Skip to main content

Home/ Future of the Web/ Group items tagged holding

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
4More

#irespectmusic says 100 Years is Long Enough: The Danger of Pie-ism for All Creators - 0 views

musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/...er-of-pie-ism-for-all-creators
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Mar 15
     
    [# ! Is not copyright to promote creation? so, it should we enough -for the 'creators' to hold the rights DURING Author's Life...? Everything beyond is a swindle...] Baiting the Pie Last year's hearings on music licensing at the House Judiciary Committee's IP Subcommittee revealed an old argument from broadcasters and a new twist on that argument adopted by webcasters. We already pay for music-you people go fight over that pie.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 02 Mar 15
     
    # ! copyright is not to promoe creation? so, it should we enough to hold the rightss DURING Author's Life? Everything beyond is a swindle... Baiting the Pie Last year's hearings on music licensing at the House Judiciary Committee's IP Subcommittee revealed an old argument from broadcasters and a new twist on that argument adopted by webcasters. We already pay for music-you people go fight over that pie.
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Mar 15
     
    [# ! Is not copyright to promote creation? so, it should we enough -for the 'creators' to hold the rights DURING Author's Life...? Everything beyond is a swindle...] Baiting the Pie Last year's hearings on music licensing at the House Judiciary Committee's IP Subcommittee revealed an old argument from broadcasters and a new twist on that argument adopted by webcasters. We already pay for music-you people go fight over that pie.
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 03 Mar 15
     
    [# ! Is not copyright to promote creation? so, it should we enough -for the 'creators' to hold the rights DURING Author's Life...? Everything beyond is a swindle...] Baiting the Pie Last year's hearings on music licensing at the House Judiciary Committee's IP Subcommittee revealed an old argument from broadcasters and a new twist on that argument adopted by webcasters. We already pay for music-you people go fight over that pie.
1More

The Open Web: Next-Generation Standards Support in WebKit/ Safari - 0 views

www.apple.com/...features.html webkit safari acid3 open-web interoperability
shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Mar 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Mar 09
     
    Apple has posted an interesting page describing Safari technologies. Innovations and support for existing standards as well as the ACID3 test are covered.

    Many people think that the Apple WebKit-Safari-iPhone innovations are pushing Open Web Standards beyond beyond the limits of "Open", and deep into the verboten realm of vendor specific extensions. Others, myself included, believe that the WebKit community has to do this if Open Web technologies are to be anyway competitive with Microsoft's RiA (XAML-Silverlight-WPF).

    Adobe RiA (AiR-Flex-Flash) is also an alternative to WebKit and Microsoft RiA; kind of half Open Web, half proprietary though. Adobe Flash is of course proprietary. While Adobe AiR implements the WebKit layout engine and visual document model. I suspect that as Adobe RiA loses ground to Microsoft Silverlight, they will open up Flash. But that's not something the Open Web can afford to wait for.

    In many ways, WebKit is at the cutting edge of Ajax Open Web technologies. The problems of Ajax not scaling well are being solved as shared JavaScript libraries continue to amaze, and the JavaScript engines roar with horsepower. Innovations in WebKit, even the vendor-device specific ones, are being picked up by the JS Libraries, Firefox, and the other Open Web browsers.

    At the end of the day though, it is the balance between the ACiD3 test on one side and the incredible market surge of WebKit smartphones, countertops, and netbook devices at the edge of the Web that seem to hold things together.

    The surge at the edge is washing back over the greater Web, as cross-browser frustrated Web designers and developers roll out the iPhone welcome. Let's hope the ACiD3 test holds. So far it's proving to be a far more important consideration for maintaining Open Web interop, without sacrificing innovation, than anything going on at the stalled W3C.

    "..... Safari continues to lead the way, implementing
2More

Microsoft to Google: Get Off of My Cloud - BusinessWeek - 0 views

www.businessweek.com/...tc20081121_382269_page_2.htm data center containers data centers Microsoft Sun rackable systems
shared by Paul Merrell on 25 Nov 08 - Cached
  • Microsoft's newest facility is drawing lots of oohs and ahs from experts in this specialized field. Most data centers are open, warehouse-style buildings filled with racks of gear. But the first floor of this vast 700,000-square-foot facility looks more like an indoor parking lot, with gear packed into preconfigured shipping containers. Suppliers such as Sun Microsystems (JAVA) and Rackable Systems (RACK) have been advocating similar approaches for years, but this is by far the most ambitious implementation. Each of the containers can hold 2,500 servers, and the floor can hold up to 224 containers. That's a potential maximum of 560,000 servers. "They're pushing the concept to the extreme," Cappuccio says.
  • Microsoft's newest facility is drawing lots of oohs and ahs from experts in this specialized field. Most data centers are open, warehouse-style buildings filled with racks of gear. But the first floor of this vast 700,000-square-foot facility looks more like an indoor parking lot, with gear packed into preconfigured shipping containers. Suppliers such as Sun Microsystems (JAVA) and Rackable Systems (RACK) have been advocating similar approaches for years, but this is by far the most ambitious implementation. Each of the containers can hold 2,500 servers, and the floor can hold up to 224 containers. That's a potential maximum of 560,000 servers. "They're pushing the concept to the extreme," Cappuccio says.
3More

Google Slams MPAA Censorship Efforts After Court 'Victory' | TorrentFreak - 1 views

torrentfreak.com/google-mpaa-censorship-150303 google slams MPAA censorship efforts court victory
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 04 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 04 Mar 15
     
    Google has claimed its first victory against Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood, who called for SOPA-like Internet filters in the U.S. After the court put Hood's subpoena on hold, Google called out the MPAA who they see as the main instigator behind the censorship efforts.
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 04 Mar 15
     
    Google has claimed its first victory against Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood, who called for SOPA-like Internet filters in the U.S. After the court put Hood's subpoena on hold, Google called out the MPAA who they see as the main instigator behind the censorship efforts.
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 04 Mar 15
     
    Google has claimed its first victory against Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood, who called for SOPA-like Internet filters in the U.S. After the court put Hood's subpoena on hold, Google called out the MPAA who they see as the main instigator behind the censorship efforts.
1More

U.S. looking at ways to hold Zuckerberg accountable for Facebook's problems - 0 views

www.nbcnews.com/...le-facebook-s-problems-n996231 Facebook Zuckerberg FTC privacy-violations
shared by Paul Merrell on 19 Apr 19 - No Cached
Sahana System liked it
  • Federal regulators are discussing whether and how to hold Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg personally accountable for the company's history of mismanaging users' private data, two sources familiar with the discussions told NBC News on Thursday.The sources wouldn't elaborate on what measures are specifically under consideration. The Washington Post, which first reported the development, reported that regulators were exploring increased oversight of Zuckerberg's leadership.While Facebook has come under scrutiny for its privacy practices for years, both of the Democratic members of the FTC have said the agency should target individual executives when appropriate.Justin Brookman, a former policy director for technology research at the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, said Thursday night that while the FTC can name individual company leaders if they directed, controlled and knew about any wrongdoing, "they typically only use that authority in fraud-like cases, so far as I can tell."
22More

The True Story of How the Patent Bar Captured a Court and Shrank the Intellectual Commo... - 1 views

www.cato-unbound.org/...rt-shrank-intellectual-commons patents software-patents
shared by Gary Edwards on 13 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • The change in the law wrought by the Federal Circuit can also be viewed substantively through the controversy over software patents. Throughout the 1960s, the USPTO refused to award patents for software innovations. However, several of the USPTO’s decisions were overruled by the patent-friendly U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which ordered that software patents be granted. In Gottschalk v. Benson (1972) and Parker v. Flook (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, holding that mathematical algorithms (and therefore software) were not patentable subject matter. In 1981, in Diamond v. Diehr, the Supreme Court upheld a software patent on the grounds that the patent in question involved a physical process—the patent was issued for software used in the molding of rubber. While affirming their prior ruling that mathematical formulas are not patentable in the abstract, the Court held that an otherwise patentable invention did not become unpatentable simply because it utilized a computer.
  • In the hands of the newly established Federal Circuit, however, this small scope for software patents in precedent was sufficient to open the floodgates. In a series of decisions culminating in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group (1998), the Federal Circuit broadened the criteria for patentability of software and business methods substantially, allowing protection as long as the innovation “produces a useful, concrete and tangible result.” That broadened criteria led to an explosion of low-quality software patents, from Amazon’s 1-Click checkout system to Twitter’s pull-to-refresh feature on smartphones. The GAO estimates that more than half of all patents granted in recent years are software-related. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court continues to hold, as in Parker v. Flook, that computer software algorithms are not patentable, and has begun to push back against the Federal Circuit. In Bilski v. Kappos (2010), the Supreme Court once again held that abstract ideas are not patentable, and in Alice v. CLS (2014), it ruled that simply applying an abstract idea on a computer does not suffice to make the idea patent-eligible. It still is not clear what portion of existing software patents Alice invalidates, but it could be a significant one.
  • Supreme Court justices also recognize the Federal Circuit’s insubordination. In oral arguments in Carlsbad Technology v. HIF Bio (2009), Chief Justice John Roberts joked openly about it:
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • The Opportunity of the Commons
  • As a result of the Federal Circuit’s pro-patent jurisprudence, our economy has been flooded with patents that would otherwise not have been granted. If more patents meant more innovation, then we would now be witnessing a spectacular economic boom. Instead, we have been living through what Tyler Cowen has called a Great Stagnation. The fact that patents have increased while growth has not is known in the literature as the “patent puzzle.” As Michele Boldrin and David Levine put it, “there is no empirical evidence that [patents] serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number of patents awarded—which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity.”
  • While more patents have not resulted in faster economic growth, they have resulted in more patent lawsuits.
  • Software patents have characteristics that make them particularly susceptible to litigation. Unlike, say, chemical patents, software patents are plagued by a problem of description. How does one describe a software innovation in such a way that anyone searching for it will easily find it? As Christina Mulligan and Tim Lee demonstrate, chemical formulas are indexable, meaning that as the number of chemical patents grow, it will still be easy to determine if a molecule has been patented. Since software innovations are not indexable, they estimate that “patent clearance by all firms would require many times more hours of legal research than all patent lawyers in the United States can bill in a year. The result has been an explosion of patent litigation.” Software and business method patents, estimate James Bessen and Michael Meurer, are 2 and 7 times more likely to be litigated than other patents, respectively (4 and 13 times more likely than chemical patents).
  • Software patents make excellent material for predatory litigation brought by what are often called “patent trolls.”
  • Trolls use asymmetries in the rules of litigation to legally extort millions of dollars from innocent parties. For example, one patent troll, Innovatio IP Ventures, LLP, acquired patents that implicated Wi-Fi. In 2011, it started sending demand letters to coffee shops and hotels that offered wireless Internet access, offering to settle for $2,500 per location. This amount was far in excess of the 9.56 cents per device that Innovatio was entitled to under the “Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory” licensing promises attached to their portfolio, but it was also much less than the cost of trial, and therefore it was rational for firms to pay. Cisco stepped in and spent $13 million in legal fees on the case, and settled on behalf of their customers for 3.2 cents per device. Other manufacturers had already licensed Innovatio’s portfolio, but that didn’t stop their customers from being targeted by demand letters.
  • Litigation cost asymmetries are magnified by the fact that most patent trolls are nonpracticing entities. This means that when patent infringement trials get to the discovery phase, they will cost the troll very little—a firm that does not operate a business has very few records to produce.
  • But discovery can cost a medium or large company millions of dollars. Using an event study methodology, James Bessen and coauthors find that infringement lawsuits by nonpracticing entities cost publicly traded companies $83 billion per year in stock market capitalization, while plaintiffs gain less than 10 percent of that amount.
  • Software patents also reduce innovation in virtue of their cumulative nature and the fact that many of them are frequently inputs into a single product. Law professor Michael Heller coined the phrase “tragedy of the anticommons” to refer to a situation that mirrors the well-understood “tragedy of the commons.” Whereas in a commons, multiple parties have the right to use a resource but not to exclude others, in an anticommons, multiple parties have the right to exclude others, and no one is therefore able to make effective use of the resource. The tragedy of the commons results in overuse of the resource; the tragedy of the anticommons results in underuse.
  • In order to cope with the tragedy of the anticommons, we should carefully investigate the opportunity of  the commons. The late Nobelist Elinor Ostrom made a career of studying how communities manage shared resources without property rights. With appropriate self-governance institutions, Ostrom found again and again that a commons does not inevitably lead to tragedy—indeed, open access to shared resources can provide collective benefits that are not available under other forms of property management.
  • This suggests that—litigation costs aside—patent law could be reducing the stock of ideas rather than expanding it at current margins.
  • Advocates of extensive patent protection frequently treat the commons as a kind of wasteland. But considering the problems in our patent system, it is worth looking again at the role of well-tailored limits to property rights in some contexts. Just as we all benefit from real property rights that no longer extend to the highest heavens, we would also benefit if the scope of patent protection were more narrowly drawn.
  • Reforming the Patent System
  • This analysis raises some obvious possibilities for reforming the patent system. Diane Wood, Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit, has proposed ending the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals—instead, the Federal Circuit could share jurisdiction with the other circuit courts. While this is a constructive suggestion, it still leaves the door open to the Federal Circuit playing “a leading role in shaping patent law,” which is the reason for its capture by patent interests. It would be better instead simply to abolish the Federal Circuit and return to the pre-1982 system, in which patents received no special treatment in appeals. This leaves open the possibility of circuit splits, which the creation of the Federal Circuit was designed to mitigate, but there are worse problems than circuit splits, and we now have them.
  • Another helpful reform would be for Congress to limit the scope of patentable subject matter via statute. New Zealand has done just that, declaring that software is “not an invention” to get around WTO obligations to respect intellectual property. Congress should do the same with respect to both software and business methods.
  • Finally, even if the above reforms were adopted, there would still be a need to address the asymmetries in patent litigation that result in predatory “troll” lawsuits. While the holding in Alice v. CLS arguably makes a wide swath of patents invalid, those patents could still be used in troll lawsuits because a ruling of invalidity for each individual patent might not occur until late in a trial. Current legislation in Congress addresses this class of problem by mandating disclosures, shifting fees in the case of spurious lawsuits, and enabling a review of the patent’s validity before a trial commences.
  • What matters for prosperity is not just property rights in the abstract, but good property-defining institutions. Without reform, our patent system will continue to favor special interests and forestall economic growth.
  • Gary Edwards on 13 Sep 14
     
    "Libertarians intuitively understand the case for patents: just as other property rights internalize the social benefits of improvements to land, automobile maintenance, or business investment, patents incentivize the creation of new inventions, which might otherwise be undersupplied. So far, so good. But it is important to recognize that the laws that govern property, intellectual or otherwise, do not arise out of thin air. Rather, our political institutions, with all their virtues and foibles, determine the contours of property-the exact bundle of rights that property holders possess, their extent, and their limitations. Outlining efficient property laws is not a trivial problem. The optimal contours of property are neither immutable nor knowable a priori. For example, in 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the age-old common law doctrine that extended real property rights to the heavens without limit. The advent of air travel made such extensive property rights no longer practicable-airlines would have had to cobble together a patchwork of easements, acre by acre, for every corridor through which they flew, and they would have opened themselves up to lawsuits every time their planes deviated from the expected path. The Court rightly abridged property rights in light of these empirical realities. In defining the limits of patent rights, our political institutions have gotten an analogous question badly wrong. A single, politically captured circuit court with exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals has consistently expanded the scope of patentable subject matter. This expansion has resulted in an explosion of both patents and patent litigation, with destructive consequences. "
  • Paul Merrell on 14 Sep 14
     
    I added a comment to the page's article. Patents are antithetical to the precepts of Libertarianism and do not involve Natural Law rights. But I agree with the author that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should be abolished. It's a failed experiment.
2More

European citizens have spoken out, and it's time for the EU to pass Net Neutrality | Ac... - 0 views

www.accessnow.org/...-the-eu-to-pass-net-neutrality Net Neutrality Internet neutrality pass into law citizens participation politicians listen Human Rights technology access knowledge culture democracy freedom respect European Parliament action
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 10 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 10 Apr 15
     
    "As digital rights advocates around the world celebrate the victory for Net Neutrality in the U.S., we should remember that the fight in Europe is heating up. Right now decision makers in Brussels are negotiating over a crucial text to preserve the open internet, and it's time for them to make the right decision and pass Net Neutrality into law. The European Parliament holds the key."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 10 Apr 15
     
    "As digital rights advocates around the world celebrate the victory for Net Neutrality in the U.S., we should remember that the fight in Europe is heating up. Right now decision makers in Brussels are negotiating over a crucial text to preserve the open internet, and it's time for them to make the right decision and pass Net Neutrality into law. The European Parliament holds the key."
4More

Activists send the Senate 6 million faxes to oppose cyber bill - CBS News - 0 views

www.cbsnews.com/...ion-faxes-to-oppose-cyber-bill surveillance state CISA legislation faxes Obama
shared by Paul Merrell on 06 Aug 15 - No Cached
  • Activists worried about online privacy are sending Congress a message with some old-school technology: They're sending faxes -- more than 6.2 million, they claim -- to express opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA).Why faxes? "Congress is stuck in 1984 and doesn't understand modern technology," according to the campaign Fax Big Brother. The week-long campaign was organized by the nonpartisan Electronic Frontier Foundation, the group Access and Fight for the Future, the activist group behind the major Internet protests that helped derail a pair of anti-piracy bills in 2012. It also has the backing of a dozen groups like the ACLU, the American Library Association, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and others.
  • CISA aims to facilitate information sharing regarding cyberthreats between the government and the private sector. The bill gained more attention following the massive hack in which the records of nearly 22 million people were stolen from government computers."The ability to easily and quickly share cyber attack information, along with ways to counter attacks, is a key method to stop them from happening in the first place," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who helped introduce CISA, said in a statement after the hack. Senate leadership had planned to vote on CISA this week before leaving for its August recess. However, the bill may be sidelined for the time being as the Republican-led Senate puts precedent on a legislative effort to defund Planned Parenthood.Even as the bill was put on the backburner, the grassroots campaign to stop it gained steam. Fight for the Future started sending faxes to all 100 Senate offices on Monday, but the campaign really took off after it garnered attention on the website Reddit and on social media. The faxed messages are generated by Internet users who visit faxbigbrother.com or stopcyberspying.com -- or who simply send a message via Twitter with the hashtag #faxbigbrother. To send all those faxes, Fight for the Future set up a dedicated server and a dozen phone lines and modems they say are capable of sending tens of thousands of faxes a day.
  • Fight for the Future told CBS News that it has so many faxes queued up at this point, that it may take months for Senate offices to receive them all, though the group is working on scaling up its capability to send them faster. They're also limited by the speed at which Senate offices can receive them.
  • Paul Merrell on 06 Aug 15
     
    From an Fight For the Future mailing: "Here's the deal: yesterday the Senate delayed its expected vote on CISA, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act that would let companies share your private information--like emails and medical records--with the government. "The delay is good news; but it's a delay, not a victory. "We just bought some precious extra time to fight CISA, but we need to use it to go big like we did with SOPA or this bill will still pass. Even if we stop it in September, they'll try again after that. "The truth is that right now, things are looking pretty grim. Democrats and Republicans have been holding closed-door meetings to work out a deal to pass CISA quickly when they return from recess. "Right before the expected Senate vote on CISA, the Obama Administration endorsed the bill, which means if Congress passes it, the White House will definitely sign it.  "We've stalled and delayed CISA and bills like it nearly half a dozen times, but this month could be our last chance to stop it for good." See also http://tumblr.fightforthefuture.org/post/125953876003/senate-fails-to-advance-cisa-before-recess-amid (;) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/activists-send-the-senate-6-million-faxes-to-oppose-cyber-bill/ (;) http://www.npr.org/2015/08/04/429386027/privacy-advocates-to-senate-cyber-security-bill (.)
2More

How to Save the Net | Magazine | WIRED - 1 views

www.wired.com/...how-to-save-the-net how to save Internet www wired
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 24 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 24 Aug 14
     
    By Wired Magazine 08.19.14 | 6:30 am | Permalink It's impossible to overstate how much the Internet matters. It has forever altered how we share information and store it for safekeeping, how we communicate with political leaders, how we document atrocities and hold wrongdoers accountable, how we consume entertainment and create it, even how we meet others and maintain relationships."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 24 Aug 14
     
    By Wired Magazine 08.19.14 | 6:30 am | Permalink It's impossible to overstate how much the Internet matters. It has forever altered how we share information and store it for safekeeping, how we communicate with political leaders, how we document atrocities and hold wrongdoers accountable, how we consume entertainment and create it, even how we meet others and maintain relationships."
2More

Why Kim Dotcom hasn't been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload | Ars Tec... - 0 views

arstechnica.com/...fter-the-us-smashed-megaupload kim Dotcom megaupload extradition not happens Intellectual Property power politics over culture flow
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Jan 15
     
    "Why Kim Dotcom hasn't been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload An extradition hearing is set for June 2015. Based on history, don't hold your breath. by Cyrus Farivar - Jan 18, 2015 10:30 pm UTC Share Tweet 37 Kim Dotcom made his initial play for the Billboard charts in late 2011. Kim Dotcom has never been shy. And in December 2011, roughly a month before things for Dotcom were set to drastically change, he still oozed with bravado: Dotcom released a song ("The Megaupload Song") in conjunction with producer Printz Board. It featured a number of major pop stars-including the likes of Kanye West, Jamie Foxx, and Serena Williams-all singing that they "love Megaupload."" [ # ! this is not an #IntellectualProperty #enforcement #issue, # ! it is a bunch of #governments (& friend companies) saying # ! #citizens that #information & #culture belong to '#Them'... # ! ;/ # ! ... and this doesn't work this way. # ! :) ]
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 21 Jan 15
     
    " Why Kim Dotcom hasn't been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload An extradition hearing is set for June 2015. Based on history, don't hold your breath. by Cyrus Farivar - Jan 18, 2015 10:30 pm UTC Share Tweet 37 Kim Dotcom made his initial play for the Billboard charts in late 2011. Kim Dotcom has never been shy. And in December 2011, roughly a month before things for Dotcom were set to drastically change, he still oozed with bravado: Dotcom released a song ("The Megaupload Song") in conjunction with producer Printz Board. It featured a number of major pop stars-including the likes of Kanye West, Jamie Foxx, and Serena Williams-all singing that they "love Megaupload.""
2More

Social Media Engagement Is Dead - 2015 Is About Measurable Goals | CIO [# ! Read the Pr... - 0 views

www.cio.com/...is-about-measurable-goals.html Social Media dead or alive marketing cheat people power Internet vs traditional media
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 15 Jan 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 15 Jan 15
     
    "A focus on social media engagement metrics - the likes, re-tweets, favorites, re-blogs, pins, comments, shares, followers, fans and friends - could be holding companies back from realizing social's full potential. In fact, Forrester Vice President and Principal Analyst Nate Elliott warns clients against measuring social engagement."
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 15 Jan 15
     
    "A focus on social media engagement metrics - the likes, re-tweets, favorites, re-blogs, pins, comments, shares, followers, fans and friends - could be holding companies back from realizing social's full potential. In fact, Forrester Vice President and Principal Analyst Nate Elliott warns clients against measuring social engagement."
2More

Firefox's adoption of closed-source DRM breaks my heart | Technology | The Guardian - 0 views

www.theguardian.com/...rm-video-browser-cory-doctorow firefox drm
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 12 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 12 Apr 15
     
    "I understand the pressure to support commercial video - but the browser makers can do more to defend free and open software Mozilla foundation Mozilla is a not-for-profit social enterprise with a mission to free its users - so it's not unreasonable to hold it to a higher standard than commercial rivals. Photograph: Mozilla Cory Doctorow Wednesday 14 May 2014 18.00 BST"
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 12 Apr 15
     
    "I understand the pressure to support commercial video - but the browser makers can do more to defend free and open software Mozilla foundation Mozilla is a not-for-profit social enterprise with a mission to free its users - so it's not unreasonable to hold it to a higher standard than commercial rivals. Photograph: Mozilla Cory Doctorow Wednesday 14 May 2014 18.00 BST"
2More

The Red Hat/MS Agreement Molehill | FOSS Force - 0 views

fossforce.com/...red-hatms-agreement-molehill Microsoft Red Hat agreement proprietary vs open source cloud
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 11 Nov 15 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 11 Nov 15
     
    Larry Cafiero First, let me thank those who took the time to alert me last week to the agreement between Red Hat and Microsoft on holding hands in the cloud. All the concern shown in the emails and social media posts were completely welcome, and could be broken up into two basic sentiments: curiosity about my reaction and serving me some crow to eat.
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 11 Nov 15
     
    Larry Cafiero First, let me thank those who took the time to alert me last week to the agreement between Red Hat and Microsoft on holding hands in the cloud. All the concern shown in the emails and social media posts were completely welcome, and could be broken up into two basic sentiments: curiosity about my reaction and serving me some crow to eat.
9More

Hey ITU Member States: No More Secrecy, Release the Treaty Proposals | Electronic Front... - 0 views

www.eff.org/...crecy-release-wcit-documents-0 Internet freedom Openweb ITU regulation
shared by Paul Merrell on 25 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will hold the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in December in Dubai, an all-important treaty-writing event where ITU Member States will discuss the proposed revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR). The ITU is a United Nations agency responsible for international telecom regulation, a bureaucratic, slow-moving, closed regulatory organization that issues treaty-level provisions for international telecommunication networks and services. The ITR, a legally binding international treaty signed by 178 countries, defines the boundaries of ITU’s regulatory authority and provides "general principles" on international telecommunications. However, media reports indicate that some proposed amendments to the ITR—a negotiation that is already well underway—could potentially expand the ITU’s mandate to encompass the Internet.
  • The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will hold the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in December in Dubai, an all-important treaty-writing event where ITU Member States will discuss the proposed revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR). The ITU is a United Nations agency responsible for international telecom regulation, a bureaucratic, slow-moving, closed regulatory organization that issues treaty-level provisions for international telecommunication networks and services. The ITR, a legally binding international treaty signed by 178 countries, defines the boundaries of ITU’s regulatory authority and provides "general principles" on international telecommunications. However, media reports indicate that some proposed amendments to the ITR—a negotiation that is already well underway—could potentially expand the ITU’s mandate to encompass the Internet. In similar fashion to the secrecy surrounding ACTA and TPP, the ITR proposals are being negotiated in secret, with high barriers preventing access to any negotiating document. While aspiring to be a venue for Internet policy-making, the ITU Member States do not appear to be very open to the idea of allowing all stakeholders (including civil society) to participate. The framework under which the ITU operates does not allow for any form of open participation. Mere access to documents and decision-makers is sold by the ITU to corporate “associate” members at prohibitively high rates. Indeed, the ITU’s business model appears to depend on revenue generation from those seeking to ‘participate’ in its policy-making processes. This revenue-based principle of policy-making is deeply troubling in and of itself, as the objective of policy making should be to reach the best possible outcome.
  • EFF, European Digital Rights, CIPPIC and CDT and a coalition of civil society organizations from around the world are demanding that the ITU Secretary General, the  WCIT-12 Council Working Group, and ITU Member States open up the WCIT-12 and the Council working group negotiations, by immediately releasing all the preparatory materials and Treaty proposals. If it affects the digital rights of citizens across the globe, the public needs to know what is going on and deserves to have a say. The Council Working Group is responsible for the preparatory work towards WCIT-12, setting the agenda for and consolidating input from participating governments and Sector Members. We demand full and meaningful participation for civil society in its own right, and without cost, at the Council Working Group meetings and the WCIT on equal footing with all other stakeholders, including participating governments. A transparent, open process that is inclusive of civil society at every stage is crucial to creating sound policy.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Civil society has good reason to be concerned regarding an expanded ITU policy-making role. To begin with, the institution does not appear to have high regard for the distributed multi-stakeholder decision making model that has been integral to the development of an innovative, successful and open Internet. In spite of commitments at WSIS to ensure Internet policy is based on input from all relevant stakeholders, the ITU has consistently put the interests of one stakeholder—Governments—above all others. This is discouraging, as some government interests are inconsistent with an open, innovative network. Indeed, the conditions which have made the Internet the powerful tool it is today emerged in an environment where the interests of all stakeholders are given equal footing, and existing Internet policy-making institutions at least aspire, with varying success, to emulate this equal footing. This formula is enshrined in the Tunis Agenda, which was committed to at WSIS in 2005:
  • 83. Building an inclusive development-oriented Information Society will require unremitting multi-stakeholder effort. We thus commit ourselves to remain fully engaged—nationally, regionally and internationally—to ensure sustainable implementation and follow-up of the outcomes and commitments reached during the WSIS process and its Geneva and Tunis phases of the Summit. Taking into account the multifaceted nature of building the Information Society, effective cooperation among governments, private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organizations, according to their different roles and responsibilities and leveraging on their expertise, is essential. 84. Governments and other stakeholders should identify those areas where further effort and resources are required, and jointly identify, and where appropriate develop, implementation strategies, mechanisms and processes for WSIS outcomes at international, regional, national and local levels, paying particular attention to people and groups that are still marginalized in their access to, and utilization of, ICTs.
  • Indeed, the ITU’s current vision of Internet policy-making is less one of distributed decision-making, and more one of ‘taking control.’ For example, in an interview conducted last June with ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin raised the suggestion that the union might take control of the Internet: “We are thankful to you for the ideas that you have proposed for discussion,” Putin told Touré in that conversation. “One of them is establishing international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).” Perhaps of greater concern are views espoused by the ITU regarding the nature of the Internet. Yesterday, at the World Summit of Information Society Forum, Mr. Alexander Ntoko, head of the Corporate Strategy Division of the ITU, explained the proposals made during the preparatory process for the WCIT, outlining a broad set of topics that can seriously impact people's rights. The categories include "security," "interoperability" and "quality of services," and the possibility that ITU recommendations and regulations will be not only binding on the world’s nations, but enforced.
  • Rights to online expression are unlikely to fare much better than privacy under an ITU model. During last year’s IGF in Kenya, a voluntary code of conduct was issued to further restrict free expression online. A group of nations (including China, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) released a Resolution for the UN General Assembly titled, “International Code of Conduct for Information Security.”  The Code seems to be designed to preserve and protect national powers in information and communication. In it, governments pledge to curb “the dissemination of information that incites terrorism, secessionism or extremism or that undermines other countries’ political, economic and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural environment.” This overly broad provision accords any state the right to censor or block international communications, for almost any reason.
  • EFF Joins Coalition Denouncing Secretive WCIT Planning Process June 2012 Congressional Witnesses Agree: Multistakeholder Processes Are Right for Internet Regulation June 2012 Widespread Participation Is Key in Internet Governance July 2012 Blogging ITU: Internet Users Will Be Ignored Again if Flawed ITU Proposals Gain Traction June 2012 Global Telecom Governance Debated at European Parliament Workshop
  • Paul Merrell on 25 Nov 12
4More

German Parliament Says No More Software Patents | Electronic Frontier Foundation - 0 views

www.eff.org/...-says-no-more-software-patents software patents Germany New Zealand law
shared by Paul Merrell on 22 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • The German Parliament recently took a huge step that would eliminate software patents (PDF) when it issued a joint motion requiring the German government to ensure that computer programs are only covered by copyright. Put differently, in Germany, software cannot be patented. The Parliament's motion follows a similar announcement made by New Zealand's government last month (PDF), in which it determined that computer programs were not inventions or a manner of manufacture and, thus, cannot be patented.
  • The crux of the German Parliament's motion rests on the fact that software is already protected by copyright, and developers are afforded "exploitation rights." These rights, however, become confused when broad, abstract patents also cover general aspects of computer programs. These two intellectual property systems are at odds. The clearest example of this clash is with free software. The motion recognizes this issue and therefore calls upon the government "to preserve the precedence of copyright law so that software developers can also publish their work under open source license terms and conditions with legal security." The free software movement relies upon the fact that software can be released under a copyright license that allows users to share it and build upon others' works. Patents, as Parliament finds, inhibit this fundamental spread.
  • Just like in the New Zealand order, the German Parliament carved out one type of software that could be patented, when: the computer program serves merely as a replaceable equivalent for a mechanical or electro-mechanical component, as is the case, for instance, when software-based washing machine controls can replace an electromechanical program control unit consisting of revolving cylinders which activate the control circuits for the specific steps of the wash cycle This allows for software that is tied to (and controls part of) another invention to be patented. In other words, if a claimed process is purely a computer program, then it is not patentable. (New Zealand's order uses a similar washing machine example.) The motion ends by calling upon the German government to push for this approach to be standard across all of Europe. We hope policymakers in the United States will also consider fundamental reform that deals with the problems caused by low-quality software patents. Ultimately, any real reform must address this issue.
  • Paul Merrell on 22 Jun 13
     
    Note that an unofficial translation of the parliamentary motion is linked from the article. This adds substantially to the pressure internationally to end software patents because Germany has been the strongest defender of software patents in Europe. The same legal grounds would not apply in the U.S. The strongest argument for the non-patentability in the U.S., in my opinion, is that software patents embody embody both prior art and obviousness. A general purpose computer can accomplish nothing unforeseen by the prior art of the computing device. And it is impossible for software to do more than cause different sequences of bit register states to be executed. This is the province of "skilled artisans" using known methods to produce predictable results. There is a long line of Supreme Court decisions holding that an "invention" with such traits is non-patentable. I have summarized that argument with citations at . 
1More

LinkedIn Breach Exposed 117 Million User Accounts - eSecurity Planet [# :/ Note... to k... - 0 views

www.esecurityplanet.com/...117-million-user-accounts.html linkedin breach exposed million user details oh please security efore b usiness :_
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 22 May 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 22 May 16
     
    "The stolen database holds 167 million records, of which 117 million include email addresses and passwords. By Jeff Goldman | Posted May 20, 201"
1More

TTIP on its deathbed, but CETA moves forward despite growing concerns | Ars Technica UK - 0 views

arstechnica.co.uk/...ttip-dying-ceta-new-analysis TTIP deathbed CETA moves
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 26 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 26 Sep 16
     
    "At a key meeting in Bratislava last Friday, EU ministers effectively put the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations on hold, perhaps forever. "
1More

Court Freezes Megaupload's MPAA and RIAA Lawsuits - TorrentFreak - 0 views

torrentfreak.com/-mpaa-and-riaa-lawsuits-161125 Court freeze Megaupload case sharing lawsuits little clear
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 25 Nov 16 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 25 Nov 16
     
    " By Ernesto on November 25, 2016 C: 18 Breaking A federal court in Virginia has granted Megaupload's request to place the cases filed by the music and movie companies on hold until April next year, while the criminal case remains pending. Meanwhile, Megaupload is working hard to ensure that critical evidence on decaying hard drives is "
2More

Privacy Shield Program Overview | Privacy Shield - 0 views

www.privacyshield.gov/Program-Overview digital-privacy EU-U>S>-Privacy-Shield-Framework
shared by Paul Merrell on 09 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Program Overview The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework was designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and European Commission to provide companies on both sides of the Atlantic with a mechanism to comply with EU data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the European Union to the United States in support of transatlantic commerce. On July 12, the European Commission deemed the Privacy Shield Framework adequate to enable data transfers under EU law (see the adequacy determination). The Privacy Shield program, which is administered by the International Trade Administration (ITA) within the U.S. Department of Commerce, enables U.S.-based organizations to join the Privacy Shield Framework in order to benefit from the adequacy determination. To join the Privacy Shield Framework, a U.S.-based organization will be required to self-certify to the Department of Commerce (via this website) and publicly commit to comply with the Framework’s requirements. While joining the Privacy Shield Framework is voluntary, once an eligible organization makes the public commitment to comply with the Framework’s requirements, the commitment will become enforceable under U.S. law. All organizations interested in joining the Privacy Shield Framework should review its requirements in their entirety. To assist in that effort, Commerce’s Privacy Shield Team has compiled resources and addressed frequently asked questions below. ResourcesKey New Requirements for Participating Organizations How to Join the Privacy ShieldPrivacy Policy FAQs Frequently Asked Questions
  • Paul Merrell on 09 Dec 16
     
    I got a notice from Dropbox tonight that it is now certified under this program. This program is fallout from an E.U. Court of Justice decision following the Snowden disclosures, holding that the then existing U.S.-E.U. framework for ptoecting the rights of E.U. citozens' data were invalid because that framework did not adequately protect digital privacy rights. This new framework is intended to comoply with the court's decision but one need only look at section 5 of the agreement to see that it does not. Expect follow-on litigation. THe agreement is at https://www.privacyshield.gov/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=015t00000004qAg Section 5 lets NSA continue to intercept and read data from E.U. citizens and also allows their data to be disclosed to U.S. law enforcement. And the agreement adds nothing to U.S. citizens' digital privacy rights. In my view, this framework is a stopgap measure that will only last as long as it takes for another case to reach the Court of Justice and be ruled upon. The ox that got gored by the Court of Justice ruling was U.S. company's ability to store E.U. citizens' data outside the E.U. and to allow internet traffic from the E.U. to pass through the U.S. Microsoft had leadership that set up new server farms in Europe under the control of a business entity beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Other I/.S. internet biggies didn't follow suit. This framework is their lifeline until the next ruling by the Court of Justice.
1More

ACTA: to keep in mind - La Quadrature du Net - 0 views

www.laquadrature.net/...ACTA:_to_keep_in_mind acta act now july 4th 2012 stop censorship control defend freedom Internet
shared by Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 29 Jun 12 - No Cached
  • Gonzalo San Gil, PhD. on 29 Jun 12
     
    [ Current main action against ACTA: On Wednesday July 4th, the European Parliament will hold its final vote on ACTA. This vote will be the most important one since the beginning of the parliamentary work: eurodeputies will decide either to adopt or reject ACTA. A rejection would mean that ACTA will be defeated once and for all. Urge (by calling them *free of charge*) the Members of Parliament to vote in favour of a clear rejection of ACTA, and to reform the EU copyright framework! ]
1 - 20 of 105 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page