Via: "Mahesh T. Pai"
ANIRBAN MAZUMDER said on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 07:50:59AM +0000,:
> Complete nonsense! What is this gibberish all about, Seth?
Seth is blabbering some strange and exotic thing called freedom. It is
freedom to use the chattels you own (becaue you paid for them) the way
you want to.
This is about my kid's right to repeat the experiment I once did with
an old transistor radio. I took it apart and reassembled it. I was
left two or three transistors and a working radio. (we still use it).
This is about everybody elses' freedom to do what I did with that
transistor radio with my computer, cellphone, audio player, television
and whatever.
This is about our freedom to access our data we store in our computers
(and every other electronic gadget) which we purchased by paying
(either before or after the fact) our hard earned money.
This is refusal to bond knowledge to some faceless corproate entity.
This is about Freedom to control our own lives; our own property, our
own information.
And though Freedom is such an useless, obsolete thing, people never
learn from history. Several wars have have been fought, several lives
have been laid down, for the sake of freedom. Even in India, one
hawkish bania named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (who would have been
better off if he had donned the turban and stuck to his family
business of money-lending instead of going off to Durban and doing
ending up doing arbitration) and hundereds of others before, and after
him laid down their life for it.
But alas!!! what use? Idiots like Seth keep on talking about freedom.
Some guys still actually fight for it. Seth?? Are you listening? Will
you please!!???
Freedom is a strange thing, is it not?
> ANIRBAN MAZUMDER
> LECTURER IN LAW
> NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES
> NUJS BHAVAN
> 12 LB BLOCK
> SALT LAKE CITY
> CALCUTTA - 700098
> INDIA
> PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O)
> 23357379 (O)
> 25216734 ( R)
> FAX -00- 91-33-23357422
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Seth Johnson
> >To: a2k@lists.essential.org,
> >e-commerce@lists.essential.org,upd-discuss@lists.essential.org,
> >commons-law@sarai.net
> >CC: russell@flora.ca
> >Subject: [Commons-Law] Russell McOrmond on Commodore 64 Freedom
> >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:55:37 -0500
> >
> >
> >(While I like the freedom to tinker line, I'm inclined to say his
> >lead message should be his point about the right to own a
> >computer. What's really on the line is the right to own a device
> >that performs logical operations, which is the same as to say
> >from a slightly different direction, the right to benefit from
> >copyright and use information productively. -- Seth)
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Re: [d@DCC] The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
> >hardware...
> >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:03:07 -0500 (EST)
> >From: Russell McOrmond
> >To: General Copyright Discussions
> >
> >
> >
> >Sending a letter in reply to an article from earlier this month:
> >http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41320
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:00:55 -0500
> >From: Russell McOrmond
> >To: sschick
> >Subject: Re: The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
> >hardware...
> >
> >
> > I am a fan of the Commodore 64. My Apple II clone, my Vic
> >20, and my Commodore 64 all had 65xx processors in them, and each
> >one came with full schematics of the hardware with the manuals.
> >One of my jobs in the late 80's and early 90's was as a certified
> >Commodore repair person for Eastern Ontario, a job where the
> >skills were self-taught.
> >
> > We are heading to a situation where the old-economy music
> >labels, movie studies, and proprietary software vendors are
> >colluding with hardware manufacturers and misinformed governments
> >to legalize and legally protect the concept of "no owner
> >modifiable parts inside". They want to take away our right to
> >tinker, even disallowing computer owners from making our own
> >software choices.
> >
> > How I learned computing, both hardware and software, is
> >increasingly being considered illegal.
> >
> > I believe that governments must firmly reject this attack on
> >property, creative, educational and other rights. We should be
> >going the other way by mandating that hardware manufacturers
> >provide adequate documentation to hardware owners so we can
> >author our own software to share if we wish. No exclusive right,
> >whether copyright or patents, should ever be allowed on
> >interfaces. The property rights of hardware owners should always
> >trump the extremism that has allowed hardware manufacturers to
> >treat their customers as a threat rather than the very people who
> >drive the future of computing.
> >
> > I sit here on Christmas day thinking of Christmas past where I
> >was given some of this hardware. I feel sad that children
> >approximately 20 years later will not be able to receive the same
> >level of gift that will benefit them in their future.
Via: "ANIRBAN MAZUMDER"
Complete nonsense! What is this gibberish all about, Seth?
ANIRBAN MAZUMDER
LECTURER IN LAW
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES
NUJS BHAVAN
12 LB BLOCK
SALT LAKE CITY
CALCUTTA - 700098
INDIA
PH -00- 91-33-23350534 (O)
23357379 (O)
25216734 ( R)
FAX -00- 91-33-23357422
>From: Seth Johnson
>To: a2k@lists.essential.org,
>e-commerce@lists.essential.org,upd-discuss@lists.essential.org,
>commons-law@sarai.net
>CC: russell@flora.ca
>Subject: [Commons-Law] Russell McOrmond on Commodore 64 Freedom
>Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:55:37 -0500
>
>
>(While I like the freedom to tinker line, I'm inclined to say his
>lead message should be his point about the right to own a
>computer. What's really on the line is the right to own a device
>that performs logical operations, which is the same as to say
>from a slightly different direction, the right to benefit from
>copyright and use information productively. -- Seth)
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [d@DCC] The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
>hardware...
>Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:03:07 -0500 (EST)
>From: Russell McOrmond
>To: General Copyright Discussions
>
>
>
>Sending a letter in reply to an article from earlier this month:
>http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41320
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:00:55 -0500
>From: Russell McOrmond
>To: sschick
>Subject: Re: The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
>hardware...
>
>
> I am a fan of the Commodore 64. My Apple II clone, my Vic
>20, and my Commodore 64 all had 65xx processors in them, and each
>one came with full schematics of the hardware with the manuals.
>One of my jobs in the late 80's and early 90's was as a certified
>Commodore repair person for Eastern Ontario, a job where the
>skills were self-taught.
>
> We are heading to a situation where the old-economy music
>labels, movie studies, and proprietary software vendors are
>colluding with hardware manufacturers and misinformed governments
>to legalize and legally protect the concept of "no owner
>modifiable parts inside". They want to take away our right to
>tinker, even disallowing computer owners from making our own
>software choices.
>
> How I learned computing, both hardware and software, is
>increasingly being considered illegal.
>
> I believe that governments must firmly reject this attack on
>property, creative, educational and other rights. We should be
>going the other way by mandating that hardware manufacturers
>provide adequate documentation to hardware owners so we can
>author our own software to share if we wish. No exclusive right,
>whether copyright or patents, should ever be allowed on
>interfaces. The property rights of hardware owners should always
>trump the extremism that has allowed hardware manufacturers to
>treat their customers as a threat rather than the very people who
>drive the future of computing.
>
> I sit here on Christmas day thinking of Christmas past where I
>was given some of this hardware. I feel sad that children
>approximately 20 years later will not be able to receive the same
>level of gift that will benefit them in their future.
>
>Russell McOrmond
>Ottawa, Canada
>http://flora.ca
>
>- --
> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant:
> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our
>property
> rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
> http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
>
> "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and
>hardware
> manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre,
>or
> portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
>http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>commons-law mailing list
>commons-law@sarai.net
>https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
Via: Seth Johnson
(While I like the freedom to tinker line, I'm inclined to say his
lead message should be his point about the right to own a
computer. What's really on the line is the right to own a device
that performs logical operations, which is the same as to say
from a slightly different direction, the right to benefit from
copyright and use information productively. -- Seth)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [d@DCC] The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
hardware...
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:03:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Russell McOrmond
To: General Copyright Discussions
Sending a letter in reply to an article from earlier this month:
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41320
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:00:55 -0500
From: Russell McOrmond
To: sschick
Subject: Re: The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
hardware...
I am a fan of the Commodore 64. My Apple II clone, my Vic
20, and my Commodore 64 all had 65xx processors in them, and each
one came with full schematics of the hardware with the manuals.
One of my jobs in the late 80's and early 90's was as a certified
Commodore repair person for Eastern Ontario, a job where the
skills were self-taught.
We are heading to a situation where the old-economy music
labels, movie studies, and proprietary software vendors are
colluding with hardware manufacturers and misinformed governments
to legalize and legally protect the concept of "no owner
modifiable parts inside". They want to take away our right to
tinker, even disallowing computer owners from making our own
software choices.
How I learned computing, both hardware and software, is
increasingly being considered illegal.
I believe that governments must firmly reject this attack on
property, creative, educational and other rights. We should be
going the other way by mandating that hardware manufacturers
provide adequate documentation to hardware owners so we can
author our own software to share if we wish. No exclusive right,
whether copyright or patents, should ever be allowed on
interfaces. The property rights of hardware owners should always
trump the extremism that has allowed hardware manufacturers to
treat their customers as a threat rather than the very people who
drive the future of computing.
I sit here on Christmas day thinking of Christmas past where I
was given some of this hardware. I feel sad that children
approximately 20 years later will not be able to receive the same
level of gift that will benefit them in their future.
Russell McOrmond
Ottawa, Canada
http://flora.ca
- --
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant:
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our
property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and
hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre,
or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
Via: Patrice Riemens
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:12:38PM +0530, Monica Narula wrote:
> Copyright Tool
> Will Scan Web
> For Violations
> By KEVIN J. DELANEY
> December 18, 2006; Page B1
(...)
The irony (?) is of course that when this 'tool' will be out in force the
posting of this very article will have become impossible/ unlawfull/
criminal since: (i) Dow Jones is a 'robust' defender of its IP (ii) I
doubt whether they'd consider the Commons-law list 'fair use' - and in the
new dispensation, it's for them to decide.
More on all this in two excellent recent posts on nettime :
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0612/msg00024.html
Joanne Richardson's "Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons"
and
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0612/msg00035.html
Rasmus Fleischer's "Navigating through the Crisis of Copyright"
Must reads - in my humble opinion.
cheerio and happy christmas & new year from patrizio and Diiiinooos!
Via: Monica Narula
Copyright Tool
Will Scan Web
For Violations
By KEVIN J. DELANEY
December 18, 2006; Page B1
jD46fkyB33ZgQiMfJcpSZ4LqgLA_20071218.html?mod=blogs>
To deal with the mounting copyright issues swirling around video and
other content online, a start-up founded by some respected Silicon
Valley executives is taking a novel approach: combing the entire Web for
unauthorized uses.
Privately held Attributor Corp. of Redwood City, Calif., has begun
testing a system to scan the billions of pages on the Web for clients'
audio, video, images and text -- potentially making it easier for owners
to request that Web sites take content down or provide payment for
its use.
The start-up, which was founded last year and has been in "stealth"
mode, is emerging into the public eye today, at a time when some media
and entertainment companies' frustration with difficulties identifying
infringing uses of their content online is increasing. The problem has
intensified with the proliferation and increasing usage of sites such as
Google Inc.'s YouTube, which lets consumers post video clips.
Media and entertainment companies have so far relied on a combination of
technology and their own scanning to protect their content online -- but
with mixed results. Media companies have used digital-rights management
technology designed to make it hard to copy or transfer files. But such
measures have often proved to be clumsy, despised by consumers or
quickly thwarted. That's the case for DRM technology built into DVDs to
prevent them from being ripped onto computers, for example.
Entertainment and media companies have also relied on their own staff to
scan Web sites for infringing content. But even when such content is
spotted and taken down, the companies often see the content pop up in
the same places or elsewhere soon after.
"We all know that as soon as somebody comes up with a way to secure a
piece of property, somebody else will come within days and crack it,"
says Lawrence Iser, a partner at law firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump &
Aldisert in Santa Monica, Calif., who represents musical artists and
other entertainment industry clients.
Though its service isn't out yet, Attributor appears to go further than
existing techniques for weeding out unauthorized uses of content online.
While companies are tackling parts of the same problem -- Indigo Stream
Technologies Ltd., based in Gibraltar, offers a free service called
Copyscape that analyzes a Web page and then uses Google's search engine
to see whether the text is duplicated elsewhere on the Web --
Attributor's approach is seemingly more comprehensive.
Its co-founders, former Yahoo Inc. executive Jim Brock, and Jim Pitkow,
a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has sold companies to Google and
VeriSign Inc., claim to have cracked the thorny computer-science problem
of scouring the entire Web by using undisclosed technology to
efficiently process and comb through chunks of content. The company says
it will have over 10 billion Web pages in its index before the end of
this month.
"If it works, it's a fantastic invention," Mr. Iser says.
It's unclear whether such a service will be welcomed by Internet
companies that allow users to post content. YouTube, News Corp.'s
MySpace and others already face copyright lawsuits. In some cases,
they're building systems to identify pirated materials consumers upload
to their sites, and say they're open to sharing revenue with content
owners.
Attributor plans to announce today that it has received about $10
million in funding to date from investors including Sigma Partners,
Selby Venture Partners, Draper Richards, First Round Capital and Amicus
Capital.
Attributor analyzes the content of clients, who could range from
individuals to big media companies, using a technique known as "digital
fingerprinting," which determines unique and identifying characteristics
of content. It uses these digital fingerprints to search its index of
the Web for the content. The company claims to be able to spot a
customer's content based on the appearance of as little as a few
sentences of text or a few seconds of audio or video. It will provide
customers with alerts and a dashboard of identified uses of their
content on the Web and the context in which it is used.
The content owners can then try to negotiate revenue from whoever is
using it or request that it be taken down. In some cases, they may
decide the content is being used fairly or to acceptable promotional
ends. Attributor plans to help automate the interaction between content
owners and those using their content on the Web, though it declines to
specify how.
Company executives believe its system will provide transparency and
accountability to encourage more owners to put their content online with
confidence they'll be able to police its use, and share in any profits.
"We believe that we can provide an infrastructure that will support all
kinds of outcomes and remedies, which will align the interests of
content owners, content hosts and search engines around legitimate
syndication and monetization," says Mr. Brock, Attributor's chief
executive.
"We see this as a way to take us out of the course we've been on, which
is more litigation," says Mr. Pitkow, who is chief technology officer.
Attributor has begun testing the system, and won't release it officially
until the first quarter of next year. The co-founders' track records,
however, lend credibility to their claims. As Yahoo's first outside
counsel, Mr. Brock tackled Internet copyright issues for the Internet
company as far back as 1994 and later oversaw some of its core
businesses as a senior vice president. Mr. Pitkow is a computer science
Ph.D. who worked at Xerox's legendary PARC research facility. In 2001,
he helped to sell the intellectual property of Outride Inc., where he
was president and chairman, to Google. Last year, he sold Moreover
Technologies, where he was CEO and chairman, to VeriSign.
"They're real guys who have solved hard-core problems," says Ali Aydar,
chief operating officer of Snocap Inc., a digital-music registry
start-up. Snocap and Attributor share a backer in Silicon Valley
investor Ron Conway. "Content owners I've talked to outside of the music
business would love a system which tells them where their content is
being utilized," Mr. Aydar adds.
Attributor executives decline to say how frequently they will update
their Web index, a key factor in their ability to stay on top of
postings. They also say they won't at least initially monitor
peer-to-peer file swapping systems, where large amounts of pirated
music, movies, TV shows and software are traded.
Write to Kevin J. Delaney at kevin.delaney@wsj.com
Via: "Hasit seth"
Srinivas,
I just read the abstract of your paper at SSRN. It says, "TRIPS
norms has eliminated many of the options including using process
patents without limits, which were earlier available to developing
nations".
I thought it was product patents that were disallowed in
countries like India. Process patents were available even before TRIPS
in Indian patent law. So there is no situation where process patents
were without limits. I have not read the full TRIPS, so you may want
to shed some light on this for me.
Regards,
Hasit
On 12/19/06, commons-law-request@sarai.net
wrote:
> Send commons-law mailing list submissions to
> commons-law@sarai.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> commons-law-request@sarai.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> commons-law-owner@sarai.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING NATIONS: Towards An
> Open Source Solution (ravi srinivas)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:24:34 +0530
> From: "ravi srinivas"
> Subject: [Commons-Law] TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING
> NATIONS: Towards An Open Source Solution
> To: commons-law@sarai.net
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> TRIPS, ACCESS TO MEDICINES AND DEVELOPING NATIONS: Towards An Open Source
> Solution
> published as a Working Paper (Working Paper No 248 , Indian Institute of
> Management, Bangalore)
> is available now.
> You can access the same at
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=952435
> Comments are welcomed.
>
> K.Ravi Srinivas
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20061219/f7112e2c/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> commons-law mailing list
> commons-law@sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
>
>
> End of commons-law Digest, Vol 41, Issue 10
> *******************************************
>
