From lawrence at altlawforum.org Tue Aug 1 11:03:12 2006 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:03:12 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Pirate- The Film Message-ID: Pirate is a forthcoming Hindi film to be directed by Priyadarshan. It stars Kunal Khemu, Shreyas Talpade and Deepika Padukone in pivotal roles. The movie also stars Paresh Rawal and Rajpal Yadav in supporting roles. The film will star two more stars still not confirmed. The film's score and soundtrack will be composed by Pritam. Internationally acclaimed South African composer Cédric Gradus Samson will also be composing a song in the film. Cinematography for the movie is handled by Rajiv Menon whilst editing is being handled by A. Sreekar Prasad. An emotional film by genre, Pirate highlights some real life issues in the music world. It tells the story of how a dedicated music band fights music piracy. Shooting for the film is slated to begin September in various locations in India. The film is slated for release sometime by the end of 2006. From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Aug 2 10:54:36 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:24:36 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] ESPN360 Charges ISPs to Offer Their Web Site Message-ID: <44D03714.DEEB1035@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Subscriber-only link. -- Seth) > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115439535367922979.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology Snippet: ESPN's charge-the-provider model has its roots in the cable-television world, where cable channels charge cable or satellite operators for the right to carry their programming. But it is a revolutionary approach for the Internet, where commercial Web sites are generally available to any consumers -- sometimes free, sometimes not -- regardless of which Internet service they use. So far, however, ESPN has yet to show the model can work on the Internet. Only a few big Internet providers -- such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Charter Communications Inc. -- have signed up to offer ESPN360. The biggest Internet providers, such as cable operators Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc. and Time Warner Inc., are refusing. "We do not like the current business model that ESPN is using for ESPN360," said Scott Hightower, vice president of data product development and support at Cox Communications. He said the ESPN360 model would force Cox to saddle its customers with unnecessary costs, because they will inadvertently be paying for a service they may not want when they sign up for broadband. From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Aug 3 19:15:08 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:45:08 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] Blackboard Sues for Course Management Patent Infringement Message-ID: <44D1FDE4.AD278190@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] Blackboard Inc. files first course management patent suit Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:55:11 -0400 From: David Farber Reply-To: dave at farber.net To: ip at v2.listbox.com References: Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Wiggins Date: August 2, 2006 8:06:16 PM EDT To: Dave Farber Subject: Blackboard Inc. files first course management patent suit Dave, For IP if you wish.... Huge news that will affect universities and K-12 schools in a big way, so far ignored by the media: Blackboard Inc. has sued Desire2Learn Inc. asserting that they infringe upon a patent for course management systems. Blackboard was awarded the patent in the US in January and has filed similar patents in many nations. The US patent, 6,988,138, reads in incredibly broad terms. No doubt the defendant and rival learning management companies such as Angel are checking into prior art and obviousness defenses. Course management systems (aka learning management systems) are de rigueur in higher education now, and fast spreading across K-12 education. Students find the syllabus, read the course reading materials, collaborate, and take tests, all online. They are used for on-campus and distance education applications. This is a huge market and this is likely to be a huge and ugly battle. Blackboard's press release on the patent: http://www.blackboard.com/company/press/release.aspx?id=887622 Amazingly, I've only seen news of the lawsuit in the Chronicle of Higher Education and here: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33396 /rich Text from the patent: > 1. A course-based system for providing to an educational community of > users access to a plurality of online courses, comprising: a) a > plurality of user computers, with each user computer being associated > with a user of the system and with each user being capable of having > predefined characteristics indicative of multiple predetermined > roles in the system, each role providing a level of access to a > plurality of data files associated with a particular course and a > level of control over the data files associated with the course with > the multiple predetermined user roles comprising at least two user's > predetermined roles selected from the group consisting of a student > role in one or more course associated with a student user, an > instructor role in one or more courses associated with an instructor > user and an administrator role associated with an administrator > user, and b) a server computer in communication with each of the > user computers over a network, the server computer comprising: means > for storing a plurality of data files associated with a course, > means for assigning a level of access to and control of each data > file based on a user of the system's predetermined role in a course; > means for determining whether access to a data file associated with > the course is authorized; means for allowing access to and control > of the data file associated with the course if authorization is > granted based on the access level of the user of the system. > > 2. The system of claim 1 wherein the instructor user is provided > with an access level to enable the creation and editing of a > plurality of files associated with a course. > > 3. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an > announcement file. > > 4. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a course > information file. .... ------------------------------------- Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ From shinojkoshy at yahoo.com Fri Aug 4 00:17:23 2006 From: shinojkoshy at yahoo.com (Shinoj KOSHY) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Commons-Law] Request for change of id. Message-ID: <20060803184723.18140.qmail@web32512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Moderator, Please could you change my email id from this (yahoo id) to shinojkoshy at rediffmail.com Many thanks Shinoj --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060803/0e555719/attachment.html From sunil at mahiti.org Mon Aug 7 12:48:09 2006 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:48:09 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Defend yourself against the RIAA - Open up your WiFi network Message-ID: <1154935090.8986.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/08/01/RIAA_forced_to_drop_download_case/ RIAA forced to drop download case Despite the success in the Kazzaa case earlier this week for the RIAA it seems they have actually suffered a massive set back in their quest to stifle the internet’s illegal download community. In the recent case in California of Virgin vs. Marson, where Mrs. Marson had a claim being made against her on the basis that she owned the computer and paid for the internet through which the illegal file sharing was taking place, the RIAA has decided to discontinue the case. The assumption being made is that the use of an IP address as evidence against file sharers is not enough to prove that the person being charged committed copyright infringement. Others, as in this report, are now suggesting that the best way to defend yourself against the RIAA is to open up your WiFi network to your neighbours. Essentially, the more people who are using the internet through a shared IP address the weaker the evidence the RIAA can summon against you. For the RIAA this situation couldn’t really get much worse. Despite the pyrrhic victory of having Kazzaa legitimised earlier in the week Ray Beckerman, leading RIAA attorney, made this comment regarding the recent landmark case: "Faced with evidence that numerous other people had access to the Internet connection and/or the computer and that any of those people could have engaged in the allegedly infringing conduct." The RIAA and MPAA now appear desperate in their quest to prevent illegal downloading. The inquirer is even reporting that they are starting to slip subliminal messages about the ‘badness’ of internet piracy into modern films – Charlie Demerjian described the effort in the Hollywood blockbuster as thus: “Now, they are slipping the message in through 'blowoff' lines, trying to infect modern culture. There was a scene in Miami Vice where they were discussing the big bad drug dealers, and how international they were. The good guys listed all the thing the bad guys were capable of bringing into the US, Cocaine, Heroin, etc, etc. They listed it as coke from Colombia, heroin from Afganistan, X from Y and A from B. Pretty normal stuff. At the end, they added 'pirated software from China'. Blink.” So what next for the RIAA? Is the case as monumental as it is being made out to be, or will the RIAA lawyers find some way round it? Let us know your views in the forum. -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org "Vijay Kiran" IInd Floor, 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 51150580. Mob: (91) 9342201521 UK: (44) 02000000259 From lawrence at altlawforum.org Mon Aug 7 19:42:52 2006 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:42:52 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Rights of Artists to share of resale of Art works Message-ID: Hi All We were working on a review of Indian copyright law when we came upon a very interesting thing: Droit de Suite. Droit de suite (DDS) is the name given to a principle in law that gives artists (specifically, the creators of artistic works) the right to a percentage of SECONDARY sales of said artistic work. Essentially, lets say I am Tyeb Mehta. I sell a painting in 1985 to X. X sells it in 2006 through an auction house for a whopping big load of money. Conventional wisdom, especially in the artistic community, is outrage - since Tyeb Mehta apparently gets nothing since X owned the painting sold, not him. Except, ever since 1994, India has a legal provision which entitles the artist to upto 10% of the resale value, and the Copyright Board is empowered to step in to decide what the percentage should be in case of a dispute. Here's the section - see http://www.copyright.gov.in/cpract.doc, and look at Section 53A: Resale share right in original copies. (the text is attached as 53A.doc) No artist seems to know anything: and indeed, a whole bunch of prominent people (inlcuding Raza, Tyeb) have been complaining (bizarrely) that if only such a provision were to exist in Indian law it would be of great use to them. See: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060514/spectrum/main2.htm http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060531/edit.htm#6 http://www.dnaindia.com/sunreport.asp?Newsid=1034599 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/02/07/bawb07.xml&s Sheet=/arts/2005/02/07/ixartleft.html http://www.blonnet.com/2006/06/02/stories/2006060204361400.htm http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/jun/24perfin.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_23/b3987048.htm http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=6&art_id=19738&sid=8192 860&con_type=1&d_str=20060531 http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2006-March/007002.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/06/29/India/ccar t29.xml http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/aug/22spec.htm http://in.rediff.com/getahead/2005/jul/26art.htm Now the thing is, DDS has a specific history - even though the Indian govt. apparently has no data to share on whether it has been used or not (casual conversations with the Registrar of Copyright indicated that its rarely/ never been that a dispute has come up to the Copyright Board, which does not mean that all artists are getting their due share, rather that no artist is - on resale rights at least). Here are the links to 2 documents that cursorily talk about DDS in the Indian context, both worth reading: http://www.ficci-frames.com/frames2001/Frames%202004/Knowledgebase2004/IPR.h tm http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001014/101438E.pdf And here is a much broader UNESCO study on DDS itself, with a very good explanation of how it works - useful to know, since for instance, private sales (between the buyer and seller directly, without intermediaries) are EXEMPT in the sense that the artist is not entitled to anything there - DDS only applies when the sale is through a gallery, auction etc. Lawrence / Achal From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Aug 9 02:40:57 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] The Long Arm of the EULA Message-ID: <44D8FDE1.48015E1E@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2006/08/07_a434.html THE GRIPE LINE WEBLOG by Ed Foster The Long Arm of the EULA Monday, August 07, 2006 Do software customers have any rights at all under the law, or does the industry's claim that its products are Licensed, Not Sold (http://radio.weblogs.com/0123585/2004/10/26.html#a172) give software companies carte blanche? That is the real question raised by the case of Wall Data vs. the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. Over the last week I've been telling the story of how the sheriffs came to be found guilty of copyright infringement over their use of Wall Data's Rumba terminal emulation program in county jail facilities. It's a tale filled with ghostly images and broken trust, so if you haven't been following it you might want to catch up with the first (http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/8/1/02429/48278) and second (http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/8/4/83852/73914) episodes before continuing with this narrative. Wall Data based its case on the indisputable fact that the sheriffs had made more copies of Rumba than it had licenses for. But the sheriffs argued that, since those extra copies were unusable under their network security system, the copies were legal under the fair use and essential step principles of copyright law. Had that defense gotten a true hearing, this case might have provided some landmark clarification of the rules, no matter which side won. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Instead, the real focus of the original trial was the EULA. Since the Rumba CDs were supposed to come with a shrinkwrap end user license agreement (although it's not clear if the EULA was actually there), the plaintiffs argued that the sheriffs were prohibited by the EULA from making the extra copies. Ironically, the Wall Data EULA was actually rather ambiguous on this point, since its basic license grant allowed use of the software "on a single Designated Computer for which the software has been activated," and the sheriffs argued that the unused copies obviously were not activated. But the plaintiffs' overall interpretation of the EULA prevailed. Even if, as the defense contended, Wall Data employees had given oral permission to make the extra copies, the plaintiffs said it made no difference because the EULA "specifically provides that any statements by employees are not to be relied upon." In the end, though, the most important thing about the EULA was simply its existence. Because Rumba had a license agreement, the plaintiffs argued, the sheriffs had purchased "licenses" of the software, not "copies." This may not seem like all that important a distinction to you, but it was central to the courts deciding that the sheriffs did not have the rights under copyright law that they were claiming. As I discussed last week (http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/7/31/071/42629), the Ninth Circuit, in which jurisdiction this case fell, is home to the discredited MAI vs. Peak decision. In that case the court stated baldly that if software is licensed, the customer is not the "owner of a copy" and therefore not entitled to the protections of Section 117 of the Copyright Act. In reviewing the Wall Data case, not only did the Ninth Circuit affirm this principle, it added the rather perverse doctrine that the more severe the restrictions imposed by the license, the more clearly the customer does not qualify to be the owner of a copy. Well, as maybe the foremost expert around on nasty license terms, let me just assure the court that they are unlikely to find any commercial software with less severe terms than the rather mild EULA Wall Data used. So far all intents and purposes, it would seem like the court's ruling makes Section 117 a dead letter. Talk about judicial activism, where are the far-right fanatics when we need them? But, in my not-so humble opinion, there's something even stranger about this case. If the license agreement is all that matters, why is it a copyright infringement case at all? At heart, this case is really a contract dispute, so why isn't this a breach of contract lawsuit instead? Well, that would have allowed the defense to bring in a lot of evidence - including LA. County's master vendor agreement with the re-seller who actually sold them Rumba - that the original judge excluded because it might "confuse the jury" to hear that side of the story. Pretty amazing. But just what kind of legal system are we living in -- at least here in Ninth Circuit territory -- where software customers don't have the right to fight a charge of copyright infringement with the rights Congress explicitly gave them in the copyright statutes? So that's my take on the case of Wall Data v the Los Angeles County Sheriffs. Now, finally, you get to be the judge. Post your comments on my website or write me directly at Foster at gripe2ed.com. Read and post comments about this story here (http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/8/7/04640/75966). From vinay at nls.ac.in Wed Aug 9 15:52:25 2006 From: vinay at nls.ac.in (Vinay Aravind) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:52:25 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Statistics not intellectual property of MLB Message-ID: <50020.59.94.109.43.1155118945.squirrel@59.94.109.43> For a change, a sensible IP develoment in the USA! Originally available at: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/08/08/fantasy.baseball.lawsuit.ap/index.html Judge rules statistics not intellectual property of MLB ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Fantasy baseball leagues are allowed to use player names and statistics without licensing agreements because they are not the intellectual property of Major League Baseball, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. Baseball and its players have no right to prevent the use of names and playing records, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Ann Medler in St. Louis ruled in a 49-page summary judgment. St. Louis-based CBC Distribution and Marketing Inc. filed a lawsuit against Major League Baseball Advanced Media, MLB's Internet wing, after CBC was denied a new licensing agreement with the baseball players' association giving it the rights to player profiles and statistics. Major League Baseball claimed that intellectual property laws and so-called "right of publicity" make it illegal for fantasy leagues to make money off the identities and stats of professional players. But even if the players could claim the right of publicity against commercial ventures by others, Medler wrote, the First Amendment takes precedent because CBC, which runs CDM Fantasy Sports, is disseminating the same statistical information found in newspapers every day. "The names and playing records of major league baseball players as used in CBC's fantasy games are not copyrightable," Medler wrote. "Therefore, federal copyright law does not pre-empt the players' claimed right of publicity." The ruling brings some relief to more than 300 businesses that run online fantasy leagues and have awaited the outcome of the lawsuit. In fantasy sports leagues, fans draft major leaguers and teams win or lose based on the statistical success of the actual players in major league games. It wasn't immediately clear what impact the ruling would have on existing agreements, such as the ones MLB has with CBS Sportsline.com, Yahoo Inc., ESPN.com and others. MLB also may appeal. "My thought today is this ruling is pretty strong but if MLB wants to fight it they have the funds to do it," said Jeff Thomas, founder and CEO of the fantasy site SportsBuff.com and president of the Fantasy Sports Trade Association. Thomas said SportsBuff.com's online fantasy baseball leagues have tried for years to reach agreements with MLB, but were unsuccessful and carried on without them. Major League Baseball Advanced Media had just received the ruling this afternoon and was in the process of reviewing it, said spokesman Jim Gallagher. "We need to talk to our partners, the Major League Baseball Players Associations, before we have anything more to say," he said. Baseball's refusal to give CBC a contract for the 2005 season came as the league was making exclusive statistics licensing agreements in the fantasy sports marketplace that has grown to more than 15 million players. Like many other fantasy baseball leagues, CBC had a licensing agreement with the MLBPA from 1995 through the 2004 season and paid 9 percent of gross royalties to the association. The company now believes it shouldn't have to pay for the right to use statistics. Rudy Telscher, who represents CBC, said both sides had asked for a summary judgment before the case was scheduled to go to trial next month. "Once you've won this here the odds are really good for us when MLB appeals," Telscher said. "I think once this issue is decided by an appellate court it's unlikely that other sports will try to take this to the court again." Fantasy sports has grown at a rate of up to 10 percent each year, according to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association. MLB had 19 license agreements in 2004, according to MLB Advanced Media, and just seven last season after a $50 million agreement with the players association giving baseball exclusive rights to license statistics. Many of the smaller fantasy businesses, such as CBC, say they were cut out of the agreement. Glenn Colton, a New York lawyer who wrote a friend of the court brief for the Fantasy Sports Trade Association, said the statistics licensing issue is critical to the industry. "The idea on MLB's part is if you can scare all of the little companies out of the market," Colton said, "you can collect more money." From patrice at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 9 17:42:47 2006 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 14:12:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Scotch vs Indian Whisky blues in Europe... Message-ID: <12878.82.73.2.33.1155125567.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> >From your Summer Lightness Department: According to the Dutch newspaper Trouw of to-day (*), the dispute between the EU and India about 'Scotch' has flared up again. It's an old gripe (well, as old as trade liberalisation and the triumph of globablisation). The Scotch Whisky makers association accuses India of obstructing the entry into its domestic market of ('real') Scotch while manufacturers of 'IMFL' (the word itself must cause nightmares to neo-liberals) get away with peddling seas of look alikes with suggestive names (my own favourite being 'Peter Scot'). The Scots have obtained some relief from the Indian courts, insofar as using denominations such as 'Scot' and 'Scotch' are now out of bounds, but labels like 'Malt' or 'whisky' are not. According to the same Scots, their products suffer 550% import duties rates, whereas Indian 'whisky' (made of sugar cane - God forbids...) comes into the EU duty free (both assertions are BS, afaik). As disputes about grappa and ouzo have shown, hard liquor is also an IP issue. Any more proof of the stupidity of it needed? Here a nice take from an April 2006 of ... The Scotsman: Mallya hits out at 'imperialist' Scotch Whisky body MARTIN FLANAGAN CITY EDITOR ONE of India's most prominent businessmen, and a leading joint venture partner of Scottish & Newcastle, has stepped up his attack on the Scotch Whisky Association, claiming at the weekend: "We are no longer a British colony." Dr Vijay Mallya, chairman of United Breweries, in which S&N has a 37.5 per cent stake, was cranking up a long-running dispute with the Scotch whisky trade body about imports and exports of whisky on the subcontinent. He was speaking after flying in as a guest of S&N for the Grand National, which the group's subsidiary, John Smith's, sponsored. Advert for Scotsman.com's business briefing Mallya, who has a major India spirit business apart from the tie-up with S&N, said: "India is not a British colony. This imposition of British imperialism is unacceptable. I say that not as a business man, but as a member of the Indian parliament. "The SWA has been at loggerheads with us for ten years. Their attitudes and policies are unacceptable and imperialist." The SWA has been waging a campaign against punitive taxes to get its members' products into India. Mallya has countered that by stopping exporting Indian whisky to Europe. Mallya, with S&N's Australian chief executive, Tony Froggatt, sitting alongside him, accused the SWA of "pontificating" and "double standards" from a weak position. Mallya said: "There are two sides to every coin; if they want to get into my country, they need to let me into theirs." Mallya, an unusually colourful maverick in a traditionally staid Indian business world, added: "The SWA wants to dictate, but a level playing field must apply." A key complaint of the SWA had been that Mallya could potentially pass off Indian whisky as Scotch. But he said: "I'm willing to say it is Indian whisky, I'm not saying it is Scotch." Mallya's business produces 720 million litres of alcohol a year - two-thirds of which is spirits. He said he also had a political duty to push the dispute because his country was "primarily an agrarian economy" from which the drink was produced. S&N's business relationship with Mallya is purely beer based. Froggatt said he was not embarrassed by the dispute between his partner and a leading Scottish business organisation. "We are totally disassociated from that. We are very good partners in United Breweries and we are very happy with our relationship. At this stage, it's not something we would want to talk about." Mallya recently launched an airline with heavy marketing echo's of Sir Richard Branson in Britain. He also revealed he had met the British billionaire entrepreneur socially and the two of them had got on well, but said he was unsure whether this would lead to any joint business ventures. Mallya said: "I have a lot of respect for him as he is a brand ambassador, as I am a brand Ambassador. Whether we can do business, I don't know." From rakesh at sarai.net Fri Aug 11 12:26:33 2006 From: rakesh at sarai.net (rakesh at sarai.net) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:26:33 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] law courses in IIT Message-ID: <44DC2A21.1070700@sarai.net> Dear all Now IIT Khadagpur will be producing lawyers also. Yes, they have started Rajeev Gandhu School of Intellectual Property Law School. According to Dainik Hindustan news, the school will run two courses on IP, one full time LLB and the second Post Graduate part time non residential deploma of 18 months. There will be 60 seats in the LLB course and only MBA and Engg. graduate will be eligible for the course. According to the spokesperson of law school this will be first of its kind, because no other institution runs course especially on IP law. For full news see the last page of Dainik Hindustan of 11 august, 2006 published from Delhi rakesh -- Rakesh Kumar Singh Sarai-CSDS 29, Rajpur Road Delhi-110054 Ph: 91 11 23960040 Fax: 91 11 2394 3450 web site: www.sarai.net web blog: http://blog.sarai.net/users/rakesh/ From binuradhakrishnan at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 17:30:26 2006 From: binuradhakrishnan at gmail.com (Binu Radhakrishnan) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:30:26 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] commons-law Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75a7d5350608110500q74ceba01tad4322d5099d7df1@mail.gmail.com> Hi Rakesh, Do you have an online link to the page mentioned in your mail [last page of Dainik Hindustan of 11 august, 2006 published from Delhi]. Regards Binu Radhakrishnan +91 80 30521993. On 8/11/06, commons-law-request at sarai.net wrote: > > Send commons-law mailing list submissions to > commons-law at sarai.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > commons-law-request at sarai.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > commons-law-owner at sarai.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. law courses in IIT (rakesh at sarai.net) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:26:33 +0530 > From: "rakesh at sarai.net" > Subject: [Commons-Law] law courses in IIT > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <44DC2A21.1070700 at sarai.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed > > Dear all > > > Now IIT Khadagpur will be producing lawyers also. Yes, they have started > Rajeev Gandhu School of Intellectual Property Law School. According to > Dainik Hindustan news, the school will run two courses on IP, one full > time LLB and the second Post Graduate part time non residential deploma > of 18 months. There will be 60 seats in the LLB course and only MBA and > Engg. graduate will be eligible for the course. According to the > spokesperson of law school this will be first of its kind, because no > other institution runs course especially on IP law. For full news see > the last page of Dainik Hindustan of 11 august, 2006 published from Delhi > > rakesh > > -- > Rakesh Kumar Singh > Sarai-CSDS > 29, Rajpur Road > Delhi-110054 > Ph: 91 11 23960040 > Fax: 91 11 2394 3450 > web site: www.sarai.net > web blog: http://blog.sarai.net/users/rakesh/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8 > ****************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060811/b73995ea/attachment.html From ramanchima at gmail.com Mon Aug 14 19:30:40 2006 From: ramanchima at gmail.com (Raman Chima) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:30:40 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] commons-law Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2fbb8fe0608140700rae6159cla6fa1fedd97925a4@mail.gmail.com> Can anyone clarify some points regarding the law courses being offered by IIT Kharagpur now. Firstly, will their L.L.B. degree be a fully accredited one recognized by the Bar Council of India? Secondly, how exactly are their IPR centric programmes different from similiar courses already existing in many law schools in India? I've been curious about the second point for some time now. Sincerely, Raman. On 8/11/06, commons-law-request at sarai.net wrote: > > Send commons-law mailing list submissions to > commons-law at sarai.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > commons-law-request at sarai.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > commons-law-owner at sarai.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. law courses in IIT (rakesh at sarai.net) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:26:33 +0530 > From: "rakesh at sarai.net" > Subject: [Commons-Law] law courses in IIT > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <44DC2A21.1070700 at sarai.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed > > Dear all > > > Now IIT Khadagpur will be producing lawyers also. Yes, they have started > Rajeev Gandhu School of Intellectual Property Law School. According to > Dainik Hindustan news, the school will run two courses on IP, one full > time LLB and the second Post Graduate part time non residential deploma > of 18 months. There will be 60 seats in the LLB course and only MBA and > Engg. graduate will be eligible for the course. According to the > spokesperson of law school this will be first of its kind, because no > other institution runs course especially on IP law. For full news see > the last page of Dainik Hindustan of 11 august, 2006 published from Delhi > > rakesh > > -- > Rakesh Kumar Singh > Sarai-CSDS > 29, Rajpur Road > Delhi-110054 > Ph: 91 11 23960040 > Fax: 91 11 2394 3450 > web site: www.sarai.net > web blog: http://blog.sarai.net/users/rakesh/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8 > ****************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060814/d4be4b51/attachment.html From sunil at mahiti.org Tue Aug 15 00:22:10 2006 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:22:10 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Music pirates cash in on information technology Message-ID: <1155581531.5183.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Voice of South Reply-To: voice-of-south at yahoogroups.com To: voice-of-south at yahoogroups.com Subject: :.: Voice of South :.: Music pirates cash in on information technology Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 02:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Music pirates cash in on information technology New Delhi, Aug. 14: Music piracy has gone high tech. From the dingy units copying cassettes, the action has now shifted to organised IT units, manufacturing top quality CDs and passing them off as originals to consumers, causing the economy losses to the tune of Rs 650 crore. "Sophisticated technology is now in place for manufacturing pirated CDs. It only speaks for the fact that piracy trade has graduated from the stature of a cottage industry to an IT industry with the difference being that it is making no contribution to India's GDP as opposed to a phenomenal one from the IT industry," says Savio D'Souza, secretary general, Indian Music Industry (IMI). Piracy is the unauthorised duplication of an original recording for commercial gain without the consent of the rights owner. The problem of piracy has increased with the rapid advance of technology. New techniques of printing, recording and fixation of broadcast or recorded programmes have emerged, making it easy for the pirates to carry on their illegal activities, he says. However, he says, "in three of the biggest raids, the IMI's anti-piracy teams with the help of police made seizures worth Rs 32 crore in last one fortnight... we have also collated an exhaustive list of the giant operating in the illegal B-2-B space." While Delhi recorded India's biggest ever raid with seizures worth Rs. 30 crore, at the raid in Cannanore, Kerela, pirated goods worth Rs. 26 lakh were seized, thereby highlighting the penetration of piracy even in the smaller markets. The third raid, initiated by IMI and conducted by CID, Ahmedabad, exposed the city's biggest piracy racket, thus, preventing spurious goods worth Rs. 40 lakhs from flowing into the market, he said. One of the biggest illegal CD plant was also sealed recently in Delhi which had the capacity to manufacture 60 - 70,000 CDs a day, says D'souza noting the technology is so advanced that a person sitting in his home, armed with a computer and CD writer can churn out good quality 200 CDs per hour. "It's time the government, both the centre and the states, introduce the necessary reforms. This will help give more teeth to the police, who are doing a commendable job as well as better equip the judiciary to take stringent action against the accused," says V J Lazarus of Saregama. The IMI recently took up the issue of introducing an Optical Disc Law in the country, to fight high tech piracy. "Under this, it will become compulsory for every manufacturer to put an identification number on a CD, so that it can be tracked to the source," notes D'souza. As of now there is no control on the movement or manufacture of CDS. Delhi alone has eight CD manufacturing plants and they also are imported from other countries in bulk. It thus becomes very difficult to track the source of the CD, he notes. Surce: PTI - -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org "Vijay Kiran" IInd Floor, 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 51150580. Mob: (91) 9342201521 UK: (44) 02000000259 From pparanagua at gmail.com Tue Aug 15 20:58:37 2006 From: pparanagua at gmail.com (Pedro Moniz) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:28:37 -0300 Subject: [Commons-Law] WIPO Devt. Agenda Message-ID: Dear All, Please find my posts originally made in Brazilian Portuguese now translated into English on the last WIPO meetings on the Development Agenda. I know it might be too late, but at least for the sake of information I think this might help some of you. The 04 posts are/will be at FGV´s A2K programme webpage: www.a2kbrasil.org.br Please feel free to translate it, pass it on, and make your comments on the website. Best regards, Pedro de Paranaguá Moniz Project Lead - Centre for Technology and Society (CTS) Coordinator of the law courses at FGV Online FGV School of Law in Rio de Janeiro www.direitorio.fgv.br FGV DIREITO RIO Praia de Botafogo, 190 / 13º andar Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brazil CEP 22.250-900 tel. +55 21 2559-6065 / fax +55 21 2559-5459 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060815/9e437076/attachment.html From hbs.law at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 11:13:22 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:13:22 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Patent Review Goes Wiki Message-ID: <8b60429e0608162243v2561cd84n1e24594196293d66@mail.gmail.com> Hi, This is an interesting idea and far more practical than just opposing software patents. Hasit ======================================================= Patent review goes Wiki An idea born on a blog is endorsed by Microsoft and IBM, reports Fortune's Nicholas Varchaver. FORTUNE Magazine By Nicholas Varchaver, Fortune senior writer August 16 2006: 10:16 AM EDT (Fortune Magazine) -- The problem: an epidemic of shoddy patents. The solution: Wikipedia? That's the basic concept behind a pilot program sponsored by IBM (Charts) and other companies, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office appears poised to green-light. The project would apply an advisory version of the wiki approach to the patent-approval process. The issue is that patent applications have tripled in the past two decades, leaving examiners only 20 hours on average to comb through a complex application, research past inventions, and decide whether a patent should be granted. As a result, critics contend, quality has declined and lucrative patents have been granted for ideas that weren't actually new. One solution is to let astute outsiders weigh in during the patent-review process, as online encyclopedia Wikipedia does, vastly increasing the information available to the patent examiner. New York Law School professor Beth Noveck floated the idea on her blog last July, inspiring an article in Wired News. That, in turn, attracted the attention of IBM, which got behind the idea. Says Dave Kappos, vice president for intellectual-property law at IBM: "It's a very powerful concept because it leverages the enormous capabilities of the entire world of technical talent." Working with IBM and the Patent Office, Noveck developed a system that will not only permit, for example, an inventor to show that an allegedly new idea is already in practice but also lets reviewers rate one another's submissions, much as they do on eBay (Charts) and Amazon (Charts). Patent examiners will be given only the ten highest-rated pieces of input, and attempts to sabotage a competitor's application by submitting phony material should theoretically be avoided. Test run Corporate sponsors including IBM, Microsoft (Charts), and Hewlett-Packard (Charts) will make a total of 250 to 400 software patents available for the pilot. Says the commissioner for patents, John Doll: "We're just trying to put the finishing touches on the details before we roll it out to the [head of the Patent and Trademark Office] and get the final approval to move ahead." Noveck thinks the test could launch early in 2007. If successful, the approach could then be implemented throughout the patent office. "It seems fairly obvious," says Noveck, "to try to tie together some of the systems of peer production of information that we've seen in the private sector." And those who've complained about the patent process could take part in fixing it. Top of page >From the August 21, 2006 issue Find this article at: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm From hbs.law at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 11:19:37 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:19:37 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Poking a Stick Into The 'Hive Mind'...'wisdom of crowds' delivers a reflection of the lowest common denominator Message-ID: <8b60429e0608162249r1594ce6el768cb1d458f9c1e7@mail.gmail.com> Poking a Stick Into The 'Hive Mind' To Lanier, the 'wisdom of crowds' delivers a reflection of the lowest common denominator. By Steven Levy Newsweek Aug. 21-28, 2006 issue - Jaron Lanier is a man of many talents—virtual-reality pioneer, New Age composer, visual artist and artificial-intelligence scientist. Now Lanier has taken on another role: dyspeptic critic of the surging trend of digital collectivism, an ethic that celebrates and exploits the ability of the Web to aggregate the preferences and behaviors of millions of people. In a recent essay posted on the Web site Edge.org, Lanier disparages the recent spate of efforts that rely on conscious collaboration (like the anyone-can-participate online reference work Wikipedia) or passive polling (the so-called meta sites like Digg, which draw on user response to rank news articles and blog postings). To Lanier, these represent an alarming decision—rejecting individual expression and creativity to become part of a faceless mob. To emphasize the enormity of this movement, Lanier titled his essay with a fearsome moniker: "Digital Maoism." Yes, to Lanier, subsuming one's identity into an electronically aggregated mass (even by such innocent acts as tweaking a Wikipedia item or giving a rating to a comment on the Slashdot discussion board) is akin to the rabidly destructive mob fervor seen in China during the chairman's rule. "If you look at the history of youth cultural movements, they tend to go one of two ways," he explains. "One is in the direction of individual expression and creativity; the best example is the '60s. The other way is to lose themselves in the collective, binding themselves into a gang—as in the Cultural Revolution." Lanier's widely circulated online rant was the equivalent of poking a stick into a beehive—or, more specifically, the much-celebrated "hive mind" of the modern Internet. Books like James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" and Kevin Kelly's "Out of Control" have provided a philosophical underpinning for the idea that the world benefits when people participate in unpredictable, emergent enterprises. Google's search engine uses the linking behavior of the entire Web to determine the relevance of search queries. The open-source movement believes that the bottom-up method of software development is more effective than when elite designers dictate what code should be written. But the output of such efforts, says Lanier, is often a mundane reflection of the lowest common denominator, an inevitable consequence, he writes, of the "stupid and boring" hive mind. Not surprisingly, the targets of his criticism are crying foul. "Lanier is objecting to the writing style of the Wikipedia being neutral rather than biased," says Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's cofounder. Wales admits that sometimes the lack of an all-controlling editor leads Wikipedia to sometimes indefensible imbalances (for instance, the entry on "Star Trek"'s Mr. Spock is more than twice as long as the item about Flaubert). But he contends that's just a temporary effect of the geeky flavor of the burgeoning Wikipedia community in this early stage. Author Kevin Kelly also thinks that Lanier's criticism is off base. "The hive mind can't do everything, but it's not stupid and boring," he says. "There's no evidence that it subsumes individual expression." Kelly's point is well taken—the same powerful Internet technology that aggregates our behavior also empowers us to assert ourselves individually. There has never been an easier way for people to distribute creative content. Lanier has done us a service by warning that the pedestrian preferences of the hive mind all too often overwhelm the truly essential. But let's face it—Chairman Mao would have hated the Internet. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320423/site/newsweek/ (c) 2006 MSNBC.com From rai.shailesh at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 17:21:48 2006 From: rai.shailesh at gmail.com (S Rai) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:21:48 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] A Nation Divided Over Piracy Message-ID: <177e3ed00608170451g1922cf22l98e8a22ecb45431@mail.gmail.com> http://wired.com/news/technology/0,71544-0.html?tw=wn_index_2 A Nation Divided Over Piracy Quinn Norton Last Jan. 1, almost on a whim, 35-year-old IT manager Rickard Falkvinge got into politics. Concerned about the reach of copyright and patent law, Falkvinge erected a web page with a sign-up form for a radical new pro-piracy party to compete in Sweden's parliamentary system. He didn't know if anyone would care, but the next day the national media picked it up, and two days later international media started calling. The site was flooded with new members -- enough for the nascent movement to sail past the requirements for participation in the national election. Falkvinge now faced a decision: stay with his nice job and let the whole thing quietly sink, or quit and become a campaigning politician. He chose to become the leader of Sweden's newest and fastest-growing political party: Piratpartiet, or the Pirate Party. Striding through the narrow, cobbled streets of Gamla Stan, Falkvinge looks nothing like a politician in his "Pirat" baseball cap and polo shirt. "We have a lot in common with the environmental movement," he says. Where environmentalists see destruction of natural resources, the pirates see culture at risk. "(We) saw a lot of hidden costs to society in the way companies maximize their copyright." Falkvinge is interrupted by a passing teenager. She's a young punk, with green dreads and a jacket covered in an indistinguishable combination of angry quips and band names -- in short, exactly the type who once would have spent her disposable income on music. She takes out a piece of notebook paper and asks Falkvinge for an autograph. Lawyers, academics and pirates agree: File sharing is an institution here. Sweden has faster broadband with deeper penetration than just about anywhere in the world. That, combined with the techno-friendly attitude that pervades Scandinavia and a government slow to take any kind of action, allowed file sharing to root deeply in practice and popular culture. In March, game show contestant Petter Nilsson won the politically themed Top Candidates show by delivering speeches supporting file sharing, and committing to donating 20 percent of his $30,000 winning to the Pirate Bay. A cultural minister from a southern Sweden municipality admitted in June to the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet that he downloaded music on a daily basis, and called for more adults to "come out of the file-sharing closet." Last May's raid on the Pirate Bay sparked street protests and cyberattacks on government websites. But it was the spike in the Pirate Party's numbers after the raid that might have the most lasting consequences for Sweden. Membership shot past the nation's Green Party, which holds 17 seats in the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament. There's no guarantee that membership will translate into votes, but the pirates have raised enough funds to print 3 million ballots for next month's election, and they have enough volunteers to get them out to all the polling places. This week, the Pirate Party broke out its own version of a chicken in every pot when it endorsed a low-cost, encrypted anonymizing service offered by a Swedish communications company called Relakks. For 5 euros a month, a portion of which goes to the party, anyone can share files or communicate from a Relakks IP address in Sweden, potentially complicating efforts to track downloaders. The party endorsement generated enough interest to cause performance issues on the new service. Falkvinge may be learning the ropes of glad-handing and political speechmaking, but a guileless fan boy slips out when I introduce him to the founders of Piratbyran -- the pro-piracy group that created the Pirate Bay in 2003, and inspired Falkvinge's foray into renegade politics. He introduces the punk girl that recognized him to co-founder Rasmus Fleischer with a hurried explanation -- "Piratbyran, Piratbryan!" -- and Fleischer soon finds himself autographing another piece of notebook paper, looking confused. Piratbyran, or "Pirate Bureau," is hard to nail down as an organization. It is best described as an ad hoc pro-piracy think tank, but Fleischer's partner in the effort, Marcus Kaarto, won't even go that far. "We're like a gas," Kaarto says, laughing. "You can't get a hold on us." Founded in 2003, Piratbyran is older than the Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party. The group has 58,000 members registered on its website, but its structure is informal, and no one seems to know exactly how much money it has. It gets by on donations, including contributions through the Pirate Bay -- with which it is no longer officially affiliated. Kaarto and Fleischer aren't the typical think tank or political types. Fleischer is a classically trained musician and former leftist journalist; Kaarto plays poker for a living. They are comfortable and funny twenty-somethings in cargo shorts, dark T-shirts and imprecise haircuts -- blending artist and geek in a way that is uniquely European. They walk me around Soder, the island in the middle of Stockholm that went from working class to gentrified bohemian in the '80s. Eventually we land in Medborgarplatsen, a square that hosts Stockholm's large communist May Day demonstration every year, and entertainment/retail the rest of the time. This night it's full of cafe-goers, and posters advertising the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie -- a film destined to break box office records and top the downloading charts at the same time. Over the din, Fleischer says the Piratbyran's message isn't so much about fighting the copyfight as explaining to the other side that they've already lost. "Their business model won't work with digital technology," he says. In Fleischer's world, the Motion Picture Association of America and rights holders are attacking digital technology itself, trying to hang on to an outdated model. "It's an inevitability that digital data will be copied.... The alternative to peer-to-peer piracy is person-to-person piracy," he says. While some online pirates take pains to distinguish themselves from those who sell counterfeit DVDs and CDs, he sees such physical bootlegging as just "a symptom of underdeveloped computer networks." When asked about compensation for artists, both men reject the language itself. No artist sits down to "create content," Fleischer says. "Culture has always been heterogeneous," and money is only one way of rewarding creativity. The idea of a rights holder, like a record label or movie studio, that patronizes and distributes human creativity is, for Fleischer, "a very strange utopia that has never existed." But Piratbyran is not dedicated to copyright or patent abolition -- it has no legislative agenda. It holds a nuanced view of the created work itself: Each work must find its own social and economic niche. "I don't think of this (as) the big battle," says Fleischer, "but thousands of microbattles." Part of the surprise of Sweden is how far this approach has gotten them. Kaarto and Fleischer are quoted in the press frequently, often accorded the same respect a law professor would receive in the United States. Last year the pair co-edited Copy Me , a collection of essays about intellectual properly; the first run of 2,300 sold out, and another is on its way. Their positions find fertile ground in politics and public opinion. Piracy is the subject of serious debate here, rather than crime-busting press releases. And copyright's defenders find themselves in an uphill battle for the soul of the nation. Attorney Monique Wadsted, the MPAA's representative here, has the hardest job in Sweden -- not just to try to enforce copyright under an indifferent and occasionally hostile regime, but to convince the average Swede that file sharing is wrong. She meets me in a corner conference room in her office high above a square full of Scandinavian hipsters and the punky goth kids of Stockholm. With a knit brow, she explains that she never expected Sweden to become a rogue nation. "(It's) become a copyright haven, a territory where you spread everything without fear of prosecution," Wadsted says. Wadsted knows Fleischer -- she recently stood in a public debate with him at the formal opening of Sweden's election campaign season. She was not impressed. "Nobody has ever presented a good argument why this should be free.... They like to talk about music; they have a problem with (talking about) movies, because movies cost a lot to make." Movies are Wadsted's passion, as well as her job, and she seems prepared to throw herself bodily between the medium she loves and the pirates who threaten its financial lifeblood. As a child, "I would see (movies) with my family ... or sneak off to see them on my own, all the time," she says. And if file sharing and the Pirate Bay had existed when she was young? She confesses she doesn't know if she'd have been a downloader herself. "Would I have known any better at 14?" she muses, leaving the question unanswered. What's certain is she'd like to see the Pirate Bay's crew in jail. The copyright fight is getting tense in Sweden. Wadsted speaks emotionally of threats made against her and anti-piracy spokesman Henrik Pontien. She says her address has appeared online, accompanied by talk of firebombing. Ugly suggestions have been made against Pontien and his children. Wadsted says she knew she was opening herself up for criticism by becoming the public face of the MPAA in Sweden, but the experience has clearly frightened and shocked her. The Pirate Bay's crew hasn't been spared much from the other side. They've been called gang members, terrorists and even child pornographers. While they laugh whenever the subject comes up, they too seem incredulous that the debate has come to this point. There's no evidence that extremists on either side will take violent action, but the idea that a previously obscure area of law excites such fanatical rhetoric was unthinkable before file sharing. Sweden stands at a crossroads. "There will be many Pirate Bays if this case doesn't succeed," says Marianne Levin, professor of private law and intellectual property at the University of Stockholm. Everyone -- pirates and lawyers and politicians -- agrees: Sweden probably won't continue to be friendly ground for overt pirates if the Pirate Bay is convicted. That's the point of pursuing its operators. But even with a victory in court, Levin and her doctoral research students acknowledge that Swedish file sharing isn't going to stop. They talk a lot about alternatives: mitigation and compromise. One oft-proposed solution would levy a tax on internet access that would be redistributed to artists -- but as distinctions between professionals and amateurs get more fuzzy, it's harder to make such a system fair. A tax would also mean more payouts to the porn industry than is politically feasible, points out legal researcher Viveca Still, a faculty member at the Institute of International Economic Law in Helsinki, Finland. That's one reason Still joins many academics in advocating a technological solution: digital rights management, or DRM, in which music and movie players -- software or hardware -- would simply refuse to cooperate with pirates. But a strict DRM regime has problems, too: For one, it would require hard-coded limits on digital technology itself. "This would lead to outlawing digital technology ... the Turing machine (itself)," says Piratbyran's Kaarto. This is a price too high for society to pay to protect intellectual property, according to DRM opponents. If piracy's foes offer flawed solutions, Sweden's pirates concede that their own vision isn't utopian. Parting with many copyright minimalists in the United States, Piratbyran acknowledges that file sharing can do real harm to rights holders. When Kaarto and Fleischer discuss this aspect of their movement, their flippancy fades, and their mood becomes reflective. Fleischer tells the story of Swedish jazz in 1962. When pop music came to Sweden, it hit hard enough that in a single summer most of Sweden's jazz artists were left scrambling for a livelihood. Just as silent movies destroyed theater, then talkies left the silent stars unemployed, progress, he hints, always creates losers as well as winners. But progress has to be accommodated anyway, says Kaarto. "You have to change the map, not the world." Later, the Pirate Bay's Peter (who doesn't want his last name revealed, in part for fear it would endanger his day job) is dining with a crew of pirates from all over Europe. Over tabbouleh and sausage, the talk turns to strategy: how to create media events, awareness campaigns, educational programs to let people know that piracy isn't about free movies -- it's about clearing the way for culture to progress. Peter talks about expanding the Pirate Bay beyond the current 25-language translation. He turns to me, with bright eyes: "We want to make a Pirate Bay for kids!" Sebastian Gjerding of Denmark's Piratgruppen warms to the idea, and starts talking about designing a poster to hang in schools, teaching children how to share files. The pirates bandy about names for the campaign and seem, for the moment, to settle on "iCopy." Later, I'm in Peter's old BMW station wagon. "One day, all these cars will run on hydrogen," Peter proclaims, gesturing around Malmo. "How will they make the hydrogen?" I ask. He answers quickly, smiling, "I don't know!" But, he assures me, they will and it isn't his problem to figure out how. It's not the problem of the pirates, he tells me later, to figure out how to compensate artists or encourage invention away from the current intellectual property system -- someone else will figure that out. Their job is just to tear down the flawed system that exists, to force the hand of society to make something better. If the next thing isn't good enough, they will tear that down, too. ----------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060817/67b3adf6/attachment.html From hbs.law at gmail.com Mon Aug 21 07:08:56 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 07:08:56 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Gilead's anti-AIDS drug now at $1 a day in India Message-ID: <8b60429e0608201838l9a37bacn60d556b29f926171@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Can some expert here on AIDS drugs tell us what this press-note means between the lines. To me it seems that a patent holder (Gilead still does not have a patent in India, but in US) providing AIDS medicines at a low price with 5 percent royalty and technology transfer (cutting the lab-to-market) time seems ok. But again, we need an expert to opine on this. I posted this here because anything positive for drug companies never gets any bandwidth here. Regards, Hasit --------------------------------------------------------------- Gilead's anti-AIDS drug now at $1 a day in India By Murali Krishnan, Indo-Asian News Service New Delhi, Aug 20 (IANS) Viread, the largest selling anti-HIV/AIDS drug in the United States, will be available to patients in India at a special price equivalent of $1 a day, its manufacturer, bio-pharmaceutical major Gilead, announced Sunday. Gilead has already entered into generic licensing deals with three Indian pharma majors - Emcure Pharmaceuticals, Hetero Drugs and Strides Arcolab - for the drug. The Indian firms will make generic versions of Viread and distribute it to 95 low-income countries around the world in a couple of months. 'Our endeavour is to provide the widest possible access to our drugs for HIV/AIDS patients. Gilead has devised a tiered product pricing based on a country's economic status and HIV prevalence,' Gilead's senior vice-president Gregg Alton told IANS from San Jose, California. More than 5.1 million people are believed to be infected with the HIV virus in India - the second largest number of infected people after South Africa. 'Viread will be available at $365 per year in India. For African countries where the economic status is lower, we have priced the drug at $203 per year, making it close to 37 cents a day for patients,' he said. There has been much speculation in recent months with claims that Viread had been overpriced, selling at $5,700 in the developed world. Alton said, 'That pricing information is inaccurate, while we have the right to protect our intellectual property in developed markets, our tiered pricing for countries like India and Thailand will ensure that Viread will do well and provide better health status for patients.' Compared with generic versions currently available from pharma major Cipla, priced at over $1,200 per year, the new pricing is bound to come as a relief for patients. Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) is on its way to becoming the frontrunner drug across Europe for HIV/AIDS due to its low toxicity and resistance levels observed in patients. The tablet-a-day dosage of the drug also helps in better regimen and compliance among HIV/AIDS patients taking it. On why the three generic Indian manufacturers agreed to take a license when Gilead does not actually have a patent, Alton said, 'There are several reasons for these license agreements. We will transfer technology and know-how to our partners for them to be able to produce larger, better and higher quality batches of Viread.' The technology transfer is expected to increase efficiency and drive down costs. 'We believe that we are the innovators of one of the foremost drugs in the battle against HIV/AIDS and are hopeful that our patents will be issued in India as they have in many other countries across the world.' Under the terms of the agreement, the generic companies will have the right to manufacture and market both the API (active particle ingredient) and the tablets in perpetuity. While the rights to sell API will be limited to other pharmaceutical companies in India, tablets can be distributed in India, Thailand, Africa and 43 other countries. This offers the Indian licensees a huge business opportunity given the size of the market. In Africa alone, 45,000 patients are currently on Viread, of an estimated infected population of 30 million. In India, about 40,000 patients are under treatment on the anti-retroviral drug. In return, the Indian manufacturers will pay Gilead a five percent royalty, which is well within the World Trade Organization norms, as compared with industry practice of much higher royalty rates. Alton said his company was in discussion with other Indian pharmaceutical majors even though some of them have filed oppositions to the Gilead patent filings. He said: 'We are in very advanced stages of discussions with other pharmaceutical companies, including Ranbaxy and Cipla, and are very positive that they will see value in our offer.' Copyright Indo-Asian News Service From tahir.amin at btopenworld.com Mon Aug 21 12:49:31 2006 From: tahir.amin at btopenworld.com (TAHIR AMIN) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:19:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Gilead's anti-AIDS drug now at $1 a day in India In-Reply-To: <8b60429e0608201838l9a37bacn60d556b29f926171@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060821071931.28457.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Hasit, Far from being an expert, but having drafted the oppositions for patient groups against Gilead's patent applications for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF/Viread) in India, seen the voluntary licenses on offer and been in meetings with them, I can make a few comments. I dont know how much you know about the background to TDF, but MSF has been pushing them hard since around 2002 to reduce the price of Viread as well as getting the drug registered (marketing approval) in its 97 "Access Programme" countries (all LDCs bar S. Africa i believe). Thus far they have only registered in 11 countries and claim to have applied for registration in 51 more. They blame local authorities and partly their own naivety for the slow registration - but I think that's only a partial truth. For example in China, I understand they havent made an application. Also they refuse to submit their data for the drug to the WHO to enable the pre-qualification process (as often used by generics). So I think its fair to say Gilead has been dragging its feet and not lowering its prices since around 2002. We filed the patent opposition on 9 May 2006 and within a week they had their legal and pr team in India offering the voluntary licenses. They claim that they had intended as one of their options to offer the VLs and so this wasnt a spontaneous gesture. Not wanting to be cynical, and may be Gilead had intended to do this, but it seems it was accelarated by the opposition being filed. Given the worldwide press around the opposition by patient groups, one could say they are either very worried that their patent(s) wont be granted, hence the VLs being a way to get some control of the market ( (albeit any VL where no patent exists will be worthless which they acknowledge) and/or they wanted to overshadow the opposition. The VL's on offer are, it has to be said reasonable - particularly when people like Abbott refuse to offer VLs on important second line drugs like Kaletra. However, the key is that Indian Generics cant sell to Brazil or China (and Thailand - but may be allowed later), the countries very much in need of TDF at cheaper prices, but only the 97 LDCs (which dont have patents anyway - bar S. Africa, but Aspen is already licensed). Gilead wants to keep these markets for itself (which of course they have every right to - but they dont have patents yet in these countries either and they are also being challenged there). Having looked at the patents, there is every chance they might not be granted. The tech transfer point does have some validity. While generics have already processed around Gileads process, they may not be getting the highest yields possible. I dont know if that might explain Cipla's price at the moment (or whether its more to do with the markets it can access - probably the latter given Cipla's competence in coming up with another process and good API). The key issue about the VLs is the question of whether Gilead is trying to control the API market by only allowing API producers to sell to companies which have a licence to sell the end product. Gilead claims they are not and Indian companies can get the API form any party it wants provided the quality is the same, but that doesnt seem so clear from the terms I have seen. All in all, Gilead has made a smart pr move. However, many of us believe breaking the patents, for which there are more than reasonable grounds under the Indian Act, will reap even more benefits for aids patients, particularly those in Brazil and China - and consequently make sure that a stronger patent system is developed. Tahir --- Hasit seth wrote: > Hi, > > Can some expert here on AIDS drugs tell us what > this press-note > means between the lines. To me it seems that a > patent holder (Gilead > still does not have a patent in India, but in US) > providing AIDS > medicines at a low price with 5 percent royalty and > technology > transfer (cutting the lab-to-market) time seems ok. > But again, we need > an expert to opine on this. I posted this here > because anything > positive for drug companies never gets any bandwidth > here. > > Regards, > Hasit > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Gilead's anti-AIDS drug now at $1 a day in India > > By Murali Krishnan, Indo-Asian News Service > > New Delhi, Aug 20 (IANS) Viread, the largest selling > anti-HIV/AIDS > drug in the United States, will be available to > patients in India at a > special price equivalent of $1 a day, its > manufacturer, > bio-pharmaceutical major Gilead, announced Sunday. > > > > > Gilead has already entered into generic licensing > deals with three > Indian pharma majors - Emcure Pharmaceuticals, > Hetero Drugs and > Strides Arcolab - for the drug. The Indian firms > will make generic > versions of Viread and distribute it to 95 > low-income countries around > the world in a couple of months. > > 'Our endeavour is to provide the widest possible > access to our drugs > for HIV/AIDS patients. Gilead has devised a tiered > product pricing > based on a country's economic status and HIV > prevalence,' Gilead's > senior vice-president Gregg Alton told IANS from San > Jose, California. > > More than 5.1 million people are believed to be > infected with the HIV > virus in India - the second largest number of > infected people after > South Africa. > > 'Viread will be available at $365 per year in India. > For African > countries where the economic status is lower, we > have priced the drug > at $203 per year, making it close to 37 cents a day > for patients,' he > said. > > There has been much speculation in recent months > with claims that > Viread had been overpriced, selling at $5,700 in the > developed world. > > Alton said, 'That pricing information is inaccurate, > while we have the > right to protect our intellectual property in > developed markets, our > tiered pricing for countries like India and Thailand > will ensure that > Viread will do well and provide better health status > for patients.' > > Compared with generic versions currently available > from pharma major > Cipla, priced at over $1,200 per year, the new > pricing is bound to > come as a relief for patients. > > Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) is on its way > to becoming the > frontrunner drug across Europe for HIV/AIDS due to > its low toxicity > and resistance levels observed in patients. The > tablet-a-day dosage of > the drug also helps in better regimen and compliance > among HIV/AIDS > patients taking it. > > On why the three generic Indian manufacturers agreed > to take a license > when Gilead does not actually have a patent, Alton > said, 'There are > several reasons for these license agreements. We > will transfer > technology and know-how to our partners for them to > be able to produce > larger, better and higher quality batches of > Viread.' > > The technology transfer is expected to increase > efficiency and drive down costs. > > 'We believe that we are the innovators of one of the > foremost drugs in > the battle against HIV/AIDS and are hopeful that our > patents will be > issued in India as they have in many other countries > across the > world.' > > Under the terms of the agreement, the generic > companies will have the > right to manufacture and market both the API (active > particle > ingredient) and the tablets in perpetuity. > > While the rights to sell API will be limited to > other pharmaceutical > companies in India, tablets can be distributed in > India, Thailand, > Africa and 43 other countries. > > This offers the Indian licensees a huge business > opportunity given the > size of the market. In Africa alone, 45,000 patients > are currently on > Viread, of an estimated infected population of 30 > million. In India, > about 40,000 patients are under treatment on the > anti-retroviral drug. > > In return, the Indian manufacturers will pay Gilead > a five percent > royalty, which is well within the World Trade > Organization norms, as > compared with industry practice of much higher > royalty rates. > > Alton said his company was in discussion with other > Indian > pharmaceutical majors even though some of them have > filed oppositions > to the Gilead patent filings. > > He said: 'We are in very advanced stages of > discussions with other > pharmaceutical companies, including Ranbaxy and > Cipla, and are very > positive that they will see value in our offer.' > > Copyright Indo-Asian News Service > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > Tahir Amin ___________________________________________________________ Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection? Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com From hbs.law at gmail.com Mon Aug 21 22:46:37 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:46:37 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Gilead's anti-AIDS drug now at $1 a day in India In-Reply-To: <20060821071931.28457.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <8b60429e0608201838l9a37bacn60d556b29f926171@mail.gmail.com> <20060821071931.28457.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8b60429e0608211016v6e339063h28d408d2c644a573@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Tahir. That was helpful. On 8/21/06, TAHIR AMIN wrote: > Hi Hasit, > > Far from being an expert, but having drafted the > oppositions for patient groups against Gilead's patent > applications for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate > (TDF/Viread) in India, seen the voluntary licenses on > offer and been in meetings with them, I can make a few > comments. > > I dont know how much you know about the background to > TDF, but MSF has been pushing them hard since around > 2002 to reduce the price of Viread as well as getting > the drug registered (marketing approval) in its 97 > "Access Programme" countries (all LDCs bar S. Africa i > believe). Thus far they have only registered in 11 > countries and claim to have applied for registration > in 51 more. They blame local authorities and partly > their own naivety for the slow registration - but I > think that's only a partial truth. For example in > China, I understand they havent made an application. > Also they refuse to submit their data for the drug to > the WHO to enable the pre-qualification process (as > often used by generics). > > So I think its fair to say Gilead has been dragging > its feet and not lowering its prices since around > 2002. We filed the patent opposition on 9 May 2006 and > within a week they had their legal and pr team in > India offering the voluntary licenses. They claim that > they had intended as one of their options to offer the > VLs and so this wasnt a spontaneous gesture. Not > wanting to be cynical, and may be Gilead had intended > to do this, but it seems it was accelarated by the > opposition being filed. Given the worldwide press > around the opposition by patient groups, one could say > they are either very worried that their patent(s) wont > be granted, hence the VLs being a way to get some > control of the market ( (albeit any VL where no patent > exists will be worthless which they acknowledge) > and/or they wanted to overshadow the opposition. > > The VL's on offer are, it has to be said reasonable - > particularly when people like Abbott refuse to offer > VLs on important second line drugs like Kaletra. > However, the key is that Indian Generics cant sell to > Brazil or China (and Thailand - but may be allowed > later), the countries very much in need of TDF at > cheaper prices, but only the 97 LDCs (which dont have > patents anyway - bar S. Africa, but Aspen is already > licensed). Gilead wants to keep these markets for > itself (which of course they have every right to - but > they dont have patents yet in these countries either > and they are also being challenged there). Having > looked at the patents, there is every chance they > might not be granted. > > The tech transfer point does have some validity. While > generics have already processed around Gileads > process, they may not be getting the highest yields > possible. I dont know if that might explain Cipla's > price at the moment (or whether its more to do with > the markets it can access - probably the latter given > Cipla's competence in coming up with another process > and good API). > > The key issue about the VLs is the question of whether > Gilead is trying to control the API market by only > allowing API producers to sell to companies which have > a licence to sell the end product. Gilead claims they > are not and Indian companies can get the API form any > party it wants provided the quality is the same, but > that doesnt seem so clear from the terms I have seen. > > All in all, Gilead has made a smart pr move. However, > many of us believe breaking the patents, for which > there are more than reasonable grounds under the > Indian Act, will reap even more benefits for aids > patients, particularly those in Brazil and China - and > consequently make sure that a stronger patent system > is developed. > > Tahir > > --- Hasit seth wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Can some expert here on AIDS drugs tell us what > > this press-note > > means between the lines. To me it seems that a > > patent holder (Gilead > > still does not have a patent in India, but in US) > > providing AIDS > > medicines at a low price with 5 percent royalty and > > technology > > transfer (cutting the lab-to-market) time seems ok. > > But again, we need > > an expert to opine on this. I posted this here > > because anything > > positive for drug companies never gets any bandwidth > > here. > > > > Regards, > > Hasit > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Gilead's anti-AIDS drug now at $1 a day in India > > > > By Murali Krishnan, Indo-Asian News Service > > > > New Delhi, Aug 20 (IANS) Viread, the largest selling > > anti-HIV/AIDS > > drug in the United States, will be available to > > patients in India at a > > special price equivalent of $1 a day, its > > manufacturer, > > bio-pharmaceutical major Gilead, announced Sunday. > > > > > > > > > > Gilead has already entered into generic licensing > > deals with three > > Indian pharma majors - Emcure Pharmaceuticals, > > Hetero Drugs and > > Strides Arcolab - for the drug. The Indian firms > > will make generic > > versions of Viread and distribute it to 95 > > low-income countries around > > the world in a couple of months. > > > > 'Our endeavour is to provide the widest possible > > access to our drugs > > for HIV/AIDS patients. Gilead has devised a tiered > > product pricing > > based on a country's economic status and HIV > > prevalence,' Gilead's > > senior vice-president Gregg Alton told IANS from San > > Jose, California. > > > > More than 5.1 million people are believed to be > > infected with the HIV > > virus in India - the second largest number of > > infected people after > > South Africa. > > > > 'Viread will be available at $365 per year in India. > > For African > > countries where the economic status is lower, we > > have priced the drug > > at $203 per year, making it close to 37 cents a day > > for patients,' he > > said. > > > > There has been much speculation in recent months > > with claims that > > Viread had been overpriced, selling at $5,700 in the > > developed world. > > > > Alton said, 'That pricing information is inaccurate, > > while we have the > > right to protect our intellectual property in > > developed markets, our > > tiered pricing for countries like India and Thailand > > will ensure that > > Viread will do well and provide better health status > > for patients.' > > > > Compared with generic versions currently available > > from pharma major > > Cipla, priced at over $1,200 per year, the new > > pricing is bound to > > come as a relief for patients. > > > > Viread (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) is on its way > > to becoming the > > frontrunner drug across Europe for HIV/AIDS due to > > its low toxicity > > and resistance levels observed in patients. The > > tablet-a-day dosage of > > the drug also helps in better regimen and compliance > > among HIV/AIDS > > patients taking it. > > > > On why the three generic Indian manufacturers agreed > > to take a license > > when Gilead does not actually have a patent, Alton > > said, 'There are > > several reasons for these license agreements. We > > will transfer > > technology and know-how to our partners for them to > > be able to produce > > larger, better and higher quality batches of > > Viread.' > > > > The technology transfer is expected to increase > > efficiency and drive down costs. > > > > 'We believe that we are the innovators of one of the > > foremost drugs in > > the battle against HIV/AIDS and are hopeful that our > > patents will be > > issued in India as they have in many other countries > > across the > > world.' > > > > Under the terms of the agreement, the generic > > companies will have the > > right to manufacture and market both the API (active > > particle > > ingredient) and the tablets in perpetuity. > > > > While the rights to sell API will be limited to > > other pharmaceutical > > companies in India, tablets can be distributed in > > India, Thailand, > > Africa and 43 other countries. > > > > This offers the Indian licensees a huge business > > opportunity given the > > size of the market. In Africa alone, 45,000 patients > > are currently on > > Viread, of an estimated infected population of 30 > > million. In India, > > about 40,000 patients are under treatment on the > > anti-retroviral drug. > > > > In return, the Indian manufacturers will pay Gilead > > a five percent > > royalty, which is well within the World Trade > > Organization norms, as > > compared with industry practice of much higher > > royalty rates. > > > > Alton said his company was in discussion with other > > Indian > > pharmaceutical majors even though some of them have > > filed oppositions > > to the Gilead patent filings. > > > > He said: 'We are in very advanced stages of > > discussions with other > > pharmaceutical companies, including Ranbaxy and > > Cipla, and are very > > positive that they will see value in our offer.' > > > > Copyright Indo-Asian News Service > > _______________________________________________ > > commons-law mailing list > > commons-law at sarai.net > > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > > > Tahir Amin > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection? > Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com > From paul at waag.org Wed Aug 23 17:36:19 2006 From: paul at waag.org (Paul Keller) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:36:19 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] article about grey market trade in apple computers and ipods in india... Message-ID: <6A6327EC-3E97-49C6-A169-7A67C7FA3413@waag.org> just came across this wired article about grey market trade in apple computers and ipods in india. might be intresting to some people on this list: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/mac/0,71639-0.html?tw=rss.index IPod Gray Market Booms in India -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: s.gif Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060823/63f9d299/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- 02:00 AM Aug, 23, 2006 CHENNAI, India -- It's the same ritual every month. On the first, my wife sends the rent check to our landlord, a Punjabi cloth merchant with an enormous mustache. Five days later, he knocks on the door and tells us he never received it. As we fish around for the checkbook, he makes his way over to the couch and proceeds to lay down demands. "When you go back to America I want you to send me a laptop. Get me a Macintosh like yours and I'll take it out of your rent," he says. Never mind that the cost of a new MacBook is several times our rent; my landlord is just one of millions of Indians who have a taste for all things Apple. But it's a taste very few can satisfy since all imported computer goods are so heavily taxed they are out of reach to all but the most affluent Indians. While Windows machines enjoy low prices because they're produced locally, Apple Computer products have to make their way from production facilities in China. Along the way, they pick up several cost-inflating customs stamps. Shopkeepers have responded by smuggling huge loads of illegal iPods and MacBooks from Singapore, Dubai and Malaysia. As a result, it's now almost impossible to buy any Apple product legally. "You can't buy Apple in India. I have to fly out of the country every month to get more," said Om Gani, proprietor of a hole-in-the-wall stall in Burma Bazaar, Chennai's most notorious illegal market. A street salesman who is wearing doti, south India's version of a kilt, leads me though a cramped passageway to get to his shop. Along the way we pass dozens of similar shops piled high with camera lenses, PlayStations, knockoff watches, computers, MP3 players and pirated DVDs. At every corner men try to catch my arm as sales pitches tumble unthinkingly from their lips. "You want jig-jig?" they ask. "How about iPod?" The term "gray market" is really just another word for seedy and illegal black-market goods that the police don't have the resources, or the will, to stop from being sold. The shops don't pay taxes. They only accept cash. But without a doubt, they're the best places to buy electronic goods anywhere in south Asia. After a good deal of haggling, I can pick up a 30-GB video iPod for $280, which is only $20 cheaper than you can get one at Best Buy in the United States, but a whopping $160 cheaper than the $440 that authorized dealers sell iPods for in India. "There is basically no incentive to buy legal," said Dina Mehta, a Mumbai-based blogger and marketing consultant. "They are launched officially late, and are often more expensive than what you find in the U.S., Singapore or Dubai." For its part, Apple doesn't have much incentive to push retailers to stay legit. Since added costs go to the government, not Apple, it may well be in Apple's best interest to look the other way and let smugglers drive up the company's sales numbers. Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment on Indian gray markets. He said Apple only provides worldwide sales figures, and "doesn't break out data by country." Last quarter Apple sold more than 8 million iPods and 1.3 million computers. Industry estimates by Daily News & Analysis suggest that the gray market makes up between 60 percent and 90 percent of sales in India. Even though demand for iPods is as great in India as anywhere else in the world, Apple seems to have cold feet about expanding its presence in the country. In May, Apple closed down its only call center in Bangalore and halted plans to hire 3,000 new employees by 2007. Though Apple said only that it had "re-evaluated" its plans in India, it appears that high taxes, a strong gray market and a thriving environment for Windows systems have given the company pause. Buying on the gray market has its dangers. Besides counterfeit parts and rough handling by smugglers, "customers also do not receive warranties and may not be otherwise supported by the manufacturer," said Peter Hlavnicka of the Alliance for Gray Market and Counterfeit Abatement. But some might argue the warranty in India is almost meaningless anyway. The closest support center is in Singapore and most local servicing here is -- at best -- hit or miss. Besides, without much official presence, the iPod enjoys underground cachet. "The fact that iPods are unaffordable makes them iconic," said Rashmi Bansal, editor of Jam magazine. In India, Apple products are prestige items that broadcast your ability to recognize what's cool outside the country. The fact that they might be smuggled only adds to the hipness factor. When I ran into a group of cinematographers, investment bankers, film producers and other members of Chennai's glitterati at a recent party, every single one of them showed off their latest iPod, PowerBook and MacBook. There wasn't a Windows machine in the house. Where did they get them? From abroad or the gray market. Even the rich don't want to pay full price.-- waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam e: paul at waag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880 From anivar.aravind at gmail.com Wed Aug 23 20:44:39 2006 From: anivar.aravind at gmail.com (Anivar Aravind) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:14:39 -0700 Subject: [Commons-Law] India should opposse DRM: Richard Stallman In-Reply-To: <35f96d470608230812s2a15faecm99c05cb9ae87b1d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <35f96d470608230812s2a15faecm99c05cb9ae87b1d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <35f96d470608230814w7920f62br9c73ddc95f8aef19@mail.gmail.com> India should opposse DRM: Richard Stallman India should not enact a Digital Rights Management (DRM) law, Dr. Richard M. Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Movement and the GNU Project said. He was speaking at the Fourth International Conference on GPL v3 held at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, on August 23rd, 2006. He commented that the people who implement DRM, which he called the "Digital Restrictions Management", should be in prison if the government is really of the people, by the people and for the people. This law actually restricts the freedom of the people. A company that uses the restrictions in producing its DVD will give the format it uses to create the DVD only to a company that promises to protect that restriction. The law has been enacted in the US and the European Union has given a direction in favour of DRM. Now the government of India is contemplating modifying its laws to incorporate DRM. The time given for the public to register their comments on the law was short and was insufficient for anyone to give a comprehensive response. That time itself is now over. It is important that the public take this issue and try to convince the government that what they are planning to do goes against the interests of the people and protects only the interest of the large companies. He went on to say that the Free Software licences like the GNU General Public Licence can do only a little to protect users from these laws. The conference was organised by the Free Software Foundation of India, and the Free Software Users Group, Bangalore, in association with the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, to discuss the draft of the new version of the General Public Licence (GPL), GPL v3. Dr. Stallman explained why a new version became necessary. He said that revisions become necessary when problems with the existing licence became clear, and when new circumstances threatened the freedom that Free Software promised its users. As an example of the new circumstances, he mentioned the DRM law and the example of a program called Tivo. Tivo is a device that records television programmes for the user to watch at another convenient time. This is a combination of software and hardware. The software is based on the GNU/Linux operating system, which is Free Software. All Free Software gives its users the freedom to modify the software to suit their purpose, and thus this software also gives the freedom to its users. But the hardware is designed to reject any software that is not one of the versions that is designed to run on it. Thus, though the user has the freedom to modify the software, it becomes meaningless because then it cannot be used. In other words, though the software is Free, the freedom becomes meaningless. The present GPL is not violated, though the freedom is, in practice, useless. The new version became necessary because of such circumstances. Prof. Eben Moglen, Professor at the Stanford Law School, Legal Advisor to the Free Software Foundation, and one of the important contributors to the new draft, said that protecting the licence from violations is not an easy job, and involves considerable work from a trained advocate. He said that a legal expert will be engaged in India if many violations of the GPL are found here. Referring to the problem related to some circuits used in wireless networking, he said that there has been serious problems from Japan, which has declared that any programmer who releases software for wireless circuits under any licence that makes its source code available, will be arrested next time the person lands in Japan. The conference will continue on 24th August, when two panels will discuss the relevance of Free Software for software businesses and in Education. The draft of GPLv3 can be read at http://gplv3.fsf.org/ and the detailed programme of the conference can be seen at http://gplv3.gnu.org.in/Conference/Schedule. Some photographs of the event are available at -- http://gnu.org.in/gplv3-conf-pics/index.html Anivar Aravind Free Software Foundation of India http://gnu.org.in From vaibhavvutts at gmail.com Fri Aug 25 01:24:53 2006 From: vaibhavvutts at gmail.com (vaibhavvutts at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 01:24:53 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Patients Protest Novartis Message-ID: Hi two very intersting articles about the Novartis suits in chennai. The constitutional validity of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act is being questioned by Novartis.it would be intersting to see teh views of the court in regard to the section. The case was scheduled for a hearing in Chennai, India, on Wednesday, 23rd August 2006, but has now been adjourned until September 13, 2006. i am pasting the links to the two articles as well as the whole articles. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1902494.cms http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=18110&hed=Patients+Protest+Novartis + Cheers Vaibhav Novartis files 2 patent suits in Chennai court[image: Add to Clippings] *[ 18 Aug, 2006 0048hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]* RSS Feeds| *SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates* MUMBAI: In a significant blow to Indian generic formulators, Switzerland-based Novartis AG has filed two petitions in the Madras High Court. While one challenges the overturn of its patent for Glivec, a drug used to treat leukemia, the other petition asks the court to declare section 3(d) of the Patents Amendment Act 'unconstitutional'. Glivec tablets contain the active ingredient 'imatinib mesilate', which is a type of anti-cancer medicine. It is used to treat a cancer of the blood cells called chronic myeloid leukemia and is also used to treat a rare cancer of the stomach and intestine. A month's therapy of Glivec costs Rs 1.10 lakh as compared to Rs 1,100 for a generic equivalent. Similarly, a year's therapy with Glivec costs around $27,000, compared with $2,700 for a generic firm's imatinib product. Ever since India adopted the Patent Act in January 2005, it is the first time that a MNC has decided to challenge a certain section. Section 3(d) of the Act deals with the fact that a patent for a molecule, or derivative of the known substance shall be considered to be the same, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy. Terming the section unconstitutional and in breach of India's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), the multinational has held that the "section is unclear". The Madras high court has admitted both the petitions and issued notices to the respondents. Novartis' petition for the re-evaluation of the Glivec patent application is bound to rake up old issues. It may be recalled that Novartis had applied for exclusive marketing rights (EMR) in 1998, and received marketing approval for Glivec in India in 2001. By the time the EMR was granted, a number of Indian manufacturers, notably Cipla, Ranbaxy, Sun and Natco, had launched generic imatinib. The domestic firms did not take the EMR matter lying down and went to court. Novartis obtained an injunction from the Madras high court, restraining six domestic firms from manufacturing imatinib, but not Natco. In January 2006, Novartis' patent for Glivec was denied. With the new petition, Novartis has sought a stay of the impugned order of January 25, whereby the assistant Controller of Patents and Designs had denied its patent application. Novartis' contention is that the ruling lacks legal or factual basis and justification. Patients Protest Novartis Drugmaker faces legal battle in India over rejection of patent for cancer drug Gleevec. August 23, 2006 The Mumbai, India, office of Novartis saw protests Wednesday from cancer patients and their support groups urging the Swiss drugmaker to withdraw the cases it has filed challenging the rejection of its patent application for the cancer drug Gleevec. The case was scheduled for a hearing in Chennai, India, on Wednesday but has now been adjourned until September 13. Shares of Novartis fell $0.15 to $56.80 in recent trading. Back in January, the patent office in Chennai rejected Novartis' application for Gleevec on the grounds that the patent was being sought for a new form of an old drug that did not qualify for "patentability" under the amended Indian Patents Act. *Celebrating Novartis' Loss* Indian generic makers and cancer patient support groups celebrated the Indian court's decision (see Generics Hail Novartis Loss). The decision not only averted a patent monopoly that would have lasted until 2018 but also led to automatic withdrawal of Novartis' exclusive marketing right (EMR). - ADVERTISEMENT - Under this marketing right, the Swiss drug manufacturer was supplying Gleevec but at a cost that was unaffordable for most cancer patients in India. Indian generic manufacturers were not only supplying cheaper versions to Indian patients but also to other developing nations. However, they had to stop their production after Novartis was granted its EMR. In response to the court's decision, Novartis filed seven cases in May against the Indian government, the Cancer Patients Aids Association, as well as other generic drug companies in the Madras High Court challenging the Indian Patent Office's rejection of its patent application for the blood cancer drug Gleevec. Whatever the outcome of Gleevec's legal course in India, it will set a precedent for many more patent applications to be rejected or granted under the new patent regime that India has adopted since January 2005. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060825/a8ca4669/attachment.html From getvicky at gmail.com Sat Aug 26 10:39:41 2006 From: getvicky at gmail.com (Vicky Shah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:39:41 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] India should oppose DRM Message-ID: Dear All, Following message was received by me from one of the yahoo groups. India should opposse DRM: Richard Stallman India should not enact a Digital Rights Management (DRM) law, Dr.Richard M. Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Movement and the GNU Project said. He was speaking at the Fourth International Conference on GPL v3 held at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, on August 23rd, 2006. He commented that the people who implement DRM, which he called the "Digital Restrictions Management", should be in prison if the government is really of the people, by the people and for the people. This law actually restricts the freedom of the people. A company that uses the restrictions in producing its DVD will give the format it uses to create the DVD only to a company that promises to protect that restriction. The law has been enacted in the US and the European Union has given a direction in favour of DRM. Now the government of India is contemplating modifying its laws to incorporate DRM. The time given for the public to register their comments on the law was short and was insufficient for anyone to give a comprehensive response. That time itself is now over. It is important that the public take this issue and try to convince the government that what they are planning to do goes against the interests of the people and protects only the interest of the large companies. He went on to say that the Free Software licences like the GNU General Public Licence can do only a little to protect users from these laws. The conference was organised by the Free Software Foundation of India, and the Free Software Users Group, Bangalore, in association with the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, to discuss the draft of the new version of the General Public Licence (GPL), GPL v3. Dr. Stallman explained why a new version became necessary. He said that revisions become necessary when problems with the existing licence became clear, and when new circumstances threatened the freedom that Free Software promised its users. As an example of the new circumstances, he mentioned the DRM law and the example of a program called Tivo. Tivo is a device that records television programmes for the user to watch at another convenient time. This is a combination of software and hardware. The software is based on the GNU/Linux operating system, which is Free Software. All Free Software gives its users the freedom to modify the software to suit their purpose, and thus this software also gives the freedom to its users. But the hardware is designed to reject any software that is not one of the versions that is designed to run on it. Thus, though the user has the freedom to modify the software, it becomes meaningless because then it cannot be used. In other words, though the software is Free, the freedom becomes meaningless. The present GPL is not violated, though the freedom is, in practice, useless. The new version became necessary because of such circumstances. Prof. Eben Moglen, Professor at the Stanford Law School, Legal Advisor to the Free Software Foundation, and one of the important contributors to the new draft, said that protecting the licence from violations is not an easy job, and involves considerable work from a trained advocate. He said that a legal expert will be engaged in India if many violations of the GPL are found here. Referring to the problem related to some circuits used in wireless networking, he said that there has been serious problems from Japan, which has declared that any programmer who releases software for wireless circuits under any licence that makes its source code available, will be arrested next time the person lands in Japan. The draft of GPLv3 can be read at http://gplv3.fsf.org/ and the detailed programme of the conference can be seen at http://gplv3.gnu.org.in/Conference/Schedule. Some photographs of the event are available at -- http://gnu.org.in/gplv3-conf-pics/index.html -- Warm Regards, Vicky D. Shah (+91) 9820105011 "Human Behavior is the Biggest Risk in Security" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060826/3ef59420/attachment.html From getvicky at gmail.com Sat Aug 26 10:39:41 2006 From: getvicky at gmail.com (Vicky Shah) Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:39:41 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [cyberlaw4india] India should oppose DRM Message-ID: Dear All, Following message was received by me from one of the yahoo groups. India should opposse DRM: Richard Stallman India should not enact a Digital Rights Management (DRM) law, Dr.Richard M. Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Movement and the GNU Project said. He was speaking at the Fourth International Conference on GPL v3 held at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, on August 23rd, 2006. He commented that the people who implement DRM, which he called the "Digital Restrictions Management", should be in prison if the government is really of the people, by the people and for the people. This law actually restricts the freedom of the people. A company that uses the restrictions in producing its DVD will give the format it uses to create the DVD only to a company that promises to protect that restriction. The law has been enacted in the US and the European Union has given a direction in favour of DRM. Now the government of India is contemplating modifying its laws to incorporate DRM. The time given for the public to register their comments on the law was short and was insufficient for anyone to give a comprehensive response. That time itself is now over. It is important that the public take this issue and try to convince the government that what they are planning to do goes against the interests of the people and protects only the interest of the large companies. He went on to say that the Free Software licences like the GNU General Public Licence can do only a little to protect users from these laws. The conference was organised by the Free Software Foundation of India, and the Free Software Users Group, Bangalore, in association with the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, to discuss the draft of the new version of the General Public Licence (GPL), GPL v3. Dr. Stallman explained why a new version became necessary. He said that revisions become necessary when problems with the existing licence became clear, and when new circumstances threatened the freedom that Free Software promised its users. As an example of the new circumstances, he mentioned the DRM law and the example of a program called Tivo. Tivo is a device that records television programmes for the user to watch at another convenient time. This is a combination of software and hardware. The software is based on the GNU/Linux operating system, which is Free Software. All Free Software gives its users the freedom to modify the software to suit their purpose, and thus this software also gives the freedom to its users. But the hardware is designed to reject any software that is not one of the versions that is designed to run on it. Thus, though the user has the freedom to modify the software, it becomes meaningless because then it cannot be used. In other words, though the software is Free, the freedom becomes meaningless. The present GPL is not violated, though the freedom is, in practice, useless. The new version became necessary because of such circumstances. Prof. Eben Moglen, Professor at the Stanford Law School, Legal Advisor to the Free Software Foundation, and one of the important contributors to the new draft, said that protecting the licence from violations is not an easy job, and involves considerable work from a trained advocate. He said that a legal expert will be engaged in India if many violations of the GPL are found here. Referring to the problem related to some circuits used in wireless networking, he said that there has been serious problems from Japan, which has declared that any programmer who releases software for wireless circuits under any licence that makes its source code available, will be arrested next time the person lands in Japan. The draft of GPLv3 can be read at http://gplv3.fsf.org/ and the detailed programme of the conference can be seen at http://gplv3.gnu.org.in/Conference/Schedule. Some photographs of the event are available at -- http://gnu.org.in/gplv3-conf-pics/index.html -- Warm Regards, Vicky D. Shah (+91) 9820105011 "Human Behavior is the Biggest Risk in Security" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060826/3ef59420/attachment-0001.html From SKATYAL at law.fordham.edu Tue Aug 29 23:37:06 2006 From: SKATYAL at law.fordham.edu (Sonia Katyal) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:06 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] India and patents Message-ID: Friends: A great article on a very thought provoking issue, definitely worth thinking about.... "Now that Cisco, Intel, General Electric, IBM, Sun Microsystems, and dozens of other companies have established Indian research centers, some fear that India's potential intellectual property will increasingly flow to multinational companies. "They're using Indian IQ to create IP for themselves," says Mashelkar. "We need to exploit our local IQ to generate IP for ourselves."" http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17339&ch=biztech warmly, skk Sonia K. Katyal Associate Professor of Law Fordham Law School 140 W. 62nd St. New York, NY 10023 Send Email: http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/bio.ihtml?id=766&template=jd Papers available at http://ssrn.com/author=115375 From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Wed Aug 30 10:01:43 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:31:43 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] John Mitchell on Culver City "EnterNot" Access Message-ID: <44F514AF.5EE6C888@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://interactionlaw.com/wordpress/2006/08/28/culver-city-offers-free-wi-fi-enternot-access/ Culver City Offers Free Wi-fi ‘EnterNot’ Access August 28th, 2006 Culver City is offering public wi-fi access to the Internet (http://www.culvercitywifi.org/wifi_access.html) with two big caveats: It’s not really the Internet, and to use it you agree to give up your civil rights. That’s right. First, they offer Internet access, but you must agree to “limited” Internet access. And they don’t mean limited hours of the day, limited locations, or a limited amount of time you can be on. No, when they say “limited,” they mean that they will censor access to parts of the Internet. (”By using this free wireless network you are agreeing and acknowledging you have read and accepted these terms and conditions of use, and this wireless network provides only limited access to the Internet.”) In other words, they do not offer Internet access at all. As the Dynamic Platform Standards Project points out so well (http://dpsproject.com/), anyone offering access to a “limited Internet” is engaged in false and deceptive advertising because a “limited Internet” is an oxymoron. Second, in order to gain the right to enjoy this free, public, non-Internet access, no matter what you read in the Bill of Rights (and the First Amendment, in particular) you must agree that the government may abridge your freedom of speech and you further agree that when it does so (as it promises to do), you will not exercise your right to sue for the violation of your First Amendment rights! I’m not making this up. Here’s the fine print: “Further, [by using it] you are agreeing to waive any claims, including, but not limited to First Amendment claims, that may arise from the City and Agency’s decision to block access to matter and websites [of its choosing] through this free wireless network .” >From a legal standpoint, it is the same as if the Culver City public library were offering you free access to newspapers, but was first clipping out the articles it didn’t like and making you agree not to sue for censorship if you wanted to read what was left. It’s starting to look like 1984. “Freedom” means freedom to give up your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you want to have free access to the government’s Internet - or “EnterNot,” as the Culver City leadership might call it. I’m a big fan of free, public Internet access, but without the Doublespeak. From hbs.law at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 20:16:34 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:16:34 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] commons-law Digest, Vol 37, Issue 19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b60429e0608300746r47d1c7aflc1868473c009c19e@mail.gmail.com> Hi Sonia, This is an interesting viewpoint that there is some finite pool of "Indian IQ" that generates "Indian IP". Suddenly, MNCs are coming to make use of Indian IQ to create MNC IP. I don't even know what to call this school of thought.... Thanks for pointing out the article. I still remember the fine chinese meal you treated me to in Chelsea :-) Regards, Hasit On 8/30/06, commons-law-request at sarai.net wrote: > Send commons-law mailing list submissions to > commons-law at sarai.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > commons-law-request at sarai.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > commons-law-owner at sarai.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. India and patents (Sonia Katyal) > 2. John Mitchell on Culver City "EnterNot" Access (Seth Johnson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:07:06 -0400 > From: "Sonia Katyal" > Subject: [Commons-Law] India and patents > To: , > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Friends: > > A great article on a very thought provoking issue, definitely worth thinking about.... > > "Now that Cisco, Intel, General Electric, IBM, Sun Microsystems, and > dozens of other companies have established Indian research centers, some > fear that India's potential intellectual property will increasingly flow > to multinational companies. "They're using Indian IQ to create IP for > themselves," says Mashelkar. "We need to exploit our local IQ to > generate IP for ourselves."" > > http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17339&ch=biztech > > warmly, > > skk > > Sonia K. Katyal > Associate Professor of Law > Fordham Law School > 140 W. 62nd St. > New York, NY 10023 > Send Email: http://law.fordham.edu/ihtml/bio.ihtml?id=766&template=jd > Papers available at http://ssrn.com/author=115375 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:31:43 -0400 > From: Seth Johnson > Subject: [Commons-Law] John Mitchell on Culver City "EnterNot" Access > To: ecommerce at lists.essential.org, a2k at lists.essential.org, > broadcast-discuss at lists.essential.org, > upd-discuss at lists.essential.org, commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <44F514AF.5EE6C888 at RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > http://interactionlaw.com/wordpress/2006/08/28/culver-city-offers-free-wi-fi-enternot-access/ > > > Culver City Offers Free Wi-fi 'EnterNot' Access > > August 28th, 2006 > > Culver City is offering public wi-fi access to the Internet > (http://www.culvercitywifi.org/wifi_access.html) with two big > caveats: It's not really the Internet, and to use it you agree to > give up your civil rights. > > That's right. First, they offer Internet access, but you must > agree to "limited" Internet access. And they don't mean limited > hours of the day, limited locations, or a limited amount of time > you can be on. No, when they say "limited," they mean that they > will censor access to parts of the Internet. ("By using this free > wireless network you are agreeing and acknowledging you have read > and accepted these terms and conditions of use, and this wireless > network provides only limited access to the Internet.") In other > words, they do not offer Internet access at all. As the Dynamic > Platform Standards Project points out so well > (http://dpsproject.com/), anyone offering access to a "limited > Internet" is engaged in false and deceptive advertising because a > "limited Internet" is an oxymoron. > > Second, in order to gain the right to enjoy this free, public, > non-Internet access, no matter what you read in the Bill of > Rights (and the First Amendment, in particular) you must agree > that the government may abridge your freedom of speech and you > further agree that when it does so (as it promises to do), you > will not exercise your right to sue for the violation of your > First Amendment rights! > > I'm not making this up. Here's the fine print: "Further, [by > using it] you are agreeing to waive any claims, including, but > not limited to First Amendment claims, that may arise from the > City and Agency's decision to block access to matter and > websites [of its choosing] through this free wireless network ." > > >From a legal standpoint, it is the same as if the Culver City > public library were offering you free access to newspapers, but > was first clipping out the articles it didn't like and making you > agree not to sue for censorship if you wanted to read what was > left. > > It's starting to look like 1984. "Freedom" means freedom to give > up your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of > happiness if you want to have free access to the government's > Internet - or "EnterNot," as the Culver City leadership might > call it. I'm a big fan of free, public Internet access, but > without the Doublespeak. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 37, Issue 19 > ******************************************* > From prashant_roy at rediffmail.com Thu Aug 31 18:35:40 2006 From: prashant_roy at rediffmail.com (Prashant Roy) Date: 31 Aug 2006 13:05:40 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] National IT/IP Tri-Weekly Newswire Message-ID: <1157018627.S.11282.13873.webmail65.rediffmail.com.1157029539.19359@webmail.rediffmail.com> Hi everybody, i have started a National IT/IP Tri-Weekly Newswire. it cover a wide area that is apart from IT/IP it covers - egov, telecom, biotech and media. To subscribe to this Newsletter, visit the Newsletter Subscription Center at http://www.openarchive.in/drupal/Prashant Roy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060831/814770f5/attachment.html From Deepkumar.external at qimonda.com Tue Aug 15 00:08:36 2006 From: Deepkumar.external at qimonda.com (Deepkumar.external at qimonda.com) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:38:36 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] [Commons-law] Re: opus license Message-ID: <57F0C0E287E72E45B4C54DD20F1426534FA8EC@mucse344.eu.infineon.com> From anivar.aravind at gmail.com Wed Aug 23 20:33:28 2006 From: anivar.aravind at gmail.com (Anivar Aravind) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:03:28 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] India should opposse DRM: Richard Stallman Message-ID: <35f96d470608230808u22b62092kf08535e1120c40f2@mail.gmail.com> India should opposse DRM: Richard Stallman India should not enact a Digital Rights Management (DRM) law, Dr. Richard M. Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Movement and the GNU Project said. He was speaking at the Fourth International Conference on GPL v3 held at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, on August 23rd, 2006. He commented that the people who implement DRM, which he called the "Digital Restrictions Management", should be in prison if the government is really of the people, by the people and for the people. This law actually restricts the freedom of the people. A company that uses the restrictions in producing its DVD will give the format it uses to create the DVD only to a company that promises to protect that restriction. The law has been enacted in the US and the European Union has given a direction in favour of DRM. Now the government of India is contemplating modifying its laws to incorporate DRM. The time given for the public to register their comments on the law was short and was insufficient for anyone to give a comprehensive response. That time itself is now over. It is important that the public take this issue and try to convince the government that what they are planning to do goes against the interests of the people and protects only the interest of the large companies. He went on to say that the Free Software licences like the GNU General Public Licence can do only a little to protect users from these laws. The conference was organised by the Free Software Foundation of India, and the Free Software Users Group, Bangalore, in association with the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, to discuss the draft of the new version of the General Public Licence (GPL), GPL v3. Dr. Stallman explained why a new version became necessary. He said that revisions become necessary when problems with the existing licence became clear, and when new circumstances threatened the freedom that Free Software promised its users. As an example of the new circumstances, he mentioned the DRM law and the example of a program called Tivo. Tivo is a device that records television programmes for the user to watch at another convenient time. This is a combination of software and hardware. The software is based on the GNU/Linux operating system, which is Free Software. All Free Software gives its users the freedom to modify the software to suit their purpose, and thus this software also gives the freedom to its users. But the hardware is designed to reject any software that is not one of the versions that is designed to run on it. Thus, though the user has the freedom to modify the software, it becomes meaningless because then it cannot be used. In other words, though the software is Free, the freedom becomes meaningless. The present GPL is not violated, though the freedom is, in practice, useless. The new version became necessary because of such circumstances. Prof. Eben Moglen, Professor at the Stanford Law School, Legal Advisor to the Free Software Foundation, and one of the important contributors to the new draft, said that protecting the licence from violations is not an easy job, and involves considerable work from a trained advocate. He said that a legal expert will be engaged in India if many violations of the GPL are found here. Referring to the problem related to some circuits used in wireless networking, he said that there has been serious problems from Japan, which has declared that any programmer who releases software for wireless circuits under any licence that makes its source code available, will be arrested next time the person lands in Japan. The conference will continue on 24th August, when two panels will discuss the relevance of Free Software for software businesses and in Education. The draft of GPLv3 can be read at http://gplv3.fsf.org/ and the detailed programme of the conference can be seen at http://gplv3.gnu.org.in/Conference/Schedule. Some photographs of the event are available at -- http://gnu.org.in/gplv3-conf-pics/index.html Anivar Aravind Free Software Foundation of India http://gnu.org.in -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PressReport.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 237271 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060823/7afe7d58/attachment.pdf