From jeebesh at sarai.net Thu Jul 4 14:47:23 2002 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 14:47:23 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] Interesting License.... Message-ID: <02070414472306.00592@pammi.sarai.kit> Design Science License published by Michael Stutz at http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt. DESIGN SCIENCE LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION Copyright © 1999-2001 Michael Stutz Verbatim copying of this document is permitted, in any medium. 0. PREAMBLE. Copyright law gives certain exclusive rights to the author of a work, including the rights to copy, modify and distribute the work (the "reproductive," "adaptative," and "distribution" rights). The idea of "copyleft" is to willfully revoke the exclusivity of those rights under certain terms and conditions, so that anyone can copy and distribute the work or properly attributed derivative works, while all copies remain under the same terms and conditions as the original. The intent of this license is to be a general "copyleft" that can be applied to any kind of work that has protection under copyright. This license states those certain conditions under which a work published under its terms may be copied, distributed, and modified. Whereas "design science" is a strategy for the development of artifacts as a way to reform the environment (not people) and subsequently improve the universal standard of living, this Design Science License was written and deployed as a strategy for promoting the progress of science and art through reform of the environment. 1. DEFINITIONS. "License" shall mean this Design Science License. The License applies to any work which contains a notice placed by the work's copyright holder stating that it is published under the terms of this Design Science License. "Work" shall mean such an aforementioned work. The License also applies to the output of the Work, only if said output constitutes a "derivative work" of the licensed Work as defined by copyright law. "Object Form" shall mean an executable or performable form of the Work, being an embodiment of the Work in some tangible medium. "Source Data" shall mean the origin of the Object Form, being the entire, machine-readable, preferred form of the Work for copying and for human modification (usually the language, encoding or format in which composed or recorded by the Author); plus any accompanying files, scripts or other data necessary for installation, configuration or compilation of the Work. (Examples of "Source Data" include, but are not limited to, the following: if the Work is an image file composed and edited in PNG format, then the original PNG source file is the Source Data; if the Work is an MPEG 1.0 layer 3 digital audio recording made from a WAV format audio file recording of an analog source, then the original WAV file is the Source Data; if the Work was composed as an unformatted plaintext file, then that file is the Source Data; if the Work was composed in LaTeX, the LaTeX file(s) and any image files and/or custom macros necessary for compilation constitute the Source Data.) "Author" shall mean the copyright holder(s) of the Work. The individual licensees are referred to as "you." 2. RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT. The Work is copyrighted by the Author. All rights to the Work are reserved by the Author, except as specifically described below. This License describes the terms and conditions under which the Author permits you to copy, distribute and modify copies of the Work. In addition, you may refer to the Work, talk about it, and (as dictated by "fair use") quote from it, just as you would any copyrighted material under copyright law. Your right to operate, perform, read or otherwise interpret and/or execute the Work is unrestricted; however, you do so at your own risk, because the Work comes WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY -- see Section 7 ("NO WARRANTY") below. 3. COPYING AND DISTRIBUTION. Permission is granted to distribute, publish or otherwise present verbatim copies of the entire Source Data of the Work, in any medium, provided that full copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty, where applicable, is conspicuously published on all copies, and a copy of this License is distributed along with the Work. Permission is granted to distribute, publish or otherwise present copies of the Object Form of the Work, in any medium, under the terms for distribution of Source Data above and also provided that one of the following additional conditions are met: (a) The Source Data is included in the same distribution, distributed under the terms of this License; or (b) A written offer is included with the distribution, valid for at least three years or for as long as the distribution is in print (whichever is longer), with a publicly-accessible address (such as a URL on the Internet) where, for a charge not greater than transportation and media costs, anyone may receive a copy of the Source Data of the Work distributed according to the section above; or (c) A third party's written offer for obtaining the Source Data at no cost, as described in paragraph (b) above, is included with the distribution. This option is valid only if you are a non-commercial party, and only if you received the Object Form of the Work along with such an offer. You may copy and distribute the Work either gratis or for a fee, and if desired, you may offer warranty protection for the Work. The aggregation of the Work with other works that are not based on the Work -- such as but not limited to inclusion in a publication, broadcast, compilation, or other media -- does not bring the other works in the scope of the License; nor does such aggregation void the terms of the License for the Work. 4. MODIFICATION. Permission is granted to modify or sample from a copy of the Work, producing a derivative work, and to distribute the derivative work under the terms described in the section for distribution above, provided that the following terms are met: (a) The new, derivative work is published under the terms of this License. (b) The derivative work is given a new name, so that its name or title cannot be confused with the Work, or with a version of the Work, in any way. (c) Appropriate authorship credit is given: for the differences between the Work and the new derivative work, authorship is attributed to you, while the material sampled or used from the Work remains attributed to the original Author; appropriate notice must be included with the new work indicating the nature and the dates of any modifications of the Work made by you. 5. NO RESTRICTIONS. You may not impose any further restrictions on the Work or any of its derivative works beyond those restrictions described in this License. 6. ACCEPTANCE. Copying, distributing or modifying the Work (including but not limited to sampling from the Work in a new work) indicates acceptance of these terms. If you do not follow the terms of this License, any rights granted to you by the License are null and void. The copying, distribution or modification of the Work outside of the terms described in this License is expressly prohibited by law. If for any reason, conditions are imposed on you that forbid you to fulfill the conditions of this License, you may not copy, distribute or modify the Work at all. If any part of this License is found to be in conflict with the law, that part shall be interpreted in its broadest meaning consistent with the law, and no other parts of the License shall be affected. 7. NO WARRANTY. THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS," AND COMES WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 8. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS WORK, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 4 18:13:53 2002 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 05:43:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-law] OPUS license- invitation for contributions Message-ID: <20020704124353.52625.qmail@web13601.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all as you know Sarai's innovative project OPUS is out, check it out at sarai.net We have also tried to create a license which is innovative in its use of the restrictive propreitary regimes. We would of course like the entire licensing issue to be a part of the open process and wold therefore greatly appreciate it if you guys could help us with the drafts and send us comments etc. I am sending ver 1.0 so feel free Lawrence __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft License for OPUS Ver 1.0.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35840 bytes Desc: Draft License for OPUS Ver 1.0.doc Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20020704/7464fc17/attachment.doc From lawrenceliang at vsnl.net Thu Jul 4 19:16:59 2002 From: lawrenceliang at vsnl.net (lawrenceliang at vsnl.net) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 18:46:59 +0500 (IST) Subject: [Commons-law] ooops...sorry this is the text version of the OPUS license Message-ID: <20020704134659.47F171FE01@bom6.vsnl.net.in> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20020704/8e88feb7/attachment.pl From zamrooda at sarai.net Fri Jul 5 12:14:21 2002 From: zamrooda at sarai.net (zamrooda) Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 12:14:21 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] Appeals Chamber upholds Foca judgement and clarifies the status of rape as a crime under customary international law. Message-ID: <200207051214.21687.zamrooda@sarai.net> A rulling which I personaly felt that all should be aware of. i) INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA SETS NEW STANDARD FOR RAPE. In a written decision of 127 pages delivered on June 12, 2002, a five-judge appeals chamber upheld the convictions of Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac, and Zoran Vukovic for violations of the laws or customs of war and crimes against humanity. Specifically, Kunarac was convicted on eleven counts of torture, rape and enslavement; Kovac was convicted on four counts of rape, enslavement, and outrages upon personal dignity; and Vukovic was convicted on four counts of torture and rape. The three men are Bosnian Serbs who, as soldiers, participated in the "cleansing" of non-Serbs from the Foca area of Bosnia from April 1992 through February 1993. The cases against the men were based on their targeting civilian Muslim women over the course of their military activities in the region. Muslim women were systematically sequestered, tortured and raped by Bosnian Serb soldiers during the conflict. "Crimes against humanity" and "violations of the laws or customs of war" are separate legal categories, although they can sometimes be applied in the same situations and to the same acts. For a crime to be considered a violation of the laws or customs of war, it must have occurred in the context of an armed conflict and be closely related to that conflict. Kunarac, Kovac, and Vukovic had argued that this meant they couldn't be convicted unless their acts occurred in the exact location of fighting, and unless their acts could not have occurred without that fighting. Under this reasoning, the men couldn't be convicted for rape, since the targeted women and girls were often transported and detained in nearby areas that had not seen actual fighting, and because rape can occur even without the surrounding conflict. Implicitly, this argument was also based on the idea that the laws of war do not cover rape. The appeals chamber rejected these arguments, holding that rape is clearly a criminal act under the laws of war, and that it is not removed from the reach of those laws just because it could have occurred without conflict. The court also held that the laws of war apply to the entire territory under control of the warring parties, not just those specific locations where combat occurs. Finally, it is not necessary to prove that armed conflict was the only possible cause of the crime. Rather, the court held that the existence of a conflict must have played a "substantial part" in the decision to commit the crime, the ability to execute it, and the reasons for which it was committed. In this case, the facts that the convicted men were all combatants, their victims were all from the "other side," and their acts furthered the ultimate purpose of the general campaign, all could be used by the court to find that their acts were sufficiently related to the conflict. To prove a crime against humanity, it is also necessary to show some link to an armed conflict according to the Tribunal statute. However, the appeals court affirmed that the "crimes against humanity" category only requires proof that an armed conflict existed at the time and place the crime occurred. There does not have to be any cause-effect relationship between the crime and the conflict. A defendant must nonetheless know that his crime was part of a pattern of "widespread or systematic" attacks directed against a civilian population. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic unsuccessfully challenged each element of this definition as applied to their acts. The men also challenged the definitions of the specific crimes for which they were convicted. For example, they argued that the definition of rape should include the use of force or the threat of force, and that there must be "continuous" or "genuine" resistance on the part of the victim. This challenge arises from the particular circumstances of the case, which involved keeping women and girls in private apartments, military headquarters, and detention centers for up to six months for sexual and domestic use, during which time there were presumably occasions when intercourse was neither forced by the defendants nor resisted by the victims. The idea that a rape victim must resist under all circumstances has been discarded by most jurisdictions as impractical, if not absurd. In particular, the use or threat of force often removes any requirement that a victim show resistance. Moreover, the court noted that some jurisdictions do not require the use of a weapon or physical overpowering in order to prove force was used. However, the court in this case has gone a step further by completely rejecting force as a necessary element of rape. Force remains clear evidence of non-consent, but rape can be proven even if there was no force at all. This powerful new standard for rape in international law focuses on ideas of "sexual autonomy" and free will. This is to say that many conditions - not just the use of force - might make an act of sexual penetration non-consensual. The court held that conditions of detention and abuse such as those presented by this case are "so coercive as to negate the possibility of consent," whether or not there was force or explicit non-consent. The court also affirmed that the rapes constituted torture. The definition of torture in customary international law involves the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering for at least one of a list of impermissible purposes, such as punishment, discrimination, intimidation, or the obtaining of information. It is important to note that the suffering can be physical or mental, and can be inflicted by either an act or by an omission; i.e., a failure to act. The court held that the act of rape - by definition - implies severe pain or suffering. Because these rapes were intentional, and because they were used to intimidate and coerce the victims, they constitute torture. As a result, one criminal act of rape can result in at least four charges and possible convictions, as has happened in Vukovic's case. In July 1992, Vukovic raped a fifteen-year-old Bosnian Muslim girl. Because this occurred in the context of armed conflict and as part of attacks on civilians, he has now been convicted of both rape and torture, each of which is a violation of the laws or customs of war as well as a crime against humanity. Although the Tribunal, like most domestic jurisdictions, does not permit a defendant to be tried or convicted twice for the same crime, the court noted that each of the charges against Vukovic involves a distinct element not contained in the others. For example, in a hypothetical trial, Vukovic could not have been convicted for sexual assault as well as rape, because that would involve punishment for both a serious offense and a lesser included offense. That is, rape includes sexual assault. In this case, the same act was both rape and torture, but because the crimes involve different elements, multiple convictions are permissible, and help to show the total scope of the crime. Similarly, Vukovic?s act was both a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war, because each of these provisions requires proof of facts not required by the other. Vukovic will serve a sentence of 12 years, while Kunarac and Kovac will serve 28 and 20 years, respectively. Submitted by Judith Armatta on 19 June, 2002 [Source: Coalition for Internactional Justice - 19Jun02] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ii) SUMMARY OF THE APPEALS CHAMBER JUDGEMENT RENDERED ON 12 JUNE 2002 IN THE KUNARAC, KOVAC AND VUKOVIC (FOCA) CASE. - All grounds of appeal have been rejected - Sentences imposed by the Trial Chamber are affirmed: 28 years’ imprisonment for Dragoljub Kunarac, 20 years’ imprisonment for Radomir Kovac and 12 years’ imprisonment for Zoran Vukovic The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is today holding a public hearing to pronounce its Judgement on the appeal in the case "The Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic". The Judgement elucidates the definition of several crimes under our jurisdiction. In particular, the Appeals Chamber clarifies the status of rape as a crime under customary international law. The summary, which follows has of course no legal force. Only the Appeals Judgement, signed by the five Judges of the bench, has such force. Pursuant to Rule 15 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, today’s hearing will take place without Judge Mehmet Güney who cannot be here. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE FACTS From monica at sarai.net Sat Jul 6 14:58:51 2002 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:58:51 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] On patent resistance Message-ID: ETC Genotype 3 July 2002 www.etcgroup.org Peruvian Farmers and Indigenous People Denounce Patents on Maca Extract of Andean Root Crop Patented for "Natural Viagra" Properties Indigenous peoples' and farmers' organizations from the Andes and the Amazon gathered at the offices of the Ecological Forum in Lima, Peru on June 28 to formally denounce US patents on maca, the high-altitude Andean plant (of the Cruciferae [mustard] family) that has been grown for centuries by indigenous peoples in the Puna highlands of Peru, both as a staple food crop and for medicinal purposes. Today, companies are selling maca-based products as natural enhancers of sexual function and fertility. While maca exports have the potential to create new markets and income for Peruvian farmers, recent US patents on maca may actually foreclose opportunity for the true innovators of the Andean crop. "We are deeply offended by monopoly patents on our food crops and medicinal plants," said Efrain Zuniga Molina of the Association of Maca Producers of Valle del Mantaro (Peru). "The Andean region is becoming known as the 'biopiracy capital' of the world. We've seen patents on ayahuasca, quinoa, yacon, the nu=F1a popping bean, and now maca," said Molina. "These patents claim novel inventions, but everyone knows they are based on the traditional knowledge and resources of indigenous peoples," said Gladis Vila Pihue, a representative of the maca growers association in the Department of Huancavelica (Peru). The farmers are calling on two US companies to abandon patents related to maca, and they are asking the Peruvian government and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to investigate and condemn monopoly claims related to maca that appropriate traditional knowledge of farming communities. (The Geneva-based WIPO promotes intellectual property as a means of protecting traditional knowledge.) Maca Patents: US Patent No. 6,267,995 - Pure World Botanicals, Inc. - Issued: July 31, 2001 - title: Extract of Lepidium meyenii roots for pharmaceutical applications. Applications pending in Australia, the European Patent Office, and at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). US Patent No. 6,093,421 -Biotics Research Corporation - Issued: July 25, 2000 - Title: Maca and antler for augmenting testosterone levels. US Patent Application No. 878,141 - Pure World Botanicals, Inc. - Published: April 11, 2002 Title: Compositions and methods for their preparation from Lepidium. The coalition is also requesting that the Lima-based International Potato Center (CIP), as promoter and protector of maca seed, take action to prohibit intellectual property claims - not just on seeds and genetic material held in its gene bank, but also on traditional knowledge of indigenous communities. The coalition is asking CIP to declare a moratorium on the patenting of all Andean crop germplasm and their genetic components, and indigenous knowledge related to these genetic materials. CIP is one of 16 international research centers under the umbrella of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the public plant breeding network responsible for safeguarding crop genetic diversity. "We want to send a strong message that patenting indigenous knowledge is morally wrong and unacceptable," said Pedro Rivera Cea, Director of the CHIRAPAQ-RAAA, an indigenous peoples' network based in Ayacucho. Hope Shand, Research Director of ETC Group, agrees: "Companies like Pure World Botanicals may have done nothing illegal in the eyes of the US Patent and Trademark Office, and the company will likely claim that it has followed the letter of the law. Nevertheless, patent claims on maca are morally unacceptable and they make a mockery of the idea that access and benefit-sharing regimes, such as the Andean Community's Decision 391, or WIPO's efforts to promote intellectual property, can be used as tools to protect indigenous knowledge and resources." The 6-page document released by ETC Group today offers background information on maca and the demands of the Peruvian organizations that are protesting the maca patents. The full text is available on the ETC Group website: http://www.etcgroup.org -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From monica at sarai.net Sat Jul 6 14:58:34 2002 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:58:34 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] OPUS Message-ID: Dear All Below is the release text on OPUS. To clarify, the website is: www.opuscommons.net best Monica ---------------------- Dear List members and Friends, (please feel free to copy and redistribute) We are happy to announce the launch of OPUS, (Open Platform for Unlimited Signification) as an online adjunct to the documentary installation - Co-Ordinates: 28.28N/77.15E : : 2001/2002 - presented by us (Raqs Media Collective) at Documenta11, Kassel. Opus (Release Candidate) went public on the 8th of June, 2002, co-inciding with the opening of Documenta11. The URL for Opus is www.opuscommons.net What does Opus stand for? Opus is an acronym for "Open Platform for Unlimited Signification!". Most importantly, it is an online space for people, machines and codes to play and work together - to share, create and transform images, sounds, videos and texts. Opus is an attempt to create a digital commons in culture, based on the principle of sharing of work, while at the same time, retaining the possibility (if and when desired) of maintaining traces of individual authorship and identity. To read more about the principles and background of Opus, go to - http://www.opuscommons.net/templates/doc/record.html How Opus works (what can you do in Opus) Opus enables you to view, create and exhibit media objects (video, audio, still images, html and text) and make modifications on work done by others, in the spirit of collaboration and the sharing of creativity. Opus is an environment in which every viewer/user is also invited to be a producer, and a means for producers to work together to shape new content. You can view and download material, transform it and then upload the material worked on by you back to the Opus domain. Each media object archived, exhibited and made available for transformation within Opus carries with it data that can identify all those who have worked on it. This means that while Opus enables collaboration, it also preserves the identity of Authors/Creators (no matter how big or small their contribution may be) at each stage of a works evolution. In this way, we hope that Opus can be come a model for a practical realization of the idea of a Digital Commons of creative work on the Internet. To read a manual of OPUS - go to - http://www.opuscommons.net/templates/doc/manual.html The Idea The basic ideas of the Opus project is to create a community of creative people from all over the world, who want to share and gift to each other the images, sounds and texts made by them for general public usage. Opus will give people the chance to collaborate and to present their work to an online community of practitioners and artists willing to work outside the increasing global domination of intellectual property regimes in cultural production. Once you have published your y in Opus, each act of uploading by you becomes an opportunity for others to take your work as a starting point for transformation, for a new rendition, for a rescension. Opus users will also be able to give their comments and reflections on your work through the discussion forums that will grow around each project within Opus. Opus is inspired by the free software movement and is an attempt to transpose the principles that govern the creation of free software on to general cultural production. Opus follows the same rules as those that operate in all free software communities - i.e. the freedom to view, to download, to modify and to redistribute. The source(code), in this case the video, image, sound or text - the contents of media objects uploaded on to Opus, is free to use, to edit and to redistribute. Needless to say the 'source-code' of the Opus software is also free to use, edit and redistribute. Opus users are governed by a license that protects them from their work being taken out of the commons and into the regimen of proprietary protocols. To read the license that frames Opus - go to - http://www.opuscommons.net/templates/doc/license.html OPUS : A brief history Work on Opus began in September 2001 and the Beta version was uploaded in April 2002. Opus is launched into the public domain with the opening of Documenta11. When we (Raqs Collective) began to think through the ideas that gradually crystallized to form Opus, we were searching for a platform that would enable inter-media and hybrid media practices to find fruition within a frame of open ended collaboration. We were interested in trying to evolve a way to combine our interests with video, our background in documentary film, photography and sound, and our growing engagement with hypertextuality and free software culture as a result of our work within the Sarai Initiative at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. At an immediate level, the ideas that were at the core of the Opus project developed out of our need to create an online context for a set of offline installations. (like , for instance, Co-ordinates : 28.28N /77.15E : : 2001/2002, which is showing at Documenta11) which we wanted to open out to a wider community of creators, so as to enable instances of further collaboration; and out of our thoughts on the notion of the 'Digital Commons', from which arose a text A Concise Lexicon of/for the Digital Commons which contains many of the founding ideas of Opus. In the realization of the process of creating Opus we were joined by several others who made the Sarai Media Lab their home for many long days and nights along with us, sharing in the delight of discovering fragments of archiecture that worked, or a metaphor that made sense, and above all with the energy that they brought to every detail of the coding and design of Opus. Opus would not be a reality without the active collaboration of all the people who worked on it, their skills and their imaginations. Many metaphors, images and ideas have made their way into the making of OPUS, from a biological laboratory, to a polyamourous matrix, to an understanding of the way in which parents relate to children, from kinship and lineage to the growth and evolution of epic narratives and ancient texts. The traces of all these remain in varying degrees. Sarai (www.sarai.net) provided the background of being an intellectually and creatively stimulating space while all of us worked on Opus. CREDITS Conception - Raqs Media Collective Architecture - Monica Narula, Bauke Freiburg, Silvan Zurbruegg Coding - Silvan Zurbruegg, Pankaj Kaushal Interface Design - Joy Chatterjee Design Co-ordination - Monica Narula Design Acknowledgement - Rana Dasgupta Documentation - Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Monica Narula, Bauke Freiburg License - Lawrence Liang, Jeebesh Bagchi Produced by - Raqs Media Collective at the Sarai Media Lab, Sarai/CSDS, Delhi, 2002 Acknowledgements Knowbotic Research, Zurich Hochschule f¸r Gestaltung und Kunst, Zurich Dept. of New Media Studies, University of Amsterdam Society for Old & New Media, Amsterdam Documenta11, Kassel Everyone @ Sarai, Delhi We invite you to contribute, create and share in the further development of Opus. We believe that your participation in Opus will strengthen and revitalize the digital commons. If you have more enquiries about Opus - write to info at opuscommons.net raqs at sarai.net -- Monica Narula Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 16:58:45 2002 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-law] rather hilarious Message-ID: <20020706112845.14025.qmail@web13606.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all dont worry i hate forwarded jokes and all but given that one of the concerns of this list is with the entire idea of brands expecially int he context of meaning making and IPR laws, i thought this was rather hilarious.... Lawrence My dear FAIR and LOVELY (ek chand ka tukda), you are my TVS SCOOTY(first love ) and my AIWA ( pure passion ). I always BPL (believe in the best) and you are SANSUI ( better than the best ). You are DOMINO'S PIZZA (delivering a million smiles ) for me. This is a COLGATE ENERGY GEL ( seriously fresh ) feeling for me. I want you to be my life partner but I think you are worried about your father who is KAWASAKI BAJAJ CALIBER ( the unshakable ) and my father who is CEAT ( born tough ) but don't worry as I am also FORD ICON (The josh machine ) and rest of our family members are pretty KELVINATORS ( the coolest ones ). If they say no, we will run away and marry and PHILIPS ( let's make things better). They will feel MIRINDA ( zor ka jhatka dhire se lage ) but I believe in COCA COLA ( jo chahe ho jaye ). Trust in God who's always NOKIA (connecting people ) who love each other. And we are WILLS ( made for each other ). Now that HYUNDAI ( we are listening) the song of love, you must know that love is DAIRY MILK ( real taste of life ), SATYAM ONLINE ( fun fast easy ) and PARX ( always comfortable ). So never forget me. Ok bye! I wrote little but PEPSI ( yeh dil mange more ). LG (digitally yours). __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 6 17:02:21 2002 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-law] interesting feedback on the OPUS draft Message-ID: <20020706113221.26886.qmail@web13608.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all hope u have had a chance to go through the OPUS draft license. We have recived feedback to it from Neel and I think he has some very pertinent points to make especially about how we can overcome being legally safe and yet not falling into the trap of reverting to language like reasonable restrictions and violawtion of the laws of freedom of speech and expression. any suggestions in this regard would be more than welcome, also if you know any cases oe licenses which have suceeded in doing something similar please send lawrence Hi Friends, > It was interesting reading the > Open Platform for Unlimited Signification (OPUS) > Beta version Draft License Ver. 1.0 > > I also went to the site, www.opuscommons.net and > as usual met with a lot of dots and dashes, keys and > locks and fascinating colour. > > I suggest that all should try out the site. It will help if > you have a cable connection. All this technology is > heavy and is expensive if you were to rely on a > telephone. > > I am yet to figure out how one can come in, the > "general public", I mean. I suppose I will have to > spend more time at the site and all will work out. > > However, even these guys seem rather > governmental, after all the GNU knowledge. This is a > bit of text from the Draft License Ver. 1.0: > > 4. Rights and liabilities of OPUS administrators > > 4.1 The administrators of OPUS hereby disclaim any > primary or secondary liability arising from any claim > made by a third party for infringement of copyright or > any other third party intellectual property rights. > Notwithstanding the above, in the event that OPUS > administrators receive any complaint from any third > party of copyright violation, the administrators shall > retain the right to remove the offending work as well > as any other work or rescensions, which in the view > of the administrators substantially violates third party > intellectual property rights. > 4.2 The administrators of OPUS shall attempt to > provide collaborators the utmost freedom with > respect to their works. The administrators shall > however retain the right to remove any work, which in > its opinion violates laws of the land regulating the > freedom of speech and expression. > > I have always had a problem with the term > 'administrator', and now I speak specifically in terms > of administrators on the Internet. People worry about > surveillance of fasict governments, terrorists, > hackers, crackers et al. Administrators may also > watch. All of these are embodied in the administrator > and the fact that "The administrators --- shall attempt > to provide collaborators the utmost freedom with > respect to their works. [yet] --- administrators shall --- > retain the right to remove any work, which in its > opinion violates laws of the land regulating the > freedom of speech and expression". Magnanimity? > But, I am watchin'. Mind, do not be a naughty > schoolboy. > > I would like to make it clear that I am not trying to > make innuendos at the OPUS project or its > progenitors. This is just to raise the point that the > self-righteous amongst us should watch their step > since the seeds of governmentality and closure are > lurking at the next corner, it is there in the > consciousness. > > I end with an incident that left an impression on me > recently. I was on the IRC chat and had reached a > channel called #guns through undernet. The > discussion topic was related to the upholding of gun > rights. The channel site clearly says that this was a > space for discussing gun-related stuff and one may > please reach some place else for other joys. Well, > here we go. I started questioning guns, brought up > school deaths, and generally made a hullaboo, > enjoyed myself. I was booted from the server. Has > anything like this happened to any of you? It was > quite a shock! Ping! Your desktop shivers and you > are dead. > > Neel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From lachlan at london.com Mon Jul 8 02:21:34 2002 From: lachlan at london.com (Lachlan Brown) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:51:34 +0000 Subject: [Commons-law] Windfall rights - a fourth domain of property? Message-ID: <20020707205134.91142.qmail@iname.com> Hello, I'm interested in following legal debate on things digital for research purposes and also for online publishing purposes. A couple of thoughts struck me concerning the three domains of property: land, moveables and intellectual. Altering any one surely has implications for the others (which is partly why we have such peculiar resistences to really quite conventional ntions of 'open' access, 'open' source, 'open' education, 'open' law, in online media and communication or more properly 'distributed computing'. I wonder whether we need to modify intellectual property rights which work well for the analogue world (which is unlikely to go away anytime soon). Perhaps we need a fourth domain of law or of common law, and perhaps we already have instances of a fourth domain of law? It may or it may not be relevent, but given that this is a South Asian discussion and given that I am a Brit, and given that we have a common history to untangle and amend, unpack or recombine, Clive 'scrumped' apples as a lad. A common practice and a common 'right' in the north, as long as the apples were windfall. Not if harvested from the branch. Might we consider digital property rights in terms of rights to windfall with respect to establised rights of property: land, moveables and intellectual? Just a thought, early in the morning, early in the debate. Should be interesting years ahead. Lachlan -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 From namitaa at rediffmail.com Mon Jul 8 13:40:49 2002 From: namitaa at rediffmail.com (Namita M) Date: 8 Jul 2002 08:10:49 -0000 Subject: [Commons-law] Re: opus license Message-ID: <20020708081049.26763.qmail@webmail14.rediffmail.com> maybe as lawyers we all fall into the trap of phrases such as offending work will be removed, forgetting that offending, offensive, violating have this extremely negative meaning for non-lawyers who don't use these words quite so liberally as we do in agreements. so offending work maybe should be infringing work or even work breaking the law adding a caveat that it may be of great aesthetic value nonetheless. and for neel's suggestion, i guess it could be made Caretaker of website or Extremely Lowly Administrator will remove your work in the event that it is infringing the system or offending the original author or her/his (untalented?) relatives. namita On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 commons-law-request at sarai.net wrote : >Send Commons-law mailing list submissions to > commons-law at sarai.net > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > commons-law-request at sarai.net > >You can reach the person managing the list at > commons-law-admin at sarai.net > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more >specific >than "Re: Contents of Commons-law digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. On patent resistance (Monica Narula) > 2. OPUS (Monica Narula) > 3. rather hilarious (Lawrence Liang) > 4. interesting feedback on the OPUS draft (Lawrence Liang) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:58:51 +0530 >To: commons-law at sarai.net > From: Monica Narula >Subject: [Commons-law] On patent resistance >Reply-To: commons-law at sarai.net > >ETC Genotype >3 July 2002 >www.etcgroup.org > >Peruvian Farmers and Indigenous People Denounce Patents on Maca > >Extract of Andean Root Crop Patented for "Natural Viagra" >Properties > >Indigenous peoples' and farmers' organizations from the Andes and >the >Amazon gathered at the offices of the Ecological Forum in Lima, >Peru >on June 28 to formally denounce US patents on maca, the >high-altitude >Andean plant (of the Cruciferae [mustard] family) that has been >grown >for centuries by indigenous peoples in the Puna highlands of >Peru, >both as a staple food crop and for medicinal purposes. > >Today, companies are selling maca-based products as natural >enhancers >of sexual function and fertility. While maca exports have the >potential to create new markets and income for Peruvian >farmers, >recent US patents on maca may actually foreclose opportunity for >the >true innovators of the Andean crop. > >"We are deeply offended by monopoly patents on our food crops >and >medicinal plants," said Efrain Zuniga Molina of the Association >of >Maca Producers of Valle del Mantaro (Peru). "The Andean region >is >becoming known as the >'biopiracy capital' of the world. We've seen patents on >ayahuasca, >quinoa, yacon, the nu=F1a popping bean, and now maca," said >Molina. > >"These patents claim novel inventions, but everyone knows they >are >based on the traditional knowledge and resources of indigenous >peoples," said Gladis Vila Pihue, a representative of the maca >growers association in the >Department of Huancavelica (Peru). > >The farmers are calling on two US companies to abandon patents >related to maca, and they are asking the Peruvian government and >the >World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to investigate >and >condemn monopoly claims >related to maca that appropriate traditional knowledge of >farming >communities. (The Geneva-based WIPO promotes intellectual >property as >a means of protecting traditional knowledge.) > >Maca Patents: >US Patent No. 6,267,995 - Pure World Botanicals, Inc. - Issued: >July >31, 2001 - title: Extract of Lepidium meyenii roots for >pharmaceutical applications. Applications pending in Australia, >the >European Patent Office, >and at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). > >US Patent No. 6,093,421 -Biotics Research Corporation - Issued: >July >25, 2000 - Title: Maca and antler for augmenting testosterone >levels. > >US Patent Application No. 878,141 - Pure World Botanicals, Inc. >- >Published: April 11, 2002 Title: Compositions and methods for >their >preparation from Lepidium. > >The coalition is also requesting that the Lima-based >International >Potato Center (CIP), as promoter and protector of maca seed, >take >action to prohibit intellectual property claims - not just on >seeds >and genetic material held in its gene bank, but also on >traditional >knowledge of indigenous communities. The coalition is asking CIP >to >declare a moratorium on the patenting of all Andean crop >germplasm >and their genetic components, and indigenous knowledge related >to >these genetic materials. > >CIP is one of 16 international research centers under the >umbrella of >the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research >(CGIAR), the public plant breeding network responsible for >safeguarding crop genetic >diversity. > >"We want to send a strong message that patenting indigenous >knowledge >is morally wrong and unacceptable," said Pedro Rivera Cea, >Director >of the CHIRAPAQ-RAAA, an indigenous peoples' network based in >Ayacucho. > >Hope Shand, Research Director of ETC Group, agrees: "Companies >like >Pure World Botanicals may have done nothing illegal in the eyes >of >the US Patent and Trademark Office, and the company will likely >claim >that it has followed the letter of the law. Nevertheless, >patent >claims on maca are morally unacceptable and they make a mockery >of >the idea that access and benefit-sharing regimes, such as the >Andean >Community's Decision 391, or WIPO's efforts to promote >intellectual >property, can be used as tools to protect indigenous knowledge >and >resources." > >The 6-page document released by ETC Group today offers >background >information on maca and the demands of the Peruvian >organizations >that are protesting the maca patents. The full text is available >on >the ETC Group website: http://www.etcgroup.org >-- >Monica Narula >Sarai:The New Media Initiative >29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 >www.sarai.net > >--__--__-- > >Message: 2 >Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:58:34 +0530 >To: commons-law at sarai.net > From: Monica Narula >Subject: [Commons-law] OPUS >Reply-To: commons-law at sarai.net > >Dear All > >Below is the release text on OPUS. To clarify, the website is: >www.opuscommons.net > >best >Monica >---------------------- > >Dear List members and Friends, >(please feel free to copy and redistribute) > >We are happy to announce the launch of OPUS, (Open Platform for >Unlimited Signification) as an online >adjunct to the documentary installation - Co-Ordinates: >28.28N/77.15E : : 2001/2002 - presented >by us (Raqs Media Collective) at Documenta11, Kassel. >Opus (Release Candidate) went public on the 8th of June, 2002, >co-inciding with the opening of Documenta11. > >The URL for Opus is www.opuscommons.net > >What does Opus stand for? >Opus is an acronym for "Open Platform for Unlimited >Signification!". >Most importantly, it is an online space for people, machines >and >codes to play and work together - to share, create and >transform >images, sounds, videos and texts. Opus is an attempt to create >a >digital commons in culture, based on the principle of sharing >of >work, while at the same time, retaining the possibility (if and >when >desired) of maintaining traces of individual authorship and >identity. > >To read more about the principles and background of Opus, go to >- >http://www.opuscommons.net/templates/doc/record.html > > >How Opus works (what can you do in Opus) > >Opus enables you to view, create and exhibit media objects >(video, >audio, still images, html and text) and make modifications on >work >done by others, in the spirit of collaboration and the sharing >of >creativity. Opus is an environment in which every viewer/user is >also >invited to be a producer, and a means for producers to work >together >to shape new content. You can view and download material, >transform >it and then upload the material worked on by you back to the >Opus >domain. Each media object archived, exhibited and made available >for >transformation within Opus carries with it data that can identify >all >those who have worked on it. This means that while Opus enables >collaboration, it also preserves the identity of Authors/Creators >(no >matter how big or small their contribution may be) at each stage >of a >works evolution. In this way, we hope that Opus can be come a >model >for a practical realization of the idea of a Digital Commons of >creative work on the Internet. > >To read a manual of OPUS - go to - >http://www.opuscommons.net/templates/doc/manual.html > > >The Idea >The basic ideas of the Opus project is to create a community of >creative people from all over the world, who want to share and >gift >to each other the images, sounds and texts made by them for >general >public usage. Opus will give people the chance to collaborate and >to >present their work to an online community of practitioners and >artists willing to work outside the increasing global domination >of >intellectual property regimes in cultural production. > >Once you have published your y in Opus, each act of uploading by >you >becomes an opportunity for others to take your work as a >starting >point for transformation, for a new rendition, for a rescension. >Opus >users will also be able to give their comments and reflections >on >your work through the discussion forums that will grow around >each >project within Opus. > >Opus is inspired by the free software movement and is an attempt >to >transpose the principles that govern the creation of free >software on >to general cultural production. Opus follows the same rules as >those >that operate in all free software communities - i.e. the freedom >to >view, to download, to modify and to redistribute. The >source(code), >in this case the video, image, sound or text - the contents of >media >objects uploaded on to Opus, is free to use, to edit and to >redistribute. Needless to say the 'source-code' of the Opus >software >is also free to use, edit and redistribute. Opus users are >governed >by a license that protects them from their work being taken out >of >the commons and into the regimen of proprietary protocols. > >To read the license that frames Opus - go to - >http://www.opuscommons.net/templates/doc/license.html > >OPUS : A brief history > >Work on Opus began in September 2001 and the Beta version was >uploaded in April 2002. Opus is launched >into the public domain with the opening of Documenta11. > >When we (Raqs Collective) began to think through the ideas that >gradually crystallized to form Opus, we >were searching for a platform that would enable inter-media and >hybrid media practices to find fruition within a frame of open >ended >collaboration. We were interested in trying to evolve a way to >combine our interests with video, our background in documentary >film, >photography and sound, and our growing engagement with >hypertextuality and free software culture as a result of our >work >within the Sarai Initiative at the Centre for the Study of >Developing >Societies, Delhi. > >At an immediate level, the ideas that were at the core of the >Opus >project developed out of our need to create an online context for >a >set of offline installations. (like , for instance, Co-ordinates >: >28.28N /77.15E : : 2001/2002, which is showing at Documenta11) >which >we wanted to open out to a wider community of creators, so as >to >enable instances of further collaboration; and out of our >thoughts on >the notion of the 'Digital Commons', from which arose a text A >Concise Lexicon of/for the Digital Commons which contains many of >the >founding ideas of Opus. > >In the realization of the process of creating Opus we were joined >by >several others who made the Sarai Media Lab their home for many >long >days and nights along with us, sharing in the delight of >discovering >fragments of archiecture that worked, or a metaphor that made >sense, >and above all with the energy that they brought to every detail >of >the coding and design of Opus. Opus would not be a reality >without >the active collaboration of all the people who worked on it, >their >skills and their imaginations. > >Many metaphors, images and ideas have made their way into the >making >of OPUS, from a biological laboratory, >to a polyamourous matrix, to an understanding of the way in >which >parents relate to children, from kinship >and lineage to the growth and evolution of epic narratives and >ancient texts. The traces of all these remain in varying >degrees. > >Sarai (www.sarai.net) provided the background of being an >intellectually and creatively stimulating space >while all of us worked on Opus. > >CREDITS >Conception - Raqs Media Collective > >Architecture - Monica Narula, Bauke Freiburg, Silvan Zurbruegg > >Coding - Silvan Zurbruegg, Pankaj Kaushal > >Interface Design - Joy Chatterjee > >Design Co-ordination - Monica Narula >Design Acknowledgement - Rana Dasgupta >Documentation - Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Monica Narula, Bauke >Freiburg > >License - Lawrence Liang, Jeebesh Bagchi > >Produced by - Raqs Media Collective >at the Sarai Media Lab, Sarai/CSDS, >Delhi, 2002 > > >Acknowledgements >Knowbotic Research, Zurich >Hochschule f¸r Gestaltung und Kunst, Zurich >Dept. of New Media Studies, University of Amsterdam >Society for Old & New Media, Amsterdam >Documenta11, Kassel >Everyone @ Sarai, Delhi > >We invite you to contribute, create and share in the further >development of Opus. We believe that your >participation in Opus will strengthen and revitalize the digital >commons. > >If you have more enquiries about Opus - write to >info at opuscommons.net >raqs at sarai.net >-- >Monica Narula >Sarai:The New Media Initiative >29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 >www.sarai.net > > >--__--__-- > >Message: 3 >Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: Lawrence Liang >To: commons-law at sarai.net >Subject: [Commons-law] rather hilarious >Reply-To: commons-law at sarai.net > > > >Hi all > >dont worry i hate forwarded jokes and all but given >that one of the concerns of this list is with the >entire idea of brands expecially int he context of >meaning making and IPR laws, i thought this was rather >hilarious.... > >Lawrence > > >My dear FAIR and LOVELY (ek chand ka tukda), > >you are my TVS SCOOTY(first love ) and my AIWA ( pure >passion ). I always BPL (believe in the best) and you >are SANSUI ( better than the best ). You are >DOMINO'S PIZZA (delivering a million smiles ) for me. >This is a COLGATE ENERGY GEL ( seriously fresh ) >feeling for me. > >I want you to be my life partner but I think you are >worried about your father who is KAWASAKI BAJAJ >CALIBER ( the unshakable ) and my father who is CEAT >( born tough ) but don't worry as I am also FORD ICON >(The josh machine ) and rest of our family members >are pretty KELVINATORS ( the coolest ones ). > >If they say no, we will run away and marry and PHILIPS > >( let's make things better). They will feel MIRINDA >( zor ka jhatka dhire >se lage ) but I believe in COCA COLA ( jo chahe ho >jaye ). Trust in God who's always NOKIA (connecting >people ) who love each other. And we are WILLS ( >made for each other ). Now that HYUNDAI ( we are >listening) the song of love, you must know that >love is DAIRY MILK ( real taste of life ), SATYAM >ONLINE ( fun fast easy ) and PARX ( always comfortable > >). So never forget me. > >Ok bye! >I wrote little but PEPSI ( yeh dil mange more ). > >LG (digitally yours). > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free >http://sbc.yahoo.com > >--__--__-- > >Message: 4 >Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:32:21 -0700 (PDT) > From: Lawrence Liang >To: commons-law at sarai.net >Subject: [Commons-law] interesting feedback on the OPUS draft >Reply-To: commons-law at sarai.net > >Hi all > >hope u have had a chance to go through the OPUS draft >license. We have recived feedback to it from Neel and >I think he has some very pertinent points to make >especially about how we can overcome being legally >safe and yet not falling into the trap of reverting to >language like reasonable restrictions and violawtion >of the laws of freedom of speech and expression. > >any suggestions in this regard would be more than >welcome, also if you know any cases oe licenses which >have suceeded in doing something similar please send > >lawrence > > > > >Hi Friends, > > It was interesting reading the > > Open Platform for Unlimited Signification (OPUS) > > Beta version Draft License Ver. 1.0 > > > > I also went to the site, www.opuscommons.net and > > as usual met with a lot of dots and dashes, keys and > > locks and fascinating colour. > > > > I suggest that all should try out the site. It will >help if > > you have a cable connection. All this technology is > > heavy and is expensive if you were to rely on a > > telephone. > > > > I am yet to figure out how one can come in, the > > "general public", I mean. I suppose I will have to > > spend more time at the site and all will work out. > > > > However, even these guys seem rather > > governmental, after all the GNU knowledge. This is a > > bit of text from the Draft License Ver. 1.0: > > > > 4. Rights and liabilities of OPUS administrators > > > > 4.1 The administrators of OPUS hereby disclaim any > > primary or secondary liability arising from any >claim > > made by a third party for infringement of copyright >or > > any other third party intellectual property rights. > > Notwithstanding the above, in the event that OPUS > > administrators receive any complaint from any third > > party of copyright violation, the administrators >shall > > retain the right to remove the offending work as >well > > as any other work or rescensions, which in the view > > of the administrators substantially violates third >party > > intellectual property rights. > > 4.2 The administrators of OPUS shall attempt to > > provide collaborators the utmost freedom with > > respect to their works. The administrators shall > > however retain the right to remove any work, which >in > > its opinion violates laws of the land regulating the > > freedom of speech and expression. > > > > I have always had a problem with the term > > 'administrator', and now I speak specifically in >terms > > of administrators on the Internet. People worry >about > > surveillance of fasict governments, terrorists, > > hackers, crackers et al. Administrators may also > > watch. All of these are embodied in the >administrator > > and the fact that "The administrators --- shall >attempt > > to provide collaborators the utmost freedom with > > respect to their works. [yet] --- administrators >shall --- > > retain the right to remove any work, which in its > > opinion violates laws of the land regulating the > > freedom of speech and expression". Magnanimity? > > But, I am watchin'. Mind, do not be a naughty > > schoolboy. > > > > I would like to make it clear that I am not trying >to > > make innuendos at the OPUS project or its > > progenitors. This is just to raise the point that >the > > self-righteous amongst us should watch their step > > since the seeds of governmentality and closure are > > lurking at the next corner, it is there in the > > consciousness. > > > > I end with an incident that left an impression on me > > recently. I was on the IRC chat and had reached a > > channel called #guns through undernet. The > > discussion topic was related to the upholding of gun > > rights. The channel site clearly says that this was >a > > space for discussing gun-related stuff and one may > > please reach some place else for other joys. Well, > > here we go. I started questioning guns, brought up > > school deaths, and generally made a hullaboo, > > enjoyed myself. I was booted from the server. Has > > anything like this happened to any of you? It was > > quite a shock! Ping! Your desktop shivers and you > > are dead. > > > > Neel > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free >http://sbc.yahoo.com > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >Commons-law mailing list >Commons-law at sarai.net >http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > >End of Commons-law Digest _________________________________________________________ Click below to experience Aishwarya Rai's beauty secrets. New International Lux Skincare - It's not just soap, It's skincare. http://www.luxskincare.com From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 9 10:12:32 2002 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-law] the fourth dimension etc Message-ID: <20020709044232.56620.qmail@web13602.mail.yahoo.com> Hi lachlan welcome on board the discussion forum, to first answer your query about your being brit and this being south asian in concern, I think just as you suggested that prevailing paradigms of property jurisprudence do not fit...in the same manner i think the tyraditional co ordinates of nation state and territoriality do nit really reflect the experience of our times.... I think the issues that you raise are precisely the kind of issues that we are concerned about. I however do not know much about windfall rights and would greastly apprecoiate it if you could send me some information or any interesting case studies on it. Currently I am trying to look at the emrgence ofg the idea of information as property and inclined to take the view that it seems to be predicated upon the arbitrary division between what is deemed to ber public and what is deemed to be private. I think form a historical perspective it is very interesting to see that there were two choices even in the 18th century, and two positions namely that of the info egalitarians and the info propertarians and interesting why the route towards tha ltter was chosen. I am sending the citations of 2 articles which i think are fascinating in their account. would have attached them but they are huge ( 300 odd pages in one instance ) so if you cant get hold of them let me know and i will send them in zipped form Lawrence ========== 1. James Boyle, : A Theory of Law and Information: Copyright, Spleens, Blackmail, and Insider Trading, 80 Calif. L. Rev. 1413 2. Keith Aoki, AUTHORS, INVENTORS AND TRADEMARK OWNERS: PRIVATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, Columbia-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts Spring/Summer 1994. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From lachlan at london.com Wed Jul 10 03:33:11 2002 From: lachlan at london.com (Lachlan Brown) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 22:03:11 +0000 Subject: [Commons-law] Windfall and Digital Culture Message-ID: <20020709220311.91595.qmail@iname.com> Hello Lawrence, Hello Sarai commons-law list. Hello Lawyers. I refer to a local English tradition, predominantly a youth and elderly tradition, which may have counterpart in custom in South Asia, or elsewhere. 'Scrumping': the colloquial Northern English term for the youth and (often) elderly practise of harvesting fruit from orchards. A right of passage for youth. A right of alms for the elderly. Stealing apples from orchards. Or gathering windfallen fruit. This may have been a 'common' right, one of the dense texture of given common local rights we assume as birth rights in England which often have no basis in law but in imagined, but no less real for that, common custom or tradition. It seems to me that scrumping provides one way to understand the contemporary practice of collecting and downloading common digital culture, often without respect to the rights of the producer or subject. Thank you for the references, but please do not send me zipped files without the license of the copyright holder! This speculation is for my 'meta-tome' of the emergence of Internet in culture (with respect to ideas, policies and the law): _Digital Cultures: locations of production, networks of distribution, contexts of reception_ I undertook/undertake a social geography of 'new relations of distribution of media and communications and new relations of mediation' of culture. Mediation clearly involves ethics and the Law. It's a thankless task of epic proportions, involving all the academic jealousy and shennanigans one expects during times like these. Astonishing piratical behaviour by conventional insitutions and people who identify with them, anxious about, and marking quite clearly by their anxieties, the changing nature of the educational and publishing terrain. Shifts in 'authority', in the veracity of the text, in the form and kind of legal guarantees that define the subject, society, and institution. Intriguing and productive academic questions. However, I also have a more pragmatic need to understand for the purposes of electronic publishing the present law, and where the law is going. I am all for extending the commons, for refusing 'new enclosures' to thought and intellect, to creativity and criticism, I am all against the privatisation of The Public or publics. I see, however, a belief adapted from pure research contexts (and their quite conventional economies of production of research such as Cern) in 'Open Source' (or the universal sharing of knowledge) ideologies applied more generally (and unevenly) in non-research contexts and in commercial contexts. In Culture. We see how encouraging 'open' ideologies can lead to the articulation of openness to bring about de facto closure and accumulation of power. We see power accumulations of knowledge and onformation hitherto unimagined. We see fewer places to speak of them. We see heightened subalternship even by critics. I am looking for patterns common to our cultures that are against the grain of the process of 'globalisation' (defn: the uneven accumulation of knowledge of world systems), and wondered whether rights similar to assumed local traditional rights of 'scrumping' or gathering windfall fruit were extant generally in world culture. Perhaps in Fourth World contexts?: both in the sense of colonised indigenous peoples and perhaps also in Castell's sense of a 'fourth world' of the dispossesed across globalisation. Are these common rights actually remembered 'dislocated' legal rights remembered and asserted despite colonisation? I should restate that I am keen to see extended common rights, particularly in and to education (or the production and reproduction of knowledge) and at the same time keen to help protect the rights of people to the fruit of their labour as well as the rights of cultures to their fruits. I see a 'new' publishing economy in a successful combination that extends common rights and open practices and more clearly protects intellectual rights to the individual or collective producer, or 'cultural rights'. I see conservative advantage and heightening of prevalent power accumulations in confusing Open Source/Access/Law, which informs a public sector, with the increased of the private sector. I see the private sector ill-equipped to run education (the present glut of Java Programmers turned out by Private academies to meet an assumed demand is a case in point.) I see a refusal of this new publishing economy and hence a maintenance of conventional global accumulations of knowledge where proposition of 'open' ideologies that are unworkable are encouraged. I do not think this discussion group has this aim, I think its remit, mandate, purpose is strategic rather than tactical, to provide open law toward social justice. Digital culture has some of the characteristics of Windfall culture or assumed rights of windfall. To make 'windfall' however was also to arrive by sail at unknown shores. The common right to gather windfallen fruit and the 'right' to claim possession of land by colonising powers have a curious correspondance, particularly in the appropriative behaviour of arch-colonist Clive, notorious in Shropshire for stealing apples according to arch Imperialist Churchill, and no doubt The East India Company, The Hudson Bay Company and obviously The South Seas Company (whose South Sea Bubble was based on the assumption of imminent 'windfall' in as yet untapped trade in The South Seas), and of course World.com, Andersen, in real and imagined new services, products markets, and the accumulation of knowledges skills and information. It is a metaphor that may have relevance to the 'Open' debate: the debate where pure research or open learning practices are combined with 'common' understandings of culture. One can see how 'windfall right' may have colonial and imperial connotations, and one can see how the right of 'windfall' may be applied to cultural appropriation in a number of contexts, each of which may or may not reference uneven power relations or heightened accumulations of power and knowledge. No, I know of no cases citing 'windfall' rights. I wonder where local custom and tradition overrides The Law, and expect it is an outcome of asserting pre-colonisation rights over the rights of the oppressor, even in Britain (where we have very long memories of this sort of thing). Other than that, its always good to connect with lawyers. Lachlan Hi lachlan welcome on board the discussion forum, to first answer your query about your being brit and this being south asian in concern, I think just as you suggested that prevailing paradigms of property jurisprudence do not fit...in the same manner i think the tyraditional co ordinates of nation state and territoriality do nit really reflect the experience of our times.... I think the issues that you raise are precisely the kind of issues that we are concerned about. I however do not know much about windfall rights and would greastly apprecoiate it if you could send me some information or any interesting case studies on it. Currently I am trying to look at the emrgence ofg the idea of information as property and inclined to take the view that it seems to be predicated upon the arbitrary division between what is deemed to ber public and what is deemed to be private. I think form a historical perspective it is very interesting to see that there were two choices even in the 18th century, and two positions namely that of the info egalitarians and the info propertarians and interesting why the route towards tha ltter was chosen. I am sending the citations of 2 articles which i think are fascinating in their account. would have attached them but they are huge ( 300 odd pages in one instance ) so if you cant get hold of them let me know and i will send them in zipped form Lawrence ========== 1. James Boyle, : A Theory of Law and Information: Copyright, Spleens, Blackmail, and Insider Trading, 80 Calif. L. Rev. 1413 2. Keith Aoki, AUTHORS, INVENTORS AND TRADEMARK OWNERS: PRIVATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, Columbia-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts Spring/Summer 1994. Lachlan Brown T(416) 826 6937 VM (416) 822 1123 -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 From sudhir75 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 10 11:08:29 2002 From: sudhir75 at hotmail.com (sudhir krishnaswamy) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:38:29 +0000 Subject: [Commons-law] Windfall rights - a fourth domain of property? Message-ID: Hi All This response is to some points made in the first mail that Lachlan sent in and Lawerence's reply. First a clarification and then a couple of suggestions Was curious as to the use of the phrase 'fourth domain of law' - was that phrase connected to the three domains of property - land, movables and intellectual - and the fourth being digital OR is this an entirely different point. I will asssume that it's about the three domains of property for the rest of the mail! Suggest that it would be better to organize property discussions around one distinction - between tangibles and intangibles. While tangible property rights are directly related to physical assets, intangibles are at least one step removed. Most doctrinal legal discussion adapt property law to this distinction Then the point Lachlan raises is whether this conventional property doctrine can be extended into the digital space - this is a debate that continues more generally with respect to what are called cyberlaws. Thequestion posed is whether we adapt existing laws to cyberspace [a new transctional environment] or should we necessarily create new ones -that debate is alive and raging though the current trend as with the IT Act in India seems to flow in the latter direction But the key contribution that this debate on new frameworks for the digital space - with a greater scope for the public domain - has been in upsetting what was largely taken for granted with property law in other spheres. The development of the open source concept to commodities like 'open cola' offers the promise of a complete overhaul of property doctrine generally. So for me that challenge lies in upsetting the current arrangements in property law and not the creation of a fourth domain as such. A short comment on the windfall rights illustration - there is a long history of collection/picking rights in Indian forests. Previously these were administered by the feudal lords and presently the Government has substituted for them. However, these rights are no longer commons rights and instead are auctioned to the highest bidder! Cheers Sudhir Cheers Sudhir _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From lachlan at london.com Mon Jul 15 02:40:05 2002 From: lachlan at london.com (Lachlan Brown) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:10:05 +0000 Subject: [Commons-law] Windfall and common, world rights. Message-ID: <20020714211005.60221.qmail@iname.com> Thanks, Sudhir, for the clarification. My interest is pragmatic and focussed in the question of online publishing. I think it is clear that as the ensemble of technologies we call internet has been called into culture it has been a work in progress successively in the areas of ideas and belief, policy and administration, and for the past several years in the sphere of the law. It is hardly a surprise that the ecomomic boom articulated in part around internet, but really around the idea of 'new and future markets', was a speculative bubble. Without sets of definitions in all three spheres: ideas, polity, AND law, economics is likely to be unbalanced, indeed eccentric. I am worried about two extremes in thinking about things legal and digital at a time when the last pieces of a global/world 'puzzle' are being put in place. First I am concerned about a definition of 'cyberspace' as a distinctive legal domain since the idea of 'cyberspace' is unsatisfactory except as a fictive metaphor of how digital culture *might* turn out with a date stamp c. 1988, it is an imaginary world divorced from material culture and troublesome things like policy, governance and the law. Much of what occurs in and through this imaginary 'cyberspace' impacts culture very greatly yet the idea that it doesn't really have an impact is a deep and abiding investment of a (western) 'technoculture'. Second, I am concerned about the development of an 'open law' of property, a 'cyberlaw' that has foundation in a parallel idea to the idea of cyberspace. The idea that 'open source' or simply put, public service research and development principles, should apply evenly in culture at large, commercial and everyday culture. Questioning the basis of property raises intensely engaging questions but they are unlikely to lead to a resolution for the immediate purposes of publishing and education online. Perhaps a new law (or domain, dimension, of law) shouldn't be focussed on the digital at all, but upon the supra-national questions. The three domains (or dimensions) of law, land, moveables ( both tangibles?) and intellectual (intangibles) are bound up with the idea of the nation state. A fourth, separate domain or dimension, of law might answer to the supranational - which includes the digital because the digital has special characteristics as media and communications of supranationality. There are obvious dangers in a 'universal international law' - a new digital world order, hence I am looking for instances in local common law where there are corrspondances in all of our cultures, and also correspondances in beliefs about access to knowledge and information on Internet. Residual feudal rights of gathering in forests, which you say are rights now sold by auction (ie they have entered capital) in India, are like the ancient rights to gather windfallen fruit from orchards in England. A fourth domain (or dimension) of law would have to be international law (or supra-national) but it could not be 'global' or 'universal' (neo-imperial, or supra-imperial) because of the highly distributed potentials in digital culture and computer mediated media and communications. To say nothing of resistence to the forces of globalisation where they replicate neo-imperial policies and practises. So, as I say I am looking for precedents in diverse local common practices common to all of our cultures. Not universality, but commonalty across all of our cultures, common practices, understandings and assumptions of rights. In digital culture people appear to assert sets of assumed common rights that have many ideological sources but are shared particularly in, or articulated through, residual fourth world contexts as well as articulated through the new fourth world conditions (Castells) many of us are familiar with through various forms of migrancy from diasporic communities to refugees to migrant workers and indeed to scholars and information or knowledge workers - I do not suggest equality in these experiences but do see questions in common that might be resolved under the same legal code. Lachlan Brown > > > > Message: 1 > > From: "sudhir krishnaswamy" > > To: commons-law at sarai.net > > Subject: Re: [Commons-law] Windfall rights - a fourth domain of property? > > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:38:29 +0000 > > Reply-To: commons-law at sarai.net > > > > Hi All > > > > This response is to some points made in the first mail that Lachlan sent in > > and Lawerence's reply. First a clarification and then a couple of > > suggestions > > > > Was curious as to the use of the phrase 'fourth domain of law' - was that > > phrase connected to the three domains of property - land, movables and > > intellectual - and the fourth being digital OR is this an entirely different > > point. I will asssume that it's about the three domains of property for the > > rest of the mail! > > > > Suggest that it would be better to organize property discussions around one > > distinction - between tangibles and intangibles. While tangible property > > rights are directly related to physical assets, intangibles are at least one > > step removed. Most doctrinal legal discussion adapt property law to this > > distinction > > > > Then the point Lachlan raises is whether this conventional property doctrine > > can be extended into the digital space - this is a debate that continues > > more generally with respect to what are called cyberlaws. Thequestion posed > > is whether we adapt existing laws to cyberspace [a new transctional > > environment] or should we necessarily create new ones -that debate is alive > > and raging though the current trend as with the IT Act in India seems to > > flow in the latter direction > > > > But the key contribution that this debate on new frameworks for the digital > > space - with a greater scope for the public domain - has been in upsetting > > what was largely taken for granted with property law in other spheres. The > > development of the open source concept to commodities like 'open cola' > > offers the promise of a complete overhaul of property doctrine generally. So > > for me that challenge lies in upsetting the current arrangements in property > > law and not the creation of a fourth domain as such. > > > > A short comment on the windfall rights illustration - there is a long > > history of collection/picking rights in Indian forests. Previously these > > were administered by the feudal lords and presently the Government has > > substituted for them. However, these rights are no longer commons rights and > > instead are auctioned to the highest bidder! > > > > Cheers > > Sudhir > > > > Cheers > > Sudhir -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8 From zamrooda at sarai.net Mon Jul 15 17:08:57 2002 From: zamrooda at sarai.net (zamrooda) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:08:57 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] 'The Laws' vs 'Grand Jurix' Message-ID: <200207151708.57159.zamrooda@sarai.net> Reason to be proud of the Delhi HIgh Court: Delhi High Court finds judgments published in law reports not protectable by copyright in India. Judgments are borrowed from the public domain and cannot be monopolised The Delhi High Court has found Eastern Book Company's claim of infringement of copyright in the CD-ROMs of its compilation of Supreme Court Cases untenable as copyright did not subsist in court judgments on the ground that they had been borrowed from the public domain and could not be monopolised. The case: Plaintiffs, Eastern Book Company print and publish books on law and have been publishing law reports under the name of Supreme Court Cases since 1969. The company has published a software package on CD-ROM including a database of the law reports and a search facility under the name "SCC Online Supreme Court Cases Finder". As a complementary product to the case finder, the company has also developed the full text of the Supreme Court Cases on CD-ROM. Eastern Book Company claims copyright in the headnotes, selection, manner of arrangement and presentation of the judgments both in print and in electronic forms. Defendant Navin J Desai has developed a software package named 'The Laws' published in two CD-ROMs and defendant DB Modak has developed a software package called 'Grand Jurix' in three CD-ROMs. Eastern Book Company filed suits against the defendants alleging that - The software packages Grand Jurix and The Laws had infringed its copyright in the CD-ROMs by copying the headnotes, short notes and the entire text of the copy-edited judgments verbatim, including certain mistakes made inadvertently in its journals. Desai and Modak were selling their software packages for US$ 213 (Rs.10,000) while Eastern Book Company's package was priced at US$ 1532 (Rs.72,000), thereby causing incalculable loss to the plaintiffs. The defendants argued that - Their work was much wider in scope than that of the plaintiff; The plaintiffs had filed the suits with the intent to stunt healthy competition by retaining monopoly over publication of Supreme Court judgments in CD-ROM form; Copyright was granted in relation to an original literary work. Judgments of courts were in the public domain and could not be appropriated by one party. Also copyright could not subsist in mere typographical arrangement and standard formats. The Court found that the plaintiffs had no copyright in the judgments published in their law reports on the ground that - "[A] copyright is a limited monopoly having its origin in protection. But there cannot be any monopoly in the subject matter which the author has borrowed from public domain. Others are at liberty to use the same material ... ." Eastern Book Company has reportedly appealed against the court's above order. 002.140201.05/20/35 From kris0201 at beotel.yu Tue Jul 23 05:17:42 2002 From: kris0201 at beotel.yu (Kristijan Cebzan) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 01:47:42 +0200 Subject: [Commons-law] (no subject) Message-ID: <001f01c231da$2caafc70$52aa6ac2@bio> Good day, My name is Kristijan Cebzan, still a student but active in art and architecture scene in Belgrade Yugoslavia and abroad. I'm working on two international multidisciplinary long-term projects as a conceiver and participant. Since these projects are in developing phases wee have problem with preserving our intellectual property, ideas, schemes, research materials and information. This is the reason I'm contacting you and ask for any kind of advice or information where I could get informed better. Thank you in advance sincerely Kristijan Cebzan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20020723/1ac00f6e/attachment.html From jeebesh at sarai.net Tue Jul 23 13:16:13 2002 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:16:13 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] the Open Publication License Message-ID: <02072313161304.00592@pammi.sarai.kit> More and more people are trying to innovate on licenses to allow for an open movement of knowledge, code, medias etc. Here is one such license. best Jeebesh PS: it may be useful to compile all these licenses. --------------------------- http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,20276,00.html Expanding the Universe of Ideas by Oscar S. Cisneros 3:00 a.m. June 17, 1999 PST A new public license -- the Open Publication License -- promises to bring the power of the open-source software movement to video, audio, and text while still preserving authors' rights to profit from the calluses of their creative hands. "It's all about being able to access information for free," said David Wiley, founder of Opencontent.org, where the latest draft of the license will be made available for public comment later this week. The Open Publication License, or OPL, allows creators in any medium to release their work into the public domain for reproduction and modification, while providing the means to preserve their rights to the printed, commercial versions of their work. Under two optional provisions in the license, creators can restrict the sale of printed versions of their work and prevent others from substantially modifying it. By default, however, there are no limits to digital distribution and reproduction, provided the creators are credited for their original work. The license's strength stems from the power of peer review and derivative works. When ideas are free from the fences and hedges of copyright law, a beautiful multiplicity of expression ensues, Wiley said. "If I could analyze your data in some way that's of use to me -- instead of spending another two years re-gathering that data -- we could collaborate and share our work with others," he said. "There's no point in every professor reinventing the wheel each time he starts a course. If there were building blocks of information, we could increase the quality of education." When authors submit their work to an academic journal, the publication typically devours all of the rights to the text in perpetuity, leaving only few lines to be quoted here and there by future authors, Wiley said. But, by allowing people to create derivative works from such publications, each researcher's effort contributes to an aggregate of knowledge usable by all. "My goal is to see this open publishing license at these journals," Wiley said. "The idea is to get the data and get people to share it, just like they have been for software." The Open Publication License formalizes the peer review process that has driven software development on the Internet for more than 30 years, said Eric Raymond, one of the co-founders of the Open Source Initiative for software. "How do you allow companies to make profits and allow electronic distribution and modification so that the full peer review process can operate? The Open Publication License allows you to do that," Raymond said. "This is all part of the process of the Internet culture learning to work with the market and corporations for the betterment of both." Where Wiley dreams of open-source academic research, Raymond's primary interest in the license is for use with the software documentation accompanying open-source software. Copyright law, he said, has manacled some documentation so that it can only be purchased in book form, while other, sometimes mismatched, documentation can only be found on the Web. Among the first texts to be released under the license will be GTK+/GNOME Development, a book that will see publication by New Riders Publishing in late August, said the company's executive editor, Laurie Petrycki. "If you're providing something that can be reviewed and modified, it can be beneficial to everyone involved," Petrycki said. "You're going into business with the ability to give something back." New Riders Publishing will follow GTK+/GNOME Development with Samba Administration, a book to be released under the OPL 12 months after printing, she said. While OPL books fit best with open-source causes, the publishing model is not without perils for the publishing community, Petrycki said. There is always the danger another publisher will snatch and reprint the book's full text with the OPL's blessing. And that, says O'Reilly and Associates founder Tim O'Reilly, is exactly what happened when his company released the Linux Network Administrator's Guide under the General Public License in the 1995. Two competing publishers quickly reprinted the book and offered it at a lower cost, he said. "If your goal is to spread information, then that's great. But if you're a business it's not a viable option," O'Reilly said. "We have some evidence that its being freely available hurts sales." An optional clause in the OPL gives authors the right to prevent others from producing commercial print versions of their work -- a fact that assuaged only some of O'Reilly's concerns. Companies like itknowledge.com, which offers free and paid access to collected online resources, might still exploit the terms of the OPL, he said. "Simply restricting printing rights is not sufficient because there are people making competitive, commercial use of works on the Web," he said. "I guess I would look for some kind of commercial activity clause. I believe it's important for the copyright holder to have the option of choice." O'Reilly said he believes the open-source process could be improved by the green paper carrot offered by the business world. "I support the hacker culture," he said. "And I actually think that the best way to do that is to create an economic incentive instead of relying on volunteerism." From sudhir75 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 23 15:17:38 2002 From: sudhir75 at hotmail.com (sudhir krishnaswamy) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:47:38 +0000 Subject: [Commons-law] (no subject) Message-ID: Hi Kristijan Your email conveys very little information on the kind of work that you do and it is difficult to suggest how you may protect your work. There are several options - the conventional copyright protections, the open source variations and other forms of intellectual property that may apply. Most participants on this list work towards enhancing the availabiliy of works in the public domain and we would gladly help you devise means of pursuing that option should you choose to make it. Cheers Sudhir Krishnaswamy _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From sudhir75 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 23 18:48:54 2002 From: sudhir75 at hotmail.com (sudhir krishnaswamy) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:18:54 +0000 Subject: [Commons-law] the Open Publication License Message-ID: Jeebesh mentioned in his last message that we should put together the various types of Open Source licenses. It appears that IIsc is executing a project to compile open source licenses for Software used in varied computing environments. This project is funded by the Ministry of Information Technology. This compilation is being marketed as a CD ROM called 'SALIS'. Tragically the CD is itself not on an open source license and is sold for an yet undisclosed price!! So maybe we do need to put together another compilation after all.. Cheers Sudhir _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From sudhir75 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 24 20:04:58 2002 From: sudhir75 at hotmail.com (sudhir krishnaswamy) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:34:58 +0000 Subject: [Commons-law] Moot Court problem Message-ID: The Raj Anand Moot Court Competition is an annual moot court competition organized by Anand & Anand, India's premier IP law firm. This years problem [which follows this note] is centred around the enforcement of an Open Source License. Given that there have been no cases around the enforcement of Open Source licenses in the Indian courts this problem will raise interesting arguments. Moreover, this problem has introduced the idea of Open Source to a lot of young law students and those of you in Delhi this August should get across to watch the Oral Arguments The Problem - 2002 A company, Zatents Ltd. ('Zatents'), based in New Delhi, developed a computer software program called 'Quick Search'. The specifications of the program are annexed hereto as Annexure 'A'. The Software allows lawyers to quickly search for a case or cases from a database, which is partly built in and can be updated using the lawyers' personal notes of cases. It is usual for lawyers to make short notes of cases in diaries or registers, but over the years they would often loose these records. Quick Search enables the lawyers to collect the cases at one place, as also to retrieve them rapidly by keying in 'catch words'. In fact, by using the catch words/ phrases, one could cull out the entire proposition and/or the citations of the cases, where they appeared. Quick Search is different from the advanced programs or databases available in the market in that it is far simpler to use. It was in evidence that most lawyers are generally technologically shy and stay away from complex programs with advanced features. In this sense, Quick Search is simple looking, easy to use and very quick. Zatents decided that it would not charge any fee for the software. Instead, the software was licensed to users in return for their obligation to similarly make their additions (both to the case database as well as to the underlying software) available to members of the public. In this sense, Zatents intended this to be an 'open source' kind of model. The software license, which is annexed as Annexure B and which is visible when a person loads the Quick Search CD on his computer, states that users are allowed to use Quick Search along with its data, provided that any additions or alterations made to the software/ database shall be transferred back to the Company in electronic form via its email: quicksearch at zatents.com. However, users who provided enhanced features or data could not compel Zatents to incorporate them in future additions to Quick Search. The whole objective of the exercise was to keep Quick Search simple. When the Quick Search program was distributed, it became an instant success among various types of lawyers. Travelling lawyers found it very useful to carry a CD-ROM which was like a useful diary of their cases in their areas of interest. A company by the name of Natwar Ltd. ('Natwar') headquartered in New York and with offices in India obtained a copy of Quick Search and noticed that it could not be used on a network. It had to be used on a stand-alone computer; therefore only one person could use it on one computer, at one time. Natwar decided to modify the program so as to enable it to work on a network. Natwar however retained the simplicity aspect of Quick Search namely the thought that lawyers did not wish to necessarily search huge text of cases, but, were mostly satisfied by an Index type program on the basis of catch words, phrases or propositions. Natwar also corrected mistakes and filled up blanks in the data. Natwar also made Quick Search web enabled so that users wanting to access the same had to log on to a website in order to use the database. This was conceived as a new portal based on a subscription model and the website was hosted from Australia. Natwar released its program titled 'Bite a Cite'. Natwar did not consider it necessary to transfer its program to Zatents. It did not even consider it necessary to acknowledge Zatents's contribution to the software. Zatents objected to Natwar on the grounds that although 'Bite-a-cite' was built using Quick Search, Natwar did not transfer the alterations made to the program to Zatents and that it was now commercialising it, as opposed to giving it to users for free, something that according to Zatents goes against the very basis of an open source model. Company Zalzala Ltd. ('Zalzala'), a trading partner of Natwar, located in Mumbai, made about 1000 copies of Quick Search and sold it as 'Quikase'. In order to increase sales, Zalzala advertised their product through a national publication. Zatents objects to Quikase on grounds similar to that in respect of Natwar. Further Zatents also contends that 'Quikase' is deceptively similar to their trademark 'Quick Search' and therefore amounts to passing off. Natwar defended its position by arguing inter alia, that Zatents's license is invalid. Zalzala takes the plea that Quick Search is a descriptive mark. Further it also takes the plea that since no additions were made, it was not obliged to honour the terms of the license by making it available for free. Zatents has filed a suit against Natwar and Zalzala in the Delhi High Court. The Plaintiff has two counsels-one against Natwar and one against Zalzala, while Natwar and Zalzala are separately represented by Counsel. 'Zatents, Quick Search, Natwar, Bite-a-cite, Zalzala and Quikase are words coined by the organisers of the 5th Raj Anand Intellectual Property Moot Court Competition 2002 and are the property of Vidya Intellectual Property Foundation.' � Vidya Intellectual Property Foundation 2002 Annexure 'A' PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS 1. Name of the Program Quick Search 2. Computer language in which the program is written Front end: Visual Basic 6.0 Backend Database: MS Access 97 3. Size of the program 14,000 Lines (approx.) 4. Hardware specifications required to run the program Pentium III, 800 MHz 10 GB Hard Disk, 64 MB RAM 5. Software requirements to run the programe Windows 9x/ NT 4.0 or Higher ODBC Driver for MS Access 97 6. Time taken to develop the program ' man hours About 65 Man Hours 7. Time taken to feed data About 500 Man Hours � Vidya Intellectual Property Foundation 2002 Annexure 'B' QUICK SEARCH OPEN SOURCE LICENSE Preamble QUICK SEARCH is a CD-ROM that contains a database of propositions from judgements from the year 1950 to 2000. The Quick Search Open Source License (the 'License') accompanies every package of QUICK SEARCH Open Source software that is available to You free of cost. [Open Source software is one that is freely distributed along with the Source Code, which can be modified and redistributed by anyone]. The Licensed Product is our copyrighted work and through the means of the License, the Licensor gives You legal permission to use, modify, reproduce, sub-license and distribute the Licensed Product. You may make Modifications to the Licensed Product, and/or create Derivative Works from it as long as the said actions are in consonance with the terms of the License and all Modifications made by You are available to others, including the author of the Licensed Product free of cost. However, it must be understood that there is no warranty for the Licensed Product. If the Licensed Product is modified by someone else and passed on, the Licensor wants its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations. Further, the Licensor does not accept any liability in the event of the software not working properly or causing any injury or damage to You. S. 1 Definitions 'Contributor' Each person or entity who creates or contributes to the creation of a modification and distributes the same. 'Derivative Works' A work based upon one or more pre-existing works consisting of editorial revisions, additions, annotations, elaborations, or other Modifications to the pre-existing data or any software that enhances/alters the functionality of the Licensed Product by modifying the Source Code of the interface software provided and which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship. 'Licensed Product' A CD-Rom media containing a database of propositions of judgements from the year 1950 to 2000 and a user interface to search the said database along with the Source Code of the software driving the interface. 'Licensor' Zatents Ltd., situated at B-41, Nizamuddin, New Delhi ' 1100 13. 'Modifications' Any additions or other alterations to the data or structure (including changes made to the user-interface software) of (i) the Licensed Product, or (ii) a new file that contains any part of the Licensed Product and/or previous Modifications. 'Source Code' A set of instructions in a user-friendly language that are given to the computer to perform the specified task. 'You' (or 'Your') An individual or legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this license. S.2 Terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification The Licensor hereby grants You world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims, to: Use, reproduce, modify, display, sub-license and distribute the Licensed Product (or portions thereof), with or without Modifications, in both Source Code or as an executable program; and Create Derivative Works of the Licensed Product by adding to or altering its substance or structure (or both). S. 3 Intellectual Property rights subsisting in the Licensed Product Nothing in the License shall be deemed to grant any rights to copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets or any other intellectual property rights of the Licensor or any Contributor except that which is clearly stated herein. No patent may be sought for a combination of the Licensed Product with other software or hardware. No right is granted as to the trademarks of the Licensor or any other Contributor even if the same is included in the Licensed Product. Each Contributor shall be deemed to hold the copyright in the Modifications s/he creates and the said Modifications shall be automatically sub-licensed to the Licensor under the terms of this License. S. 4 Your obligations regarding the distribution of the Licensed Product As an express condition for Your use of the Licensed Product, You hereby agree that: Any Modifications that You create or to which You contribute, and which You distribute, are governed by the terms of the License and can be distributed only under the terms of the License. You must include a copy of the License with every copy of the Modifications You distribute; No terms will be imposed on the Source Code or executable version of the Licensed Product or Modifications that alter or restrict the scope of the recipient's rights under the License; All Modifications to the Licensed Product shall be sub-licensed to the Licensor under the same terms and conditions as the License; and You will not make any profit out of the Licensed Product or Modifications thereto. S. 5 Availability of Source Code You must make available, under the terms of the License, the Source Code of the Licensed Product and any modifications that You distribute, on the same media as You distribute the executable form of the Licensed Product. S. 6 Description of Modifications You must cause any Modification that You create or to which You contribute, and which You distribute, to contain a file documenting the additions or other changes You made to create or contribute to those Modifications. S.7 Termination clause If You assert any intellectual property rights claims against the Licensor relating to the Licensed Product, or if You breach any terms of the License, Your rights to the Licensed Product under the License shall automatically terminate. Effect of Termination: Upon termination, You agree to immediately stop any further use, reproduction, modification, sub-licensing and distribution of the Licensed Product and to destroy all copies of the Licensed Product that are in Your possession or control. All sub-licenses to the Licensed Product that have been properly granted prior to termination shall survive any termination of the License. S.8 Warranty The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. If the Licensed Product is modified by someone else and passed on, the Licensor wants its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations. In no event shall the Licensor be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the Licensed Product or the use or other dealings in the Licensed Product. Further, in no event shall the Licensor be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use the Licensed Product. S.9 Disclaimer The database of propositions of judgments as well as the short notes accompanying the cases on the Licensed Product is only meant to provide a quick reference guide to decisions delivered in the field of intellectual property law. This is neither complete nor comprehensive but only a helpful tool the utility of which depends upon the users own contribution of case notes. The contents of the database or any Modifications made thereto do not constitute legal advice of any kind. S.10 Acceptance By clicking on the I Agree button below, You affirm that You agree to be bound by the terms of the License and that You will abide by and adhere to the duties and obligations contained in it. Your electronic acceptance shall operate as a valid and binding contract for the purpose of all applicable laws in this regard. � Vidya Intellectual Property Foundation 2002 _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From jeebesh at sarai.net Sat Jul 27 17:49:52 2002 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 17:49:52 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] Shared footage Message-ID: <02072717495201.00756@pammi.sarai.kit> dear all, Independent media practitioners response to the Gujarat kiilings has been exemplary. The emergent practice of `shared footage` is just unparalled in our present culural context of `bounded` knowledge and cultural material. I would request our lawyer friends in this list to look at this practice and maybe think of innovations in copyright licenses to protect this kind of intiative and make it grow. best Jeebesh ------------------- From: "gurpal" To: "gurpal gujarat" Subject: shared footage mail no. 3 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 17:59:04 +0530 note from neeraj: hi all, for those of you who missed our first two mails on the shared footage idea....a small group of us came here to ahmedabad in the middle of may, with a view to create a bank of footage about the pogrom. the idea was that this footage could be used by like minded filmmakers to make several films which would cover all the aspects of the genocide in gujarat. we also tried to assist the legal effort by recording testimonies or visual evidence where necessary. this is an effort of a group of individuals funded by themselves and some friends. in terms of people coming in to chip in with their time and effort, we were a little lacking...we hope that the 'shramdaan' of those who came will bear fruit and many films will be made from this footage, which, if sensibly distributed, will go some way in stemming the growing tide of fundamentalism we're now entering the last leg of our stay in ahmedabad. there has been quite a bit we've managed to do (thanks to everyone) and some things that we have not been able to do. below is a summary of both, and what the shape of our current plans are. the important thing in this phase, we think, is to close the many individual stories we've begun which can be seen by themselves, or strung with other things to address larger issues/ canvasses. also there are some stories which we haven't begun shooting, but have lined up, which are very important which we've to shoot start to finish. looking at these lists here is what we plan: 4 manweeks of shoot to wind up in ahmedabad. consists of 1. documents illustrative of : -police atrocities/ role of police in 'riots' -criminal injustice practiced and supported by the state -pain on loss of life/ property/ livelihood -apathy in relief camps -inhuman compensation -token rehabilitation -sustained threat and discrimination -ghettoisation -spread of violence to 'well off' people as well -secular valor in the face of adversity -islands of sanity 2. interviews to contextualise the situation in gujarat (not necessarily of the victims themselves, but those that have been engaged with gujarat for a long time, in various fields): -general history of class/ caste forces in realpolitik -specific history/events of the last decade -the socio economic context of this carnage in general, and the main massacres in specific. -the role of media -the debate of riots vs. carnage/ pogrom/ genocide -the participation of women, dalits and adivasis -processes and strategies of struggle for justice in a belligerent state the above are just things that are still hanging open. i think we've done substantially more than that, which is the kind of work that requires breadth of coverage (e.g. the situation of people with the closing of camps, both in urban and rural areas; the rath yatra and associated things etc.). and we also have 'closed' quite a number of stories. which meditate one or the other aspect of the whole thing. with more resources and hands in here, we could also do the following, which we have not been able to: 1. not been specifically able to cover illustrative cases on (though we have leads and access): -brutality specific to women -violence through medical intervention/ -communalisation of health care -processes initiated with witnesses of the main carnages -the debate on the participation of women, dalits and adivasis 2. cover the situation in rural gujarat with adequate breadth and select aspects of it in depth. we're also suffering from a lack of versatile hands for: -logging, transferring, capturing, production back up. i feel the most crucial stage of this project is to do a decent logging, with cross indexing etc. in some form which is easily accessible and open to data manipulation (in the sense of sorting by areas, or keywords, or incidents etc.). we're working on it, but the base of it will remain a thorough and commented log. its crucial for the whole thing to work to have each and every interview/ vox pop/ group interview etc. transcripted and available in electronic form. this is the thing going on parallel with the wind up shooting. so we need people to come here and help us wind up the shooting. and we now really also need people everywhere to chip in from wherever they are and do transcripting/ rough logging. we can provide cd's, vhs, audio tape or whatever form they can work with, along with some kind of instructions (numbering, classifying etc.) and who to co-ordinate with and how. we have been working with cameras lent by people and often these are not in the best shape. we have ended up spending a packet on repairs and servicing. we also require tapes(hi 8, minidv, vhs-c, vhs), mikes, batteries, blank cd's and any equipment that you think could be useful to us. look forward to your help in this regard. keep us going, do write in, love and regards, neeraj. n_sahay at hotmail.com note from gurpal: just wanted to add a note of thanks to all friends who have chipped in with money...we are keeping an account of where it is being spent and shortly it will be posted to all.... and we are also looking for articles, books, still photos, news clippings from now or earlier, which may be in any way relevant to a study of the current situation in ahmedabad/gujarat.... please be in touch regards,gurpal gurpalforpeace at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ From jeebesh at sarai.net Sat Jul 27 19:19:46 2002 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:19:46 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] Fwd: HACKING LEGALIZED Message-ID: <02072719194606.00756@pammi.sarai.kit> Could someone explain me under what kind of `legal backbone` is this permission to `legal` hacking into servers and sites being made. Since otherwise hacking is a criminal offense (now with even life imprisonment) what are the premises of the new bill. best Jeebesh ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: HACKING LEGALIZED Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:45:17 -0400 (EDT) From: David Mandl To: Nettime {...for record companies) http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=1252923 Bill Lets Music Firms Hack Napster-Like Systems Last Updated: July 25, 2002 04:09 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Media companies would be allowed to sabotage Napster-style networks to prevent songs, movies and other copyrighted materials from being swapped over the Internet under a bill introduced in Congress on Thursday. The bill would permit recording companies and other copyright holders to hack onto networks to thwart users looking to download free music, and would protect them from lawsuits from users. Although Congress has little time to debate the bill before the August recess, sponsor Rep. Howard Berman, a California Democrat, said the measure was necessary because the decentralized systems were impossible to shut down. "No legislation can eradicate the problem of peer-to-peer piracy. However, enabling copyright creators to take action to prevent an infringing file from being shared via P2P (peer-to-peer) is an important first step," Berman said in remarks on the floor of the House of Representatives. [snip] -- Dave Mandl dmandl at panix.com davem at wfmu.org http://www.wfmu.org/~davem # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net ------------------------------------------------------- From zamrooda at sarai.net Mon Jul 29 12:49:07 2002 From: zamrooda at sarai.net (zamrooda) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:49:07 +0530 Subject: [Commons-law] Proposal for Blocking Yahoo and Hotmail by Indian ISPs Message-ID: <200207291249.07333.zamrooda@sarai.net> Proposal for Blocking Yahoo and Hotmail by Indian ISPs (http://www.naavi.org/cl_editorial/edit_10jul_28_1.html) Yesterday's brief comment on the proposal mooted by some ISP is in India to block popular sites such as Yahoo and Hotmail has evoked wide spread comments. Most of the respondents have found it hard to believe such a proposal could be existing because they see no valid reason for the same. Frankly, I also see no valid reason for such a move which is an anti customer move and could be a PR disaster. It could also attract consumer action and threaten the ISP license itself without necessarily being a wise move commercially. In order to remove the doubts about the origin of the news report, I give more details of the proposal and how it seems to have originated. The news item was picked from the Hindustan Times Net Edition of July 27, 2002, where an article by Mr Soumendra Sahu reported the proceedings of the executive committee meeting of ISAPI (Internet Service Providers Association of India). It was stated that the proposal was mooted by a Rajastan based ISP by name Data Infosys and is supported by Satyam and Data Access. Caltiger and Net4India appear to have opposed the move while MTNL and VSNL have at present not taken a view. The secretary of the ISP is however quoted as saying that "The association will resolve the issue through mutual discussion before going ahead with the blocking". The reason quoted by ISAPI is that portals like Yahoo, Hotmail and E-Bay are accessed through the services of the ISP s and should therefore contribute part of their earnings to the ISPs. In order to make this possible, ISP s should first stop access to these services. Comments: The proposal of ISAPI to demand money from the portals which are visited by their customers is down right silly. It is hard to believe that a Company like Satyam who runs its own portal should ever be even considering such a move. The officer of Satyam who has attended the meeting and let this view pass has done a great disservice to the image of Satyam both from the point of view of exhibiting lack of sensitivity to consumer's views as well as the self defeating nature of the proposal itself. Self Defeating Nature of the Proposal: Imagine VSNL and Dishnet stating that Sify should pay a part of the portal's ad revenue to them since a part of the visitors come through VSNL and Dishnet access accounts. If Satyam can expect revenue from Yahoo and Hotmail, there is no reason why VSNL and Dishnet cannot expect a similar revenue from Satyam. Secondly, if some customers of an ISP are visiting a popular website repeatedly, the time they spend there is directly bringing benefit to the ISP. Like the proverbial dog Vs Tail, who wags whom, ISP s seem to be thinking that it is because of them that Content providers exist on the Internet. It is essential for them to first understand the medium of Internet and appreciate that it is the attractive content or service that makes people access Internet and provides bread and butter to ISPs. If a client goes to Yahoo and plays a game of Chess for 30 minutes, the ISP which has provided the access gets a direct benefit of the usage of access hours. It simply defies my logic that the ISP s are unable to understand this simple truth. If this argument has any value, then there can also be a demand from the ISP s that sites which post heavy files such as "Images" have to pay more than sites that post text data. If however, ISP s feel that the charges they are now levying for bandwidth usage is not sufficient, it is for them to increase their service charges or change over the pattern of charging from "Hours of Usage" to "Bandwidth Used". Trying to discriminate the users based on the sites they visit is foolish to say the least. ISP s should however remember that today they are making fraudulent gain by various means including "Choking the bandwidth deliberately so as to increase the hours of usage". For example, if an ISP offers 33.6 KB or 64 KB bandwidth, they actually shrink the bandwidth available to the consumer by sharing the pipe with too many customers. The actual data transfer speed on an average is perhaps less than 50 %. More over, the uptime of most of the Indian ISP s is below acceptable international standards and the consumers pay for frequent disconnections or malfunctioning of the servers at the ISP end. ISP s are also indulging in many anti consumer activities such as "Eating E-Mails" of the customers and if Consumers have not so far brought legal action on the ISPs for these sub optimal services that they are rendering, it is only because the Consumer organizations in India are not focusing on the requirements of Netizens and informed consumers also understand the technical problems in an emerging high tech service. If ISP s think that the Consumers can be taken for a ride and charged for the inefficiencies of the ISPs, the faults of the telephone systems and also for visiting sites of their choice, they are taking on the Net Community is a losing battle and will invite the wrath of the community. Licensing Terms: I am not able to comment on the ISP licensing terms at this point of time and leave it to some of the other experts. One view of the industry is that the ISP has the discretion to determine what service he provides and he cannot be compelled to allow access to any website. In the past, ISP s have fought for their right to allow access to any website against objections of regulatory agencies. There are some ISPs who have refused to block anti Indian sites when demanded by the regulatory authorities taking refuge under "Freedom to Information Access". Similarly, many ISP s are not willing to block porno sites stating various technical reasons. When they seem to oppose regulation of their activities in these cases which is in public interest, it is strange that they now want to regulate the content that the customer can view, for commercial considerations. Without further detailed analysis of the ISP guidelines, I can only say that if the regulatory authorities think that ISP's action of blocking Yahoo or Hotmail are arbitrary restrictions placed on the fair use of the medium, they should have the right to cancel the license. Such powers will anyway be available to the regulators under the next piece of legislation that is likely to become a law soon. Implications of ITA-2000 By trying to exercise their right to regulate what the users of ISP can view, ISP s are also admitting that they will be technically capable of blocking certain sites at their pleasure. This will remove the defense they so far had to oppose regulator's instructions for "Interception" of communication or blocking of websites. ITA-2000 had provided section 79 to keep the ISP s free from liabilities for the content that passes through them by creating a separate status as an "Intermediary" of a communication message. It was under this status that they could absolve themselves of any liability for the content accessed by the users. If ISP s now express their desire to take control of the content, they will also be expressing their willingness to be held accountable for the content. If then, any ISP receives a notice about either a porno site or a terrorist site and they do not block them, they can be charged for Distribution of Obscene electronic documents, Abetment in Terrorist activities etc and can be punished under IPC, ITA-2000 as well as POTA. I wish the ISP s think carefully before shedding the protecting veil of "The status of a Neutral Data Carriage Intermediary" and assuming the role of "Selective Content Distribution Service". The responsibilities cast on them in such changed role are far too many for them to digest. As a PR Exercise, companies like Satyam will do well to clarify if they are advocating this change. Their silence will be construed as endorsing the position that they consider themselves not as "Intermediary" under Section 79 and Section 2 of ITA-2000 but as a "Content Distributor To a Closed list of Members". This may be used against them in any legal action where they express inability to block objectionable content. Naavi July 28, 2002