K12 Open Source

Beim Gespräch ging es mir vor allem um die Möglichkeiten, die nicht kommerzielle Unternehmen wie Blogger usw. betreffend der Gebührenabgaben haben. Immer mehr Schweizer Musikgruppen möchten beim kulturtv.ch mitmachen. Doch wenn sie bei der SUISA angemeldet sind, ist bei mir die Türe leider zu. Das wird allgemein nicht verstanden. Poto Wegener hat meine Fragen alle aus der Sicht der SUISA beantwortet. Damit ist die rechtliche Situation klar, nicht aber die Zukunft.

"As presently drafted, the Proposed Settlement does not meet the legal standards this Court must apply," the DOJ said in a 32-page filing (click for PDF) with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. "This Court should reject the Proposed Settlement in its current form and encourage the parties to continue negotiations to modify it so as to comply with Rule 23 (a federal law governing class-action settlements) and the copyright and antitrust laws."

When it comes to digitizing books and offering readers and writers a business model, Google has planted the wheat, harvested it, threshed it, ground it, and baked it. Now Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo think they each deserve a big slice of bread. They are taking the hen to court in order to get it. The effort, led by attorney Gary Reback, to challenge Google's deals with writers and publishers for digitizing "orphaned works" that are copyrighted but no longer published is less lawsuit than business by another name.

Giornali in crisi. Sempre più giornalisti perdono il lavoro, nessuna prospettiva per i giovani. Si scende in piazza per chiedere libertà di informazione. E gli editori se la prendono con Google, che indirizza i lettori sui loro siti.

L'AUTORITÀ GARANTE DELLA CONCORRENZA E DEL MERCATO NELLA SUA ADUNANZA del 26 agosto 2009 (...) DELIBERA a) l'avvio dell'istruttoria ai sensi dell'art. 14, della legge n. 287/90, nei confronti di Google Italy S.r.l., per accertare l'esistenza di violazioni dell'art. 82, del Trattato CE; b) la fissazione del termine di giorni trenta decorrenti dalla notificazione del presente provvedimento per l'esercizio da parte dei legali rappresentanti delle parti del diritto di essere sentiti, precisando che la richiesta di audizione dovrà pervenire alla Direzione Comunicazioni della Direzione Generale per la Concorrenza di questa Autorità almeno quindici giorni prima della scadenza del termine sopra indicato; c) che il responsabile del procedimento è il Dott. Antonio Buttà; d) che gli atti del procedimento possono essere presi in visione presso la Direzione Comunicazioni della Direzione Generale per la Concorrenza di questa Autorità dai rappresentanti legali delle parti, nonché da persona da essi delegata; e) che il procedimento deve concludersi entro il 15 ottobre 2010. Il presente provvedimento verrà notificato ai soggetti interessati e pubblicato nel Bollettino dell'Autorità garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato. IL SEGRETARIO GENERALE Luigi Fiorentino IL PRESIDENTE Antonio Catricalà

L'AUTORITÀ GARANTE DELLA CONCORRENZA E DEL MERCATO NELLA SUA ADUNANZA del 26 agosto 2009 (...) DELIBERA a) l'avvio dell'istruttoria ai sensi dell'art. 14, della legge n. 287/90, nei confronti di Google Italy S.r.l., per accertare l'esistenza di violazioni dell'art. 82, del Trattato CE; b) la fissazione del termine di giorni trenta decorrenti dalla notificazione del presente provvedimento per l'esercizio da parte dei legali rappresentanti delle parti del diritto di essere sentiti, precisando che la richiesta di audizione dovrà pervenire alla Direzione Comunicazioni della Direzione Generale per la Concorrenza di questa Autorità almeno quindici giorni prima della scadenza del termine sopra indicato; c) che il responsabile del procedimento è il Dott. Antonio Buttà; d) che gli atti del procedimento possono essere presi in visione presso la Direzione Comunicazioni della Direzione Generale per la Concorrenza di questa Autorità dai rappresentanti legali delle parti, nonché da persona da essi delegata; e) che il procedimento deve concludersi entro il 15 ottobre 2010. da http://www.agcm.it/agcm_ita/news/news.nsf/Link/D4BE9F12407A0D45C1257627003976C2?OpenDocument Il presente provvedimento verrà notificato ai soggetti interessati e pubblicato nel Bollettino dell'Autorità garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato. IL SEGRETARIO GENERALE Luigi Fiorentino IL PRESIDENTE Antonio Catricalà

devising a framework for thinking about malware and related issues such as viruses, spyware, worms, rootkits, drm, trojans, botnets, keyloggers, droppers, downloaders, rats, adware, spam, stealth, fud, snake oil, and hype...

E' stato pubblicato, nella Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 80 del 6 aprile 2009, il Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri 23 febbraio 2009, n.31 che stabilisce l'obbligatorietà del contrassegno Siae da apporre sui supporti fono-videografici, multimediali e su quelli contenenti programmi per elaboratore, come previsto dall'articolo 181bis della legge sul diritto d'autore n.633/41.

n effetti, non molti sanno che la Commissione sta ancora aspettando il testo delle norme in tema di contrassegno SIAE e lo Stato italiano, con un provvedimento abnorme, ha adottato un regolamento che, addirittura, si propone addirittura di introdurre nel nostro ordinamento alcune norme dichiaratamente retroattive, forse proprio per cancellare gli effetti della sentenza Schwibbert.

The proposed Google Book Search settlement creates the opportunity for unprecedented access by the public, scholars, libraries and others to a digital library containing millions of books assembled by major research libraries. But the settlement is controversial, in large part because this access is limited in major ways: instead of being truly open, this new digital library will be controlled by a single company, Google, and a newly created Book Rights Registry consisting of representatives of authors and publishers; it will include millions of so-called "orphan works" that cannot legally be included in any competing digitization and access effort, and it will be available to readers only in the United States. It need not have been this way.

The proposed Google Book Search settlement creates the opportunity for unprecedented access by the public, scholars, libraries and others to a digital library containing millions of books assembled by major research libraries. But the settlement is controversial, in large part because this access is limited in major ways: instead of being truly open, this new digital library will be controlled by a single company, Google, and a newly created Book Rights Registry consisting of representatives of authors and publishers; it will include millions of so-called "orphan works" that cannot legally be included in any competing digitization and access effort, and it will be available to readers only in the United States. It need not have been this way.

Welcome to the Public Index, a site to study and discuss the proposed Google Book Search settlement. Here, you can browse and annotate the proposed settlement, section-by-section. Just use the table of contents or the search box at the right to get started. In addition, you can: * Study our reading room of lawsuit documents * Join the conversation in our forums * Draft an amicus brief to the court on the wiki

Der Bund hat einen 42-Millionen-Auftrag an Microsoft vergeben. Konkurrenten von Microsoft sehen sich vom Wettbewerb ausgeschlossen. In der Tat ist der Auftrag nicht öffentlich ausgeschrieben worden. Nun droht eine Beschwerde an das Bundesverwaltungsgericht.

Creative Commons est l'un des acteurs les plus visibles du mouvement copyleft. L'appréhension de ces licences libres nécessite une relecture des paradigmes classiques de la propriété littéraire. La présente étude propose une mise en contexte des licences Creative Commons sur le plan de la théorie du droit. Nous proposons en annexe n nouveau dossier, consacré à la licence Creative Commons, qui est sans nul doute l'un des acteurs les plus visibles du mouvement dit du copyleft. L'appréhension de ces licences libres nécessite une relecture des paradigmes classiques de la propriété littéraire. La présente étude propose une mise en contexte des licences Creative Commons sur le plan de la théorie du droit.

Broadcast from any phone to the Internet live. Useful for phone blogs, collecting audio data, podcasting, and other digital recordings

We are starting to see objections to the Google Book Search SettlementL2 this month in advance of the May 5th deadline set up by the court. The firstL3 comes from the consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog (foundL4 by way of the American Libraries news feed). They have submitted a letter to the U.S. Justice Department asking the antitrust division to delay the settlement until the "'most favored nation' clause favoring Google is removed and the deal's 'orphan works' provision is extended to cover all who might digitize books, not only Google." The letter in PDFL5 is available on the Consumer Watchdog website. The objections revolve around the provision that require the Books Rights Registry to give Google the same terms as anyone else who enters into agreements with the Registry (noting that more favorable terms might be required by a new party in order to compete with Google) as well as the fact that the copyright infringement protection for digitizing orphan works only extends to Google.

This column argues that the proposed settlement of this lawsuit is a privately negotiated compulsory license primarily designed to monetize millions of orphan works. It will benefit Google and certain authors and publishers, but it is questionable whether the authors of most books in the corpus (the "dead souls" to which the title refers) would agree that the settling authors and publishers will truly represent their interests when setting terms for access to the Book Search corpus.

At present, very few of us buy books in any form. If we could have e-books read aloud to us, however, we would happily pay for them. We are an untapped market consisting of some 15 million people to which authors and publishers have never before had direct access. For this reason, the position of the Authors Guild is not only morally repugnant but also bad business. Prohibiting the blind and others from reading commercially available e-books just means that authors and publishers won't get our money. The guild's position hurts both authors and people with print disabilities. In an age when how we get information is constantly and rapidly changing, it's important that people with disabilities have access to it in the same way that it is important for us to have access to physical structures, goods and services. Amazon took an important step in the right direction by including a read-aloud feature on the Kindle 2, but the Authors Guild is now trying to set us back. We are not going to allow them to stand in the doorway of the virtual bookstore to keep us out.

In preparation for WIPO's initiative on Exceptions & Limitations to Copyright, the US Copyright Office is currently soliciting comments on the topic of "facilitating access to copyrighted works for the blind or persons with other disabilities". Written comments are due next week (April 21st, 2009), and there will be a public meeting in Washington on May 18th. EFF will be sending our own submission, as will many other IP and disability groups. But if you've worked on software or hardware to overcome your own visual or other disabilities, or co-operated informally (perhaps in an open source project) to provide wider access to content for users with disabilities, or have dealt with a publisher regarding the accessibility of texts, we'd like to encourage you to send the copyright office your own stories - and cc: us at accessibility@eff.org.

The Coalition's mission statement says, "Sadly, the Authors Guild does not support equal access for us. The Guild has told us that to read their books with text-to-speech we must either submit to a special registration system (that not all may qualify for and that would expose disability information to all future eBook reader manufacturers) and prove our disabilities -- or pay extra." (...) The Guild issued a statement following the protests, explaining its position: "The Authors Guild will gladly be a forceful advocate for amending contracts to provide access to voice-output technology to everyone. We will not, however, surrender our members' economic rights to Amazon or anyone else. The leap to digital has been brutal for print media generally, and the economics of the transition from print to e-books do not look as promising as many assume. Authors can't afford to start this transition to digital by abandoning rights." If the guild is trying to gain sympathy, it will have a very difficult time when it pits "economic rights" against civil rights.

Tue, 08/04/2009 - 14:06 - marc The native format for Stanza is ePub, which is the Open eBook standard from the International Digital Publishing Forum (http://www.idpf.org/). ePub is supported in Stanza Desktop, iPhone, and iPod Touch, as well as in Adobe Digital Editions and the next generation of e-ink readers like the Sony Reader (PRS-505).

"An Amazon spokesman declined to comment on either issue." (Reading Rights protest about disabling TTS and people grumbling about books over $9.99)