From the.solipsist at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 01:37:24 2007 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:37:24 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] No more drafts: GPLv3 officially released (on June 29th) Message-ID: <4785f1e20707011307j575065f6o80db62642351b066@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, On Friday, June 29, 2007, GPL Version 3 was officially released. Around ten days back, Bruce Perens published a really good article on Technocrat, titled Clearing up anti-GPL3 FUD. In that article, Perens argues that GPL3 is necessary to keep up with changing technologies and to prevent innovative ways in which GPL2 could be by-passed (which was revealed during GPL3's draft stages by last year's Novell-Microsoft deal(also see this humourous visual timeline of the deal)), and vehemently (and successfully, IMHO) contests charges that GPL3 seeks to weaken DRMs. (These charges, I might add, were more than valid up to the 2nd draft of GPL3, when DRMs were outright banned.) He also give reasons for why the Linux kernel should shift to GPL3 (noting that there have been reservations towards this end by core kernel authors, including Linus Torvalds). However, as an article in Ars Technica (see below) notes, Torvalds has recently shifted his stance and has become more receptive of GPL3. Easy to link plain text (.txt) version of GPL 3 FSF's press release for GPL 3 Text of GPL 3 Statement by RMS on why one should upgrade to v3 --------------------------- >From Ars Technica: GPL 3 officially released By Ryan Paul | Published: June 29, 2007 - 07:57PM CT After four drafts, broad discussion, and extensive public review, the FSF has finally published the official, much-anticipated GPL revision 3 (GPL 3). The new version aims to clarify aspects of the previous version, strengthen unencumbered redistribution by imposing new patent licensing requirements, and protect the user's right to modify GPL software on embedded systems. The GPL is the most popular open-source software license, and it is used by many high-profile open-source software projects, including the Linux kernel. Unlike proprietary software licenses, the GPL explicitly guarantees users the right to modify, repurpose, and redistribute software. "Since we founded the free software movement, over 23 years ago, the free software community has developed thousands of useful programs that respect the user's freedom," says FSF president Richard Stallman in a statement. "Most of these programs use the GNU GPL to guarantee every user the freedom to run, study, adapt, improve, and redistribute the program." Many contentious issuesaddressed in the GPL 3 caused controversy and debate throughout the draft process. An unexpected patent agreementbetween Microsoft and Novell compelled the FSF to revise the patent licensing language in a late GPL 3 draft in an effort to blocksimilar deals in the future. Despite the controversy and debate, the highly transparent draft process has ensured that the GPL 3 is the product of broad consensus. "By hearing from so many different groups in a public drafting process, we have been able to write a license that successfully addresses a broad spectrum of concerns," says FSF executive director Peter Brown in a statement. "But even more importantly, these different groups have had an opportunity to find common ground on important issues facing the free software community today, such as patents, tivoization, and Treacherous Computing." Now that the GPL 3 has been released, it is likely that it will be broadly adopted within the open-source software community. Although Linux kernel creator Linus Torvalds initially rejected the possibility of migrating the kernel from the GPL 2 to the GPL 3, the developer has recently statedthat the possibility is once again under consideration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070702/98adc6c3/attachment.html From the.solipsist at gmail.com Mon Jul 2 02:02:28 2007 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 02:02:28 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] LGPL also released! Message-ID: <4785f1e20707011332v541e0683n193ee6fce620d3bb@mail.gmail.com> Sorry, I forgot to mention that the LGPL3 (GNU Lesser General Public License version 3) has also been released. Read more hereand here (the latter link being a talk by Eben Moglen). If you read the Eben Moglen talk, apart from the serious bit, you'll come across some light-hearted stuff too. Sample: While asked about RMS's role, he talks of a 'whiff of enlightened despotism', and says: "If we'd known how to replace [Stallman,] I suppose there would've been an overwhelming public cry to do so." - Pranesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070702/d29a0e55/attachment.html From hbs.law at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 13:52:15 2007 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:52:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] A Village Opposes Trademarking of its Name: Katonah vs. Martha Stewart Message-ID: <8b60429e0707040122o579e5434k6f0b827ee52090ba@mail.gmail.com> *Businessweek.com* *Top News* July 4, 2007, 12:01AM EST text size: T T Katonah vs. Martha Stewart Village locals welcomed their new neighbor—until she tried to trademark the town's name. Now, they're fighting back by Pallavi Gogoi *And while we were sleeping and the chief was cryin' somebody snuck in and I ain't lyin' And she's got plans She's the personification of gracious living* So go the lyrics of a song composed for Martha Stewartlast week. In a town littered with celebrities, Stewart might not have heard of fellow resident Marc Black. But this Katonah Village local celebrity loaned his vocal chords, singing talents, and guitar strumming, to a fund-raiser held at a new local joint, MoonRocks, where residents of the village gathered the last weekend in June, for a fund-raiser to help fight the attempt by Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSO) to trademark the name of their village. O.K., so Katonah isn't known for its protest songs. The tony suburb, 30 miles north of New York City, is quiet and picturesque, exuding a quaintness that has attracted the kind of people who have pushed the average home price above $900,000. The main street, historic Bedford Road, is shaded by broad-leafed trees and lined on either side with houses framed in delicate spindle-work carpentry. A short two-mile drive around the hamlet will take you to the larger estates, several ringed by stone walls. It was one of these estates that Stewart bought in 2000, when she moved to town. She paid $16 million for a 153-acre estate, right next door to Ralph Lauren, fashion magnate and chief executive of Polo Ralph Lauren (RL). The hamlet's residents were at first thrilled to have her join the list of stars who lived there—Hollywood luminaries including Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Glenn Close. A Potent Weapon But now Katonah's locals are up in arms about Stewart's attempt to claim the name of the town, so it can be used to sell paints, lighting, and home accessories. The Katonah Village Improvement Society, the village's nonprofit community organization, has launched a campaign dubbed "Nobody Owns Katonah." It's raising money through fund-raisers, like the one at Moonrocks (where $3,000 was pulled in), to help pay for legal expenses to fight the initiative. "It's so rude to move into a town and then try to claim its name," says Diane Lauer, one resident supporting the effort. What upsets locals is not that Stewart wants to use the Katonah name, but that she wants to lay claim to it with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. If she succeeds, they fear they will have to get approval from her company to use the name themselves. Andrew Baren, co-owner of the high-end Katonah Architectural Hardware store, says, "Martha is a great client, and I couldn't be happier that she lives and shops here." But, he adds, "When I wanted to start my store, I didn't have to get permission from another business to take up the Katonah name, and I don't want my children to have to do that in the future." The international law firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Moslehas offered to fight the town residents' case pro bono. Andrew Seiden, who heads up the intellectual-property practice for the firm, says that often a large corporation can use a trademark as a potent weapon against small mom-and-pop businesses. "This trademark will be owned by a corporation forever, and small businesses will be hesitant to use a name that they have no means to fight," says Seiden. "That's what we're trying to prevent." Protecting the Brand Brand and retail experts say that Stewart's efforts to trademark are a way to protect her business from competitors, who could also start selling products using the Katonah name. The "Katonah Collection" line of furniture, launched in February, is being sold at Macy's (M). "Martha Stewart is, after all, all about brand, and she has to protect it," says Patricia Pao, founder of retail consultancy the Pao Principle. Stewart has four other collections named for homes she has either lived in or owns: Turkey Hill, Lily Pond, Opal Point, and Skylands. The question now is whether the fight for Katonah is worth a spat that could end up hurting Stewart's reputation, especially if town residents continue to ratchet up the pressure. "Ultimately, for Martha, it's about ego and having it her way," says Pao. Assistance from Around the Country Support for the town's campaign is coming in from around the country. After the law firm offered to fight the case pro bono, far-flung clients of local businesses began writing out checks to the nonprofit group. Robert Frank, a Dallas-based trademark expert, has offered his research services for free. The descendants of Chief Katonah—the 17th century Indian chief for whom the community is named—have also joined the town in support. "Martha Stewart should respect the town's wishes," says Autumn Wind Scott, co-chair of the New Jersey State Commission on American Indian Affairs. Still, despite the support flowing in from other corners, the fight is local. And even though the case will be fought in a trademark court, residents are letting their thoughts flow through a song: *We love you Martha…we like you here, you can belong here but you just can't buy us, and simply own us, Somebody should have told you, it's very wrong to take our name and try to become Chief Katonah.* Gogoi is a contributing writer for BusinessWeek.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070704/b7024fb2/attachment.html From prabhuram at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 09:47:34 2007 From: prabhuram at gmail.com (Prabhu Ram) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:47:34 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Patent board reserves verdict on Novartis plea Message-ID: <68752c9f0707102117x29bb8b77kab38e83c3460c47a@mail.gmail.com> Patent board reserves verdict on Novartis plea BS Reporter / Chennai July 11, 2007 The Indian Patent Appellate Board (IPAB) on Tuesday reserved judgement on Novartis' appeal challenging the appointment of former Controller General of Patents S Chandrasekhar as a technical member of IPAB, which is hearing its appeal against the Indian patent office's move to not allow patent protection to its anti-cancer drug Glivec in India. The Swiss pharma major had objected to the composition of the IPAB patents cell on the grounds that Chandrasekhar was Controller General of Patents when the company's original application for Glivec was rejected. Chandrasekhar joined IPAB a few months ago, following his retirement from the IP office. Arguing on behalf of Novartis, senior counsels Shanthi Bhusan and Habibullah Basha submitted that the technical cell could have one more technical member in addition to Chandrasekhar or the tribunal could ask the government to appoint another person. The Patents Act allows only one judicial member and one technical member at present. Additional Solicitor General V T Gopalan, arguing on behalf of the Centre and Controller General of Patents before the tribunal, defended the appointment of Chandrasekhar as technical member of IPAB. He contended that Novartis should have made its objection when the case was shifted to the appellate board. Since it had failed to do that, it was not right to raise the issue now, he added. He argued that once a statutory order was passed, the tribunal should start hearing the case without asking for appointing another person. IPAB is hearing the patent case following a decision of the Madras High Court to transfer one of the cases – on the decision of the Chennai patent office to reject the Glivec patent – to IPAB. http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?autono=290733&leftnm=1&subLeft=0&chkFlg= From prabhuram at gmail.com Mon Jul 16 12:46:55 2007 From: prabhuram at gmail.com (Prabhu Ram) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:46:55 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Do Patents Work? Message-ID: <68752c9f0707160016ib42f98bj2609a37cfd72dd08@mail.gmail.com> >NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/yourmoney/15proto.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=bd21af2cc2313a80&ex=1184731200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1184569907-DdNTwJv4u7XyO3xd1Zj7RQ&pagewanted=print A Patent Is Worth Having, Right? Well, Maybe Not By MICHAEL FITZGERALD PATENTS are supposed to give inventors an incentive to create things that spur economic growth. For some companies, especially in the pharmaceutical business, patents do just that by allowing them to pull in billions in profits from brand-name, blockbuster drugs. But for most public companies, patents don't pay off, say a couple of researchers who have crunched the numbers. "Today, over all, patents don't work; for the information technology industry especially, they don't work," said James Bessen, who became a lecturer at Boston University's law school after a career in business. In 1983, he created the first computer publishing software with Wysiwyg (an acronym for "what you see is what you get") printing abilities. He also founded a desktop publishing company, Bestinfo, later acquired by Intergraph. Neither Mr. Bessen nor his company patented anything, in part because his lawyers told him that software couldn't be patented at the time. He ultimately became interested in whether patents spurred innovation, since the software industry for years innovated steadily without using many patents. He and a colleague, Michael J. Meurer, are readying a book on the topic, "Do Patents Work?," due in 2008. (A synopsis and sample chapters are at researchoninnovation.org/dopatentswork/.) The two researchers have analyzed data from 1976 to 1999, the most recent year with complete data. They found that starting in the late 1990s, publicly traded companies saw patent litigation costs outstrip patent profits. Specifically, they estimate that about $8.4 billion in global profits came directly from patents held by publicly traded United States companies in 1997, rising to about $9.3 billion in 1999, with two-thirds of the profits going to chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Domestic litigation costs alone, meanwhile, soared to $16 billion in 1999 from $8 billion in 1997. Things have probably become worse since then. For instance, patent litigation is up: there were 2,318 patent-related suits in 1999, and 2,830 in fiscal 2006 (though that's down from the peak year, 2004, when 3,075 were filed). Mr. Bessen said awards in patent cases also seemed to be up, though he was less confident in that data. Worse, he says, companies doing the most research and development are sued the most. Mr. Bessen's critique of the patent system does not go so far as that of economists like Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, who argue that the patent system should be abolished ( http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm). Mr. Bessen said that besides girding the pharmaceutical industry, the system did seem to work reasonably well for small companies and individual inventors. Still, he said that "our finding is that the risk of patent litigation is creating a disincentive for R&D," especially for information technology companies, and that the system urgently needs change. Mr. Bessen's data is controversial. John F. Duffy, a law professor at George Washington University, thinks that Mr. Bessen and Mr. Meurer have undervalued the profits made from patented items, though he acknowledged that a vast majority of patents are worthless. Mr. Duffy, who thinks that the patent system remains a powerful innovation engine for the economy, also noted that the data covers only the private value of patents — it does not try to measure the social value of patents, that is, the impact an invention has for society at large. How, for example, might one measure the value of the stability of an airplane, which can be traced to an invention patented by the Wright Brothers? Still, Mr. Duffy does not discount the research. In fact, he has invited Mr. Meurer to present it at a conference later this summer. "The numbers are serious, and they are provocative," Mr. Duffy said. The data don't seem out of line to R. Polk Wagner, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He said that other research has established that patents typically are worth less than $10,000. "It's not any secret that on a cash basis, it doesn't make sense to file patents, and yet companies do it," Mr. Wagner said. Some companies are still spending billions on research programs despite the increase in litigation costs. "Whether or not the R&D efforts you make invite litigation in no way relates to whether you do them," said Bernard S. Meyerson, an I.B.M. fellow who is named on more than 40 patents and is currently chief technologist at its systems and technology group. I.B.M. has one of the corporate world's largest research budgets, spending some $6 billion a year. And it does make money from its patents, at least on a licensing basis. Of course, I.B.M. also employs 370 corporate patent lawyers who Mr. Meyerson said work "hand in hand" with the company's inventors, trying to make sure that the company is aware of patent pitfalls that might affect its work. I.B.M. and many other large high-tech companies have hefty patent portfolios, which Mr. Meyerson said deters the companies from suing one another. He said the industry operates under a large intellectual-property umbrella: "you are licensed under mine, I'm licensed under yours, and by declaring peace as opposed to war, you have freedom of action," Mr. Meyerson said. Even so, he said I.B.M. is concerned that innovation could be choked by patent litigation and would like to see the system reformed. Congress could step in, and there are patent reform bills in the House and the Senate, with many of the provisions aimed at reining in litigation and damage awards. But this marks the third consecutive year that Congress has considered patent reform, and there is enough opposition from large companies to suggest that it will again have to wait until next year. There are other paths to change: the United States Patent and Trademark Office could open patent applications to public comment, which could help patent examiners find applicable previous inventions. The office in June began a yearlong experiment allowing open comment on 250 patent applications (www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/07-21.htm). The Web is already ahead of the patent office: a site called wikipatents (www.wikipatents.com) has created an open comment process for several years' worth of patent applications. ANOTHER might be to increase the number of appeals courts that handle patent cases. Right now, there is only one, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, may have helped the system immensely with a ruling in June that should stiffen the standard of "obviousness," the key criterion in granting a patent. Tougher standards may weed out many bad patents and reduce litigation. But technological inventions are often not obvious, especially when it comes to the esoteric world of software, where it can be unclear even to the inventor what the patent will be good for. Mr. Bessen, for one, is not optimistic. "Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better for the technology industry," he said. If he's correct, it will become harder to question his economic analysis of the current patent system. Michael Fitzgerald is a Boston-area writer on business, technology and culture. E-mail: mfitz at nytimes.com. From shuddha at sarai.net Thu Jul 19 21:13:11 2007 From: shuddha at sarai.net (Shuddhabrata Sengupta) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:13:11 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] The Detention of Dr. Haneef in Australia Message-ID: <469F868F.2090806@sarai.net> Dear All, (apologies for cross posting on Reader List and Commons Law) Everyone on this list must be familiar with the news of the detention of a doctor from Bangalore Dr. Haneef, in Australia in connection with the attacks in Glasgow earlier this month. Echo of 13 December In what seems to be spiralling into a strange echo of the 13 December case, a man is being charged of terrorism in a country continents away, because he happened to share a house and was related to one of the other accused, and because of a lent SIM card. But the global 'war against terror' requires fresh victories, and the Australian government is as eager as any other to provide them, so it has found and picked Dr. Haneef. While the Australian government, particularly under John Howard's stewardship has displayed a degree of paranoia and prejudice, it is heartening to note that a lot of ordinary people in Australia have come out in support of the detained doctor. With people demonstrating on streets, carrying placards that state that they too 'had lent someone a SIM card'. See - http://newsbreak.com.au/topic/Peter-Russo For a good compilation of articles from Australian sources about the unfolding events of the case. 'Every Drop of Blood is Human While the Australian state agencies, and several 'anonymous' sources have sought to plant unsusbstantiated stories that insinuate that Dr. Haneef was in fact involved in the plot. His legal team, led by barristers Stephen Keim and Peter Russo have also taken the entire case into the public domain by releasing transcripts of his interrogation by the police in which he (Dr. Haneef) while denying any involvement in any form of terrorism says that he believes "every drop of blood is human. And I feel for every human being." See - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/18/1981921.htm and - http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/slow-burn-that-led-team-to-make-transcript-public/2007/07/18/1184559867716.html for details of the 'leaked transcript' Reportage in Indian Press There has been some reportage of these issues in the Indian press. And I am posting below a report that the Indian Express carried yesterday about this - which is identical to one found on the - http://www.worldnewsaustralia.com.au/region.php?id=138540®ion=7 - webpage http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=89721 http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070717/asp/nation/story_8068606.asp 'Australian people's support moved Haneef' Indian Express, Thursday, 17 July Agencies Posted online: Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 1330 hours IST Updated: Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 1335 hours IST Melbourne, July 19: Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef, charged with supporting a terrorist organisation, broke down in jail after coming to know of the widespread support he was getting from common people in Australia, his lawyer said. The 27-year old doctor from Bangalore was surprised and deeply touched when told fellow lawyers as well as ordinary people were rallying behind him and broke down, his lawyer Peter Russo told protestors outside the Department of Immigration. "Some of what's occurring today may come as a little bit of a shock to him," Russo said adding "... he was moved to tears when I told him about it (the support) because I think for him he hasn't understood the impact that it's had on the rest of the community and I don't think he regards himself as being such an important person," The Australian quoted him as saying. He said he expected Haneef would be amazed at his high-profile coverage after having access to newspapers and television news reports for the first time last night since his arrest at Brisbane Airport on July two. "I'm pretty sure he will be stunned and he's going to have a million questions for me," he said. He was moved to the Wolston correctional centre on Wednesday after failing to post a USD 10,000 surety, which would allow him to be transferred to the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney. He is charged with supporting a terrorist organisation after giving a mobile phone SIM card to a relative later accused of being involved in plotting car bomb attacks in the UK. From hbs.law at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 16:14:11 2007 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:14:11 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Film on Global Warming by Nitin Das Juley Message-ID: <8b60429e0707200344x53d45a49qae376fa14ce37b6f@mail.gmail.com> Hi A buddy's buddy sent this to me. I thought some of you may be interested in films and/or global warming. Just putting it here due to many people's interest in media on the list. Please forward as appropriate. Hasit ------------------------------ Hi Amit, I have just completed the short film in the Himalayas (near Tibet) It is a magical tale about a young boy who finds the solution to Global Warming from a monk in the mountains. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35u0J4p26Fg The enchanted land is fast dissappearing with time. Could you please spread this film to your friends. In the fight against Global warming, no effort is too small. Juley, Nitin Das -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070720/826225d7/attachment.html From vivek at sarai.net Sun Jul 22 15:26:42 2007 From: vivek at sarai.net (Vivek Narayanan) Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:26:42 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Hooray for Prince! Message-ID: <46A329DA.3010508@sarai.net> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/arts/music/22pare.html?th&emc=th Music The Once and Future Prince By JON PARELES Published: July 22, 2007 I’VE got lots of money!” Prince exults in “The One U Wanna C,” a come-on from his new album, “Planet Earth” (Columbia). There’s no reason to disbelieve him. With a sponsorship deal here and an exclusive show there, worldwide television appearances and music given away, Prince has remade himself as a 21st-century pop star. As recording companies bemoan a crumbling market, Prince is demonstrating that charisma and the willingness to go out and perform are still bankable. He doesn’t have to go multiplatinum — he’s multiplatform. [photo: Prince has caused a stir by distributing his new album free in a British newspaper, one of many ways he is showing that he thinks differently about the music business.] Although Prince declined to be interviewed about “Planet Earth,” he has been highly visible lately. His career is heading into its third decade, and he could have long since become a nostalgia act. Instead he figured out early how to do what he wants in a 21st-century music business, and clearly what he wants is to make more music. Despite his flamboyant wardrobe and his fixation on the color purple, his career choices have been savvy ones, especially for someone so compulsively prolific. Like most pop stars, he goes on major tours to coincide with album releases, which for Prince are frequent. But he also gets out and performs whenever he chooses. Last year he took over a club in Las Vegas and renamed it 3121, after his 2006 album “3121,” which briefly hit No. 1 and spawned multiple conflicting theories about the significance of the number. He started playing there twice a week for 900 people at $125 a ticket. In February he had an audience in the millions as the halftime entertainment for the Super Bowl. He has gone on to play well-publicized shows at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood for a few hundred people paying $3,121 per couple, and another elite show last weekend in East Hampton for about $3,000 per person. Meanwhile Verizon put Prince in commercials that use “Guitar,” another song from “Planet Earth,” as bait for its V Cast Song ID service, making the song a free download to certain cellphones. On July 7 Prince introduced a perfume, 3121, by performing at Macy’s in Minneapolis. In Britain he infuriated retailers by agreeing to have a newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, include the complete “Planet Earth” CD in copies on July 15. (The album is due for American release this Tuesday.) Presumably The Mail paid him something in the range of what he could have earned, much more slowly, through album sales. British fans have remunerated him in other ways. On Aug. 1 he starts a string of no fewer than 21 sold-out arena concerts, 20,000 seats each, at the O2 (formerly the Millennium Dome) in London at the relatively low ticket price of £31.21, about $64. The O2 ticket price also includes a copy of the album; Prince did the same thing with his tour for “Musicology” in 2004. Those “Musicology” albums were counted toward the pop charts, which then changed their rules; the “Planet Earth” albums will not be. But fans will have the record. Prince’s priorities are obvious. The main one is getting his music to an audience, whether it’s purchased or not. “Prince’s only aim is to get music direct to those that want to hear it,” his spokesman said when announcing that The Mail would include the CD. (After the newspaper giveaway was announced, Columbia Records’ corporate parent, Sony Music, chose not to release “Planet Earth” for retail sale in Britain.) Other musicians may think that their best chance at a livelihood is locking away their music — impossible as that is in the digital era — and demanding that fans buy everything they want to hear. But Prince is confident that his listeners will support him, if not through CD sales then at shows or through other deals. This is how most pop stars operate now: as brand-name corporations taking in revenue streams from publishing, touring, merchandising, advertising, ringtones, fashion, satellite radio gigs or whatever else their advisers can come up with. Rare indeed are holdouts like Bruce Springsteen who simply perform and record. The usual rationale is that hearing a U2 song in an iPod commercial or seeing Shakira’s face on a cellphone billboard will get listeners interested in the albums that these artists release every few years after much painstaking effort. But Prince is different. His way of working has nothing to do with scarcity. In the studio — he has his own recording complex, Paisley Park near Minneapolis — he is a torrent of new songs, while older, unreleased ones fill the archive he calls the Vault. Prince apparently has to hold himself back to release only one album a year. He’s equally indefatigable in concert. On the road he regularly follows full-tilt shows — singing, playing, dancing, sweating — with jam sessions that stretch into the night. It doesn’t hurt that at 49 he can still act like a sex symbol and that his stage shows are unpredictable. Through it all he still aims for hit singles. Although he has delved into all sorts of music, his favorite form is clearly the four-minute pop tune full of hooks. But his career choices don’t revolve around squeezing the maximum return out of a few precious songs. They’re about letting the music flow. Prince gravitated early to the Internet. Even in the days of dial-up he sought to make his music available online, first as a way of ordering albums and then through digital distribution. (He was also ahead of his time with another form of communication: text messaging abbreviations, having long ago traded “you” for “U.”) Where the Internet truism is that information wants to be free, Prince’s corollary is that music wants to be heard. How much he makes from his various efforts is a closely guarded secret. But he’s not dependent on royalties trickling in from retail album sales after being filtered through major-label accounting procedures. Instead someone — a sponsor, a newspaper, a promoter — pays him upfront, making disc sales less important. Which is not to say that he’s doing badly on that front: “3121” sold about 520,000 copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan, and “Musicology,” with its concert giveaways, was certified multiplatinum. Prince ended a two-decade contract with Warner Brothers Records in 1996 after a very public falling out with the label. During the mid-1990s he appeared with the word “Slave” painted on his face and said the label was holding back material he wanted to release. For a while he dropped the name Prince — which was under contract to Warner Brothers and Warner/Chappell Music — for an unpronounceable glyph; when the contracts ran out, he was Prince again. And since leaving Warner Brothers he has been independent. He owns his recordings himself, beginning with a three-CD set called “Emancipation” from 1996. He has released albums on his own NPG label and Web site or has licensed them, one by one, for distribution by major labels, presumably letting them compete for each title. Over the past decade he has had albums released through EMI, Arista, Universal and Sony. The idea behind long-term recording contracts is that a label will invest in building a career. But Prince (in part because of Warner Brothers’ promotion) has been a full-fledged star since the ’80s. So now a label’s main job for him is to get the CDs into stores. Prince also experimented with having fans subscribe directly to receive his music online, which turned out to be a better idea in theory than in execution. After five years he quietly shut down his NPG Music Club in 2006. Still, his Web site (which is now 3121.com) usually has a rare recording or two for streaming or downloading. Why not? There’s plenty more. “Planet Earth” is a good but not great Prince album. Unlike “3121,” which built many of its tracks around zinging, programmed electronic sounds, “Planet Earth” sounds largely handmade, even retro. “In this digital age you could just page me,” Prince sings in “Somewhere Here on Earth,” a slow-motion falsetto ballad. “I know it’s the rage but it just don’t engage me like a face-to-face.” Prince, as usual, is a one-man studio band — drums, keyboards, guitars, vocals — joined here and there by a horn section or a cooing female voice. This time he leans toward rock rather than funk. Serious songs begin and end the album. It starts with “Planet Earth,” an earnest environmental piano anthem with an orchestral buildup, and winds up with the devout “Lion of Judah” and with “Resolution,” an antiwar song. In between, Prince flirts a lot, playing hard-to-get as he rocks through “Guitar” (“I love you baby, but not like I love my guitar”) and promising sensual delights in the upbeat “One U Wanna C” and the slow-grinding “Mr. Goodnight.” There’s also a catchy, nutty song about a model, “Chelsea Rodgers,” who’s both hard-partying and erudite; Prince sings that she knows about how “Rome was chillin’ in Carthage in 33 B.C.E.” Although Columbia probably thinks otherwise, how the album fares commercially is almost incidental. With or without the CD business, Prince gets to keep making music: in arenas, in clubs, in the studio. Fans buy concert tickets, companies rent his panache, pleasure is shared. It’s a party that can go on a long time. -- www.sarai.net Vivek Narayanan The Sarai Programme Centre for the Study of Developing Societies 29,Rajpur Road, Civil Lines Delhi 110 054. Ph.+91 11 23928391 Fax. +91 11 23943450 From anasuya_s at yahoo.com Mon Jul 23 22:25:04 2007 From: anasuya_s at yahoo.com (Anasuya Sengupta) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:25:04 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [Fwd: Re: OII Call for Applications from Civil Society Practitioners in the global South] Message-ID: <46A4DD68.9010205@yahoo.com> Apologies for any x-posting. > *Oxford Internet Institute - Civil Society Practitioners Programme* > > > Invitation to apply > > The Oxford Internet Institute (University > of Oxford) invites applications from the global South to fill two > places in its Civil Society Practitioners Programme. > > This visitor programme is intended for Civil Society Practitioners of > distinction or outstanding promise who wish to visit the Institute for > a period of six weeks between February and December 2008, to undertake > research concerning the social impact of the Internet and related > ICTs. Visitors are expected to reside in Oxford during their stay, and > to participate fully in the intellectual life of the Institute. The > successful applicants will receive: > > * A subsistence allowance of 3800 GBP (7500 USD) to cover research > expenses and living costs during their stay in Oxford > * A travel grant of up to 1000 GBP (2000 USD) for travel to and > from the UK > > Applications will ideally be submitted by Civil Society Practitioners > in or from the global South, active in the areas of freedom of > expression, media reform, media justice, and communications and > information policy in the globalized context of the Internet. > > > How to apply > > For details on how to apply, please download: > Information for Applicants (PDF, 45kb) at > http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/CSPP_Application_Information.pdf > > > > You may also request to have this information emailed to you in plain > text form. The deadline for completed applications to reach the OII > Academic and Student Affairs Officer (by post or email: contact > details below) is *26 September 2007*. Please note that incomplete > applications cannot be considered. > > Final notification of an award will occur in November 2007. Successful > candidates will be expected to take up their six week residency in > Oxford at any time between February and December 2008. > > > Contact > > Laura Taylor > Academic and Student Affairs Officer > Oxford Internet Institute > University of Oxford > 1 St Giles, Oxford OX1 3JS > United Kingdom > > Tel: +44 (0)1865 287222 > Fax: +44 (0)1865 287211 > Email: recruit at oii.ox.ac.uk > > > > This programme has been made possible through funding by the Ford > Foundation ´s Media, Arts and Culture unit. > > This Call for Applications is also available at: > http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/cspp/ - Oxford U is the sixth largest green energy user in Europe - -- Anasuya Sengupta www.sanmathi.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070723/722a7226/attachment.html From the.solipsist at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 22:46:31 2007 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:46:31 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] A New Chapter in Judiciary and Information Technology Message-ID: <4785f1e20707231016s5b287eact237f466720562ade@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, Justice Yatindra Singh, who is definitely one of the most knowledgeable judges in India IT- and IPR-wise, delivered a speech titled A New Chapter in Judiciary and Information Technology on July 9, 2007, on the occasion of inauguration of the Allahabad High Court Website and launching of E-court project. In it, he also details the use of open source software (including OpenOffice.org, Evolution and Mozilla Firefox), and open standards (PDF/A[rchives] is an ISO standard, and all of PDF v1.7is going to follow suit soon; Unicode is developed in tandem with ISO/IEC 10646 ) by the E-court project, which involves distributing 15,000 laptops across the Indian judiciary. The operating system for those laptops will, of course, be GNU/Linux (Justice Singh doesn't mention which flavour of Linux will be used, though). He notes, "It is not that open source does not have IPR problems but they are less than the proprietary software." An excerpt: E-COURT PROJECT—LAPTOPS—OPEN SOURCE > Laptops > E-court project is being implemented in three phases by the e-committee(constituted on > 28.12.2004). The first phase is being launched with the distribution of > laptops to the judges of the subordinate judiciary. Judicial officers and > court staff will be given technical training. Broadband connectivity is also > being offered. This will help the Judges to be better informed and work more > efficiently; bringing down the mounting arrears. > > The Laptops have the following features: > (i) software: > > - OpenOffice.org suite — Apart from > other, this suite has a word processor, and presentation programme; > - Evolution— > for sending and receiving email; > - Firefox — as the web > browser. > > (ii) Links to the following website: > > - Supreme Court judgements > ; > - High Court judgements ; > - Central laws ; > - National judicial Academy ; > - National Human Rights Commission ; > - National Legal Services Authority; > and > - World Legal Information Institute . > > (iii) Law Commission reports in the pdf format. > (iv) Icons—apart from others—to perform the following tasks > > - Show last back up; > - Use last data back up; > - take data back up; > - take a screen shot. > > The decision to provide laptops is important for the judiciary; it also > opens a new chapter in the field of information technology. Cheers, Pranesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070723/2480ccbf/attachment.html From k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 12:13:59 2007 From: k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com (ravi srinivas) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:13:59 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Kerala IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) Policy Message-ID: According to news reports kerala govt. has come out with a draft IP policy and it is circulated for discussion. Although it is supposed to be available at the kerala state govt website i am unable to locate it. if anybody can email the draft IP policy it will be useful. ravi srinivas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070728/62c6fd77/attachment.html