While rich nations negotiate the ACTA, developing countries are trying to bring a more common sense approach to discussions on IPR enforcement at the WIPO, as KEI reports:
The conclusions of the chair noted that the country papers of Pakistan, Brazil and Group B provided the impetus to the Chair to invite the Chief Economist of WIPO to respond to the questions of delegations “including with a view to the feasibility of undertaking an empirical assessment of the nature and extent of intellectual property infringements, and the availability of respective data”. As a result of negotiation, the 6th session of the WIPO ACE would consider the following:
“Developing on the substantive study contained in WIPO/ACE/5/6 [paper of WIPO Chief Economist, Carsten Fink], to analyze and discuss IPRs infringements in all its complexities by asking the Secretariat to undertake:
- A literature view of methodologies and gaps in the existing studies;
- Identification of different types of infractions and motivations for IPR infringements, taking into account social, economic and technological variables and different levels of development
- Targeted studies with an aim to developing methodologies that measure the social, economic and commercial impact of of counterfeiting and piracy on societies taking into account the diversity of economic and social realities, as well as different stages of development;
- Analysis of various efforts, alternative models and other possible options from a socio-economic welfare perspective to address the counterfeiting and piracy challenges’.
The WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE), recognizing that informed policy choices on enforcement measures must be predicated on sound empirical evidence, has taken a positive step forward. Recommendation 45 of the Development Agenda instructs WIPO to approach the question of intellectual property enforcement in the context of a broader societal interest delineated by Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement which states:
“[t]he protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.”
When the law hinders social progress, change the law, not society.
2 days ago
As La Quadrature du Net explains:
An agreement has been reached on the Telecoms Package. The new text aimed at protecting Internet access includes positive elements such as a reference to the right to a “prior fair and impartial procedure” as well as the presumption of innocence. It also contains ambiguous language and potential loopholes. This rather unambitious provision will now be up for interpretation, and it remains to be seen whether it will invalidate Net access restrictions such as “three strikes” policies.
The European Parliament and the Council of the EU came to an agreement on the “Telecoms Package” negotiations. They laid down legal and procedural guarantees against restrictions of Internet access. The new provision gives”effective judicial protection and due process”, guarantees “the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy” and respect the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
However, the text only speaks of “a prior fair and impartial procedure” instead of a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, guaranteed by the original “amendment 138”, and contains loopholes and ambiguities. The invalidation of freedom-killer measures such as “three strikes policies” will now depend on interpretation by the European Court of Justice and national courts. Moreover, the text only relates to measures taken by Member States and thereby fails to bar telecom operators and entertainment industries from knocking down the founding principle of Net neutrality.
https://www.laquadrature.net/en/Europe-only-goes-half-way-in-protecting-internet-rights
Will the new text protect people against arbitrary restrictions of their Internet access, which is essential for exerting free speech in today’s world? Will it, for instance, prohibit the mass repression of file-sharing in Europe through agreements between ISPs and righholders? Probably not. Will it bar telecom operators and entertainment industries from knocking down the founding principle of Net neutrality? No, it certainly won’t.
In the end, even though it has been a fruitful debate, European lawmakers have missed the opportunity of showing to the world that the rule of Law also applies to the Internet. Beyond the usual bombastic speeches about the “knowledge society”, amendment 138 could have shown Europe’s attachment to the wonderful contribution of the Internet to the freedom of access to knowledge. In the next few months, it will be up to us - the people who use the Internet to communicate, share and learn - to remind our leaders to change the law and inscribe a strong recognition of rights and freedoms in the age of the Internet.
3 days ago
The ACTA treaty is moving forward secretively, and could impact funding principles of the Internet:
[Japan, Canada, South Korea, Australia as well as the European Union and U.S] are due to discuss the ACTA at a meeting in South Korea on Wednesday, focusing specifically on the issue of Internet piracy. The U.S. has drafted the text of the chapter on the Internet.
In a summary of the U.S.’s position shared orally with trade officials at the European Commission in September, signatories of the accord must “provide for third-party liability.” The Commission informed all 27 countries in the E.U. of the U.S. position in a memo seen by IDG News service.
Under existing laws in the U.S., the E.U. and elsewhere, ISPs are granted immunity from prosecution for illegal activities carried out by subscribers across their networks. This new global trade agreement appears to contradict the legal status quo, said Michael Geist, a law professor at Ottawa University, Canada.
This provision would mean that every country that signs up to ACTA must allow content owners such as record companies and Hollywood studios to sue ISPs for failing to stop their subscribers from illegally sharing copyright-protected material such as music and movies.
(…)
The Commission memo said the U.S. is secretive about the Internet chapter because it is “sensitive due to the different points of view regarding the internet chapter both within the Administration, with Congress and among stakeholders (content providers on one side, supporters of internet freedom on the other).”
To stop people, you’ve got to detect, and to detect you’ve got to monitor… It would be the end of mere conduit.
Welcome to a brave new world run by the entertainment industry’s lobbies.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/181312/trade_talks_hone_in_on_internet_abuse_and_isp_liability.html
3 days ago
Although the American FCC recently announced that Net neutrality rules will be mandated to Internet service providers (ISPs), new problems could arise and weakens the democratic potential of the Internet.
First, “Google neutrality”, and discrimination related to behavioral advertising. Ars has an interesting piece about a paper reflecting on the potential need for search neutrality and associated issues. As, the author, Mr. Odlyzko sums up:
“For telecommunications, given current trends in demand and in rate and sources of innovation, it appears to be better for society not to tilt towards the operators, and instead stimulate innovation on the network by others by enforcing net neutrality. But this would likely open the way for other players, such as Google, then emerge from that open and competitive arena as big winners, to become choke points. So it would be wise to prepare to monitor what happens, and be ready to intervene by imposing neutrality rules on them when necessary”.
For instance, there is the traditional risk to see search engines discretely orienting search results towards commercial ends, thus introducing an illegitimate bias in what people get to see on the Internet. As Ars explains, with the advent of behavioral advertising, other discriminations could also develop based on consumers’ profile.
Second, “Content neutrality”. U.S cable operators are complaining about some exclusive agreements between content providers and other ISPs. They give the example of Walt Disney’s espn360.com, which can only be accessed by American subscribers whose ISP have signed an agreement with Disney. (Pretty ironically, the same companies are teaming up with other telecoms operators to wash down the FCC’s Net neutrality’s rules…).
[The American Cable Association] is urging the FCC not to overlook the importance of Content Neutrality because rules solely focused on broadband network providers would leave a gaping hole in the regulatory regime and expose consumers to an assortment of harms that would likely drive up the cost of broadband, a result totally at odds with the Obama Administration’s goal of making broadband access both universal and affordable
In the end, it is all about ensuring that no new gatekeepers emerge in the 21st century communications ecosystem.
5 days ago
The European Commission is urging Member States to use the digital dividend in order to develop Internet wireless communications, instead of allocating the available frequencies to TV channels:
The top radio frequencies freed by technological updates should be devoted to new services, such as wireless Internet and high-definition mobile offers, rather than being allocated to extra broadcasting uses, the European Commission proposes.
“The digital dividend is a once in a lifetime opportunity to make ‘broadband for all’ a reality all over Europe and boost some of the most innovative sectors of our economy,” underlined Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding.
It seems to be a technical matter, but it is in fact a political one: Should society:
- give a limited public resources (radio spectrum) to a few commercial and/or state-owned TV channel
- or use it for applications that provide an open platform of communications for all citizens (Internet)?
This is all the more important considering the new possibilities for wireless Internet communications, and in particular unlicensed uses of white spaces. The latter are the more suited for expanding Internet access to parts of the population to do not have broadband, either for geographic or socio-economic reasons, thus making the Internet even more democratic. Unlicensed uses of radio spectrum for wireless Internet will also spur innovation and bring about the new and exciting Internet applications that Mrs. Reding calls for.
This is yet another initiative on the part of the Commission, after a reflection paper on the future of copyright. It seems that IT policy will be on top of the European agenda in the next months.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/brussels-backs-telecoms-tvs-frequency-fight/article-186816
1 week ago
It was about time. Current legislation is way way behind. And the basic principles laid down in 1995 at the European level are now completely disresptected.
The European Commission will review EU privacy rules in 2010 with the aim of increasing data protection for Internet services such as webmail, social networks and online banking, as well as in other non-virtual sectors ranging from finance to health care.
“Those who profit from the information revolution must respond to the public policy responsibilities that come with it,” made clear Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding in a speech given last week at a conference in Brussels dedicated to data protection.
(…)
All the potential threats that online services pose to privacy are also expected to increase amid swift migration towards cloud computing, which sees not only messages, but also sensitive documents stored online rather than on personal computers.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/brussels-tighten-data-protection-rules/article-186779#
1 week ago
Internet enables access to a wide variety of information. But, as all the other benefits brought about by the Internet, this implies i) having access to the Internet and ii) sufficient education about the availability and the way to make use of these resources.
Even where the innovators in developing countries may not be able to reproduce the latest cutting edge technology contained in patent documents, they may be still be able to use information contained in the specifications about the technology to adapt to local situations.”
In an interview, [Richard Jefferson, director of the Initiative for Open Innovation (IOI), professor of science, technology and law at Queensland University of Technology (Australia)] said if the information is packaged correctly, “this could be the very backbone for a technological revolution within the countries, at the pace and with the priorities of African innovators.”
(…)
Indeed:
Africa more than any other world region stands to benefit from the information contained in patent documents, according to Jefferson. While asserting the need to map the extent of patent protection in Africa, Jefferson said that most patent information may not be protected on the continent and therefore can be freely used without fear of infringement. This leaves “millions of patents that are no less than explicit recipes; guides to creating things, building things, making things and providing services.” He further added that “communities in Africa can coalesce and take inspiration and substance from the patents and forge these into products and services that benefit their countries and continent, and which can build businesses and employment.”
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/19/spurring-local-innovation-in-africa-by-improving-access-to-information/
2 weeks ago
First step towards opening up the online music buiness to smaller and innovative actors (possibly through statutory license)?
The European Commission has brokered a deal with the music industry to establish online European repertoires as a way to boost cross-border sales. The move is also expected to challenge the power of big labels and to have a positive effect on tackling online piracy.
In a joint statement, collecting societies, labels, online music shops, consumer groups and manufacturers agreed to pursue new licensing platforms comprising repertoires of several collecting societies.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/eu-online-music-deal-challenge-big-labels-clout/article-186587
2 weeks ago
The Canadian Telecoms regulator announced new rules for network management practices:
Canada’s telecommunications regulator today issued a ruling upholding the right of major telcos and cable providers to manage the traffic of its Internet customers, but requiring the wholesale providers to give wholesale customers 60 days notice and forbidding them from throttling video conferencing without the government’s permission.
(…)
The CRTC stated Wednesday a traffic-shaping practice “should only be implemented” if it meets the following criteria:
-it is designed to address a valid purpose, such as preventing congestion on an Internet network;
-it is as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the desired result, using the least restrictive means;
-it causes as little harm as possible to the customer, application provider or the wholesale customer; and
-upgrading the network or charging customers more for peak hours (so-called “economic approaches”) would “not effectively achieve the same purpose.”
(…)
Steve Anderson, national co-ordinator of SaveOurNet.ca, a coalition of groups insisting that Internet service providers treat all traffic without discrimination called the decision a “pretty much weak approach to maintaining net neutrality.”
“They’re not saying (ISPs) have to stop discriminatory throttling” of traffic, Anderson said.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/174062/canada_weighs_in_with_net_neutrality_ruling.html
2 weeks ago
EFF is skeptical about the recent FCC anouncement on net neutrality. Their cautiousness differs from the numerous praises we have heard from net freedoms activists. But they raise a fundamental point:
Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality. In place of explicit congressional authority, we expect the FCC will rely on its “ancillary jurisdiction,” a position that amounts to “we can regulate the Internet however we like without waiting for Congress to act.”
Hence the danger. If “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn’t take much imagination to envision a future FCC “Internet Decency Statement.”
Fortunately, there are two opportunities to reign in the FCC’s expansive views of its own “ancillary jurisdiction.” A federal court is considering this important question as part of Comcast’s challenge to the FCC’s order last year regarding interference with BitTorrent traffic (…). Or Congress could limit the FCC’s power by authorizing to regulate only to ensure network neutrality.
So while we look forward to evaluating Chairman Genachowski’s proposed net neutrality regulations, the first step must be a clear rejection of any suggestion that those regulations can be based on “ancillary jurisdiction.” Otherwise, “net neutrality” might very well come to be remembered as the Trojan Horse that allowed the FCC take over the Internet.
2 weeks ago
As La Quadrature du Net points out:
Representatives of the European Parliament, an institution that ordinarily prides itself for protecting human rights at home and abroad, decided to surrender to the pressure exerted by Member States. The Parliament gave up on amendment 138, a provision adopted on two occasion by an 88% majority of the plenary assembly, and which aims at protecting citizens’ freedom in the online world. Amendment 138 would have shown that the EU understood the value of the Internet for enhanced citizenship and stronger innovation by ensuring that no restriction to people’s Internet access would be imposed without the prior ruling of a judge. It will instead be replaced by a weak provision, that does not carry any new important safeguards for citizen’s freedoms.
https://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-dead-by-lack-of-courage-of-the-parliament
This lamentable retreat comes at the end of an important debate about how we as a society regulate the formidable mean of communications that is the Internet; about how we deal with the emancipatory social and economic practices it brings about. Across history, every new mean of expression and communication has been subjected to close monitoring and control on the part of governments.
But democratic and socio-economic progress has always been closely linked to free flows of information among society. Whether it is for performing arts, the press, or radio and TV broadcasting, it took decades for legal texts to recognize this and ensure that an impartial judge would be the only authority entitled to infringe on the freedom of communication.
European lawmakers had an opportunity to make a similar statement by adapting such a principle to our day and age, in which the Internet has come to represent an incredible tool to access and share knowledge democratically. It is shameful that they did not seize it.
2 weeks ago
The 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics goes to Elinor Ostrom:
Elinor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. Based on numerous studies of user-managed fish stocks, pastures, woods, lakes, and groundwater basins, Ostrom concludes that the outcomes are, more often than not, better than predicted by standard theories. She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/press.html
Her work is instrumental to undersand how people use the Internet to organize and build/manage commons. See, for instance, Yockai Benkler’s analysis.
3 weeks ago
Dr. Yaman Akdeniz, from the faculty of Law of Istanbul Bilgi University, gave a brilliant analysis and historical perspective on the regulation of the Internet:
New media historically face suspicion and are liable to excessive regulation as they spark fear of potential detrimental effects on society. For example, this has proved true for the publication and transmission of sexually explicit content through the printing press, the telegraph, telephone, post, cinema, theatre, radio, television, satellite, and video.
Today, many states are reacting negatively to the availability and dissemination of certain types of content through the new media, in particular through the Internet. Today, there remains major concern about the availability of sexually explicit content including child pornography, racist content, hate speech, terrorist propaganda, and documents related to terrorism, as well as pirated content on the Internet. Such threats resulted and continue to result with state intervention (including in the Council of Europe region) through the development of regulatory, self-regulatory, as well as technological solutions.
(…)
Based on the limited effectiveness of state laws, a number of states started or starting to introduce policies to block access to websites or other content on the Internet deemed illegal which are outside their jurisdiction. However, blocking policies are not always subject to due process principles, decisions are not necessarily taken by the courts of law, and often administrative bodies or hotlines decide which content or website should be subject to blocking.
Excerpts from a speech delivered today in Strasbourg at the consultation meeting organized by the Council of Europe on “cross-border Internet”.
Even if net neutrality is not explicitly mentioned, it is clearly what this is about.
The whole speech, which is quite short, is a great read. http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/10/07/speech-for-the-council-of-europe-cross-border-internet-consultation-meeting-strasbourg/
1 month ago
Francis Gurry, director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization, said that ICTs are providing unprecedented opportunities for distributing and sharing information, but he asked how if the content is free, information can be an economic generator.
Nothing is free… and M. Gurry should go back to school if he thinks proprietary models (=copyright) are necessary for information to generate economic value.
“The current model of copyrights is under severe stress,” he said,
No kidding? Maybe this is due to the fact that, when everything is changing, copyright law remains the same (or gets worse).
… adding that the common objective was to “extract some value from cultural exchanges and transactions and return this to the creators and performers so that they can live a dignified economic existence, while at the same time ensuring the widest possible availability of affordable content.”
He suggested that some responsibility or liabilities might be put on the service providers, as they are “like the printers of the analogue world.” Printers are in the value chain of creative production, and we have to bring the service providers into that chain if we want to solve the problem, he said.
What about the public though? What about “consumers”? Are they going to end up paying higher subscription fees, with nothing in return but liberty-killer three strikes policies?
No.
Value can be found by adapting distribution schemes to the digital world (by creating a new statutory licence for websites that want to make a business out of the distribution of copyrighted works).
Value can also be found by granting the public new rights to exchange cultural works for non-commercial purposes, while encouraing re-uses, remixes of these works in users’ own creations.
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/06/itu-telecom-world-innovation-growth-green-technology-and-stronger-copyrights/
1 month ago
A French lobby of “musical editors” also supports a tax on telecoms operators and search engines to fund cultural industries… They fail to recognize that the Internet is much more thatn just another medium for delivering their content.
Big media are oblivious to the fundamental distinctiveness of this new communications tool: its decentralized, profundly democratic, multidirectional nature. Taxing the telecom operators and search engines amounts to denying the fact that they - as the instruments of the growth and accessibility of the Internet - serve a much higher purpose than just being the distributors of copyrighted works. Taxing them would undermine the whole Internet ecosystem.
When are they going to stop talking non-sense?
« Aujourd’hui, les acteurs de l’économie numérique, opérateurs télécoms et moteurs de recherche, vivent grâce aux contenus culturels auxquels leurs abonnés peuvent avoir accès sans verser un centime pour compenser les immenses pertes de revenus supportées par ceux qui, eux, œuvrent pour la création musicale.
L’enrichissement des opérateurs de l’économie numérique est devenu sans cause sociale et l’équité commande qu’ils compensent les pertes subies par les créateurs de contenus culturels. Il s’agit d’adapter au monde numérique le principe éthique pollueur‐payeur appliqué dans le domaine de la lutte contre la pollution environnementale. »
http://www.ecrans.fr/Adapter-au-monde-numerique-le,8285.html
1 month ago
Internet is knowledge. Knowledge is power. Quick thoughts on the Internet revolution of access to knowledge
- by 