ACTA Threatens Your Freedom

ACTA was written secretly by governments together with business; in effect, a conspiracy to restrict the people for business' sake. There were leaks, and public condemnation removed some proposed nasty provisions, but plenty more remain.
The proponents of ACTA use the term "intellectual property", which is meant to discourage clear thinking. That term refers to ten or more unrelated laws, which at the practical level have nothing in common. The term focuses on an irrelevant abstract similarity, and distracts attention from the real issues raised by one law or another.
A few of those laws have one point in common: megacorps want to change them to gain more power over future competition or the public, and ACTA is their latest try. ACTA has different rules for each law. The term "intellectual property" misrepresents the facts about ACTA.
ACTA's main effect in Europe would be on copyright law. ACTA gives copyright priority over human rights. It gives priority to copyright holders over the users of copyrighted works.
When the copyright lobby demands increased power to stop sharing, it bases the argument on exaggerated, unlikely claims of what they "lose" when people share. ACTA legitimizes these absurd claims, even in court, so you could be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of euros of imaginary "damages" for a little bit of file-sharing.
ACTA says governments can ask ISPs for "cooperation", which can include surveillance, filtering, deletion of pages, even punishment of users without a fair trial. Meanwhile, ISPs, hosting sites and search engines could be prosecuted if they do not censor.
Many aspects of ACTA are vague. For instance, it says governments must attack “means of widespread distribution for infringing purposes”. Will this ban blogging platforms? Bittorrent? File locker sites? Who knows?
Some aspects of ACTA are dishonest -- blackwhiting, to use Orwell's term (see 1984). For instance, it imposes criminal punishment on noncommercial copying by tying it to the word "commercial". Specifically, it says copying is "commercial scale" if it provides "direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage". What counts as "indirect economic advantage"? Arguably the benefit of not buying a second copy of something is enough to make noncommercial copying a crime.
Given ill will shown when governments negotiated ACTA, we must judge it by the worst possible interpretation. ACTA can be interpreted to make it a crime to share copies with your friends. Will the copyright lobby go to court and argue for this interpretation? Surely. Will it win? Don't give it the chance!
Some politicians say that ACTA is not something to fear, but they can't know what ACTA will morph into. One of the disasters of ACTA is that it can be altered later by agreement among the countries involved. In effect, these governments will together have the power to bypass their parliaments. To ratify ACTA is to give carte blanche to a rigged process.
The Internet needs some rules, but who should decide them? Traffic rules for cars should be decided democratically by the people, not written secretly by railroads. The Internet rules should be decided democratically by the people, with human rights as the first priority, and the people must reserve the right to relax rules if they prove too strict. That means, the rules must not come from ACTA! What should these rules be?
Copyright companies have too much power already; they have made copyright too strict. They are not satisfied and seek more power through ACTA, but that would be a change in the wrong direction. Their laws cause problems for us, and it is our turn now to be considered. Our governments must reduce copyright power: shorten copyright to 10 years, legalize noncommercial redistribution of exact copies (sharing), ban Digital Restrictions Management (the malicious features that turn digital devices into handcuffs), and ban EULAs on published digital works. Then we could consider small concessions to the copyright companies.
_________________________________

Copyright 2012 Richard Stallman -- Released under the CC-BY-ND 3.0 license;
first published in Poland, by Tygodnik Powszechny (taken from http://stallman.org/articles/acta-freedom.html)

Interoperability And Open Standards: The Key To True Openness And Innovation

Interoperability And Open Standards: The Key To True Openness And Innovation is a peer-reviewed article by Simone Aliprandi published on International FOSS Law Review (Vol 3, No 1, 2011). It represents one of the most complete and clear introduction to the complex phenomenon of standards setting and to the open side of it.

Abstract
Most people agree that providing a shared set of standards produces a broad advantage for all actors involved in the ICT market. First of all, it’s an advantage for active operators in that market (companies, developers, designers), but also for users of computer technologies, simple observers and scholars as well.

However, if on one hand the same concept of standard appears to be quite intuitive and broadly known, on the other hand not so many people are aware of the complex dynamics behind the standard definition process, particularly in relation to today’s globalized and technology-savvy world. Even fewer people seem aware that, when a standard definition process is not being carried with true transparency and care, this procedure could even become counterproductive for the innovation itself. Therefore, in recent years, a new approach for the standard definition process has been emerging, with the aim of producing standards based on the broadest level of openness and interoperability: the so-called open standards.

This essay will start by addressing the broad concept of standards, with specific reference to the world of technology; later, it will focus on the drafting process of standards, highlighting major problems regarding its legal, economic and technology aspects. The final section will concentrate on the very concept of an open standard.

Table of content

1. The crucial role of interoperability

2. The “standard” concept

3. Differences between de jure and de facto standards

4. The standardization process

   4.1. Major principles of the standard-setting activity

   4.2. The stages of a standard-setting process 

   4.3. Standard publication and usage

5. The ICT sector: between de facto standards and network externalities

6. Major issues facing the standardization process

   6.1. Standard and technology innovation

   6.2. Regulatory activities and intellectual property management 

   6.3. Standardization and competition issues

7. Open standards
   7.1. The Open Standard definition by Bruce Perens

   7.2. The Open Standard definition by the ITU-T

   7.3. The Open Standard definition by the IDABC

8. Classification criteria of Open Standards

9. The web as an interoperable technology and the role of the W3C 

10. The OASIS approach to the standardization activity

Conclusion

READ THE ARTICLE

Applying the open source paradigm to seeds

Dr. Vandana Shiva explains the importance of keeping seeds away from a proprietary intellectual property model.

Legal background
While saving seed and even exchanging seed with other farmers for biodiversity purposes has been a traditional practice, these practices have become illegal for the plant varieties that are patented or otherwise owned by some entity (often a corporation). Under Article 28 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), "planting, harvesting, saving, re-planting, and exchanging seeds of patented plants, or of plants containing patented cells and genes, constitutes use" and is prohibited by the intellectual property laws of signatory states.
Significantly, farmers in developing countries are particularly affected by prohibitions on seed saving. There are some protections for re-use, called "farmer's privilege", in the 1991 International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention), but seed exchange remains prohibited.
In the United States, by contrast, the farmer's privilege is considered protected by the Plant Variety Protection Act and by case law stemming from Asgrow Seed v. Winterboer. American farmers may sell seed up to the amount saved for replanting their own acreage.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty established that companies may obtain patents for life-forms. J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer established that seed saving is a patent violation.[1]

See also:
- No patents on seeds: www.no-patents-on-seeds.org
- Seed freedom: http://seedfreedom.in/
- Semi liberi come software libero (Italian article): http://www.apogeonline.com/webzine/2013/05/13/semi-liberi-come-software-libero

[1] the "Legal background" paragraph is taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#Legality

Wired removed the CC license from the Italian website. Why?

Wired is one of my favourite magazines. I've been a subscriber since it arrived in Italy (actually very late, only in 2009).
The leadership of the Italian magazine since the beginning favored an innovative approach to the copyright issues. In 2010 Riccardo Luna (managing director for the first two years) also published a press release expressly in favor of this choice.
The outcome was that the print edition still was published under an "all rights reserved" copyright, but the website (with the entire blog section) went under a Creative Commons license ("some rights reserved").
In recent weeks, a substantial restyling of the website was completed and suddenly the link to the Creative Commons license has disappeared.
By clicking on the "terms of use" page, we discover that it is only a marginal reference to the CC, referred only to the contents uploaded by users (basically only the comments to the articles). Users who upload content, therefore, must agree to release them with a BY-ND 2.5 license (not clear why a 2.5 version and not a 4.0).
That is not all. In fact, within the terms of use appears a statement that seems to be in conflict with the guidelines on the use of CC licenses.
Come on, Wired! Why are you doing so? You have always been a good example (I remember your wonderful open content music CD). But now...
______________________

Read more on the Italian (and extended) version of the post

The creation of the first-ever Open Contracting Data Standard

The creation of the first-ever “Open Contracting Data Standard” has been announced today. The development of a common standard for the disclosure of contracting data is a key pillar of the work of the Open Contracting Partnership (OCP)to promote disclosure and participation in public contracting - empowering citizens around the world to hold their governments to account for the estimated US $9.5 trillion they spend each year through contracts.

The development of the Open Contracting Data Standard will come as a result of the collaboration of the Open Contracting Partnership and the World Wide Web Foundation (Web Foundation), supported by a grant from Omidyar Network. The Web Foundation will spearhead the technical work and will deliver the Open Contracting Data Standard v1.0 by the end of 2014. The Open Contracting Data Standard will be essential to advancing the OCP’s objective of achieving a new norm in which all public contracting is open.

This standard will be developed via an extensive process of research, consultation, development, testing, feedback and refinement - including with non-government actors and across multiple sectors and countries. The project will build upon work already undertaken by the OCP and others in this area, and will focus on both the supply of, and demand for, open contracting data. Clear use cases will be included, and - recognising diversity across sectors - adaptations of the master standard tailored to sector-specific needs will also be delivered.

The collaborative development and roll-out of an Open Contracting Data Standard that cuts across silos and allows for comparisons and analysis across countries, industry sectors and regions is essential. Contracting is at the core of how governments generate revenues and spend public resources, yet contracting information is often unavailable for public scrutiny, and is rarely in an ‘Open Data’ format. Ultimately, the development of this standard will help to ensure that investment deals are aligned with the public interest, that public resources are managed effectively and that citizens receive the services and goods they deserve, so that development benefits all.

Anne Jellema, Chief Executive Officer of the World Wide Web Foundation, said: “Open Contracting has the potential to enhance transparency and improve the lives of billions around the world. Yet, in order to realise its benefits, we must have a common standard to plan, manage and measure initiatives. We’re delighted to be working alongside the Open Contracting Partnership on this important initiative and grateful to Omidyar Network for their support.” 

Robert Hunja, manager of the World Bank Institute’s Open Government Practice, speaking on behalf of the Open Contracting Partnership, added: “The Open Contracting Data Standard is a crucial step to ensuring that public contracting is truly public and that citizens can be active participants in the contracting processes that impact their lives and the lives of those in their communities. The Open Contracting Partnership is delighted to continue its history of collaboration, by working with the Web Foundation and Omidyar Network to advance the efforts to establish a new norm in which all contracting is open.”

"The contribution of this effort to the Open Government movement will be significant,” said Omidyar Network Policy Director Martin Tisné. “Omidyar Network is proud to support the Open Contracting Partnership and its role in enhancing transparency and accountability around the globe."

Contacts:                 

Felipe Estefan, Open Contracting Partnership - partnership@open-contracting.comGabe Trodd/Dillon Mann, World Wide Web Foundation - press@webfoundation.orgGreg Pershall, Omidyar Network - gpershall@omidyar.com

1) Established by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the World Wide Web Foundation (webfoundation.org) seeks to establish the open Web as a global public good and a basic right, creating a world where everyone, everywhere can use the Web to communicate, collaborate and innovate freely. This is the latest in a series of initiatives in the Open Data arena for the World Wide Web Foundation. In October, at the Open Government Partnership, the World Wide Web Foundation launched the Open Data Barometer alongside the Open Data Institute. This 77-country study considers the interlinked areas of Open Data policy, implementation and impact to produce a country ranking. The World Wide Web Foundation is also currently conducting the world’s first large-scale study into Open Data in Developing Countries. The Web Foundation has undertaken country readiness studies in Chile, Ghana and Indonesia, and is currently conducting a feasibility study into the establishment of an Open Data Lab in Indonesia.

2) This project is being supported by a grant from Omidyar Network (http://www.omidyar.com). Omidyar Network is a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to harnessing the power of markets to create opportunity for people to improve their lives. Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, the organization invests in and helps scale innovative organizations to catalyze economic and social change. Omidyar Network has committed more than $669 million to for-profit companies and non-profit organizations that foster economic advancement and encourage individual participation across multiple initiatives, including entrepreneurship, financial inclusion, property rights, government transparency, consumer Internet and mobile.

3) The Open Contracting Partnership (http://www.open-contracting.org), founded in 2012, is a global col­laborative effort seeking to enhance and promote disclosure and participation in public contracting. The Open Contracting Partnership seeks to convene leaders and innovators to collaborate around the realization of its vision of making openness in contract processes the new norm. The steering group currently leading the Open Contracting Partnership is composed of the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative (CoST), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Integrity Action, the government of Colombia, the Philippines Government Procurement Policy Board – Technical Support Office (GPPB-TSO), Oxfam America, Transparency International and the World Bank Institute, where the Partnership’s secretariat is currently hosted. 

______________________________

Originally posted here by Felipe Estefan on 21 January 2014, under a CC by license.