From shveta at sarai.net Mon Sep 8 09:49:32 2003 From: shveta at sarai.net (shveta) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 04:19:32 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Cybermohalla Publication, 2003 Message-ID: <200309080419.32702.shveta@sarai.net> Dear All, Cybermohalla/Sarai is happy to announce the release of the Cybermohalla [1] Publication, 2003 - A Book Box with ten booklets, a CD and postcards. Booklets (Bilingual - Hindi/English): The booklets - 1. What is it that everything needs? 2. Before coming here, had you thought of a place like this? 3. What does every word carry with it? 4. If we were to stand in front of a crowd, what would the eyes of the crowd say to us? 5. To think I am alone would be gross injustice. 6. What is it that flows between us? 7. Conversations in questions and answers & conversations without questions and answers 8. Method is that heavy thing which makes everything light? 9. Sometimes some questions betray us. 10.What is in this? The everyday? Thought? And...? http://www.sarai.net/community/cybermohalla/book02/booklets.htm [2] CD: Animations, Video+Text Film, Software Animations: Surfaces are friendly, hospitable to narratives. They invite, cajole, contain, hold. Walls as you walk along the streets, table tops in classrooms and cafes, the insides of buses and trams, margins of pages in books, palms of your hand. They contain markings of location, of experiences, gestures, practices. Surfaces don't have insides and outsides, but textures and edges. Stories travel to surfaces and rest, waiting to be picked up and be carried to different destinations, to find themselves in different biographies, to be in circulation. Inscribe a surface with a scratch, a scribble, a sketch, a snippet, a phrase, a snatch of reality. And watch as strangers are drawn to stop by, to add their stories to yours. These acts of inscription are centrifugal acts - a play of unravelling and revealing, that is accretive. Surfaces are such palimpsests of meanings and signs, layered over time. Peel off the layers one by one, and be connected with a map of co-travellers. This tapestry of animations is one such surface of the enigmatic inner worlds of stories and rhythms. Within it, each individual animation an overlapping of layers of meaning that are held together through movement over time. What does the surface reveal? Before coming here, had you thought of a place like this? Film: The Zoo Text+Sound Video 05:48 min A whimsical soundrack introduces what could be an equally whimsical conversation during a visit to a zoo. Almost immediately, however, the conversation (an almost socratic dialogue on the nature of 'insult') transforms whimsy into a brief, evocative look at social relations, interactions and the construction and perception of self. Credits: Texts, Photographs, Recordings, Drawings, Animations by: Media Lab @ Lok Mayak Jai Prakash Colony: Azra Tabassum, Babli Rai, Bobby Khan, Shahana Qureshi, Shamsher Ali, Sultana, Suraj Rai, Manoj Kumar, Masooma Ansari, Mehrunnisa, Naseem Bano, Neelofar, Rabiya, Yashoda Media Lab @ Dakshinpuri: Dhirender Pratap Singh, Kiran Verma, Kulvinder Kor, Lakhmi Chand Kohli, Love Anand, Nisha Kaushal, Polina, Raju Singh Malyal, Rakesh Kumar, Sangeeta Kumari. Designed and produced at the Sarai Media Lab, Sara, CSDS, 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi -110054, www.sarai.net --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] The Cybermohalla (Cyber Neighbourhood) Project is a community of young practitioners who share each others' thoughts, ideas and creative energies in media labs located in working class areas of Delhi. The young people who come to these media labs are between the ages of 15 to 23. At the lab, they work with media forms (photography, animation, sound recordings, online discussion lists and text) to create cross media works, texts, collages, posters and wall magazines. Their writings and images can be seen as a rich database of narrative, comment, observation, imaginative play and reflection on the contested circumstances of life in the sprawling urban metropolis of Delhi. The project has been developed collaboratively by Sarai, a programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and Ankur - Society for Alternatives in Education. The Cybermohalla Project addresses the interface between information technology and creativity in the lives of young people who live in a highly unequal society. http://www.sarai.net/community/saraincomm.htm cybermohalla at sarai.net [2] For Cybermohalla Publication, 2002, Galiyon se / by lanes, please see http://www.sarai.net/community/cybermohalla/book01/bylanes.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ best Shveta From ranita at sarai.net Wed Sep 10 21:00:35 2003 From: ranita at sarai.net (ranita) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:00:35 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for Short Term Independent Research Fellowship Message-ID: <200309102100.35919.ranita@sarai.net> Proposals Invited for Short Term Independent Research Fellowship The Sarai Programme, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi What is Sarai? Sarai is a public initiative of media practitioners and scholars looking at media cultures and urban life. Sarai's interests are in the field of old and new media, information and communication technologies, free software, cinema, and urban space - its politics, built form, ecology, culture and history, with a strong commitment to making knowledge available in the public domain. It is a programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. For more information visit www.sarai.net Who Can Apply? Sarai invites independent researchers, media practitioners, software designers and programmers, urbanists, architects, artists and writers, as well as students (post graduate level and above) and university and college faculty to apply for support to research driven projects. Why Research? What do we mean by Research? Sarai is committed to generating public knowledge and creativity through research. Hence the support for research driven projects and processes. The fellowships are in the nature of small grants in order to emphasize the initiation and founding of projects that would otherwise go unsupported Here, by research we mean both archival and field research, and forays into theoretical work as well as any process or activity of an experimental or creative nature - for instance in the audiovisual media, as well as in journalism or the humanities and social sciences, or in computing and architecture. The Experience of Previous Years: This is the third year in which Sarai has called for proposals for such fellowships. We would like to spell out the way in which the process worked in the previous years, as an indication of what applicants should expect. The first year saw the selection of twenty proposals, in the second year thirty six proposals were selected. These included work towards projects based on investigative reportage of urban issues; essays on everyday life; a history of urban Dalit performance traditions; soundscapes of the city; a graphic novel about Delhi; a documentation of the free software movement in India; research on displacement and rehabilitation in cities; interpretative catalogues of wall writings and public signages; histories of cinema halls and studios in Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata; a study of the world of popular fiction and many others. Successful applicants included freelance researchers, academics, media practitioners, writers, journalists and activists. For a detailed list of the proposals click on http://www.sarai.net/community/fellow.htm The projects were submitted in English, Hindi or a combination of the two languages. We have seen that projects that set important but practical and modest goals were usually successful, whereas those that may have been conceptually sound but lacked sufficient motivation to actually pursue a research objective on the field, usually did not take off beyond the interim stage. Sarai interacted closely with the researcher over the period of the fellowship and the independent fellows made monthly postings on a public list as well as a final presentation at Sarai. This enabled us to trace the development of work during the grant period and the fellows to obtain structured but informal feedback from us at Sarai in stages during the course of their work. Submissions at the end of the fellowship period included written reports and essays, photographs, tape recordings, audio CDs, pamphlets, maps, drawings and html presentations. What we are Looking For: As in the past, this year too we are looking for proposals that are imaginatively articulated, experimental and methodogically innovative, but which are pragmatic and backed up by a well argued work plan which sets out a time table for the project, as well as suggests how the support will help with specific resources (human and material) that the project needs. Suggested Themes: Sarai's interests lie in the city and in media. Broadly speaking any proposal that looks at the urban condition, or at media, is eligible. More specifically, themes may be as diverse as habitation, sexuality, labour, social/digital interfaces, urban violence, street life, technologies of urban control, health and the city, the political economy of media forms, histories of particular media practices, intellectual property law, migration, transportation, or anything that the applicants feel will resonate with the philosophy and interests that motivate Sarai's work. Sarai supports innovative and inventive modes of rendering work into the Public Domain. Proposals, which pay attention to this, will be particularly valued. Preferred Approaches: Innovative and interdisciplinary methodologies, that combine research, practice, and delivery or rendition methods will be especially welcome. Conditions: Applicants should be resident in India, and should have an account in any bank operating in India. The research fellowship would be available for up to six months and for a maximum amount of Rs. 60,000. The fellowships do not require an every day presence at Sarai. These are support fellowships and fellowship holders will be free to pursue their primary occupations, if any. What you need to send? There are no application forms. Simply post (snail mail) your - Proposal (not more than1000 words) - A brief workplan (not more than one page) - An updated CV (not more than two pages) - Work samples (maximum two. Work samples need not necessarily be in the same area as the proposed project) - Envelopes should be marked - "Attention : Short Term Independent Research Fellowship 2003" [Email proposals will not be entertained]. Proposals may be sent in English or Hindi. Mail these to: Ranita Chatterjee, Coordinator, Programmes, Sarai, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054, India. Enquires: dak at sarai.net Last date for submission: October 20, 2003. Note: Proposals from teams, partnerships, collectives, faculty are welcome, so long as the grant amount is administered by a single individual, and the funds are deposited in a single bank account in the name of an individual. Applicants who apply to other institutions for support for the same proposal will not be disqualified, provided they inform Sarai that support is being sought (or has been obtained) from another institution. The applicants should inform Sarai about the identity of the other institution. From soenke.zehle at web.de Thu Sep 11 17:08:16 2003 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:38:16 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] 'Golden Rice' known to Indian farmers centuries ago? Message-ID: <000a01c37859$31748c50$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> TITLE: Was 'Golden Rice' known to Indian farmers centuries ago? SOURCE: The Hindu Business Line, India, by M. Somasekhar http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/09/09/stories/ 2003090900361100.htm DATE: Sep 8, 2003 ------------------- archive: http://www.genet-info.org/ ------------------- Was 'Golden Rice' known to Indian farmers centuries ago? "There is a definite case to revisit the existing rice germ plasm and analyse 'golden' coloured farmers varieties for the vitamin A content." WAS 'Golden Rice', or the recently-developed genetically-modified rice variety claimed to provide vitamin A supplements, known to Indian farmers and cultivated in some parts of the country a few hundred years ago? If the descriptions in the ancient manuscript titled Kashyapiya Krishisukti, a treatise on agriculture written by Kashyapa around 700-800 A.D. are any indication, the hints are in the direction of a reasonable yes. Two mentions of 'Peetavarna Vrihi' or yellow rice, which Kashyapa claimed to improve digestion and a 'Sambaka' variety called 'Hema' or golden could have been sources of vitamin A. Giving this interpretation, Dr Y.L. Nene, who is heading the Asian Agri- History Foundation (AAHF), here said, "There is a definite case to revisit the existing rice germ plasm and analyse 'golden' coloured farmers varieties for the vitamin A content". The AAHF obtained a copy of the treatise written in Devanagari script from the Adyar Library, Chennai and translated it and published it in English. The manuscript details with various aspects of agriculture written in a simple style by Kashyapa, who possibly lived in Kosala in the present central Uttar Pradesh from soil conditions, to monsoons and agricultural practises focussed in irrigated areas. Interestingly Kashyapa's book laid emphasis on human nutrition. Varieties of rice are first in the priority list. The grains (pulses) for preparation of soup are second, vegetables third and ghee, milk etc, fourth. A mix of these four makes a complete meal and brings stability to human life by providing nourishment and health, it says, Dr Nene explained. Dr Nene, who retired from the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (Icrisat) as Deputy Director-General, set up the AAHF to generate a sound database on Indian agricultural history and undertake translation and building up a library in 1996. A corpus of Rs 40 lakh was raised through a dozen scientists, Mahyco and Sehgal Foundation of US to take up this task. Since, the technology of the genetically-modified 'Golden Rice' developed by Dr Ingo Potyrkus of Switzerland and Dr Bayer of Germany to be transferred to Indian rice varieties had raised a major debate in the country, it could perhaps be fitting to look inwards into our own germ plasm resources and find out if such varieties did exist and how would they perform, Dr Nene told Business Line. The Golden Rice is claimed to be a potential solution to eliminate the largescale vitamin A deficiency existing among the poor in countries such as India. A claim disputed by agri-environmentalists. In addition to opposing the genetic modification technology, these groups argue on the levels of vitamin A and the adverse impact on the environment. Under a Department of Biotechnology (DBT) led initiative, several national research institutes are trying to transfer the technology and inject the traits into Indian rice varieties. The Hyderabad-based, Directorate of Rice Research, the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore, the South Delhi Campus of Delhi University etc are involved in the project. From jeebesh at sarai.net Mon Sep 15 05:56:27 2003 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:56:27 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Press Release - Call for Boycott Message-ID: <200309150556.27272.jeebesh@sarai.net> Subject: Press Release - Call for Boycott Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:39:34 +0530 From: MIFF CAMPAIGN To: MIFF_CAMPAIGN at rediffmail.com CAMPAIGN AGAINST CENSORSHIP AT MIFF PRESS RELEASE - MOST URGENT - 15 SEPTEMBER 2003 One hundred and seventy five of the leading documentary filmmakers of the country, having come together under the banner of a campaign against censorship at Miff2004, hereby announce a boycott of the Mumbai International Film Festival to be held in Mumbai in February 2004. This follows a decision by the organisers of the festival, Films Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to introduce a clause which requires Indian documentaries entered for the festival to be censored. It should be noted that foreign films entered at the festival do not need to be censored. Since giving notice to Films Division and the Ministry over a month ago, the Campaign has tried it's best to keep channels of communications open with them. However, except for one meeting of filmmakers with the Joint Secretary (films) and a few stray remarks by the Minister, there has neither been any progress on this nor any communication to us. As such, we have no choice but to boycott Miff2004. This is a shame because the festival was meant to promote the best of Indian documentaries and it can hardly claim to do this while it is simultaneously trying to muzzle the voice of the Indian documentary. It is an accepted practice world-wide that film festivals are arenas of uninhibited and creative expression. No international festival of repute censors films. It is strange that Miff 2004 now wants to do this while it managed seven previous editions of MIFF without this regulation. It is even stranger that the Minster for Information and Broadcasting, Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad inaugurated the recently concluded PSBT-UNESCO film festival at Delhi where Indian as well as foreign films were screened without censorship certificates (or censorship exemptions), but the same terms cannot be applied to MIFF. A question was also raised in the Parliament following which many parliamentarians have also protested the Miff regulations to the Ministry. However, the Ministry has not acted even on their representation. As a follow up to the boycott call, we will undertake the following steps: We will write immediately to leading international filmmakers worldwide asking them not to participate in the festival. Since this is a cause they all support, we see no problem in their supporting the campaign. 1.. We will also write to all the international film festivals abroad asking for their support in condemning the Miff action. 2.. We will seek support from different sections of civil society. Women's groups from all over the country are supporting our campaign and we will release a joint statement of these groups in the coming days. We are also in the process of gathering support from media organisations, civil liberties and democratic rights groups. We will soon also announce many other measures to promote the screening of documentaries in the country, and to encourage the growth of a healthier culture of public screenings. We request you to please give due coverage to this release. Yours sincerely, Pankaj Butalia and Saba Dewan 91-11-26961065,26854839 26515161, (0)9810395589 with Amar Kanwar - 91-11-26516088,26513556,(0)9810216088 Rahul Roy - 91-11-26515161 & (0)9810395589 Sameera Jain - 91-11-26220224 & (0)9810525985 Sanjay Kak - 91-11-26893893 & (0)9811229952 on behalf of Campaign Against Censorship At MIFF B-26 Gulmohar Park New Delhi 110049 Email - miff_campaign at rediffmail.com List of Signatories a.. Aanchal Kapur, New Delhi b.. Aarti Bhasin, Mumbai c.. Abir Bazaz, Noida d.. Aditya Seth, Mumbai e.. Ajay Bhardwaj, Delhi f.. Ajay Noronha, Mumbai g.. Ajay Raina, Mumbai (Golden Conch winner at MIFF) h.. Amar Kanwar, New Delhi. (Golden Conch winner at MIFF) i.. Ambarien Al Qadar, New Delhi j.. Anand Patwardhan, Mumbai (Golden Conch winner at MIFF) k.. Ananya Chatterjee, Kolkata l.. Anjali Gupta, New Delhi m.. Anjali Monterio, Mumbai (Certificate of Merit at two MIFF's) n.. Anjali Panjabi, Mumbai. (Silver Conch winner at MIFF) o.. Anupama Srinivasan, New Delhi p.. Anuradha Chandra, New Delhi q.. Aparna Sanyal, New Delhi r.. Arvind Sinha, Kolkata s.. Arun Chadha, New Delhi t.. Asheesh Pandya, Gurgaon, Haryana u.. Ashok Maridas, Bangalore v.. Ashwini Malik, Mumbai. w.. Batul Mukhtiar, Mumbai x.. Bela Negi, Mumbai y.. Berkley Sanjay, Los Angeles, California, USA z.. Bishakha Datta, Mumbai aa.. Chandita Mukherjee, Mumbai ab.. Charu Gargi, Mumbai. ac.. Charudutt Acharya, Mumbai ad.. Christopher Rego ae.. Daisy Hasan, Shillong af.. Daljit Ami, Chandigarh ag.. Darshan Trivedi, Ahmedabad ah.. Deepa Dhanraj, Bangalore ai.. Deepti Seshadri, Bangalore aj.. Deepu, Bangalore ak.. Deepanjali D Pandey, Manila, Phillipines al.. Dhiraj Kumar, New Delhi am.. Dilip Varma, Paris, France an.. E.K. Santha, Chennai ao.. Eddy Singh ap.. Gargi Sen, New Delhi aq.. Gauhar Raza, New Delhi ar.. Gautam Sonti, Bangalore as.. Hansa Thapliyal, Mumbai at.. I.K. Shukla, Delhi au.. Jabeen Merchant, Mumbai av.. Jeebesh Bagchi, Delhi aw.. Jyotsna Murthy, Bangalore ax.. KP Sasi, Bangalore ay.. Kapil Suravaram, Hyderabad az.. Kavita Joshi, Delhi ba.. Kirtana Kumar, Bangalore bb.. Konarak Reddy, Bangalore bc.. KP Jayshankar, Mumbai. (Certificates of Merit at MIFF) bd.. Kuttyrevathy, Chennai be.. Lalit Vachani, New Delhi bf.. Leena Manimekalai, Chennai bg.. Lille, Paris, France bh.. Lokesh Jain, Delhi bi.. Manjira Datta, New Delhi bj.. Meenu Gaur, Noida bk.. Meghnath, Ranchi bl.. Merajur Rahman Baruah, New Delhi bm.. Miriam Chandy Menacherry, Mumbai bn.. Monica Bhasin, New Delhi bo.. Monica Narula, Delhi bp.. Namarata Tandon, New Delhi bq.. Nandan Kudhyadi, Pune br.. Nandini Bedi, Mumbai, bs.. Navroze Contracter, Bangalore bt.. Nina Subramani, Delhi bu.. Nirmal Chander bv.. Oisika Chakrabarti, New York, USA bw.. Pankaj Butalia, New Delhi. (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF) bx.. Pankaj Rishi Kumar, Mumbai by.. Paromita Vohra, Mumbai bz.. Parvez Imam, Bangalore ca.. Pawan Sony, New Delhi cb.. Prem Aman, Hyderabad cc.. Preeti Chandriani, Mumbai cd.. Priya Sen, New Delhi ce.. Radhika Menon, Delhi cf.. Rahman M A, Kerala cg.. Rahul Ranadive, Delhi ch.. Rahul Roy, New Delhi ci.. Rajashree cj.. Rajul Mehta, Mumbai ck.. Rajiv Mehrotra, New Delhi cl.. Rakesh S Katarey, Manipal cm.. Rakesh Sharma, Mumbai cn.. Rajani Mani, Delhi co.. Ramachandra Babu, Trivandrum cp.. Ranjan De, New Delhi cq.. Ranjan Palit, Kolkata. (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF) cr.. Ranjani Mazumdar, Delhi cs.. Rappai Poothokaren ct.. Raza Haider, New Delhi cu.. Reena Mohan, New Delhi (Best First Film Award at MIFF) cv.. Rita Banerjee, Delhi cw.. Ritu Kapur, New Delhi cx.. Rosa Basanti, Delhi cy.. RR Srinivasan, Chennai cz.. Ruchir Joshi, Calcutta da.. Rupashree Nanda, Jaipur db.. RV Ramani, Chennai dc.. S.K.Das Mollick, dd.. Saba Dewan, New Delhi. (Certificate of Merit at MIFF) de.. Sabeena Gadihoke, Delhi (Certificate of Merit at MIFF) df.. Sabina Kidwai, New Delhi dg.. Sachin Singh, Delhi dh.. Sagari Chhabra, Delhi di.. Sahir Raza, New Delhi dj.. Sameera Jain. New Delhi. (Certificate of Merit at MIFF) dk.. Samina Mishra, New Delhi dl.. Sanjana , Bangalore dm.. Sanjay Kak. New Delhi dn.. Sanjit Narwekar, Mumbai do.. Sanjiv Shah, Ahmedabad dp.. Santosh Samuel , Delhi dq.. Sarada Vishnubhatla, New Delhi dr.. Satyajit Pande, Mumbai ds.. Sehjo Singh, New Delhi (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF) dt.. Shabnam Sukhdev du.. Shabnam Virmani, Bangalore dv.. Shammi Nanda, Jaipur dw.. Shashin Tiwari dx.. Shikha Jhingan, Delh dy.. Shilpi Sharma, Delhi dz.. Shohini Ghosh, Delhi ea.. Shoma Chatterjee, Kolkata eb.. Shriprakash Prakash, Ranchi ec.. Shrish Dobhal, New Delhi ed.. Shuddhabrata Sengupta., Delhi ee.. Simantini Dhuru, Mumbai ef.. Smriti Nevatia, Mumbai eg.. Sridala Swami, Hyderabad eh.. Sridhar Rangayan ei.. Stalin K., Ahmedabad (Silver Conch Winner at MIFF) ej.. Subasri Krishnan, Delhi ek.. Subhamoy Sengupta, Mumbai el.. Sudheer Gupta, New Delhi em.. Sudhir Aggarwal , Delhi en.. Sudheer Palsane, Mumbai eo.. Sujit Ghosh, Lucknow ep.. Sulekh, New Delhi eq.. Suma Josson, Mumbai er.. Sumit Kumar es.. Sunanda Bhat, Bangalore et.. Sunil Bhatia, Mumbai , (Golden Conch Winner at MIFF) eu.. Sunil Shanbag, Mumbai ev.. Supavitra Babul, New Delhi ew.. Supriyo Sen , Kolkata ex.. Surabhi Sharma, Bangalore ey.. Surajit Sarkar, New Delhi ez.. Swagat Sen, Delhi fa.. Uma Magal, Bangalore fb.. Uma Devi Tanaku, Pune fc.. Usha , Bangalore fd.. Uvraj, Bangalore fe.. V.Krishna Ananth, Chennai ff.. Vandana Mohindra, New Delhi fg.. Vani Subramanian, New Delhi fh.. Vasudha Joshi, Kolkata (Golden and Silver Conch Winner at MIFF) fi.. Veena Bakshi, Mumbai fj.. Vijay , Bangalore fk.. Vijay S. Jodha, New Delhi fl.. Vijay Shanker, Hyderabad fm.. Vinod Ganatra, Mumbai fn.. Vinod Raja, Bangalore fo.. Vipin Vijay, Trivandrum (Jury Award Winner at MIFF) fp.. Virender Grewal fq.. Yirmiyan Arthur, New Delhi fr.. Yousuf Saeed, New Delhi fs.. Zaheer A Bagh, Ladakh ------------------------------------------------------- From sunil at mahiti.org Mon Sep 15 12:28:59 2003 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: 15 Sep 2003 12:28:59 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] EU tries to leverage 'geographic indications' at the WTO Message-ID: <1063609139.2636.20.camel@mahitilaptop.undphiv> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/13/71847/6143 During this latest World Trade Organization round in Cancun, the European Union is trying to gain support for, what many are calling, its latest protectionist tool, the "geographic indication" (GI). The EU proposal is an attempt to end-around the common trademark system and disallow products named after a region or associated with a particular region unless they were produced there. Supposedly, that is why we have a trademark system that exists in most countries. The EU proposal would create a new international registry of GIs, and nations would be required to police their companies and prevent them from using marks in the registry. This means that a new regulatory bureaucracy would need to be created in each country. In the EU, so far over 2,100 such GIs are already recognized and enforced, and the number is constantly growing. We would expect to see those drift into the international registry too. For example, even though "parmigiano reggiano" was already registered as a trademark in the US by an Italian group, showing that the system appears to be adequate, that would be overturned. Now, only Parmesan cheese produced in Parma, Italy, would be allowed to carry not just the parmigiano reggiano label, but also any version or translation of it. Parmesan would be off-limits, as would Parmesan-like or Wisconsin Parmesan. This proposal appears to be just a way to gain leverage in negotiations. The EU has "one of the world's most illiberal farm policies, … a standing insult to economic intelligence." The Economist outlines the problem in a September 13 article, "The Mexican marathon": It starts with price supports -- what the WTO calls domestic support. The EU props up prices for its own farmers, keeping even the expensive ones in business. In fact, the EU's prices are so high that its farmers want to produce more than its consumers want to buy. Unwanted at home and too expensively produced to sell abroad, the surplus produce is offloaded on to world markets with the help of $2.5 billion in annual export subsidies. In other words, having propped up prices for its farmers, the EU then subsidises the price for the rest of the world's consumers, depressing prices on world markets. And that is not the end of it. The EU must impose import tariffs to stop low-cost farmers in the rest of the world exploiting the gap between low world prices and high EU prices. One distortion invites another, which creates the need for a third. Knowing that the EU must cede ground on tariffs, it can either use the GI proposal as a threat, backing its protectionist tariff system, or it can give up something on the tariff front in exchange for support of the GI issue. The problems is that many of the names have become generic to most people. Feta no longer refers to a kind of cheese produced only in Greece, just as New England clam chowder can be made anywhere. Also, the costs could be terrible. Michael Pellegrino, vice president in Kraft's cheese division, testified before a congressional committee that the change would "likely require millions of dollars in packaging costs and an extensive, multimillion-dollar marketing campaign just to preserve, rather than grow, our existing level of sales." Sarah Thorn of the Grocery Manufacturers of America adds to the costs, claiming that the loss of even just one name "could represent hundreds of millions of dollars" to the trade group's members. It isn't just the US that doesn't like it either; the complaints have come from New Zealand to Canada. Places like America and Canada are nations of relatively recent immigrants. An Italian butcher came to America with his family and the knowledge of how to make a Parma ham, so he made it in the traditional style that he always has. How is this any different from being made in Italy? For some, even the same cheese cultures are used: After 138 years in business, the Marin French Cheese Co. in Petaluma has just as valid a claim to Camembert as does the French hamlet in Normandy, said Jim Boyce, the owner, whose card identifies him as "purveyor of curds." "At the microbiological level, the cultures we use (originally) come from France," he said. "We're embedded in name, in practice, in microbiology. We would be deeply upset, hurt and grievously damaged if the United States should acquiesce to removing these names." To some it would appear sensible to prevent a cheese maker from calling their cheese Parmesan, but forbidding Parmesan-like seems to be going far beyond reasonable. And why can Parmesan cheese only be made in Parma? Can not the same production techniques be used in Wisconsin as well as Italy or when a trained Italian cheese maker moves out of Italy, can he no longer make Parmesan cheese? Errico Auricchio also thinks this type of protection is baloney. Born in Naples, he moved to the U.S. 24 years ago and started a cheese company in Denmark, Wisconsin. Many of his products are on the E.U.'s list, including Parmesan, Gorgonzola and Asiago. Two years ago, Auricchio introduced a new product called Parveggiano. When he tried to use the name after registering it, the Italians sued, saying the name was too similar to Parmigiano, which they have trademarked in the U.S. The two sides recently settled out of court, but Auricchio is undeterred. "It's crazy. It will backfire on them. They cannot supply Parmesan cheese all over the world," he complains. As for the names, "Italian is just an adjective. We call them French fries and English muffins but we don't think they come from France or England. How far does this go? Can a California sushi roll only be made in California or a Philly cheese steak only be made in the City of Brotherly Love? Will a New Zealand restaraunt no longer be able to make French cuisine? Or maybe a restaraunt specializing in world food in Japan will no longer be able to sell New England clam chowder. Of course there is always the issue of getting American trademarks in Europe. Despite the rhetoric of European countries supporting regional markings, the Idaho Potato Commission hasn't been able to register Idaho potatoes in France. -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw From jeebesh at sarai.net Mon Sep 15 12:40:07 2003 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:40:07 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] government response to Section 377 Message-ID: <200309151240.07213.jeebesh@sarai.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: "PRISM New Delhi" >Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:52:13 +0530 >Subject: Fw: URGENT: government response to Section 377 > > > Dear friends, > > The Union Government, on the 9th of September, finally > responded to the petition filed in the Delhi High > Court by Naz Foundation (India) Trust, in 2001. Naz > has been represented in the case by the Lawyers > Collective. The government's response is cause for > grave concern. It has drawn upon familiar notions of > `Indianness' and morality, denied violations of human > rights and looked at law reform in an extremely > regressive manner. An open letter (pasted at the > bottom of this email), to be sent to newspapers, has > been drafted by PRISM and CREA, which seeks to respond > to the position taken by the State on behalf of > individuals and organizations. This effort is > important to publicly counter what the government has > said, as part of the larger objective of opposing > criminalization of adult consensual sexual activity > and raising awareness about issues relating to > same-sex sexualities. We hope that you will add your > name to the letter. Please forward the letter to > other individuals and groups. Since there is an > urgency about responding to the government's > statement, we hope that you will respond latest by > 12noon tomorrow, 16th September 2003. (We have given > below sections of the government's response). > > There is a meeting of all concerned groups on Tuesday, > 16th of September, at 5pm at the Saheli office, above > Deez Biryani, in the Defence Colony Flyover Market. We > hope that you will be able to send a representative to > this urgent meeting, where we plan to discuss what can > further be done to counter the government's assertions > and create public opinion in support of the rights of > sexuality minorities. > > In solidarity, > > PRISM > > QUOTES FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S AFFIDAVIT > > Quoting the 42nd report of the Law Commission, the > government claims that "Indian society by and large > disapproves of homosexuality and disapproval was > strong enough to justify it being treated as a > criminal offence even where the adults indulge in it > in private." > > The proposed changes in law, the Centre said, "can > well open the flood gates of delinquent behavior and > be construed as providing unbridled license for the > same". > > Justifying Section 377, the centre said: ''The purpose > of section 377 of IPC is to provide a healthy > environment in the society by criminalising unnatural > sexual activities.'' > > Replying to the petitioner's allegations that Section > 377 violated the right to equality (Article 14), right > to freedom (Art 19) and right to personal liberty (Art > 21), the Centre said "none of these rights were > infringed" and that each of them were subject to > reasonable restrictions. > > The Government claimed that Section 377 of IPC has > been basically used to punish child sexual abuse and > to complement lacunae in rape laws and that it has > rarely been used to punish homosexual behavior. > > The Government also questioned the NGO's locus standi > to approach the court on this issue, saying "no one > except those whose rights are directly affected by the > law can raise the question of its constitutionality". > > > > Open Letter > > On 9th September, 2003, the Union Government filed an > affidavit in response to a petition filed by the Naz > Foundation (India) Trust before the Delhi High Court, > asking the court to decriminalise private, consensual > adult sexual behavior. The Government's response is > cause for grave concern - its position is in > contravention to its role as the upholder of the > fundamental rights of all citizens. > > The government affidavit supports Section 377 of the > Indian Penal Code, which states that 'whosoever > voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order > of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be > punished with imprisonment for life or 10 years'. > With respect to the arguments presented by the State, > we, as concerned citizens and representatives of > women's groups, child rights groups, human rights > organisations, sexual minorities groups, and NGOs seek > to clarify that: > > a) The State cannot deny that Section 377 violates the > rights of Indian citizens. Section 377, in its present > form, denies the right of sexual expression. Other > than same-sex sexual acts, non-procreative > heterosexual acts including oral and anal sex also > fall under the purview of this law. Moreover, Section > 377 violates the right to life and liberty, the right > to health and the right to equality before the law and > freedom from discrimination for many sections of > society such as gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender > people and hijras. These people are affected by > Section 377 on a day to day basis. The stigmatisation > attached to their choices is so severe that they are > disowned by their families, subjected to shock therapy > by doctors, are brutally harassed by the police, and > are unable to avail of legal redress against > discrimination. Section 377 is also used by the police > to threaten NGO workers who distribute condoms and > impart safe sex education amongst, for instance, men > who have sex with men - communities extremely > vulnerable to the transmission of the HIV virus - with > charges of abetment of and attempt to commit Section > 377. > > b) By speaking the language of moral panic, the State > is to seeking to draw attention away from these > tangible human rights violations. It is a > fundamentally flawed logic that the government is > using when it argues that legal reform cannot take > place because `Indian society by and large disapproves > of homosexuality'. The government cannot impinge upon > the rights of citizens who fall outside its ideas of > 'Indianness'. Indian culture is not monolithic; it > cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination. > Diverse sexual expression is a well-recorded part of > India's history and of her culture. Moreover, our > laws are meant to enshrine principles of justice that > Indian society should abide by. If all laws were > drafted on the basis of popular opinion, progressive > legislations such as the anti-Sati and anti-dowry laws > would not have been possible. > > (c) The deliberate and repeated assertion by the > government that this petition will prevent the court > from being able to protect children from sexual abuse > is patently false. The petition is not seeking a > repeal of Section 377, but merely a decriminalisation > of consensual, private, adult sexual behaviour. Should > the petition succeed, the state's ability to use > Section 377 in child sexual abuse cases remains > unaffected. > > As individuals and groups that support and affirm the > rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, hijra, and > transgendered people, we demand that the government > enable the protection by the law of all citizens, > without discrimination based on gender or sexual > orientation. Towards this end, there is an urgent need > to decriminalise sex between consenting adults. It is > not the business of government to decide what people > choose to do with complete consent without infringing > on the rights of any other citizen. It is the business > of the government, however, to frame effective laws > that prosecute heinous crimes such as child sexual > abuse. > > The government has stated in its affidavit each of the > fundamental rights are subject to 'reasonable > restrictions'. Restricting the access of millions of > citizens to proper health care, failing to address > rampant discrimination on the basis of their sexual > preference, failing to protect them from harassment by > the police and criminalising their consensual sexual > acts while hiding behind the fig leaf of protecting > Indian culture, are not reasonable restrictions by any > standards. We urge the government to reconsider its > position, bringing it in line with the requirements of > the Constitution of India with regard to Fundamental > Rights of every citizen and with the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights. _________________________________________ reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city. From rahulcherian at hotmail.com Tue Sep 16 14:09:30 2003 From: rahulcherian at hotmail.com (Rahul Cherian) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 08:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] TM ACT 99 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030916/905d5895/attachment.html From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 16 14:10:40 2003 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 01:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-Law] Lethal decision on version recording from delhi high court Message-ID: <20030916084040.55774.qmail@web13609.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all just came across a rather small but potentially lethal decision from the Delhi high court on version recording. I have not got a copy of the decision as yet and would be greateful to any one who can try and get hold of a copy of it and post it on the list. It would be important for us to see how they differ from the Mars recording decision lawrence >From Economic Times: 16th september 2003 In a significant order to prevent plagirization of old hindi songs and music, the Delhi high court has held that a version recor5ding of a song is not protected under the copyright Act, if it did not emerge as distinct and would infact amoutn to infringement of the copyright of the original producer. :Version recordings would really be swuch sound recordings where while being inspired by the original melody, a distinct interpretation, both in presentation, rythm and orchetral arrangemnents emerge. Justice Mudgal said. The court order to this effect followed, while dismissing aninterm application filed by super cassettes seeking to restrain Bathla cassettes fro producing version recordings of its soundtrack __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From fred at bytesforall.org Tue Sep 16 15:31:08 2003 From: fred at bytesforall.org (Frederick Noronha (FN)) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:31:08 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] TM ACT 99 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What does this imply to everyone in general? FN On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Rahul Cherian wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The Trademarks Act, 1999 has finally come into force today. > > > > ciao > > > Rahul Cherian Partner > > Kurian And Kurian 4D, Greams Court, # 162, Greams Lane, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. Mobile: > 98403 57991 > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Interact with peers. Learn from experts. Be tech-empowered! > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Noronha (FN) | http://www.fredericknoronha.net Freelance Journalist | http://www.bytesforall.org http://goalinks.pitas.com | http://joingoanet.shorturl.com http://linuxinindia.pitas.com | http://www.livejournal.com/users/goalinks ------------------------------------------------------------------------- T: 0091.832.2409490 or 2409783 M: 0 9822 122436 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From saif42 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 16 23:15:37 2003 From: saif42 at hotmail.com (Dev Gangjee) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:45:37 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] TM ACT 99 References: Message-ID: This may be of some help as a quick overview... Feel free to yell if anyone wants a clarification - its nice to see one's thesis area (GIs) in the news :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Noronha (FN)" To: "Rahul Cherian" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] TM ACT 99 > What does this imply to everyone in general? FN > > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Rahul Cherian wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > The Trademarks Act, 1999 has finally come into force today. > > > > > > > > ciao > > > > > > Rahul Cherian Partner > > > > Kurian And Kurian 4D, Greams Court, # 162, Greams Lane, Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. Mobile: > > 98403 57991 > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________________________ > > Interact with peers. Learn from experts. Be tech-empowered! > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Frederick Noronha (FN) | http://www.fredericknoronha.net > Freelance Journalist | http://www.bytesforall.org > http://goalinks.pitas.com | http://joingoanet.shorturl.com > http://linuxinindia.pitas.com | http://www.livejournal.com/users/goalinks > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > T: 0091.832.2409490 or 2409783 M: 0 9822 122436 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at mail.sarai.net > http://mail.sarai.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Indian TM and GI acts in force_15 sept.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 143071 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030916/e54cbac3/attachment.pdf From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 17 01:41:54 2003 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-Law] Version recording decision Message-ID: <20030916201154.33359.qmail@web13606.mail.yahoo.com> Hi everyone shwetasree has offered to synopsize the deicsion for us which would be very usful till we get the full text. Welcome on to the list Lawrence Hey! saw your posting on the mukul mudgal decision. we were for the Plaintiffs in the bathla cassettes decision so i do have a copy but its too long to key it into commonslaw for you. can synopsise it for you sign me in. would love to be a part can maybe i can keep you guys updated on new decisions like this. shwetasree __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From asimov at vsnl.com Wed Sep 17 03:17:28 2003 From: asimov at vsnl.com (Badri Natarajan) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:17:28 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Version recording decision In-Reply-To: <20030916201154.33359.qmail@web13606.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030917025757.009edea0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> Speaking of version recording, I just read something in Businessworld, which says that the Indian recording industry has been successful in its campaign to delete S.52(1)(j) of the Copyright Act, and remove the provision that allows version recording through compulsory licensing *entirely*. The amendment is likely to be passed in the upcoming winter session of Parliament. Talk about using a hammer to crush a nut. The argument is (of course) "piracy" - apparently T-Series and others pay a minuscule advance and then don't actually pay the statutory royalty on the number of units actually sold. So the music industry's solution is to DELETE the enabling provision instead of trying to enforce the (perfectly adequate) law as it stands. Bye bye to cover versions, remixes and the like. Of course, theoretically you can get explicit permission from the copyright holder, but (as seen in the case of film in the US) that presents immense practical difficulties. I know the Indian "fair dealing" exception is rather different from the US conception of "fair use" - would some kind of parody or satirical take off on a musical work fall under it, like it (probably) would in the US? One of the most frustrating things is that it is really hard to counter the music industry's hard-hitting, simple message of "piracy", (not to mention their money!) by talking about the importance of a vibrant public domain. People's eyes just glaze over.. Anyway, the Businessworld article is at: http://www.businessworldindia.com/sep2203/news13.asp Badri At 01:11 PM 9/16/2003 -0700, you wrote: >Hi everyone > >shwetasree has offered to synopsize the deicsion for >us which would be very usful till we get the full >text. Welcome on to the list > >Lawrence > >Hey! > >saw your posting on the mukul mudgal decision. we were >for the Plaintiffs in the bathla cassettes decision so >i do have a copy but its too long to key it into >commonslaw for you. can synopsise it for you sign me >in. would >love to be a part can maybe i can keep you guys >updated on new decisions like this. >shwetasree > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >commons-law mailing list >commons-law at mail.sarai.net >http://mail.sarai.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commons-law From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 17 11:26:24 2003 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 22:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-Law] On version recording Message-ID: <20030917055624.30067.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all Just to follow up on badri�s post. First, on the issue of whether or not fair dealing in India would include parody as in a Campbell v. Accuff Rose. There is no direct case on the point although in Civic Chandran v. Aminni Amia, the high court of Kerala recognized �counter drama �( i. E a play that is based substantially on a earlier play with the same characters etc but with a different context) as criticism under sec. 51 of the act. My sense however is that when is speaking of version recording in India, it is more useful to move away from the authorial argument to look at the role that the cover version� played in the history of the music industry and the formation of a whole new class of music consuming public, and the manner in which it destroyed the monopoly of GCI-HMV, a monopoly that it had from the 20�s to the mid eighties. Any simplistic account of illegality and piracy will have to counter this history. T series while admitted the copy masters have had a critical role to play in the formation of this democratized new media that we talk about ( even if they are one of the most aggressive enforcers of copyright I India at the moment). In that sense given the kind of history that the �er version'enters intoi, it is not so much about glorifying modes of resistance through appropriation etc in campbell but would actually fall closer to the kind of reasoniung that we saw in sega v. Accolade on fair use. I am currently wokinr gon a small paper which attempts to draw this history and will send it across the moment it is ready. In the meanwhile there is a marvelous book Called Cassette Culture by Peter Manuel which is a must read to understand this period of transition in the eighties and the phenomenon of piracy Lawrence __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com From jeebesh at sarai.net Wed Sep 17 11:25:08 2003 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:25:08 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: source texts/copyright history Message-ID: <200309171125.08734.jeebesh@sarai.net> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: source texts/copyright history Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:07:21 +0200 From: Karl-Erik Tallmo To: nettime-l at bbs.thing.net Hello, I have uploaded a few source texts from the history of copyright: Donaldson v. Beckett, from 1774 and the Fichte text "Beweis der Unrechtmäßigkeit des Büchernachdrucks" from 1793. Donaldson v. Beckett was the trial which finally ended the so called Battle of Booksellers, that had been going on since the passing of the statute of Anne in 1710. In several trials during more than 60 years both the book industry and the judges had been fighting over the question whether the Statute of Anne really abolished a common law perpetual copyright or not. See http://www.copyrighthistory.com/donaldson.html In the text "Beweis der Unrechtmäßigkeit des Büchernachdrucks" Fichte was among the first - if not the very first - to clearly distinguish between form and content, thus elevating form to a kind of personal property worth protecting. See http://www.copyrighthistory.com/fichte.html (in German with English comments and excerpts.) (The first copyright law in the world is also available at the site, the Statute of Anne from 1710, se http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html) Karl-Erik Tallmo -- _________________________________________________________________ KARL-ERIK TALLMO, writer, editor ARCHIVE: http://www.nisus.se/archive/artiklar.html BOOK: http://www.nisus.se/gorgias ANOTHER BOOK: http://www.copyrighthistory.com MAGAZINE: http://art-bin.com _________________________________________________________________ # 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 jeebesh at sarai.net Wed Sep 17 11:26:29 2003 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:26:29 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: opencontent.org dissolves and stalls its licenses Message-ID: <200309171126.29196.jeebesh@sarai.net> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: opencontent.org dissolves and stalls its licenses Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:06:12 +0200 From: Florian Cramer To: Nettime As can be read on Slashdot and opencontent.org itself, www.opencontent.org, the site which in 1998 coined the concept of "Open Content" is about to dissolve. Its two popular licenses, the Open Content License and, even more importantly, the Open Publication License (used among others by O'Reilly and Prentice Hall publishers) will no longer be maintained and supported. Instead, opencontent.org creator David Wiley will join the "Creative Commons" project as a "Director of Educational Licenses" and therefore advocate to use the Creative Commons license toolkit instead of the original opencontent.org licenses. Below is a copy of my Slashdot posting on the matter. -F As a lecturer in the humanities and net activist who has been evangelizing open content internationally in lectures, papers and as the moderator of congress panels since 1999, I feel like being slapped into my face. It is terrible if you educate people about open content and the necessity of copylefting public information resources, pointing them again and again to opencontent.org and their licenses, and now see that reference dissolve. Especially, it is not funny to see the Open Publication License go away. It had a considerable momentum among book publishers - being used, among others, by O'Reilly and the Bruce Perens book series of Prentice Hall. I put all my own papers under the OPL, encouraged other people to do so as well, and now feel severly f*cked and betrayed by this move. The instability and unreliability now associated with open content copylefts could severely damage the whole movement. As someone who managed to convince a large German public library to release its online content under the Open Publication License, I am pissed and awaiting to take the beating for opencontent.org's irresponsibility. The Creative Commons licenses, in my view, are not an alternative because they are too many and incompatible to each other, thus creating confusion and preventing exchange between work copylefted under their terms. What's still worse is that most Creative Commons licenses are not free in the sense of the Free Software definition of the FSF, the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source Definition. I urge the initiator of opencontent.org to keep the website alive, if only as a central link repository to other sites, and provide a smooth and sensible upgrade path from the Open Content License and the Open Publication License to particular Creative Common Licenses, for example by crafting a license which would simultaneously be "Open Publication License v2.0" and "Creative Commons License foo". Given the amount of work that already circulates under either the Open Content License or the Open Publication License, anything else would be utterly irresponsible. Imagine the FSF suddenly abandoning/stalling the GPL in favor of some yet-unwritten different license, leaving ten thousands of Free Software developers in the legal lurch and betraying their trust. What is an unlikely horror scenario for free software now has become the reality of open content. Bravo, opencontent.org, Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPA, SCO and all other old copyright regimes now have another reason to cheer and point at copyleft culture as immature, unreliable, not viable for serious publishing, etc.. Please wake up and realize that you have taken up a responsibility which you cannot throw away so easily! -- http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~cantsin/homepage/ http://www.complit.fu-berlin.de/institut/lehrpersonal/cramer.html GnuPG/PGP public key ID 3200C7BA, finger cantsin at mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de # 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 jeebesh at sarai.net Wed Sep 17 11:34:54 2003 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:34:54 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: dissolving opencontent digest [mcccormick, recktenwald] Message-ID: <200309171134.54697.jeebesh@sarai.net> A Question to lawyer friends. When a website dissolves and the license is not maintained, what happens to works covered under those licenses?. I am completely lost with this kind of situation... the posting below poses some interesting questions about historical and social echos/ resonances of words/ concepts....happy reading jeebesh ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:31:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim McCormick Subject: Re: opencontent.org dissolves and stalls its licenses I agree with Florian's concern: this announcement of the "closing of Opencontent" seems to signal that a concept has been disproved or given up on, and might tend to undermine the work people have done in association with the term and with the OPL license. While there are no doubt good reasons for joining efforts with the well-organized and -funded Creative Commons, I think that the practical side shouldn't be confused with the conceptual project of settling on and evangelizing the *terms*, whether Open Content, Copyleft, or whatever. On the conceptual front, I believe that with Open Content, we're in about the same place that Open Source was ten years ago: there are competing terms floating around, few people have even heard of it, many who do hear of it dismiss the basic principle out of hand (copyleft facilitating the creation of content other than code), and the terminological confusion hampers the wider dissemination of and examination of the idea. > The Creative Commons licenses, in my view, are not > an alternative because they are too many and > incompatible to each other, thus creating confusion > and preventing exchange between work copylefted > under its terms. right, aside from the practical issue of interchange, the variety of licenses means that you absolutely need an overarching term, by which people can discuss the concept -- just as people now say "open source" in most contexts, where the distinctions between GPL and BSD and Apache licenses would be unimportant. So, what are the contenders -- analogous to "Free Software" and "Open Source" -- in this battle for terminology? There's the "commons" idea, being promoted of course by Creative Commons, and also in the work of Public Knowledge/David Bollier and James Boyle, among others. On the pro side, it's an appealing moral concept, and suggests strong helpful metaphors (the village commons) and historical traditions (the Anti-Enclosure movement, for example), and it brings together a lot of different constituencies. However, it's not very precise -- it could be understood to mean simply Public Domain, doesn't make the probably useful distinction between code and non-code, and also covers a broad array of other issues such as oil drilling on public land. Also, the historical/ideological baggage can be a disadvantage in many situations, just as "Free software" was deemed to be unsuitable for use around some portion of the Capitalists. "Free Culture" is rather vague, and perhaps a bit revolutionary -- see Capitalist objection above. There's "copyleft": excellently clever inversion of "copyright", but certainly not widely known, and applies neutrally to code or non-code. "Open Content": nice piggy-backing upon the now well-propagated term Open Source, and it focuses attention on matters other than software code. Minus points for possible odiousness of how term "content" gets used in new-media settings. In my opinion, however, it's probably the best suggestion so far, because it's somewhat but not explicitly suggestive of the moral issues, and can be given a precise, process-oriented definition, analogous to Open Source. My $0.02, Tim ----- Tim McCormick http://www.tjm.org On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Florian Cramer wrote: > As can be read on Slashdot > and <...> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:56:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Heiko Recktenwald Subject: Re: opencontent.org dissolves and stalls its licenses Maybe the opencontent license is copyrighted? It is a label anyway. On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Francis Hwang wrote: > Florian, is there anything to prevent you or somebody else from taking > up the OPL and maintaining it without David Wiley's involvement? So If it was ever good, it is also good without opencontent.org, H. - From jeebesh at sarai.net Wed Sep 17 11:43:49 2003 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:43:49 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: dossier: WIPO knuckles under on open-source software Message-ID: <200309171143.49263.jeebesh@sarai.net> Interesting stuff on WIPO's fear of open source...best j today is my nettime reading day....and thus excessive sharing !!(..) ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: dossier: WIPO knuckles under on open-source software Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 03:10:06 -0400 From: t byfield To: Nettime as always, jamie love's been flushing out the scoundrels -- this time at WIPO, which first agreed to a meeting on open, collaborative tools then knuckled under to IPR psychotics intent on suppressing anything and everything 'open,' in particular open-source software. here's a dossier of his recent work on WIPO, culled from cptech's 'random bits' list. luckily, science journos are picking up the story. cheers, t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1) wash post's jonathan krim: the quiet war over open-source (at WIPO) (2) lessig on WIPO (3) MS et al lobby WIPO (4) WIPO uses open source (5) OSAIA letter on WIPO to boland (6)_nature_ on WIPO fiasco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1) wash post's jonathan krim: the quiet war over open-source (at WIPO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - < http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2003-August/001094.html > WP's Jonathan Krim: The Quiet War Over Open-Source (at WIPO) James Love [4]james.love at cptech.org Thu Aug 21 10:16:04 2003 Traveling, and didn't see this yesterday. It has some interesting quotes from the very quotable Lois Boland. Jamie [11]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html washingtonpost.com The Quiet War Over Open-Source By Jonathan Krim Thursday, August 21, 2003; Page E01 Every day now, it seems, we do battle with technology. If it isn't spam, it's worms. If it isn't the worms, it's viruses, or hacking, or identity theft. Sometimes, it's the gadgets and software we buy that are still too hard to use. But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of intellectual property. Consumers are getting a taste of this right now, as the major record companies sue hundreds of people for stealing their works by using file-sharing programs. On another front, "open-source" software, which relies on collaboration and sharing of computer code rather than traditional for-profit development and distribution of programs, is capturing the attention of cash-strapped governments and businesses as a less-expensive alternative to commercial products. Open-source software has been embraced by some companies that are building businesses around it. But it is the bane of others, including the industry's most powerful player, Microsoft Corp. The world's largest software maker is lobbying furiously in state, national and international capitals against laws that would promote the consideration or use of open-source software. So alarmed agents of Microsoft sprang into high gear in June after a surprising quote appeared in Nature magazine from an official of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The official said that the Switzerland-based group of about 180 nations, which promotes intellectual-property rights and standards around the globe, was intrigued by the growth of the open-source movement and welcomed the idea of a meeting devoted to open-source's place in the intellectual-property landscape. The proposal for the meeting had come in a letter from nearly 60 technologists, economists and academics from around the world, and was organized by James Love, who runs the Ralph Nader-affiliated Consumer Project on Technology. Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems. In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth. Simon insists that his group does not oppose open-source software, or discussion of the issue, but fights to defend the notion that a strong system of proprietary rights offers the best avenue for the development of groundbreaking software by giving its inventors economic incentive to do so. And he said that the BSA's governing board, composed of several companies in addition to Microsoft, unanimously opposed the letter and the meeting. The U.S. government, which wields considerable clout in WIPO, might not have needed prodding from Microsoft to demand that the idea of an open-source meeting be quashed. Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights. "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said. She added that the WIPO official who embraced the meeting had done so without proper consultation with the member states, and that WIPO's budget already is strained and cannot accommodate another meeting next year. Boland said that if groups such as Love's want an international forum for discussion of open-source, they need to find another organization to host it. The WIPO official, Francis Gurry, did not return numerous calls for comment, but the organization has said it no longer has plans for an open-source gathering. The meeting dust-up is further inflaming an argument that has the fervor of religious debate. Open-source proponents note that its software is here to stay, gaining adoption within the federal government and elsewhere. And they argue that many open-source models rely on property rights through licenses, but apply them in less traditional ways. More broadly, though, they envision a world in which the Internet is the connective tissue that creates a public commons, a place where art and technology should be shared as well as bought and sold. Why, they ask, should that not be debated with vigor? But open-source is not just a political challenge. It strikes a starkly different, and sometimes opposite, pose from that of traditional capitalist systems. And that prospect quickly draws the lobbyists, even if the public isn't tuned in. Jonathan Krim's e-mail address is [12]krimj at washpost.com. -- James Love [13]http://www.cptech.org mailto:[14]james.love at cptech.org mobile +1.202.361.3040 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (2) lessig on WIPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - < http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2003-August/001095.html > [Random-bits] Lessig on USG and WIPO Open Source mtg James Love [4]james.love at cptech.org Fri Aug 22 11:16:01 2003 ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [IP] Lessig on USG and WIPO Open Source mtg From: "Dave Farber" <[11]dave at farber.net> Date: Fri, August 22, 2003 10:13 am To: [12]ip at v2.listbox.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:06:05 -0400 From: "Mike O'Dell" <[13]mo at ccr.org> >Subject: lessig on USG and WIPO Open Source mtg >To: [14]dave at farber.net > > >[15]http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml the extremists in power I don't even know how to begin this story, so stupid and extreme it is. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was convinced by Jamie Love and others to hold a meeting about "open collaborative models to develop public goods." One of those models is, of course, open source and free software. Lobbyists for Microsoft and others apparently (according to <[16]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html>this extraordinary story by Jonathan Krim) started lobbying the US government to get the meeting cancelled. No surprise there. Open source and free software is a competitor to MSFT's products. Lobbying is increasingly the way competition is waged in America. But the astonishing part is the justification for the US opposing the meeting. According to the Post, Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." As she is quoted as saying, "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO." If Lois Bola said this, then she should be asked to resign. The level of ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment. First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't have its effect) without it. Second, the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should be to promote the right balance of intellectual-property rights, not simply to promote intellectual property rights. And finally, if an intellectual property right holder wants to "disclaim" or "waive" her rights, what business is it of WIPOs? Why should WIPO oppose a copyright or patent rights holder's choice to do with his or her rights what he or she wants? These points are basic. They should be fundamental. That someone who doesn't understand them is at a high level of this government just shows how extreme IP policy in America has become. Archives at: [17]http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ -- James Love [18]http://www.cptech.org mailto:[19]james.love at cptech.org mobile +1.202.361.3040 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3) MS et al lobby WIPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: James Love Subject: [Random-bits] A few details of Microsoft's lobbying against WIPO event Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:44:35 -0400 >From the TechDaily article, it appears as though WIPO had received a number of calls in opposition to the meeting on open collaborative efforts to create public goods. Microsoft has been I believe the main private sector actor in this (even though the request for the meeting was quite broader than free/open software). One group active in opposing the WIPO event was BSA, a group often run as if it is a subsidiary of Microsoft. BSA's Emory Simon was making calls and taking meetings with senior US government officials to oppose the meeting.. Jeri Clausing, a former NYT reporter now working for BSA was calling reporters to tell them that WIPO had cancelled the meeting, and Jeri also told at least one reporter she had correspondence that WIPO had sent to me, which I found somewhat surprising. (In this case, just a letter that seemed like a standard acknowledgement of the request, that Jeri claimed was something more). According to Jeri (whom I called), Mario Correa from BSA was also working to block the WIPO meeting. Mario is the head of "software policy" for BSA. Mario has been active in opposing government proposals to require open source software procruement (see below). Another Micosoft agent who appears to have been instrumental in raising the spector of that open/free software was a violation of the GATT was long time Micorosoft defender Jonathan Zuck. Zuck's group ACT (web page doesn't work well with Mozilla, so use MS's EI) features an article by former USPTO and WIPO offical and recent big pharma lobbyist Dick Wilder about the "lessons the Open Source community can learn from the SCO/IBM lawsuit." Act has opposed goverment rules to favor open source software development and also claims such rules are a GATT violation. jamie http://global.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases/2003-06-12.1653.phtml BSA Testimony on Federal Policy and Open Source Software before the Center for Strategic and International Studies Prepared Remarks of Mario Correa Director of Software Policy Business Software Alliance (BSA) Before the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Federal Policy and Open Source Software June 12, 2003 Random-bits mailing list Random-bits at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (4) WIPO uses open source - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: "James Love" Subject: [Random-bits] WIPO goes open source (for it's own software) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:20:18 -0400 (EDT) STANDING COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS WORKING GROUP Second Session Geneva, February 3 to 7, 2003 REPORT Adopted by the Working Group INTRODUCTION 1. The Information Technology Projects Working Group (ITPWG) of the Standing Committee on Information Technologies (SCIT) held its second session from February 3 to 5, 2003. 2. The following Member States of WIPO were represented at the session: Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America and Zambia (38). 3. Representatives of League of Arab States (LAS), the Benelux Trademark Office (BBM), the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Patent Documentation Group (PDG) and the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (6) took part in the session. 4. The list of participants appears as Annex I to this report. 57. The Secretariat also reminded delegates that the software will be made available free to Member States and applicants; the editor and the Client will be available free of charge and downloadable via the PCT-SAFE website; the receiving server software will be made available to any Receiving Office under the PCT who requests it; and a low level certificate will be obtainable via a WIPO website and it is planned via WIPONET. In addition, the Secretariat also expressed interest to participate in some form of open source, and was already working with the EPO towards such an arrangement. With regard to an enterprise version of PCT-SAFE, contact had been made with patent management software vendors to see if they were interested in deploying PCT-SAFE software into their own environments and thereby providing a more multi-user, integrated solution to the niche of the market where their customers are placed. 60. The Delegation of the EPO took the floor to comment upon the strength of cooperation and harmonisation with WIPO. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was under preparation to cover the server software whereby the EPO will take over the PCT client or plug-in once it is operational and it will be maintained by PCT-SAFE. In respect of open source, the EPO had decided to go open source for its full epoline software with respect to electronic-filing. Finally, the EPO reminded the Secretariat of the need to include all electronic filing systems in its promotion of the functionality of online filing under the PCT. 61. In response to a question from the Delegation of the United Kingdom about the future developments of the online filing system and their inclusion within the MOU between WIPO and the EPO, the Secretariat was pleased to report that the move, by the EPO to open source, would mean that future cooperation would be assured and would take place in a more rich development environment. 73. In introducing document SCIT/ITPWG/2/5, the Secretariat reminded delegates that although the process of IPC Reform was likely to continue for some time, the CLAIMS Project was scheduled for completion by the end of 2003. The IPC classification system currently comprised some 70,000 entries and under the reformed system would include a small core layer with 20,000 stable entries coupled with an advanced layer modeled on the US Classification which is continuously updated. The goal of the reform effort was to establish a Master Classification Database searchable by the advanced layer. The CLAIMS Project itself comprised four tracks; automatic categorization, translation or linguistic support, development of IPC tutor areas and IPC support conforming to the ad hoc needs of the IPC reform community. Problems had been experienced with the translation systems but these had been expected and some success was recorded. With regard to the IPC tutorials track, open source software had been used for development and had proved cost effective. The system had been developed by the end of 2002 and is currently being loaded with data. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love at cptech.org mobile +1.202.361.3040 _______________________________________________ Random-bits mailing list Random-bits at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (5) OSAIA letter on WIPO to boland - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: James Love Subject: [Random-bits] OSAIA letter to Lois Boland, et al. on WIPO and Open Source Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:45:30 -0400 http://osaia.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7 http://www.osaia.org/documents/pto_letter_032108.pdf Open Source & Industry Alliance _www.osaia.org_ contact: Ed Black 202.783.0070 x 110 (Office) 202.297.2242 (Mobile) Will Rodger 202.783.0070 x 105 (Office) 202.486.6774 (Mobile) NEWS RELEASE August 22, 2003 For Immediate Release OSAIA to Administration: Open Source IS Protected by Copyright The Open Source And Industry Alliance (OSAIA) today deplored recent comments of a US Patent and Trademark Office official who claimed that copyright law does not protect the rights of open source developers. Since open source software licenses rely largely on copyright for their enforceability, copyright protection is vitally important to protect open source developers from illegal use and reproduction. In a letter sent to Lois Boland, acting director of the USPTO Office of International Relations, OSAIA invited the PTO to begin a dialogue with the open source community in order to correct misperceptions concerning open source software, which can be used, copied, modified and distributed without additional charge so long as additional terms of the license are fulfilled. "The assertion that open source software is not covered by copyright is patently absurd," OSAIA Founder Ed Black said. "There is no basis for this claim anywhere in law or industry practice. We're simply flabbergasted to hear such statements from government officials who are supposed to support the rights and obligations of those who use and produce intellectual property. Because we assume that this position by PTO lacks Administration sanction, we believe clarification is necessary." Text of the letter follows. ---------------------------------------------- August 22, 2003 Ms. Lois Boland Acting Director Office of International Relations United States Patent & Trademark Office 2121 Crystal Drive Crystal Park 2 Suite 902 Arlington, VA 22202 Dear Ms. Boland: We are writing to express our concern about some statements that have been attributed to you concerning the copyrightability of open source software. These statements were allegedly made in reply to questions concerning the cancellation of the proposed World Intellectual Property Organization public meeting on openly developed technologies, including open source software. According to an August 19, 2003 article in National Journal's Technology Daily, you said that open-source software is not protected under copyright law, but only under contract law. Additionally, you reportedly said that "[t]o have a meeting whose primary objective is to waive or remove [intellectual property] protections seems to go against the mission" of the WIPO. We sincerely hope this article misquoted you, because these statements reflect a profound misunderstanding of open source licenses and the copyright law. Computer programs have protection under the Copyright Act the instant they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression -- that is, the instant they are written. Open source licenses such as the General Public License or the Berkeley Software Distribution license are copyright licenses. They typically affirm that the copyright in the software belongs to the licensor, the software's author. The licensor grant the licensee the right to reproduce and distribute the work, or to create derivative works, so long as the licensee fulfills certain conditions, such as publishing the source code of derivative works, and making derivative works available to others on royalty free terms. Thus, the GPL and the BSD are not "waivers" of intellectual property rights, but assertions of them. Instead of receiving a royalty fee for the license, the open source licensor is receiving something that might be of even greater value -- access to the licensee's creative output. Significantly, the licensee's subsequent creative output benefits not only the licensor, but also the entire community of open source developers and users. In turn, the creative outputs of these other open source developers benefit the original licensor and licensee, as well as the open source community as a whole. Open sources licenses, therefore, represent a new means of generating significant value from copyrights in computer programs. They do so in a way that unquestionably promotes the progress of science and the useful arts -- the Constitutional objective of our intellectual property system. Because open source licenses are based on copyright law and further its objectives in an innovative way, we feel that study of open source licenses is squarely within the mission of WIPO. WIPO is an excellent forum for examining whether the open source model can apply to other forms of IP dependent technology, such as pharmaceuticals. The open source approach may not be appropriate for all developers, users, and software products. But open source licenses have existed since the 1970s, and have led to significant technological innovations that have benefited millions of government, corporate and individual users around the world. Moreover, many successful information technology businesses have been built upon or are now involved with the development and distribution of open source products and services. Companies so involved include Intel, Dell, Apple, Oracle, IBM, Sun, Novell, Red Hat, SuSE and thousands more. Of all the companies who have written software under the GPL as well as non-GPL software to run in conjunction with such programs, none, to our knowledge, has ever suggested that their rights were not protected by copyright. Precisely because of the market's rapid acceptance of open source software, a handful of companies threatened by the emergence of the open source business model have been disseminating misinformation concerning open source software and licenses. We would be pleased to meet with you at your earliest convenience to clear up any misconceptions you may have. Sincerely, Ed Black Founder Open Source And Industry Alliance President & CEO Computer & Communications Industry Association cc: Undersecretary, Intellectual Property & Director Patent & Trademark Office James Rogan Undersecretary, Technology Philip Bond Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member Senate Committee on the Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., House Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Thomas M. Davis III, House Committee on Government Reform Chairman Representative Lamar S. Smith, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Representative John Conyers Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary Representative Howard L. Berman, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property ### /OSAIA is a project of CCIA. CCIA is an international, nonprofit association of computer and communications industry firms, representing a broad cross-section of the industry. CCIA is dedicated to preserving full, free and open competition throughout its industry. Our members employ over a half million workers and generate annual revenues in excess of $300 billion./ 666 11th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 _______________________________________________ Random-bits mailing list Random-bits at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (6)_nature_ on WIPO fiasco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: James Love Subject: [Random-bits] Nature: Lobbying by US business interests has shot down proposed WIPO meeting to explore "open" models of innovation Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:11:36 -0400 Few items on the WIPO meeting dispute, including at the end, today's article in Nature. Here is the link to the Slashdot article: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/08/22/2014231.shtml?tid=103&tid=117&tid=99 Lessig's blog now has a lot of comments on this http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml Paul Kedrosky's slagging me in the Canadian press: http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=238F46ED-4396-4CE9-AB 21-4E05167D31D1 Text of Nature article. NATURE|VOL 424 |28AUGUST 2003 |www.nature.com/ news Declan Butler Lobbying by US business interests has shot down a proposed meeting, to be held by the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) next year, to explore 'open' models of innovation. A group of leading scientists and economists suggested the meeting in a 7 July letter to Kamil Idris, director-general of WIPO. They highlighted the explosion of various open and collaborative projects to create public goods, such as the Human Genome Project and opensource software, and said it was time for WIPO to include the approach in its deliberations. Francis Gurry, assistant director-general and legal counsel at WIPO, told Nature at the time that the agency welcomed the idea as "a very important and interesting development". He added that "the director-general looks forward with enthusiasm to taking up the invitation to organize a conference to explore the scope and application of these models"(see Nature 424, 118; 2003). But Gurry's words seem to have triggered a backlash from firms that would rather see WIPO working to protect their intellectual property rights. Gurry says WIPO has since been inundated with calls from trade and consumer groups and government representatives. It is understood that lobbyists such as the Business Software Alliance, which is partly funded by Microsoft, also pressed the US state department and the US Patent and Trademark Office to have the meeting called off. US government officials have since spoken out against the idea. "The request for an open discussion on a range of projects became transformed into a domestically, as opposed to internationally, polarized debate about just one 'project':opensource software," says Gurry. As a result, he says, the meeting is now unlikely to take place. "The possibility of conducting a policy discussion on intellectual property of the sort appropriate for an international organization became increasingly remote,"he claims. In the United States, the European Union and elsewhere, governments are considering measures to encourage the public procurement of open-source software, such as the Linux operating system. This is being vigorously opposed by some software companies and by the Business Software Alliance. Economist Paul David of Stanford University in California,who signed the letter,says he is "appalled"that the meeting should be "scuttled because of the mere presence of opensource software in a list of many other forms of collaborative knowledge production". But Lois Boland, director of international relations for the US Patent and Trademark Business backlash kills off software meeting Office, says that open-source software is contrary to WIPO's mission to promote intellectual property rights."To hold a meeting to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals ofWIPO,"she says. The Washington-based Computer and Communications Industry Association, which represents small companies that support open-source software, has attacked WIPO's decision not to hold the meeting. Edward Black, president of the group, says that the association has written to Boland to complain about her comments. Tim Hubbard,a genomicist at the Sanger Institute near Cambridge, UK, and a signatory to the letter, says he is still hopeful that the meeting may happen."It's not the role of industries regulated by such regimes to inhibit discussion,"he argues. Empty seats: lobbying means the Linux penguin will not witness a discussion of intellectual property. _______________________________________________ Random-bits mailing list Random-bits at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # 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 sudhir75 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 17 13:34:55 2003 From: sudhir75 at hotmail.com (Sudhir Krishnaswamy) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:34:55 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] inimitable richard stallman Message-ID: the text of a two minute speech at WSIS - where libertarian ethics meets development!! do notice the copyright notice at the end of the mail best sudhir Speech by Richard Stallman at WSIS 16 July 2003 The benefit of computers is that it's easier to copy and manipulate information. Corporations are using two kinds of imposed monopolies to deny you this benefit. Software patents restrict how you use your computer. They restrict developing software. A big program combines dozens or hundreds of ideas. When each idea can be patented, only IBMs and Microsofts can safely write software. Bye bye to any independent local software industry. Software patents must be rejected. Copyrights restrict using and sharing information--exactly what your computer is for. It was fine to trade away the freedom to copy when only publishers could copy; the public lost nothing. Today peer-to-peer sharing must be legal. WSIS should not teach people that sharing is wrong. Copyrights block access to scientific publications. Every university should be free to make an open-access mirror for any journal, so no one is excluded from access. Then there's the economic effect. When companies have power over you, they bleed you dry. Copyrights and software patents increase the digital divide and concentrate wealth. We have too much scarcity in the world; let's not create more. TRIPS is bad enough, but software patents and the WIPO copyright treaty go beyond TRIPS, and WSIS should reject them. Computer users need software that respects their freedom. We call it "free (libre) software", meaning freedom, not gratis. You have the freedom to run it, study it, change it, and redistribute it. Free software means you control your computing. With non-free software, the software owners control it. They put in spy features, back doors, restrictions. With free software, you can make the program do what you want. "You" could mean an individual programmer, a company, or a group of users with similar needs. Non-programmers can convince or pay programmers to make changes for you. With free software, you're free to make it handle your language. Free to adapt it for your disability. Software owners deliberately make programs incompatible. With free software, users can make it follow standards. You need free software to train master programmers. Non-free software is a secret, so nobody can learn from it. Free software gives talented young people in Africa the chance to learn how to work on real software. School should also teach students the spirit of cooperation. All schools should use free software. Free software is necessary for sustainable development. If everyone in your country uses a program that's secret and controlled by a single company, that's not development, that's electronic colonization. Copyright 2003 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire text are permitted without royalties in any medium provided this notice is preserved. ------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030917/6dbed0ab/attachment.html From paivakil at yahoo.co.in Wed Sep 17 23:32:09 2003 From: paivakil at yahoo.co.in (Mahesh T. Pai) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 23:32:09 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: dissolving opencontent digest [mcccormick, recktenwald] In-Reply-To: <200309171134.54697.jeebesh@sarai.net> References: <200309171134.54697.jeebesh@sarai.net> Message-ID: <20030917180209.GA1911@nandini> Jeebesh Bagchi said on Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 11:34:54AM +0530,: > > A Question to lawyer friends. When a website dissolves and the license is not > maintained, what happens to works covered under those licenses?. I am > completely lost with this kind of situation... Ok. This is year 2003. I drafted a contract for my client, X. He uses The text to enter into agreements with A, B, C, D, E ... (an so on.) In 2005, I die. (to make it a bit clearer, X and the parties with whom he entered into contract survive). What happens to the agreement? ;) The mail is more concerned with the institution, which suddenly vanished, and the 'public image' aspects of such vanishing act. -- +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ From sunil at mahiti.org Fri Sep 19 18:02:55 2003 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: 19 Sep 2003 18:02:55 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] British Court Issues Bizarre Copyright Ruling Message-ID: <1063974774.3039.96.camel@mahitilaptop.mahiti> http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/17/1548221.shtml?tid=123&tid=185&tid=99 British Court Issues Bizarre Copyright Ruling Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday September 17, @03:01PM from the thought-we-settled-this-already dept. dipfan writes "In a re-run of the Lotus v Borland case that went to the US Supreme Court, the High Court in London has allowed a copyright infringement battle between two rival airline booking programs to go to trial, despite agreement by all sides that the two programs are written in different code. The airline Easyjet is being sued by software house Navitaire, creators of an online booking system called Openres, over Easyjet's booking system named eRes, developed by Bulletproof Technologies of California. Openres was written in Cobol, while eRes was written in Visual Basic, and the programs are also different in structure. But, according to the FT article: 'Parallels had been drawn between appropriating the "functional structure" of a computer system and commandeering the plot of a book, the judge noted.' If Navitaire wins, then any program that works like another program - even if written in different code - could be vulnerable. What happened to the principle that you can't copyright an idea? Bulletproof is counter-suing Navitaire in the district of Utah. -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw From asimov at vsnl.com Sun Sep 21 19:52:50 2003 From: asimov at vsnl.com (Badri Natarajan) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 19:52:50 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: dissolving opencontent digest [mcccormick, recktenwald] In-Reply-To: <200309171134.54697.jeebesh@sarai.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030921194257.00a7d7a0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> Jeebesh, It looks to me like nothing would happen to the licences. The website dissolving simply means that the licence won't be publicized any more..it does NOT mean that the licence becomes invalid. Software licences operate as a contract between the person who has issued his software under the licence and the person who uses the software subject to that licence. (The fact of opening the software box/using the software usually signifies acceptance of the terms of the contract/licence) The fact that the people who originally wrote the licence (opencontent.org in this case) do not exist any more will not affect the existing contractual relationships in the works already released under the licence. In fact, there is nothing preventing people releasing new works under this licence, in terms of contract law, although it may be a bad business idea to licence your software under an obscure, unsupported and unknown licence. Badri At 11:34 AM 9/17/2003 +0530, you wrote: >A Question to lawyer friends. When a website dissolves and the license is not >maintained, what happens to works covered under those licenses?. I am >completely lost with this kind of situation... > >the posting below poses some interesting questions about historical and >social >echos/ resonances of words/ concepts....happy reading jeebesh > >---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > >Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 17:31:37 -0400 (EDT) >From: Tim McCormick >Subject: Re: opencontent.org dissolves and stalls its licenses > >I agree with Florian's concern: this announcement of the "closing of >Opencontent" seems to signal that a concept has been disproved or given up >on, and might tend to undermine the work people have done in association >with the term and with the OPL license. > >While there are no doubt good reasons for joining efforts with the >well-organized and -funded Creative Commons, I think that the practical >side shouldn't be confused with the conceptual project of settling on and >evangelizing the *terms*, whether Open Content, Copyleft, or whatever. > >On the conceptual front, I believe that with Open Content, we're in about >the same place that Open Source was ten years ago: there are competing >terms floating around, few people have even heard of it, many who do hear >of it dismiss the basic principle out of hand (copyleft facilitating the >creation of content other than code), and the terminological confusion >hampers the wider dissemination of and examination of the idea. > > > The Creative Commons licenses, in my view, are not > > an alternative because they are too many and > > incompatible to each other, thus creating confusion > > and preventing exchange between work copylefted > > under its terms. > >right, aside from the practical issue of interchange, the variety of >licenses means that you absolutely need an overarching term, by which >people can discuss the concept -- just as people now say "open source" in >most contexts, where the distinctions between GPL and BSD and Apache >licenses would be unimportant. > >So, what are the contenders -- analogous to "Free Software" and "Open >Source" -- in this battle for terminology? > >There's the "commons" idea, being promoted of course by Creative Commons, >and also in the work of Public Knowledge/David Bollier and James Boyle, >among others. On the pro side, it's an appealing moral concept, and >suggests strong helpful metaphors (the village commons) and historical >traditions (the Anti-Enclosure movement, for example), and it brings >together a lot of different constituencies. However, it's not very precise >-- it could be understood to mean simply Public Domain, doesn't make the >probably useful distinction between code and non-code, and also >covers a broad array of other issues such as oil drilling on public land. >Also, the historical/ideological baggage can be a disadvantage in many >situations, just as "Free software" was deemed to be unsuitable for use >around some portion of the Capitalists. > >"Free Culture" is rather vague, and perhaps a bit revolutionary -- see >Capitalist objection above. > >There's "copyleft": excellently clever inversion of "copyright", but >certainly not widely known, and applies neutrally to code or non-code. > >"Open Content": nice piggy-backing upon the now well-propagated term Open >Source, and it focuses attention on matters other than software code. >Minus points for possible odiousness of how term "content" gets used in >new-media settings. In my opinion, however, it's probably the best >suggestion so far, because it's somewhat but not explicitly suggestive of >the moral issues, and can be given a precise, process-oriented definition, >analogous to Open Source. > >My $0.02, > >Tim > >----- >Tim McCormick >http://www.tjm.org > >On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Florian Cramer wrote: > > As can be read on Slashdot > > and > > <...> > > > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:56:24 +0200 (CEST) >From: Heiko Recktenwald >Subject: Re: opencontent.org dissolves and stalls its licenses > >Maybe the opencontent license is copyrighted? It is a label anyway. > >On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Francis Hwang wrote: > > Florian, is there anything to prevent you or somebody else from taking > > up the OPL and maintaining it without David Wiley's involvement? So > >If it was ever good, it is also good without opencontent.org, > > >H. > >- >_______________________________________________ >commons-law mailing list >commons-law at mail.sarai.net >http://mail.sarai.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/commons-law From sunil at mahiti.org Mon Sep 22 14:59:48 2003 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: 22 Sep 2003 14:59:48 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Open Letter on Software Patents from Linux developers Message-ID: <1064222987.2495.63.camel@mahitilaptop.mahiti> http://www.effi.org/patentit/patents_torvalds_cox.txt Subject: Open Letter on Software Patents from Linux developers Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:31:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Open Letter to the Honourable Pat Cox, the President of the European Parliament, members of the European Parliament: Dear Mr. Cox, We have been following with growing concern that Europe has been extending patentability to computer programs. Now European Parliament is about to vote on a directive that could put a stop to this development, or make it worse, depending on how it is amended by the Parliament. US experience shows that, unlike traditional patents, software patents do not encourage innovation and R&D, quite the contrary. In particular they hurt small and medium-sized enterprises and generally newcomers in the market. They will just weaken the market and increase spending on patents and litigation, at the expense of technological innovation and research. Especially dangerous are attempts to abuse the patent system by preventing interoperability as a means of avoiding competition with technological ability. Standards should never be patentable! Likewise, patents should never be used as means for preventing publication of information - the whole idea of patents is to provide time-limited monopoly in exchange for publication of the invention. Software patents are also the utmost threat to the development of Linux and other free software products, as we are forced to see every day while we work with the Linux development. We want to be able to provide the world with free high class, high quality, highly innovative software products that really empower the users and offer the best and only real chance to narrow the digital divide. Please do not make this harder to us that it already is! In conclusion, we would recommend You to vote for such amendments that * clarify limits of patentability so that computer programs, algorithms and business methods really cannot be patented as such; * make sure that patents cannot be abused to avoid technical competition by preventing interoperability of competing products; and * ensure that patents cannot be used to prevent publication of information. To that end we would suggest following FFII's voting recommendations on this directive (see www.ffii.org). Sincerely, Linus Torvalds Alan Cox -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw From jeebesh at sarai.net Mon Sep 22 12:48:41 2003 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:48:41 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: dissolving opencontent digest In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20030921194257.00a7d7a0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20030921194257.00a7d7a0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> Message-ID: <200309221248.41733.jeebesh@sarai.net> Thanks Badri. I was confused by panic in the Nettime postings. They seem to suggest that a good license is lost..etc. Maybe, somebody else will set-tup a site and continue with the open content license.... What is the status of the broadcast relay of a state event e.g Independence day PM speech or Republic day parade by a public broadcaster? If, we use that material to create a work, whose and what kind of `rights` are we infringing? And connected question is what is the status of material generated by a public-state institutions (like Film Division, Publicity Division). How much legal-space we have to play with the material generated by these sources.? Thanks in anticipation... cheers Jeebesh On Sunday 21 September 2003 07:52 pm, Badri Natarajan wrote: > Jeebesh, > It looks to me like nothing would happen to the licences. The > website dissolving simply means that the licence won't be publicized any > more..it does NOT mean that the licence becomes invalid. > > Software licences operate as a contract between the person who has issued > his software under the licence and the person who uses the software subject > to that licence. (The fact of opening the software box/using the software > usually signifies acceptance of the terms of the contract/licence) > > The fact that the people who originally wrote the licence (opencontent.org > in this case) do not exist any more will not affect the existing > contractual relationships in the works already released under the licence. > In fact, there is nothing preventing people releasing new works under this > licence, in terms of contract law, although it may be a bad business idea > to licence your software under an obscure, unsupported and unknown licence. > > Badri > From asimov at vsnl.com Mon Sep 22 23:30:43 2003 From: asimov at vsnl.com (Badri Natarajan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:30:43 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: dissolving opencontent digest In-Reply-To: <200309221248.41733.jeebesh@sarai.net> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20030921194257.00a7d7a0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> <5.1.0.14.1.20030921194257.00a7d7a0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030922232236.00ab2a10@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> At 12:48 PM 9/22/2003 +0530, you wrote: >I was confused by panic in the Nettime postings. They seem to suggest that a >good license is lost..etc. Maybe, somebody else will set-tup a site and >continue with the open content license.... As I understand it from what you've posted, the creators of Opencontent are pointing people to Creative Commons and their licences - which seems to be becoming the defacto standard for non-software open licences - even the EFF has pretty much abandoned its Open Audio License in favour of the more flexible and well known Creative Commons licences. >What is the status of the broadcast relay of a state event e.g Independence >day PM speech or Republic day parade by a public broadcaster? > >If, we use that material to create a work, whose and what kind of `rights` >are >we infringing? > >And connected question is what is the status of material generated by a >public-state institutions (like Film Division, Publicity Division). How much >legal-space we have to play with the material generated by these sources.? Not much space as far as I can see. The Copyright Act, to my knowledge does not treat material made the by the state or a public broadcaster differently from material created by a private party - indeed, S.28/28A of the Act specifically lay down the term of copyright in Government works (60 years). As a result, Govt copyrighted material is, I believe, subject to the same restrictions as privately copyrighted material and you are liable to infringe the Govt's copyrights if you do something with it. This ideally should not be the case, of course. There is no particular reason for the Govt to lock up its own work with copyright - the private sector issues of incentive and suchlike do not really come into the picture and vast amounts of valuable material could be in the public domain. Along these lines, in the United States, all material created by the Government is not copyrighted - it is in the public domain and completely free to anyone to use. For similar reasons, the BBC in the UK is planning to release ALL the material in its archive to the public for free online, so that everyone can use and access it, although I don't recall if they are technically placing the material in the public domain or releasing under a liberal licence.. Badri From sudhir75 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 23 15:19:25 2003 From: sudhir75 at hotmail.com (Sudhir Krishnaswamy) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:19:25 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] one more on the censorship trail Message-ID: sorry for cross posting to those on the reader list http://www.thehindu.com/2003/09/23/stories/2003092312761100.htm The Hindu, September 23, 2003 Bid to block anti-India website affects users By Sandeep Dikshit NEW DELHI SEPT. 23. The Government's first attempt to block the website of an allegedly anti-India group has inconvenienced lakhs of Internet users who are questioning the utility, process and procedure relating to blocking. While all Indian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have agreed to comply with the Government's first-ever blocking directive taken under the Information Technology Act, the U.S.-based host of this website - Yahoo - has refused. As the ISPs lack the technical finesse to block one sub-group, they have blocked all Yahoo groups or URLs inconveniencing the users. This website, belonging to a militant group espousing the cause of Meghalaya's Khasi tribe, can still be accessed by ISPs outside India or those who have not yet complied with the directive. Official sources today said that orders were issued by the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) under the Department of Information Technology as the website "contained material against the Government of India and the State Government of Meghalaya". The absence of any explicit provision in the IT Act for blocking of websites was because this action was seen by civil society as amounting to censorship, they explained. In this case, the blocking was to ensure "balanced flow of information" and not censorship, they added. The process of blocking is surrounded by several legal controversies, since the power to block itself does not exist under the IT Act. Through a notification in February this year, the Government designated CERT-In as the authority for blocking of websites. Another notification five months later listed the officials who can order blocking and the grounds under which this can be done. "The inherent sovereign power of the Government to block can hardly ever be denied. However, when the Government embarks upon the process of blocking, it is absolutely imperative that it must follow those procedures and norms that cause least discomfort or harm to the entire netizen community. This appears to be the first case where blocking of a particular website or sub-group has had the ramification of causing inconvenience to the netizens in the sense of depriving them of access to legal groups, other than the blocked URL," observes cyberlaw expert, Pawan Duggal. "It is hoped that with the passage of time the Government does come up with appropriate norms and procedures that can create a smart balance between the requirements of the sovereign powers to block and the relative inconvenience, harm and anxiety caused to the netizen in terms of blocking of legitimate websites." Mr. Duggal says that legally speaking; there are a couple of grey areas. The February notification setting up CERT-In has been issued under Section 67 and Section 88. Neither Section empowers the Government to create such an authority. Therefore, the constitution of CERT-In is of no legal significance and may not be upheld in a court of law. "I am not saying that the Government does not have the power at all to block or create CERT-In. However, surely the power does not lie in these provisions." The Government may succeed in blocking some websites in some cases but "the problem is that this provision may be misused by political powers in the regime to silence political dissent, criticism and debate. The phenomenon of mirror sites and emerging technologies along with intelligent minds of netizens are likely to rensure that India's blocking adventure starts its march on a losing note." _________________________________________ reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city. Critiques & Collaborations To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header. List archive: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030923/0329d36f/attachment.html From asimov at vsnl.com Tue Sep 23 21:02:44 2003 From: asimov at vsnl.com (Badri Natarajan) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:02:44 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] one more on the censorship trail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030923204852.009ec4c0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> Yes, this has been all over various mailing lists for a few days now, but the mainstream media has just begun to pick it up. A silly idea on so many levels. First, there's the 19(1)(a) Freedom of Speech issue - blocking like this is highly suspect. Second there is the question (as this article points out) whether the Govt has the legal authority to do this. Third, technologies to block just the named Yahoogroup do exist - it's just that the Indian ISPs don't seem to want to take the trouble and have decided to block Yahoogroups completely. Fourth, I cannot understand what the Govt hopes to gain by this blocking. Why does the Govt appear to think blocking IPs is a solution to this problem? Do they imagine that terrorists have not heard of the Google cache or proxy servers? It's true that the vast majority of "normal" net users would be unable to access blocked sites, and this approach (ignoring the freedom of speech/censorship implications for the moment) would work where the idea is to block access to a site used by the public in general, like an MP3 download site, but it's pretty pointless if the idea is to block access to a small group of people who can be easily taught to evade it.) Fifth - I took a look at the Yahoogroup in question. It has all of 30 members, and very few posts, most of which are not even in English. I skimmed through one of the (few) English posts and while it's a bit radical, it doesn't seem to be overly objectionable. What did the Govt hope to accomplish by this except draw MORE traffic and publicity to a dead site? Badri At 03:19 PM 9/23/2003 +0530, you wrote: >sorry for cross posting to those on the reader >list >http://www.thehindu.com/2003/09/23/stories/2003092312761100.htm > >The Hindu, September 23, 2003 > > Bid to block anti-India website affects users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030923/eb0db163/attachment.html From fred at bytesforall.org Wed Sep 24 00:04:18 2003 From: fred at bytesforall.org (Frederick Noronha (FN)) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:04:18 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] one more on the censorship trail In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20030923204852.009ec4c0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20030923204852.009ec4c0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> Message-ID: Has access to Yahoogroups.com been blocked in India? FN From fred at bytesforall.org Wed Sep 24 00:26:35 2003 From: fred at bytesforall.org (Frederick Noronha (FN)) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:26:35 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] one more on the censorship trail In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20030923204852.009ec4c0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20030923204852.009ec4c0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> Message-ID: ______ [INTERNET CENSORSHIP AT WORK IN INDIA: 3 news reports] The Hindu,September 23, 2003 Bid to block anti-India website affects users By Sandeep Dikshit http://www.thehindu.com/2003/09/23/stories/2003092312761100.htm o o o The Hindustan Times, September 23, 2003 Govt blocks e-group but can't prevent access Siddharth Zarabi (New Delhi, September 22) http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/230903/detFRO04.shtml o o o Business Line, September 20, 2003 Govt issues orders to ISPs - `Block separatist outfit's e-group' Gaurav Raghuvanshi http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/09/20/stories/2003092002890100.htm From asimov at vsnl.com Wed Sep 24 01:04:42 2003 From: asimov at vsnl.com (Badri Natarajan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:04:42 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] one more on the censorship trail In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20030923204852.009ec4c0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> <5.1.0.14.1.20030923204852.009ec4c0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030924005521.021f5cd0@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in> At 12:04 AM 9/24/2003 +0530, you wrote: >Has access to Yahoogroups.com been blocked in India? FN >___ Fred, I've read two of the news reports that you quoted. Basically, not all of the ISPs have complied (yet) with the Govt order. As of yesterday I was told that Satyam and VSNL had not yet done it. Dishnet definitely has, and some others too, I believe. None of the ISPs seem to have figured out the technology to block just the group in question (although I'm told it exists), so they are simply blocking http://groups.yahoo.com - the Mail service isn't (yet) blocked. Badri From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 27 13:02:39 2003 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-Law] Private enforcement of copyright Message-ID: <20030927073239.57315.qmail@web13607.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all with due apologies to Pradeep Naikfor reproducing his email, for good cause... Lawrence very sorry. cannot send cds. sent to the courier chap, but he said i need to give a declaration saying what the cds contain and what the commecial value is. apparently all cds being sent through courrier are sent to the customs officer, where they are checked. this is done in order to stop the propagation of illegal/ pirated software, movies, etc. basically, if i am courriering, i wil be going to go to jail. what to do?????? you are please to advise. lots of love, yours very sorrily, pradeep __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com From lawrenceliang at vsnl.net Sun Sep 28 09:41:41 2003 From: lawrenceliang at vsnl.net (lawrenceliang at vsnl.net) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 23:11:41 -0500 (GMT) Subject: [Commons-Law] The madness continues Message-ID: <200309280411.h8S4BfV17785@webmail2.vsnl.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20030927/48ce6aec/attachment.pl From jace at pobox.com Tue Sep 30 09:01:13 2003 From: jace at pobox.com (Kiran Jonnalagadda) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 03:31:13 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] The madness continues In-Reply-To: <200309280411.h8S4BfV17785@webmail2.vsnl.net> Message-ID: <898D47E8-F2B4-11D7-9A7A-000A95684A18@pobox.com> On Sunday, September 28, 2003, at 09:41 AM, lawrenceliang at vsnl.net wrote: >> From Hindu, 27th October 2003 > > When piracy funds terrorism > DID YOU know that you could be aiding terrorism even without realising > it? > That you might be responsible for bomb blasts and killing of innocent > people? That every time you buy a pirated CD, your hundred rupee note > might be funding terrorist groups, underworld dons and their mafia, > according to intelligence agencies. This is in tune with the RIAA's free ride on the this-is-bad-because-it-funds-terrorists trend in the US. Kudos to the IMI for not being far behind their big brother. -- Kiran Jonnalagadda http://www.pobox.com/~jace