From clifton at altlawforum.org Sat Dec 2 19:55:24 2006 From: clifton at altlawforum.org (Clifton) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 19:55:24 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Action Alert - Communal harmony activists arrested in Karnataka - Write in the the chief Minister Message-ID: <45718CD4.4070901@altlawforum.org> Friends, Most of you are aware of the Sangh Parivar’s attempts to destroy the secular fabric in Karnataka by targeting the Baba-Datta shrine on Bababudangiri near Chikmagalur, a shrine that is an example of syncretic traditions in the state, attracting people of different faiths. You are also aware of the role of this present coalition government in supporting and promoting these activities of the Sangh Parivar. Now the government has given permission to the Sangh Parivar to conduct the Shobha Yatra and about 300 activists of the Karnataka Komu Souharda Vedike who reached Chikmagalur to protest this have been arrested today (02.12.2006). The Karnataka Komu Souharda Vedike, which is a coalition of over 200 organizations working since 2002 to establish communal harmony and to fight against the agenda of communalism in Karnataka, has through the years exposed the Sangh Parivar’s farcical claims about the shrine, thwarted their intentions and successfully countered their agenda through its ideology of aggressive secularism. The Sangh Parivar has been targeting the shrine on Bababudangiri with the sole intention of destroying this tradition in the name of 'liberating' the shrine from Muslims. In order to achieve their narrow sectarian goal, they have been creating unwanted disputes, putting up historically untenable and legally unsubstantial arguments. Further, they have introduced previously non-existent religious practices like Datta-Mala Abhiyan, Shobha Yatra and Datta Jayanthi celebrations every year in the months of October, November and December. It is obvious that their main purpose is neither religion nor faith but to target the Muslim community as ‘outsiders’ who are bent on destroying the ‘Hindu’ tradition and culture. This year, the BJP has aligned with the Janata Dal (S) to form a coalition government which has thus far supported the communal agenda of the Sangh Parivar. Clear evidence of this was visible in the first week of October during the communal violence in and around Mangalore and in Bababudangiri at the time of the Datta Mala Abhiyan. In Bababudangiri, the local BJP MLA, C.T. Ravi led the Sangh Parivar activists in performing rites in the shrine – in clear violation of the High Court's order. By contrast activists of the Komu Souharda Vedike were arrested and prevented from peacefully protesting and exposing the communal designs of the present Government. This action of the present governement is reprehensible and reaffirms the communal credentials of the so – called secular JD(S). We are particularly concerned that this particular action of arresting secular activists and preventing peaceful protests bodes ill for the future of democracy in Karnataka /We request you to write / phone / fax / email the Chief Minister and the Home Minister demanding the immediate release of the arrested activists. We also hope that you would state in most certain terms your unacceptance of such a communal agenda of this government especially with regard to Bababudangiri and the recent Mangalore riots. / /Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy/ /Ph: 2225 3414 / /22253424/ cm at kar.nic.in / /Home Minister M.P. Prakash Ph: 22251798 Internal Ph: 2092489 e-mail: homemin at vsb.kar.nic.in / From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Mon Dec 4 10:35:37 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:05:37 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] UCS: EPA Closing, Destroying Libraries Message-ID: <4573ACA1.E0ACACE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Whatever the facts actually are here, I think it's still pretty important: Seth > http://ucsaction.org/campaign/12_1_06_EPA_Library_Closures The EPA Closes Its Libraries, Destroys Documents The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun closing its nationwide network of scientific libraries, effectively preventing EPA scientists and the public from accessing vast amounts of data and information on issues from toxicology to pollution. Several libraries have already been dismantled, with their contents either destroyed or shipped to repositories where they are uncataloged and inaccessible. The scientific information contained in the EPA libraries is essential to the agency's ability to make fully informed decisions that carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment. Members of Congress have asked the EPA to cease and desist. Please call EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson at (202) 564-4700 either today, December 1, or Monday, December 4, and tell him how much scientists rely on data and literature. Urge him to immediately halt the dismantling of the library system until Congress approves the EPA budget and all materials are readily available online. Update, 12:40p.m. EST 12/1: Calls are already flooding in and we've received reports that the EPA office is denying closing the libraries. However, ample evidence exists that this is indeed happening; click on "tell me more" below to find detailed sources. Your message can still be clear: The EPA should not close its valuable science libraries. Tell me more: http://ucsaction.org/campaign/12_1_06_EPA_Library_Closures/explanation --- > http://ucsaction.org/campaign/12_1_06_EPA_Library_Closures/explanation What's At Stake? The EPA Closes Its Libraries, Destroys Documents The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a nationwide network of 27 libraries that provide critical scientific information on human health and environmental protection, not only to EPA scientists, but also to other researchers and the general public. The EPA libraries are located in each of 10 regions of the country, at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at various EPA laboratories specializing in certain aspects of environmental protection. In order to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment, the EPA must rely on accurate, up-to-date scientific information as well as the findings of earlier studies. To make the best scientific determinations, scientists need access to information regarding the health effects of toxic substances, records of environmental change over time, impacts on specific regions or communities and other issues. To this end, the libraries represent a unique and invaluable source of scientific knowledge on issues from hazardous waste to toxicology to pollution control. Additional benefit to scientific researchers is gained from the expertise of a dedicated library staff, who field more than 140,000 database and reference questions per year from EPA scientists and the public. In February 2006 under the guise of cutting costs, the Bush Administration proposed cutting $2 million out of the $2.5 million library services budget for fiscal year 2007. Such a drastic cut would ensure the closing of most of the library network, but would hardly register as a cost savings against the $8 billion EPA budget. Despite the fact that Congress has not yet passed the 2007 budget or approved these funding cuts, the EPA has already moved with astonishing speed to close down several of its libraries to both the public and EPA staff. Three regional libraries, the Headquarters Library and a specialized library for research on the effects and properties of chemicals have already been closed, and four additional regional libraries have been subjected to reduced hours and limited access. Some books, reports and other resources formerly housed at these libraries have been sent to three repositories where they remain uncatalogued and inaccessible to the scientists and others who depend upon them. Other materials have already been recycled or thrown away. While administration officials claim the changes are prompted by budgetary pressures, the existence of a dedicated library system has been shown to actually save money. A 2004 internal EPA report found that the library network saved over 214,000 hours a year in staff time, amounting to cost-savings of $7.5 million—considerably more than the savings gained from cutting the program. Officials claim the closings are part of a modernization plan, and that all materials will eventually be available online. However, no comprehensive assessment of information needs has been undertaken—making it likely that some unique information will be lost—and no funding exists to carry out the time-consuming and expensive process of making documents available electronically. The end result is that the library resources are already unavailable and the promised electronic access could be years away. Many scientists and lawmakers have spoken out in protest of these library closures. Four unions representing 10,000 EPA scientists sent a letter asking Congress to stop the destruction of the library network. A letter from Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Bart Gordon (D-TN) and John Dingell (D-MI) has prompted an investigation of the library system by the General Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. And members of both the House and Senate have called upon Administrator Johnson to cease and desist with the closures until the investigation is complete and Congress has authorized action; the House letter calls for a response from the administrator by Monday, December 4, 2006. The closure of these libraries and the warehousing of their resources represents an additional barrier to the free flow of scientific information. The EPA will not have the best information readily available when it makes regulatory decisions, negatively impacting the agency's ability to carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment. Are the Libraries Really Closing? As of 12:40 p.m. on 12/1, the EPA Administrator's office was denying that libraries had been closed. In addition to the congressional letters cited above, we have ample evidence that this is indeed the case. On the EPA’s own library website, the five libraries that have been closed to date have been removed from the list and had their websites partially or completely shut down: the Headquarters Library, Region 5, Region 6, Region 7, and the Office of Prevention, Pollution, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). The EPA libraries website links to a plan of action for closing many libraries and dispersing or disposing of materials. We also have first-hand accounts from EPA employees that the libraries have been closed. Also, several newspapers have reported or editorialized about the library closures, including: * Christian Science Monitor, 11/30/06: "As EPA Libraries go Digital, Public Access Suffers" * Boston Globe editorial, 11/20/06: "Save the Earth's Libraries" * Arizona Star, 11/05/06: "EPA Libraries Taking Big Hits: They're closed or curtailed to cut costs, agency says; critics skeptical" Additional information is provided by the American Library Association and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. These are large agencies; it is not uncommon for an agency to go into complete denial when confronted with questions such as the ones we are asking. However, this only underscores the importance of putting the administrator’s office on notice that we are watching and will hold them accountable. From anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de Tue Dec 5 18:40:20 2006 From: anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de (ANIRBAN MAZUMDAR) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 13:10:20 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] On database law in India Message-ID: I am Prof. Anirban Mazumder from the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkota. I am in the process of completing a novel database law for India. There has been no initiative, before mine, to set up a database law. I would invite comments and suggestions on the proposed database law. Thank you, ANIRBAN ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 _________________________________________________________________ Die neue MSN Suche Toolbar mit Windows-Desktopsuche. Suchen Sie gleichzeitig im Web, Ihren E-Mails und auf Ihrem PC! Jetzt neu! http://desktop.msn.de/ Jetzt gratis downloaden! From shuddha at sarai.net Thu Dec 7 16:39:15 2006 From: shuddha at sarai.net (Shuddhabrata Sengupta) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:39:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Launch of '13 December - A Reader' Message-ID: <4577F65B.3020100@sarai.net> Dear All, (apologies for cross posting to those on both Reader List and Commons Law List) It is shortly going to be five years to December 13, 2001 and a fair bit of discussion on this list (over the past five years) has focused on the strange events of December 13 and its aftermath. Here is an invitation to the launch of a Reader on 13 December (The Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament) being published by Penguin Books,India. It includes texts that were first posted on this list. For those who are in Delhi - it is at 4:00 pm on Tuesday, the 12th of December at Gulmohar Hall at the India Habitat Centre. (See Details below). Please come for the event and circulate this notice widely. regards, Shuddhabrata Sengupta ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TO MARK THE PUBLICATION OF - '13 DECEMBER - A READER: THE STRANGE CASE OF THE ATTACK ON THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT' (WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ARUNDHATI ROY) ESSAYS BY : A G NOORANI - ARUNDHATI ROY - ASHOK MITRA - INDIRA JAISING - JAWED NAQVI - MIHIR SRIVASTAVA - NANDITA HAKSAR NIRMALANGSHU MUKHERJI - PRAFUL BIDWAI - SHUDDHABRATA SENGUPTA SONIA JABBAR - SYED BISMILLAH GEELANI - TRIPTA WAHI PENGUIN BOOKS INDIA INVITES YOU TO A DISCUSSION BASED ON THE BOOK ON TUESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2006 AT 4 PM AT GULMOHAR HALL, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI (ENTRY FROM GATE NO 3) THE MAIN SPEAKERS WILL BE - ARUNDHATI ROY INDIRA JAISING NANDITA HAKSAR NIRMALANGSHU MUKHERJI PRAFUL BIDWAI SHUDDHABRATA SENGUPTA RSVP SAVITA ALAGH 2649 4401 EXTN 411 ...................................................................................................................................................... Most people, or let's say many people, when they encounter real facts and a logical argument, do begin to ask the right questions. Public unease continues to grow. A group of citizens have come together as a committee (chaired by Nirmala Deshpande) to publicly demand a Parliamentary enquiry into the episode. There is an on-line petition demanding the same thing. Thousands of people have signed on. Every day new articles appear in the papers, on the net. At least half a dozen web sites are following the developments closely. They raise questions about how Mohammad Afzal, who never had proper legal representation, can be sentenced to death, without having had an opportunity to be heard, without a fair trial. They raise questions about fabricated evidence, procedural flaws and the outright lies that were presented in court and published in newspapers. They show how there is hardly a single piece of evidence that stands up to scrutiny. And then, there are even more disturbing questions that have been raised, which range beyond the fate of Mohammad Afzal. - Here are thirteen questions for 13 December: Question 1: For months before the Attack on Parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that Parliament could be attacked. On 12 December 2001, at an informal meeting the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee warned of an imminent attack on Parliament. On 13 December Parliament was attacked. Given that there was an 'improved security drill', how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex? Question 2: Within days of the Attack, the Special Cell of Delhi Police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba. They said the attack was led by a man called 'Mohammad' who was also involved in the hijacking of IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the CBI.) None of this was ever proved in court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim? Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on Close Circuit TV (CCTV). Congress Party MP Kapil Sibal demanded in Parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. He was supported by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptullah, who said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress Party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, 'I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The close circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men.' If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing? Question 4: Why was Parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised? Question 5: A few days after 13 December, the government declared that it had 'incontrovertible evidence' of Pakistan's involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilization of almost half a million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal's 'confession', extracted under torture (and later set aside by the Supreme Court), what was the 'incontrovertible evidence'? Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilization to the Pakistan border had begun long before the 13 December Attack? Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages, and landmines were being planted in their fields? Question 8: In a criminal investigation it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. How did the police reach Mohammad Afzal? The Special Cell says S.A.R. Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar Police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the 13 December Attack? Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the Special Task Force (STF) of Jammu & Kashmir Police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation? Question 10: Is it plausible that organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation? Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to 'Mohammed' and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now? Question 12: On 19 December 2001, six days after the Parliament Attack, Police Commissioner, Thane (Maharashtra), S.M. Shangari identified one of the attackers killed in the Parliament Attack as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000, and immediately handed over to the J&K Police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If Police Commissioner Shangari was right, how did Mohammad Yasin, a man in the custody of the J&K Police, end up participating in the Parliament Attack? If he was wrong, where is Mohammad Yasin now? Question 13: Why is it that we still don't know who the five dead 'terrorists' killed in the Parliament Attack are? - From the introduction to '13 December - A Reader: The Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament' From anivar.aravind at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 12:40:59 2006 From: anivar.aravind at gmail.com (Anivar Aravind) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 12:40:59 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] US for review of India's patent laws Message-ID: <35f96d470612072310r1e506a74v6a6097b32552cd9b@mail.gmail.com> US for review of India's patent laws http://news.monstersandcritics.com/india/news/article_1230723.php/US_for_review_of_Indias_patent_laws New Delhi, Dec 7 (IANS) India needs to review its patent regime especially in regard to piracy in order to match international standards in intellectual property rights (IPR) laws, said US Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Jon W. Dudas here Thursday. 'I commend India's efforts in passing the 2005 Patent Amendment, which extended patent protection to pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals. However, there are still some areas like data exclusivity and piracy which had been overlooked,' Dudas, told a conference on Patent and IPR Laws. 'This will be beneficial for India in the sense that it will help attract more foreign investment in the country,' he said at the conference jointly organised by the US embassy and Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). On protecting data exclusivity, the US Under Secretary said: 'The US government would like to work with India to encourage the establishment of a Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which is a consistent data protection regime for innovative pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical test data.' He also referred to the fact that the Indian music industry had declined by 50 percent in 2004 and India's entertainment sector continues to faces huge losses due to increasing piracy problems. 'We have urged the Indian government to revise the amendments made to the IPR laws and we are looking forward to work together with the government to ensure that the revised copyright law provides adequate protection to copyright owners and creators,' Dudas said. (c) 2006 Indo-Asian News Service From k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 20:58:38 2006 From: k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com (ravi srinivas) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 20:58:38 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Launch of '13 December - A Reader' Message-ID: I would like to know as to what was the response of all these intellectuals and civil rights organisations when advocates were prevented from appearing on behalf of the accused in what is known as Kashmir Sex Scandal. Was it not a fact that they could not get bail as no advocate was prepared to appear on their behalf and Bar Council in Srinagar passed a resolution that no advocate should appear for the accused. I sent an email to PUDR requesting them to state their stand on this issue. I got no reply. While much publicity is given to Afzal's letter and accusation that Afzal's lawyer favored death sentence by injection the letter by Colin Gonsalves is not given that much publicity. In fact it does not even figure in the widely circulated booklet issued in support of Afzal, nor it is available in site justiceforafzalguru.org although the statement by him in defense of Afzal Guru is available there.But it does not tell the full story. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061208/44b9b38a/attachment.html From anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de Sat Dec 9 01:03:35 2006 From: anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de (ANIRBAN MAZUMDER) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:33:35 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Anomalies in Copyright Law Message-ID: Hello, I am Prof. Mazumder, and wish to share my latest pathbreaking article on copyright law and the anomalies therein. This paper was published in the November edition of the Journal of World Intellectual Property. Helpful comments are welcome. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1422-2213.2006.00306.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=jwip Abstract The word copyright is a misnomer. The law of copyright is based on the encouragement of motive. Plagiarism is not necessarily copyright infringement and copyright infringement is not necessarily plagiarism. Copyright law is concerned, in essence, with the negative right of preventing the copying of physical material. Copyright is not a monopoly, unlike patent and registered design. Thus, if it can be shown that two precisely similar works were in fact produced wholly independently of one another, there can be no infringement of copyright by one or the other. Substantial similarity leading to copyright infringement is a grey area in copyright law. As per copyright law principles, making a digital copy itself is copyright infringement, no matter what amount of work is accessible to users. If a compilation work satisfies the originality criteria, that is 'creativity', then it will be protected. There is no copyright in facts per se, but original expression of factual compilation can have copyright protection. ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 _________________________________________________________________ Wenn Ihnen E-Mail nicht schnell genug ist: MSN Messenger! - http://www.imagine-msn.com/messenger/default2.aspx?locale=de Kostenlos downloaden! From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 07:47:05 2006 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 07:47:05 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Every five-and-a-half hours, there is a raid somewhere Message-ID: <908adbd0612081817w4d6051c6o5e6c5b4351dd245d@mail.gmail.com> Hi, These tragic figures might be of use to someone. Prashant CALCUTTA: LONG, LONE BATTLE TO KILL MUSIC PIRACY (IMI, NUJS WORKSHOP) Source: The Telegraph The Telegraph On Saturday, a workshop at the National University of Juridical Sciences will clue in public prosecutors and police officers on the nuances of Intellectual Property Rights Act. In the teachers' seats will be representatives of Indian Music Industry, the association of music-producing companies. What has brought them down from the Mumbai headquarters is the fact that West Bengal, along with Bihar, has not recorded a single conviction in music piracy cases. "The cases are piling up here, at least 500 of them," retired super cop Julio Ribeiro says. "Even if police carry out raids, what is the point if the cases are not concluded? We are here to goad the administration." Ribeiro leads a crack team of ex-cops who sniff out piracy hubs and work alongside police across the country. "We have registered about 10,000 cases in the past five years. Every five-and-a-half hours, there is a raid somewhere. Every 19 seconds, we pick up a pirated CD," says Savio D'Souza, secretary-general of IMI. In Bengal, the IMI team, under retired IPS officer Kiriti Sengupta, conducted 111 raids in 2005, while the police did 177. In 1994, human resources development minister Arjun Singh had directed every police department to start an audio-video anti-piracy cell. Only Tamil Nadu and Kerala set it up. Hence convictions are highest in the south. Even a Chhattisgarh court has given a full penalty under the Copyright Act this July - six months' imprisonment and Rs 50,000. Yet, say the IMI representatives, Bengal is among the most active in terms of raids. "The problem starts after that. In the absence of a specialisation, the same officers are handling all sorts of crimes," Ribeiro says. Which is why along with police, the public prosecutors, too, are being invited. Piracy is killing the music industry, D'Souza says. Illegal downloading is not a big threat yet in India, MP3 CDs are. "Ultimately, it is a question of how India is perceiving intellectual property rights violations, be it in films, books, software, gaming or music. So far, we have fought a lone battle," D'Souza rues. http://71.18.103.185/tikiwiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=20953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061209/c63c86e8/attachment.html From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Dec 9 08:38:51 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] FTC "Net Neutrality" Workshop Feb 13-14 2007 Message-ID: <457A28C3.B05E4149@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> > http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/broadbandworkshop2.htm --- > http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy WHEN February 13-14, 2007 9:00 AM -5:00 PM WHERE FTC Conference Center 601 New Jersey Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 This page links to websites of other organizations. The FTC does not necessarily endorse the views expressed on these websites or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information on them. Please note that these sites may track visitor viewing habits. On February 13 and 14, 2007, the Federal Trade Commission will host a public workshop on "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy." The FTC will bring together experts from business, government, and the technology sector, consumer advocates, and academics to explore competition and consumer protection issues relating to broadband Internet access, including so- called "network neutrality." The workshop will explore issues raised by recent legal and regulatory determinations that providers of certain broadband Internet services, such as cable modem and DSL, are not subject to the FCC's common carrier regulations. The workshop will examine, for example, the capabilities and incentives of broadband Internet service providers to discriminate against, degrade, block, or charge fees for prioritized delivery of unaffiliated content and applications. The workshop will also address the potential effects of network neutrality regulation on innovation and competition in the market for broadband access. All attendees will be required to display a current driver's license or other valid form of photo identification. The Conference Center is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need an accommodation related to a disability, please call Gregory P. Luib, 202-326-3249. * Press Release (December 7, 2006) (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/broadbandworkshop2.htm) * Agenda (coming soon) * Directions to the Conference Center [PDF] http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/transportationguide.pdf * Hotel information (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/hotels.htm) * Nearby Restaurants (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/restaurant_nj.htm) PRE-REGISTRATION The event is free and open to the public. Pre-registration for this workshop is not necessary, but is encouraged, so that we may better plan for the event. * To pre-register: Email your name and affiliation to broadbandprereg at ftc.gov. * NOTE: When you pre-register, the FTC collects your name, affiliation, and email address. We use this information for administration purposes related to the workshop and to contact you with information about it. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or other laws, we may be required to disclose the information you provide to outside organizations. For additional information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see the FTC Privacy Policy. The FTC Act and other laws the FTC enforces allow the collection of this contact information for the purposes described above. REQUESTING TO BE A PANELIST — Deadline: January 15, 2007 FTC staff will identify and invite individuals with relevant expertise to participate as panelists. The staff also may invite self-nominees to be workshop panelists. Selected panelists will be notified by February 1, 2007. * To Nominate Yourself: Email broadbandpanelists at ftc.gov. * Requirements: - Refer to "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy Workshop - Panelist Request, Project No. V070000" to facilitate the organization of panelist requests. - Include a statement detailing your expertise on the issues to be addressed at the workshop and complete contact information. FILING A COMMENT — Deadline: February 28, 2007 The Commission invites interested persons to submit written comments on issues related to this workshop. * To File Electronically: Go to https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-broadband. Refer to "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy Workshop - Comment, Project No. V070000" to facilitate the organization of comments. * To File in Paper Form: Include the reference, "Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy Workshop – Comment, Project No. V070000"; both in the text and on the envelope. Mail or deliver your comment to the address below by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary Room H-135 (Annex B) 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580. * To Request Confidential Treatment: You must file in paper form and clearly label the first page of the document with "Confidential" and comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c).* BACKGROUND * Remarks, Deborah Platt Majoras, The FTC in the Online World: Promoting Competition and Protecting Consumers (2006) [PDF] (http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/majoras/060821pffaspenfinal.pdf) * FTC Statement Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, FTC Jurisdiction Over Broadband Internet Access Services (2006) (http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_testimony.cfm?id=1937&wit_id=5415) * FTC Staff Report, Municipal Provision of Wireless Internet (2006) [PDF] (http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/10/V060021municipalprovwirelessinternet.pdf) * National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n. v. Brand X Internet Services (2005) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-277.ZO.html) * In re Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities (2005) [PDF] (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf) * In re United Power Line Council's Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over Power Line Internet Access Service as an Information Service (2006) [PDF] (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-165A1.pdf) * In re Madison River Communications, LLC (2005) [PDF] (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-543A2.html) * The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c) (http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/04/63fr18819.pdf). --- > http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/broadbandworkshop2.htm For Release: December 7, 2006 FTC to Host Workshop on Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy The Federal Trade Commission will host a two-day public workshop on “Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy” in Washington, DC on February 13 and 14, 2007. The workshop will bring together experts from business, government, and the technology sector, consumer advocates, and academics to explore competition and consumer protection issues relating to broadband Internet access, including so-called “network neutrality.” The FTC’s Internet Access Task Force, convened by Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras in August 2006, is organizing the workshop. The Task Force, led by Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning, with participants from throughout the agency, seeks to enhance the FTC’s expertise in the area of Internet access. Since Chairman Majoras publicly invited interested parties to meet with the Task Force last August, it has heard a wide variety of views on the subjects of broadband Internet access in general and network neutrality in particular. The workshop will explore issues raised by recent legal and regulatory determinations that providers of certain broadband Internet services, such as cable modem and DSL, are not subject to the Federal Communications Commission’s common- carrier regulations. In the absence of such regulations, some have raised concerns about broadband Internet service providers discriminating against, degrading, or blocking users’ access to unaffiliated content and applications. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding ISPs and other network operators charging providers of unaffiliated content and applications fees for prioritized delivery of their products to end users. To prevent harm to competition and consumers from these and other related types of conduct, some have advocated network neutrality regulation that would require equal treatment of all Internet traffic. In response, opponents of network neutrality have argued that such regulation would have adverse consequences for innovation and competition in the market for broadband access by, among other things, making it more difficult for ISPs and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks. Opponents also have argued that such regulation is unnecessary because: 1) to date there is insufficient evidence of harm to competition or consumers to warrant such regulation; 2) competitive conditions in the market for broadband access will protect consumers from the harm anticipated by net neutrality proponents; and 3) the antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as FCC oversight, are sufficient to address any harms that may arise. The event, which is free and open to the public, will be held at the FTC’s satellite building conference center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC Members of the public and press who wish to participate but who cannot attend can view a live Webcast of the workshop on the FTC’s Web site. For admittance to the conference center, all attendees will be required to show a valid form of photo identification, such as a driver’s license. Pre-registration is not necessary, but is encouraged. To pre-register, please e-mail your name and affiliation to broadbandprereg at ftc.gov. The FTC staff will identify and invite individuals with relevant expertise to participate as panelists at the workshop. The staff also may invite self-nominees to be workshop panelists. Panelist applications should be submitted electronically to broadbandpanelists at ftc.gov on or before January 15, 2007. The FTC asks interested parties to include a statement detailing their expertise on the issues to be addressed at the workshop and complete contact information. Panelists selected to participate will be notified by February 1, 2007. Any person may submit written comments on the topics to be addressed at the workshop. Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2007. For further information about the workshop and for specific information on sending comments, pre- registering, participating as a panelist, the workshop agenda, and contact information, please consult the FTC Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html. MEDIA CONTACT: Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2181 STAFF CONTACT: Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Office of Policy Planning 202-326-2632 (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/12/broadbandworkshop2.htm) From anivar at gaia.org.in Sun Dec 10 10:46:00 2006 From: anivar at gaia.org.in (Anivar Aravind) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:46:00 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?utf-8?q?3_top_cops=2C_CM_star_in_Kerala=E2=80=99s?= =?utf-8?q?_piracy_musical?= Message-ID: <35f96d470612092116t4620d09ag27abf778b6552774@mail.gmail.com> PAGE 1 ANCHOR 3 top cops, CM star in Kerala's piracy musical RAJEEV PI Posted online: Saturday, December 09, 2006 at 0000 hrs One IG raids studio run by another's wife, DGP removes him, CM steps in KOCHI, DECEMBER 8 : This could have been from a proper B-grade flick: An IG of police heading the state anti-piracy cell helps the daughter of an ex-supercop fighting video piracy to raid a big Kochi studio. The studio's owner, suspected to be pirating movie videos, is the wife of another IG of police, a famously well-connected senior officer who was himself with the same state anti-piracy cell some time ago, even playing the poster-boy in its ads. As the raid party reaches the studio gates, things stir at the political heights. The DGP rings the anti-piracy IG asking him to keep off that studio, he doesn't oblige. Within minutes, the DGP faxes the order to take him off the beat, while the studio men gang up and foil the raid. Next morning, the CM decides to assert, summons the DGP and asks him to give IG No 1 his job back. That done, he gets the policemen to go and raid the studio. But there is more to the story. The protagonists are Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, IGs Rishiraj Singh and Tomin Thachankary, DGP Raman Srivastava, former supercop JF Ribeiro's daughter Nina Engineer, who heads the anti-piracy efforts of Indian Music Industry (IMI), a national trade body of the music industry. Nina and her team had flown down from New Delhi after the Riyan Studio in Kochi, a large unit run by IG Tomin Thachankary's wife, was named by those whom Singh, who heads the anti-piracy cell of state the police, had arrested in a raid in Thiruvananthapuram. They were arrested with fake VCDs that they said were sourced from Riyan Studio. Singh and Nina, a team of local cops in tow, went to Riyan Studio on Thursday to do a search. The employees refused to let them in. Soon, IG Thachankary appeared, telling Singh to go away from his wife's studio. He refused, and an altercation followed. Minutes later, the DGP's call came telling him to stop the raid, but Singh stood his ground. The DGP told Singh he was summarily removing him from anti-piracy job, and faxed the order to the local DIG's office here to be passed on to him. Both Thachankary and Singh have both been colourful characters in different ways, often hogging headlines for non-police reasons. Thachankary, part-time musician who is into the audio-video business in his wife's name, is a known protege of CPM state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan. He had greatly helped Vijayan source the equipment from abroad for setting up the party's TV channel, Kairali, though he had his share of trouble too. Four years ago, customs men had caught his official gunman who was flying in with him on a Silk Air flight from Singapore, carrying electronic video equipment worth a small fortune. Thachankary claimed he was returning from a personal visit abroad, and had no clue why the gunman was travelling with him. Singh, on the other hand, was hauled up by the Lok Ayukta but reprieved by the Kerala High Court, after he played the villain in a popular TV soap. He was also the one who sought action against a fellow IG who hit a constable in public. But the turning point was this morning, when an angry VS Achuthanandan stepped into the picture. He summoned the DGP to his official residence, and told him to put Singh back in his job, forthwith. "The DGP told me that Singh is not empowered to conduct a raid, but only function as a nodal officer. I asked him if he wanted that officer to simply sit over information and not act. I asked the DGP if he realised how his action made it look as if my government is abetting such crimes. He had no answer,'' VS said later. Though police sources insist that the DGP was forced to act the way he did at the instance of the Pinarayi Vijayan camp, an embarrassed Pinarayi acolyte and Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan claimed he had no clue about what happened. "I have asked the DGP to give me an explanation,'' Kodiyeri maintained. VS, meanwhile, directed the Home department to resume the raid on Thachankary's studio soon after. Kochi city police commissioner P Vijayan, who led the raid, told The Indian Express that he has seized some video CDs from the studio and these were being examined. "We have already registered a piracy case against the studio,'' he said, adding that simultaneous raids were now on in several other studios as well in the city. rajeev.pi at expressindia.com From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 09:01:06 2006 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:01:06 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] SC: TRADE ILLEGAL, BUT TAX RELIEF LEGAL Message-ID: <908adbd0612101931p47de7b74i28377bddf4774006@mail.gmail.com> SC: TRADE ILLEGAL, BUT TAX RELIEF LEGAL Source: The Telegraph New Delhi, Dec. 10: A person engaged in manufacture of contraband drugs can seek tax deductions for the loss arising out of confiscation of goods, the Supreme Court has ruled. A bench headed by Justice S.B. Sinha said even if a person carried on an illegal business, the loss arising out of seizure or confiscation of goods must be treated as a "business loss" while computing his income. The ruling came in a case in which income-tax authorities had added the value of 5 kg of heroin seized from a doctor to his total income. Dr T.A. Quereshi, who used to illegally manufacture heroin and other contraband drugs in his laboratory in Mandsaur district, claimed that as making heroin was his trade, the loss on account of seizure was an allowable deduction while calculating gains from his business. The tax tribunal allowed his plea and ordered a deduction of Rs 2 lakh from Quereshi's total income. Allowing an appeal by the income-tax department, Madras High Court rejected Quereshi's claim on the ground that he was a doctor and the contraband heroin had nothing to do with his profession. The court pointed out that Section 37 of the Income Tax Act bars a person from seeking deductions for expenditures incurred for a "purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law". Such a person, the court said, could not be allowed to claim deduction as he is engaged in a "heinous and illegal business" which is not connected to his "pious professional activity". The Supreme Court, however, felt that the high court had adopted an emotional and moral approach rather than a legal one. Cases had to be decided on legal principles and not on one's moral views, the court added. Justice Markandey Katju, who wrote the judgment for the bench, said Section 37 dealt with deductions with regard to "business expenditure" but the deduction claimed in the case at hand was for "business loss". The court said the deduction claimed in the case at hand was for "business loss". "Once it is found that the heroin seized formed part of stock-in-trade of the assessee, it follows that the seizure and confiscation of such stock-in-trade has to be allowed as a business loss," it added. The interpretation means one can claim deductions for losses in an illegal business but not for expenditures incurred in illegal activities like giving bribes while carrying out a legal business. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061211/785e2fcd/attachment.html From mayur.suresh at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 10:29:24 2006 From: mayur.suresh at gmail.com (Mayur) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:29:24 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mariah Carey battles porn star over name Message-ID: <4def3c470612102059k29c7b751k67c8d7c793172cd7@mail.gmail.com> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6165313.stm Carey battles porn star over name Mariah Carey thinks fans will get confused by the two names Singer Mariah Carey has threatened legal action against porn star Mary Carey to stop her trademarking her similar-sounding stage name. The singer believes fans could get the two performers confused if Mary Carey's trademark application is successful. However, the adult film actress, whose real name is Mary Cook, has said she will not be intimidated by the singer. "I'm ready to battle Mariah over this because I've been Mary Carey for a long time," she told Reuters. "It's kind of funny because I'm a porn star and I've been being myself for a long time. I think she's being silly." The actress started using the stage name Mary Carey in 2002 and ran for California governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger. Grammy-winning Mariah Carey is particularly concerned by the possible confusion in the names because the actress wants to trademark the name for audio and video recordings. But David Beitchman, a lawyer for Mary Carey, said he believed Mariah Carey stood little chance of winning a court battle over the names. "My first thought was, does Mariah Carey realise what her lawyer is comparing her to and are they seriously concerned?" he said. "Do they seriously think the fans are going to be confused?" From anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de Mon Dec 11 17:12:09 2006 From: anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de (ANIRBAN MAZUMDER) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:42:09 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?utf-8?q?=28no_subject=29?= Message-ID: I would be in Kolkota from December 24 onwards, giving finishing touches to my five-year long work on an Indian database law. If anyone wishes to discuss copyright-related issues, or databases, feel free to email me. My time is very precious, so please seek prior appointment. best ANIRBAN ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 _________________________________________________________________ Ihr Blog. Ihre Fotos. Ihre Erlebnisse. Jetzt auf MSN Spaces. - http://spaces.msn.com/SignUp.aspx Jetzt anmelden! From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 08:12:08 2006 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:12:08 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] KARUR (TN):POLICE FIAT TO INTERNET CAFE Message-ID: <908adbd0612111842q5d0de221t50f47cc077389b9c@mail.gmail.com> KARUR (TN):POLICE FIAT TO INTERNET CAFES Source: The Hindu The Hindu KARUR: Police have issued a set of guidelines for the Internet browsing centers here to follow to prevent misuse of information technology. Those running net cafes should register their centres under the Tamil Nadu Police Act. If children below had to use the centres, then they have to get permission of the their parents or school heads. The operators should insist the users to produce their identity cards and in case if the users are not able to,then the users should be recorded through the web camera. Also, the computers should be set to Indian Standard Time, the advisory has stated. http://71.18.103.185/tikiwiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=21078 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061212/c8da3bd6/attachment.html From monica at sarai.net Sun Dec 17 12:50:54 2006 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:50:54 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: Navigating through the Crisis of Copyright References: Message-ID: <616EB16F-8239-4837-8F5D-EE57985A9A4C@sarai.net> sorry for x-posting but Rasmus is one of the founders of piratebay and i think that many of you will find what he has to say interesting. Last i chatted with him, it was fun to hear that the piratebay project began primarily as a conceptual art project... best M Monica Narula Raqs Media Collective Sarai-CSDS 29 Rajpur Road Delhi 110054 www.raqsmediacollective.net www.sarai.net Begin forwarded message: > From: Rasmus Fleischer > Date: 15 December 2006 7:41:54 AM GMT+05:30 > To: nettime > Subject: Navigating through the Crisis of Copyright > Reply-To: Rasmus Fleischer > > > [This is an edited conglomleration of lectures held in the autumn > of 2006, at Wizards of OS (Berlin) and at Art|Net|Work (Aarhus > university). Concepts are based on Piratbyran's (www.piratbyran > collaborative experiences from the copyfight, for example the ongoing > controversies after the raid against thepiratebay.org. > > KEYWORDS: darknet, metadata, grey zones, kopimi, symbolic/imaginary/ > real copyright, originality, compensation, DRM, P2P, > individualization of peers.] > > > BETWEEN ARTWORKS AND NETWORKS: > NAVIGATING THROUGH THE CRISIS OF COPYRIGHT > > Copying is an universal fact. It's nothing we can decide for or > against, but it can take place more or less public. That assumption is > the simple basis for the concept of darknets. Piracy in itself is not > dependent on one single infrastructure. It finds lots of ways besides > the open file-sharing networks, including physical offline routes. > Thus the alternative to *peer-to-peer* piracy is not *no* piracy, > but rather *person-to-person* piracy. Quite similar to the good old > trading of cassette tapes, the digital person-to-person piracy can for > example use local wireless networks, burned dvd:s, usb memory sticks, > chat software or, not to forget, e- mail. > > The attempts to stifle file-sharing networks aim at downscaling > piracy. But in effect, it's not so much about reducing the total > quantity of copyrighted data that is exchanged, as it is about the > scale of the networks themselves. Downscaling the swarms of peers > accessing each others' archives, while keeping bandwidth constant: > That does not mean less piracy, but less *pluralism* in what is really > shared. > > If you have to rely on the archives of your personal social networks > – that is, on darknets – then your available archive is so much > more limited that in the end of the day, the dominant players of > the copyright industry will keep a great amount of control over in > what directions you will be able to develop your taste, even if they > cannot inhibit the reproduction of their own "content". That means a > certain amount of predictability for them, which they regard as highly > important. During the second half of the last century, they adapted > business models that was all about finding more and more sophisticated > methods for predicting and controlling tastes. Thus they tried to > ensure that the huge investments made in an artist's first hit would > be more than returned by a whole series of albums that would sell well > regardless of their quality. In a larger perspective, the ongoing > war against file-sharing networks is more a war for securing this > predictability, market synchronization and control, than it is about > defending copyrighted works against their unauthorised reproduction. > > A pyramid. That is the default image used by the Motion Picture > Association of America to visualize online piracy. The "pyramid > theory" rhetorically suggests that anti-piracy measures can "cut the > head of piracy". By taking away the small number of "suppliers", the > whole networks will dry up. Needless to say, this assumes that file- > sharing networks are basically about distributing blockbuster movies, > and only blockbuster movies. And indeed, if you've made your whole > career in a business where the top ten is everything, then you will > probably get such an impression when just looking at the top ten list > of The Pirate Bay. > > But what happens if we instead of the pyramid take the well-known > image of "the long tail", that lets us consider the quantitative > relation between the few hits and the many non-hits? Then it becomes > clear that the war against piracy is attacking the distribution of all > those smaller niches that together makes up the majority of data in > larger file-sharing networks – while pirated copies of the big hits > are usually possible to get hold of anyway. > > Copyright enforcement in the 21st century has changed its fundamental > character. Anti-piracy today is NOT an all-out war against the > unauthorised copying of copyrighted data. Such a war would be > impossible to wage, as the weapons of mass reproduction are already > decentralized into every single home. Rather, anti-piracy fights > against the copying of UNcopyrighted METAdata; against the indexing, > interlinking and globalizing of private archives. That is exactly what > the ongoing case against The Pirate Bay is about: Not the distribution > of copyrighted data itself – which takes place between millions of > peers – but the distribution of metadata such as filenames, checksums > and addresses. > > Of course, copyright *cannot* today be about regulating protecting > an exclusive right to copying. Using digital information, even if > only visiting a website, means copying that information to another > place, beyond the possible supervision of any copyright enforcer. A > computer works by copying bits all the time: From ROM to RAM, from > www to cache, from device to device or client to client or peer to > peer. Wireless networks and portable devices complicates the question > of how to distinguish local file transfers from file-sharing between > different systems. Developments in network architectures, software and > hardware, continue to undermine the foundations of copyright law. > > Enforcement therefore has to rely on rather arbitrary metaphors, in > order to single out the data replications that should be practically > regulated. Consider the artificial distinction between "downloading" > and "streaming" of music, regarded as equivalents to record > distribution and radio broadcasting, respectively. These notions from > one-way mass-media are forcefully applied to the internet, although > it is basically the same data transfer that is taking place in both > cases. The only difference between "streaming" and "downloading" lays > in the software configuration at the receiving end, where the digital > signal is either saved as a file or directly converted to an analog > output. > > In order to understand the permanented crisis of the copyright system, > we can identify three intersections, three conceptual divisions in a > complex relationship to each other. They have never been fixed, but > without a relative stability, without a basic discoursive agreement > about where to draw these lines in any given context, the copyright > system does in fact collapse. > > > PRIVATE/PUBLIC. > - - Question: What is a copy? > > In a social network, it's unquestionably legal to invite some friends > to watch tv and listen to music in your private home, without > permission from any rights holder. But how large and how open may an > assembly be until the media use is defined as "public"? The classroom > and the small office, birthday parties and prayer meetings: these are > just some examples of settings where the drawing of the private/ > public line has become an intricate task for copyright lawyers. But > also for contemporary artists are playing with and questioning the > same distinction. > > In a network of electronic devices, the corresponding question is > about deciding when copying transgresses some kind of private sphere, > and if a data transfer should be considered permanent or temporary. > Here we can situate the whole DRM debacle, usually questioned mainly > because its inability to permit the fully legal private copying, like > transferring music files from a computer to the same person's > portable player. Yet it's less about binary permissions saying a > simple "yes" or "no", and more about how everyday habits are shaped > by the much more subtle technical barriers and possibilities: > Interfaces, standards, traffic shaping, asymmetric connections. > - - By enforcing distinctions between private and public, copyright > operates in the Real. > > > IDEA/EXPRESSION. > - - Question: What is an artwork? > > Copyright protects expressions but not ideas themselves; that is > written into every copyright law. Without such an form/content- > distinction, worked out in the late 18th century by philosophers like > Johann Gottlieb Fichte, copyright would either implode or explode. > You can't claim copyright on facts, words, chords or colours, but if > you take a suffucient number of them and combine them according to > your own soul, you might pass the "threshold of originality" into the > realm of artworks. > > But how high is this treshold? Dan Brown took a ready-made conspiracy > theory from an earlier book as core plot for his own bestseller but > was taken to court but freed. On the other hand, hip hop producers > cannot use a few seconds of sampled sound without special permission > – they did it in the 1980s, but since then the line between idea and > expression in music has been redrawn, creating a harsher copyright > climate. > > There is not one single norm, but a lot of very different customs for > different types of expression: For example, spoken words are not > enclosed by copyright to any degree even close to that which > regulates the use of musical sound, simply because a strict > interpretation in that field would render mainstream journalism > impossible. Photography has its own norms, very different from other > visual arts. > > When it comes to computer software or databases, the distinction > between idea content and expression form gets terribly confused. > Sampling, appropriation and remixing practices dispute the drawing of > this line. One brilliant example is Sven König's software art > performance sCrAmBlEd?HaCkZ!, using spectral analysis to rebuild > musical sounds with fragments of other musical sounds, developed from > his initial intention to "split the atom of copyright". Constructing > signifying chains by playing with notions of form and content, > presenting the one as the other: Is that not a characteristic of much > contemporary art, ever since Duchamp? > - - By enforcing distinctions between idea and expression, copyright > operates in the Symbolic. > > > PRODUCER/CONSUMER. > - - Question: What is an author? > > References to an imagined class of "the authors" seems to be > inescapable in any discussion focusing on copyright. Thus, the > fragmented reality of cultural production is replaced by a coherent > whole. In reality there are old hitmakers and upcoming talents, > pornographers and poets, living and dead, rich and poor. Ideology > washes away all contrasts and instead presumes a common interest in > strenghened copyright. > > Legally, copyrights are assigned to individuals regardless of their > profession; anyone who has ever written a line on the web is a > copyright holder. However, during the 20th century a practical > process of collectivization took place. The copyright system expanded > through the institution of numerous "collecting societies", assigned > to collect license fees for broadcasting and public performances, in > order to redistribute it to the actual rights holders. > > With today's statutory fees on storage media like cassette tapes and > hard disks, the arbitrariness of this model takes on a whole new > dimension. "Compensation" cannot even theoretically be motivated by > the real use of the storage media, but the money is given out to an > imaginary class defined through arbitrary statistics from older media. > Dogmatic thinking about copyright presents producers and consumers > as opposite poles, implicating the ideal of a "balance". But isn't > it more appropriate to characterize contemporary cultural production > not as the opposite of consumption, but rather as a deviant kind of > excessive and passionate consumption? Think about Walter Benjamin's > book collector who at a certain point turn to writing new books that > he couldn't acquire otherwise, or about the record collector whose > passionate consumption smoothly glides into DJ:ing and further to > producing new records. > > As one and the same device can be used for both operations, read and > write, the intermingling of roles gets even trickier. The difference > between author and audience does not disappears, but it gets > functional, varying from time to time. To produce and to consume are > verbs, but copyright ideology treats them as nouns. > > - - By enforcing distinctions between producer and consumer, > copyright operates in the Imaginary. > > Local/public, form/content, producer/consumer. It's not that these > three fundamental distinctions are disappearing, but they are > deterritorialized and reterritorialized in ways far too complex, > and far too different between different media and artforms, for > one single system to handle. As the foundations are shaken and the > concepts are getting fuzzy, a lots of greyzones are opening. We can > recognize both a positive grey and a negative grey. Intensified > surveillance, scare tactics, paid infiltrators, pressure against > hardware and network suppliers, spamming of networks with damaged > files, screen dumps as legal evidence, private organizations building > databases over suspected file-sharers, and of course the raid against > The Pirate Bay: These are some examples of the *negative greyzone* > in which anti-piracy activities are operating. On the other hand, > there is a *positive grey* that affirms the intermingling of concepts > through undertakings that may be artistic or commercial, ethical > or technological. Its basic characteristic is not anti-copyright, > but rather an attitude of estrangement, or plain unconcern, towards > copyright. > > This positive greyzone connects all the everyday cultural exchanges > that might formally constitute copyright infringement, but where no > one would even care to claim that, as there is not even a dissatisfied > rights holder to find. All the shades of grey between the penguin > white of a creative commons licence and the pitch black of a zero day > blockbuster release. Between what is formally allowed and what can > practically be done, there is a space for multiplication of small > habits that we call the Grey Commons. > > In the middle of this sea of techno-cultural turbulence we have to > navigate with the help of language. Copyfights are continuously > raging at this conceptual level, deep under the legal and political > surface. Rather than trying to solve the copyright issue, we try to > keep it boiling and give space for a more shades of grey in the way > we talk about everyday cultural life. Early compromises that tries to > reform copyright law, usually just move the problem around, from one > of the destabilized distinctions to another. Some common dead-ends > can be identified in contemporary discussions about peer-to-peer > file-sharing. The first is "consumerism" – usually characterized > by treating downloading as something separate from uploading. But > file-sharing is a horizontal activity, where "up" and "down" are only > very temporary distinctions, especially since the break-through of > bittorrent swarming. Instead of justifying file- sharing as a response > to high prices, we should focus on how it differs from the top-down > record store model of selling pre-packaged information. > > Another trap we see in so-called "alternative compensation systems"; > institutional models promising to legalize filesharing by putting > a fee on communication media and using the money to "compensate" > copyright holders. There is no need to polemicize, but interesting > enough to explore the unarticulated assumptions of that discourse. > For example how to draw the line between files worthy of compensation > and ordinary webpages, or between authors and non-authors, or between > local and public file transfers. There is simply no water-proof > way of measuring what is shared on an entity like "the internet", > wherever that ends or begins, in order to locate the authors that need > "compensation". > > The very focus on reforming the copyright law is itself a common > trap. First of all, because sweeping discussions about one entity > called "copyright" obscures the plurality in how all the different > cultural practises relate or do not relate to copyright. Some > might need copyright, some might not – and some cultural forms we > might not need to preserve at all. Instead we should shift our > attentions to the very particular and concrete ways in which cultural > production and circulation works today and discuss each one on > its own terms: How they relate to computer networks and how they > can make themselves less dependent on copyright. Focusing on the > copyright law itself also bears the danger of ignoring the practical > effects and non-effects of the law. No matter if you want a soft > copyright that keeps some limited rights but also guarantees some > freedom, or a hard copyright law banning everything unauthorized. > The price for effective enforcement will be the same. In any case, > it demands that an individual can be made responsible for every > single data transfer. Every IP address and every mobile device must > be identified to a physical person. Implementing that means first of > all a ban on all anonymous sharing of connectivity. Any attempt to > general enforcement of copyright in the context of computer networks > necessarily leads to the same ambition: Defining, shaping and locking > up the way our networks are organized and used. That (rather than any > loss of privacy) is also the most significant aspect of the ongoing > implementation of the European Data Retention Directive. > > The big question taking shape on the horizon is: Free establishment > of communications, or individualization of peers? Free communications > means the right of any peer in a network and to be the gateway > to a new network – be it with a wireless router, or a web server > allowing anyone to connect and communicate. That is not an utopia, > but rather how the internet has developed as long as we know it. > Individualization of peers, on the other hand, means that any activity > in the network has to be identified to a responsible individual. > Such an ambition demands that Internet Service Providers are held > responsible of delivering the information about which individuals > that have had access to a certain IP address, and that every web > community needs to identify their users, which is clearly incompatible > with free networking. The result is oligopolization: A few licensed > network providers, connecting the many individualized network ends by > over-prized asymmetrical connections. If, on the other hand, network > providers are not held responsible, then our networks have no ends > and may expand in all kinds of unexpected and interesting directions, > connecting network to network to network, with lots of inputs and > outputs, giving a potential locality to the internet experience. But > that also means the end of the state's ambition to identify every > person behind a certain IP address – for good and bad. Obviously, the > copyright industry will fight with its claws for not giving up that > control. > > A computer is a machine that can simulate any other machine. Hence it > can also do a perfect digital simulation of the copyright system. But > the ideal notion of a pure "content industry" implies copyright to be > the only machinic configuration. It wants the computer to simulate > only one machine – and we don’t mind if a network somtimes simulates > a crappy machine, as long as it’s able to simulate good ones as well. > It’s not about finding the perfect solution to be used in the future, > but to exploit the grey zone to allow for a thousand of unforeseeable > futures to blossom, and to let art and music keep playing with the > disctinctions that copyright instead wants to keep rigid. We will > always choose a large amount of half-ass solutions over the one > totalizing master plan. There are techno-cultural complexities beyond > our human capacity to compute. > > > > > > > > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: majordomo at bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the > msg body > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at bbs.thing.net From k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 12:24:34 2006 From: k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com (ravi srinivas) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:24:34 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING NATIONS: Towards An Open Source Solution Message-ID: TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING NATIONS: Towards An Open Source Solution published as a Working Paper (Working Paper No 248 , Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore) is available now. You can access the same at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=952435 Comments are welcomed. K.Ravi Srinivas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061219/f7112e2c/attachment.html From hbs.law at gmail.com Tue Dec 19 16:37:26 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:37:26 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING NATIONS: Towards An Message-ID: <8b60429e0612190307h79557e82xd9f27b0c1d3a8d99@mail.gmail.com> Srinivas, I just read the abstract of your paper at SSRN. It says, "TRIPS norms has eliminated many of the options including using process patents without limits, which were earlier available to developing nations". I thought it was product patents that were disallowed in countries like India. Process patents were available even before TRIPS in Indian patent law. So there is no situation where process patents were without limits. I have not read the full TRIPS, so you may want to shed some light on this for me. Regards, Hasit On 12/19/06, 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. TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING NATIONS: Towards An > Open Source Solution (ravi srinivas) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:24:34 +0530 > From: "ravi srinivas" > Subject: [Commons-Law] TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING > NATIONS: Towards An Open Source Solution > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING NATIONS: Towards An Open Source > Solution > published as a Working Paper (Working Paper No 248 , Indian Institute of > Management, Bangalore) > is available now. > You can access the same at > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=952435 > Comments are welcomed. > > K.Ravi Srinivas > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061219/f7112e2c/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 41, Issue 10 > ******************************************* > From the.solipsist at gmail.com Wed Dec 20 22:32:00 2006 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:32:00 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Traditional Knowledge Digital Library and copyright Message-ID: <4785f1e20612200902q462fc330h44795c3857ab098c@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, I'm working on a paper the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, but my professor doesn't want a paper on the patent issues involved in it, but wants me to look instead at whether the TKDL, as a database, is copyrightable. The TKDL arises as a particular means of protecting patents (there are a great many issues to consider before this: should TK be protected by making it res nullius or res communis?; what means should be used to protect it?). But once TKDL is arrived at as the solution, there are three levels at which issues can arise. 1) Someone sees information contained in the TKDL; 2) that someone copies that information; 3) that person uses the information. The first issue raises questions of accessibility: whether you make the TKDL public, put it on the internet, or keep access restricted and by just giving copies of it to Patent registries and offices. The second issue raises questions related to copyright. The third raises questions of patents (what constitutes prior art, and whether, at a policy-level, modifications on TK should be granted patents, etc.) With this framework in mind, I am not clear what questions the second issue raises. I've been racking my brains on this, and can only come up with these: 1) Can a database be copyrighted? (Originality, Feist) Linked to this: does the subject matter of the TKDL, namely public domain material (verses from the Vedas and Upanishads), hamper copyrightability in any way? 2) Who would be considered the author? The translators, the compilers, or the government? What other issues would there be in TKDL and copyright, and more importantly, what is the significance of the copyright issues in TKDL? How exactly are the issues involved any different from those involved in any other database? Does anyone have any ideas? All help, especially of the speedy kind, will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Pranesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061220/8af12b76/attachment.html From monica at sarai.net Thu Dec 21 15:12:38 2006 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:12:38 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Copyright Tool Will Scan Web For Violations Message-ID: <094F211F-EA87-4788-8F06-1BBB1D9F1323@sarai.net> Copyright Tool Will Scan Web For Violations By KEVIN J. DELANEY December 18, 2006; Page B1 To deal with the mounting copyright issues swirling around video and other content online, a start-up founded by some respected Silicon Valley executives is taking a novel approach: combing the entire Web for unauthorized uses. Privately held Attributor Corp. of Redwood City, Calif., has begun testing a system to scan the billions of pages on the Web for clients' audio, video, images and text -- potentially making it easier for owners to request that Web sites take content down or provide payment for its use. The start-up, which was founded last year and has been in "stealth" mode, is emerging into the public eye today, at a time when some media and entertainment companies' frustration with difficulties identifying infringing uses of their content online is increasing. The problem has intensified with the proliferation and increasing usage of sites such as Google Inc.'s YouTube, which lets consumers post video clips. Media and entertainment companies have so far relied on a combination of technology and their own scanning to protect their content online -- but with mixed results. Media companies have used digital-rights management technology designed to make it hard to copy or transfer files. But such measures have often proved to be clumsy, despised by consumers or quickly thwarted. That's the case for DRM technology built into DVDs to prevent them from being ripped onto computers, for example. Entertainment and media companies have also relied on their own staff to scan Web sites for infringing content. But even when such content is spotted and taken down, the companies often see the content pop up in the same places or elsewhere soon after. "We all know that as soon as somebody comes up with a way to secure a piece of property, somebody else will come within days and crack it," says Lawrence Iser, a partner at law firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert in Santa Monica, Calif., who represents musical artists and other entertainment industry clients. Though its service isn't out yet, Attributor appears to go further than existing techniques for weeding out unauthorized uses of content online. While companies are tackling parts of the same problem -- Indigo Stream Technologies Ltd., based in Gibraltar, offers a free service called Copyscape that analyzes a Web page and then uses Google's search engine to see whether the text is duplicated elsewhere on the Web -- Attributor's approach is seemingly more comprehensive. Its co-founders, former Yahoo Inc. executive Jim Brock, and Jim Pitkow, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has sold companies to Google and VeriSign Inc., claim to have cracked the thorny computer-science problem of scouring the entire Web by using undisclosed technology to efficiently process and comb through chunks of content. The company says it will have over 10 billion Web pages in its index before the end of this month. "If it works, it's a fantastic invention," Mr. Iser says. It's unclear whether such a service will be welcomed by Internet companies that allow users to post content. YouTube, News Corp.'s MySpace and others already face copyright lawsuits. In some cases, they're building systems to identify pirated materials consumers upload to their sites, and say they're open to sharing revenue with content owners. Attributor plans to announce today that it has received about $10 million in funding to date from investors including Sigma Partners, Selby Venture Partners, Draper Richards, First Round Capital and Amicus Capital. Attributor analyzes the content of clients, who could range from individuals to big media companies, using a technique known as "digital fingerprinting," which determines unique and identifying characteristics of content. It uses these digital fingerprints to search its index of the Web for the content. The company claims to be able to spot a customer's content based on the appearance of as little as a few sentences of text or a few seconds of audio or video. It will provide customers with alerts and a dashboard of identified uses of their content on the Web and the context in which it is used. The content owners can then try to negotiate revenue from whoever is using it or request that it be taken down. In some cases, they may decide the content is being used fairly or to acceptable promotional ends. Attributor plans to help automate the interaction between content owners and those using their content on the Web, though it declines to specify how. Company executives believe its system will provide transparency and accountability to encourage more owners to put their content online with confidence they'll be able to police its use, and share in any profits. "We believe that we can provide an infrastructure that will support all kinds of outcomes and remedies, which will align the interests of content owners, content hosts and search engines around legitimate syndication and monetization," says Mr. Brock, Attributor's chief executive. "We see this as a way to take us out of the course we've been on, which is more litigation," says Mr. Pitkow, who is chief technology officer. Attributor has begun testing the system, and won't release it officially until the first quarter of next year. The co-founders' track records, however, lend credibility to their claims. As Yahoo's first outside counsel, Mr. Brock tackled Internet copyright issues for the Internet company as far back as 1994 and later oversaw some of its core businesses as a senior vice president. Mr. Pitkow is a computer science Ph.D. who worked at Xerox's legendary PARC research facility. In 2001, he helped to sell the intellectual property of Outride Inc., where he was president and chairman, to Google. Last year, he sold Moreover Technologies, where he was CEO and chairman, to VeriSign. "They're real guys who have solved hard-core problems," says Ali Aydar, chief operating officer of Snocap Inc., a digital-music registry start-up. Snocap and Attributor share a backer in Silicon Valley investor Ron Conway. "Content owners I've talked to outside of the music business would love a system which tells them where their content is being utilized," Mr. Aydar adds. Attributor executives decline to say how frequently they will update their Web index, a key factor in their ability to stay on top of postings. They also say they won't at least initially monitor peer-to-peer file swapping systems, where large amounts of pirated music, movies, TV shows and software are traded. Write to Kevin J. Delaney at kevin.delaney at wsj.com _______________________________________________ Monica Narula Raqs Media Collective Sarai-CSDS 29 Rajpur Road Delhi 110054 www.raqsmediacollective.net www.sarai.net From patrice at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 21 15:36:21 2006 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:06:21 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Copyright Tool Will Scan Web For Violations In-Reply-To: <094F211F-EA87-4788-8F06-1BBB1D9F1323@sarai.net> References: <094F211F-EA87-4788-8F06-1BBB1D9F1323@sarai.net> Message-ID: <20061221100621.GG59270@xs4all.nl> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:12:38PM +0530, Monica Narula wrote: > Copyright Tool > Will Scan Web > For Violations > By KEVIN J. DELANEY > December 18, 2006; Page B1 (...) The irony (?) is of course that when this 'tool' will be out in force the posting of this very article will have become impossible/ unlawfull/ criminal since: (i) Dow Jones is a 'robust' defender of its IP (ii) I doubt whether they'd consider the Commons-law list 'fair use' - and in the new dispensation, it's for them to decide. More on all this in two excellent recent posts on nettime : http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0612/msg00024.html Joanne Richardson's "Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons" and http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0612/msg00035.html Rasmus Fleischer's "Navigating through the Crisis of Copyright" Must reads - in my humble opinion. cheerio and happy christmas & new year from patrizio and Diiiinooos! From manu_shahalia at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 20:44:58 2006 From: manu_shahalia at hotmail.com (MANU LUV SHAHALIA) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 20:44:58 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Hydrogenated Fats Dumping : Margarine, et al. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi everyone, I've not written for sometime now ..... so new people would think I'm new to this group. :-) Actually u all must be aware of the banning of hydrogenated vegetable oils [HVO] in many States of the US. Banning HVOs in fast food industry and also cakes and pastries' industries & the problem and opposition caused by McDonald's , Burger King and KFC. Off late I have seen at least Delhi markets flooded with Cadila Margarine and similar HVO based products. It does raise a public health concern since such products WRONGLY state that they are low on calories and good for the Cardio-Vascular system. I used the word WRONGLY in view of the fact that in the west they are now being phased out. Now the west is reverting back to wat the EU countries have always used (even what India used), namely Butter & Ghee, besides Lard. Any comments are welcome ........... just to get a discussion on this started.... Manu Shahalia Advocate _________________________________________________________________ Tried the new MSN Messenger? It�s cool! Download now. http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 13:00:31 2006 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:00:31 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] OpenJudis - Free Supreme Court Database Message-ID: <908adbd0612232330h7fefbe7dy489fbaaf61d2c17f@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, I'm launching a free database/search engine of Indian Supreme Court cases from 1950-present accessible at http://judis.openarchive.in . I've used reformatted texts of cases from the site http://judis.nic.in as my source. I'd appreciate any feedback /suggestions you might have. Main features include: 1) Clean/Reformatted Texts of 22000+ Supreme Court decisions from 1950 onwards 2) FAST search engine 3) Support for Boolean searching including: And, Or, Not and NEAR 4) Supports phrase searching within ""s 5) Search within Date Ranges 6) Sorting by Bench Strength, Date of Judgment, Rank 7) Alternate citation reference provided where available 8) PDF download of cases 9) Free Look forward to any suggestions/comments you might have, Regards, Prashant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061224/038a3d92/attachment.html From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Tue Dec 26 07:25:37 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:55:37 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] Russell McOrmond on Commodore 64 Freedom Message-ID: <45908119.F2D8B4B5@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (While I like the freedom to tinker line, I'm inclined to say his lead message should be his point about the right to own a computer. What's really on the line is the right to own a device that performs logical operations, which is the same as to say from a slightly different direction, the right to benefit from copyright and use information productively. -- Seth) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [d at DCC] The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source" hardware... Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:03:07 -0500 (EST) From: Russell McOrmond To: General Copyright Discussions Sending a letter in reply to an article from earlier this month: http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41320 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:00:55 -0500 From: Russell McOrmond To: sschick Subject: Re: The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source" hardware... I am a fan of the Commodore 64. My Apple II clone, my Vic 20, and my Commodore 64 all had 65xx processors in them, and each one came with full schematics of the hardware with the manuals. One of my jobs in the late 80's and early 90's was as a certified Commodore repair person for Eastern Ontario, a job where the skills were self-taught. We are heading to a situation where the old-economy music labels, movie studies, and proprietary software vendors are colluding with hardware manufacturers and misinformed governments to legalize and legally protect the concept of "no owner modifiable parts inside". They want to take away our right to tinker, even disallowing computer owners from making our own software choices. How I learned computing, both hardware and software, is increasingly being considered illegal. I believe that governments must firmly reject this attack on property, creative, educational and other rights. We should be going the other way by mandating that hardware manufacturers provide adequate documentation to hardware owners so we can author our own software to share if we wish. No exclusive right, whether copyright or patents, should ever be allowed on interfaces. The property rights of hardware owners should always trump the extremism that has allowed hardware manufacturers to treat their customers as a threat rather than the very people who drive the future of computing. I sit here on Christmas day thinking of Christmas past where I was given some of this hardware. I feel sad that children approximately 20 years later will not be able to receive the same level of gift that will benefit them in their future. Russell McOrmond Ottawa, Canada http://flora.ca - -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss From anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de Wed Dec 27 13:20:59 2006 From: anirbanmazumdar at hotmail.de (ANIRBAN MAZUMDER) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 07:50:59 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Russell McOrmond on Commodore 64 Freedom In-Reply-To: <45908119.F2D8B4B5@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: Complete nonsense! What is this gibberish all about, Seth? ANIRBAN MAZUMDER LECTURER IN LAW NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES NUJS BHAVAN 12 LB BLOCK SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA - 700098 INDIA PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) 23357379 (O) 25216734 ( R) FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 >From: Seth Johnson >To: a2k at lists.essential.org, >e-commerce at lists.essential.org,upd-discuss at lists.essential.org, >commons-law at sarai.net >CC: russell at flora.ca >Subject: [Commons-Law] Russell McOrmond on Commodore 64 Freedom >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:55:37 -0500 > > >(While I like the freedom to tinker line, I'm inclined to say his >lead message should be his point about the right to own a >computer. What's really on the line is the right to own a device >that performs logical operations, which is the same as to say >from a slightly different direction, the right to benefit from >copyright and use information productively. -- Seth) > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [d at DCC] The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source" >hardware... >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:03:07 -0500 (EST) >From: Russell McOrmond >To: General Copyright Discussions > > > >Sending a letter in reply to an article from earlier this month: >http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41320 > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:00:55 -0500 >From: Russell McOrmond >To: sschick >Subject: Re: The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source" >hardware... > > > I am a fan of the Commodore 64. My Apple II clone, my Vic >20, and my Commodore 64 all had 65xx processors in them, and each >one came with full schematics of the hardware with the manuals. >One of my jobs in the late 80's and early 90's was as a certified >Commodore repair person for Eastern Ontario, a job where the >skills were self-taught. > > We are heading to a situation where the old-economy music >labels, movie studies, and proprietary software vendors are >colluding with hardware manufacturers and misinformed governments >to legalize and legally protect the concept of "no owner >modifiable parts inside". They want to take away our right to >tinker, even disallowing computer owners from making our own >software choices. > > How I learned computing, both hardware and software, is >increasingly being considered illegal. > > I believe that governments must firmly reject this attack on >property, creative, educational and other rights. We should be >going the other way by mandating that hardware manufacturers >provide adequate documentation to hardware owners so we can >author our own software to share if we wish. No exclusive right, >whether copyright or patents, should ever be allowed on >interfaces. The property rights of hardware owners should always >trump the extremism that has allowed hardware manufacturers to >treat their customers as a threat rather than the very people who >drive the future of computing. > > I sit here on Christmas day thinking of Christmas past where I >was given some of this hardware. I feel sad that children >approximately 20 years later will not be able to receive the same >level of gift that will benefit them in their future. > >Russell McOrmond >Ottawa, Canada >http://flora.ca > >- -- > Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: > Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our >property > rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! > http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ > > "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and >hardware > manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, >or > portable media player from my cold dead hands!" > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca >http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >_______________________________________________ >commons-law mailing list >commons-law at sarai.net >https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law _________________________________________________________________ Der neue MSN Messenger. Schreiben.Sehen.Hören. Wie im echten Leben. - http://www.imagine-msn.com/messenger/default2.aspx?locale=de Jetzt herunterladen! From paivakil at yahoo.co.in Wed Dec 27 17:41:39 2006 From: paivakil at yahoo.co.in (Mahesh T. Pai) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:41:39 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Russell McOrmond on Commodore 64 Freedom In-Reply-To: References: <45908119.F2D8B4B5@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20061227121138.GA24795@nandini.home> ANIRBAN MAZUMDER said on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 07:50:59AM +0000,: > Complete nonsense! What is this gibberish all about, Seth? Seth is blabbering some strange and exotic thing called freedom. It is freedom to use the chattels you own (becaue you paid for them) the way you want to. This is about my kid's right to repeat the experiment I once did with an old transistor radio. I took it apart and reassembled it. I was left two or three transistors and a working radio. (we still use it). This is about everybody elses' freedom to do what I did with that transistor radio with my computer, cellphone, audio player, television and whatever. This is about our freedom to access our data we store in our computers (and every other electronic gadget) which we purchased by paying (either before or after the fact) our hard earned money. This is refusal to bond knowledge to some faceless corproate entity. This is about Freedom to control our own lives; our own property, our own information. And though Freedom is such an useless, obsolete thing, people never learn from history. Several wars have have been fought, several lives have been laid down, for the sake of freedom. Even in India, one hawkish bania named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (who would have been better off if he had donned the turban and stuck to his family business of money-lending instead of going off to Durban and doing ending up doing arbitration) and hundereds of others before, and after him laid down their life for it. But alas!!! what use? Idiots like Seth keep on talking about freedom. Some guys still actually fight for it. Seth?? Are you listening? Will you please!!??? Freedom is a strange thing, is it not? > ANIRBAN MAZUMDER > LECTURER IN LAW > NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES > NUJS BHAVAN > 12 LB BLOCK > SALT LAKE CITY > CALCUTTA - 700098 > INDIA > PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O) > 23357379 (O) > 25216734 ( R) > FAX -00- 91-33-23357422 > > > > > > >From: Seth Johnson > >To: a2k at lists.essential.org, > >e-commerce at lists.essential.org,upd-discuss at lists.essential.org, > >commons-law at sarai.net > >CC: russell at flora.ca > >Subject: [Commons-Law] Russell McOrmond on Commodore 64 Freedom > >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:55:37 -0500 > > > > > >(While I like the freedom to tinker line, I'm inclined to say his > >lead message should be his point about the right to own a > >computer. What's really on the line is the right to own a device > >that performs logical operations, which is the same as to say > >from a slightly different direction, the right to benefit from > >copyright and use information productively. -- Seth) > > > >-------- Original Message -------- > >Subject: Re: [d at DCC] The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source" > >hardware... > >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:03:07 -0500 (EST) > >From: Russell McOrmond > >To: General Copyright Discussions > > > > > > > >Sending a letter in reply to an article from earlier this month: > >http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41320 > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:00:55 -0500 > >From: Russell McOrmond > >To: sschick > >Subject: Re: The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source" > >hardware... > > > > > > I am a fan of the Commodore 64. My Apple II clone, my Vic > >20, and my Commodore 64 all had 65xx processors in them, and each > >one came with full schematics of the hardware with the manuals. > >One of my jobs in the late 80's and early 90's was as a certified > >Commodore repair person for Eastern Ontario, a job where the > >skills were self-taught. > > > > We are heading to a situation where the old-economy music > >labels, movie studies, and proprietary software vendors are > >colluding with hardware manufacturers and misinformed governments > >to legalize and legally protect the concept of "no owner > >modifiable parts inside". They want to take away our right to > >tinker, even disallowing computer owners from making our own > >software choices. > > > > How I learned computing, both hardware and software, is > >increasingly being considered illegal. > > > > I believe that governments must firmly reject this attack on > >property, creative, educational and other rights. We should be > >going the other way by mandating that hardware manufacturers > >provide adequate documentation to hardware owners so we can > >author our own software to share if we wish. No exclusive right, > >whether copyright or patents, should ever be allowed on > >interfaces. The property rights of hardware owners should always > >trump the extremism that has allowed hardware manufacturers to > >treat their customers as a threat rather than the very people who > >drive the future of computing. > > > > I sit here on Christmas day thinking of Christmas past where I > >was given some of this hardware. I feel sad that children > >approximately 20 years later will not be able to receive the same > >level of gift that will benefit them in their future. -- ``Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty''