and has led them to accept the evils attendant upon the free and unrestricted use of the corporate mechanism as if these evils were the inescapable price of civilized life and, hence, to be borne with resignation. Throughout the greater part of our history, a different view prevailed. Although the value of this instrumentality in commerce and industry was fully recognized, incorporation for business was commonly denied long after it had been freely granted for religious, educational and charitable purposes. It was denied because of fear. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils. . . There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent in large aggregations of capital, particularly when held by corporations. Justice Brandeis warned ominously of the threat to democracy that justifies sovereign control of corporations: Able and discerning scholars have pictured for us the economic and social results of thus removing all limitations upon the size and activities of business corporations and of vesting in their managers vast powers once exercised by stockholders--results not designed by the states and long unsuspected. . . . Through size, corporations, once merely an efficient tool employed by individuals in the conduct of private business, have become an institution--an institution which has brought such concentration of economic power that so-called private corporations are sometimes able to dominate the state. The typical business corporation of the last century, owned by a small group of individuals, managed by their owners, and limited in size by their personal wealth, is being supplanted by huge concerns in which the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of employees and the property of tens or hundreds of thousands of investors are subjected, through the corporate mechanism, to the control of a few men. Ownership has been separated from control; and this separation has removed many of the checks which formerly operated to curb the misuse of wealth and power. And as ownership of the shares is becoming continually more dispersed, the power which formerly accompanied ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. The changes thereby wrought in the lives of the workers, of the owners and of the general public, are so fundamental and far-reaching as to lead these scholars to compare the evolving "corporate system" with the feudal system; and to lead other men of insight and experience to assert that this "master institution of civilized life" is committing it to the rule of a plutocracy. Liggett, pp. 564-565. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) Dissents by Justices White, Brennan, Marshall ...the special status of corporations has placed them in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only our economy but the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process... The State need not allow its own creation to consume it. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jul 16 14:56:53 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:56:53 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Re: NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A566AD0.EA64D1DF@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A5F31A5.D6B05733@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Hi all -- notes after the New York and London sessions have wrapped: I found odd 1) the Implementation Recommendations Team's presenting of recommendations without taking up the impact they would have on established legal trademark traditions, and 2) that ICANN had chosen to set up a panel constituted of representatives of large trademark interests -- after a more participatory process had already been conducted within ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organizations policymaking process. In the following video I ask the above questions: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfQrLVeFwcE Of most note are Kathy Kleiman's comments for the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgUC869bTVM This page from the NCUC describes quite clearly what's happening in terms of how the decision process has been conducted and constituted: > http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html The IRT proposes to set up: An IP Clearing House A Globally Protected Marks list A Uniform Rapid Suspension System A Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Mechanism Rebecca MacKinnon and Graham Chenoweth describe the prior restraint issue associated with the plan here: > http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_globally_protected_marks_list_gpml/ You'll find the slides from the IRT's presentation here: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/presentation-irt-13jul09-en.pdf ISOC's Public Interest Registry had this to say: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/comments_on_icanns_irt_final_report/ "We believe the Final Report puts too much emphasis on obliging registries to enforce trademark rights, in place of requiring ICANN to devote more resources to enforcing its contracts with registrars. We also believe that ICANN already has the legal tools to deal with the admittedly rare instances where a registry is in business to profit from trademark infringement. Adding a new legal process and giving rights to outsiders who are not parties to the ICANN-registry agreements is likely to increase litigation and its expense for all concerned. It is not likely to deal effectively with the real problems of cybersquatting." ISOC New York has posted a few videos here, including Jay Sulzberger speaking in his own capacity, and Phil Corwin of the Internet Commerce Association (more will be posted soon): > http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=769 Two more comments from Saul Hansell on the New York Times blog: The Best Internet Addresses Will Cost a Cool .Million > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-cost-a-cool-million/ Brokering Peace Between Brand Owners and Domainers > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owners-and-domainers/ This is the overview/announcement for these meetings: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm There are two more to go, in Tokyo and Abu Dhabi, in the next couple of weeks. Have only heard dribs from the London meet so far. Seth Johnson David Farber wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Seth Johnson > Date: July 9, 2009 6:09:28 PM EDT > To: dave@farber.net > Subject: NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN > Reply-To: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org > > Hi Dave -- anybody in New York who wants to call out the ICANN's > "Implementation Recommendation Team" for their attempt provide tools > for abusing trademark while they roll out the new Global Top Level > Domains, needs to REGISTER BY TOMORROW here: > > > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ > > And then show up THIS MONDAY (sorry for the shouting, but those are > the key terms in this message) at the Millenium Hotel, 145 West 44th > Street. > > See the blurb below my signature from Kathy Kleiman, among those who > have been there from the inception of ICANN and watching out for all > of us. > > (Others in other cities, check out the schedule of meetings and get > ready -- they are hitting several cities in a rapid fire fashion this > month.) > > The MPAA and International Trademark Association have had a hand in > ICANN from its inception, when they prevailed in establishing the > Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. Now, along with rolling out new > global Top Level Domains, trademark holders are ramming through a new > process that goes well beyond that. They are pulling out the stops to > get ICANN to implement what will in practical terms amount to a huge > revision in the nature of trademark, backed by strong action on the > part of ICANN. Along with a new "Uniform Rapid Suspension System" to > shut down sites quickly, they are establishing ICANN as playing the > role of policing trademarks -- which by law is the trademark holders' > responsibility. > > Domain names don't match up with trademark law -- DNS is about giving > symbols one universal address. Language is not. You don't trademark > "Apple" -- you reserve the use of that trademark to market a > particular kind of goods or service. Thus we have Apple Computers and > The Beatles' Apple music company. Or Sun Oil in Canada, a completely > separate company from Sun Oil in America -- and certainly not the same > as the Sun computing company. And trademark is also subject to fair > use and of course free speech. > > While of course this becomes a tool for draconian action in the area > of domain names, it also sets the stage for a major revision in the > basic conception of trademark policy, allowing this to extend further. > > Seth Johnson > (Random Internet Activist) > > ICANN Public Consultation: Should New Top Level Domains Include Broad > New Trademark Protections? > > On Mon, July 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) will hold a public consultation at the Hudson > Theatre, Millennium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, to discuss the > "rules of the road" for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), future > competitors to .COM, .ORG and .NET. > > A group of trademark attorneys, representing large brand owners, in > May wrote a report calling on ICANN to create broad new trademark > protections before opening up new gTLDs. > > A. IP Clearinghouse: a massive database of registered and > unregistered trademark rights created by ICANN (IRT > Report, pp. 12-16 > > B. Globally Protected Marks List: a list of global marks > created and maintained by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 16- > 22) > > C. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): A ultra-fast > takedown service with little notice or time to respond > by domain name registrants (IRT, pp. 25-37) > > These proposals have been criticized as outside the mission and scope > of ICANN, a technical body, and outside the protections and limits > of trademark law. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency writes "We > fear the impact of the IRT Proposals on free speech and fair use > online. Trademark owners don't own strings of letters, they have a > trademark for specific goods and services. Basic words like APPLE, > TIDE, SUN and TIME belong to all of us. Many important domain names > will be lost, or worse, blocked before they can be registered." > > Approval of the IRT Report is being rushed through ICANN with minimal > opportunity to comment. It is vital that ICANN hear comment as soon > as possible, and Monday is an opportunity to speak. > > ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency will be hosting a breakfast > at the Millennium Hotel on Monday morning. Please contact NCUC > Co-Founder Kathy Kleiman, kathy@kathykleiman.com > , for more details. > > Registration to speak on 7/13 at this link (deadline 7/10): > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ > > IRT Report: > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm > > IP Justice Comments: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00210.html > > EFF Australia Comments: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00179.html > > Noncommercial Users Constituency Website with comments: > http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/ > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com From rms@gnu.org Fri Jul 17 14:29:55 2009 From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:29:55 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Re: NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN In-Reply-To: <4A5F31A5.D6B05733@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (message from Seth Johnson on Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:56:53 -0400) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A566AD0.EA64D1DF@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A5F31A5.D6B05733@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: The IRT proposes to set up: An IP Clearing House Whatever it is they are planning to do, I expect that term is a bad description of it. Is it supposed to clear copyrights, patents, publicity rights, plant variety monopolies, and all the other legal privileges that some call "intellectual property"? Or is it only for trademarks? From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 17 23:21:31 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:21:31 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] VIDEO RESTORED - Re: NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A566AD0.EA64D1DF@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A5F31A5.D6B05733@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A60F96B.58792189@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Hi folks -- the video links below work now that the Yourtube video account has been reactivated. -- Seth Seth Johnson wrote: > > Hi all -- notes after the New York and London sessions have wrapped: > > I found odd 1) the Implementation Recommendations Team's presenting of > recommendations without taking up the impact they would have on > established legal trademark traditions, and 2) that ICANN had chosen > to set up a panel constituted of representatives of large trademark > interests -- after a more participatory process had already been > conducted within ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organizations > policymaking process. > > In the following video I ask the above questions: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfQrLVeFwcE > > Of most note are Kathy Kleiman's comments for the Non-Commercial Users > Constituency (NCUC): > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgUC869bTVM > > This page from the NCUC describes quite clearly what's happening in > terms of how the decision process has been conducted and constituted: > > http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html > > The IRT proposes to set up: > > An IP Clearing House > A Globally Protected Marks list > A Uniform Rapid Suspension System > A Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Mechanism > > Rebecca MacKinnon and Graham Chenoweth describe the prior restraint > issue associated with the plan here: > > http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_globally_protected_marks_list_gpml/ > > You'll find the slides from the IRT's presentation here: > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/presentation-irt-13jul09-en.pdf > > ISOC's Public Interest Registry had this to say: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/comments_on_icanns_irt_final_report/ > > "We believe the Final Report puts too much emphasis on obliging > registries to enforce trademark rights, in place of requiring ICANN to > devote more resources to enforcing its contracts with registrars. We > also believe that ICANN already has the legal tools to deal with the > admittedly rare instances where a registry is in business to profit > from trademark infringement. Adding a new legal process and giving > rights to outsiders who are not parties to the ICANN-registry > agreements is likely to increase litigation and its expense for all > concerned. It is not likely to deal effectively with the real problems > of cybersquatting." > > ISOC New York has posted a few videos here, including Jay Sulzberger > speaking in his own capacity, and Phil Corwin of the Internet Commerce > Association (more will be posted soon): > > http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=769 > > Two more comments from Saul Hansell on the New York Times blog: > > The Best Internet Addresses Will Cost a Cool .Million > > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-cost-a-cool-million/ > > Brokering Peace Between Brand Owners and Domainers > > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owners-and-domainers/ > > This is the overview/announcement for these meetings: > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm > > There are two more to go, in Tokyo and Abu Dhabi, in the next couple > of weeks. Have only heard dribs from the London meet so far. > > Seth Johnson > > David Farber wrote: > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Seth Johnson > > Date: July 9, 2009 6:09:28 PM EDT > > To: dave@farber.net > > Subject: NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN > > Reply-To: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org > > > > Hi Dave -- anybody in New York who wants to call out the ICANN's > > "Implementation Recommendation Team" for their attempt provide tools > > for abusing trademark while they roll out the new Global Top Level > > Domains, needs to REGISTER BY TOMORROW here: > > > > > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ > > > > And then show up THIS MONDAY (sorry for the shouting, but those are > > the key terms in this message) at the Millenium Hotel, 145 West 44th > > Street. > > > > See the blurb below my signature from Kathy Kleiman, among those who > > have been there from the inception of ICANN and watching out for all > > of us. > > > > (Others in other cities, check out the schedule of meetings and get > > ready -- they are hitting several cities in a rapid fire fashion this > > month.) > > > > The MPAA and International Trademark Association have had a hand in > > ICANN from its inception, when they prevailed in establishing the > > Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. Now, along with rolling out new > > global Top Level Domains, trademark holders are ramming through a new > > process that goes well beyond that. They are pulling out the stops to > > get ICANN to implement what will in practical terms amount to a huge > > revision in the nature of trademark, backed by strong action on the > > part of ICANN. Along with a new "Uniform Rapid Suspension System" to > > shut down sites quickly, they are establishing ICANN as playing the > > role of policing trademarks -- which by law is the trademark holders' > > responsibility. > > > > Domain names don't match up with trademark law -- DNS is about giving > > symbols one universal address. Language is not. You don't trademark > > "Apple" -- you reserve the use of that trademark to market a > > particular kind of goods or service. Thus we have Apple Computers and > > The Beatles' Apple music company. Or Sun Oil in Canada, a completely > > separate company from Sun Oil in America -- and certainly not the same > > as the Sun computing company. And trademark is also subject to fair > > use and of course free speech. > > > > While of course this becomes a tool for draconian action in the area > > of domain names, it also sets the stage for a major revision in the > > basic conception of trademark policy, allowing this to extend further. > > > > Seth Johnson > > (Random Internet Activist) > > > > ICANN Public Consultation: Should New Top Level Domains Include Broad > > New Trademark Protections? > > > > On Mon, July 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > > Numbers (ICANN) will hold a public consultation at the Hudson > > Theatre, Millennium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, to discuss the > > "rules of the road" for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), future > > competitors to .COM, .ORG and .NET. > > > > A group of trademark attorneys, representing large brand owners, in > > May wrote a report calling on ICANN to create broad new trademark > > protections before opening up new gTLDs. > > > > A. IP Clearinghouse: a massive database of registered and > > unregistered trademark rights created by ICANN (IRT > > Report, pp. 12-16 > > > > B. Globally Protected Marks List: a list of global marks > > created and maintained by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 16- > > 22) > > > > C. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): A ultra-fast > > takedown service with little notice or time to respond > > by domain name registrants (IRT, pp. 25-37) > > > > These proposals have been criticized as outside the mission and scope > > of ICANN, a technical body, and outside the protections and limits > > of trademark law. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency writes "We > > fear the impact of the IRT Proposals on free speech and fair use > > online. Trademark owners don't own strings of letters, they have a > > trademark for specific goods and services. Basic words like APPLE, > > TIDE, SUN and TIME belong to all of us. Many important domain names > > will be lost, or worse, blocked before they can be registered." > > > > Approval of the IRT Report is being rushed through ICANN with minimal > > opportunity to comment. It is vital that ICANN hear comment as soon > > as possible, and Monday is an opportunity to speak. > > > > ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency will be hosting a breakfast > > at the Millennium Hotel on Monday morning. Please contact NCUC > > Co-Founder Kathy Kleiman, kathy@kathykleiman.com > > , for more details. > > > > Registration to speak on 7/13 at this link (deadline 7/10): > > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/ > > > > IRT Report: > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm > > > > IP Justice Comments: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00210.html > > > > EFF Australia Comments: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00179.html > > > > Noncommercial Users Constituency Website with comments: > > http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/ > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Mon Jul 27 18:05:25 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:05:25 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Joel Faces the Bogus RIAA Music Today References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Please do all you can to support Joel Tennenbaum. Even if you fear the arguments being presented, or you presume that he's going down. Whatever the result, his legal team is raising some serious stakes, and Joel has chosen to trust them. What he's confronting affects us all, and the outcome will affect us all as well. -- Seth) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jul/27/filesharing-music-industry How it Feels to be Sued for $4.5 Million Joel Tenebaum and his legal team When I contemplate the above sum, I have to remind myself what I'm being charged with. Investment fraud? An attack against the government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave To a certain extent, I'm afraid to write this. Though they've already seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they won't do it again. For the past four years, they've been threatening me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends, and myself twice – the first time for nine hours, the second for seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/19/illegal-filesharing-fine). When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I'm being charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave. No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has operated under. "How did they get you?" I'm asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared music. And that's when a look appears on the face of whoever I'm talking to, the horrified "it could have been me!" look. The reason this has remained so silent despite passionate opposition is that nearly all people settle. My story of becoming an exception started four years ago. In 2005, my parents received a letter from Sony BMG, Warner, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Records claiming "copyright infringement". They were given a number to call, which was their "settlement information line", a call centre staffed by operators who, we are emphatically told, are "not attorneys". The process of collecting money from these threats was so huge, they had set up a 1-800-DONT-SUE-ME-style call centre. The operators did little more than ask how you would pay (they wanted $3,000, I believe) and repeated intimidating lawsuit statistics. I sent them a money order for $500, which they returned. I told them I couldn't pay any more. We discussed whether I might qualify for "financial hardship", and then I stopped hearing from them, which I didn't question. I graduated from college and began studying for my physics doctorate. And then in August 2007, I came home from work to find a stack of papers, maybe 50 pages thick, sitting at the door to my apartment. That's when I found out what it was like to have possibly the most talented copyright lawyers in the business, bankrolled by multibillion-dollar corporations, throwing everything they had at someone who wanted to share Come As You Are with other Nirvana fans. I had assumed that as an equal in a court of law in the United States, my story would be told and a just outcome would result. I discovered the sheer magnitude of obstacles in your way to get your say in court. And even if you get to trial, (which only one other person, Jammie Thomas Rasset, has done) you're still far from equal with the machine controlling 85% of commercial music in the US. But to even start fighting assumes you (a) know what you're even being sued for and (b) have a concept of what grounds to fight it on. Most of the time you know nothing except for the huge stack of paper written in legalese that says you owe several thousand dollars and it will probably cost you more than that just to hire a lawyer. If you can find one. I had frequent contact with one of their Colorado counsel. While she was impudent to the point of vicious ("Come on Joel, I think you did it"), I continued to use phrases like "I respect your position" and "we have a respectful difference of opinion". I have no record of this intimidation because the person in question made sure to keep contact restricted to phonecalls. Every conversation consisted of her trying to get information out of me about my defense, telling me how much bigger the settlement would be if I didn't settle now. Shaken, I would call my mother, who was a state-paid lawyer in child custody cases, and ask her what to do. We blindly fired all kinds of motions at them. Eventually my mother became afraid to answer my calls, worried it would be about the case. For the court "settlement" I offered $5,250, which the RIAA declined, asking $10,500. I saw myself on a conveyor belt, being pulled inexorably toward the meshing of razor-sharp gears. Then in summer 2008, I arrived home to find a letter addressed to me. The return address said "Harvard Law School". Curiously, I opened and read it. "My name is Charles Nesson, professor of Law at Harvard. I caught wind of your case," it said. "I can be of any assistance, don't hesitate to call." I called. Nesson picked up. I said, "Yes, you can be of assistance!" My mom drafted a letter to him, summarising where we were. The opening line read, "Dear Professor Godsend". Since then I've learned that you don't have to accept phone contact from the RIAA lawyers, but could demand correspondence by mail. I've been deposed twice – for nine hours one day and for another seven a few weeks ago – where I was asked every irrelevant question about my life, cars that I owned, websites I've operated. The RIAA will try to denigrate this, saying I was only talking for seven hours and then five and a half, but I was stuck in their office the entire time. You think it makes any difference to me when I can't work? My sisters, dad and mother have all been deposed. My high-school friends, friends of the family too. My computer's been seized and hard drive copied, and my parents and sister narrowly escaped the same fate for their computers. And the professor who supervises my teaching is continually frustrated with my need to have people cover for me, while my research in grad school is put on hold to deal with people whose full-time job is to keep an anvil over my head. I have to consider every unrelated thing I do in my private life in the event that I'm interrogated under oath about it. I wonder how I'll stand up in a courtroom for hours having litigators try to convince a jury of my guilt and the reprehensibility of my character. But the support helps. I've had a great team of Nesson's students helping and the professor himself has been magnificent. Most of all, I'm touched by the warm messages of support from the people who've written in, Twittered, and Facebooked me (though I've been too paranoid to friend strangers lately). Best hopes to others dealing with the same: Brittany Kruger, Jammie Thomas, and the other 39,997 of us. The trial starts today, 27 Monday July. Regrettably, it won't be webcast as we requested due to the RIAA's successful opposition, but we will tweet [http://twitter.com/joelfightsback] (with the hashtag #jfb) and blog as much as possible, and there is a website where you can follow us and learn more (http://www.joelfightsback.com/). From rms@gnu.org Tue Jul 28 05:36:46 2009 From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:36:46 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Joel Faces the Bogus RIAA Music Today In-Reply-To: <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (message from Seth Johnson on Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:05:25 -0400) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: (Please do all you can to support Joel Tennenbaum. What can we do to support him? I cannot imagine anything that would be effective. Has he or Nesson posted a page requesting support? From jeremy@iz.org Tue Jul 28 07:27:43 2009 From: jeremy@iz.org (Jeremy G Byrne) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:27:43 +1000 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Joel Faces the Bogus RIAA Music Today In-Reply-To: References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A6E9A5F.4010006@iz.org> Richard Stallman wrote: > (Please do all you can to support Joel Tennenbaum. > > What can we do to support him? Follow the case, and mention it to others? CYa, JEREMY From seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org Tue Jul 28 07:44:21 2009 From: seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:44:21 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Joel Faces the Bogus RIAA Music Today In-Reply-To: References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: It's an interesting case, most notably because Nesson was perhaps audaciously pursuing a fair use argument (and some were querulous of his taking that tack) up until about 2am yesterday morning, when the judge announced that that argument would not be allowed. I guess I'm mostly encouraging moral support -- I guess spreading the word and sending supportive comments to the legal team would be the main thing. Joel has not denied doing the deeds in question. Seth -----Original Message----- From: Richard Stallman To: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Cc: ecommerce@lists.essential.org, upd-discuss@lists.essential.org, A2K@lists.essential.org Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:36:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [Upd-discuss] Joel Faces the Bogus RIAA Music Today > (Please do all you can to support Joel Tennenbaum. > > What can we do to support him? > I cannot imagine anything that would be effective. > Has he or Nesson posted a page requesting support? > _______________________________________________ > Upd-discuss mailing list > Upd-discuss@lists.essential.org > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-discuss From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Tue Jul 28 21:28:39 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:28:39 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Re: Joel Faces the Bogus RIAA Music Today References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A6F5F77.A76546F@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> As I have mentioned in the past, I hope that Nesson makes reference to the legislative and broader debate preceding the enactment of the fair use statute in the United States, to lay the basis for his argument. That's where the ground would have to be for the kind of case he said he wanted to present, though he now apparently has to do this without specifically appealing to fair use as such. That's because the judge disallowed that argument just before the case began. Note that Tennenbaum does not deny actually doing the things that are the subject of the charges against him. My sense is that the fact that the argument was barred in this case (and that Nesson did not waver in his pressing for it) will only result in that fact being thrown into relief by this case. Sometimes the world can only realize it's crazy after its claims for what is crazy are made the specific question. Nesson may have already done us all the greatest favor he could have rendered unto us by the vehicle of this case, regardless of its outcome. Seth Seth Johnson wrote: > > (Please do all you can to support Joel Tennenbaum. Even if you fear > the arguments being presented, or you presume that he's going down. > Whatever the result, his legal team is raising some serious stakes, > and Joel has chosen to trust them. What he's confronting affects us > all, and the outcome will affect us all as well. -- Seth) > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jul/27/filesharing-music-industry > > How it Feels to be Sued for $4.5 Million > > Joel Tenebaum and his legal team > > When I contemplate the above sum, I have to remind myself what I'm > being charged with. Investment fraud? An attack against the > government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave > > To a certain extent, I'm afraid to write this. Though they've already > seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they > won't do it again. For the past four years, they've been threatening > me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends, > and myself twice – the first time for nine hours, the second for > seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that > went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m > (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/19/illegal-filesharing-fine). > > When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I'm being > charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack > against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to > cave. > > No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always > the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which > are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association > of America (RIAA) has operated under. "How did they get you?" I'm > asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for > the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared > music. And that's when a look appears on the face of whoever I'm > talking to, the horrified "it could have been me!" look. > > The reason this has remained so silent despite passionate opposition > is that nearly all people settle. My story of becoming an exception > started four years ago. > > In 2005, my parents received a letter from Sony BMG, Warner, Atlantic > Records, Arista Records, and UMG Records claiming "copyright > infringement". They were given a number to call, which was their > "settlement information line", a call centre staffed by operators who, > we are emphatically told, are "not attorneys". The process of > collecting money from these threats was so huge, they had set up a > 1-800-DONT-SUE-ME-style call centre. > > The operators did little more than ask how you would pay (they wanted > $3,000, I believe) and repeated intimidating lawsuit statistics. I > sent them a money order for $500, which they returned. I told them I > couldn't pay any more. We discussed whether I might qualify for > "financial hardship", and then I stopped hearing from them, which I > didn't question. I graduated from college and began studying for my > physics doctorate. > > And then in August 2007, I came home from work to find a stack of > papers, maybe 50 pages thick, sitting at the door to my apartment. > That's when I found out what it was like to have possibly the most > talented copyright lawyers in the business, bankrolled by > multibillion-dollar corporations, throwing everything they had at > someone who wanted to share Come As You Are with other Nirvana fans. > > I had assumed that as an equal in a court of law in the United States, > my story would be told and a just outcome would result. I discovered > the sheer magnitude of obstacles in your way to get your say in court. > And even if you get to trial, (which only one other person, Jammie > Thomas Rasset, has done) you're still far from equal with the machine > controlling 85% of commercial music in the US. > > But to even start fighting assumes you (a) know what you're even being > sued for and (b) have a concept of what grounds to fight it on. Most > of the time you know nothing except for the huge stack of paper > written in legalese that says you owe several thousand dollars and it > will probably cost you more than that just to hire a lawyer. If you > can find one. > > I had frequent contact with one of their Colorado counsel. While she > was impudent to the point of vicious ("Come on Joel, I think you did > it"), I continued to use phrases like "I respect your position" and > "we have a respectful difference of opinion". I have no record of this > intimidation because the person in question made sure to keep contact > restricted to phonecalls. > > Every conversation consisted of her trying to get information out of > me about my defense, telling me how much bigger the settlement would > be if I didn't settle now. Shaken, I would call my mother, who was a > state-paid lawyer in child custody cases, and ask her what to do. We > blindly fired all kinds of motions at them. Eventually my mother > became afraid to answer my calls, worried it would be about the case. > For the court "settlement" I offered $5,250, which the RIAA declined, > asking $10,500. I saw myself on a conveyor belt, being pulled > inexorably toward the meshing of razor-sharp gears. > > Then in summer 2008, I arrived home to find a letter addressed to me. > The return address said "Harvard Law School". Curiously, I opened and > read it. "My name is Charles Nesson, professor of Law at Harvard. I > caught wind of your case," it said. "I can be of any assistance, don't > hesitate to call." I called. Nesson picked up. I said, "Yes, you can > be of assistance!" My mom drafted a letter to him, summarising where > we were. The opening line read, "Dear Professor Godsend". > > Since then I've learned that you don't have to accept phone contact > from the RIAA lawyers, but could demand correspondence by mail. I've > been deposed twice – for nine hours one day and for another seven a > few weeks ago – where I was asked every irrelevant question about my > life, cars that I owned, websites I've operated. The RIAA will try to > denigrate this, saying I was only talking for seven hours and then > five and a half, but I was stuck in their office the entire time. You > think it makes any difference to me when I can't work? > > My sisters, dad and mother have all been deposed. My high-school > friends, friends of the family too. My computer's been seized and hard > drive copied, and my parents and sister narrowly escaped the same fate > for their computers. And the professor who supervises my teaching is > continually frustrated with my need to have people cover for me, while > my research in grad school is put on hold to deal with people whose > full-time job is to keep an anvil over my head. I have to consider > every unrelated thing I do in my private life in the event that I'm > interrogated under oath about it. I wonder how I'll stand up in a > courtroom for hours having litigators try to convince a jury of my > guilt and the reprehensibility of my character. > > But the support helps. I've had a great team of Nesson's students > helping and the professor himself has been magnificent. Most of all, > I'm touched by the warm messages of support from the people who've > written in, Twittered, and Facebooked me (though I've been too > paranoid to friend strangers lately). Best hopes to others dealing > with the same: Brittany Kruger, Jammie Thomas, and the other 39,997 of > us. > > The trial starts today, 27 Monday July. Regrettably, it won't be > webcast as we requested due to the RIAA's successful opposition, but > we will tweet [http://twitter.com/joelfightsback] (with the hashtag > #jfb) and blog as much as possible, and there is a website where you > can follow us and learn more (http://www.joelfightsback.com/). -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Jul 30 22:55:04 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:55:04 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Attuned to the EU's New Pirates References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A7216B8.DBB9F397@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/in-tune-with-the-needs-of-the-eu-s-new-pirates/65659.aspx In Tune With the Needs of the EU's New Pirates By Jarle Hetland 30.07.2009 / 04:10 CET Erik Josefsson's battles for electronic freedoms led him to the European Parliament. It was an injury that sent Erik Josefsson along the path that led him to where he is today, working as political adviser to Christian Engström, a member of the European Parliament for Sweden's Pirate Party, which seeks to reform copyright and patent laws, and is now Sweden's third largest party. Though it has no direct link with the Pirate Bay filesharing website, support for the Pirate Party was boosted by a decision from a Swedish court in April that the Pirate Bay's activities were illegal. After receiving a masters degree in music in 1997, Josefsson was working as a professional double bass player in orchestras in his native Sweden when a shoulder injury put an end to that career. He then decided to take advantage of his earlier studies in maths and physics and landed a job as a software developer. Soon afterwards he joined a group for users of the Linux operating system. Among the many issues discussed was the importance of access to source codes for developers, either to fix software problems or to develop new applications. The GNU General Public Licence for software was, he says, the main subject of conversation between developers who put their work ethics before their own or their business' interests. Before he knew it, Josefsson was part of a movement which claims to be saving the world from corporate control. In 2002 he became one of the leading opponents of the EU's software patent directive. He co-founded the Swedish chapter of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) with Engström and, without any knowledge of how to lobby politicians, he spearheaded the campaign against the directive. "When the directive was proposed in 2002, I and many others started following this from scratch," he says. "We were computer programmers, students or entrepreneurs, and we knew nothing about how the EU worked. "It eventually developed into a grassroots movement equal in strength to the business associations and lobby groups you normally find in Brussels, to those whose views are normally heard and listened to," he says. Patent protest The movement grew out of the blogosphere – or more correctly, Josefsson says, out of the ‘mailsphere' – and the organising element was no individual or organisation, but a classical self-generating political process. "It was like seeing a catastrophe about to happen. Imagine a bus about to drive into a crowd of people; you want to stop the bus before it happens. We didn't have time to launch a proper organisation and we never asked questions about how we should do things. We just had to do it." By early 2005, more than 400,000 people had signed a petition against the software patent directive and later that year it was rejected by the Parliament. Although Josefsson is keen to stress the collective effort involved in stopping the directive, it was also a personal victory. Josefsson continued at the FFII until 2007, when he started working for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an organisation that seeks to defend freedoms on the internet and data privacy. Joining the pirates Earlier this year, Josefsson was a candidate to be an MEP for Vänstrepartiet (Left Party), a left-wing party. Although the 45-year-old was not elected, he "stole", as he puts it, more than 700 votes from his current employer, the Pirate Party. Josefsson's knowledge of EU affairs and his long-time partnership with Engström make it easy to understand why the Pirate Party disregarded his one-time opposition to the movement's transformation into a political party and chose him for his current job. "The Pirate Party grew out of organisations such as FFII and EFF, not the Pirate Bay. When the party was launched in 2006 I thought it would be more difficult to make people listen to us. In the end I was wrong," says Josefsson, who will also be working for the Green group in the Parliament. "To me, this role is natural and it feels good to be working for the political group that first took an interest in the issues I was campaigning for." Although it was an injury that started the chain of events that brought Josefsson to the heart of the Parliament, he has not completely forgotten his old partner, the double bass. In August he will once again be performing, this time at a summer opera back in his home town of Malmö. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 00:16:02 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:16:02 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] RMS re: the Swedish Pirate Party's Platform References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A7229B2.B6746BCA@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (I'm inclined to think that as the kind of policy the Pirate Party platform represents gains footing, we would be able to take up the problems with EULAs on information products without many of the unproductive assumptions that are more easily propagated under the current kind of copyright regime. I don't think that's enough of a solution, but it should be borne in mind. -- Seth) > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html How the Swedish Pirate Party Platform Backfires on Free Software by Richard Stallman The bullying of the copyright industry in Sweden inspired the launch of the first political party whose platform is to reduce copyright restrictions: the Pirate Party. Its platform includes the prohibition of Digital Restrictions Management, legalization of noncommercial sharing of published works, and shortening of copyright for commercial use to a five-year period. Five years after publication, any published work would go into the public domain. I support these changes, in general; but the specific combination chosen by the Swedish Pirate Party backfires ironically in the special case of free software. I'm sure that they did not intend to hurt free software, but that's what would happen. The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use copyright law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits everyone to publish modified works, but only under the same license. Redistribution of the unmodified work must also preserve the license. And all redistributors must give users access to the software's source code. How would the Swedish Pirate Party's platform affect copylefted free software? After five years, its source code would go into the public domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to include it in their programs. But what about the reverse case? Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright, and the users don't have the source code. Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it. In addition, the users, not having the source code, do not control what the program does when they run it. To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and give the developer control over you. So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a “time bomb” in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the “public domain” copies would not run at all. Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright — one that free software does not share. We also use copyright to partially deflect the danger of software patents. We cannot make our programs safe from them — no program is ever safe from software patents in a country which allows them — but at least we prevent them from being used to make the program effectively non-free. The Swedish Pirate Party proposes to abolish software patents, and if that is done, this issue would go away. But until that is achieved, we must not lose our only defense for protection from patents. Once the Swedish Pirate Party had announced its platform, free software developers noticed this effect and began proposing a special rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free software, so that it can continue to be copylefted. This explicit exception for free software would counterbalance the effective exception for proprietary software. Even ten years ought to be enough, I think. However, the proposal met with resistance from the Pirate Party's leaders, who objected to the idea of a longer copyright for a special case. I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the same effect on proprietary software's source code. After all, copyleft is a means to an end (users' freedom), not an end in itself. And I'd rather not be an advocate for a stronger copyright. So I proposed that the Pirate Party platform require proprietary software's source code to be put in escrow when the binaries are released. The escrowed source code would then be released in the public domain after 5 years. Rather than making free software an official exception to the 5-year copyright rule, this would eliminate proprietary software's unofficial exception. Either way, the result is fair. A Pirate Party supporter proposed a more general variant of the first suggestion: a general scheme to make copyright last longer as the public is granted more freedoms in using the work. The advantage of this is that free software becomes part of a general pattern of varying copyright term, rather than a lone exception. I'd prefer the escrow solution, but any of these methods would avoid a prejudicial effect specifically against free software. There may be other solutions that would also do the job. One way or another, the Pirate Party of Sweden should avoid placing a handicap on a movement to defend the public from marauding giants. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 00:50:16 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Joel Tenenbaum: I Shared Music Files References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A7231B8.4261393B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (RT @joelfightsback: "this is me. i used the computer. This is how it is. I did it.") > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10299794-93.html Joel Tenenbaum admits in court he shared music files by Greg Sandoval July 30, 2009 8:38 AM PDT There's no subterfuge with Joel Tenenbaum. The graduate student accused of copyright violations admitted in court on Thursday that he shared files and knew others were downloading the music he made available on Kazaa, according to a Twitter post from blogger Ben Sheffner. Sheffner, a copyright lawyer who is covering the story from the courtroom, wrote "(Music industry) attorney getting scores of admissions from Tenenbaum. Joel doesn't resist." The four major music labels, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, EMI and Sony Music filed the copyright suit against Tenenbaum and in previous statements he denied sharing, according to Sheffner. By admitting guilt, it appears Tenenbaum is going to take his chances that his attorney, Prof. Charles Nesson can convince the jury that sharing unauthorized music files doesn't cause that much harm and ordering defendants to pay big damages isn't justified. Tenenbaum, along with Jammie Thomas-Rasset, are the only people accused of illegal file sharing that have taken their cases before a jury. In June, Thomas was found liable of copyright infringement and ordered to pay nearly $2 million. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 00:58:50 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Court: It's All Up to the Jury References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A7233BA.69898EBC@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/court-leaves-all-issues-other-than.html The Court Leaves All Issues, Other Than Copyright Ownership, to the Jury, in SONY v. Tenenbaum Thursday, July 30, 2009 posted by Ray Beckerman @ 7/30/2009 07:45:00 PM In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Court ruled that all issues other than copyright ownership will be left to the jury. Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered with respect to Rule 50 motion: The Court will make required findings concerning copyright ownership, but leave all remaining issues -- infringement (reproduction and distribution), damages and willfulness -- for the jury, out of an abundance of caution. The Court does so in part because the statutory damages inquiry obliges the jury to consider some of the same issues as the infringement inquiry, i.e. the nature of the infringement. (Gertner, Nancy) From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 04:49:18 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:49:18 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Proposed Jury Instructions on Damages in Sony v. Tenenbaum References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A7269BE.8633177E@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/defendant-submits-proposed-jury.html Defendant submits proposed jury instruction on damages in SONY v Tenenbaum Thursday, July 30, 2009 posted by Ray Beckerman @ 7/30/2009 07:52:00 PM Defendant has submitted a proposed jury instruction on damages in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. Defendant's proposed jury instruction on damages: > http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090730DeftsProposedJuryInstrDamages.pdf -- > http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090730DeftsProposedJuryInstrDamages.pdf DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JURY INSTRUCTION RE: DAMAGES Without waiving his objections that any amount of statutory damages in this case would be excessive and unconstitutional, and not applicable to a non­commercial user, the Defendant requests that the jury be instructed that they may consider the following factors in determining the amount of statutory damages: 1. Whether or not the infringement was for a commercial purpose, or for profit; 2. Whether or not the infringer acted maliciously with the intent to injure the copyright holder; 3. The age and maturity of the infringer. It is clear that the Copyright Act contemplates that the highest damages be extracted only from the worst offenders, and that the high end of the continuum of infringers is occupied by malicious commercial enterprises in the business of selling unauthorized copies for profit. The jury's decision­making process must be channeled to effect this legislative intent. Date: July 30, 2009 From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 11:18:01 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:18:01 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Tenenbaum Day 1: Jury Selection, Reporting by Mark Bourgeois References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A72C4D9.B52EB975@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Mark Bourgeois' introduction at bottom. -- Seth) > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/jury-selection-encompases-first-day-of.html Monday, July 27, 2009 Jury selection consumes first day of Sony v. Tenenbaum BY MARC BOURGEOIS Almost the entirety of day one of the Sony v. Tenenbaum trial was devoted to jury selection. Opening statements will begin tomorrow at 9:00a.m. My updates for this trial will likely be limited to end of day wrap-ups as I am not permitted to bring any electronic devices into the courthouse, much less the courtroom, as I lack the needed credentials to do so. The morning began with a very brief reading of Judge Gertner's order on the summary judgment motion that was entered early in the morning. She also stated that any constitutional questions raised by the parties in regard to damages would be a question saved for post trial, if and when there is a damage award. The parties then discussed timing for each side to present their case, as the judge has announced that the trial should last one week. Judge Gertner stated that she wanted the trial to move expeditiously, but would not impose specific time limits on either side. She wants to have the case to the jury by the end of the week, but deliberation could go to next week. Prof. Nesson then asked the court about whether or not the jury would be instructed on the range of damages as is stated in the copyright act, and stated he would like the jury instruction not to include the specific range, but rather ask that the jury if it awards damages simply be instructed to award damages that are just. Cites Feltner v. Columbia as his authority for this instruction. Plaintiffs object and Judge Gertner states that she will take the issue under advisement and rule before the opening statements, as Professor Nesson has indicated that the form of the instruction will play in to how he presents his opening. Professor Nesson then stated two other objections, he would like to modify the geography of the courtroom to better present the defense to the jury, and the issue of Debbie Rosenbaum participating in the case. The courtroom was slightly modified with the position of the defense counsel table, and Ms. Rosenbaum is permitted to sit at the counsel table and assist Professor Nesson. The jury selection voir dire then began. The voir dire went very quickly with the group in opening court, with several jurors being excused for their inability to sit on the case due to unresolvable scheduling issues. No one claims to have heard, read, or seen anything about the case and no one claims to know any parties or witnesses to the case. The selection then proceeded in an adjacent courtroom with voir dire by the parties, one juror at a time, without the presence of the remainder of the jury. This process lasted until about 4:15pm until a panel of 16 was selected, and each side was allowed 3 peremptory challenges, leaving a total of 10 jurors to sit on the case. After the jurors were selected they were sworn in and asked to come back tomorrow morning at 9:00am for opening statements. Parties then brought up some issues of their concern prior to opening statements. Plaintiffs do not wish for Professor Nesson to being up certain issues that were raised in voir dire that they do not believe are relevant to the case. Some of these issues include his representation of Tenenbaum pro bono, references to terms more appropriate to a criminal proceeding, his personal choice of wardrobe, and Joel's (as opposed to both parties') right to a jury. Judge Gertner agrees with Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also bring up the use of demonstrative exhibits in opening statements. Plaintiffs indicate they do not plan to use any demonstrative exhibits in their opening statement, but ask to know if Defendant does. Professor Nesson states that he does have two. One is in image of the Necker Cube. The other is a box of styrofoam, to which he intends to liken the image of an album and intends to show breaking into pieces along with the advent of the internet. Plaintiffs object to these demonstrations, but Judge Gertner overrules and explains that the opening statement must have relevance to the testimony that witnesses will provide, but gives license for counsel to present how they choose. What these demonstratives will mean won't be found out until tomorrow. Judge Gertner then denies Defendant's proposed jury instruction not listing the statutory range. The range will be available to the jury. Judge Gertner brought up the issue of the innocent infringer defense. There was then some discussion between the parties, but the defense will not be allowed in this case because it was not asserted early enough in the case. Judge Gertner then gave an order regarding the testimony which will be allowed by Johan Pouwelse. He will be allowed to testify as an expert with regards to the times of appearance of Napster, iTunes, and other peer-to-peer related services. He will also be able to testify as to alternative methodologies to those employed by Dr. Jacobson. He will not be allowed to testify to anything relating to the marketplace for music or anything else related to economics. The day ended with Judge Gertner encouraging the parties to move the case quickly. She specifically stated that she didn't see the need for the MediaSentry witness, as there isn't an issue as to the fact that their investigation led to the correct person. Mr. Reynolds for the Plaintiffs argued that there were other issues to which MediaSentry would testify about, such as about what exactly was uploaded or downloaded. Plaintiffs then offered for the defense the list of the first three witnesses they will call tomorrow, which are G. Wade Leak (Sony), Chris Connelly (MediaSentry), and Mark Matteo (Cox Communications) Docket entry for first day: Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Nancy Gertner: Jury Trial held on 7/27/2009. Voir Dire begins; 10 Juror's selected and sworn; openings and evidence to begin on Tues 7/28/09 at 9:00am, court adjourned. (lobby conference held re: media/list of jury pool) (Court Reporter: O'hara.)(Attorneys present: Atty Reynolds, Pariser, Cloherty, Burton, Oppenheim, Nesson, Kamholtz, Feinberg) (Molloy, Maryellen) [Ed. note. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Judge is deciding at this time what the jury instruction will allow in terms of statutory damages. How can she determine that, without seeing what actual damages have been shown? Also it sounds like she's decided to allow a free for all on the opening statements, so the RIAA lawyers will talk about how their business model is hurting and it's because of all of those "pirates" out there. Sounds like I'm not getting wishes numbered 3 and 4 from my wish list {http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-wish-list-for-mondays-sony-v.html}. Plus it sounds like the jury selection process was allowed to be the same kind of charade the Capitol v. Thomas process had been. I think I'm going to be sick. -R.B.] posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/27/2009 05:28:00 PM -- > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/marc-bourgeois-to-cover-sony-bmg-music.html Marc Bourgeois to cover Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Joel Tenenbaum trial in person posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/26/2009 05:20:00 PM Hello everyone, I'm Marc W. Bourgeois, and I will be providing on-site coverage of the Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Joel Tenenbaum trial as was done with Capitol v. Thomas-Rasset. I currently work for a Madison, WI based online retailer managing system and network infrastructure. I've previously worked for the information technology department at the University of Wisconsin, Division of University Housing, where a portion of my job responsibilities included the processing of copyright related cease-and-desist (DMCA) notifications and the technical aspects relating to the recording industry pre-litigation campaign targeting colleges and universities. [I should note that while Joel Tenenbaum was a college student at the time of the alleged copyright infringement he was not living in a University operated residence facility, and the incarnation of the pre-litigation program of which I was involved had not yet been created.] While I anticipate my twitter updates may be less frequent during this trial than the previous, I will also be providing them at: http://twitter.com/mwbourgeois Thank you and I look forward to providing readers this first-hand perspective of events this week. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 11:19:18 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Tenenbaum Day 3: Witnesses References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A72C526.7721B057@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/day-three-witnesses-in-sony-v-tenenbaum.html Day three witnesses in Sony v. Tenenbaum BY MARC BOURGEOIS Wednesday, July 29, 2009 Antonio Franko Wednesday's first witness was Antonio Franko, a high school friend of Joels. He hasn't seen Joel for several years and was asked some basic questions, about his use of a computer in Joel's bedroom, and about Joel's music collection. In similar testimony to Mr. Chappel he stated that he'd used the computer but never to use KaZaA or download music, despite deposition testimony from Joel that he may have. He testified also that Joel had a good sized music collection, including some burned CDs. Dr. Doug Jacobson Most of the morning and a portion of the afternoon was testimony from Dr. Doug Jacobson, the Plaintiff's expert witness. He began by going over his qualifications and his curriculum vitae and was admitted as an expert with no objection from Plaintiffs. He explained that he was asked to produce a report for Plaintiffs about the MediaSentry data he reviewed in this case, and eventually to issue a supplemental report after examining a computer hard drive from Joel's Gateway computer. He then began explaining how peer to peer networks work, and how KaZaA works specifically. After describing technical details about peers, supernodes, and IP addressing he moved on to the user experience of the KaZaA application. He explained that users search in KaZaA for files, then they can choose files from the results returned to begin the files downloading on to their computer. He explained that the users in the peer to peer network typically don't know each other, and only identify one another by their IP address. He was asked to explain some features of KaZaA 2.0, which he explained had an option to scan for files that you may wish to share with the KaZaA application, and that this was an option that would only occur after the user chose to run it. He was asked if KaZaA could be used to listen to music from other computers on the network. He explained that this could only happen if the music was first downloaded from the other computer. Dr. Jacobson then testified about the report he prepared on the MediaSentry evidence. He testified that he had reviewed the MediaSentry information and formed the opinion that Joel Tenenbaum had used that computer, and that he had used it to copy and distribute copyrighted files. His opinion was based on the evidence that MediaSentry was able to start the download of 1000+ files and collect MetaData and successfully continue the download for a subset of these files. He examined the screenshots of the shared folder and stated that all of the files listed were available for distribution. He testified that the initiation process on all files serves the purpose of proving that the file does indeed exists, and gathers the meta data about the file for further evidence. He then began to explain in more detail than Mr. Connelly some of the information contained on MediaSentry's data log. He explained the makeup of the request packets and response packets, including the source and destination IP address on the packets, as well as some of the header information such as the request of the file by its file hash, and the header fields showing KaZaA username and KaZaA IP address. He went into the most detail on a file where a request was sent several times without a response to sublimeguy14's computer before a response was recieved from a different user (nick_c). He explained the packets in this case showed that the file started downloading from someone else, but eventually finished downloading with a transfer from sublimeguy14's computer. He stated from all of his analysis that he had no doubts about the MediaSentry information and believed that sublimeguy14 was distributing the entire file with that hash code. He also stated his belief that all of the files were available for distribution based on MediaSentry being able to obtain the meta data for all of them. He also testified as to a number of tracks about his belief that the files came from the internet and were not ripped, based on the meta data that MediaSentry was able to obtain. The format and completion of the meta data was not consistent among many of the files, making him form the opinion that they were not ripped by the same computer. He explained that if they were ripped the meta data would likely have been consistent from the same software performing the ripping on multiple tracks. Dr. Jacobson was asked whether or not he believed a wireless router was involved in this case. He explained that in the case where a router was involved the X-KaZaA-IP: header field would differ from the source IP address of the data packet, with the former being a private IP address. He explained that this address was identical in all of the data packets from sublimeguy14's computer, which indicated there was no wireless router. He also pointed to the partial file received from nick_c which showed a 192.168.x.x IP address in the X-KaZaA-IP: header, which he explained meant that nick_c was using a router to connect his computer to the internet. Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Jacobson if he had any doubts or concerns about the accuracy or methodology of MediaSentry, to which he replied that he had none. He also testified that he had no concerns about hte data provided by Cox Communications. He was asked about the concept of pollution, which he explained was a situation where a file name does not match what is in the content of the file. He testified that he had no basis to believe that pollution occurred in this case. His opinion is based upon the data lengths of the files matching those of legitimate versions, and having proper meta data. His opinion he stated was also supported by the finding that those files that were completely downloaded did match what their file names claimed that they were. He was asked about the concept of IP spoofing, which he testified was difficult to perform on the public internet and that he had no reason to believe that it took place in this case. After a brief break Dr. Jacobson then began testifying about his forensic examination of a hard drive from a Gateway computer that Joel owned. He testified that this computer was different than the computer that Joel had in 2004 in his bedroom, he stated that he performed his investigation about a month ago. He explained his process of examining the hard drive, by recieving a forensics copy of the drive and using the EnCase software to examine it. He testified to several points he discovered during his examination: * Windows had been reinstalled on the computer on 3/31/2009. * There were two registry files which could not be opened, which he indicated was evidence that they were attempted to be deleted. * The file sharing program LimeWire was on the machine, and he believed it to be operable. * He found evidence of over 2700 music files in the C:\My Music folder which LimeWire was sharing, but that this folder itself had it some point been deleted. * He was able to identify several songs that were once in the C:\My Music folder that were at issue in this case. * He found several hundred exact matches to files in the C:\My Music folder that were being distributed by sublimeguy14@KaZaA * He also found a My Music folder under Joel's My Documents folder, which contained a similar folder structure and many of the files that were removed from the C:\My Music folder. * He had formed the opinion based on the inconsistent meta data in the files he found during the forensic examination that they were downloaded and distributed on the internet. Upon cross examination Professor Nesson asked Dr. Jacobson was he was being paid for his work. He stated that his rate in these cases was $200 per hour, and that he had probably worked 40-50 hours on this case. He testified that he has probably prepared about 300 reports for the recording industry in these types of cases, but most of them did not involve a forensic examination. He estimated that his total earnings from his work for the recording industry to be in the range of $100,000 - $120,000. He was asked if he had any relationship to MediaSentry. He stated that he did not have a relationship to MediaSentry, but he did discuss their data handling protocols with them. He admitted that he had never examined or tested their software. He was asked about the MediaSentry statement that their software had a zero-error rate. He stated that in the MediaSentry data that he had examined that he had never found any errors, but admitted that a zero-error rate that is something that is hard for software to achieve. Dr. Jacobson was then asked why MediaSentry only downloaded 7 of the files they found in the shared folder. He stated that it would have been infeasible to download them all, because it would have taken a long period of time. He was asked that for the remainder of the files it would be impossible to know if they were the sound files they stated they were or not, because there was no underlying file. Dr. Jacobson agreed that an audio comparison could not be made, but that it was still his opinion that all of the remaining files were present for distribution. Professor Nesson asked Dr. Jacobson that if a spoofed file was present in the directory if it would look the same as the other files from the meta data, to which he admitted that a spoofed copy could contain the correct meta data as well. Professor Nesson then returned to asking Dr. Jacobson about a company he mentioned that he formed during his description of his credentials. He asked about the product, such as to whom it would be sold and what its purpose it was. Dr. Jacobson stated the market for the product was any customer that wanted to control peer to peer traffic on their network. Dr. Jacobson was then asked about the InfraGuard group of which he is a member. He was asked in basic detail about what it was, and asked if copyright infringement had ever been discussed at an InfraGuard meeting. He stated could never recall his chapter discussing copyright infringement but that the chapters were each free to operate in their own way. Testimony then broke for lunch, after which Dr. Jacobson resumed testifying. He was asked to describe the user friendly aspects of KaZaA, and he described the process of searching for a file and double clicking it to download. He asked what other active action needed to be taken to distribute the file, which he said there was none, it just happened after the download completed, the only active action was double clicking the file for the initial download. Professor Nesson then proceeded along a line of questioning about the quality of music files found in the shared folder, and asked Dr. Jacobson to compare them to the quality of music that would be found on CDs. He stated that the MP3 files would be of lower quality, but that most people could not tell by simply listening. He conceded on further questioning that some people could likely discern the difference in quality between the two. He then began to ask if someone might download these lower quality files on the internet before purchasing the higher quality CDs in the stores, but his line of questioning was stopped based on sustained objections from Plaintiffs that this questioning was out of the scope of the direct examination. Professor Nesson then asked some questions about pirate rip groups and asked if there was any malicious quality to the way these groups put out music. This question as well as others in a similar line of questioning were also stopped on sustained objections. The examination then turned to the issue of the re-installation of the operating system that Dr. Jacobson testified about. Professor Nesson asked if htere was any evidence that the re-installation of the operating system was for any malicious purpose, or if there was any evidence that the number of music files was reduced after the operating system was re-installed. Dr. Jacobson answered in the negative to both of these questions. He was then asked about the two registry files that the EnCase software was unable to open. Dr. Jacobson previously testified that missing the data from these registry files made it impossible for him to determine some things about the configuration of the computer. Professor Nesson asked him more specifically about which registry files were unable to be opened. One was the NTUSER.dat file for the all users profile. Professor Nesson asked about this file and its relation to a NTUSER.dat file in the "joel" profile that was able to be opened, and asked if that meant he should be able to find information about Joel's user account and settings. Dr. Jacobson stated that what settings were stored in what location would depend on the way in which the software was installed, so he cannot tell for sure what exactly was in the registry file he was unable to open. Professor Nesson's final question concerned Dr. Jacobson's report that 750 music files were added to the machine in October of 2007. He asked whether or not these files could have come from being added to the iTunes library if Joel had begun using iTunes at that time. Dr. Jacobson stated that he did not know if iTunes made a copy of files that were added to the library, or what method it used to make a copy if it did, so he could not say for certain. Upon redirect Dr. Jacobson was asked about the report he prepared in this case. He stated that it was twelve pages long, with several hundred pages of attachments, and that it was quite lengthy for this type of report. He was asked directly about his testing of MediaSentry software. He stated that MediaSentry used KaZaA, and that he had tested and used KaZaA and he was also familiar with the theory of the type of capture software MediaSentry uses. He was again asked about the 25 files at issue in the case that were not downloaded. He again stated that all of the files are consistent, and what they purported themselves to be. On recross Dr. Jacobson was asked if KaZaA contained Malware. He stated that it would be more accurate to say that it contained Adware. He was asked if the MediaSentry computers had adware on them. He stated that he has not investigated their computers beyond what MediaSentry has told him, which is that they keep their computers clean. JoAn Cho Ms. Cho of UMG Recordings testified similarly to Mr. Leak of Sony in regards to the UMG songs that were at issue in the case. I won't go into great detail about her direct examination, because it was essentially identical to that of Mr. Leak. Nothing was said that was a great deal different than what Mr. Leak said. She echoed Mr. Leak's testimony that only 13 of the numberous sound files they owned that were found in the shared folder were being pursued because they wanted to pursue a reasonable number. Defendant's co-counsel Matt Feinberg cross-examined Ms. Cho. He asked about the Doe suit that was filed in Georgia to serve a subpoena on Cox Communications and also asked if Cox had ever challenged the methods used to obtain subscriber information. She testified that she was not familar with whether or not Cox had challeged the methods. He asked about the number of lawsuits that the recording companies had filed, to which she said she couldn't give an exact number filed. She was also asked about her other worked performed for UMG, such as being involved in other cases. Mr. Feinberg attempted to ask her what made the number of songs they chose to sue on reasonable, to which she stated she was not involved in making the decision on the number to pursue, but that it was done by others at her company. He asked if part of the reason for the lawsuits was to teach a lesson, to which she stated that it in part was and was in part to receive compensation. She was asked about legitimate online sales at the time, to which she specified a few services, as well as testified about the pricing of individual tracks available on iTunes both previously and currently. On redirect she was asked about the purpose of the Doe suits, which she stated was a method by which they use to obtain subscriber information. She was also asked about chain of title and described the process of proving chain of title through various corporate documents about recording contracts, copyright registrations, and mergers and acquisitions. Stan Liebowitz Dr. Liebowitz Economist from the University of Texas. He described his career history as well as books and articles he had written before he was admitted as an expert in Economics with no objection. The heart of Dr. Liebowitz's testimony focused on the fact that record company sales had increased from 1973 through 1999 before dropping, after which they have dropped consistently. He testified as to his opinion that file sharing was the reason for this drop in sales, supported by his research as well as his analysis of many other reasons why sales might drop of which his economic studies had revealed none. He also testified that he could not show the economic effect of Joel in specific, but stated that file sharing as a whole had resulted in great harm to the industry. Professor Nesson began his cross examination of Dr. Liebowitz asking about his report that the fundamental problem was the erosion of property rights brought about by file sharing. Dr. Liebowitz agreed. Professor Nesson read a portion of Dr. Liebowitz's book from 2001 where he stated that it could not yet be seen what effect file sharing would have on music sales. Dr. Liebowitz stated that he agreed with every word that was read from his book, but stated that it was written in 2001, and his further studies since that time showed that time more data has become available which supplemented his opinion that file sharing had great harm. The hour hit five o'clock and Plaintiffs wished to finish with this witness, but Professor Nesson stated that he had quite a bit to go and Judge Gertner released the jury for the day. The cross examination of Dr. Liebowitz will resume tomorrow morning. Plaintiffs indicated that they have three witnesses remaining, including Joel, plus two depositions to read in. They anticipate they will finish their case tomorrow. Professor Nesson indicate that he would be able to present his entire case on Friday. Judge Gertner indicated that closing arguments will be immediately after testimony is concluded. posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/29/2009 08:25:00 PM From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 11:18:47 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:18:47 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Tenenbaum Day 2: Opening Statements + Witnesses References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A72C507.373D883C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/opening-statements-in-sony-v-tenenbaum.html Opening statements in Sony v. Tenenbaum BY MARC BOURGEIOS posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/28/2009 06:17:00 PM The second day of Sony v. Tenenbaum began as promised with the opening statements of Plaintiffs followed by Defendant. Mr. Reynolds for the Plaintiff began his opening by describing the nature of the recording companies, stating that they are made up of real people who work to record and distribute music for the public to enjoy. He stated that his clients face a significant threat to their livelihood from copyright infringement on the internet. He stated his intention to show that Defendant had downloaded and distributed thousands of song files, all on the internet for free. He stated that while the infringement was massive his clients in the case were only focusing on thirty of these songs. He stated that these songs were distributed to millions of people without their permission with the KaZaA file sharing application. He described in basic terms what file sharing was, stating that it was sharing files with strangers that the Defendant did not know and described how the KaZaA application was downloaded and installed to a computer. He described the process of searching for song files and finding those available for downloading. Mr Reynolds stated that his clients hired MediaSentry, and on August, 10th of 2004 that MediaSentry was searching for files as any other user would do. They then discovered a user with the username of sublimeguy14@KaZaA who had over 800 song files on his computer, and that some of these files were distributed to MediaSentry. He stated his clients listened to these files and verified that they were in fact sound files of songs that his clients sell. He then stated that evidence would not be presented of other distribution other than to MediaSentry, because the KaZaA application does not keep long files, and is designed so that no one else can see what is happening when these files are distributed on the internet. He stated however that they know other distributions took place because that was the entire purpose of the KaZaA application. He then described metadata in other files that MediaSentry was able to imply other transfers for two reasons, first that the metadata showed evidence that these files were downloaded from the internet and second that the data packets shown would show an IP address that identifies a specific device on the internet. He then described that while they knew this information, they still did not know the identity of an anonymous sublimeguy14@KaZaA. He then described the process of locating a subscriber, J. Tenenbaum, via a subpoena on an Internet Service Provider, Cox Communications. Mr. Reynolds then proceeded to describe other evidence that would be shown by witnesses, such as the name sublimeguy14 being used by the Defendant for other this, and that the Defendant would admit that the KaZaA shared folder that was found was the one that he set up. He then said that Defendant had attempted to blame others when they contact for settlement, including other family members and friends. He then stated that they would show evidence of a computer investigated by Plaintiffs that would show over 2000 music files on it, and had other file sharing software installed. Mr. Reynolds wrapped up the statement by stating the jury would hear that defendant knew what he was doing and knew that it was illegal, and would hear about the harm this type of activity causes the music industry. He asked that the jury to hold Defendant responsible for his actions. Professor Nesson then began his opening statement for the Defendant by stating that this story began long before 2004, it began in 1999 when Napster was created. Plaintiffs had great success in years prior selling music between the advent of the Compact Disc and when file sharing came in to popularity with Napster. He then described that before the internet the process of stealing music would likely involve stealing physical goods from a physical retailer, but now that it was something that could be done in someone’s own bedroom via the internet. Professor Nesson described Joel’s background as a high school student around the time that Napster came into existence and described a summary of his life thereafter, going to college and eventually enrolling in a PhD program at Boston University. He told the jury that that they would hear from Joel’s family. He described the Plaintiffs business model as a cube of styrofoam that was breaking up in the new world of bits on the internet. He described the Plaintiffs having a problem, and needing a new business model in regards to the new technologies that had developed on the internet. Professor Nesson said that Mr. Reynolds was attempting to portray Joel as someone who ducked away from his responsibility, and described the process that the case had put Joel through, with multiple depositions and other difficulties to his life. Professor Nesson held up a poster of the Necker Cube, and asked the jury to look at it, despite it being a two-dimensional object was usually seen as a three-dimensional cube, but that many people could see it in two ways. If you see the cube in one form for a while and stare at it, often the cube will appear in a different perspective. He likened this to the situation Plaintiffs were attempting to place Joel in, that his actions could be seen in two different ways. He asked the jury to see the case from Joel’s point of view, and stated that he did not have the burden of proof. He asked the jury to recognize the impediment that he has gone through to reach them and allow them to see his point of view. Professor Nesson states that no profit was sought by Joel, and that Joel was not the part of any criminal syndicate. He then began describing the litigation the recording industry engaged in starting with their suits against Napster and Grokster. At this point the Plaintiffs object to what Professor Nesson is attempting to describe, and their objections are sustained. He then said that the campaign got to the point where they couldn’t go after the services any longer, and they needed to begin litigation against individuals, and that this is where the lawsuit has its origins. He described the case as about 30 songs in two categories. Those songs first learned of in August 2007, a list of seven that was later reduced to five. He described the other category as an additional 25. He asked the jury to focus on the difference between the two categories and asked the jury to find if Joel infringed on each one. He asked the jury if they do get to a point where they have to determine damages to award damages that are just. He asks that if the jury finds a violation that they find it to be a minor violation. He states that if he did violate any laws that the violation was a part of the generation of which Joel is a member. At this point Professor Nesson is reminded he is running out of time for his opening statement and concludes his statement by thanking the jury for their time. Witnesses begin with Wade Leak of Sony. [Ed. note. I'm definitely going to be sick. -R.B.] --- > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/witnesses-in-day-two-of-sony-v.html Witnesses in day two of Sony v. Tenenbaum BY MARC BOURGEOIS posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/28/2009 07:04:00 PM Wade Leak Wade Leak of Sony BMG Music Entertainment began by describing what the record companies do. They find new music, work with artists to match these artists with songwriters and producers and described the basic process of working with an artist to produce an album. He stated that the record companies primary source of revenue is sale of record albums and online sales of the tracks that they produce. He states that he is familiar with the songs Sony and Arista are suing over in the case. He identifies three songs that MediaSentry downloaded and four additional songs which the copyrights were owned by his companies in this case. He stated that Sony registered all the copyrights of these recordings and described the content of the certified copy of the copyright registration from the copyright office. He stated that Sony has the exclusive right to these songs and that they were sold in albums and also sold digitally. He then described that MediaSentry was hired to gather evidence of online infringement and that MediaSentry found a user, sublimeguy14@KaZaA distributing these songs. MediaSentry downloaded all of the three songs he initially identified, he listened to these tracks and determined that they were identical to the songs that are sold by his companies. He described the process of using a John Doe suit to obtain the subscriber information for the IP address MediaSentry identified from Cox Communications and sent a letter to J. Tenenbaum to put him on notice of a copyright infringement claim. He then described the screenshots of the sublimeguy14@KaZaA’s shared folder and identified many works that are owned by Sony that they are not pursuing claims on in this case. When asked why they were not pursuing claims on all these files he stated that they were pursuing claims on a “reasonable” number of songs. He stated that he wanted fans to buy his companies music, and that copyright is instrumental in making this happen. He was asked why they were suing individuals in this manner. He described their initial attempts to go after file sharing services, as well as PR efforts that the recording industry attempted. Eventually they decided to go after individuals engaging in file sharing because they had no choice. He stated that he wanted people to love music, but he also wanted them to pay for it. He likened the activity to shoplifting, but in the digital universe. He stated that they do not make money from these cases, because their expenses exceed any settlements they get through them. He said that the reduced revenue due to lost sales has led to numerous job losses at Sony. The stated that many people feel file sharing is a victimless offense, but the victims are those at Sony who have lost their jobs in recent years. He stated that Sony is seeking statutory damages in this case and does not have a number in mind of damages they would like to see awarded. On cross examination Professor Nesson asked Mr. Leak about how they hired MediaSentry and how thew coordinated with the RIAA, and again asked about the issue of money in these cases. Mr. Leak repeated that their expenses exceed any settlements they receive and that the goal in the campaign is education. He stated that most settle these claims before there is even a suit. He then asked about why Sony did not sue on all the files they saw in the shared folder, and he again repeated the intent to pursue a reasonable number. He did state that each was infringement and was willful, and they could have sued on many more songs. Professor Nesson then focused on the issue of revenue. He focused on the numbers from several albums that showed that the revenue figures show a much greater amount of gross revenue from album sales than from the sales of digital tracks as a general trend in all of the revenue information for Sony tracks that he is asked to look at. He was asked to describe the digital services that were available in 2004. He was also asked to describe the difference between the songs listed on the first exhibit of five and the other twenty-five identified, after which he brought up the issue of spoofed songs being available on file sharing networks. He asked if the songs that were not fully downloaded could be so-called “spoof” songs put out on file-sharing services to discourage people from using them. Mr. Leak stated that their spoofing efforts were only focused on front-line releases, and that they would not have been directed at these tracks because they were all catalog tracks. Mr. Leak stated that each of the songs in the shared folder represents a displaced sale and that the shared folder was evidence that these files were available for potentially millions of people free. He then again described in a way he attempted to under direct examination that was objected to, the difficulty of his business competing with a marketplace where music is available as described for free and likened it to being in the business of selling televisions where a truck pulls up outside your store and begins giving away televisions for free. Mr. Nesson then attempted to proceed down a line of questioning regarding Sony’s ownership of Michael Jackson copyrights, which is quickly shut down by Plaintiffs sustained objections to the questions. He then asked about the labels no longer initialing new cases. Mr. Leak stated that he was not involved in the decision regarding not pursuing new cases, but stated that they were still continuing with cases that had already begun. He also stated that they reserve the right to start new cases at any time. Professor Nesson’s questions then wrapped up asking about what damage he thought was appropriate, and the answer was just that he wanted an award that was relative to his culpability and that his activity showed a blatant disregard for copyrights. On redirect Mr. Oppenheim returned to the issue of revenue. Mr. Leak described the life cycle of a track and described different events that could cause a boost in sales at various times, such as the track being used in a movie or television show or a greatest hits album being released that would explain some of the variations in revenue numbers that were shown earlier. He then described the lower amounts shown for digital sales were in part due to piracy, in part to it being new technology, and in part due to the figures only being for the specific tracks being sold, and not being full albums. Chris Connelly Mr. Connelly identified himself as an employee of MediaSenty/MediaDefender. He described his work as to protect the copyrights of his clients, specifically in cases such as these, to search peer to peer networks as any other user would do for their clients copyrighted works. He described the process of installing KaZaA from KaZaA.com and the initial configuration process where the user self-selects a username and sets up a shared folder. He described the process of searching for files, selecting them, and downloading them. He described their process as something any other user would do, with the exception that they collect evidence of what is done, such as the packets that are transferred between MediaSentry and KaZaA users and the collection of screenshots produced by their process. He also testified that their process had a 'zero-error rate', meaning they had no examples of cases where the data they collected turned out to be erroneous. He then described the evidence that they found, such as the screenshots of the sublimeguy14@KaZaA shared folder. He described the user log that they created which showed the meta-data they were able to transfer from over 800 files in this shared folder. He also described the data log showing packets between a Cox Communications IP address and MediaSentry. He was brought many pages of these logs showing mp3 files, kpl files, and MetaData collected about them. He testified that most of these files most likely did not come from ripped CDs due to disparities in format of meta-data, varying bitrates, et. cetera. which indicated that they most likely came from different originating sources throughout the internet. One part of the data log showed a portion where the sublimeguy14@KaZaA computer did not respond to several requests, which he described as 'most likely because the computer was busy' and the requested file then starting to download from a different PC. He described this process as part of the way KaZaA worked. He did testify that he had no evidence of other transfers between sublimeguy14@KaZaA and any other party, because peer-to-peer software does not show these activities taking place. On cross-examination he again admitted he had no evidence of any other transfers and Professor Nesson focused on some tracks that had meta-data indicating they were ripped by someone named 'havok', he asked if he had ever seen any songs indicating they came from sublimeguy14 in any other case, to which he indicated he had not, but that since none of the metadata from this shared folder had that name in them that even if he had seen files that came from this shared folder in any other case they would not contain that name. The questioning then turned to the issue of impact. He went back to the multi-source downloading testimony and asked that if someone had attempted to download the songs and sublimeguy14's computer refused to provide them that this would not have likely been an impediment to anyone else recieving the files. Mr. Connelly stated that other users probably could have recieved the files from other sources if sublimeguy14's computer did not provide them. Professor Nesson then stated that the fact that if Joel shared that it didn't change the picture much, given that so many users are online with KaZaA at any given time. Professor Nesson then went to the issue of distribution. He described distribution as a word that has an active component as in 'a distributor'. He asked what actively Joel would have had to do to distribute the files after they were downloaded to a shared folder. Mr. Connelly stated that nothing needed to be done, when asked if it was someone else that had to actively request the files in the shared folder after Joel 'left them there' Mr. Connelly agreed. Mark Matteo Mr. Matteo works for Cox Communications and stated he had no relation to Plaintiffs in the case. He stated that his group at Cox was involved in the subpoena served on this case requesting subscriber information for specific IP addresses at specific dates and times. He described Cox's process for checking multiple systems to tie this information together with subscriber data and that both their technical and billing systems came back with the same information in this case, that the subscriber indicated by the IP address and date and time in question was a J. Tenenbaum of Providence, RI. He stated that Cox sent a letter to the subscriber indicating that someone had subpoenaed information about their service in a civil case. He also pointed out when asked about specific sections in the Cox Acceptable Use policy in regards to copyright. He stated that he had no doubt that Cox identified the correct subscriber in this case. On cross examination Mr. Matteo was asked about the letter he sent, which had the language that a lawsuit had already been filed in comparison to the initial letter sent by Plaintiffs indicating that they file a case if the issue was not resolved. Professor Nesson asked Mr. Matteo about the case Fonovisa v. Does 1-76 in which the subpoena was issued. He also asked Mr. Matteo about the subscriber name of J. Tenenbaum, and introduced Joel's mother Judith Tenenbaum. James Chappel Mr. Chappel is a high school friend of Joel. He was asked by Plaintiffs about the PC in Joel's Providence home located in Joel's bedroom. He was asked if he'd ever used it, to which he had indicated that he had used it to check e-mail on rare occasion while he was in high school. He was asked if he'd ever used KaZaA on the PC or any other in the Tenenbaum home, to which he said he had not. He testified that he had never used the sublimeguy14 username, knew what filesharing was, and had seen some 'blank' CDs in Joel's bedroom while he was in high school. He also testified that he had heard Joel brag about obtaining music free on the internet while he was in high school. On cross-examination Professor Nesson asked if he was mad at Joel for implying he may have used KaZaA on the computer in his bedroom. At first Mr. Chappel was hesitant to answer, but did indicate he was annoyed by the fact. He testified that he had not been deposed in the case, but did 'sign something' for Plaintiffs. After a sidebar conference a letter written to Plaintiffs by Mr. Chappel was introduced indicating that he had often heard Joel brag in high school about always having the latest music and getting it from the internet. He indicated he wrote the letter along with a statement he was sent by Plaintiffs and signed that was written 'in their words' because he felt he wanted to submit something that he wrote in his own words. Dr. Arthur Tenenbaum Joel Tenenbaum's father was the last live witness of the day, being asked by Plaintiffs mostly yes or no questions about artists his son liked, and whether or not he had ever seen Joel use KaZaA. He testified that he had seen Joel use KaZaA and even was shown by him the process of using it at one point to try to obtain music that was more in his fathers taste. He also indicated that he had called Joel after reading about lawsuits during Joel's freshman year of college to caution Joel not to do it. He testified that Joel had told him that you would only be sued if you 'did it a lot'. Tova Tenenbaum and Abagail Nathan Deposition testimony was read from Tova Tenenbaum and Abagail Nathan, Joel's younger and older sister. Both testified about Joel's music tastes and that they never saw anyone else use the computer for downloading music and had never done so themselves. Tova indicated that in Joel's car which she now drove he left several burned CDs. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 11:43:21 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:43:21 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Tenenbaum Day 4: "I did it. This is how it is." References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A72CAC9.BDF24583@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/day-four-in-sony-v-tenenbaum.html Day four in Sony v. Tenenbaum BY MARC BOURGEOIS Friday, July 31, 2009 Testimony in day four of Sony v. Tenenbaum began with the continuing cross-examination of Dr. Stanley Liebowitz Professor Nesson continued his questioning from a point that he offered he and Dr. Liebowitz both agreed, that the recording companies began having declining revenues at a point after which Napster made file sharing ubiquitous and due to the weakening of the property rights of copyright holders. Professor Nesson asked that given the new situation that had emerged if he believed that it was true that the same companies may not emerge as leaders when a new business plan plays out as the companies that were previously the leaders. He asked the Doctor about an opinion he offered in his 2001 book that DRM would be a part of the future of the music business. Dr. Liebowitz responded that he was hopeful that DRM would be successful in restricting the ability to copy music so that it would strengthen the property rights of the copyright holders, but stated that DRM turned out to provide only limited protection because it was relatively easy to defeat, such as by burning CDs. He then asked about when the industry first offered a product that was not restricted, and was comparable to the open MP3 file, he testified that he thought this happened in the 2007 time frame. Professor Nesson asked Dr. Liebowitz to explain to the jury an example in his report which used a jewelry store. He explained his analogy of one where a jewelry store owner was continuously robbed, thus forcing the owner in to a different business model, such as selling for another store. He generalized that this was a similar weakening of property right which was detrimental to society because it would force someone in to an unanticipated occupation, which despite how successful they may be at it would be a loss to society because it prevented someone from being in the occupation they desired. Professor read in to this analogy comparing it to a store with no locks on the doors or other methods by which it would be robbed or an alternative product to jewels. Under this testimony Dr. Liebowitz maintained his position, but did say that under a system where people have strong enough will to break the laws relating to strong property rights that there may not be an enforceable system which gives people the strong property rights they once enjoyed. He was asked if it was his position that if there was a weakening of property rights that it led to a decline in production in general. He agreed, and stated that this weakening of property rights likely led to a drop of production in sound recordings in general. He was asked if other experts in his field believed that the dip in record sales was not due to file sharing, and offered Oberholzer-Gee's paper as an example of a economist who disagreed with his position. He questioned Dr. Liebowitz on an assertion in an Oberholzer-Gee paper that stated the number of annual music albums released doubled since 2000. Dr. Liebowitz said that he believed these numbers were not necessarily reliable because it only included the number of releases registered with Nielsen, and not necessarily the number of professional quality albums released, which could not necessarily be compared since in previous times it would not be possible to come by numbers for the number of amateur quality music released and thus the current numbers from Nielsen would be comparing apples to oranges with previous numbers they released. He then went in to a sports analogy to explain his proposition about professional quality versus amateur quality albums released. He explained that if the market for professional quality sports went away because due to some market change professional sports franchises could no longer sell tickets or make money from broadcasting that it would not eliminate sports being played, since there is plenty of amateur sports being played where the participants do not make money, but since money is being paid to professional sports that the market overall prefers these kind of sports. He explained that if the property rights of the professional franchises were eliminated it would be a harm to society because the professional tier of sports would go away and would likely impact the total production of sports for the marketplace. He was then asked about the network effect, whereby the more people that have access to technology the more overall value the whole technology had. He explained this with an analogy to the telephone, but concluded that a network effect due to file sharing was not likely. Upon redirect Dr. Liebowitz was asked if he agreed with the opinions provided in the Oberholzer-Gee paper. He responded that he did not. He was asked if there was any reason to believe that the specific plaintiffs in this case would be companies that would not survive in the new marketplace that was emerging, to which he also replied that he thought there was no reason these companies should fail. Joel Tenenbaum The main witness of day four was the Defendant, Joel Tenenbaum. Joel was asked basic questions about where he currently lived, as well as where he had previously lived, and what computers he had both at his Providence home and in college. He said nothing surprising about his computer at home or at college that hadn't been revealed in previous testimony. He also testified that he had used the sublimeguy14 username, admitted that he had used KaZaA, and that the KaZaA shared folder in the screenshots from MediaSentry were his. He also testified that it was not uncommon for him to see other people uploading files from him on the KaZaA traffic tab. Mr. Reynolds then asked the Defendant about the case that was against him. He testified that he first found out about the case from his mother. He was asked about his responses to interrogatories which asked who else may have used his computer or KaZaA and requests for admissions about file sharing use. His answers to both stating no knowledge were shown to the jury to each of these questionnaires. The questioning then turned to his deposition testimony where he stated that there were many people who could have used his KaZaA account, friends, other people who had stayed at his house, etc. He also testified that he had never actually seen any of these people use KaZaA. He was then asked about his musical tastes and asked if he liked several artists that appeared in the KaZaA shared folder. He testified that he had burned CDs of the music in his shared, and testified that he had ripped CDs to his computer. He testified that he had never filled in the "comments" meta data on any of the files ripped to his PC. He testified that he may have changed the meta data on some files to be consistent with others for it to be easier to find in music programs, but did not do so for much of the music that he had. Joel was asked about a video he had recorded from a Deftones performance on the David Letterman show. He testified that he had recorded this video and put it himself in to his KaZaA shared folder and made it known on a Deftones forum that he had done so for others to download it from him. Joel was then asked about his computer and music usage habits at Goucher college, where he stated he and other students had used the Network Neighborhood feature of Windows to share music with one another in college. He was shown numerous items from Goucher college warning about copyright infringement and peer to peer file sharing, all of which he admitted to having received at some point as a Goucher student. He was asked about other file sharing software such as Napster, LimeWire, and iMesh and admitted that he had used them all. He testified when asked that he did all of this to recieve the most amount of music with the least effort. Joel was asked about his letter to Plaintiffs after initially learning that he may be sued for copyright infringement. The letter included a line stating he was not near his computer in Providence at the time of writing, but would return later and delete any copyrighted material if it existed. He was also asked about the inspection of his computer and the re installation of his computer, which he stated he took to Best Buy to have done while inspection was pending, but asked Best Buy to preserve all of the music because of the Plaintiffs inspection which was potentially pending. He stated that he took this to be done because the computer wouldn't boot up anymore. He was asked if he had any reason to disbelieve anything in Dr. Jacbson's report stating that he didn't because Dr. Jacobson was "a competent professional". He testified that he had listened to, talked about, made mixes of, and made available for distribution all of the music in his shared folder. On cross-examination Professor Nesson asked Joel about his personal and family history, places he had lived, when he became interested in music, to which he explained with great narrative detail. He testified about his usage of music, including borrowing CDs from friends, making mix tapes from the radio, and purchasing music CDs from record stores. He was asked what he found attractive about Napster to which he said he'd previously used Yahoo! search to attempt to find mp3 files, but it was much easier when Napster came about. He testified that he was not the person who originally installed Napster on his computer in Providence. He explained that Napster was a giant library of songs in front of you and "the Google of music". He stated he did not have a sense that it was illegal at the time he was using it. He also stated that his friends also used Napster, and he was never insterest in hurting the artists and record companies. Professor Nesson asked about Joel's high school life and how he used music throughout that time period, which he described driving around with his friends listening to music in his car, and was asked about his car which he testified that he and his father had installed a good deal of upgraded stereo equipment in. Joel testified that also used KaZaA and found it to be similar to Napster in function. He was asked about his letter to Plaintiff and why he didn't remove his music files as the letter said he would. He stated that he intended to, but could not make himself do it after all of the time he had put in to assembling the music collection. He then described what happened at college afterwards, with his college moving more and more year after year at college to make file sharing applications not work, to which he stated that around his junior year none of the applications he had used worked properly anymore. He stated he continued buying CDs during this time period, due to quality issues. Professor Nesson then turned to issues of the present lawsuit and why he lied on his written interrogatories. Joel said that his answers seemed like the best response to give without a lawyer. He also asked about some of his deposition testimony which he stated that he was less than fully forthcoming in it. He eventually was asked if he was taking responsibility, to which he said, "I did it". He stated that he stopped in 2007 or 2008 because of problems using filesharing with malware on his machine, encountering spoof file, and because he began using iTunes. He stated that this lawsuit was one of the reasons he stopped using file sharing. He stated that during the time Plaintiffs accused him of infringement, August of 2004, he was not aware of iTunes. He stated he may have heard of some other music services but that he wasn't in a position to switch his music acquisition to any other method. He was asked if he ever used file sharing for the purpose of selling or any other commercial activity, which he said he did not, that his use was entirely personal. The redirect was very short, asking about his bringing his computer to Best Buy and if his intention was to destroy evidence by doing so, he stated it wasn't he just did so because it wouldn't run. He was asked about his testimony that he shared music with friends and was asked if his friends with everyone on KaZaA and Napster, which he said he was not. He was asked if he was now admitting liability, to which he said yes. Ron Wilcox Mr. Wilcox is with Warner music group and formerly of Sony. He testified as to the sale of music beginning in the early 1980s through the present time. He explained the advent of the CD and that it was not built with any encryption because the threat of copying was not seen as a major threat at that time. He testified as to music industry efforts in the 1990s to explore digital distribution methods, to which he described generally in terms of the amount of effort expended on it, but no specifics. He testified that all the technologies they looked at during this time included some sort of copy protection. He testified that efforts to add encryption to CDs were never fully explored because it would have left a lot of existing equipment obsolete and they did not believe this would be something that the marketplace would accept. He testified about early forms of DRM such as FairPlay on iTunes. His cross examination was short, being asked about Warner's reaction to Napster which he said concerned the company because it was an illegitimate free product. He was asked if Warner or Sony ever tried to partner with peer to peer services which he said they had but that the partnerships never went very far because of animosity on the peer to peer side and stated they never seriously wanted to work with record companies in the way that they wante.d Silda Palerm Ms. Palerm's testimony was to authenticate the Warner tracks at issue in the case. The only other issue she testified to was that Warner had had an over 50% reduction in force since the year 2000. On cross examination Mr. Feinberg asked if the reduction in force was at all attributable to the economy. Ms. Palerm stated her opinion that since the bulk of reduction in force was prior to the economy having trouble that she believed it was due to file sharing. After Ms. Palerm Plaintiffs ended their case. Plaintiffs after the conclusion of their case moved for a directed verdict on the issue of copyright ownership, liability, and willfulness. Defendant conceded ownership, but not any of the other factors. Judge Gertner indicated she was inclined to direct on the issue of liability based on testimony but still planned to go to the jury with willfulness and the award. The Defendant indicated that they will likely wrap up their case by mid-morning on Friday, after which there will be closing arguments. Plaintiffs indicated they only needed 20-30 minutes for their closing. Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/31/2009 01:51:00 AM From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 12:50:07 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Court: Oops, Jury Does Not Decide Guilt, Just Everything Else References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A72DA6F.8A5104E2@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ Friday, July 31, 2009 Court reverses itself, will direct a verdict on liability, in SONY v Tenenbaum The Court has reversed itself and has stated now that it will direct liability in favor of plaintiffs in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered with respect to reconsideration of rule 50 motion: The Court has reviewed the transcript of the defendant's testimony, which had not been before the Court at the time of the earlier ruling. The last question asked by Mr. Reynolds on direct examination was Question: "Mr. Tenenbaum, on the stand now, are you now admitting liability for downloading and distributing all 30 sound recordings that are at issue and listed on Exhibits 55 and 56 of the exhibits?" Answer: "Yes." Notwithstanding the protestations of Tenenbaum's counsel, Tenenbaum's statement plainly admits liability on both downloading and distributing, does so in the very language of the statute (no "making available" ambiguity) and does so with respect to each and every sound recording at issue here. Thus, the Court reverses its earlier ruling; Rule 50 motion is granted with respect to infringement. The only issues for the jury are willfulness and damages. (Gertner, Nancy) [Ed. note. The judge's ruling is erroneous. The question : "are you admitting liability" is a legal question, not a factual question, which Mr. Tenenbaum was not qualified to answer. For the Court to base its decision on that is wrong. -R.B.] From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Jul 31 23:53:58 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:53:58 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] NY Times: $675,000 for Tenenbaum References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A737606.8BB744CE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/31/business/AP-US-TEC-MusicDownload.html?_r=1 Student Must Pay $675,000 in Downloading Case Published: July 31, 2009 Filed at 6:21 p.m. ET BOSTON (AP) -- A Boston University student has been ordered to pay $675,000 to four record labels for illegally downloading and sharing music. Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award the record labels. Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful. The maximum jurors could have awarded in Tenenbaum's case was $4.5 million. The case is only the nation's second music downloading case against an individual to go to trial. Last month, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled a Minnesota woman must pay nearly $2 million for copyright infringement. From rms@gnu.org Tue Aug 11 14:53:16 2009 From: rms@gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:53:16 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom In-Reply-To: (hart@pglaf.org) References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A547C14.FDD0BB99@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <002f01ca009f$819053c0$84b0fb40$@net> Message-ID: I find it difficult to understand how you could be fooled quite so thoroughly by people rewriting history, whether it is from 1700's, or from modern times. You suggested that I look this up, and I did so in Copyright in Historical Perspective, by Lyman Patterson. It more or less confirms what I said, though with a twist I did not know about. Basically, the Stationers' Guild first set up its own copyright system ("stationers' copyright" in that book) which was later reinforced by the crown, but that law expired in 1694. The Statute of Anne established copyright for authors, but it also renewed the existing stationers' copyrights for the subsequent 21 years (till 1730). Some quotes from the book: P13: At the time the Statute of Anne was enacted, there was only one concept of copyright known to legislators--the stationers' copyright... The mechanics for obtaining the statutory copyright were substantially the same as for obtaining the stationers' copyright. There were ony two major differences between the two copyrights, and both differences struck directly at teh book-sellers' monopoly: the statutory copyright was limited to a term of fourteen years, with a similar renewal term available only to the author; and statutory copyright was available to anyone, not to stationers only... Finally it should be remembered that the Statute of Anne continued the existing copyrights, the stationers' copyrights, for a period of 21 years... P15: After the expiration of the 21 year period of grace provided by the Statute of Anne, the booksellers sought to perpetuate their monopoly. First, they lobbied for new legislation from Parliament, and failing in this, they resorted to litigation... In spite of the transparency of their strategy, the booksellers almost succeeded. P27: On May 4, 1557, Philip and Mary granted a charter to the Stationers' Company. The partnership between the the company and the government, one interested in protecting property, the other in controlling the press, was to last for over a hundred years. (Before that, the Stationers' Company had no charter, so its internal copyright system had no legal force over everyone else. There was censorship, but it didn't work through the Stationers' Company.) From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Aug 15 09:10:34 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 04:10:34 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] International Forum on Free Culture and Knowledge References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A866D7A.17BFF094@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> First newsletter INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON FREE CULTURE & KNOWLEDGE Barcelona, October 29 to November 1st2009 Website:http://www.fcforum.net/ Newsletter subscription: http://openfsm.net/projects/freecultureforum/lists/freecultureforumbcn There is in motion the celebration of an International Forum on free culture and knowledge from October 29 to November 1st2009 at Barcelona. This is the opportunity to join under the same roof and from a critical perspective, the main organizations and active voices in the free culture and knowledge world; a meeting point to sit down, dance and work together setting common agendas, strategies and address disagreements. In this regard, the Forum is action-oriented. Besides that, there are the conditions to get the visibility to reach a wider public and point out another perspective about knowledge, culture and creativity, different to the one that the entertainment industry and universities insists in showing us. Why Barcelona In January 2010, Spanish State will take up the European Presidency of the European Union. Spanish Government has already announced that one of their flagships will be reinforcing the control of the Internet and criminalizing the sharing culture in the digital environment. The consequences of those decisions will be noticed in the rest of the world. Furthermore, within this context, Barcelona is closing agreements with cultural institutions to set new agreements to get a fairer sharing of copyrights. These agreements will be spread to other institutions in Catalonia and Spanish State. In October 29ththis year Barcelona will hold the Second Edition of the Oxcars Festival, an international event to honor the defense of culture and to show that other creation channels, as good and with as much quality as traditional ones, exist. The last edition was a success with more than 2000 participants. It brought the attention both of an interested public and of media. You can find more information about last year show athttp://exgae.net/exgae-multiply-and-share-forth/theoxcars. In the Spanish State, there are very active organizations, movements and persons related to free culture from different perspectives, offering a very rich sharing space and a source of new proposals from where to launch an international process. In this regard, from several worldwide voices, like during the last World Social Forum (Belem do Para Brazil 2009) is recognized the necessity to create international spaces for networking, coordination and building of a global frame of the free culture and knowledge issue, analyse similarities and develop common agendas; the Free Culture Forum of Barcelona aims to create such space. What: Combine advocacy and building of infrastructure The forum’ main objectives are on the one hand building networks to optimize the efforts of the different groups and fixing common demands against content’s industry and government proposals’ in its eagerness to control culture and information and to self-organize to build infrastructure to sustain free culture; and on the other hand reinforcing the self-organization of tools and infrastructure to support free culture. How The schedule and methodology of the Forum is organized in 3 days * October 29th: Celebration of the Oxcars Free Culture Awards Festival. * October 30th: Panels presentation of key experiences from around the globe and discussion on the key issues. * October 31th: Working groups around the key issues of the Forum and open space to meetings from participants initiatives. * November 1st: Finish placing in common the results and initiatives from the meetings and working groups in order to identify a common future agenda and manifesto. Key issues LEGAL PERSPECTIVES AND USERS ACCESS: From a legal point of view, we will try to identify holes and flexibilities in national regulations and International agreements to look for a strategy against the abuses of knowledge and culture policies both in private and contractual relations and against the international public policies.It is necessary to consider users rights before culture. Last years tendency has broken the balance between user and consumer rights and producer and creators which must be reestablished. EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: Opposed to the corporative approach to education, there is a new approach based on the idea of sharing and keeping up solidarity. New ways of managing knowledge created by public funded research and innovative research methodologies taking into account social movements as knowledge generators. It is also about taking advantage of the new educational tools and the dissemination of knowledge that Internet and digital culture have provided. Little by little, new initiatives for use and creation of materials without copyrights and proposals to extend limitations and exceptions to those rights with educational aims are emerging. ECONOMIES, NEW P2P MODELS AND SUSTAINABLE DISTRIBUTION: Also for Economy, culture and knowledge management are basic. In the last few years, more and more voices are questioning the costs for society and its development of cultural and knowledge exploitation models that are based on exclusive rights with too long life span. Favored by the Internet, focus of economy has moved from property to access. Free Culture philosophy, inherited from free software is the empirical proof that a new ethic and new businesses based on knowledge democratization are possible. Intermediaries disappear and author becomes producer of her works. FREE SOFTWARE AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING HACKER PHILOSOPHY: Even when the term hackers is usually used by media with negative connotation, around this movement alternative actions have been developed with a clear philosophy of defense of user’s rights from a perspective of a common conscience which promotes freedom of knowledge and social justice. Hackers movement have also build key platforms and tools for a free culture infrastructure. ORGANIZATIONAL LOGIC AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF FREE CULTURE: Critically reflect on the emerging collective action organizational and democratic features related to free culture experiences (such as the remix culture, prosumerirsm, descentralised organizing and open and participative principles), looking to strains and weaknesses, and to discuss on their political implications and the emerging institutional logic. Furthermore, a critical analysis on the “dark†side of technology and the risk linked to its uses, such as increase of surveillance, control and concentration of benefits over collectively generated value. The Forum infrastructure is provided by Exgae, Networked Politics, Free knowledge Institute and the collaboration of Students For Free Culture and Hangar. Website: http://fcforum.net/ Newsletter of informations: http://openfsm.net/projects/freecultureforum/lists/freecultureforumbcn Organization contact: info@fcforum.net CATALA FÃ’RUM INTERNACIONAL DE LA CULTURA I EL CONEIXEMENT LLIURE: Acció i organització. Barcelona del 29 d'Octubre al 1 de Novembre de 2009. Web: http://fcforum.net/ Newsletter para rebre informacions del Fòrum de la culturalliure: http://openfsm.net/projects/freecultureforum/lists/freecultureforumbcn Del 29 d'Octubre al 1 de Novembre de 2009 se celebrarà a Barcelona el Fòrum internacional de cultura i coneixement lliures. El Fòrum constitueix una oportunitat única per a reunir sota el mateix sostre les principals organitzacions, iniciatives i veus actives en el món de la cultura i el conocimeinto lliures; un punt de trobada on treballar conjuntament, construir agendes i estratègies comunes, així com reflexionar, des d'un punt de vista crític, sobre les diverses visions, perills i contradiccions internes a la cultura lliure. Així mateix el fòrum és una oportunitat per a donar major visibilitat a concepcions alternatives del coneixement, la cultura i la creativitat, diferents a la que insisteixen a imposar la indústria de l'oci i les universitats neoliberalizadas. Perquè Barcelona Al gener de 2010, l'Estat Espanyol prendrà la Presidència Europea de la Unió Europea. El Govern Espanyol ha anunciat que un dels seus bucs insígnies serà reforçar el control d'Internet i criminalitzar la cultura de distribució en l'ambient digital. Aquestes decisions tendran conseqüències en la resta del món. A més, dins d'aquest context, institucions culturals a Barcelona estan signant acords sobre l'accés a la cultura que serviran com models per a altres institucions a Catalunya, Estat Espanyol i Europa. El 29 d'Octubre d'enguany a Barcelona se celebrarà la segona edició del Festival dels Oxcars, un esdeveniment internacional en defensa de la cultura que demostra que existeixen altres canals de creació d'igual qualitat, o major, que els tradicionals. L'edició passada dels Oxcars van ser un èxit, contant amb la participació de més de 2000 participants directament interessat@s i la cobertura dels mitjans de comunicació (La informació sobre els Oxcars de l'any passat està disponible en: http://exgae.net/exgae-multiply-and-share-forth/theoxcars). Finalment, i importantemente, en l'Estat Espanyol, hi ha organitzacions, moviments molt actius i persones relacionats amb la cultura lliure des de diferents perspectives, que ofereixen un espai molt ric des del qual llançar un procés internacional. En aquest sentit, des de diversos llocs del món, com durant la celebració de l'últim Fòrum Social Mundial en Belem do Per (Brasil Gener de 2009) es reconeix la necessitat de crear espais internacionals per a l'establiment d'una xarxa de coordinació i per a la creació d'un marc global de la cultura i del coneixement lliures des del qual analitzar similituds i diferències entre iniciatives en diferents continents i desenvolupar agendes comunes; el Fòrum de la cultura lliure de Barcelona tracta de crear eixe espai . Que? Els objectius principals del Forum són d'una banda construir xarxes per a optimitzar els esforços dels diversos grups i compartir objectius per a impedir que la indústria i els governs imposen la seua política de control i restricció de la cultura i la informació; i per altra banda, organitzar-nos per a construir infraestructura per a la cultura lliure. Com? El Fòrum tindrà lloc en tres dias que combinen diverses metododologias: * 29 Octubre: Celebració del Festival de la cultura lliure Oxcars * 30 Octubre: Panells de presentacions d'experiències claus i inspiradores entorn de 5 eixos de treball. * 31 Octubre: Grups de treball (barcamp) al voltant de les qüestions claus. * 1 Novembre: Posada en comu dels resultats dels grups de treball. Definició d'una agenda comu i aprovació de manifests per temes. Eixos PERSPECTIVES LEGALS I ACCÉS DE L@s USUARI@S: Des d'un punt de vista legal es tracta d'identificar les esquerdes i flexibilitats en les legislacions nacionals i els acords internacionals per a cercar una estratègia enfront dels abusos de les polítiques sobre difusió del coneixement i cultura, a nivell tant de relacions privades i contractuals com davant les normatives i polítiques públiques internacionals. Així mateix, és necessari considerar els drets de usuari@s. EDUCACIÓ I GESTIO DEL CONEIXEMENT: Enfront d'un enfocament empresarial de l'educació, es planteja una perspectiva basada en la idea de compartir i a mantenir viva la solidaritat. Desenvolupar formes de gestió del coneixement generat a través de la investigació amb fons públics i independents i de metodologias d'investigació més participatives. Des d'una perspectiva que reconeix als moviments socials com generadors de coneixement. Es tracta també d'aprofitar les noves eines educatives i de difusió del coneixement que Internet i la cultura digital han proporcionat. A poc a poc van apareixent iniciatives per a la utilització i creació de materials sobre els quals no existeixen drets d'autor i propostes per a estendre les limitacions i excepcions sobre aqueixos drets amb fins educatives. Així mateix, cada vegada cobra major importà ncia el domini públic com part del nostre patrimoni cultural i intel·lectual. Un accés obert a la cultura i un domini públic ampli, enfront de l'extensió de la durada dels drets d'autor, són la base del desenvolupament dels països i de les societats en general. ECONOMIES, NOUS MODELS P2P I SOSTENIBILITAT DISTRIBUTIVA: Aquesta secció s'ocupara de dues importants lineas de treball. La primera d'elles se centra en els nous models que sorgeixen de les noves formes d'organització i la segona en les noves propostes d'explotació que han sorgit i en les quals es qüestiona la necessitat dels intermediaris. També per a l'economia, la gestió del coneixement i la cultura són fonamentals. Cada vegada existeixen més veus que es plantegen des del punt de vista econòmic el cost que en termes generals suposen per a la societat i el seu desenvolupament els models d'explotació de la cultura i el coneixement basats en drets exclusius de durada excessiva. Propiciat per Internet el focus de l'economia es desplaça de la propietat a l'accés La filosofia de la cultura lliure, heretada del programari lliure és la demostració empírica que una nova ètica i una nova empresa basada en la democratització del coneixement, i dels mitjans de producció són possibles. Es tendeix a la desaparició dels intermediaris i l'autor es converteix en productor de les seues obres. També les xarxes P2P han suposat una revolució en la forma d'aproximar-se a la creació i intercanvi d'informació i coneixement. De la seua filosofia han sorgit noves formes colaborativas de treball i difusió del coneixement, no jerà rquiques sinó rizomáticas. PROGRAMARI LLIURE I CONEIXEMENT QUE COMPARTEIXEN LA FILOSOFIA DELS I LES HACKERS: Tot i que el terme hacker és utilitzat generalment per mitjans de masses des d'una connotació negativa, el moviment hacker es basa en una filosofia de defensa de les drets de usuari@ des d'una perspectiva d'una consciència comuna que promou la llibertat de coneixement i de justícia social i que ha construït importantísimas plataformes i eines que són la infraestructura de la cultura lliure. Impulsar la construcció d'infraestructura per a la cultura lliure és clau. LÃ’GICA D'ORGANITZACIÓ I IMPLICACIONS POLÃTIQUES DE LA CULTURA LLIURE: Es tracta de reflectir críticament sobre la lògica organitzativa i democrà tica de l'acció col·lectiva relacionades amb les experiències de cultura lliure (tals com la cultura de la remezcla, el prosumerirsm, organització descentralised, principis participatius, entre altres) analitzant els seus avantatges i debilitats, aixi com tensions internes. Així mateix, discutir sobre les implicacions polítiques. La infraestructura per a la celebració del Fòrum està sent proporcionada per Exgae, Networked Politics, Free Knowledge Foundation i la col·laboració de la Xarxa d'estudiantes per la cultura lliure i el Hangar. Lloc web: http://fcforum.net/ Newsletter per rebre informacions del Fòrum de la cultura lliure: http://openfsm.net/projects/freecultureforum/lists/freecultureforumbcn Contacte de l'organització: info@fcforum.net CASTELLANO FORO INTERNACIONAL DE LA CULTURA Y EL CONOCIMIENTO LIBRE: Acción y organización. Barcelona del 29 de Octubre al 1 de Noviembre de 2009 Sitio web: http://fcforum.net/ Newsletter para recibir informaciones del Foro de la cultura libre: http://openfsm.net/projects/freecultureforum/lists/freecultureforumbcn Del 29 de Octubre al 1 de Noviembre de 2009 se celebrará en Barcelona el Foro internacional de cultura y conocimiento libres. El Foro constituye una oportunidad única para reunir bajo el mismo techo las principales organizaciones, iniciativas y voces activas en el mundo de la cultura y el conocimeinto libres; un punto de encuentro donde trabajar conjuntamente, construir agendas y estrategias comunes, así como reflexionar, desde un punto de vista crítico, sobre las diversas visiones, peligros y contradicciones internas a la cultura libre. Así mismo el foro es una oportunidad para dar mayor visibilidad a concepciones alternativas del conocimiento, la cultura y la creatividad, diferentes a la que la industria del ocio y las universidades neoliberalizadas insisten en imponer. Porqué Barcelona En enero de 2010, el Estado Español tomará la Presidencia Europea de la Unión Europea. El Gobierno Español ha anunciado que uno de sus buques insignias será reforzar el control de Internet y criminalizar la cultura de distribución en el ambiente digital. Estas decisiones tendran consecuencias en el resto del mundo. Además, dentro de este contexto, instituciones culturales con Barcelona estan firmando acuerdos sobre el acceso a la cultura que serviran como modelos para otras instituciones en Cataluña, Estado Español y Europa. El 29 de Octubre de este año en Barcelona se celebrará la segunda edición del Festival de los Oxcars, un acontecimiento internacional en defensa de la cultura que demuestra que existen otros canales de creación de igual calidad, o mayor, que los tradicionales. La edición pasada de los Oxcars fueron un éxito, contando con la participación de mas de 2000 participantes directamente interesados y la cobertura de los medios de comunicación (La información sobre los Oxcars del año pasado está disponible en: http://exgae.net/exgae-multiply-and-share-forth/theoxcars). Finalmente, e importantemente, en el Estado Español, hay organizaciones, movimientos muy activos y personas relacionados con la cultura libre desde distintas perspectivas, que ofrecen un espacio muy rico desde el que lanzar un proceso internacional. En este sentido, desde varios lugares del mundo, como durante la celebración del último Foro Social Mundial en Belem do Para (Brasil Enero de 2009) se reconoce la necesitad de crear espacios internacionales para el establecimiento de una red de coordinación y para la creación de un marco global de la cultura y del conocimiento libres desde el que analizar similitudes y diferencias entre iniciativas en diferentes continentes y desarrollar agendas comunes; el Foro de la cultura libre de Barcelona trata de crear tal espacio. Qué Los objetivos principales del Forum son por una parte construir redes para optimizar los esfuerzos de los diversos grupos y compartir objetivos para impedir que la industria y los gobiernos impongan su politica de control y restricción de la cultura y la información; y por otra parte, organizarnos para construir infraestructura para la cultura libre. Cómo El Forum tendrá lugar en tres dias que combinan diversas metododologias: * 29 Octubre: Celebración del Festival de la cultura libre Oxcars * 30 Octubre: Paneles de presentaciones de experiencias claves e inspiradoras en torno a 5 ejes de trabajo. * 31 Octubre: Grupos de trabajo (barcamp) alrededor de las cuestiones claves. * 1 Noviembre: Puesta en comun de los resultados de los grupos de trabajo. Definición de una agenda comun y aprovación de manifiestos por temas. Ejes PERSPECTIVAS LEGALES Y ACCESO DE L@s USUARI@S: Desde el punto de vista legal se trata de identificar las grietas y flexibilidades en las legislaciones nacionales y los acuerdos internacionales para buscar una estrategia frente a los abusos de las políticas sobre difusión del conocimiento y cultura, a nivel tanto de relaciones privadas y contractuales como ante las normativas y políticas públicas internacionales. Así mismo, es necesario considerar los derechos de usuari@s. EDUCACIÓN Y GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO: Frente a un enfoque empresarial de la educación, se plantea una perspectiva basada en la idea de compartir y en mantener viva la solidaridad. Se estan desarrollando formas de gestión del conocimiento generado a través de la investigación con fondos públicos e independientes y de metodologias de investigación más participativas. Desde una perspectiva que reconoce a los movimientos sociales como generadores de conocimiento. Se trata también de aprovechar las nuevas herramientas educativas y de difusión del conocimiento que Internet y la cultura digital han proporcionado. Poco a poco van apareciendo iniciativas para la utilización y creación de materiales sobre los que no existen derechos de autor y propuestas para extender las limitaciones y excepciones sobre esos derechos con fines educativos.Así mismo, cada vez cobra mayor importancia el dominio público como parte de nuestro patrimonio cultural e intelectual. Un acceso abierto a la cultura y un dominio público amplio, frente a la extensión de la duración de los derechos de autor, son la base del desarrollo de los países y de las sociedades en general. ECONOMÃAS, NUEVOS MODELOS P2P Y SOSTENIBILIDAD DISTRIBUTIVA: Esta sección se ocupara de dos importantes lineas de trabajo. La primera de ellas se centra en los nuevos modelos que surgen de las nuevas formas de organización y la segunda en las nuevas propuestas de explotación que han surgido y en las que se cuestiona la necesidad de los intermediarios. También para la economía, la gestión del conocimiento y la cultura son fundamentales. Cada vez existen más voces que se plantean desde el punto de vista económico el coste que en términos generales suponen para la sociedad y su desarrollo los modelos de explotación de la cultura y el conocimiento basados en derechos exclusivos de duración excesiva. Propiciado por Internet el foco de la economía se desplaza de la propiedad al acceso La filosofía de la cultura libre, heredada del software libre es la demostración empírica de que una nueva ética y una nueva empresa basada en la democratización del conocimiento, y de los medios de producción son posibles. Se tiende a la desaparición de los intermediarios y el autor se convierte en productor de sus obras. También las redes P2P han supuesto una revolución en la forma de aproximarse a la creación e intercambio de información y conocimiento. De su filosofía han surgido nuevas formas colaborativas de trabajo y difusión del conocimiento, no jerárquicas sino rizomáticas. SOFTWARE LIBRE Y CONOCIMIENTO QUE COMPARTEN LA FILOSOFÃA DEL PIRATA INFORMÃTICO: Aun cuando el término hacker es utilizado generalmente por medios de masas desde una connotación negativa, el movimiento hacker se basa en una filosofía de defensa de las derechos de usuari@ desde una perspectiva de una conciencia común que promueve la libertad de conocimiento y de justicia social y que ha construido importantísimas plataformas y herramientas que son la infraestructura de la cultura libre. Impulsar la construcción de infraestructura para la cultura libre es clave. LÓGICA DE ORGANIZACIÓN E IMPLICACIONES POLÃTICAS DE LA CULTURA LIBRE: Se trata de reflejar críticamente sobre la lógica organizativa y democrática de la acción colectiva relacionadas con las experiencias de cultura libre (tales como la cultura de la remezcla, el prosumerirsm, organización descentralised, principios participativos, entre otros) analizando sus ventajas y debilidades, asi como tensiones internas. Así mismo, discutir sobre las implicaciones políticas. La infraestructura para la celebración del Foro está siendo proporcionada por Exgae, Networked Politics, Free Knowledge Foundation y la colaboración de la Red de estudiantes por la cultura libre y el Hangar. Sitio web: http://fcforum.net/ Newsletter para recibir informaciones del Foro de la cultura libre:http://openfsm.net/projects/freecultureforum/lists/freecultureforumbcn Contacto de la organización: info@fcforum.net From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Aug 21 23:56:17 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:56:17 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] IMPORTANT: Call for Comments on "Broadband" Plan References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A8F2611.25BC39CA@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> >From: "Blair Levin" >To: >Cc: "Carlos Kirjner" >Date: August 21, 2009 12:52:20 PM EDT >Subject: broadband plan > > Dave, As I think you know, I am coordinating work here at the FCC on the National Broadband Plan. We are just getting going but one of the things we have to nail down is a smarter definition of broadband. We just put out a public notice asking comments on this issue. I just wanted to make sure you (and the tech community I know you are the central node in) sees it as we particularly want their help in thinking this through. The notice can be found at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1842A1.pdf I am cc?ing Carlos Kirjner, who has joined us on this effort and a person who I hope you have a chance to talk with on this question. You both bring great expertise to the effort. Many thanks and hope all is well. Blair Levin blair.levin@fcc.gov (202) 418-0149 From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Aug 26 11:42:14 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:42:14 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Nesson to Knopf re: Joel Tenenbaum References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A951186.71BFF4E@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> A picture of the appeal forming . . . (Comments from me: There are critical advantages to the fact that Joel’s case was pressed on the “pure principle” basis on which it was presented. The principles remain alive in the appeal process. Since Gertner ruled that the jury would decide liability, Nesson/Joel were given the opportunity to press the case the way they wanted to, directly to the jury, as in a criminal proceeding. Joel was questioned under that expectation, then that expectation was removed by the judge’s invalid ruling of liability [since that was not a question of fact that Joel was competent to answer] just before Nesson's summation. This fundamentally damaged the integrity of the proceeding, Joel's ability to present a consistent defense. -- Seth) > http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/2009/08/25/howard-and-paul-geller-respond/ howard responds, and i to him Published August 25th, 2009 [From Howard Knopf:] > Dear Charlie: > > Here’s my response. > > http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-response-to-prof-charles-nesson-re.html > > First of all, given the facts as they have come out both > before and as reported in the various media during the trial > (I obviously haven’t seen the transcript), I still tend to > doubt that this was a particularly winnable case. [Charles Nesson:] so stop right there. you mean winnable at trial. > BTW, in 2004 we “won” this battle in Canada before it ever > really started by preventing the disclosure of the names > behind IP addresses in the Canadian version of the RIAA’s > attempt to sue individuals. And we have a similar statutory > minimum damages regime here, inspired by the USA but with > some differences such as a max of CDN $20,000 per work. > Still quite dangerous. The Canadian record companies were > unable or unwilling to provide sufficient admissible > evidence to warrant this disclosure in light of the “risk > that the information as to identity may be inaccurate”, the > resulting exposure to serious civil liability and the > invasion of privacy. We were helped by a pretty good federal > privacy statute in Canada and at least two ISPs that > seriously stood up for their customers at the time (Shaw and > Telus). See here and here. I was involved on the winning > side. It’s really too bad that these cases weren’t likewise > stopped at the outset in the USA, but that battle appears to > have been lost a long time ago in other cases. and never fought, a tragedy in leadership for harvard to stand idly by, unwilling to put its weight behind motion to stop their subpoenas > There’s really not much I can add to my original blog post > from August 3, following the July 31 verdict and my other > posts on this. > > I can point to Ray Beckerman’s “wish list”, which outlines > several possible technical and practical arguments based > upon such matters as dates of registration, lack of proof of > actual “distribution” according to the language of and case > law on § 106(3), etc. which might or might not have worked > to get Joel off the hook. Ray also mentions our Canadian > case in his point that “Plaintiffs should be required to > prove that the downloaded song file copies were played and > listened to, and their contents verified, by a person > qualified to make such determination. See Deposition of > President of MediaSentry in BMG v. Doe.” all respect to ray, these defenses do not join the fundamental issues. this trial was not an exercise in getting joel off the hook. > I don’t know which of these issues were addressed at trial > or how much evidence on these issues there is on the record. > > Apart from a victory based on issues such as those on Ray’s > “wish list”, the only other conceivably “winnable” issues > might have been a very uphill fair use argument and a > potentially more successful argument on the > unconstitutionality of the statutory minimum damages > provisions. I know you have tried to pursue both of these > issues. these are the issues, not whether joel "did it" > • Fair Use. If there was a winnable argument here, which far > greater experts than me have doubted according to your own > blog, stop right there. starting from scratch the fair use issue now looms as a fundamental question in the allocation of function between judge and jury as providing a limitation in wisdom to the expansive power of copyright, so let them doubt, then consider, then be convinced > it would probably have involved a lot of analysis of the > fourth factor ("the effect of the use upon the potential > market for or value of the copyrighted work") and this would > presumably have required a lot of economic evidence. This > evidence might have come, for starters, from your Harvard > colleague Oberholzer-Gee and/or Andersen/Frenz in the UK as > expert(s) to show that there was evidence as to no overall > harm and maybe even a "benign" or "positive" effect on "the > potential market for or value of the copyrighted work". At > least such evidence might have enabled Judge Gertner to deny > summary judgment on this issue. It would have also enabled a > great debate with the very able Stan Liebowitz, with whom > one may disagree - but he is still a very accomplished and > important economist in the IP area and an experienced expert > witness. as far as i can see leibowitz and oberholzer-gee essentially agree, stan putting his value judgment on "professionally" recorded music and felix on the growth in volume and quality of music from the people. but see how this very question mistakes the nature of the inquiry as a judgment for the jury to make case by case, this being joel’s case and joel’s right to trial by jury in which the fairness and justice of the actions being taken against him in the name of the state are open to address > Maybe other evidence in addition from someone with knowledge > about the economic insides of the record industry would have > helped. I frankly doubt, as you have suggested in the > Canadian media in your interview with Jesse Brown, that the > lack of "fairness" on the part of the record industry either > in the way it has marketed music to its customers or treats > is customers in its litigation campaign is a winnable fair > use argument under §107, even if you are right that the four > factors are not "exclusive" and that Court can go beyond the > four factors and even devise a new "fair use" affirmative > defense. Whether or not there is the makings of a potential > "abuse of process" or Posnerian "misuse" of copyright > argument or something along these lines is hypothetically an > interesting issue to speculate upon for another day, but > doesn’t seem to be on the record here and would also > presumably require a lot of solid evidence. say more about Posnerian "misuse" of copyright. and note how the whole bogus strategy of imposing statutory damages on noncommercial direct infringers was put across on posner’s aimster dicta raised to holding by easterbrook in a case managed by jenner & bloch in which no challenge to the imposition of statutory damages was made > • Unconstitutional statutory minimum damages. This seems > potentially much more winnable than fair use. But if there > is a winnable argument here, it would probably also require > lots of evidence to show that a statute that permits an > award of up to $150,000 per work in these circumstances and > $22,500 per work times 30 works as actually awarded for > downloading and supposedly sharing 30 songs that sell for > about $0.99 each retail goes so far beyond any possibly > valid "deterrent" or "punitive" purpose that it is, on its > face, unconstitutional. :<) > Unfortunately, the SCOTUS may not see this as self evident. > Again, maybe Oberholzer-Gee or Andersen/Frenz could have > helped here, and perhaps other experts on the economics of > the music industry, how file sharing actually works, how > many of the ocean of unauthorized downloads can be causally > attributed to Joel, and the overall question of > proportionality. Maybe some expert sociological or > criminological evidence on "deterrence". But given the post- > Eldred approach to deference to Congress on quantifiable > copyright policy matters such as extending the term from > life + 50 to life + 70, I would imagine that you would now > need a great deal of solid evidence to show that this choice > of a numerical range of a minimum of $750 and up to $150,000 > per work for willful infringement is not only beyond > "arguably unwise" but also somehow clearly unconstitutional. > For better or worse, "unwise" and "unfair" may not equate > with "unconstitutional." there are two questions: first, when, if ever (and i say never) did congress decide that draconian damages against noncommercial consumers was the appropriate response to peer-to-peer file sharing? second, reached only if the answer to the first requires it, would be whether the power to impose this damage at the unconstrained behest of the copyright industry imposed upon individual by civil process (thereby bypassing the protections afforded criminal defenants) with no attendant compensatory component, no proof of actual damage caused by the defendant, purely for deterrence of conduct involving no trespass is unconstitutional. > BTW, there is an important article in the works by Pam > Samuelson and Tara Wheatland, which I’m sure you know about, > but for the benefit of other readers can found here as a > work in progress (recently revised). [more to come] > Best regards, > > Howard From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Aug 27 16:04:32 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:04:32 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] David Sugar on Free and Secure VoIP References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A96A080.3801AA1@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Secure VoIP, GNU SIP Witch, and replacing Skype with Free Software David Sugar August 26, 2009 11:51 pm For the last few years I had been working on what is called the GNU Telephony Secure Calling initiative (http://www.gnutelephony.org/index.php/Secure_Call). The GNU Telephony Secure Calling initiative was itself originally formed specifically to make passive voice communication intercept a thing of the past using free software and public standards, and came out of ideas from and work of the New York City civil liberties community and New York Fair Use in the early part of this decade. While it is true that technological means for mass communication intercept has grown with incremental improvements in communication technology, the means to apply and use encryption techniques to counter these abuses and offer communication privacy on a large scale using free software have also become possible. Given the nature of this project, important work had been done by volunteers and contributors in Europe such as Werner Dittmann who created the ZRTP compliant stack we use, over the summer of 2006, and Federico Pouzols, who re-wrote the RTP stack I originally authored for use in GNU Bayonne. The use of non-US contributors was specifically encouraged to avoid putting additional people in potential danger in the United States for working on cryptographic systems for worldwide public use specifically to avoid communication intercept. One result of the initiative was creation of the GNU ZRTP stack (and our related GNU ZRTP4J now used in SIP communicator). The project was first publically introduced in October 2006 during the 4th International Free Knowledge conference, where a complete ZRTP enabled client (the Twinkle softphone) became immediately available for use by anyone through Debian GNU/Linux for establishing simple secure point to point VoIP calls over the public internet. This offered a basic means of establishing secure calls using Phil Zimmerman’s ZRTP protocol and a free software licensed implementation, but did not offer a means to truly integrate and manage secure calling or make it a standard or easy to deploy internet user service. This latter goal became possible through the development of GNU SIP Witch, which can be used to create and deploy network scalable secure privacy enabling VoIP solutions for individuals, private organizations, and even national governments. My focus in this project over the past year has been on this recently introduced GNU SIP Witch package. While this package is still rather new, there is a basic howto for system admins to use and deploy GNU SIP Witch with Ubuntu GNU/Linux, and this can be found at http://www.gnutelephony.org/index.php/Howto_Deploy_SIP_Witch_On_Ubuntu. Ideally I would like to do far more to make it easier to deploy secure calling networks without requiring system admin skills. GNU SIP Witch is different from many other VoIP servers, such as for example Asterisk, in that it never establishes media connections with or through a server, and hence does no protocol conversion or media operations that would otherwise require decrypting a secure audio session in a central location. Instead it relies on published open standards and the SIP protocol to coordinate secure endpoints which can then form direct peer to peer media connections. This means these media sessions are not decrypted by a central server, nor are encryption keys shared with or managed by a central server. One use case for GNU SIP Witch is as a kind distributed domain service to handle inbound VoIP calls directly received over the public Internet for the SIP protocol much like something like sendmail does for SMTP. In this role, one could then create local publicly reachable SIP identities (URI’s) that match email addresses and thereby offer a consistent means of contact. This eliminates the need for some kind of centralized “registry” of callable users which so many other schemes and services wish to reply upon since we can make use of DNS and individually ran services. This suggests an alternate and much more distributed model for enabling secure public voice, video, and instant messaging contact to that of Skype, the latter of which requires a central user directory and control point, as well as using source secret protocols and methods which cannot be independently validated. Another interesting use case is that of creating a secure calling “domain” in conjunction with an already existing insecure VoIP infrastructure, such as for example might be offered by Asterisk. Used this way SIP Witch will maintain both a secure and “insecure” identity for each ZRTP enabled node it is used to manage. The insecure identity will be cross-registered to the insecure IP-PBX so insecure users can reach users in the secure domain. Similarly, all non-secure destinations dialing from a secure VoIP user agent are automatically routed through the insecure IP-PBX. Dialing a secure destination from a secure user agent will however bypass the insecure IP-PBX entirely, and establish a direct peer to peer media session. Awhile back I was asked about speaking at LinuxCon 2009 about this project, and now I am ready to do so. Given my topic, I am uncertain as to whether LinuxCon is really ready for me. However there is a preliminary copy of my presentation next month now available at http://www.gnutelephony.org/data/linuxcon2009.odp and http://www.gnutelephony.org/data/linuxcon2009.pdf for those curious about my talk next month. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Sep 3 03:37:06 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] My Comments on Broadband as General Purpose Platform References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4A9F2BD2.85B4206C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Comments - NBP Public Notice #1 GN Docket Nos. 09­47, 09­51, and 09­137 Regarding the Definition of "Broadband" By Seth Johnson The National Broadband Plan must define "broadband" according to a proper and full concept of what capabilities constitute "advanced telecommunications service." Broadband in this conception is constituted of two things: 1. a general purpose platform (in this document generally associated with the term "Internet" and its consensus protocols) which is optimized for maximum flexibility and application innovation, and 2. certain other functions that may optimize particular applications but that may compromise the flexibility of the general purpose platform. See RFC 4924, "Reflections on Internet Transparency" (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4924.txt): A network that does not filter or transform the data that it carries may be said to be "transparent" or "oblivious" to the content of packets. Networks that provide oblivious transport enable the deployment of new services without requiring changes to the core. It is this flexibility that is perhaps both the Internet's most essential characteristic as well as one of the most important contributors to its success. "Architectural Principles of the Internet" [RFC1958], Section 2 describes the core tenets of the Internet architecture: However, in very general terms, the community believes that the goal is connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol, and the intelligence is end to end rather than hidden in the network. The current exponential growth of the network seems to show that connectivity is its own reward, and is more valuable than any individual application such as mail or the World-Wide Web. This connectivity requires technical cooperation between service providers, and flourishes in the increasingly liberal and competitive commercial telecommunications environment. "The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture" [RFC3724], Section 4.1.1 describes some of the desirable consequences of this approach: One desirable consequence of the end-to-end principle is protection of innovation. Requiring modification in the network in order to deploy new services is still typically more difficult than modifying end nodes. The counterargument - that many end nodes are now essentially closed boxes which are not updatable and that most users don't want to update them anyway - does not apply to all nodes and all users. Many end nodes are still user configurable and a sizable percentage of users are "early adopters," who are willing to put up with a certain amount of technological grief in order to try out a new idea. And, even for the closed boxes and uninvolved users, downloadable code that abides by the end-to-end principle can provide fast service innovation. Requiring someone with a new idea for a service to convince a bunch of ISPs or corporate network administrators to modify their networks is much more difficult than simply putting up a Web page with some downloadable software implementing the service. RFC 4924 proceeds to list developments that may affect the advantages of the Internet's general purpose design based on the end-to-end principle and the transmitting of packets without regard for the application they are supporting, including: * Application Restrictions * Quality of Service (QoS) * Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) * IPv6 Address Restrictions * DNS Issues * Load Balancing and Redirection * Security considerations The principle of transmitting Internet datagrams without regard for the applications they support also provides for "network neutrality" as an emergent phenomenon. In addition, RFC 4084, "Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivity" (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4084.txt) provides a useful description of what constitutes "full Internet connectivity," considering this question with regard to its design for flexibility, including stipulations about functions that should be disclosed to the purchaser if they are deployed. RFCs 1958, 2775, and 3724 more fully describe these issues that arise as various functions are proposed that may affect the Internet's design for greatest flexibility. The Dynamic Platform Standards Project's legislative proposal for an "Internet Platform for Innovation Act" (http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html) recognizes the advantages of the design of the Internet Protocol. The DPS proposal provides a technical characterization of the general purpose platform provided by the Internet Protocol, including its provision of uniform treatment of packet flow. Recognizing and treating this general purpose platform as a distinct category allows the particular advantages for which it was designed to be acknowledged and provided for within the regulatory scheme while other telecommunications functions may be offered by network providers under the general term of "broadband" (and may eventually become part of consensus standards). This document only seeks to present some initial comments regarding the relevance of the general purpose platform to the questions raised in this request for public input. Here we refer chiefly to the design of the Internet according to consensus standards. However, it is worth noting that a general purpose platform can also be afforded by means of the principle of common carriage. Indeed, some might hold that the general scheme of digitizing communications into packets delivered on a best efforts basis regardless of application, in accordance with the Internet Protocol, is a natural outcome and a self-evidently necessary means for providing for interoperability and flexibility among the autonomous routers that were originally administered by thousands of competing Internet Service Providers on the basis of a common carriage principle. The general purpose platform must be a key component of the plan for using broadband infrastructure and services in advancing the full range of national purposes enumerated in section 6001 (k) (1) of the ARRA, and must be recognized as a key consideration in what constitutes "broadband capability." The status of deployment of "broadband" in your reporting should present the deployment of a general purpose platform as a distinct category from other types of advanced telecommunications service which may also be deployed, using the consensus definitions given in relevant RFCs as an analytical aid. A flexible, general purpose platform also contributes to the strategy for maximizing utilization since a platform that optimizes flexibility to make possible a proliferation of innovative applications incentivizes participation in connectivity. The general purpose platform should also be borne in mind in relation to the strategy for affordability, which should be developed with consideration of the issues of recourse and enforcement that arise in the context of public expeditures when contractual expectations related to such a platform are not met. A clear distinction should be maintained in your reporting and pursuit of national goals, between this general purpose, neutral platform and optimized telecommunications services that may diverge from the principles that provide for optimum flexibility and neutral transport. As part of the dynamic process of adapting benchmarks over time, the FCC should consult with experts and the public on 1. what constitutes the general purpose platform, 2. what innovations are recognized as not interfering with general purpose, 3. which may interfere with general purpose but are of value to some purchasers, and 4. in this last category, which functions should become a basis for a category of "consumer connectivity" rather than general purpose Internet connectivity. In addition, the FCC should consult with experts and the public on which functions or features should require explicit notice and consent given privacy considerations (as well as what form of consent is adequate for that purpose). Some additional important considerations the FCC should be mindful of are the implications of packet inspection, packet discrimination, data collection and end-user privacy, as well as the question of whether advertised services perform as specified, perhaps taking input from other appropriate agencies. Recourse and enforcement related to these concerns may be appropriate considerations. General comments on Benchmarks: Benchmarks should exhibit and track the rapid evolution both of the general purpose platform of the Internet and of broadband as a general term that may include other types of offerings. The widespread adoption of new Internet-based applications will affect what "advanced" means to purchasers of broadband, but this should not be construed as indicating that special optimization features that some providers may offer must equate with advanced telecommunications without consideration of their impact on the general purpose platform. "Dependability" and "experiential" metrics must be considered carefully in relationship to the advantages of a maximally flexible general purpose communications platform, as some functions that may improve these aspects for particular purposes may impair the general purpose character of the platform. In considering "the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans", broadband infrastructure data may be more objective than subscriber data, but data should be collected regarding general purpose connectivity as a distinct category, and the analysis should present availability in those terms in addition to the ease with which high speed can be deployed. Similar considerations apply in the analysis of utilization. "Broadband" and "advanced telecommunications capability" may be defined by statute as independent of "any transmission media or technology," but this does not mean that an analysis of advanced telecommunications capability should exclude describing the characteristic of a general purpose platform as a key category. Thank you. Seth Johnson (From http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020037177 ) From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Mon Sep 7 21:52:11 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:52:11 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] David Sugar: The "Stallman Paradox" References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4AA5727B.F9F3D1DC@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://planet.gnu.org/gnutelephony/?p=5 The Stallman Paradox Until society can resolve what I will call for the first time the “Stallman Paradox”, where learning and access enabling technologies, such as for example digital books, conversely disable the freedom to read and hence more than negate the actual benefits of said access, the rush to embrace all digital libraries and textbooks is a rush to a new dark ages. This is perhaps best exemplified in the case of Cushing Acedemy. In this place of assumed learning, the administration choose to abandon a library collection of some 10,000 books which any student may freely access and share for the presumed benefit of DRM (Digital Restriction Management) disabled e-book solutions including the Amazon Kindle. While it is true that the amount of material available is far greater potentially for students, however in doing so, this institution has also decided to accept that costs associated with DRM solutions will mean each student will only be able to afford and have access to a far smaller actual collection of material than they had access to before. Furthermore, outside of the question of turning universal education to a monetary privilege that only few will be able to afford, DRM disabling solutions mean that the right to read and share and learn together is immeasurably harmed. This is perhaps best exemplified in Stallman’s essay on the “Right to Read”, and hence, along with a question of basic freedom of access to knowledge and basic human rights, why I propose this problem be called the “Stallman Paradox”. The logical solution is one where the right to read and think, and to share knowledge, is not made into a good that only few will be able to experience. In the European dark age, education was an exclusive privilege enabled only for a very few. While most societies today now recognize that universal education is both a right and a need, the use of mandated digitally restricted e-book solutions for education could well return societies to a new dark age. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Mon Sep 7 22:03:52 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] NCUC: Appeal to ICANN for Fairer Treatment of Civil Society References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4AA57538.F609A79C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Text from both links pasted below. -- Seth) Appeal to ICANN for Fairer Treatment of Civil Society: > http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/public-interest-groups-in Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN: > http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil --- > http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/public-interest-groups-in ICANN Public Interest Groups Call for Fairer Treatment: NCUC Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 3 September 2009 Public Interest Groups in ICANN Appeal to New President For Fairer Treatment For Civil Society The organization that represents Non-Commercial Internet Users in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) issued an open letter to the Board this week, expressing concern about the possible failure of ICANN's attempt to balance the representation of commercial and noncommercial interests. California (United States) – ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), a group of 152 non-commercial organizations and individuals from 52 countries who represent the noncommercial interests of Internet users in ICANN policy development, recently appealed to ICANN's Board of Directors and CEO to meet with them in Seoul to resolve serious problems with its current plans to alter the representation of noncommercial interests in its policy making process. Specifically, NCUC’s letter expressed concern over ICANN’s adoption of a flawed charter for noncommercial users that disregarded the vast majority of public comments and concerns expressed by noncommercial Internet users. In late July 2009 ICANN’s Board decided to approve the NCSG charter drafted by ICANN staff, rather than the charter drafted by civil society in a 7-month long consensus process that included a wide variety of noncommercial interests and was submitted to ICANN’s Board by the NCUC. ICANN’s staff did not provide its board with the competing charter submitted by NCUC in order to properly inform the board’s decision. The difference between staff’s charter and civil society’s charter is stark. Staff’s charter ties council representation and resources to arbitrary and more easily manipulated constituencies, while the NCUC charter calls for stakeholder group wide elections of its noncommercial representatives and other leaders. NCUC’s charter model encourages consensus building among constituencies, while staff’s charter model encourages divisiveness and favoritism among noncommercial interests. “ICANN’s decision has resulted in significant damage to ICANN’s credibility within global civil society and has fueled further distrust towards ICANN’s decision making process,” said NCUC Chair Robin Gross. “Its treatment of noncommercial users in this instance has significantly called into question ICANN’s legitimacy to govern and its ability to protect the global public interest,” said Gross, Executive Director of digital rights group IP Justice, a NCUC member since 2004. The board’s adoption of the stakeholder group charter is part of ICANN’s ongoing effort to re-organize its Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which currently consists of 5 commercial constituencies and 1 non-commercial constituency, the NCUC. ICANN’s GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations that relate to Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLDs) or those domain names that end in .com, .net, .edu, and .org. The GNSO plays an important role on Internet-related policy issues since its recommendations affect all who own or use GTLDs, including the way domain names can be registered, used, transferred, and any applicable fees and associated policies regarding the domain names. The process of changing the GNSO’s structure from 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups is expected to be complete by the end of October 2009. In its letter the NCUC states that “there is a misunderstanding over non-commercial representation and participation in ICANN” and NCUC calls on ICANN to acknowledge that there has been significant growth among noncommercial participants at ICANN recently. NCUC’s membership has grown by 240% since 2008 and now includes 75 noncommercial organizations and 77 individuals. An independent study by the London School of Economics verified that NCUC has the highest number of different people on the GNSO Council of any ICANN constituency and that NCUC has the most geographical diversity among its membership with members now from 52 different countries. “NCUC represents an extremely broad range of noncommercial Internet users, including educational and academic institutions, human rights organizations, libraries, consumer groups, religious organizations, bloggers, open source software developers, development-oriented groups, arts organizations, and other noncommercial interests,” explained Dr. Milton Mueller, an Internet governance expert. Dr. Mueller, now a professor at Syracuse University School of Information Studies and Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, co-founded the constituency in 2002. "Nonprofits and public interest advocacy groups have an irreplaceable role to play in a self-regulatory scheme dominated by business interests. Someone has to look out for the public interest. If we handicap noncommercial voices and divide them into competing silos they simply won't be able to participate effectively. ICANN's legitimacy and the quality of its decisions will suffer," explained Dr. Mueller. In order to dispel pervasive myths about civil society’s role in ICANN, the NCUC published a “Top 10 Myths about Civil Society Participation in ICANN,” a document that explains why much of what ICANN staff and other constituencies have claimed about noncommercial participation is untrue. For additional information on NCUC and noncommercial participation in ICANN, please contact NCUC’s Chair Robin Gross or visit NCUC’s website at http://ncdnhc.org. Contact: Robin Gross, NCUC Chair Milton Mueller, NCUC Co-Founder Tel.: +1-415-553-6261 Tel: +1-315-443-5616 Email: robin – at - ipjustice.org Email: Mueller – at – syr.edu More Info: Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): http://ncdnhc.org NCUC’s Letter to ICANN Board of Directors and CEO: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of NCUC’s “Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN”: http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil About the Noncommercial Users Constituency: The NCUC is the home for civil society organizations and individuals in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN policy-making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that favor non-commercial communication and activity on the Internet. The NCUC is open to non-commercial organizations and individuals involved in education, community networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, children's welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas. NCUC maintains a public website at http://ncdnhc.org. ### --- > http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN: TOP 10 MYTHS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN ICANN >From The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) 21 August 2009 ________________________________________________________________ Myth 1 “Civil Society won’t participate in ICANN under NCUC’s charter proposal.” False. ICANN staffers and others claim that civil society is discouraged from engaging at ICANN because NCUC’s charter proposal does not guarantee GNSO Council seats to constituencies. The facts show this claim could not be further from the truth. NCUC’s membership includes 152 noncommercial organizations and individuals from 52 countries. Since 2008 NCUC’s membership has increased by more 240% – largely in direct response to civil society’s support for the NCUC charter. Not a single noncommercial organization commented in the public comment forum that hard-wiring council seats to constituencies will induce their participation in ICANN. None of the noncommercial organizations that commented on the NCSG Charter said they would participate in ICANN only if NCSG's Charter secured the constituencies a guaranteed seat on the GNSO. Myth 2 “More civil society groups will get involved if the Board intervenes.” A complete illusion. Board imposition of its own charter and its refusal to listen to civil society groups will be interpreted as rejection of the many groups that commented and as discrimination against civil society participation. ICANN’s reputation among noncommercial groups will be irreparably damaged unless this action is reversed or a compromise is found. Even if we were to accept these actions and try to work with them, the total impact of the staff/SIC NCSG charter will be to handicap noncommercial groups and make them less likely to participate. The appointment of representatives by the Board disenfranchises noncommercial groups and individuals. The constituency-based SIC structure requires too much organizational overhead for most noncommercial organizations to sustain; it also pits groups against each other in political competition for votes and members. Most noncommercial organizations will not enter the ICANN GNSO under those conditions. Myth 3 "The outpouring of civil society opposition can be dismissed as the product of a 'letter writing campaign.'" An outrageous claim. Overwhelming civil society opposition to the SIC charter emerged not once, but twice. In addition, there is the massive growth in NCUC membership stimulated by the broader community’s opposition to the staff and Board actions. Attempts to minimize the degree to which civil society has been undermined by these developments are simply not going to work, and reveal a shocking degree of insularity and arrogance. ICANN is required to have public comment periods because it is supposed to listen to and be responsive to public opinion. Public opinion results from networks of communication and public dialogue on controversial issues, including organized calls to action. No policy or bylaw gives ICANN staff the authority to decide that it can discount or ignore nearly all of the groups who have taken an interest in the GNSO reforms, simply because they have taken a position critical of the staff’s. ICANN's attempt to discount critical comments by labeling them a "letter writing campaign" undermines future participation and confidence in ICANN public processes. Myth 4 "Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue." Wrong. There has never been such an overwhelmingly lopsided public comment period in ICANN’s history. While ICANN’s staff is telling the Board that civil society is divided, the clear, documented consensus among civil society groups has been against the ICANN drafted NCSG charter and in favor of the NCUC one. Board members who rely only on staff-provided information may believe civil society is divided, but Board members who have actually read the public comments can see the solidarity of civil society against what ICANN is trying to impose on them. Myth 5 "Existing civil society groups are not representative or diverse enough." Untrue by any reasonable standard. The current civil society grouping, the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC), now has 152 members including 75 noncommercial organizations and 77 individuals in 52 countries. This is an increase of more than 240% since the parity principle was established. Noncommercial participation in ICANN is now more diverse than any other constituency, so it is completely unfair to level this charge at NCUC without applying it to others. Even back in 2006, an independent report by the London School of Economics showed that NCUC was the most diverse geographically, had the largest number of different people serving on the GNSO Council over time, and the highest turn-over in council representatives of any of the 6 constituencies. In contrast, the commercial users’ constituency has recycled the same 5 people on the Council for a decade and upon the GNSO “reform”, the first 3 of 6 GNSO Councilors from the Commercial Stakeholder Group will represent the United States. Myth 6 "ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted charter." False. An ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that some members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that “the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction.” Myth 7 "The NCUC charter would give the same small group 6 votes instead of 3." False. For the past 8 months, NCUC has stated that it will dissolve when the NCSG is formed. It does not make sense to have a "Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a "Noncommercial Stakeholders Group,” as they are synonymous terms. Thus, NCUC leaders would not be in control of a new NCSG – a completely new leadership would be elected. Under the NCUC charter proposal, all noncommercial groups and individuals would vote on Council seats, not just former NCUC members. Strict geographic diversity requirements would mean that candidates from throughout the world would have to be selected even if they could not get a majority of total votes. Myth 8 "NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial constituencies." Wrong. NCUC’s proposed charter was designed to allow dozens of new noncommercial constituencies to form at will and to advance their own candidates for Council seats. Given the diversity and breadth of NCUC's membership, many different constituencies with competing agendas are likely to form. The organic, bottom-up self-forming approach to constituency formation is much better than the board/staff approach – and more consistent with the BGC recommendations. The SIC charter makes constituency formation very top-heavy and difficult, and gives the staff and Board arbitrary power to decide how “representative” or “significant” new participants are. Because it ties constituencies to Council seats, every new constituency instigates power struggles over the allocation of Council seats. Myth 9 "The NCUC wants to take away the Board's right to approve constituencies." False. People who said this have obviously not read the NCUC-proposed charter. NCUC’s proposal let the board approve or disapprove of new constituencies formed under its proposed charter. Our proposal simply offered to apply some simple, objective criteria (e.g., number of applicants) to new constituency groupings and then make a recommendation to the Board. The idea was to reduce the burden of forming a new constituency for both the applicants and the Board. NCUC’s proposal made it easy to form new constituencies, unlike the SIC charter, which makes it difficult to form new constituencies. Myth 10 “The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO Council Seat.” False. Some claim GNSO Council seats must be hard-wired to specific constituencies because a constituency is meaningless without a guaranteed GNSO Council representative. However this interpretation fails to understand the role of constituencies in the new GNSO, which is to give a voice and a means of participation in the policy development process -- not a guaranteed councilor who has little incentive to reach beyond her constituency and find consensus with other constituencies. Two of the other three stakeholder groups (Registries and Registrars) adopted NCUC’s charter approach of decoupling GNSO Council seats to constituencies, but NCUC has been prevented from electing its councilors on a SG-wide basis. _______________________________________________________________________________ JOIN NCUC All noncommercial organizations and individuals are invited to join NCUC and participate in policy development in ICANN’s GNSO. Bring your experience and your perspective to Internet policy discussions and help protect noncommercial users of the Internet by participating at ICANN via the NCUC. Join today: http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/main/authorization/signUp? GLOSSARY OF ICANN ACRONYMS ALAC - At-Large Advisory Committee ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of the ICANN, as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic" TLDs, or "gTLDs". They can be subdivided into two types, "sponsored" TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as described in more detail below. In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have limited purposes. Over the next twelve years, various discussions occurred concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in November 2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction. These were introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs (.biz, .info, .name, and .pro) are unsponsored. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) are sponsored. GNSO - Generic Names Supporting Organization The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations to the ICANN Board that relate to generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The GNSO is the body of 6 constituencies, as follows: the Commercial and Business constituency, the gTLD Registry constituency, the ISP constituency, the non-commercial constituency, the registrar's constituency, and the IP constituency. However, the GNSO is in the process of restructuring away from a framework of 6 constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups: Commercial, Noncommercial, Registrar, Registry. The Noncommercial and Commercial Stakeholder Groups together make up the “Non-contracting Parties House” in the new bi-cameral GNSO; and the Registrar and Registry Stakeholder Groups will together comprise the “Contracting Parties House” in the new GNSO structure (beginning Oct. 2009). ICANN - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions NCUC - Noncommercial Users Constituency The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for noncommercial organizations and individuals in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting power in ICANN policy making and Board selection, it develops and supports positions that protect noncommercial communication and activity on the Internet. NCUC works to promote the public interest in ICANN policy and is the only noncommercial constituency in ICANN’s GSNO (there are 5 commercial constituencies). The NCUC is open to noncommercial organizations and individuals involved in education, community networking, public policy advocacy, development, promotion of the arts, digital rights, children's welfare, religion, consumer protection, scientific research, human rights and many other areas. NCUC maintains a website at http://ncdnhc.org. NCSG - Noncommercial Stakeholders Group The GNSO is in the process of being restructured from “6 constituencies” to “4 stakeholder groups”, including a Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) into which all noncommercial organizations and individuals will belong for policy development purposes, including members of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC). The NCSG and the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) will together comprise the “Non-contracting Parties House” in the new bicameral GNSO structure beginning October 2009. LINKS TO BACKGROUND INFORMATION: NCUC Letter to ICANN Board and CEO on NCSG Charter Controversy: http://bit.ly/BiOg8 Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC): http://ncdnhc.org NCUC submitted NCSG charter proposal: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf Robin Gross on “Is ICANN Accountable to the Public Interest?”: http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html ICANN GNSO Chair Avri Doria on “Why I Joined the NCUC”: http://tiny.cc/EPDtx Internet Governance Project: “4 ICANN Board members dissent in vote on NCSG charter”: http://tiny.cc/S5CjP 2006 London School of Economics Independent Report on GNSO: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Tue Sep 8 15:36:34 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:36:34 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] SellYourRights.com References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4AA66BF2.93A4E2EA@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://sellyourrights.com/ Welcome liberator! The web is your arena. Join forces and get engaged. We’ll help you to set digital content - such as music - free. At the same time we ensure a fair and appropriate revenue for those people creating that content. We are still in closed beta-mode. Register now anyway! If you are lucky we can provide you one of our precious test-accounts! For Creators 1. create your offer: Define the cash you need to release your products under creative commons license 2. engage your users: Spread your widget and collect payment promises from your fans throughout the web (e.g. facebook, myspace, your own website, …) 3. set content free: If the cash you asked for has been collected you publish your work under Creative Commons license – if not, not. cash for you – freedom for your fans For Users 1. check what’s new: Listen to samples, read the descriptions, watch the video. Check out what is offered wherever you find a widget. 2. pay what you want: Decide your price and get engaged. This is your payment promise. You only pay if the product is set free. 3. copy share remix: Be one of the first to get the product once it is free. Enjoy the digital freedom Creative Commons licenses enable. freedom for you – cash for your idol You are in control from now! You are running no risk! You decide the conditions - no one else! From ms@ms.lt Mon Sep 14 22:51:19 2009 From: ms@ms.lt (Andrius Kulikauskas) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:51:19 +0300 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Creative Work Law for the EU. We have the right to share! Message-ID: <4AAEBAD7.8070305@ms.lt> Minciu Sodas is a member of the European Union's thematic network COMMUNIA for the Public Domain http://www.communia-project.eu We (and all) have the opportunity to provide our ideas for what should be the European Union's policy regarding the Public Domain. I encourage us to write and will share our thoughts through the COMMUNIA mailing list and at the Barcelona meeting on October 1-2, 2009. I share below my own thoughts on the policy that I would like to see! Of course, my letter is in the Public Domain. Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@ms.lt ------------------------------------------------ We Have the Right to Share ------------------------------------------------ Currently, the laws of the European Union presume that any creative work is necessarily protected by copyright and the author must explicitly approve all uses. This conflicts with the wishes of people who want to share creative work freely in the Public Domain so that all may rely on their own best judgement to use it, transform it, incorporate it and share it. We, the people of the European Union, acknowledge a right to share, just as we do the right to own. These two rights are related. The purpose of ownership is stewardship. The steward of property is recognized as the judge of how to apply that property so that it serves the best use of all. The steward has the right to transfer their property, to allow some or even all to apply their own best judgement. If we have the right to own property, then we must also have the right to share it. By acknowledging the right to own, we acknowledge the wisdom of the society of all which acknowledges and defends such a right. Likewise, we may entrust our creative works to that same wisdom. ------------------------------------------------ Creative Work Law ------------------------------------------------ Creativity is positive. There is no need for laws to restrict it, but rather for laws to restrict those who might inhibit it, those who might retard the evolution of society. Creative work law (historically known as copyright law) is phrased and structured accordingly. Our right to share is especially relevant for creative works from which other works can be derived or copied. Such works are purposeful and fruitful when they inspire other such works, when they are social. Creative work law does not apply to secret works or private works, but to social works. The purpose of creative work law is to encourage the creation of fruitful works and social wealth, not fruitless works nor private wealth. Creative work law is not meant to encourage the creation of single works, but rather, to encourage the creation of all of their derived works, and especially, the cultivation of a creative culture. A culture is shaped by ethics and norms. Norms are implicit, but laws are explicit. Laws may support norms, but cannot define them. Creative work law is established to nurture a creative culture, including support and regard for creators and creations. Creative work law succeeds by defining a broad and thriving "grey zone" of "fair use". The joys of creative work are direct and thus a greater benefit than any monetary profit. The best use of a work is informed by this joy more so than any other incentive. Creative work law protects, first of all, the interests and rights of those who wish to enjoy a work so that it is available. Creative work law honors and presumes people's desire to share. Terms for the distribution of creative works presume that people will share and provide positive incentives to support and engage such behavior or they are void. Creative work law does not favor those who break the law over those who follow the law, nor those who encourage the breaking of the law over those who encourage others to follow the law. Similarly, Terms of Service do not favor those who ignore them or break them over those who follow them. Any such laws and terms are excessive and void. ------------------------------------------------ The State is the Champion of the Public Domain ------------------------------------------------ If we don't know otherwise, do we presume that people want to share or to own? We presume that people wish to allow reuse unless they make evident otherwise. The right to share has priority over the right to own. The European Union and its member states have the responsibility to protect property. The state's protection of property used by a wider group has priority over its protection of comparable property used by a narrower group. The state's protection of property used by all (and especially, the commons) has the highest priority. The state's responsibility to protect property is greatest for that which lacks a defender, protector, caretaker or steward. The state promotes stewardship, including individual stewardship, but especially, a culture of collective stewardship. The state is the champion and steward for a thriving Public Domain. The state reflects the will of all together to respect the rights of all separately. The state accordingly presumes, implicitly, our shared will, so that it might respect, explicitly, our distinct wills. The state defines an expansive Public Domain so that deliberate individuals may benefit from Copyright protection which is focused and effective. ------------------------------------------------ Public Domain has Priority over Copyright ------------------------------------------------ The European Union prepares and issues a directive that all member countries pass laws and amend constitutions, as needed, so that for creative works, the Public Domain has priority over Copyright. Works are creative in that they transcend the will of the author. Works may be partly creative, not entirely transcendent. Authors may restrict the use of their work by Copyright only to the extent that their work is NOT creative. The lack of creativity is given by the author's style as evident in the form of the created work. Works of God, nature and genius are absolutely creative. They transcend style. Anyone may use such works in the Public Domain if they explicitly regard them accordingly, free of style. Works of and by governments are in the Public Domain, as are documents of any institutions beholden to the public, the will of all together. Copyright works must be marked as such, using the copyright sign along with the year. Otherwise, they may be considered to be in the Public Domain. Copyright works must include or be distributed along with a reference to where can be found further information on the author of the work and the owner of the copyright, the boundaries of the work, the works it derives from, the scope of fair use, and how to contact the owner of the copyright to request additional use of the work. Works that derive from the Public Domain must make available, in the Public Domain, any works that they build on. Otherwise, they themselves may be used as if they were in the Public Domain, and ultimately, they fall into the Public Domain. Creative works may be explicitly placed in the Public Domain. Creative works can be owned or managed only by human beings, not by corporations or any other fictitious persons which by their nature are incapable of creating them. ------------------------------------------------ The Right to Change One's Mind ------------------------------------------------ Our creativity is how we transcend ourselves. Our creative culture depends on our completely voluntary participation and thus accomodates any author who wishes, at any time, for any reason, to remove their work from the Public Domain. Commercial works may leverage Public Domain materials but need to be prepared to negotiate with authors or stop making use of their works. The author who changes their mind may inform and require any and all owners of copies or derivatives of the work in question to negotiate terms of ownership or to remove all traces of the work. Such owners are not liable for past use of the work, but for future use and distribution of the work, responding within a practical timeline. Creative works, such as orphan works, with no apparent caretaker may be presumed to belong to the Public Domain until the creator asserts otherwise. ------------------------------------------------ Developing Norms and Regulations ------------------------------------------------ The European Union supports and establishes institutions that develop regulations and foster norms for a thriving Public Domain. Absolute minimum interpretations of "fair use" are established for a variety of practical situations, such as any publicly posted text that is 140 characters or less. Absolute maximal interpretations of "fair use" are likewise established. "Fair use" is defined in the most liberal way unless the creative work references it's own explanation of "fair use". Authors are presumed to grant all requests for expansive "fair use". Users who write to authors requesting expansive "fair use" may presume their request has been granted until they receive a response otherwise. The standard for "due diligence" in checking for authors and their wishes is proportional to the value of the derived works in question. Copyright owners of mass consumed works assume that users do abide by an honor system and provide them with ways for making payments (or micropayments) upon making copies or creating derivative works. Penalties for abuse of copyright are of the same order of magnitude as the claimant's actual losses and the defendant's gains. Content generated in online venues (mailing lists, wikis, blogs, comments) is Public Domain unless each item explicitly states otherwise. Website Terms of service may not be used to limit the rights of authors or users, whether Public Domain, Copyright or "fair use". Any material made publicly accessible on the Internet, may be freely copied and distributed further, in electronic, print or other versions, without restriction. Distributors may charge for such distribution as long as they do not exclude other distributors. The terms "commercial use" and "non-commercial use" are clarified so that "commercial use" refers simply to selling a creative work. A procedure exists for querying publishers whether they intend to reprint out-of-print works or, alternatively, whether they will allow others to do so under standard terms. A procedure exists for establishing the "authors' wishes" for works (like Wikipedia) with no effective author. A procedure exists by which such works can thereby be migrated from one license to another or the Public Domain. No license may be designed to be incompatible with the Public Domain. ("Share alike" licenses must not conflict with the Public Domain.) Separate laws address damages due to plagiarism and false claims to authorship. ------------------------------------------------ State policy ------------------------------------------------ The European Union and member states take an active approach to fostering the Public Domain as central to public life. Government funding standards and purchasing standards require that, wherever possible, content (such as school textbooks) be in the Public Domain. Government services, requirements, standards (as in education) may not require use of particular software but most instead define formats for which software can be created. Governments purchase works so that they enter the Public Domain and/or reward authors for works they've place in the Public Domain. This is the principal support for the arts and sciences. Governments may exercise "eminent domain" to purchase works at fair market prices and place them in the Public Domain. Governments prepare registries of Public Domain works built by volunteers and reward participants, but especially as a way of channeling economic stimulus monies. Government funds used to bail out private companies such as banks, automobile manufacturers, etc. are first used to increase transparency and openness and the public wealth, for example, making open source the design of cars. Governments champion worldwide the free flow of ideas and content just as they champion the free flow of trade. Government or insurers allows for insurance for those who use and reuse creative works to cover their transgressions. Anonymous works such as grafitti are defined as folklore in the Public Domain. In order to encourage an economy around the Public Domain, and voluntary work, in general: Money paid, in advance, for work to be done in the Public Domain, is not considered work for pay, thus free of any related taxes, Social Security payments, and other obligations. The payer of the money may consider such payments as a business expense if they report the amounts and pay a proportional tax. Given that "wealth is relationships", that wealth is generated by including people, and that contributing to the Public Domain and "working for free" filter in people who share and invest in the commons: The European Union develops a distribution mechanism to stimulate the growth of underdeveloped areas, such as the countryside, by issuing vouchers (say, 1000 euros each) to those who "work for free" and participate in institutions, including government, business, academia, to spend freely on those likewise from the target group. Such a system will not need reporting or monitoring. The European Union gives priority to local cultures so that they are not dominated by international cultures. A distinction is to be made between works in international languages (such as English) and local languages (such as Lithuanian) as well as languages that are not official languages of the European Union (such as African languages). Works published in the European Union in international languages may, without restriction or special permission, be translated into the Public Domain in local languages and non-European languages. ------------------------------------------------ Theoretical Foundations ------------------------------------------------ Creativity is a basic human trait and activity. The European Union sponsors dialogue to clarify the theoretical foundations of creative work and the practical consequences. A general theory may consider that a creative work is deliberate and not accidental. Deliberateness may be defined as the application of distinct parsers, for example, two for fair use, and three for a fully creative work. See "The Algebra of Copyright" by Andrius Kulikauskas, http://www.ms.lt/en/publishing/TheAlgebraOfCopyright.html A general theory may define the nature of style. Copyright protection applies only to form, and in particular, only to style. Derived works for which the style of incorporated works is altered beyond recognition do not violate copyright. From fats@korakora.org Tue Sep 15 14:58:23 2009 From: fats@korakora.org (Fatima Lasay) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:58:23 +0800 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Nesson to Knopf re: Joel Tenenbaum In-Reply-To: <4A951186.71BFF4E@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A951186.71BFF4E@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4AAF9D7F.2010209@korakora.org> Dear Seth, Thanks for your posts on this case; they have been very useful. I am new on the UPD list. Earlier I have sent this open letter to Joel T (via JFB website)- Copyright enforcement as "benevolent assimilation", an open letter I think the general impression here (Philippines) was that Nesson is an academic not a litigation lawyer. But I would be more interested in the impact of an appeal, and agree that a winnable case is not the point. On Sugar's "Stallman Paradox," Sugar's belief in "universal education" and "access to knowledge" implies the bias embedded in his technology- (particularly ICT)-centered culture. This is the same bias that makes things like OLPC a tool for dilatory reform in developing countries (in connivance with their first world counterparts). The "human rights" discourse makes the (dangerous) bias less apparent. I trace one contemporary source of this broadly propagated bias (perhaps mostly in Europe and North America, in the countries of SouthEast Asia and later the NICs of Eastern Europe, I would link this ICT-centric culture to "Development Communication", ie from Lerner, Rogers to Quebral, et al), the mechanism is thru two documents created under the UNESCO: one is the Grunwald Declaration on Media Education in 1982, and the other, its follow-up, is the Paris Agenda or the 12 Recommendations for Media Education in 2007. Both documents, if scrutinized carefully, actually attempt to define "media" and "communication" as a propaganda system and to install a watertight system of educational conditioning which gives no real space for any kind of autonomous and decentralized creative communication. In these recommendations for media education, the technical history and conceptualization of media technology within the genealogy of control systems is neutralized by focus on its social use and integration almost without question. This is a form of conceptual and historical exclusion, as the Grumwald Declaration states in a disempowering way: "Rather than condemn or endorse the undoubted power of the media, we need to accept their significant impact and penetration throughout the world as an established fact, and also appreciate their importance as an element of culture in today’s world." Meanwhile, the Paris Agenda reflects a control freak's manual, appearing to support cultural diversity, but actually contradicting this diversity by its specification of various forms of monitoring systems, coordinated actions, promotion of best practices, investigations on the role and behavior of people in media education, all under an extremely paternalistic framework of education. This framework is reproduced in numerous venues such as WSIS and brought "home" by state and civil society actors. It is in effect a centralized propaganda system, whereby media and communication is used to project on a mass audience certain ideas (such as "access to knowledge" and "universal education") considered desirable by the experts, authorities and stakeholders responsible for their transmission. DRM is just one of occasional hoops made for everypne to jump through every now and then. best wishes, Fatima PS I would also like to share a draft statement written in response to the (Philippines) "National Intellectual Property Policy and Strategy" at http://korakora.org/kuro/2009/08/statement-on-philippine-ip-policy-and-strategy/ - the "economic incentive" is particularly touched on there and could be of interest to the previous poster from Lithuania and the ideas on "State policy" on the public domain. From seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Sep 19 13:32:24 2009 From: seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:32:24 -0400 Subject: [Upd-discuss] 3 for OneWebday NY: Broadband, Freedom, One Web References: <48804AFB.5E3A3E4B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <49524E6B.B39D16B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A38075E.A044625D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4A6DDE55.8038E9A4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4AB4CF58.CB6C8EF9@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Two of these are today, at noon and 6 pm; then the third is OneWebDay this Tuesday. -- Seth) "Universal Broadband- The Road Ahead" Saturday, September 19, 12-2 pm: "From Software to Everywhere" party Saturday, September 19 6-10pm: OneWebDay 2009 Celebration in Washington Square Park Tuesday, September 22: 12-2pm http://onewebday.org/nyc ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:04:32 -0400 From: Jay Sulzberger To: lisp@lispnyc.org Subject: [Lisp] [NELFPM] Saturday 19 September 2009 Software Freedom Day and One Web Day: Meeting at NYU, Giant Roof Party
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:05:06 -0400 To: announce@isoc-ny.org From: ISOC-NY announcements Subject: [isoc-ny] OneWebDay NYC 2009 Reply-To: president@isoc-ny.org ***Slightly updated - Please circulate widely! Thanks. Joly*** OWD NYC 2009 Events: Saturday, September 19, 12-2 pm: "Universal Broadband- The Road Ahead" Warren Weaver Hall (Courant Institute) 251 Mercer Street, room 101 NYC Saturday, September 19 6-10pm: Open Source / Open Culture: "From Software to Everywhere" party The Open Planning Project 148 Lafayette St,NYC Tuesday, September 22: 12-2pm OneWebDay 2009 Celebration in Washington Square Park Where: Holley Plaza, Washington Square Park NYC http://onewebday.org/nyc ======================================= New York, NY - In addition to the annual OneWebDay celebration of the Internet in all its diversity, which will again be held in Washington Sq. Park on Sep 22, New York netizens will be active in the coming weekend participating in two pre-OneWebDay events, a symposium and a party on Saturday Sep 19. The NYC OneWebDay Celebration in Washington Sq. will this year be held in the newly renovated Holley Plaza, just east of the fountain from 12 noon to 2pm on Sep 22 - OneWebDay. Our guest of honor will be New York City Council member Gale A. Brewer. Also speaking will be Iranian activist Medhi Saharkhiz, who will reflect on the situation in Iran and the role the internet has played in allowing voices to be heard in the aftermath of the recent elections. The New York Public Interest Research Group will be using the occasion to officially release a report that forcefully calls for an assertive national broadband policy. Phil Ashlock, of Open Planning Project will speak on the open government effort in NYC: people working with technology and civic institutions to help make the functions of the city more transparent and participatory. Also participating, as part of their month long BREAKOUT FESTIVAL, will be NYCWireless. The intriguing concept behind BREAKOUT is that with mobile technology NYC workers are, for the first time since the invention of the office, are no longer tethered, free to roam and gather in the streets and parks. Adding to the fun we are lining up a couple of bands to come and play a few tunes. The whole event will be webcast. More details: http://onewebday.org/nyc. The OneWebDay Symposium on Sat Sep 19 12 noon - 2pm will be held at NYU's Courant Institute, Warren Weaver Hall, 251 Mercer St. The theme is 'Universal Broadband - The Road Ahead'. While many of us enjoy the benefits of High Speed Internet, there are still plenty, even in this city, that do not. Affordability, accessibility, and training are all factors. The 2008 Diamond Report, commissioned by the City, suggested that -for a healthy and competitive economic future - all citizens should be upgraded to 100mbps by 2010 or soon after. It seems an unlikely prospect, even given Stimulus funding. This Symposium garners experts from a number of fields to address the ways and means that we might achieve such a goal. Notably we have Alex Goldman, the former Managing Editor of trade journal ISP-Planet, as a keynote speaker. Dana Spiegel of NYCWireless, responsible for free wi-fi in many of the City's public spaces, will give his views. Lou Klepner of the NYC Community Fiber project controversially advocates that citizens should empower themselves by laying their own fiber. Joshua Breitbart of Peoples Production House has wide experience working with underserved communities and their problems. Thomas Kamber of Older Adults Technology Services devotes himself to connecting our senior population, including programs where kids do the training. This promises to be a stimulating and provocative discussion. This will also be webcast live. More details: http://onewebday.org/nyc. Our second event on Sat Sep 19, in the early evening from 6-10, at 148 Lafayette St. will be much more of a party. One aspect often overlooked in discussions of digital inclusion, and a major factor in computer costs, is the ongoing expense of software. The Free Software movement thankfully has come to the rescue, developing a body of free and open alternatives. The community considers that these programs, hitherto somewhat the province primarily of geeks, is ready for primetime. Hence the title of this event 'From Software to Everywhere'. 'Lightning' talks will be given by some developers on their ware's attributes before we get down to serious schmoozing. A notable speaker is Nina Paley, whose animated film 'Sita Sings The Blues' was shown on Ch.13 earlier in the year too much acclaim. Nina will extend the 'Open' idea into culture, talking about how she recently made elements of her film available for remixing under a Creative Commons license. *Note: Admission is limited! You must RSVP to joshlevy.ny(at)gmail.com to gain entry. No webcast. More details: http://onewebday.org/nyc. Finally, for those who cannot make it to an event or watch online, on Sep 22 at 3.30pm, on Manhattan Neighborhood Network Ch.67 can be seen a film of last year's OneWebDay NYC Celebration including Internet luminaries like Jonathan Zittrain, Larry Lessig, Craig Newmark. ==================================== About OneWebDay: OneWebDay was founded in 2006 as an all volunteer campaign to build an active community of Internet advocates in the United States and around the world. Originally imagined as a celebration of the World Wide Web - the services and content the Internet carries - OneWebDay has grown into a movement of organizations, citizens and consumers who are committed to universal and equal access to the Internet. Now in its fourth year, OneWebDay has a full-time Executive Director, powerful new partners and is planning events in 50 cities across the globe in 2009. OneWebDay events planned for other U.S. cities include: a documentary screening in Milwaukee; a policy panel on Capitol Hill in Washington; city leaders in Philadelphia on its broadband grant; elected officials and a Cajun band in Lafayette. OneWebDay takes place annually on September 22, marked by a variety of activities, with a new theme each year. The 2009 theme is "One Web. For All" and focuses on volunteer service and expanding opportunity. In addition to convening public forums where topics related to Internet access and availability will be discussed, OneWebDay organizers are going out into their communities to provide hands-on help with training and infrastructure. The Internet is the means by which increasing numbers of Americans earn a living, receive an education, consume goods and services and participate in their democracy. Still, the United States ranks 15th among developed nations when it comes to broadband deployment. "Everyone understands that the Internet is the pathway to economic opportunity, from educational achievement to success on the job," said Nathaniel James, OneWebDay Executive Director. "We can't afford to leave anyone behind." http://onewebday.org Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 http://isoc-ny.org _______________________________________________ Announce mailing list Announce@isoc-ny.org http://lists.isoc-ny.org/listinfo.cgi/announce-isoc-ny.org
Distributed poC TINC: Jay Sulzberger Corresponding Secretary LXNY LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization. http://www.lxny.org _______________________________________________ Lisp mailing list Lisp@lispnyc.org http://www.lispnyc.org:8080/mailman/listinfo/lisp From ms@ms.lt Tue Sep 22 17:25:45 2009 From: ms@ms.lt (Andrius Kulikauskas) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:25:45 +0300 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Strategic plan for Wikimedia movement Message-ID: <4AB8FA89.8030803@ms.lt> I was using Wikipedia today and saw a link to the letter which I share below. Wikipedia is certainly a wonderful resource. I'm always a bit sad that it's not in the Public Domain and so I can't and won't invest myself much in it, its community or its content. Instead, I'm working in the Public Domain. I'm glad that they are inviting everybody to think about its future. I find that encouraging. Perhaps we might think of what resources we would like, share that with them but, in any event, create that ourselves? Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@ms.lt, +370 699 30003 -------------------------------- Letter from Michael Snow and Jimmy Wales http://volunteer.wikimedia.org -------------------------------- It is hard to believe that less than a decade ago, Wikipedia didn't exist. Now, 330 million people use Wikipedia every month, making it the world's most frequently used online knowledge resource. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers have built and maintained the different Wikimedia projects in the last eight years. Although we have accomplished a lot, we still have far to go to achieve our vision of a world in which every single person can freely share in the sum of all human knowledge. How can we build on our success to overcome the challenges that lie ahead? Less than a fifth of the world's population has access to the Internet. While hundreds of thousands of volunteers have contributed to Wikimedia projects today, they are not fully representative of the diversity of the world. Many choices lie ahead as we work to build a world wide movement to create and share free knowledge. We are starting a year-long process to develop a strategic plan for the Wikimedia movement. Specifically, we are trying to understand: * Where are we now? * Where do we want to be in five years? * How do we get from here to there? Help us find the answers to these questions. Explore them, break them down, reflect on what they mean for our vision and our values. Here are five ways you can help: * Join a task force. We are organizing task forces that will explore different topics and produce a set of recommendations related to them. Apply to participate, or form your own ad-hoc groups. * Let us know how you can help. If you are an expert in one of the subjects we are dealing with, add yourself to our expert database. This will allow task forces and other volunteers to reach you with questions, and you can respond when you have time. * Publish your ideas. Write a proposal on the strategy wiki, and help organize and improve the proposals that are already there. Post ideas on your blog, on mailing lists, and on social networks like Identi.ca, Twitter, and Facebook. Tag those posts with #wikimedia or link to them on the strategy wiki so that others can see them. * Host conversations about strategy. In order to develop good plans, we need broad participation. There is no way that the task forces can talk to everyone who has ideas about Wikimedia's future. This is where you can help: host your own conversations about strategy, in person or online, and publish the results on the strategy wiki. There are templates and tools for hosting strategy sessions on the strategy wiki. * Talk to us. Give feedback to the strategy team. Tell us your ideas, your hopes, your fears, your goals for the projects. Add feedback to the strategy wiki, or send an email to strategy@wikimedia.org. If you cannot participate, will you consider making a donation to support Wikimedia? A donation will directly support our global free knowledge programs. We also need volunteers to contribute to our projects, improve our technology, and support our work in other ways. This century has presented us with an amazing opportunity to transform our civilization, and to create equal opportunities for all human beings. We hope you can join us in our work of sharing knowledge with every person on the planet. Yours, Michael Snow Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Jimmy Wales Founder of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation From ms@ms.lt Tue Sep 22 19:52:50 2009 From: ms@ms.lt (Andrius Kulikauskas) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:52:50 +0300 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Re: Creative Work Law for the EU. We have the right to share! In-Reply-To: <4AB91637.9020607@gmail.com> References: <4AAEBAD7.8070305@ms.lt> <4AB91637.9020607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AB91D02.3010901@ms.lt> Anki, I'm glad to learn of you through the UPD list, and others might also, so I share our letters. I was hoping indeed to stay in Barcelona, practice my Spanish and make contacts, but I am leaving on October 4, as instructed by COMMUNIA, because of EU absurdity. I have been assembling Spanish speakers for my lab, Minciu Sodas http://www.ms.lt at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minciu_sodas_ES/ perhaps you might help me start discussion in Spanish? I note that you're a musician. I've started learning how to make music with Linux. I write songs in Lithuanian. Andrius Andrius Kulikauskas Minciu Sodas http://www.ms.lt ms@ms.lt +370 699 30003 anki toner wrote: > Hi Andrius, > I live in Barcelona, and I am quite interested in the Public Domain > issues. My main concern is music, or at least that was the source of > my interest since I am a musician. I sometimes lecture and hive > workshops on Plunderphonics. > Unfortunately, I will not be in Barcelona during the COMMUNIA meeting. > /Which is a pity since I was invited to represent the Archives of the > Crown of Aragon at the meeting, but one cannot be at two places at the > same time) > However, I am coming back to town on monday 5th. I understand from > your leter that you are going to be around for some days (but maybe I > have read it wrong). In case there is a chance, it would be nice to > meet and exchange thoughts. > Do you think it will be possible? > Greetings from Barcelona > Anki Toner > http://www.ankitoner.com > http://www.hazardrecords.org > > Andrius Kulikauskas escribió: >> Minciu Sodas is a member of the European Union's thematic network >> COMMUNIA for the Public Domain http://www.communia-project.eu We >> (and all) have the opportunity to provide our ideas for what should >> be the European Union's policy regarding the Public Domain. I >> encourage us to write and will share our thoughts through the >> COMMUNIA mailing list and at the Barcelona meeting on October 1-2, 2009. >> >> I share below my own thoughts on the policy that I would like to see! >> Of course, my letter is in the Public Domain. >> Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@ms.lt >> >> From fats@korakora.org Wed Sep 23 15:16:01 2009 From: fats@korakora.org (Fatima Lasay) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:16:01 +0800 Subject: [Upd-discuss] CS Release Message-ID: <4ABA2DA1.7010504@korakora.org> Release from the CopySouth Research Group, 23 September 2009. The CopySouth Research Group (CSRG), which was established in 2005 and has published its well-known Dossier in English and Spanish, is making two changes to its activities. First, CopySouth is creating a new e-mail list for the discussion and debate of copyright and related issues in the global South. It intends to connect scholars, activists, artists, and government officials who take a critical view of copyright for the global South and want to discuss these issues with others. The listserv will function in both Spanish and English with the hope of additional languages in the future. More information about the goals of the listserv and CopySouth are available once you have subscribed. To find out more and how you can join, go to: http://copysouth.org/mailman/listinfo/copysouth_copysouth.org Or to: http://copysouth.org/portal/list Second, the CSRG has recently made major changes to its website and added a great deal of new material. So pay a visit to www.copysouth.org, take a look at the new documents, and leave a comment … or offer its editors a new document to post on the website. Best wishes The CopySouth Research Group contact@copysouth.org zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz -- Coordinating Committee CopySouth Research Group & Network ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Comité de Coordinación Grupo de Investigación & Red CopySouth From ms@ms.lt Sat Sep 26 21:42:31 2009 From: ms@ms.lt (Andrius Kulikauskas) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:42:31 +0300 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Ricardo: Public Domain issues for the COMMUNIA meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ABE7CB7.3010106@ms.lt> Ricardo, Thank you for your very thoughtful comments on the draft of European Union policy recommendations at https://private.communia-project.eu/wiki/index.php/Policy_recommendations (username: communia_private; password: com9628mu) I invite more comments before the Barcelona meeting of COMMUNIA on October 1-2, 2009. I share your thoughts more broadly. Some great ideas that you have are: * Having the copyright expiration date be based on the year of copyright (which is typically available in the work) rather than the year the author died (which is not available). * Defining "voluntary immediate expiration of copyright" as one way of placing one's own works in the Public Domain. * The idea of a simple protocol is very good. Notes to Ricardo: * I don't distinguish between the Public Domain (as we use at our Minciu Sodas lab) and "expired copyright Public Domain". * In practice, as I know at Minciu Sodas, if an author no longer wants their work to be in the Public Domain, then there is not much practical alternative except for me to honor their request. Every so often I get such a request and usually the solution is: I can delete their letters; but I won't delete replies that built on their letters. That answer seems to work naturally in practice. The law should work likewise - you can revoke Public Domain - but your revocation has no effect on existing works - but on the other hand, those who you've informed have to stop publishing new copies of your work - and so for practical purposes, commercially, it solves the problem of inequity by having the commercial power (like a Hollywoood studio) decide whether they want to pay a fair price or divorce the contribution from their derived work. Something like that seems to be fair and natural. * In terms of backward compatibility, I think that it's possible for a new law to be phased in by requiring all unmarked works to be marked, say, over the course of a year, so that they may stay protected by copyright. * I think central for a simple protocol is the idea that if a creative work is worth copyrighting, then it should include a reference (a link) to information about the work (including the metadata, an archive of any Public Domain works it builds on, and a way to contact the publisher to ask for permission for expanded fair use - with the understanding that until they respond to you, you can assume that you've been granted that permission. * I think insurance for "fair use" is good because it can also be a vehicle for paying publishers their fair due when sharing occurs. You can pay higher or lower rates for insurance as warranted based on your sharing habits. The money would be used to compensate the publishers (think of it as a friendly settling with class of users) rather than to pay for fines. Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@ms.lt ricardoolpc wrote: > Hi Andrius > you asked for comments/ideas about the Public Domain issues on your > worknets page, to prepare for the Communia EU debate. > > http://www.worknets.org/wiki.cgi?PublicDomain > > I think I read somewhere that strictly-speaking, the term 'Public > Domain' is reserved in law for works that have entered the > public-domain because their copyright-period has ended. It varies with > the type of work. For example, life+70 years. Is that correct. > > 1. One side-issue is "How is a user supposed to know when the author > died?" There is no public global database. They are being forced to > comply with a law, where the data required isn't available. Could it > be replaced with a formula or simple rule, such as X years from > authoring or first-publication? That means if a user sees Copyright > 1947, they have all the information they need. > > 2. I found this useful UK government Intellectual Property Office > website, that describes the terms Copyright, Public Domain, etc. > > http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy.htm > > 3. It mentions that a copyright-holder has copyright/financial rights > over their work, and they can sell/transfer/etc their copyright or > license it's use on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis (a bit like > patents). > > It also says, copyright holders of artistic works, films, etc, have > 'Moral rights' over their work, so they can object to it being used in > an 'improper context'. For example, using your poem in a political > magazine, implying support. > > http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-creator.htm > > It says (fair use, I hope) - "Copyright is, however, a form of > property which, like physical property, can be bought or sold, > inherited or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part. So, some or all > of the economic rights may subsequently belong to someone other than > the original creator or first owner. In contrast, the moral rights > accorded to authors of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works > and film directors remain with the author or director or pass to his > or her heirs on death. Such moral rights will last as long as > copyright lasts provided the creator did not waive his moral rights." > > 4. Immediate Expiry of Copyright - For the EU debate, presumably, the > EU is looking for simple ways tp draft the laws. Instead of spending > years changing thousands of clause in hundreds of EU Country laws, dDo > you think it would be a good idea for an (over-riding or amending) EU > Law to state "Where copyright legislation gives a copyright holder the > rights to a work for a specified term, the copyright-holder may choose > to make the copyright-term expiry immediately". > > The original-copyright holder should maintain Moral Rights over their > work for the normal term, just give up copyright/economic rights > (putting the work in the public-domain). > > It assumes EU Law has precedence over member-country law. > > The EU Law needs to over-ride sentences like the first part of this > one from the UK IPO "Such moral rights will last as long as copyright > lasts...", so that the immediate expiry of copyright doesn't cause the > immediate expiry of Moral Rights. > > (the full UK IPO sentence say "Such moral rights will last as long as > copyright lasts provided the creator did not waive his moral rights.") > > Is there any difference between your concep/understanding of 'Public > Domain' and 'Expired copyright public-domain'? > > 5. Backward compatibility - You suggested all works should be > Public-Domain unless marked as copyright, I think. I'm thinking that > may not be backward-compatible, as there are millions of printed pages > around that are not marked as copyright. I believe the current law > gives the author copyright, without marking or registering copyright. > Is that correct?. It would be confusing, having a mix of old unmarked > copyright work and new unmarked public-domain work. Someone picking up > a piece of paper wouldn't know what the copyright status is, because > they don't know when it was written. > > 6. I think a lot of the points/debate on your page are focused on the > user of a work, and about what the user of a work can do. I think the > law-makers are probably more focused on the laws and mechanisms for > 'control of usage', the ability of the copyright-holder to give out > and take away permission to use work (by means of licenses). You make > some good arguments as to why changes are needed and provide > motivation, but I imagine law-makers will be more in a frame of mind > of "Bring me solutions, not problems". > > If your group can come up with some simple, practical changes to the > law or mechanisms for implementing it, that may be quite persuasive. > Ideally, there should be simple laws that everyone can understand and > memorise the gist of, and someone picking up a work, should have all > the information they need written-on/embedded-in the work itself, not > require internet access to a registered copyright/public-domain > works/dates database. > > 7. Taking back usage rights - Normaly a PD author would/could not take > back rights to use something. An author may put something in the > public domain, and people use it and base their income businesses on > it. It's important not to wreck their business-plans later. When an > author creates something like PD Software and believes it to be 100% > their own work, they could say in the EULA "I give the user the right > to use MY work without restriction" (not anyone else's). That form of > words means that if later on, someone finds that the author has > accidentally included a copyright file by someone else (e.g. a > graphics library), the users can be informed they can no longer use it > without restriction. The users would need a new version not containing > the copyright file, or stop using it, or license the use of the > graphics file, etc. > > 8. Protecting PD author's from massive lawsuits for accidental > copyright infringement is another big issue. We don't want potential > authors to be scared off PD publishing by high liability insurance > etc, in the same way that people are scared off organising social > activities by accident insurance. > > That's a few points to think about. > > Good luck with your discussions. > > Ricardo > > > > > > __._,_.___ > > > A Focus is being made on having a wireless internet connection for the > community to help them have a place for information handling and > transfer. There is motive of taking risks to help the community Develop. > > > > > > Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional > Change settings via the Web > > (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest > > | Switch to Fully Featured > > > Visit Your Group > > | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | > Unsubscribe > > > __,_._,___ From ms@ms.lt Sat Sep 26 22:50:40 2009 From: ms@ms.lt (Andrius Kulikauskas) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:50:40 +0300 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Meeting up in Barcelona before the COMMUNIA meeting In-Reply-To: <4148635f0909230107g74d391b2ya167a0874528bbcd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AAEBAD7.8070305@ms.lt> <4AB91637.9020607@gmail.com> <4AB91D02.3010901@ms.lt> <4148635f0909230107g74d391b2ya167a0874528bbcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ABE8CB0.5060905@ms.lt> Carles, See the Barcelona meeting of COMMUNIA, October 1-2, 2009 (Thursday, Friday) http://www.communia-project.eu/ws06 and be sure to register:http://communiaws06.eventbrite.com Let me know if you'd like to participate through Minciu Sodas, please write more about yourself and your interests. Anki, Yes I fly into Barcelona airport on September 30 at 13:05. It would be great to meet with you and others. Would that be possible? What is your phone? Mine is +370 699 30003. Anki, you asked me to explain about the "EU absurdities". COMMUNIA pays for my flight to Barcelona. I had hoped that I could stay in Barcelona and work from there for several weeks afterwards, practice my Spanish, find participants for my lab, Minciu Sodas, participate in events like the Free Culture Forum http://fcforum.net and even see some of Spain, which I've never been to. All of these are good things, yes? I think my Annex V of my contract with COMMUNIA allows me to do that. However, as Juan Carlos de Martin explained, (thank you for trying on our behalf), eligibility of expenses is evaluated at various levels: COMMUNIA management team, the coordinator Politecnico di Torino, the Project Office of the European Commission, the external auditor, and the European Court Auditor. The European Union auditors decided (in conflict with my reading of the contract) that "if you arrive earlier and/or depart later than normal, it means that you had other business to perform in that place (or vacation time, it does not matter), therefore you ought to split the cost of travel in half between COMMUNIA and your other business, whatever that might be." This means that if I do good things of my own initiative, then I should be penalized (and lose reimbursement for half of my flight). Whereas if I did them because the EU allows me to do them (when I am selected through any of its official programs), then I should be rewarded (like stay in a fancy hotel and eat fancy food). This is how the EU builds a civil society. It's pathetic that I'm so poor that I would leverage free travel as an asset; and it's pathetic that the EU is so self-centered to take that away. The EU has no concept of sharing, I suppose, because it has no concept that anything could be important except the EU. It's a tyranny of the auditors. They violate the contract to keep me from any chance of upsetting their auditing. They have no connection that I can see to the wishes of taxpayers or citizens or politicians. They don't even have names. It's very strange for me because I grew up in the US where we were taught to assume that people are good (and will do the right thing, like pay their taxes) but politicians, bureaucrats, auditors are suspect (and need to be checked and balanced). Whereas in Europe the assumption is that politicians, bureaucrats, auditors are good (their motives are pure) but people are suspect (their goal in life is to cheat). I think this comes from a history of two classes, the nobles who make the rules and the peasants who follow the rules. Whereas in the US the people tell their officials, "you work for me". What's most interesting is that there isn't any civic society in Europe where anybody would hold the EU accountable. The end result is that Andrius with some 70,000 euros of personal debt has to be a "charity" for the European Union, working for free at these meetings for some 12 x 4 days but prohibited to leverage that for anything that might help my own future. I'm supposed to do it because I'm an idealist. Of course, a wicked idealist because I keep trying to look after my self-interest. Or simply somebody who believes in sharing and can't make sense of the waste ecologically, economically, socially, psychologically of this very strange set of EU non-values. From a practical point of view, it means that there's no point in me bringing together (as I did in Vilnius in 2008 and London in 2009) ten or so Minciu Sodas participants from Africa, Europe, the US - who know each other through their work together in the Public Domain, but have never had the chance to meet. These are the people who actually use and reuse Public Domain materials. The best I can do is to offer to reimburse people for half of their journey, that is, their tickets to Torino in July 2010, and then they can stay in Europe as long as they want and buy their own tickets home (yes?) The whole purpose of the Public Domain is to allow for a culture of open sharing of resources that I and Minciu Sodas stand for. I will continue to participate so that I might support the Public Domain. Carles, Anki, do you know of a family or a place (like a squat) where it might be good for me to stay in Barcelona (September 30 - October 4)? I could pay a small amount of money if I can get an invoice for that (by my reading of the contract). Otherwise, I will stay at a youth hostel. Andrius Andrius Kulikauskas Minciu Sodas http://www.ms.lt ms@ms.lt +370 699 30003 Andrius, Feel free to share our letters, but I am not sure that trying to arrange a meeting between us is of much interest to the community ;-) On what day do you arrive to Barcelona? (I am leaving on october 1st, maybe we still have a chance to meet) However, the most interesting meeting in Barcelona will probably be the Free Culture Forum (http://fcforum.net/) next month. A whole different approach than the COMMUNIA workshop, of course. (I hope I will not miss that one). Maybe you should consider coming back then but, of course, there's no European funding for this one. By the way, what do you mean when you say that you are leaving "as instructed by COMMUNIA, because of EU absurdity" ??? Anki Toner http://www.ankitoner.com http://www.hazardrecords.org Carles Torra wrote: > I live on Barcelona and I would like to receive information regarding > the Communia meeting that it seems is going to be held in BCN october > the 5th > > Best regards > > Carles Torra > > > 2009/9/22, Andrius Kulikauskas >: > > > > Anki, > > I'm glad to learn of you through the UPD list, and others might > also, so > I share our letters. > > I was hoping indeed to stay in Barcelona, practice my Spanish and > make > contacts, but I am leaving on October 4, as instructed by COMMUNIA, > because of EU absurdity. > > I have been assembling Spanish speakers for my lab, Minciu Sodas > http://www.ms.lt at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minciu_sodas_ES/ > perhaps you might help me start discussion in Spanish? > > I note that you're a musician. I've started learning how to make > music > with Linux. I write songs in Lithuanian. > > Andrius > > Andrius Kulikauskas > Minciu Sodas > http://www.ms.lt > ms@ms.lt > +370 699 30003 > > anki toner wrote: > > Hi Andrius, > > I live in Barcelona, and I am quite interested in the Public Domain > > issues. My main concern is music, or at least that was the > source of > > my interest since I am a musician. I sometimes lecture and hive > > workshops on Plunderphonics. > > Unfortunately, I will not be in Barcelona during the COMMUNIA > meeting. > > /Which is a pity since I was invited to represent the Archives > of the > > Crown of Aragon at the meeting, but one cannot be at two places > at the > > same time) > > However, I am coming back to town on monday 5th. I understand from > > your leter that you are going to be around for some days (but > maybe I > > have read it wrong). In case there is a chance, it would be nice to > > meet and exchange thoughts. > > Do you think it will be possible? > > Greetings from Barcelona > > Anki Toner > > http://www.ankitoner.com > > http://www.hazardrecords.org > > > > Andrius Kulikauskas escribió: > >> Minciu Sodas is a member of the European Union's thematic network > >> COMMUNIA for the Public Domain http://www.communia-project.eu > We > >> (and all) have the opportunity to provide our ideas for what > should > >> be the European Union's policy regarding the Public Domain. I > >> encourage us to write and will share our thoughts through the > >> COMMUNIA mailing list and at the Barcelona meeting on October > 1-2, 2009. > >> > >> I share below my own thoughts on the policy that I would like > to see! > >> Of course, my letter is in the Public Domain. > >> Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, > ms@ms.lt > >> > >> > > > > > __._,_.___ > > > Cada carta a eso grupo es en el DOMINIO PUBLICO, si la carta no dice > que no. > > Envia cartas a: minciu_sodas_ES@eGroups.com > > Si usted no quiere recibir mas cartas, por favor envia una carta a: > minciu_sodas_ES-unsubscribe@eGroups.com > > > > > > La configuración de tu correo: Mensajes individuales|Tradicional > Modificar la configuración mediante la Web > > (ID de Yahoo! obligatoria) > Modificar la configuración mediante el correo: Cambiar a resumen > diario > > | Cambiar a Completo > > > Visita tu grupo > > | Condiciones de uso de Yahoo! Grupos > | Cancelar suscripción > > > > __,_._,___ From ms@ms.lt Sun Sep 27 20:16:16 2009 From: ms@ms.lt (Andrius Kulikauskas) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:16:16 +0300 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Re: Ricardo: Public Domain issues for the COMMUNIA meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ABFBA00.6070206@ms.lt> Ricardo, Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed letter which I share with the COMMUNIA list and the UPD list. I think fair use can be generously interpreted as a "gray zone" where there is room for a range of solutions that make sure that nobody is punished "black and white" (as with harsh fines) but everybody cares for each other. For example, people could pay "distributor insurance" with rates depending on how much content they are distributing. Larger distributors would be encouraged to register and that could be done as part of one's Internet Service Provider relationship. That way it would become clear who are the big violators, the hubs of distribution, and the little violators could be ignored. Rates could be adjusted to help compensate and fund publishers who are affected the most by the distribution. The insurers would mediate and aggregate payments, much like royalty collection agencies but serving the public (and expanded fair use) rather than the rights owners, which is much more attractive than a many-to-many micropayment system which forces everyone to personally and consciously judge everything in terms of money. It might also be good to have a watermarking system where image or sound files can be created with watermarks (visible or not) that are registered with a registrar. Visible watermarks (like on a photo) or audible watermarks (like would have to be respected and would be understood to mean "don't remove this watermark" (thus giving a practical way to impose "attribution" (for the author) or "no-derivatives" (for appropriately "boxed" images or audio with start and end sounds). Invisible/inaudible watermarks could be used to track down the origins of content and provide information on content flow so as to help work out overall compensation rather than pick on individual users. Also, people creating new work from old work could use software so as to add their own (inaudible, invisible) watermarks to the existing watermarks/metadata (for example, to JPGs or MP3s). Creators and distributors voluntarily participating in this way might be rewarded by being free of any civil violations because they are helping map out the overall content flow and helping attribute compensation to the various work creators. The end result would be to encourage creators and larger distributors to help document the flow of content and help share the wealth through insurance payments. Small distributors (normal people sharing normally) wouldn't have to bother and would not be subject to any penalties. Creators might also have a way to credit and acknowledge "influences" which could be people or even causes. Everybody would benefit, but especially from new uses of old content. Andrius Andrius Kulikauskas Minciu Sodas http://www.ms.lt ms@ms.lt ricardoolpc wrote: > Hi Andrius > > Thanks. That clarifies your understanding of public domain. > > You've already identified one good topic of 'whether unmarked work > should be copyright by default or public domain by default". In > addition, I'm quite interested in the the theme of 'compliance'... > > 1. Is it possible to comply with the laws on copyright and > public-domain? > > 2. Is it easy to comply with the current law or future proposed law? > > 3. Do I have all the information neccessary? e.g. the unworkable life+70 > years copyright. > > 4. The distinction between deliberate non-compliance (copyright > infringement/piracy) and accidental > non-compliance/copyright-infringement. > > I think that a useful chunk of work would be for someone, such as Minciu > Sodas, to develop a set of test-cases/scenarios that demonstrate what > works/doesn't work in the current copyright law and in any future > proposed law. > > In 4. above, if a copyright holder believes there copyright has been > infringed, the current system is quite complicated. I'm no lawyer, but I > think with the present law they would have to take the alleged infringer > to court and just show 1 or possibly 2 things... > > 1. That an infringement occured. > > 2. That they suffered financial loss as a result. > > Deliberate infringement can be punished as now. No change required. > > For accidental copyright-infringement, I think it would be better to > treat it like other 'accident situations' (you can use your knowledge of > 'pattern languages' to re-use your knowledge of other 'accident > situations'). > > Under a new/modified copyright law, a copyright-holder would have to > show... > > 1. That an infringement occured (the person used their work without a > license). > > 2. Whether it was deliberate (punishable) or accidental. > > 3. If it was accidental, was it... > > i) Negligent, or > > ii) Not negligent - The user took all reasonable steps to avoid using > unlicensed copyright material > > 4. That the copyright holder suffered financial loss, as a result of > accidental and negligent infringement. > > This idea of negligent or not-negligent is a bit like inquiries into > aircraft maintenance or 'someone fell off a ladder' accident-situations. > > Let's take a typical example of a publisher, who publishes a magazine > with a whole mixture or authors and copyright. > > How would they check the authorship and copyright at the moment? They > would need staff to read through everything, check records of it's > origin, check licenses, etc. That's a costly, time-consuming and > error-prone business. > > I wondered whether it would be possible for someone to produce software > tools that assist with this or do 100% of it. > > We already have virus-checkers. These detect the 'signature' of viruses. > They scan all the executable files etc on a computer and find sequence > of bytes that they know occur in certain viruses. In the same way, it > may be possible to scan chunks of text to see f they have the same > 'signature' as known copyright works. I know it sounds difficult. > Authors could use software to scan their published works, generate > signatures for the whole work and parts of it, and register the > signatures in an online database, for example. > > There are already some existing services that detect plagiarism by > comparing school-work with Wikipedia etc. > > Perhaps the proces could be aided by adding machine-readable > start/end-of-copyright tags etc to mark whole written works or sections > of it with authorship and copyright status. For example, HTML for > web-pages has pairs of tags around elements for Bold, Italic, Heading 1, > etc... > > some > text > > When you do a File, Save, the installed copyright-checker program (like > a virus checker), could scan the document and produce a compiler-style > error/warning report... > > Copyright report: Mybook.doc 2009-10-31 - You have 0 Errors and 0 > Warnings > > This sort of tool could be useful... > > a) To check and correct work before publishing it. > > b) To save evidence that 'You took all reasonable steps to avoid > copyright-infringement' (as defence against negligence. > > The tools could help authors or magazine publishers etc work quickly, > cutting and pasting various pieces of text, checking it, dealing with > errors/warnings, etc, instead of manual reading of licenses. > > The tools could use a variety of methods to recognise copyright items. > For example, when scanning an alleged 100% public domain software CD, it > might check the 32-bit CRC Checksum of each file and find that you have > accidentally used a graphics.dll file which is commercially copyrighted. > > If EU law could be amended to say that accidental and non-negligent > copyright infringement is penalty-free, then that would be better than > the current situation, where people are risk-averse and avoid using > other people's work, due to uncertainty. Also, having software tools > might provide clear answers to copyright questions and avoid a lot of > cases coming to court. > > Have a good time at Communia. > > Ricardo > > > --- In mendenyo@yahoogroups.com, Andrius Kulikauskas wrote: > >> Ricardo, Thank you for your very thoughtful comments on the draft of >> European Union policy recommendations at >> >> > https://private.communia-project.eu/wiki/index.php/Policy_recommendation\ > s > >> (username: communia_private; password: com9628mu) >> I invite more comments before the Barcelona meeting of COMMUNIA on >> October 1-2, 2009. >> I share your thoughts more broadly. >> >> Some great ideas that you have are: >> * Having the copyright expiration date be based on the year of >> > copyright > >> (which is typically available in the work) rather than the year the >> author died (which is not available). >> * Defining "voluntary immediate expiration of copyright" as one way of >> placing one's own works in the Public Domain. >> * The idea of a simple protocol is very good. >> >> >> Notes to Ricardo: >> * I don't distinguish between the Public Domain (as we use at our >> > Minciu > >> Sodas lab) and "expired copyright Public Domain". >> * In practice, as I know at Minciu Sodas, if an author no longer wants >> their work to be in the Public Domain, then there is not much >> > practical > >> alternative except for me to honor their request. Every so often I get >> such a request and usually the solution is: I can delete their >> > letters; > >> but I won't delete replies that built on their letters. That answer >> seems to work naturally in practice. The law should work likewise - >> > you > >> can revoke Public Domain - but your revocation has no effect on >> > existing > >> works - but on the other hand, those who you've informed have to stop >> publishing new copies of your work - and so for practical purposes, >> commercially, it solves the problem of inequity by having the >> > commercial > >> power (like a Hollywoood studio) decide whether they want to pay a >> > fair > >> price or divorce the contribution from their derived work. Something >> like that seems to be fair and natural. >> * In terms of backward compatibility, I think that it's possible for a >> new law to be phased in by requiring all unmarked works to be marked, >> say, over the course of a year, so that they may stay protected by >> copyright. >> * I think central for a simple protocol is the idea that if a creative >> work is worth copyrighting, then it should include a reference (a >> > link) > >> to information about the work (including the metadata, an archive of >> > any > >> Public Domain works it builds on, and a way to contact the publisher >> > to > >> ask for permission for expanded fair use - with the understanding that >> until they respond to you, you can assume that you've been granted >> > that > >> permission. >> * I think insurance for "fair use" is good because it can also be a >> vehicle for paying publishers their fair due when sharing occurs. You >> can pay higher or lower rates for insurance as warranted based on your >> sharing habits. The money would be used to compensate the publishers >> (think of it as a friendly settling with class of users) rather than >> > to > >> pay for fines. >> >> Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@... >> >> ricardoolpc wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrius >>> you asked for comments/ideas about the Public Domain issues on your >>> worknets page, to prepare for the Communia EU debate. >>> >>> http://www.worknets.org/wiki.cgi?PublicDomain >>> >>> I think I read somewhere that strictly-speaking, the term 'Public >>> Domain' is reserved in law for works that have entered the >>> public-domain because their copyright-period has ended. It varies >>> > with > >>> the type of work. For example, life+70 years. Is that correct. >>> >>> 1. One side-issue is "How is a user supposed to know when the author >>> died?" There is no public global database. They are being forced to >>> comply with a law, where the data required isn't available. Could it >>> be replaced with a formula or simple rule, such as X years from >>> authoring or first-publication? That means if a user sees Copyright >>> 1947, they have all the information they need. >>> >>> 2. I found this useful UK government Intellectual Property Office >>> website, that describes the terms Copyright, Public Domain, etc. >>> >>> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy.htm >>> >>> 3. It mentions that a copyright-holder has copyright/financial >>> > rights > >>> over their work, and they can sell/transfer/etc their copyright or >>> license it's use on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis (a bit like >>> patents). >>> >>> It also says, copyright holders of artistic works, films, etc, have >>> 'Moral rights' over their work, so they can object to it being used >>> > in > >>> an 'improper context'. For example, using your poem in a political >>> magazine, implying support. >>> >>> http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-creator.htm >>> >>> It says (fair use, I hope) - "Copyright is, however, a form of >>> property which, like physical property, can be bought or sold, >>> inherited or otherwise transferred, wholly or in part. So, some or >>> > all > >>> of the economic rights may subsequently belong to someone other than >>> the original creator or first owner. In contrast, the moral rights >>> accorded to authors of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic >>> > works > >>> and film directors remain with the author or director or pass to his >>> or her heirs on death. Such moral rights will last as long as >>> copyright lasts provided the creator did not waive his moral >>> > rights." > >>> 4. Immediate Expiry of Copyright - For the EU debate, presumably, >>> > the > >>> EU is looking for simple ways tp draft the laws. Instead of spending >>> years changing thousands of clause in hundreds of EU Country laws, >>> > dDo > >>> you think it would be a good idea for an (over-riding or amending) >>> > EU > >>> Law to state "Where copyright legislation gives a copyright holder >>> > the > >>> rights to a work for a specified term, the copyright-holder may >>> > choose > >>> to make the copyright-term expiry immediately". >>> >>> The original-copyright holder should maintain Moral Rights over >>> > their > >>> work for the normal term, just give up copyright/economic rights >>> (putting the work in the public-domain). >>> >>> It assumes EU Law has precedence over member-country law. >>> >>> The EU Law needs to over-ride sentences like the first part of this >>> one from the UK IPO "Such moral rights will last as long as >>> > copyright > >>> lasts...", so that the immediate expiry of copyright doesn't cause >>> > the > >>> immediate expiry of Moral Rights. >>> >>> (the full UK IPO sentence say "Such moral rights will last as long >>> > as > >>> copyright lasts provided the creator did not waive his moral >>> > rights.") > >>> Is there any difference between your concep/understanding of 'Public >>> Domain' and 'Expired copyright public-domain'? >>> >>> 5. Backward compatibility - You suggested all works should be >>> Public-Domain unless marked as copyright, I think. I'm thinking that >>> may not be backward-compatible, as there are millions of printed >>> > pages > >>> around that are not marked as copyright. I believe the current law >>> gives the author copyright, without marking or registering >>> > copyright. > >>> Is that correct?. It would be confusing, having a mix of old >>> > unmarked > >>> copyright work and new unmarked public-domain work. Someone picking >>> > up > >>> a piece of paper wouldn't know what the copyright status is, because >>> they don't know when it was written. >>> >>> 6. I think a lot of the points/debate on your page are focused on >>> > the > >>> user of a work, and about what the user of a work can do. I think >>> > the > >>> law-makers are probably more focused on the laws and mechanisms for >>> 'control of usage', the ability of the copyright-holder to give out >>> and take away permission to use work (by means of licenses). You >>> > make > >>> some good arguments as to why changes are needed and provide >>> motivation, but I imagine law-makers will be more in a frame of mind >>> of "Bring me solutions, not problems". >>> >>> If your group can come up with some simple, practical changes to the >>> law or mechanisms for implementing it, that may be quite persuasive. >>> Ideally, there should be simple laws that everyone can understand >>> > and > >>> memorise the gist of, and someone picking up a work, should have all >>> the information they need written-on/embedded-in the work itself, >>> > not > >>> require internet access to a registered copyright/public-domain >>> works/dates database. >>> >>> 7. Taking back usage rights - Normaly a PD author would/could not >>> > take > >>> back rights to use something. An author may put something in the >>> public domain, and people use it and base their income businesses on >>> it. It's important not to wreck their business-plans later. When an >>> author creates something like PD Software and believes it to be 100% >>> their own work, they could say in the EULA "I give the user the >>> > right > >>> to use MY work without restriction" (not anyone else's). That form >>> > of > >>> words means that if later on, someone finds that the author has >>> accidentally included a copyright file by someone else (e.g. a >>> graphics library), the users can be informed they can no longer use >>> > it > >>> without restriction. The users would need a new version not >>> > containing > >>> the copyright file, or stop using it, or license the use of the >>> graphics file, etc. >>> >>> 8. Protecting PD author's from massive lawsuits for accidental >>> copyright infringement is another big issue. We don't want potential >>> authors to be scared off PD publishing by high liability insurance >>> etc, in the same way that people are scared off organising social >>> activities by accident insurance. >>> >>> That's a few points to think about. >>> >>> Good luck with your discussions. >>> >>> Ricardo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > A Focus is being made on having a wireless internet connection for the > community to help them have a place for information handling and > transfer. There is motive of taking risks to help the community Develop. > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mendenyo/ > > <*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > > <*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mendenyo/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > > <*> To change settings via email: > mailto:mendenyo-digest@yahoogroups.com > mailto:mendenyo-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > mendenyo-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > From ms@ms.lt Sun Sep 27 21:18:28 2009 From: ms@ms.lt (Andrius Kulikauskas) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:18:28 +0300 Subject: [Upd-discuss] Re: Creative Work Law for the EU. We have the right to share! In-Reply-To: <20090927095123.GA1123@runtux.com> References: <4AAEBCBD.7010708@ms.lt> <20090915080745.GA21090@runtux.com> <4AB24770.2090402@ms.lt> <20090927095123.GA1123@runtux.com> Message-ID: <4ABFC894.5000608@ms.lt> Ralf, Thank you for explaining! I share your letter with the COMMUNIA and UPD lists, too. I like to distinguish between code and content. Code likes to clump, but content likes to crumble. So copyleft licenses are working quite well for code, but they aren't feasible, I think, for content generated through social venues. Content likes to crumble - this also means that, in general, it's not that hard to remove and rework an offending piece of content. If you change your mind - or make your mind clear - then you couldn't sue for damages, but you could inform the user and say - stop distributing this further (certain archival exceptions would be allowed and there would be a window for compliance) and negotiate with me for future use. The current compensation rules are very mean and arbitrary and I don't think this would make things worse. Instead, it would encourage producers of large commercial capital projects (like films) to share their income with more people. Regarding God, nature, genius etc. I would like to see that society allow each user to decide by their own individual conscience if something is absolutely creative (by God, genius or whatever) and thereby allowance would be made for that individual to share that work. (Note that currently, modern translations of the Bible are copyrighted. Is that what God, the author, wants?) This would be similar to how "consciencious objectors" are allowed to avoid military draft. Or how a church demonstrates that it's not just a tax dodge. They have to be able to demonstrate the reality and sincerity of their belief. Also, it would elevate the situation where a person really likes something (their favorite song) and believes it has some kind of deep merit. It's fundamentally important for society that they get to enjoy that work. That's more important than commercial compensation can ever be. Andrius Andrius Kulikauskas Minciu Sodas http://www.ms.lt ms@ms.lt Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 05:28:00PM +0300, Andrius Kulikauskas wrote: > > >> Your use of copyright highlights its absurdity. >> I start with that, then >> write about the culture I seek, >> and finally, address your points. >> > > Thanks Andrius, for taking the time to discuss the points about > copyright and public domain. I hereby place this message -- and the > earlier message you were replying to (which I had placed under a cc no > derivative works license) -- in the public domain. Making it a different license was meant to provoque a litte -- not to anger you. > > If I did, please accept my apology. > > It seems that I interpreted the following part of your original message: > > >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> >> Public Domain has Priority over Copyright >> >> ------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> The European Union prepares and issues a directive that all member >> >> countries pass laws and amend constitutions, as needed, so that for >> >> creative works, the Public Domain has priority over Copyright. >> > > > to mean that once some work has entered the public domain, all *derived* work should be public domain, too (priority over copyright). > > After > reading your answer and re-reading the original text (several times in > fact) I think that I might have misinterpreted this. That's why I > originally came to the conclusion that this would constitute a > share-alike license for all public domain work and on reading that > again, I think I was wrong. > > I support your goal of making public domain the default -- in the sense > that new work or work derived from public domain works will be public > domain *unless the author asserts otherwise*. > > I also fully agree that the current state of orphaned works effectively > prevents use of these works and needs a correction. > > Also your point, that copyright is something artificial and hard to > understand is right -- but I think we have to cope with it for some > time to come. > > I like your statement about Mickey Mouse: > > >> It's noteworthy that so much of the "copyleft" movement focused on the >> fact that "Mickey Mouse" may never enter the Public Domain. From my >> point of view, given that the Walt Disney company has invested so much >> in Mickey Mouse, why shouldn't they maintain Copyright indefinitely? >> It's their mouse! Why would we want to "own" that culture? >> > > Yes let them keep it. But the desire to keep it made them lobby for > changes in copyright law that we see to today as "collateral damage" -- > the current state of affairs, that copyright extends 70 years after the > death of an author, is the result of this "lex Disney". That's why the > "copyleft movement" focuses on this case, not because we want Mickey > Mouse :-) > > Still I think that we need licenses like the GPL and the CC share alike > license to protect our freedom. It does make sense (to me) to ask people > who use some innovation to contribute their extensions to this > innovation back to the community. I'm mainly concerned with technical > innovations here, other current applications of copyright law (like the > arts) may need different thoughts. > > Concerning your original message under "The Right to Changes One's Mind" > > I think that this is quite problematic -- for authors who build their > own works upon a public domain work that it can effectively be revoked. > > The GPL and CC share-alike licenses explicitly grant a non-revokable > license to use the work as intended, you can't change your mind and > revoke these right. > > I think this is necessary for free software and > hardware. You can still change your mind and make the license more free > (like I did with my "non-derivatives licensed" message). This can become > problematic if you're not the only copyright holder (because there are > contributions from others). > > Otherwise consider this scenario: Under the new public domain laws you > propose, I'm making something public domain by not attaching a copyright > to it (new default case). You build upon that work, either also in the > public domain or with some software under GPL. Then I decide to change > my mind and make the work copyrighted and sue you for license violation. > > Wouldn't this be possible? > > Another point I don't quite understand is the following: > > >> Works are creative in that they transcend the will of the author. Works >> may be partly creative, not entirely transcendent. Authors may restrict >> the use of their work by Copyright only to the extent that their work is >> NOT creative. The lack of creativity is given by the author's style as >> evident in the form of the created work. >> > > >> Works of God, nature and genius are absolutely creative. They transcend >> style. Anyone may use such works in the Public Domain if they explicitly >> regard them accordingly, free of style. >> > > Does this mean that creative work may not be copyrighted? How do I > recognize creativity? Who judges? Why would we want this? > > In the following I'll take up some of the statements of your last > letter. Let me re-explain what I meant with that "license": > > >> Then you copyrighted the >> combined work under a license that explicitly (!) prevents derivatives. >> And that means that I myself "may not alter, transform, or build upon >> this work." ... I suppose that my reply here is building on your work and >> even reformatting it with ">" signs. You allow me to "cite portions" >> under "fair use". But didn't I have that right without your license? >> > > I wanted to show that even under that license, taking up my work and > criticizing it, and citing from it (effectively building on it) could > not be excluded by the license. My explanation of fair use wasn't meant > as an exception to the license, just an explanation of the rights you > have anyway. The goal was to show that even under such a restrictive > license (I've never used a non-derivatives license before and have > corrected this now, see above) you don't lose many rights. > > >> Shouldn't I cite the whole thing? Haven't you, pragmatically, made me >> think twice about your wishes? How have you allowed for more than >> regular copyright? >> > > The license also grants you the right to quote the whole thing. > > >> I take the liberty to ignore your ugly, petty license. I don't agree to >> think of you as such a blind and petty person. What are you going to do >> about that? >> > > You're welcome :-) But I don't think you violated the license. But I'm > not a lawyer... > > Ralf >