Via: "namita@altlawforum.org"
Tijuana bibles were 'cheerfully pornographic and downright illegal' 8 page
cheap comic books that borrowed from comic characters like Minnie Mouse,
Donald Duck, movie stars like Greta Garbo, Mae West, political figures like
Gandhi, Stalin.
"The essential magic of comics is that a few simple words and marks can
conjure up an entire world for a reader to enter and believe in.
Presumably, this is true of erotic comics as well; how else can one explain
the willingness to spend hard Depression-era currency to be aroused by a
very primitively drawn Donald Duck schtupping an ineptly drawn Minnie
Mouse? It's precisely this miraculous ability to suspend disbelief and
temporarily blur Image and Reality that arouses the ire of those
puritanical censors of the Left and Right who can confuse depictions of
rape with actual rape. It's a profound confusion of categories as well as a
scrambling of symptom and cause."
Art Spiegelman(Maus) on the Tijuana Bibles. The rest of the article is
available at
http://www.salon.com/aug97/spieg970819.html
...and for the absolute delicious destruction of teenage innocence(??)and
soda pops in archie comics (and the answer as to what ponytailed betty is
doing wrong) here's the tijuana bible with archie and veronica.
http://tijuanabibles.org/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?action=detail&item=TB030
Via: "prabhu ram"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/business/worldbusiness/30frogs.html?pagewanted=print
Poisonous Tree Frog Could Bring Wealth to Tribe in Brazilian Amazon
By PAULO PRADA
CAMPINAS INDIAN RESERVE, Brazil — Fernando Katukina is chief of an
indigenous tribe that lives largely without running water,
electricity, or links to the world outside this remote corner of the
western Amazon.
But Chief Fernando says he possesses a treasure that could be at the
cutting-edge of biotechnology. If a plan initiated by the chief is
successful, his tribe's fortunes will be transformed by an asset he
and the Brazilian government believe holds great promise for the
global pharmaceutical industry: the slime from a poisonous tree frog.
Tribal shamans have used the slime as an ancestral remedy to treat
illness, pain, even laziness. The crucial ingredients are compounds
with anesthetic, tranquilizing and other medicinal properties.
Scientists say the promise lies in isolating peptides from the frog's
slime and then reproducing them for medicines to treat hypertension,
strokes and other illnesses
Already, Chief Fernando has the full backing of Brazil's government,
which sees the frog slime as a stepping stone to significantly advance
its own research and development in pharmaceuticals. In particular,
the scientific challenge of the frog, known locally as the kambô, will
deepen Brazil's expertise in pharmacogenomics — the combined use of
genetics and pharmacology — and it takes advantage of the traditional
knowledge of indigenous people.
"Traditional knowledge can help modern medicine and generate
significant economic benefits, too," said Bruno Filizola, technical
coordinator of the project and a biologist at the environment ministry
in Brasília, Brazil's capital.
The indigenous dimension is also crucial because Brazil, like other
developing nations, is trying to fight back against what it perceives
as biopiracy, the theft of biological resources from the country's
native habitats for commercial use. Though the project is still in its
early stages, and many starts often prove false, teams of some 20
scientists are seeking initial financing of close to $1 million from
more than a dozen local universities, state governments and federal
agencies.
There is also a great deal more than naïve hope at stake here.
Brazilian scientists have already taught the country's farmers, who
today are among the world's top exporters, to manipulate soils and
alter crops once unsuited for the country's climate. Now many
researchers believe science can turn Brazilian forests into working,
productive laboratories.
"Brazil has a large, growing and capable community of scientists keen
to develop their own research and products," said Joshua Rosenthal,
deputy director of a division for international training and research
at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.
Moreover, Brazilian researchers have not forgotten the case of the
jararaca, the Amazonian viper. The pharmaceutical giant Squibb used
the snake's venom to develop captopril, a blood pressure medicine it
began selling in 1975. Though available generically since 1996, the
medicine at its commercial peak was the largest selling product for
the company, now part of New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb, grossing
$1.6 billion in 1991.
"Because of past errors," reads a document from the Brazilian
Environment Ministry, "captopril is not Brazilian."
Though home to the world's largest rainforest and one of the most
biodiverse ecosystems on the planet, Brazil traditionally has been
slow to develop its so-called genetic patrimony — the plants and
animals within its territory and the potential they offer for profit.
The Ministry document also laments Brazil's historical research lag
and the consequent loss of billions in potential revenues from
pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, and other commercial goods.
An overview for the effort known as Project Kambô, written by a team
of researchers at the Environment Ministry, says, "The national
genetic patrimony could be the key to Brazil's transformation in the
global political and socio-economic context."
The effort comes as developing countries increasingly promote the idea
of developing and commercializing their traditional medicines and
local arts. And they are questioning the rights of foreigners to
exploit their locally derived products. At a United Nations gathering
in the southern Brazilian city of Curitiba last month, delegates from
developing nations called for changes to international law that would
allow governments to block — or at least share profits from — foreign
patents on biological resources found in their territory.
In December, at a World Trade Organization meeting in Hong Kong,
India's trade minister told delegates that progress in global trade
talks hinged on similar changes.
Private industry is wary. The road from research to finished product
is long and costly. Rare is the compound, companies argue, that in
unadulterated form would become the next wonder drug or other
commercial bonanza.
"Developing nations should take a lead by working to develop their own
resources — not blocking the efforts of others to research and
invest," said Alan Oxley, a former Australian trade ambassador who is
now a consultant in Melbourne and runs a research institute funded in
part by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.
Brazil aims to take a lead through the kambô. The project was launched
last year after Marina Silva, Brazil's environment minister, received
a letter from Fernando, the Katukina chief, denouncing the growing use
of kambô poison by outsiders. Its perceived benefits in recent years
fueled a pirate trade in the poison in cities across Brazil.
The poison could be dangerous if administered wrongly, Chief Fernando
warned. And its use, the letter added, is nothing less than biopiracy;
if economic gain is generated by the remedy, the Katukina tribe should
get a cut.
Ms. Silva, a native of the tribe's home state of Acre, agreed. She
authorized a ministry project to study the kambô, stipulating that any
profits derived from the research be shared with the Katukina.
"The know-how is the tribe's," she said in a recent telephone
interview. "They must share in any rewards."
Scientists have studied the kambô before. Called the giant monkey frog
in English, because it climbs high into the rainforest canopy, the
kambô first sparked attention among foreign researchers decades ago.
Some of the compounds from the poison, secreted through the frog's
skin, have even been patented abroad.
Yet because scientists are still struggling to understand the poison,
none of those patents have led to successful products. "These
compounds have potent effects on human physiology," said Paul Bishop,
a biochemist at ZymoGenetics, a Seattle-based pharmaceutical company,
and the author of five patents based on kambô poison. "But we don't
fully understand them all or just why they occur in the defenses of
this tree frog."
That is where Brazil hopes to excel. While biologists and chemists
investigate the kambô, its habitat and the poison's makeup, a team of
anthropologists and physicians will study the long-term impact of its
use on the Katukina.
One morning in mid-March, two scientists from the Federal University
of Acre visited the tribe's reserve, a 125-square mile section of
jungle near the Peruvian border. There, amid one of five clusters of
wooden cabins, two shamans agreed to administer the kambô remedy,
known in Portuguese as the "vacina do sapo," or "frog vaccine."
Reginaldo Machado, a biologist, stood shirtless and sweating next to
an older shaman, who touched the red-hot end of a burning twig three
times to the scientist's shoulder. The other shaman, another twig in
hand, then daubed the sticky, mud-like poison on each of the tiny
burns.
Mr. Machado, already in pain from a flare-up of chronic kidney stones,
within seconds sprang from the wooden shack, suffering hot flashes,
nausea, and stomach aches. Ten minutes later, he returned, expressing
surprise.
"I actually do feel stronger," he said. "There's more to this than myth."
Though western dress long ago replaced the grass skirts traditionally
worn by tribal people, the frog remedy is one of a handful of customs
the Katukina preserve.
After catching the frog in nearby trees, tribe members tie it
spread-eagle style between two posts, collecting slime from its back
and sides with a piece of wood, where it dries. They then release the
frog and later, with water or saliva, re-hydrate the dried poison
before applying it.
Despite the term "vaccine," the slime does not vaccinate against any
specific germ or illness.
Once the body processes the poison's toxins — hence Mr. Machado's
sweats and indigestion — its compounds induce what users say is a
prolonged sense of alertness and wellbeing. Because they believe it
heightens their senses, Katukina hunters traditionally use it most:
Long rows of burn scars dot their arms, chests and stomachs.
Most Katukina speak only the tribal variant of pano, a native
Amazonian language group. Fernando, one of only two tribe members to
work outside the reserve, is convinced of the kambô's value, and
adamant that the medication, if used by others, can improve a tribal
economy that is currently at the level of subsistence.
"The vaccine belongs to us," he said. "Science might help us develop
it, but kambô knowledge is Katukina."
Via: "Vinay Aravind"
Some good news!
Originally available at:
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=6241
EU backtracks on patent law
Programs aren't patentable
Matthew Broersma
The EC (European Commission) this week appeared to take a step back from
its earlier position on the patentability of software, stating that
computer programs are not patentable, and that patents on them may be
struck down by the courts.
The statement, available on the European Parliament's website, made in
response to a formal question from a Polish MEP, is a shift from the
stance the EC has taken in recent years, according to some critics of
software patents, particularly during its attempts to pass a directive
liberalising what could be patented. That directive was eventually thrown
out by the European Parliament, after failed attempts to alter its thrust.
Campaigners against the proposed directive feared it would bring general
EU (European Union) patenting practice into line with the EPO (European
Patent Office), which has granted numerous US-style patents on software
and business practices such as Amazon.com's 'One-Click' mechanism. More
recently, those against software patents feared that a proposed 'Community
Patent' would also be governed by EPO practice.
The EC said the EPO would continue to handle the granting of patents, but
said the Community Patent wouldn't make these any more enforceable than
they already are, because the post-grant phase of patents would fall under
Community Patent regulation, subject to the interpretation of the ECJ
(European Court of Justice).
"The ECJ is not bound by the case law developed by the EPO and is free in
its interpretation of the provisions of the EPC, once it becomes part of
the Community acquis [the existing body of EU law]," the EC said in a
statement.
The EC pointed out that this specifically meant patents for computer
programs could be invalidated by the ECJ.
"Patents granted for a subject matter (such as computer programs), which
is excluded from patentability pursuant to Article 52 EPC [European Patent
Convention], may be invalidated in a relevant court proceeding," the EC
stated.
The FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure), which
campaigns against software patents in Europe, saw the statement as a sign
that the EC is changing its stance. "It is good to see that the EC no
longer presents EPO case law as the status quo which must be codified,"
said FFII president Pieter Hintjens, in a statement.
Via: Seth Johnson
Innovation on the Internet is based on individuals being able to
develop new ways to use communications.
It is not that like "types" of "content, services or
applications" must be treated equally -- it is rather that
anybody can create a new convention. Any group of at least two
people can decide on a particular interpretation they wish to
apply to a particular arrangement of digits, and mutually agree
to apply these rules on both ends of their Internet connections.
It's the flexibility of the transport, not the equality of
"types" of stuff being transported, that makes this possible.
HR 5417 mandates equal treatment of similar "types" of "content,
services and applications." This formulation will do nothing
other than authorize the end of net neutrality.
The thing that assures everyone that nothing in the application
layer will gain priority is the fact that every router in the
transport layer, breaks every transmission up in a manner that is
completely independent of the conventions that are applied above
the transport layer. This makes the Internet generic and
adaptible to any design or circumstance, while it also functions
as the very basis of the Internet's reliability.
This adaptibility and flexibility, this independence from any
particular design placed on top of the transport, is the essence
of net neutrality. This design is what assures the equal ability
of everyone to speak freely in whatever manner serves each person
or group's needs.
While networks can be set up with dedicated pathways to carry
whatever sort of protocol (application) one might choose to
devise, the fact that the Internet breaks all transmissions up
into packets, regardless of the structure of the protocol at the
application layer, and then routes these packets independently
through whatever routers are most suitable at any given moment,
not only makes the Internet generic and flexible, but it also
assures that nothing on the application layer controls the
Internet transport.
This gives everyone with an Internet connection the same
opportunity to freely develop new modes of communication.
Whenever we interact with anyone else, on the net or off, we
establish special rules that enable us to interact, understand
each other, exchange information, and work together, and we can
adapt these conventions and create new ones respond to or suit
any given circumstance or eventuality. Defining net neutrality
in terms "equal treatment" of similar "types" of "content,
services or applications" will only authorize those who seek to
be able to determine the fate of the public's right-of-way, to
end this flexibility.
Seth
Via: Lawrence Liang
Hi All
An interesting paper that critiques the limits of a private ordering system
in the facilitation of the commons
lawrence
Niva Elkin-Koren, "What Contracts Can't Do: The Limits of Private Ordering
in Facilitating a Creative Commons" . Fordham Law Review, Vol. 74, 2005
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=760906
Abstract:
Creative Commons is a non-profit U.S. based organization that operates a
licensing platform to promote free use of creative works. The idea is to
facilitate the release of creative works under generous license terms that
would make works available for sharing and reuse. Creative Commons advocates
the use of copyrights in a rather subversive way that would ultimately
change their meaning.
The paper expresses a skeptical view of this worthy pursuit. While I share
Creative Commons' concern with copyright fundamentalism, which inevitably
leads to the propertization of everything of value, I am more skeptical of
its strategy. The paper explores the legal strategy of Creative Commons and
analyzes its potential for enhancing the sharing, distribution and (re)use
of creative works.
Creative Commons as a social movement creates a platform for a wide range of
ideologies that share an interest in enhancing access to works. This turns
out to be a great advantage for a social movement that is seeking to gain a
wider public support. Creative Commons' legal strategy reflects the lowest
common denominator: empowering owners to govern their creative works. At the
same time, however, Creative Commons lacks a comprehensive vision of the
information society and a shared definition of the prerequisites for open
access to creative works. The end result is ideological fuzziness.
The paper examines the strategic choice of Creative Commons to rely on
property rights in its effort to subvert the meaning of copyright. The
analysis shows that reliance on property rights, in the absence of a shared
sense of free access, may simply strengthen the proprietary regime in
creative works. It may reinforce the property discourse as a conceptual
framework and as a regulatory scheme for governing the use of information.
The fuzziness of ideology may further lead to the proliferation of
contracts. Creative Commons' strategy presupposes that minimizing external
information costs is critical for enhancing access to creative works. The
lack of standardization increases, however, the cost of accessing creative
works, and may further enhance the chilling effect of copyright law.
The paper argues that creating an alternative to copyright may require
standardization. To become successful, Creative Commons would have to trade
the sovereignty of owners for the reduction of transaction cost that would
enhance access to creative works.
Via: Seth Johnson
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Fsfe-ie] Elephants Dream - an animated movie made with
FreeSoftware
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 11:36:23 +0100
From: David
To: fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org
Hi,
I notice this was mentioned on the ILUG mailing list as well, but
in case people haven't heard about it already, I thought it would
be worth mentioning here.
The Elephant's Dream is a short, animated movie made with Free
Software ( primarily Blender => http://www.blender.org/ ), which
is being released under the Creative Commons Attribution License
( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ ). It was made over
a period of about six months by the Orange Open Movie team, the
members of which gathered in a studio in Amsterdam for the
duration of the production.
Excluding the credits it's only about nine minutes long, but I
think it's very impressive. The soundtrack is nice too. Downloads
and torrents of different sizes are available at the link below.
Link: http://www.elephantsdream.org/
Via: Seth Johnson
> http://www.shanghaidaily.com/art/2006/05/27/279534/IPR_protection_hot_potato_not_black_and_white.htm
IPR protection hot potato not black and white
Mei Xinyu
2006-05-27
Intellectual property right (IPR) protection is becoming an
increasingly important concern in the business disputes between
the United States and China.
Admittedly, proper IPR protection is reasonable and advantageous
in some ways. But in some aspects, the US is going to extremes.
It is worth considering if the IPR system is helpful to promote
the economic development and technological innovation at all.
A great deal of research shows that a too strict IPR system may
not encourage innovation, for the ultimate driving power of
innovation actually comes from competition.
In essence, strict IPR protection is a kind of monopoly, which
effectively ensures rewards for innovators but also enables them
to rely on monopoly rather than on further innovations for their
high profits.
Therefore, the more forceful the protection of innovation, the
higher the monopolistic profits, and thus the weaker the driving
power for further innovation.
It is obvious that too strict IPR protection also worsens the
conditions for innovation by forcing innovators to concentrate
more on avoiding violating others' rights than on innovation.
In the past, the US granted patents to each newly developed piece
of software. But nowadays, the US grants a patent to almost each
code used in certain software.
Although this appears to be beneficial to the protection of
innovators' rights, it is in fact discouraging technological
innovation on the whole.
Now anyone who wants to develop new software has to consider if
each code he or she uses is violating others' patents.
For this reason, many American enterprises have begun to seek
development out of the country as they can no longer stand the
continuous patent disputes there.
In addition, certain requirements by the US concerning IPR in
China contradict with some other requirements.
For example, China is making great efforts to promote authorized
software in all enterprises as is required by the US. However,
such requirements violate China's commitment to the entry of WTO,
which was made according to the requirements of Western countries
including the US and European countries.
Not to mention the fact that the Chinese government has no right
to require non state-owned enterprises to use authorized
software.
Even in the case of state-owned enterprises, according to Article
46 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China
(into WTO), the Government of China would not influence
commercial decisions on the part of state-owned or state-invested
enterprises.
Last but not least, the complaint of certain Americans that China
is not punishing IPR violation acts enough is groundless. In
China, the punishment on certain IPR violation acts is much more
severe than that of the US.
(The author is a senior researcher at the Ministry of Commerce.
The views are his own. He can be reached at www.meixinyu.com)
