Copyright: Finally, the Evidence is Coming. Back in 2011, I noted that one of the most significant achievements of the Hargreaves report was its shockingly revolutionary suggestion that copyright policy should be based on the available evidence, not "lobbynomics". The fact that this even had to be said shows to what depths policy-making had sunk - something clearly demonstrated by the disgraceful Digital Economy Act, or the extension of copyright term for musical performances, both of which were passed despite the evidence, rather than because of it.
Of course, calling for evidence is all well and good, but that begs the question where it will come from. Since last week, we in the UK have an answer, or rather one more answer, in the form of the new CREATe: Creativity, Regulation, Enterprise and Technology: CREATe is the RCUK research centre for copyright and new business models in the creative economy.
To coincide with the Launch on 31 January, CREATe published Working Paper No. 1: What Constitutes Evidence for Copyright Policy? 2012-035.pdf (application/pdf Object) Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine argue companies use patents to block competitors in their paper, The Case Against Patents. We talk a lot about what might be done to fix the problems of software patents, but not much about abolishing them. Abolition seems well-nigh impossible, given current economic and political realities. Serious economists and respected financial institutions don’t usually discuss it publicly. Thus, I was surprised when I finally got around to reading a recent working paper published last month under the auspices of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that argued broadly for patent abolition position.
The paper by two distinguished professors of economics, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, is titled The Case Against Patents. As Boldrin and Levine explain, patents are not really property rights, but rather monopoly rights. [A] system that at one time served to limit the power of royalty to reward favored individuals with monopolies has become with the passage of time a system that serves primarily to encourage failing monopolists to inhibit competition by blocking innovation. Memes: You’re Infringing, and You Might Not Know It. False start?: Olympic organisers say photo uploads are allowed. Olympics organisers have taken to social media to say spectators can upload photos from this summer’s London games venues, despite guidance that has been interpreted to the contrary. (1 of 3) Social media info: anyone attending @London2012 events is welcome to take pictures in venues…— London 2012 (@London2012) April 26, 2012 (2 of 3) …& it’s ok to share pics from venues on social media as long as it’s not to make money.
We’re keen to see & share them! …— London 2012 (@London2012) April 26, 2012 (3 of 3) …If you want to find out more about the @Olympics and social media, have a read of this: l2012.cm/I4wSNJ— London 2012 (@London2012) April 26, 2012 It is thought the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (Locog) is hoping to correct what it sees as misreporting by establishing a liberal interpretation of photo-upload rules as prohibiting only direct commercialisation of attendees’ pictures, in competition with contracts the likes of institutional photo wires may have.
Flickr launches deep integration with Pinterest. Fresh from its uploader update, Flickr users are now able to share photos direct to Pinterest thanks to a new collaboration between the two photo sharing services. While Pinterest users will be pleased to hear that they're now able to send Flickr photos direct to their pinboards, Flickr product manager Markus Spiering told us that it's also motivated by a desire to improve rights protection for photographers. Any images that are sent to Pinterest from Flickr will keep the attribution for the photographer no matter how many times it gets repinned and will also add the photographer's details to any images hosted on Flickr that have simply been added using the URL. This also works if your photos are Pinned from other sites. Share via Pinterest will be added to the sharing menu above each photo, and if you use it often enough it'll become one of your quick sharing options. Update: Pinterest got in touch with us to let us know that Benhance, Vimeo, and YouTube attribution has also been added.
Figures reveal 'failing' patent system. The online copyright war: the day the internet hit back at big media | Technology. A casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that major media firms hate technology. They certainly fear it. Since Jack Valenti, the legendary film industry lobbyist, said in 1982 that the VCR was like the Boston Strangler, preparing to murder the innocents of Hollywood, they have viewed such advances as a Godzilla creature rising from the sea to threaten their existence. In the past 30 years in the US, they have lobbied for 15 pieces of legislation aimed at tightening their grip on their content, as technology has moved ever faster to prise their fingers open. In this seemingly never-ending battle, 18 January 2012 was a defining date, a day when the internet hit back. Mike Masnick, founder of TechDirt and one of Silicon Valley's most well-connected bloggers, remembers running through the corridors of the Senate in Washington, laptop open, desperately trying to find a Wi-Fi signal.
Around him was chaos. One senator's office that Masnick visited calculated they had taken 3,000 calls. Assessing ACTA: My Appearance Before the European Parliament INTA Workshop on ACTA. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement has mushroomed into a massive political issue in Europe in recent weeks with protests in hundreds of cities across the continent. Much of the focus has been on whether the European Parliament will give its approval to the agreement.
The focal point of attention within the EP has been on the INTA committee, which holds a public workshop on the issue today. Interest in the workshop has been incredible - there are apparently 800 registrants with thousands more expected to watch the live stream. Several months ago, I was approached to write one of several reports for the ACTA workshop. The report will be made public in the next couple of weeks, but I'll be on the workshop's first panel (along with Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and Professor Christophe Geiger) to discuss my report and the agreement. Good afternoon. I’m grateful for the opportunity to submit a report assessing ACTA to you and for the chance to comment at today’s workshop. 1. Pushing for open data? 3 steps to consider. Image by opensource.com Open Data is fast becoming a ‘hot topic’ in government. I’m proud to see my colleagues & fellow open gov supporters helping governments around the world launch their cloud-powered open data catalogues: from the Government of Columbia and the European Union, to the Canadian cities of Regina, SK and Medicine Hat, AB.
But it’s not all, as they say, Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows. My recent involvement with the failed Open Data resolution in Milton, Ontario caused me to re-think some of the basics for a successful open data initiative. Taken from a municipal open data initiative perspective, the 3 steps below will help make an open data, open government or open data motion stick: 1. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this step. According to Jonathan Brun from MONTRÉAL OUVERT, it took Three public meetings and Two open data hackathons and a collaborative approach to educate bureaucrats and politicians about Open Data over the course of 14 months. 2. 3.
Legislating Social Media Privacy | Social Media Consultant. Pinterest and copyright: Why you should keep sharing--and keep pinning. Image credits: Pinterest logo Pinterest is a social site for image sharing around themes that launched in closed beta in March 2010. As the site proceeded through an invite system and finally registration requests, it gained a considerable following and was one of Time's "50 Best Websites of 2011. " In January 2012, it drove more referral traffic to retailers than YouTube, Google+, and LinkedIn combined and became the fastest site to ever break 10 million unique visitors. As its popularity increases, so have concerns about whether its users aren't just sharing their favorite things, but engaging one another in the web's largest copyright infringement platform. The Pinterest Terms of Use say that you agree you own the content you share on Pinterest, have the ability to grant them the right to share it, and accept any legal risk of using the site, holding Cold Brew Labs (Pinterest's owners) harmless.
So there are understandably different opinions on the issue of the legality. Flickr blocks Pinterest 'pinning' Ben Silbermann, co-founder of Pinterest, said: "We understand and respect that sometimes site owners do not want any of their material pinned.” Pinterest's terms and conditions say that it is the reponsibility of the user to ensure that they have permission to post an image. While many users see Pinterest as a good way to save pictures of clothes they would like to buy or possible paint colours for a new living room - images which are unlikely to draw copyright complaints - there are plenty of people who are sharing professional photographs, pictures of art or even quotations. In the long term, Pinterest could attempt to solve the problem by making deals with large rights-holding bodies, such as the major photo agencies, but for now site owners will have to take action themselves if they would prefer not to see their pictures on the website.
Edging toward the fully licensed world. I own a lot of books and music CDs — enough to fill many shelves. Here’s just one: They are relatively uncomplicated possessions. There are no limits (other than mine) on who can read my books, or what else I can do with them, shy of abusing fairly obvious copyright laws. (For example, I can’t plagiarize somebody’s writing, or reproduce whole chapters of a book I’m quoting.) But books, music and movies from Amazon, Apple and other BigCos aren’t really sold. . … the Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Other Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.
Pretty clear. What’s more, the seller can also change the licensing terms at will. Same with TV. Thus turning the mobile Web into something more like TV. [Later...] Why the patent system doesn't play well with software: If Eolas went the other way. Image by opensource.com Everyone take a deep breath: it seems we've had a moment of sanity in the patent wars. Last week, a jury invalidated the dangerous Eolas patents, which their owner claimed covered, well, essentially the whole Internet. The patents were originally granted for an invention that helped doctors to view images of embryos over the early web.
A few years later, smelling quick cash, their owner insisted that it had a veto right on any mechanism used to embed an object in a web document. Really? The patents are obvious—both now in 2012 and back in 1994, when the first one was filed. Thankfully, a jury realized that and did what should have happened years ago: it invalidated these dangerous patents. That's the good news. We couldn't agree more, but let's go a step further. "Software patents" should be an oxymoron In order to understand why software patents don't make sense, you have to understand a little bit about the patent system. Software patents harm innovation. A cure for the common troll. Our bridge into the 21st Century presently houses a nasty creature who demands a toll from the best and brightest in our community.
The dreaded troll is a regular denizen of our current system of patent enforcement and he poses serious problems for technology companies. Despite the great expense of patent litigation, trolls are filing increasing numbers of patent suits aimed at technology companies, and particularly aimed at software and related areas of commerce. Their club of choice is the broad, complex, and vague patent claim. There are several means at our disposal, most of which are based on known mechanisms from other areas of the law, for dealing with these trolls, or more diplomatically, these "non-practicing entities. " There have been some efforts to address the troll issue over the last decade or so. Tech companies in certain sectors, particularly those who develop or support Internet-related software, enter a market sector mined with hundreds of thousands of patents. Obama unveils Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights | InSecurity Complex.
The Obama administration plans to work with Congress to enact legislation to protect peoples' online privacy based on a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights being unveiled tomorrow. At the same time, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL are committing to work with Do Not Track technology in most major Web browsers so people can stop companies from tracking them as they bounce around the Internet, the administration said in a statement. The announcement comes as Google, Apple, and other technology companies are being increasingly criticized for not doing enough to protect consumers' privacy rights online.
The problem has become particularly acute with the widespread use of mobile devices and apps used on them that keep track of peoples' private communications, physical whereabouts, address books and other sensitive personal information. "The principles are genuinely good," he told CNET in an e-mail. Here are the specific provisions in the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights: 1. Legislators Concerned about Monitoring of Employee, Student Social Media - Southern Maryland Headline News. By MIKE BOCK and JOSH COOPER Even without access to social media login information, employers can still see Facebook posts of their employees who don't restrict public access to their account. These are examples of potentially incriminating posts from real Facebook users that are visible to the public.
Compiled by Josh Cooper. ANNAPOLIS (February 24, 2012) -- When former correctional officer Robert Collins was asked to turn over his Facebook login information to a superior, he was concerned that his rights were being violated. Last year, Collins allowed the superior to look at his account in order to get a promotion, but he went to the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland with his concerns. It was "an inappropriate invasion of my privacy," said Collins in a phone interview Thursday. One Senate bill would restrict employers' access to employees' private information. Sen. "This practice is stepping on constitutional rights," Young said. It amounts to a subtle threat, he said. It’s Not Whether Google’s Threatened. It’s Asking Ourselves: What Commons Do We Wish For? If Facebook’s IPO filing does anything besides mint a lot of millionaires, it will be to shine a rather unsettling light on a fact most of us would rather not acknowledge: The web as we know it is rather like our polar ice caps: under severe, long-term attack by forces of our own creation.
And if we lose the web, well, we lose more than funny cat videos and occasionally brilliant blog posts. We lose a commons, an ecosystem, a “tangled bank” where serendipity, dirt, and iterative trial and error drive open innovation. Google’s been the focus of most of this analysis (hell, I called Facebook an “existential threat” to Google on Bloomberg yesterday), but I’d like to pull back for a second. This post has been brewing in me for a while, but I was moved to start writing after reading this piece in Time: Is Google In Danger of Being Shut Out of the Changing Internet? The short answer is Hell Yes. 1. 2. He makes a good point. . - No gatekeepers. . - An ethos of the commons. . - Neutrality. 1. 2. 3.