From pranesh at cis-india.org Wed Apr 1 11:27:59 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:27:59 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Nazi propaganda reprints: Copyright as a tool of censorship In-Reply-To: <4785f1e20901190658p75311aecgff27be6fb03ccb9f@mail.gmail.com> References: <4785f1e20901190658p75311aecgff27be6fb03ccb9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4785f1e20903312257i264a1b7ckf8210fcacd9ea747@mail.gmail.com> A Munich court has held that the copyright held by the state of Bavaria has expired since more than 70 years have expired since Adolf Hitler's expiry. (Hitler, it seems, owned the copyright in those Nazi era newspapers.) A lengthy report from Deutsche Welle: http://bit.ly/2V1VPZ German media divided about reprints The Nazi newspaper replicas have also divided the German news media. The national Sueddeutsche Zeitung said that readers were intelligent enough to see through the propaganda themselves. "You flick through these old newspapers as anyone born long after the war might: in shock and amazement. The evil (is right there) on paper," the national daily wrote. A local paper in Lower Saxony, the Peiner Allgemeine Zeitung suggested that the publishers could be motivated by commercial interests. "Hitler sells better than sex," the paper said. Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 20:28, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear All, > Here's an interesting example of using a copyright claim to prohibit > reprints of Nazi propaganda newspapers (and a German edition of Mein > Kampf) by a bunch of historians.  While discussion of its Nazi past > can be a very sensitive issue in Germany, it is very interesting to > see how it isn't anti-Nazi and hate speech laws that are being used to > suppress the speech but copyright. > > - Pranesh > > ------ > > http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0119/1232059658778_pf.html > > Reprints of Nazi newspapers a big hit in Germany > > DEREK SCALLY in Berlin > > Mon, Jan 19, 2009 > > FROM CRYSTALS to miniature tractors, every January magazine publishers > try to convince people that now is the time to start collecting > something. > > A British publisher has come up with the idea of selling reprints of > Nazi newspapers to German customers. > > You can imagine the sales pitch: "Week by week, your collection will > grow into a fascinating overview of the virulent propaganda that > polluted a nation's psyche and started a war that brought Europe to > its knees." > > The Zeitungszeugen (Newspaper Witnesses) series, juxtaposing reprints > with modern analysis and comment, has been a huge hit and the first > issue, including pages from Der Angriff– editor Joseph Goebbels – has > all but sold out in the German capital. > > And so, as the rest of the world reads about the inauguration of US > President-elect Barack Obama this week, tens of thousands of > Zeitungszeugen readers will be catching up with Der Angriff's account > of Adolf Hitler's rise to power in January 1933. > > "We want to give people the opportunity to form their own picture not > only of the political events," says series editor, historian Sandra > Paweronschitz, "but also of the era in which these events took place > and the attitudes to life at that time, for example by reading the > classifieds or the film guide." > > Historian Wolfgang Benz, who worked on the project, described the > reprints of original material as less harmful than the endless series > of slick documentaries that run on German television every night. > > But involving several leading German historians in the project hasn't > placated Germany's Jewish community. Ralph Giordano, one of Germany's > most prominent Holocaust survivors, suggested that the series was an > indication that "Hitler was defeated militarily, but not > intellectually". > > On Friday evening, the Bavarian state government slapped a ban on the > project just as publishers readied issue two – a reprint of the > vitriolic Völkischer Beobachter, the Nazi party paper. > > Officials in Munich announced that the publication was a breach of > copyright it has held since absorbing the assets of the main Nazi > publishing house, Eher, in 1945. > > The publishers of Zeitungszeugenhave admitted they were aware of the > copyright, but declined to apply for permission for fear of being > refused. > > Now the company has vowed to fight a ban they call "an attack on press freedom". > > That could lead to an interesting legal battle, as some legal > observers in Germany have claimed the copyright on the Nazi newspapers > has long since expired. > > It is the latest round in a long-running battle in Germany about > whether to keep Nazi documents locked up or to distribute them for > educational purposes. > > Last year, leading historians called on the Munich government to > permit a new German-language publication of Hitler's Mein Kampf, to > which it also holds the rights. > > They want to see an annotated version on sale before the work enters > the public domain in 2015. Then, 70 years after the dictator's death, > far-right fringe parties in Germany plan to flood the country with > their own cheap copies of the work. > > (c) 2009 The Irish Times > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > > T: +91 80 40926283 > W: http://cis-india.org > From patrice at xs4all.nl Wed Apr 1 13:33:40 2009 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:03:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Nazi propaganda reprints: Copyright as a tool of censorship Message-ID: <3241.122.172.37.55.1238573020.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> (Probably not) inauguraing a long list of dictators who become very rich in the process, Adolf Hitler had grown quite wealthy (on paper) thanks to the copyrichts on 'Mein Kampf' which was compulsory reading (it was given to every newly wed couple, for instance) and sold in the milions. I don't know about the newspapers, however, guess they belonged to the party. (not) with a 'German salute'(*) patrizio and Diiiinooos! (*) the formula ('mit Deutschen Gruess'), which was deemed acceptable, was often used by people who wanted to avoid using the more common 'Heil Hitler'... > A Munich court has held that the copyright held by the state of > Bavaria has expired since more than 70 years have expired since Adolf > Hitler's expiry. (Hitler, it seems, owned the copyright in those Nazi > era newspapers.) > > A lengthy report from Deutsche Welle: http://bit.ly/2V1VPZ > > > German media divided about reprints > From developmentlinks at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 22:30:53 2009 From: developmentlinks at gmail.com (Development Links Foundation) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:30:53 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Development Links Foundation website URL changed to http://developmentlinks.org/ Message-ID: Dear Friends This is to inform all the members in the mailing list that web address of Development Links Foundation has changed to http://developmentlinks.org/ Please ignore the web address of our organisation mentioned in previous communications from my end. -- Sincerely Arshad Rizvi Vice President and Director Development Links Foundation Basement 20, Masihgarh Sukhdev Vihar New Delhi 110025 Telefax: +91-11-41320294 Mobile: 09868612627 Email: arshadrizvi at developmentlinks.org Website: http://developmentlinks.org/ From the.solipsist at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 21:12:52 2009 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:12:52 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [A2k] Re: Nazi propaganda reprints: Copyright as a tool of censorship In-Reply-To: <49D477B7.80303@onlinehome.de> References: <4785f1e20901190658p75311aecgff27be6fb03ccb9f@mail.gmail.com> <4785f1e20903312257i264a1b7ckf8210fcacd9ea747@mail.gmail.com> <49D477B7.80303@onlinehome.de> Message-ID: <4785f1e20904020842g77452796k4ccf7019d685eae9@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 14:00, Matthias Spielkamp <1472-717 at onlinehome.de> wrote: > It's pretty clear that Hitler hasn't expired more than 70 years ago > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler) so it should be obvious that these > were not the grounds of reasoning by the Munich court. Thanks for pointing that out! I somehow lost count of ten whole years, concluding that he died 74 years ago, instead of 64. > The State of Bavaria was declared legal successor to various nazi > publishers (and, indeed, Adolf Hitler). The rights to publications > pre-1939 have now expired, therefore the court ruled that copyright law > cannot be used to prohibit publication. What I found curious in the Deutsche Welles report was this line: "Since Hitler died without leaving any heirs, Bavaria holds the rights to his estate, which includes Nazi newspapers "owned by" the dictator." So, Hitler's _personal_ ownership of the copyrights in the newspapers does seem to have been of consequence. How would heirs come into the picture if they meant that it was owned by the German Reich and not by Hitler. I see two explanations: a) lazy reporting; b) this is one of those civil-law/common-law differences. In any case, I'm guessing the work would probably have been counted as "governmental work" or something similar, leading to copyright expiring seventy years after publication instead of being counted from the death of the author(s). > What will happen in 2015 when Hitler's "Mein Kampf" can not be barred > from publication on copyright grounds any more is an open question. The > debate about this will be a lot more fierce than about the > "Zeitungszeugen" project and German policy makers and courts will > eventually have to tackle questions they tried to avoid so far. But that > won't be an issue for this list any more. Then won't Germany's anti-Nazi propaganda laws apply? From what I understand, that ban doesn't hit the Zeitungszeugen project because it is accompanied by commentary. I read that some German commentators say that an authorised version with commentary should hit the streets before 2015. But I still fail to understand how versions without academic commentary (which will presumably be critical of Hitler's ludicrous claims in Mein Kampf) could be printed even after 2015, given Germany's ban on Nazi material. Regards, Pranesh From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Apr 2 21:27:24 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:27:24 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] [A2k] Re: Nazi propaganda reprints: Copyright as a tool of censorship In-Reply-To: <4785f1e20904020842g77452796k4ccf7019d685eae9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4785f1e20901190658p75311aecgff27be6fb03ccb9f@mail.gmail.com> <4785f1e20903312257i264a1b7ckf8210fcacd9ea747@mail.gmail.com> <49D477B7.80303@onlinehome.de> <4785f1e20904020842g77452796k4ccf7019d685eae9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4785f1e20904020857q7ba4c662q873bb6a2b259f4f3@mail.gmail.com> Came across an article in the New Statesman (from 2001) explaining the copyright situation surrounding Mein Kampf (but it still doesn't explain how Hitler's lack of progeny is relevant to the copyright saga in the Nazi-era newspapers). http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200106250039 The copyright situation is complicated. In l933, Eher Verlag purchased the world rights for Mein Kampf, selling it on to other publishers for translation. In Britain, it ended up as part of Hutchinson's list. In 1939, Hutchinson commissioned the Jewish emigre Ralph Mannheim to translate Hitler's race-hate bible. This choice was not approved by Berlin. After the war, Mein Kampf went on to Hutchinson's backlist, but was reprinted in l969. Richard Cohen, now managing director of Richard Cohen Books, was Hutchinson's trade publishing director in l985, and he recalls the tricky issue of how to deal with the book. "The questions we faced at Hutchinson were: what were a publisher's responsibilities when confronted with such a book, and should we do anything to increase sales?" The moral dilemma was solved by describing the book as "vile" on the dust jacket. Today's version, now published by Pimlico, still calls it an "evil" book. "Each new edition has prompted a letter of complaint from the German government," Cohen adds. Meanwhile, Hutchinson was bought by Random House, which in turn was purchased by the German conglomerate Bertelsmann. The irony is not lost on Cohen: "Thus Hitler's racist tract, unavailable in German bookshops, will be published throughout Britain and the Commonwealth by a German company." As for the German copyright, the state of Bavaria confiscated Hitler's assets after the war, and controls all rights except for the English-language editions. In the UK, royalties go through the Curtis Brown literary agency, which, from 1976, transferred the money to a charity whose name the agency refused to reveal. The "anonymous" charity has just gone public. Last weekend, the press published the news that the German Welfare Council has been absorbing the royalties since 1976. The German Welfare Council claims to have distributed the cash to German Jewish refugees and, now that there are so few alive, "the trustees have decided that the funding is no longer appropriate". Now £250,000 worth of royalties is to be handed back to Random House. The American picture is also worth examining. During the Second World War, the US government made more than $20,000 from royalties on Mein Kampf, having seized the copyright as part of the Trading with the Enemy Act (Hitler's book was one of the first assets gained under this law). By l979, the Justice Department had collected more than $139,000 in royalties. Eventually, the monies were paid on a pro-rata basis to claimants, many of them American ex-POWs. In l979, Houghton Mifflin, the US publisher of the book, paid the government more than $35,000 for the rights. Selling more than 15,000 copies a year, Houghton Mifflin made substantial profits. When questioned about the ethics of this, the publishers reassigned the profits to charity. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 From pranesh at cis-india.org Sat Apr 4 02:38:20 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 02:38:20 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: ASIL Insight: WTO Panel Report on Consistency of Chinese Intellectual Property Standards In-Reply-To: <1102538698256.1101839216022.11451.3.351525FF@scheduler> References: <1102538698256.1101839216022.11451.3.351525FF@scheduler> Message-ID: <4785f1e20904031408l46ce2db0qe817909454fd3749@mail.gmail.com> Dear All, This is one of the clearest accounts of the U.S.-China W.T.O. dispute that I have come across. Regarding the censorship/copyright issue: it does seem a bit odd at the policy level (though fine at the legal level) to encourage production of materials by means of copyright (that is what copyright is supposed to do, isn't it?) while discouraging its production by censoring it. Regards, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ASIL Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 00:58 Subject: ASIL Insight: WTO Panel Report on Consistency of Chinese Intellectual Property Standards ASIL Insight WTO Panel Report on Consistency of Chinese Intellectual Property Standards By James Mendenhall April 3, 2009 Volume 13, Issue 4 On March 20, 2009, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report of the dispute settlement panel in China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (China – IPR).[1] The report addressed three claims brought by the United States alleging that certain Chinese measures are inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).[2] The panel upheld, at least in part, two of the three U.S. claims, but found that the United States did not present sufficient evidence to support its most important allegation, i.e., that certain volume and value thresholds established for defining criminal counterfeiting and piracy are inconsistent with TRIPS. Previous dispute settlement decisions had touched on the general enforcement obligations in TRIPS, but only in a superficial way. The panel in the China-IPR dispute was thus faced with a series of novel questions, and, as would be expected, the standards adopted by the panel merit further refinement. For example, while the report draws a roadmap for framing future claims regarding criminal thresholds, it is less clear how a government could apply some of the standards before bringing a claim. Still, the report may provide a basis for further engagement with China on the issue of IPR enforcement and may, therefore, ultimately lead to stronger IPR protection. Criminal Thresholds Under Chinese law, acts of counterfeiting and piracy are criminal only if the amount of infringing material exceeds certain quantity or value thresholds, e.g., 500 copies of a DVD or approximately $7,000 worth of counterfeit goods.[3] The United States alleged that the thresholds create a safe harbor for businesses engaged in commercial activities such as distribution of infringing products and are inconsistent with Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires the criminalization of “wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale.” In support of this claim, the United States provided, along with the measures themselves, industry reports detailing the volume of infringing material seized during police raids (which in many cases fell below the thresholds) and other anecdotal data.[4] The critical issue with respect to this claim was the meaning of the phrase “commercial scale,” a term never before interpreted by a WTO panel or the Appellate Body. The panel concluded that “commercial scale” activity means something different than “commercial” activity. Specifically, the term “commercial scale” implies a certain size threshold and not a qualitative assessment of the purpose of the activity. Furthermore, according to the panel, the threshold cannot be interpreted in the abstract but varies with respect to individual products and markets. According to the panel, “counterfeiting or piracy ‘on a commercial scale' refers to counterfeiting or piracy carried on at the magnitude or extent of typical or usual commercial activity with respect to a given product in a given market.”[5] In any given case, commercial scale “may be large or small. The magnitude or extent of typical or usual commercial activity relates, in the longer term, to profitability.”[6] Despite the panel's reference to profitability, there is no indication that the panel believed that profitability is the critical defining characteristic for “commercial scale” activity. On could argue to the contrary, that the profitability or purpose of an individual operation is irrelevant. The question remains whether the infringing activity is equal to or larger than the usual size of a business operation with respect to a given product or market. While the panel recognized that the Chinese measures “exclude certain commercial activity from criminal procedures and penalties,” it found that this was insufficient to prove that the measures are inconsistent with TRIPS.[7] The panel emphasized the importance of evidence to establish a claim that quantitative thresholds are inconsistent with Article 61. It found that “the United States did not provide data regarding products and markets or other factors that would demonstrate what constituted ‘a commercial' scale in the specific situation in China's marketplace.”[8] According to the panel, the press articles that the United States provided were merely anecdotal, while the raid data did not provide enough context to assess how the seized quantities related to typical or usual commercial activity with respect to the market and product at issue.[9] While the panel report provides a roadmap for litigating future claims, it possibly fails to provide clear guidance for governments seeking to ensure that national laws comply with their TRIPS obligations, at least to the extent that they wish to use thresholds. (In fact, very few countries use thresholds as opposed to more qualitative standards). If “commercial scale” differs for each product and market, then lawmakers attempting to comply with TRIPS Article 61 will seemingly be required to define criminal counterfeiting and piracy by (1) devising separate thresholds for each product and market; (2) setting a uniform threshold at the lowest level of commercial scale activity for any product or market covered by the law; or (3) eliminating thresholds altogether in favor of a qualitative definition of commercial scale activity. The first option appears untenable as a practical matter, and any such system would be complex and inconsistent. Two acts of piracy or counterfeiting could involve different products, but result in identical levels of infringement. Under the standard adopted by the panel, the TRIPS Agreement might require that one type of activity be criminalized and the other not, depending on whether the activity was larger or smaller than usual commercial activity with respect to the product or market in question. The second option – a single, least-common-denominator threshold – is likely more workable in that it only requires one threshold. However, unless the government could conduct a comprehensive review of all relevant products and markets within its jurisdiction to identify the lowest permissible threshold, the default threshold would likely need to be very low (or zero) to ensure that all commercial scale activity is captured. Those who support strong IP protection may prefer this policy, though it is not clear that this was the result the panel intended. The third option – a qualitative threshold – may be the best way forward, though “commercial scale” does not readily lend itself to a simple qualitative definition if, as the panel suggests, the term is wholly divorced from the question of whether the underlying activity serves a commercial purpose. Copyright Protection Denied for Prohibited Works The second claim focused on the fact that China denies copyright protection to works containing content deemed to be prohibited, e.g., content that would disrupt public order or social stability, or “jeopardize social ethics or fine national cultural traditions.”[10] The United States claimed that Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention, which is incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement, requires copyright protection for such works. The United States also asserted that the Chinese law is inconsistent with TRIPS Article 41.1, which requires the availability of specified enforcement procedures. Finally, the United States argued that, by denying copyright protection to prohibited works, the Chinese law foreclosed the availability of such procedures. The panel upheld the U.S. claims, concluding that there is no contradiction between, on the one hand, censoring works and, on the other hand, providing copyright protection to the censored material.[11] Release of Seized Counterfeit Goods Into the Stream of Commerce China's customs regulations give customs authorities the following options for disposing of IPR-infringing goods seized at the border: (i) Customs may hand the goods over to public welfare bodies for public welfare undertakings; (ii) if the holder of the intellectual property wishes to buy the goods, Customs may sell them; (iii) if the first two options are not possible, and if Customs can “eradicat[e] the infringing features,” then the goods may be auctioned; or (iv) when eradication is impossible, Customs may destroy the goods.[12] The United States argued that the customs regulations are inconsistent with Article 59 of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires that competent authorities have the authority to order destruction or disposal of infringing goods. The United States asserted that the Chinese regulations created a “compulsory scheme” that precluded destruction or proper disposal of infringing goods if one of the first two options listed above were possible.[13] The panel rejected China's claim that customs authorities were not authorized to destroy or properly dispose of infringing goods in large part based on China's clarification of the powers granted to its authority. The panel accepted the U.S. claim that the third option in the Chinese regulations is inconsistent with TRIPS Article 46, (as referenced in TRIPS Article 59), stating that “the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional circumstances, to permit release of the goods into the channels of commerce.”[14] One point in the panel's reasoning is of particular interest. TRIPS Article 59 requires that competent authorities “shall have the authority to order the destruction or disposal of infringing goods in accordance with the principles set out in article 46.” The panel report made it clear that “[t]he obligation is to ‘have' authority not an obligation to ‘exercise' authority.”[15] According to the panel, “the obligation that competent authorities ‘shall have the authority' to make certain orders is not an obligation that competent authorities shall exercise that authority in a particular way, unless otherwise specified.”[16] The United States had not challenged the manner in which China applied its customs regulations, but only the regulations as such. Thus, this statement does not preclude a future WTO claim, based on appropriate factual evidence, that the authority granted to an enforcement authority is never used and is effectively a nullity. Such a claim might be based not only on Article 59 but also Article 41 of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires that enforcement procedures be “available . . . so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement. . . .” Assembling the necessary evidence could be challenging, however. Conclusion China will now have a reasonable period of time to implement the panel's recommendations with respect to the latter two claims discussed above. The two claims that the United States won are relatively discrete, and China can comply with the related rulings through surgical amendments to its regulations. Whether the panel's finding on the thresholds claim will have a significant impact on China's IPR enforcement regime remains to be seen. Significantly, the panel did not find that China's criminal enforcement scheme was consistent with TRIPS Article 61, but only that United States had failed to prove its claims. Consequently, the panel report gives a roadmap for future challenges that should be of interest to private parties adversely affected by China's current thresholds or any other thresholds of a similar nature. At the very least, the report may provide a basis for further constructive dialogue with China. About the Author James Mendenhall, an ASIL member, is partner in the International Trade and Dispute Resolution group in the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, D.C., concentrating in international trade policy and litigation. His bio is available at http://www.sidley.com/mendenhall_james/. Endnotes [1] Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, WT/DS362/R (Jan. 26, 2009), available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds362_e.htm [hereinafter IP Panel Report]. [2] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), available at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf. [3] IP Panel Report, paras. 7.399 – 7.414. [4] See id. para. 7.622. [5] Id. para. 7.577. [6] Id. [7] Id. para. 7.609. [8] Id. para. 7.614. [9] See, e.g., para. 7.626. [10] See id. para. 7.79. [11] See id. para. 7.191. [12] Id. paras. 7.193 – 7.196. [13] Id. para. 7.197. [14] Id. para. 7.362. [15] Id. para. 7.236. [16] Id. para. 7.238. ------- Copyright 2009 by The American Society of International Law ASIL The purpose of ASIL Insights is to provide concise and informed background for developments of interest to the international community. The American Society of International Law does not take positions on substantive issues, including the ones discussed in this Insight. Educational and news media copying is permitted with due acknowledgement. ASIL- American Society of International Law | 2223 Massachusetts Avenue NW | Washington | DC | 20008 From namita at altlawforum.org Tue Apr 7 18:06:29 2009 From: namita at altlawforum.org (namita) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:06:29 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] super early piracy Message-ID: <49DB48CD.7030304@altlawforum.org> a pirated version of the work print of wolverine: origins is available online - with the actors on strings and green screens visible - a pre CGI version .. :-) there are already some legal repurcussions - a writer who did a review of the pre-release film was fired http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7987136.stm take care.. namita From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Apr 9 16:08:25 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:08:25 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Glyn Moody on Open Source Licensing and Patent Agnosticism Message-ID: <4785f1e20904090338o6f0c1e2dw491466b81b011f2a@mail.gmail.com> http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/should-open-source-licence-ever-be-patent-agnostic Should an Open Source Licence Ever Be Patent-Agnostic? April 9th, 2009 by Glyn Moody Sharing lies at the heart of free software, and drives much of its incredible efficiency as a development methodology. It means that coders do not have to re-invent the wheel, but can borrow from pre-existing programs. Software patents, despite their name, are about locking down knowledge so that it cannot be shared without permission (and usually payment). But are there ever circumstances when software patents that require payment might be permitted by an open source licence? That's the question posed by a new licence that is being submitted to the Open Source Inititative (OSI) for review. It arises out of work to create a reference implementation of the MPEG eXtensible Middleware (MXM) standard. This aims >to promote the extended use of digital media content through increased interoperability and accelerated development of components, solutions and applications. This is achieved by specifying >1.The MXM architecture >2.The MXM components (by reference) >3.The MXM components APIs >4.The MXM applications API >5.The inter-MXM communication protocols More details can be found here. The proposed licence is closely modelled on the Mozilla Public Licence (MPL). In his submission to the OSI, the well-known free software activist Carlo Piana explains the key difference: >As you will notice, we have removed some of the patent conditions that existed in the MPL. This is because none of the contributors would have accepted to encapsulate their patents in a FOSS license without the ability to ask for a license separately from the copyright. This is a basic tenet that is enshrined in the so-called ISO/IEC Directives for the development of International Standards. Some of you might know about my public stance against software patents and my approval to some of the licenses which impose implied licensing to or patent retaliation against all who distribute FOSS software while relying on patent protection. However, the sad truth is that if we did not offer a patent-agnostic license we would have made all efforts to have an open source reference implementation moot. He adds: >I have insisted and obtained, however, that an explicit patent covenant be inserted, to the effect to exclude from any patent concern all who don't distribute the compiled version of the software and to those who compile it only for internal purposes without direct commercial exploitation. This covenant being irrevocable, unconditioned and detached from the copyright licensing conditions. I have asked myself if this could work and if it complied with the OSI definition. My final conclusion is that if the BSD family is considered compliant, so shall be the MXM, as it does not condition the copyright grant to the obtaining of the patents, just as the BSD licenses don't deal with them. And insofar an implementer is confident that the part of the code it uses if free from the patented area, or it decided to later challenge the patent in case an infringement litigation is threatened, the license works just fine. Beyond the question of whether the proposed MXM licence complies with the OSI definition from a legal point of view, there is a much larger issue of whether it is true to its spirit – and whether we want open source licences to accommodate software patents. As I wrote above, software patents are fundamentally antithetical to the free sharing of information, and so allowing their presence in an open source licence seems to be tantamount to blessing their negation of that ideal. More generally, explicitly permitting them in an OSI-approved licence is bound to be exploited by those that support software patents, especially in places like Europe where they are not currently permitted. The argument will go that the MXM licence shows clearly that software patents and open source are not incompatible, and that the former can be accommodated provided a suitable licence is chosen. This would therefore undermine efforts to use open source as one argument against allowing software patents in national and international standards, for example. It would allow those endorsing software patents to claim to be open source, while other licences – notably the GNU GPL – would be excluded. This would lead to a complete dilution of what the open source definition is meant to stand for. The main argument in favour of permitting software patents in an open source licence seems to be the pragmatic one that if they are not allowed, then the MXM reference implementation will not be released under an open source licence. But this is sheer brinkmanship on the part of the media industries, who are effectively making a threat to the open source community, saying that unless software patents are allowed, they will not permit open source implementations. But as history has shown, the best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. The reason that an open source licence is even being considered by organisations that in the past would never have contemplated such a move is that they fully recognise the power and utility of open source; in short, they *want* this code to be open source, because it is the most efficient way of driving uptake. They need us more than we need them. So, in my view, the OSI should not give in to this blackmail, but should stand firm on the fundamental principle that software patents are an unmitigated harm for free software. It should reject the current proposed licence, and insist that if the MPEG Working Group wishes to benefit from open source, it should play by open source's rules. From venkyh at gmail.com Thu Apr 9 17:22:52 2009 From: venkyh at gmail.com (Venkatesh Hariharan) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 17:22:52 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Glyn Moody on Open Source Licensing and Patent Agnosticism In-Reply-To: <4785f1e20904090338o6f0c1e2dw491466b81b011f2a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4785f1e20904090338o6f0c1e2dw491466b81b011f2a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3f400ec0904090452i2a9656c7t15dd396d04fb74da@mail.gmail.com> Pranesh Prakash wrote: > http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/should-open-source-licence-ever-be-patent-agnostic > > Should an Open Source Licence Ever Be Patent-Agnostic? > April 9th, 2009 by Glyn Moody Pranesh, thanks for posting this. My comments on Glyn's post is below. Venky ===== Dear Glyn, I agree with you that the open source community should stand up to the "sheer brinkmanship on the part of the media industries" as you call it. More and more countries are hardening their stance against software patents and the US remains one of the few countries that continues to grant software patents. Even in the US, the voices for reform are growing. Bessen and Meurer's research (http://www.researchoninnovation.org/) shows that software patents lead to litigation and actually prevent innovation. Even in the US, the recent Bilski case goes against business method patents, which are closely related to software patents. The larger issue is that standards should belong to humanity and should not be controlled by individuals or companies. We do not pay for standards like weights and measures in the physical world and we should not pay for standards in the digital world either. Governments across the world are mandating open standards because public data should be in public formats and not private formats like MPEG. This will eventually tilt the balance of power in favor of open standards. The dot com bust proved that the digital world cannot violate the laws of economics. The open standards movement will prove that the digital world cannot violate the norms of civil society. From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Apr 14 13:56:30 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:56:30 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] CIS Lecture Series | Talk on Internet, Transparency and Politics | April 15, 2009 Message-ID: <4785f1e20904140126nbd1f26eob55cebc0933f5b1@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, The Centre for Internet and Society cordially invites you to a talk on "Internet, Transparency and Politics" by Barun Mitra on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 17:00. Description: The 2009 general elections in India have been preceded by various initiatives that seek to provide information to the voters about candidates contesting the elections. The aim of providing this information is to help voters to make 'informed choices' when casting their votes. This talk is being organized in the context of the research that CIS-RAW fellow Zainab Bawa is carrying out on "Internet, Transparency and Politics". Why has the Internet become an important space for publishing information that is streamlined for facilitating interaction between citizens and the state? What is the impact of making such information available to citizens? How does it transform their relationship with political actors and government agencies? Simultaneously, how are elected representatives and political parties responding to these 'transparency' initiatives? About the Speaker: Barun Mitra is the Director of Liberty Institute, a think-tank based in Delhi. He has conceptualized EmpoweringIndia.org to enable voters to cast their votes thoughtfully during the elections and to use the information on the site to hold their elected representatives accountable after they have been voted in. Barun Mitra also writes on issues of environment, health, trade and democracy in national and international publications. Time and Date: Wednesday, 15th April, 2009 17:00 - 18:30 Venue: Centre for Internet and Society, No. D2, 3rd Floor, Shariff Chambers, 14, Cunningham Road, Bangalore - 560052 Map: http://bit.ly/cis-map For more details, visit http://www.cis-india.org/events/internet-transparency-and-politics -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Apr 20 14:29:42 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:29:42 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Pravin Anand creates IP-themed board game. Message-ID: <4785f1e20904200159r80b4de5y6fb123c607d0002@mail.gmail.com> The famous New Delhi-based IP lawyer's created a board game around intellectual property law. Go get your own copy now! (Or as soon as it hits the markets.) And it's an "open source game". You are free to take inspiration from it (which, it seems, is not permissible otherwise under the rules of IPR). Oh, and the currency used is "A,nas", standing for Anand & Anand. ------ > http://www.livemint.com/Articles/PrintArticle.aspx?artid=F6E336EC-2D13-11DE-9428-000B5DABF613 Indian lawyer turns IPR into a board game The game is the brainchild of Pravin Anand, one of India’s best-known IPR lawyers. It took him two years to develop the game--and in these two years, Anand has had a busy day job Malathi Nayak New Delhi: In the next three months, a rather unique board game will hit the stores. For starters, it’s a locally developed game, a rarity in a business where international games such as Monopoly, Scrabble, Risk or Scotland Yard, largely owned by global companies such as Hasbro Inc. and Mattel Inc., rule the roost. Then, it’s developed by a lawyer. And finally, it’s a game on intellectual property rights, or IPR. The game is the brainchild of Pravin Anand, one of India’s best-known IPR lawyers. It took him two years to develop the game—and in these two years, Anand has had a busy day job. The result, Anaryst, is probably the world’s first board game on IPR, and Anand is in talks with Noida-based Frank Educational Aids Pvt. Ltd to market it. Anand has also given away around 200 sets of Anaryst to schools, law firms, and friends to gauge their reaction to the game that he first unveiled last year at a function presided over by science minister Kapil Sibal, himself a well-known lawyer. Anand’s motive in developing Anaryst is to acquaint young people—the game is essentially meant for anyone over the age of 12, although even younger children can play it—with the concept of IP and IPR, something that he hopes will encourage some of them to opt for a career in IP. That’s a possibility, although not everyone who loves Monopoly ends up being Donald Trump. Anand expects the board game to sell for around Rs500. Monopoly costs around Rs999 here. Manish Govil, director, product development at Frank Educational Aids, says that while it is difficult to predict the demand for the game in numbers before its formal launch in the market, he is positive it will receive a “positive reception”. “The game is a new concept dealing with a current issue (IP). I’m sure children and adults would be interested in it,” Govil says. *‘Roll and move’ format* Uday Athavankar, a professor at the Industrial Design Centre in Indian Institute of Technology, Bangalore, which specializes in creating and conceptualizing board games, too, believes Anaryst is “a new concept”. And Sanjay Subrahmanyan, an avid board game enthusiast who blogs on board games, also says Anaryst is the first of its kind to be created in India. The game, which follows a “roll and move” format, can be played by two-four players. The rules are simple. Players start by choosing one industry, represented by a pictographic card, out of four options—automobile, pharmaceutical, food and beverages, and information technology—depicted by a car, a drug, a drink and a computer system. Each product has a portfolio of 15 unique intellectual properties associated with it marked on the cards. For instance, in the auto industry there are 15 properties associated with a car such as a patent in the “improved axle”, copyright in the light controlling software and trademark in the brand name. Each player is given 5,000 A,nas, the currency of the game and acronym for Anand and Anand. The goal is to complete acquiring all the 15 intellectual properties of the chosen industry. Tresspassers on other players’ squares, that represent factories, have to pay a fine or go to court and pay damages or go to jail. Players can also acquire IP of other players’ industries, become “trolls” and trade them later. The goal is to complete the industry portfolio without going bankrupt. *Stirring interest early* Anand says he has taken the game to students of New Delhi’s Salwan Public School to allow students to try it, and received an encouraging response. “The school is planning to have inter-school Anaryst competitions. Children learnt that IP is not as complicated as performing a brain surgery. They will learn through the game that in a monogram they create, a recipe or an essay they write, IP is in everything,” the lawyer says. “Children need to understand these concepts with subtlety early enough to be interested in it. Those students may now want to look at IP as a career. ” Aparna Keswani, 17, was one of the students at the school who played the game with her friends. The game is now available in her school library. She says it definitely “stirred an interest” in IP among her classmates. “I wasn’t aware of what IPR means. In websites I often saw ‘Copyright 2009’ written at the end of the pages. It (the game) explained what trademark, patents, copyrights and designs mean and how it can be used in different industries,” she says. Marketing Anaryst won’t be easy, says Subrahmanyan. “The problem with the board game industry is that some makers like Funskool dominate the market as they have rights like Scrabble and Monopoly that have been popular for over 40 years,” he says. “Unfortunately, there is no board gaming culture in India, like in countries like Germany,” he adds. “Here, there are only cards and gambling.” Anand is not worried because he is not interested in the business aspect as much as in cultivating his hobby and “spreading the message of intellectual property”. “Even at the inauguration I had mentioned that it is an open source game, anyone can pick up the idea and work on it,” he says. The lawyer now plans to develop an online version and make it available on a website so it can become more accessible and reach out to a larger audience. malathi.n at livemint.com From patrice at xs4all.nl Wed Apr 22 10:55:23 2009 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:25:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Jaromil: On the Pirate Bay conviction] Message-ID: <53066.87.194.2.170.1240377923.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> bwo nettime-l / Jaromil re all, As some of you might already have heard, the second appeal to the Pirate Bay courtcase ended up with the conviction of four people behind the popular bittorrent tracker and website, Alan Toner give us two extensive accounts about the situation on his blog: http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/pirate-bay-defendants-convicted/ http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/more-on-the-pirate-bay-conviction/ Further below you'll find the statement that the Internet Society Philippines Chapter released about the happenings. What I find particularly interesting about the point of view offered by ISOC-PH president Fatima Lasay is the deep awareness of political implications in this and other similar court cases also quoted, for which the Pirate Bay case covers a prominent role. Seen from an Asian perspective, the criminalising campaigns lead by Western business interests represent a worrying threat to the planetary opening that "peer to peer" cultures and practices provide for developing countries. Behind the surface of this court case lies a tension that lasts since several centuries in history, as the historical account of professor Boron Ben-Altar outlines in his book "Trade Secrets: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power" (obviously intended as North American here). Almost 2 years ago I've done my best exploring the topic from the perspective of "border economies", as well outlining the complementary dynamic of loss of privacy for Internet citizens. http://jaromil.dyne.org/journal/piracy_privacy.html Going further in connecting dots, let me now mention that these dynamics are evolving into a worrying threat to free speech and wide access to media offered by contemporary participative technologies, as outlined by the European campaign http://www.blackouteurope.eu As Alan documents in his reports a popular uprise is raising specifically on the PB case, still as a symptom of the wider concerns it raises: examples are the "#fullboycott" campaign launched by Monochrom activists http://www.monochrom.at/fullboycott as well the dedication of the First Internet Pavilion at the Venice Biennial to The Pirate Bay cause noticed by Miltos Manetas on this list. Obviously the Pirate Bay court case is not just a concern for the Swedish jurisdiction: it is configuring as a crucial node for the evolution of knowledge sharing policies on a planetary scale, for which it is extremely important to take into account an Asian perspective offered by the document that follows. ------------ ISOC-Philippines statement on the jail sentence for The Pirate Bay founders and the criminal charges against philosophy professor Horacio Potel By isoc-ph, on April 20, 2009, 2:05 am http://isoc.ph/portal/2009/04/isoc-philippines-statement-on-pirate-bay-and-potel/ The Internet Society Philippines' (ISOC-PH) Public Policy Principles and activities are based upon a fundamental belief that "The Internet is for everyone." ISOC-PH upholds and defends core values that allow people throughout the world to enjoy the benefits of the Internet. Recent developments, however, demonstrate an alarming growth towards a "license culture" on the Internet, imposed by the criminalization of those whose culture and society advance creativity, innovation and economic opportunity through the values of openness, sharing, education and collaboration. Philosophy professor Horacio Potel from Argentina is facing criminal charges for maintaining a personal and educational website devoted to Spanish translations of works by French philosopher Jacques Derrida. A court in Sweden has found the four men behind "The Pirate Bay", a file-sharing website, guilty of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to pay $4.5m (£3m) in damages. The Ability to Share is one of ISOC's core values. The many-to-many architecture of the Internet makes it a powerful tool for sharing, education, and collaboration. It has enabled the global open source community to develop and enhance many of the key components of the Internet, such as the Domain Name System and the World-Wide Web, and has made the vision of digital libraries a reality. To preserve these benefits we will oppose technologies and legislation that would inhibit the freedom to develop and use open source software or limit the well-established concept of fair use, which is essential to scholarship, education, and collaboration. We will also oppose excessively restrictive governmental or private controls on computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or Internet content. Such controls and restrictions substantially diminish the social, political, and economic benefits of the Internet. The wire-tapping, searches and seizures, the removal of website content and the criminal charges against professor Potel of the University of Buenos Aires is an onslaught on human rights and academic freedom in Argentina and on the Internet. The police seizures of servers, the enormous bill for damages and the jail sentence on Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde is a defiance of the social and cultural institution of file-sharing in Sweden and on the Internet. ISOC-PH founding member and lawyer Michael Dizon writes, "Putting greater emphasis on the development of social or community norms and how people can actively participate in the creation of these norms may be more advantageous in advancing creative culture than resorting to contractual agreements. Ideally, laws (and the licenses that seek to enforce rights based on these laws) should embody and uphold the norms and values of a community, and not the other way around." As founding president of the newly rejuvenated ISOC-Philippines Chapter, I would like to dispute some of the statements being made regarding the Pirate Bay trials, in particular, by John Kennedy, Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Mr Kennedy says, "This is good news for everyone, in Sweden and internationally, who is making a living or a business from creative activity and who needs to know their rights will protected by law." In keeping with the ISOC-PH mandate, I find it offensive to the diversity of cultures on the Internet the claim that the global model of copyright protection being imposed upon the developers and users of the Internet is "good news for everyone." I also find it hard to accept the sincerity of Mr Kennedy's statement about "making a living or a business from creative activity." In fact only a handful of media corporations have effectively taken over what used to be a very diverse field of creative activity. Such a process of consolidation and privatization has created gross inequality between artists and the big media corporations: relations between artists and recording companies are replete with exploitative contracts and bitter legal struggles for control; and royalties and other earnings from copyright constitute only a fraction of the income of most active professional artists. The Pirate Bay trials and the criminal charges against professor Potel are a threat to academic freedom and free speech, and they undermine the Internet core value of the Ability to Share. If we envision a future in which people in all parts of the world can use the Internet to improve their quality of life, then freedom, and not a "license culture", must be obtained for professor Potel, the Pirate Bay founders and the Internet communities of sharing. ISOC-PH calls on all Internet citizens to demand freedom. Fatima Lasay President Internet Society Philippines Chapter http://isoc.ph/portal/ Quezon City, Philippines April 20, 2009 - -- jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknt/NwACgkQe2QxhLU0C16RUwCgzIdm1qfULJPfiD6AfS16LmIH t1UAnAljx6zsT3WrQm5BzvwWm9JpLm9M =+vwG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jeebesh at sarai.net Wed Apr 22 11:40:59 2009 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:40:59 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] On the Pirate Bay conviction Message-ID: <3AFFCECA-C031-4F00-97A9-0CF97919116D@sarai.net> Resent-From: nettime at kein.org From: jaromil at dyne.org Subject: On the Pirate Bay conviction Date: 21 April 2009 10:35:34 PM GMT+05:30 Resent-To: nettime-l at kein.org To: nettime-l at kein.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 re all, As some of you might already have heard, the second appeal to the Pirate Bay courtcase ended up with the conviction of four people behind the popular bittorrent tracker and website, Alan Toner give us two extensive accounts about the situation on his blog: http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/pirate-bay-defendants-convicted/ http://knowfuture.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/more-on-the-pirate-bay-conviction/ Further below you'll find the statement that the Internet Society Philippines Chapter released about the happenings. What I find particularly interesting about the point of view offered by ISOC-PH president Fatima Lasay is the deep awareness of political implications in this and other similar court cases also quoted, for which the Pirate Bay case covers a prominent role. Seen from an Asian perspective, the criminalising campaigns lead by Western business interests represent a worrying threat to the planetary opening that "peer to peer" cultures and practices provide for developing countries. Behind the surface of this court case lies a tension that lasts since several centuries in history, as the historical account of professor Boron Ben-Altar outlines in his book "Trade Secrets: Intellectual Piracy and the Origins of American Industrial Power" (obviously intended as North American here). Almost 2 years ago I've done my best exploring the topic from the perspective of "border economies", as well outlining the complementary dynamic of loss of privacy for Internet citizens. http://jaromil.dyne.org/journal/piracy_privacy.html Going further in connecting dots, let me now mention that these dynamics are evolving into a worrying threat to free speech and wide access to media offered by contemporary participative technologies, as outlined by the European campaign http://www.blackouteurope.eu As Alan documents in his reports a popular uprise is raising specifically on the PB case, still as a symptom of the wider concerns it raises: examples are the "#fullboycott" campaign launched by Monochrom activists http://www.monochrom.at/fullboycott as well the dedication of the First Internet Pavilion at the Venice Biennial to The Pirate Bay cause noticed by Miltos Manetas on this list. Obviously the Pirate Bay court case is not just a concern for the Swedish jurisdiction: it is configuring as a crucial node for the evolution of knowledge sharing policies on a planetary scale, for which it is extremely important to take into account an Asian perspective offered by the document that follows. ------------ ISOC-Philippines statement on the jail sentence for The Pirate Bay founders and the criminal charges against philosophy professor Horacio Potel By isoc-ph, on April 20, 2009, 2:05 am http://isoc.ph/portal/2009/04/isoc-philippines-statement-on-pirate-bay-and-potel/ The Internet Society Philippines' (ISOC-PH) Public Policy Principles and activities are based upon a fundamental belief that "The Internet is for everyone." ISOC-PH upholds and defends core values that allow people throughout the world to enjoy the benefits of the Internet. Recent developments, however, demonstrate an alarming growth towards a "license culture" on the Internet, imposed by the criminalization of those whose culture and society advance creativity, innovation and economic opportunity through the values of openness, sharing, education and collaboration. Philosophy professor Horacio Potel from Argentina is facing criminal charges for maintaining a personal and educational website devoted to Spanish translations of works by French philosopher Jacques Derrida. A court in Sweden has found the four men behind "The Pirate Bay", a file-sharing website, guilty of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to pay $4.5m (£3m) in damages. The Ability to Share is one of ISOC's core values. The many-to-many architecture of the Internet makes it a powerful tool for sharing, education, and collaboration. It has enabled the global open source community to develop and enhance many of the key components of the Internet, such as the Domain Name System and the World-Wide Web, and has made the vision of digital libraries a reality. To preserve these benefits we will oppose technologies and legislation that would inhibit the freedom to develop and use open source software or limit the well-established concept of fair use, which is essential to scholarship, education, and collaboration. We will also oppose excessively restrictive governmental or private controls on computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or Internet content. Such controls and restrictions substantially diminish the social, political, and economic benefits of the Internet. The wire-tapping, searches and seizures, the removal of website content and the criminal charges against professor Potel of the University of Buenos Aires is an onslaught on human rights and academic freedom in Argentina and on the Internet. The police seizures of servers, the enormous bill for damages and the jail sentence on Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde is a defiance of the social and cultural institution of file-sharing in Sweden and on the Internet. ISOC-PH founding member and lawyer Michael Dizon writes, "Putting greater emphasis on the development of social or community norms and how people can actively participate in the creation of these norms may be more advantageous in advancing creative culture than resorting to contractual agreements. Ideally, laws (and the licenses that seek to enforce rights based on these laws) should embody and uphold the norms and values of a community, and not the other way around." As founding president of the newly rejuvenated ISOC-Philippines Chapter, I would like to dispute some of the statements being made regarding the Pirate Bay trials, in particular, by John Kennedy, Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Mr Kennedy says, "This is good news for everyone, in Sweden and internationally, who is making a living or a business from creative activity and who needs to know their rights will protected by law." In keeping with the ISOC-PH mandate, I find it offensive to the diversity of cultures on the Internet the claim that the global model of copyright protection being imposed upon the developers and users of the Internet is "good news for everyone." I also find it hard to accept the sincerity of Mr Kennedy's statement about "making a living or a business from creative activity." In fact only a handful of media corporations have effectively taken over what used to be a very diverse field of creative activity. Such a process of consolidation and privatization has created gross inequality between artists and the big media corporations: relations between artists and recording companies are replete with exploitative contracts and bitter legal struggles for control; and royalties and other earnings from copyright constitute only a fraction of the income of most active professional artists. The Pirate Bay trials and the criminal charges against professor Potel are a threat to academic freedom and free speech, and they undermine the Internet core value of the Ability to Share. If we envision a future in which people in all parts of the world can use the Internet to improve their quality of life, then freedom, and not a "license culture", must be obtained for professor Potel, the Pirate Bay founders and the Internet communities of sharing. ISOC-PH calls on all Internet citizens to demand freedom. Fatima Lasay President Internet Society Philippines Chapter http://isoc.ph/portal/ Quezon City, Philippines April 20, 2009 - -- jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknt/NwACgkQe2QxhLU0C16RUwCgzIdm1qfULJPfiD6AfS16LmIH t1UAnAljx6zsT3WrQm5BzvwWm9JpLm9M =+vwG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- # 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: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090422/d10c4b07/attachment.html From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Apr 23 23:34:25 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:34:25 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Peter Sunde's lawyer calls for a retrial Message-ID: <4785f1e20904231104p430082d9o52869a10bdc78de5@mail.gmail.com> >From . "Norström [the judge] argues that he was not however swayed in his judgement by involvement with copyright protection groups. "My view has been that these activities do not constitute a conflict of interest," Norström told Sveriges Radio. \ What about that old adage about justice not only being done, but being seen to be done as well? ----- Pirate Bay lawyer calls for retrial Published: 23 Apr 09 08:53 CET Online: http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/ Dictionary tool Double click on a word to get a translation A lawyer representing one of the men convicted in the Pirate Bay trial has called for a retrial after reports that the judge was a member of the same copyright protection organisations as several of the main entertainment industry representatives. The judge in the Pirate Bay case, Tomas Norström, has been a member of several of the same copyright protection organisations as several of the main entertainment industry representatives, Sveriges Radio's P3 news programme reports. Peter Althin, the lawyer who represents Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde, has announced that he plans to demand a retrial. "I will point that out in my appeal, then the Court of Appeal (Hovrätten) will decide if the district court decision should be set aside and the case revisited," Althin said on Thursday. Althin is very critical of the judge's actions in the case and argues that the defence should have had an opportunity to review the circumstances. "In the autumn I received information that a lay judge could have similar connections. I sent these to the court and the judge was excluded in order to prevent a conflict of interest. It would have been reasonable to then review this situation as well," Althin said. Ola Samuelsson, the lawyer representing Gottfried Svartholm Warg, concurred with Althin in his assessment of the situation. "All types of interest conflicts are a problem for the judiciary. It should be a matter of course as a judge to ensure that you keep your house in order. This is a high profile case and that is an additional reason to keep a check," Samuelsson said. Samuelsson said on Thursday that he has not yet decided whether to join Per Althin and demand a retrial. High profile attorney Leif Silbersky is one of a number of experts who concurred with Althin and Samuelsson in believing that judge Norström's various memberships represent a conflict of interest. "A retrial is a possibility, but in that case the lawyers will have to take this up immediately," Silbersky told Sveriges Radio. Pirate Party chairman Rickard Falkvinge has called for the verdict to be scrapped. "The copyright lobby has really managed to bring corruption to Sweden," he said in a statement. One of the groups of which Norström is a signed up member is Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt ('the Swedish Copyright Association'), where he is joined by Henrik Pontén, Peter Danowsky and Monique Wadsted, all of whom represented the entertainment industry in the case against file sharing site The Pirate Bay. The judge also sits on the board of Svenska föreningen för industriellt rättsskydd (Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property), a group actively advocating for more stringent copyright laws. Norström argues that he was not however swayed in his judgement by involvement with copyright protection groups. "My view has been that these activities do not constitute a conflict of interest," Norström told Sveriges Radio. From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Apr 24 12:42:15 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:42:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Taiwan passes "graduated response" law Message-ID: <4785f1e20904240012p3c737e00g6a06011cfd2fe55@mail.gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear All, Taiwan has also jumped on to the three-strikes bandwagon. The majority of all works on the Internet are copyrighted (everything except that which is already in the public domain, or has been dedicated into the public domain, or is startlingly unoriginal). So, the "interests of the majority of Internet users who have no intentions of infringing on others' copyrights" will be affected, since whether they mean to or not, they probably infringe copyright on an everyday basis. Regards, Pranesh - From Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:28 am TWN, The China Post news staff Net service providers now can 'strike out' pirating surfers TAIPEI, Taiwan -- The Legislative Yuan ratified yesterday the latest revision of the Copyright Law to empower Internet service providers (ISPs) to "strike out" Internet surfers who have violated others' copyrights and posted unauthorized content on any Web sites. The new rules will exempt the ISPs from any responsibility for offenses caused by pirating parties in order to avoid litigation by copyright owners. But the service providers will be obliged to inform the pirating parties about the infringement on the copyrights. They can suspend part or all services to the pirates after giving three warnings. The pirates will still face lawsuits from the copyright owners. Officials at the Intellectual Property Office said piracy is comparatively easier because the new technology makes it convenient for people to duplicate and forward information, pictures, images or audio files via the Internet. They said the new rules will discourage the reckless "posting" or forwarding materials with copyrights. But the rules should not affect the interests of the majority of Internet users who have no intention of infringing on others' copyrights, they said. When passing the new rules, the lawmakers also adopted a resolution requiring the Intellectual Property Office to launch an anti-piracy publicity campaign against copyright infringement. - -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.5) iEYEARECAAYFAknxZi4ACgkQ7JoSBR1cXwfwawCguCakYAqjzICI/CP7fgmPViyA /7sAn2QLHV2o/g/p3dFXhS7ujP3fxYlI =CVbH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From patrice at xs4all.nl Fri Apr 24 21:09:58 2009 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:39:58 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: Wikipedia challenges "Wikipedia Art" Message-ID: <4479.195.10.248.18.1240587598.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> bwo nettime-l/ Alessandro Ludovico ---forwarded message--- From: Scott Kildall Subject: [NetBehaviour] Wikipedia challenges "Wikipedia Art" Hi everyone, I have been keeping quiet about this development until today. A brief history: On February 14th, 2009, Nathaniel Stern and I launched the Wikipedia Art intervention on Wikipedia, which generated knots of discussion on what was deemed encyclopedia-worthy. The full archive of this project is at www.wikipediaart.org. A few weeks ago, I was sent a letter from the Wikimedia legal counsel (they run Wikipedia) which challenged the Wikipedia Art project (specifically the domain name, which I was the registrant of) on the grounds of trademark infringement since we were using the "Wikipedia" name in the project. This is despite the fact that the project is a non-commercial commentary of Wikipedia. Here is an article written by Corynne McSherry from the Electronic Frontier Foundation on the Wikimedia action, in support of the Wikipedia Art project: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- And this is a brief legal history along with a personal statement that we put up on the site: http://wikipediaart.org/legal-history/ It certainly has been an interesting few weeks and in my various consultations with lawyers, I have learned a *lot* about intellectual property and cyberlegal issues. Best wishes, Scott Kildall www.kildall.com _______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour From dwijr at rediffmail.com Tue Apr 28 12:37:50 2009 From: dwijr at rediffmail.com (dwijr) Date: 28 Apr 2009 07:07:50 -0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] GI for Tirupati laddus Message-ID: <20090428070750.44775.qmail@f5mail-237-215.rediffmail.com> Dear Pranesh Came across your posting of the news story of the Tirupati GI ... and have made a comment on this which has been published in Economic Times. The article is at http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4437380.cms Dwijen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090428/7e001986/attachment.html