Group items tagged

"Introduction California school districts and County Offices of Education-collectively, Local Educational Agencies ("LEAs")-collect a vast amount of data in providing educational and related services. This data may include pupil records, medical records, financial information, and more. With the advent of individualized learning management systems, LEAs are sharing such data with third-party vendors more than ever before. There has also been a corresponding, and sometimes competing, increase in compliance measures to protect student data. This guide is intended to provide an overview and streamline some of the key laws governing student data privacy. Please note that the laws referenced herein may not be exhaustive. This guide contains information only and is not intended to provide legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney- client relationship. LEAs are encouraged to contact their legal counsel or member organization for any questions or clarifications concerning the content contained herein. This guide is also available electronically at www.f3law.com . This guide may be updated periodically; such updates may be found in the electronic version"

linked in http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/10/21/lessons-learned-from-security-breaches.html

"10.3263 - Postulato La Svizzera ha bisogno di una legge contro lo scaricamento illegale di musica da Internet? Depositato da Savary Géraldine Data del deposito 19.03.2010 Depositato in Consiglio degli Stati Stato attuale Trasmesso Testo depositato Il Consiglio federale è incaricato di redigere un rapporto sulla situazione in fatto di scaricamento illegale di musica da Internet e di studiare le misure per ovviare a tale problema (...) Parere del Consiglio federale del 12.05.2010 Il 1° luglio 2008 è entrata in vigore una revisione parziale della legge sul diritto d'autore, con cui sono state apportate le modifiche legali necessarie in ambito digitale. A tale proposito il Parlamento ha discusso anche se permettere l'uso personale pure nei casi in cui l'opera in questione viene messa a disposizione su Internet senza il consenso del titolare del diritto. Dopo intensi dibattiti il Parlamento ha rinunciato a limitare i casi in cui è consentito l'uso personale. A suo avviso, una tale limitazione è sproporzionata, inconciliabile con la protezione della sfera privata e comporta una poco auspicata criminalizzazione di massa dei consumatori. Gli stessi timori depongono anche a sfavore dell'introduzione di una normativa legale analoga alla soluzione francese, che prevede di bloccare l'accesso a Internet ai privati in caso di violazioni ripetute. Tuttavia il titolare del diritto non è sprovvisto di protezione. In virtù del diritto d'autore ha la possibilità di procedere sia contro i fornitori sia contro i gestori di piattaforme di "file sharing". Una tale procedura va privilegiata anche per motivi di economia processuale. Appare infatti più opportuno procedere contro un gestore di piattaforma piuttosto che contro tutti gli utenti della piattaforma in questione. Eventualmente si potrebbe prevedere, d'intesa con i gestori di piattaforme, di concludere un accordo di licenza per il "file sharing" dei loro utenti. L'attuale legge sul diritto d'autore

"Why a supposed German breakthrough in e-book DRM is just as dumb as the old e-book DRM By Cory Doctorow | Jul 06, 2013 " > The idea that copyright owners might convince a judge, or, worse, a > jury that because they found a copy of an e-book on the Pirate Bay > originally sold to me they can then hold me responsible or civilly > liable is almost certainly wrong, as a matter of law. At the very > least, it's a long shot and a stupid legal bet. After all, it's not > illegal to lose your computer. It's not illegal to have it stolen > or hacked. It's not illegal to throw away your computer or your > hard drive. In many places, it's not illegal to give away your > e-books, or to loan them. In some places, it's not illegal to sell > your e-books. > > So at best, this new "breakthrough" DRM scheme will be ineffective. > But worse, what makes anyone think this kind of implicit fear of > reprisal embedded within one's digital library is acceptable, or, > for that matter, preferable to old-school DRM?

"Other resources: PDF of US Copyright Office circular "Works Made for Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act" Text of US copyright law "Chapter 2 - Copyright Ownership and Transfer" Article: "Working with freelancers: What every publisher should know about the "work for hire" doctrine." A short analysis of Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid the seminal U.S. case on the topic Music Law.com's page on work for hire Legal information site's page on "Works Made for Hire Under the Copyright Act" Video: Protecting Your Work: Understanding Publishing, Copyright, and "Work For Hire"" Law Review article: "Pre-existing Confusion in Copyright's Work-for-Hire Doctrine" The Writing for Children Resource Site article: "The Work-for-hire question" EFF article: "Film Schools Teach Wrong Copyright Lesson" Academy for Creative Media FAQ on the Student Copyright Agreement KeepYourCopyrights.org page on Work for Hire Wikipedia article on work for hire"

Soprattutto interessante per le risorse.

"While about two thirds of respondents to a 2011 survey had not applied to any state, now about two thirds have applied to, at least, one state. * More institutions are deciding not to apply in some states. Those most cited: MN (22.4%), MA (19.5%), AR (18.0%), MD (14.6%), and AL (14.1%). This will have an impact on student choice. * Institutions are averaging about half of an FTE dedicated to authorization compliance. We believe that most did not have such staff in 2011."

"Einwilligung in die Erhebung, Nutzung und Verarbeitung von Daten Der Schutz Ihrer Daten ist für die Betreiberin dieser App, die Cleverlize GmbH, Kaufingerstr. 15, 80331 München ("Cleverlize"), ein Anliegen mit allerhöchster Priorität. Wir erheben, verarbeiten und nutzen nur solche personenbezogenen Daten von Ihnen, die für die Erbringung der von Cleverlize angebotenen Leistungen notwendig sind oder zu deren Erhebung, Verarbeitung oder Nutzung Sie durch Bestätigung dieser Datenschutzerklärung unter Ziffer 3 unten einwilligen."

Molto chiaro e preciso - cfr la parte su Google Analytics e Google AdSense - però come per le condizioni di utilizzazione, solo in tedesco.

"Allgemeine Nutzungsbedingungen von Cleverlize Cleverlize GmbH, Kaufingerstr. 15, 80331 München ("Cleverlize") betreibt über die Internetseite http:/www.cleverlize.com eine Plattform ("Plattform"), über die Nutzer der Plattform ("Nutzer") verschiedene mobile Learning Inhalte ("Inhalte") erstellen können, die Cleverlize im Rahmen ihrer Learning Applikation ("App") den Endnutzern der App ("Endnutzer") zur Verfügung stellt. Der Nutzer kann wählen, ob die Inhalte von Cleverlize den Endnutzern kostenlos oder nur gegen eine Vergütung ("Premium Inhalte") zur Verfügung gestellt werden."

Condizioni di utilizzazione soltanto in tedesco mentre il resto del sito parla inglese. Mi gonfiano questi servizi che danno per scontato che la gente non le legga comunque...

"...Teachable moments As is often the case in awkward cases - where the system does not quite work as intended - a few things can be drawn from this episode. YouTube's Content ID system - http://youtube-global.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/improving-content-id.html - is, in fact, intended to act as a buffer between the sometimes conflicting interests of content holders and uploaders: rather than forcing content holders to either ignore infringing content or go straight to a DMCA takedown notice. YouTube compares content that is uploaded to huge numbers of files of copyright works supplied by content owners, as do external agencies contracted to content owners. Content owners are able to set their own parameters, and determine what action YouTube should take - whether that is allowing, monetizing or blocking the content. One problem with this setup is that mechanical systems, while necessary to sort the vast amount of content being uploaded to YouTube and other video sharing sites every moment, are short on nuance. One can make assumptions and built rules based on quantifiable properties - if there are five minutes of rightsholder-owned content scattered across a 30 minute video, for example, that content is more likely to be being used for illustrative purposes in a review than uploaded in an infringing fashion - but ideas like fair use are generally decided by humans, and can only be approximated by mechanical systems. So, the rights holder, the agency pursuing monetization on the rights holder's behalf, the uploader and YouTube have connected but not identical interests. This may go some way to explaining the lacunae which took this example from a formality to a three-month epic. And, in this particular case, there are unusual elements - for example, the double claims, for first audiovisual and then visual content. The system is not intended to enable this kind of double jeopardy

Daniel Nye Griffiths descrive un caso reale di disputa sul copyright nel caso di un remix video pubblicato su YouTube. Da lì, spiega come funziona il sistema YouTube che individua possibili violazioni di copyright ma consente anche di contestare tali individuazioni. Ci sono anche link alle fonti dirette. Cosa buffa: il caso reale riguarda il copyright di una serie TV intitolata "The Twilight Zone", l'area crepuscolare tra giorno e notte. Sono capitata su questo articolo cercando di capire se un episodio del 1960 di questa serie era ancora sotto copyright oppure era caduto nel pubblico dominio. Prima avevo provato con lo strumento Digital Copyright Slider dell'associazione delle biblioteche US - http://librarycopyright.net/resources/digitalslider/ - che aveva cautamente risposto "Forse", con una nota che spiegava che dipendeva se il copyright originale era stato rinnovato, e link a lunghi e complessi documenti su come fare per scoprirlo... quindi sono tuttora nella "Twilight Zone" in merito.

"The US Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division is doing everything that it can to make the web and information technology (IT) more accessible to people with disabilities. One of the most effective ways to achieve this goal is by following up on complaints submitted by citizens who feel their rights to use the internet are being denied by an organization's inaccessible technology. A landscape portrait featuring Berkeley's Campanile tower in the foreground and a rainy San Francisco Bay in the background That's exactly what happened when, in October 2014, the DOJ began investigating the free, public MOOC (Massive open online course) system offered by University of California, Berkeley when deaf and hard of hearing individuals complained they could not access the audio and video content on the site. On August 30, 2016, the DOJ submitted a 10-page letter to the administration at UC Berkeley stating that they had found the university's MOOC content to be in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which protects disabled people from discrimination. Legal Context: How Are MOOCs Subject to Accessibility Laws? The laws surrounding free online course content accessibility are not explicit."

L'articolo descrive il contesto e gli aspetti giuridici del confronto sull'accessibilità tra Dipartimento della Giustizia US e l'Università di Berkeley.