Discussion

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

1 participants
3272 discussions

PK Testimony on Broadcast Flag
by Seth Johnson 04 Nov '05

04 Nov '05

> http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/testimony/20051103-gbsohn-testimony > http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/20051103-gbsohn-testimony.pdf Statement of Gigi B. Sohn, President Public Knowledge Before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Oversight Hearing on "Content Protection in the Digital Age: The Broadcast Flag, High-Definition Radio, and the Analog Hole" Washington, DC November 3, 2005 Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Berman and other members of the Subcommittee, my name is Gigi B. Sohn. I am the President of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit public interest organization that addresses the public's stake in the convergence of communications policy and intellectual property law. I want to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify on content protection in the digital age, and to comment on what I hope to be the first of many discussions on three draft pieces of legislation before the subcommittee, the Broadcast Flag Authorization Act (BFAA), the HD Radio Content Protection Act (HDRCPA) and the Analog Content Protection Act (ACPA).1 Introduction and Summary As some of you know, I served as counsel to the nine public interest and library groups that successfully challenged the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) broadcast flag rules in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. My organization financed and coordinated the case, which is titled American Library Association v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2005). I respectfully request that a copy of the courts decision and a copy of petitioners opening brief in the case be placed into the record of this hearing. For Public Knowledge, its members and its public interest allies, the D.C. Circuits decision vacating the broadcast flag rules is about much more than the ability of citizens to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted material that they receive over free over-the-air broadcast television. It is about limiting the power of a government agency that, in the courts own words, has never exercised such "sweeping" power over the design of a broad range of consumer electronics and computer devices. For the past seventy years, Congress has never given the FCC such unbounded authority to control technological design. This has fostered a robust market place for electronic devices that has in turn made this country the leader in their development and manufacture. The broadcast flag scheme would put a government agency in the position of deciding what software and hardware technologies will come to market and which will fail. I urge this subcommittee to think very long and hard before granting the FCC broad power to engage in this kind of industrial policy. Ask yourselves, is it good policy to turn the Federal Communications Commission into the Federal Computer Commission or the Federal Copyright Commission? I am confident that with the opportunity for public input and serious deliberation and an opportunity for public input, you will decide that the marketplace, not the government, is the best arbiter of what technologies succeed or fail, and that Congress, not the FCC, is the correct arbiter of the proper balance between content protection and consumer rights. I similarly urge this subcommittee to weigh the costs to consumers of proposals to mandate content protection for digital satellite and broadcast radio and to mandate content protection to close the analog hole. Efforts to limit what consumers can record over digital radio technologies suffer from many of the same maladies as the TV broadcast flag -- specifically government control over technology design. In addition, the proposed radio content protection legislation permits the FCC extinguishes the long-protected consumer right, guaranteed by the Audio Home Recording Act, to record transmissions for personal use. Furthermore, because the draft bill will impose limits on a new technology -- so called HD Radio that, unlike digital television, consumers need not adopt, those limits may well kill this fledgling technology. Why would a consumer buy an expensive new digital broadcast radio receiver when it would have less functionality than the current analog receiver? The broad, sweeping draft legislation to close the analog hole suffers from the same problem; it puts the government in the role of making industrial policy, and will severely limit consumers ability to make lawful uses of copyrighted content. Like the broadcast flag, the legislation mandates a one-size-fits-all technology that has not been the subject of public or even inter-industry scrutiny. The prohibitions in the legislation would require redesign of a whole range of currently legal consumer devices, including DVD recorders, personal video recorders and camcorders with video inputs. Importantly, the existence of the analog hole has been touted as a "safety valve" for making fair use of digital media products where circumventing the technological locks has been rendered illegal by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Should Congress close that hole without amending the DMCA to protect fair use, consumers' rights to access digital copyrighted works will be eroded even further. There are better alternatives for protecting digital content than the heavy-handed technology mandates proposed here today. Those alternatives are a multi-pronged approach of consumer education, enforcement of copyright laws and use of technological tools developed in the marketplace, not mandated by government. The recent Grokster decision and the passage of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, which you spearheaded, Mr. Chairman, are just two of several new tools that the content industry has at its disposal to protect its content. Any Legislation to Reinstate the Broadcast Flag or Impose Radio Copy Protection Should be Considered in Regular Order As a preliminary matter, I would like to address an important procedural issue. If this subcommittee and the Congress ultimately decide to legislate with regard to the broadcast flag and digital radio copy protection, it should do so in regular order, and not as part of a budget resolution or appropriations bill. These matters are not germane to the budget and appropriations processes. Indeed, they are far too important and controversial to be legislated on a spending bill. If Congress ultimately decides that it must try and legislate broadcast flag and radio content protection mandates, it should do so only after considerable debate and public input. There is considerable evidence the public is greatly concerned with the governments efforts to mandate digital television and radio content protection for digital devices. Over 5000 individual consumer comments were filed in opposition to the flag at the FCC -- where so many consumer comments are rare -- and tens of thousands of citizens have contacted their Congressional representatives over the past 6 months (since the D.C. Circuits decision) urging that the TV flag not be reinstated. Clearly, this is an issue that deserves a full and fair hearing, and not to be simply attached to a spending bill.2 An FCC-imposed Broadcast Flag Scheme and/or Radio Content Protection Scheme Will Transform the Federal Communications Commission into the Federal Copyright Commission Despite the FCCs protestations to the contrary, the broadcast flag scheme and any radio copy protection scheme will necessarily involve the agency in shaping copyright law and the rights of content owners and consumers there under. Making copyright law and policy is not the FCCs job. It is Congress job. Petitioners brief in ALA v. FCC, at 43-50, lays out this argument in great detail. While it is true that the TV broadcast flag scheme does not completely bar a consumer from making a copy of her favorite TV show, it does prevent consumers from engaging in other lawful activities under copyright law. For example, as the D.C. Circuit noted in ALA v. FCC, the broadcast flag would limit the ability of libraries and other educators to use broadcast clips for distance learning via the Internet that is permitted pursuant to the TEACH Act, Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758, Title III, Subtitle C, §13301, amending 17 U.S.C. §§ 110, 112 & 882 (2002). See ALA v. FCC, 406 F.2d at 697. This and other examples highlight that while proponents of the flag may justify it as prohibiting only "indiscriminate" redistribution of content over the Internet, it actually prohibits any and all distribution, no matter how limited or legal. For example, if a member of this subcommittee wants to email a snippet of his appearance on the national TV news to his home office, the broadcast flag scheme would prohibit him from doing so. Video bloggers would similarly be unable to post broadcast TV clips on their blogs. Imagine how much different the debate around broadcast decency would have been had bloggers and others not been able to post a clip of the now-infamous Janet Jackson Superbowl halftime performance? The fact that the broadcast flag will limit lawful uses of copyrighted content was detailed in the Congressional Research Service Report entitled Copy Protection of Digital Television: The Broadcast Flag (May 11, 2005). CRS concluded there that While the broadcast flag is intended to "prevent the indiscriminate redistribution of [digital broadcast] content over the Internet or through similar means," the goal of the flag was not to impede a consumers ability to copy or use content lawfully in the home, nor was the policy intended to "foreclose use of the Internet to send digital broadcast content where it can be adequately protected from indiscriminate redistribution." However, current technological limitations have the potential to hinder some activities which might normally be considered "fair use" under existing copyright law. For example, a consumer who wished to record a program to watch at a later time, or at a different location (time-shifting, and space-shifting, respectively), might be prevented when otherwise approved technologies do not allow for such activities, or do not integrate well with one another, or with older, "legacy" devices. In addition, future fair or reasonable uses may be precluded by these limitations. For example, a student would be unable to email herself a copy of a project with digital video content because no current secure system exists for email transmission. CRS Report at 5.3 Thus, it strains credulity to say, as the FCC has, that the broadcast flag scheme does not put the agency in the position of determining copyright owners and consumers rights under copyright law. It is Congress duty, not the FCCs, to find the proper balance of those rights. The regulatory scheme proposed under the HDRCPA similarly, and perhaps even more directly, places the FCC in the position of determining consumers rights under copyright law. Section 101(a) of the draft bill gives the FCC the authority to control the unauthorized copying and redistribution of digital audio content by or over digital reception devices, related equipment, and digital networks, including regulations governing permissible copying and redistribution of such audio content. Under this proposal, the FCC is placed in charge both of 1) determining the extent to which unauthorized copying (which is legal is some circumstances) of digital broadcast and satellite radio content is permitted; and 2) determining what kind of copying and redistribution of audio content is permissible. If this language is not giving the FCC power to set copyright policy, then it is hard to imagine what language would do so. The Broadcast Flag and Radio Content Protection Schemes Would Give the FCC Unprecedented Control over a Wide Variety of Consumer Electronics and Computer Devices The BFAA has been referred to by some as "narrow," because it purports to do nothing more than reinstate the FCC rule vacated by the D.C. Circuit in ALA v. FCC. However, for the reasons discussed below, the FCC rule is anything but narrow. As the D.C. Circuit recognized in ALA v. FCC, the broadcast flag gave the agency unprecedented "sweeping" authority over consumer electronics and computer devices. In a nutshell, it puts the FCC in the position of deciding the ultimate fate of every single device that can demodulate a television signal. Thus, not only must television sets be pre-approved by the FCC, the agency must also pre-approve computer software, digital video recorders, cellphones, game consoles and even iPods if they can receive a digital television signal. Thus, the broadcast flag scheme places the FCC in the position of dictating the marketplace for all kinds of electronics. The agency has neither the resources nor the expertise to engage in this kind of determination. This type of government oversight of technology design will slow the rollout of new technologies and seriously compromise US companies competitiveness in the electronics marketplace. Some would argue that the initial certification process worked because all thirteen technologies submitted to the FCC were approved. However, that is a very superficial view of that process. First, it is widely known that several manufacturers removed legal and consumer-friendly features of their devices before submitting them to the FCC, largely at the behest of the movie studios. Second, the changing nature of the FCC and its commissioners is likely to make for widely varying results. Given the fervor of then- Commissioner Martins dissent to the Commissions approval of TiVo-To-Go, it is unlikely that such technology would be certified today under Chairman Martins FCC.4 The HDRCPA would similarly place the FCC in the position of mandating the design of new technologies. The plain language of the draft bill gives the FCC the authority to adopt regulations governing all "digital audio receiving devices." In the case of so-called High Definition (or HD) Radio5 this could have the unintended consequence of destroying this new technology at birth. Digital broadcast radio benefits consumers through improved sound quality (particularly for AM radio) and the ability for radio broadcasters to provide additional program streams and metadata. Unlike digital television, however, consumers need not purchase digital broadcast receivers to continue receiving free over the air broadcast radio. Certainly, if digital radio receivers have less functionality than current analog radio receivers, consumers will reject them and the market for HD radio will die. Moreover, because the HDRCPA also applies to digital satellite radio, it has the potential to cripple this increasingly popular, but still nascent, technology. Legislation to Close the Analog Hole is Premature, Unnecessary and Would Further Tip the Copyright Balance Against Consumers The Analog Content Protection Act is a detailed and extremely complicated technology mandate that deserves further consideration by my organization. Preliminarily, I would note that this is the first time in the recent discussion over digital content protection that CGMS-A + VEIL technology have been proposed. While the CGMS-A + VEIL technology was discussed at the Analog Hole Reconversion Discussion Group, it was quickly dismissed as not worthy of further consideration. Thus, unlike the broadcast flag, this technology has not been fully vetted by industry and public interest groups. Accordingly, we are quite surprised that CGMS-A + VEIL is being presented today as a fully formed, mature proposal to Congress. If Congress feels it must do something about the analog hole, it should refer the technology back to industry and public interest groups so CGMS-A+VEIL can be thoroughly analyzed for its impact on consumers and the cost to technology companies. In the complete absence of any such review, the one-sided imposition of such a detailed technology mandated would be unprecedented. Based on a preliminary analysis of the ACPA, I would like to make the following brief substantive points: * The ACPA would impose an inflexible, one size fits all technology mandate that is more intrusive than the broadcast flag: The ACPA mandates that each and every device with an analog connection obey not one, but two copy protection schemes. Thus, while the broadcast flag would put the FCC in charge of design control just for technologies that demodulate a broadcast signal, the ACPA would mandate design for every device with an analog connector, including printers, cellphones, camcorders, etc. Like the broadcast flag, it sets in stone a copy protection technology for technologies that are always changing. * The ACPA would impose a detailed set of encoding rules that would restrict certain lawful uses of content. The proposals tiered levels of restriction based on the type of programming (e.g., pay-per-view, video on demand) limit lawful uses in a manner that ignores the four fair use factors of 17 U.S.C. §107. Thus, the draft legislation upsets the balance established in copyright law between the needs of copyright holders and the rights of the public by placing far too much control over lawful uses in the hands of the content producers. * Would eliminate the DMCAs safety valve. One of the common justifications for limitations on fair use imposed by the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA is that the analog hole is available for individuals who, for example want to make a snippet of a DVD using a video camera held up to the TV screen.6 The ACPA would eliminate that safety valve. * The exception for legacy devices renders the ACPA ineffective. The ACPA exempts from its grasp the millions of legacy devices with analog connectors. It is unlikely that any action to try to close the analog hole will be effective. There are millions of video recording devices in homes that will operate for years and not be covered by this act. At the same time, the ACPA will discourage sales of new products because consumers will realize that the newer technologies will have less functionality than older technologies. * Must be considered in the context of broadcast flag legislation. Without broadcast flag legislation, the ACPA would be an ill-considered technology mandate that will increase costs and limit consumer rights; together with a broadcast flag mandate, the ACPA would allow nearly complete control over what consumers may do with content they have purchased or otherwise received legally. Copyright Law and Marketplace Initiatives are Better Vehicles for Finding the Proper Balance Between Content Protection and Consumer Rights than are Government-imposed Technological Mandates I am often asked the following question: if Public Knowledge opposes the broadcast flag, radio content protection and closing the analog hole, what are better alternatives to protect digital television and radio content from infringing uses? The best approach to protecting rights holders' interests is a multi-pronged approach: by better educating the public, using the legal tools that the content industry already has at its disposal, and the technological tools that are being developed and tested in the marketplace every day. In the past year alone, the content industry has used and won several important new tools to protect content, including: * The Supreme Courts decision in MGM v. Grokster and its aftermath. The Supreme Court gave content owners a powerful tool against infringement when it held that manufacturers and distributors of technologies that are used to infringe could be held liable for that infringement if they actively encourage illegal activity. The result has been that a number of commercial P2P distributors have gone out of business, moved out of the U.S., or sold their assets to copyright holders. * Lawsuits against mass infringers using P2P networks. Both the RIAA and the MPAA continue to sue individuals who are engaged in massive infringement over peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. By their own admission, these lawsuits have had both a deterrent and educative effect. * Passage of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. The FECA gave copyright holders a new cause of action to help limit leaks of pre-release works and made explicit the illegality of bringing a camcorder into a movie theatre. It also provided for the appointment of an intellectual property "czar" to better enforce copyright laws. * Agreements by ISPs to pass on warning notices. It is apparent that the war between Internet Service Providers and content companies has begun to cool. Last month, Verizon and Disney entered into an agreement by which Verizon will warn alleged copyright infringers using its networks, but will not give up their personal information to Disney. * Increased use of copy protection and other digital rights management tools in the marketplace. There are numerous instances of the use of digital rights management tools in the marketplace. iTunes Fairplay DRM is perhaps the most well known, but other services that use DRM include MSN music and video, Napster, Yahoo Music, Wal-mart, Movielink, CinemaNow and MovieFlix. The success of some of these business models are a testament to the fact that if content companies make their catalogues available in an easily accessible manner, with flexibility and at a reasonable price, those models will succeed in the marketplace, without government intervention. These tools are in addition to the strict penalties of current copyright law, including the DMCA. To the extent that the content industries are looking for a "speed bump" to keep "honest people honest," I would contend that many such speed bumps already exist, while more are being developed every day without government technology mandates. Finally, by far the most effective means of preventing piracy is for the content industry to do what it took the music far too long to do7 satisfy market demand for easy access to content at reasonable prices (which a free market will inevitably produce) that consumers can enjoy fairly and flexibly. DVDs are the best example of the market working. There, a government mandate the Digital Video Recording Act was rejected and an industry-agreed upon fairly weak "keep honest people honest" protection system was adopted. Despite the fact that the protection system was defeated long ago, the DVD market has grown at an astounding rate from zero in 1997 to $25,000,000,000 in sales and rentals last year. As I noted above, new music and movie digital download services are just now emerging in the market. We sincerely believe these efforts, if supported vigorously by the content industry, along with industry-agreed upon protection, will make government intervention in the free market unnecessary. Conclusion The draft bills presented here today reflect a vision of the future where government places itself squarely in the middle of technological design, and where consumers rights to make lawful uses of copyrighted content are determined by a government agency that is tasked with regulating our nations communications system. That vision is antithetical to the largely successful and generally balanced system we have now, where the marketplace is the driver of technological innovation, and copyright law, developed by Congress, governs consumers rights. Because this vision of the future so radically departs from the present, I urge this subcommittee to proceed slowly, with great deliberation and with input from the public given great weight. I want to again thank Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Berman and the other members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing to discuss how to balance digital content protection with consumer rights to make lawful uses of copyrighted works. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 1. I would like to thank Neil Chilson, Public Knowledges legal intern, Heidi Wachs, Public Knowledges legal fellow, and Fred Von Lohmann and Seth Schoen of the Electronic Frontier Foundation for their assistance with this testimony. 2. Moreover, Public Knowledge believes that any debate about technological mandates of the kind proposed here would be incomplete without a thorough consideration of how these mandates, together with the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA, place limits on consumer rights and technological innovation. It has been suggested that H.R. 1201, "The Digital Media Consumers Rights Act" as introduced in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, may provide a proper balance to the legal limitations imposed on consumers and innovators. Clearly this is a debate that deserves full public attention. 3. The equipment incompatibility problems caused by the broadcast flag scheme are myriad, and should be taken into account by this subcommittee as it considers the BFAA. In addition to the compatibility problems discussed in the CRS report (e.g., the inability to make copies on one system and play it on another), for example, none of the 13 different technologies approved by the FCC in its interim certification process are able to work with each other. This means that a consumer who buys one Philips brand flag-compliant device must buy all Philips brand flag compliant devices. This raises consumer costs, and also raises serious questions about competition among and between digital device manufacturers. For a detailed discussion of these issues, see http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/presentations/bflagpff.ppt 4. For a detailed analysis of the flaws of the FCCs certifications process, see Center for Democracy and Technology, Lessons of the FCC Broadcast Flag Process (2005), found at http://cdt.org/copyright/20050919flaglessons.pdf 5. I say "so called," because calling a digital radio broadcast signal "High Definition" is quite misleading. Whereas in the television context, High Definition connotes a far clearer and sharper picture, an HD radio signal simply raises the quality of AM radio to FM standards, and permits the reception of broadcast radio in places where an analog signal would get cut off, such as in a tunnel or at a traffic light. Indeed, an "HD" quality signal is not even a CD quality signal. See, Ken Kessler, Digital Radio Sucks, its Official, found at http://www.stereophile.com/newsletters/. 6. See Testimony of Dean Marks, Senior Counsel Intellectual Property, Time Warner, Inc., and Steve Metalitz, Representing Content Industry Joint Commenters, before the Copyright Office in Rulemaking Hearing: Exemptions From Prohibitions On Circumvention Of Technological Measures That Control Access To Copyrighted Works, May 13, 2003 at 60-61: "I think the best example I can give is the demonstration that Mr. Attaway [MPAA Executive Vice President for Government Relations and Washington General Counsel] gave for you [Marybeth Peters, Registrar of Copyrights] earlier this month in Washington in which he demonstrated that he used a digital camcorder viewing the screen on which a DVD was playing to make a excerpt from a DVD film and have a digital copy that could then be used for all the fair use purposes." (Mr. Metaliz at 60.) "I agree with everything Steve has just said about fair use copying or taking clips with digital camcorders and analog camcorders being widely available " (Mr. Marks at 61.) 7. See Keynote Address of Edgar Bronfman, Chairman and CEO of Warner Music at http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/pff/050821/agenda.htm. "The Music Industry, like almost every industry faced with massive and rapid transformation first reacted too slowly and moderately, inhibited by an instinctive and reflexive reaction to protect our current business and business models."

1 0

Storyline Patent Application Published
by Seth Johnson 04 Nov '05

04 Nov '05

> http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/11/emw303435.htm U.S. Patent Office Publishes the First Patent Application to Claim a Fictional Storyline; Inventor Asserts Provisional Rights Against Hollywood The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will publish historys first "storyline patent" application today from an application filed in November, 2003. Inventor Andrew Knight will assert publication-based provisional patent rights against the entertainment industry. Falls Church, Virginia (PRWEB) November 3, 2005 -- Further to a policy of publishing patent applications eighteen months after filing, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is scheduled to publish historys first "storyline patent" application today. The publication will be based on a utility patent application filed by Andrew Knight in November, 2003, the first such application to claim a fictional storyline. Knight, a rocket engine inventor, registered patent agent, and graduate of MIT and Georgetown Law, will assert publication-based provisional patent rights against anyone whose activities may fall within the scope of his published claims, including all major motion picture manufacturers and distributors, book publishers and distributors, television studios and broadcasters, and movie theaters. According to the official Patent Office website, provisional rights "provide a patentee with the opportunity to obtain a reasonable royalty from a third party that infringes a published application claim provided actual notice is given to the third party by [the] applicant, and a patent issues from the application with a substantially identical claim." Before a patent will issue, however, the application must overcome the hurdles of utility, novelty, and nonobviousness found in U.S. patent laws. According to Knight, the utility requirement addresses whether an invention falls within statutory subject matter, while novelty and nonobviousness address whether the invention is identical to or impermissibly similar to previous inventions. That fictional storylines may be patentable was first suggested in a November, 2004 article in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, "A Potentially New IP: Storyline Patents." The article argues that binding case law strongly suggests that methods of performing and displaying fictional plots, whether found in motion pictures, novels, television shows, or commercials, are statutory subject matter, like computer software and business methods. Regarding the utility requirement, "The case law of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has established that virtually any subject matter is potentially patentable," explained Jay Thomas, Professor of Law at Georgetown University. Further, "Due to the broad scope of patentable subject matter, novel storylines may fall within the [utility requirement]," said Charles Berman, Co-Chair of the Patent Prosecution Practice at Greenberg Traurig LLP. The real issue? According to Berman, "Non-obviousness probably presents the biggest challenge to patentability" because minor variations on a central theme may generate so many different storylines. Nevertheless, Knight asserts that his claimed storyline meets all statutory requirements, including nonobviousness. The fictitious story, which Knight dubs "The Zombie Stare," tells of an ambitious high school senior, consumed by anticipation of college admission, who prays one night to remain unconscious until receiving his MIT admissions letter. He consciously awakes 30 years later when he finally receives the letter, lost in the mail for so many years, and discovers that, to all external observers, he has lived an apparently normal life. He desperately seeks to regain 30 years worth of memories lost as an unconscious philosophical zombie. Will Knights claimed storyline pass the rigors of nonobviousness and issue as a U.S. Patent? If so, the stakes are high. According to Thomas, "Given the robust scope of patent protection provided by the Patent Act storyline patents potentially provide their owners with a significant proprietary interest." The U.S. Patent Office will publish subsequent storyline patent applications, also invented by Knight, on November 17 and December 8 and 22. For an information packet, including a copy of the JPTOS article, contact Andrew Knight or visit www.PlotPatents.com. ### -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.

1 0

Comments on Mossberg: Media Companies Go Too Far in Curbing Consumers' Activities]]
by Seth Johnson 01 Nov '05

01 Nov '05

(See Mossberg article at the bottom of this thread. -- Seth) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [IP] more on Summerized -- Mossberg: Media Companies Go Too Far in Curbing Consumers' Activities Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 01:06:56 -0700 From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson(a)RealMeasures.dyndns.org> To: dave(a)farber.net The best thing would be to just stop putting policy related to TPMs under the umbrella of copyright policy. Really, what's being attempted with "DRM" and TPM is a weird effort to do something less than actual publishing of information. The theory that controlling public uses of published information is a natural function of copyright, is really, really specious, to put it mildly. It isn't the work, ultimately, that we want out of copyright; it's the shared (published) information, the knowledge and understanding and facts and ideas which promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The information within the work, when we make a distinction from original expression, is free to be used. That this is the case is not a mere legal artifice; it is in the intrinsic nature of publishing any information at all. It's nothing new; it's not a result of the digital revolution; it's a result of the nature of information, regardless of the medium or the form in which it is represented -- and this has always been the case, and will always be the case. Distinguishing copyright and private interest uses of TPMs lets you start sorting things out and begin articulating a sensible policy that lives in the real world. You want to control a transaction, use access control. That's more of a private interest concept than copyright policy is designed to accomplish. You want to set special terms for exactly what sort of transaction is taking place when someone obtains a work from you, then we need to confront those policy implications forthrightly. But what's going on there isn't really copyright: even though TPMs may be strengthened by enforcement under the misnamed Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the terms that are imposed in these transactions are not really in principle valid under copyright -- and on the other hand they're often not really good models of valid, consensual contractual arrangements. Now, to look at it from that perspective, contractual arrangements that go beyond transfers of specific exclusive rights that authors hold, are about private interest and they also happen to be consensual; whereas authors may exercise their exclusive rights under copyright even without a consensual contract. There's a deep mismatch there. The rights that we choose to give to authors under a copyright policy appropriate for the digital age have to be considered in this light. The confusion evaporates after you recognize these distinctions between copyright and attempts to impose prior restraints on how others can use the information contained within expressive works. I might add, that clarifying the above is completely inconsistent with a basic purpose behind the various attempts to promulgate the notion of "DRM": the idea being to mix copyright policy with private interest perspectives until something very, very different from valid copyright can be established, and a new precedent can be set, that will hopefully trump traditional jurisprudence. If this cannot be accomplished through laws enacted by representatives directly accountable to their constituencies, then the intention is to do so through international treaties enacted by unelected representatives. Seth Johnson David Farber wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: TClaburn(a)cmp.com > Date: October 20, 2005 11:10:25 AM EDT > To: dave(a)farber.net > Subject: Re: [IP] Summerized -- Mossberg: Media Companies Go Too Far > in Curbing Consumers' Activities > > I agree wholeheartedly with Walter Mossberg, though I believe he > misses the mark > on this point: > > "I believe Congress should rewrite the copyright laws to carve > out a broad exemption for personal, noncommercial use by > consumers, including sharing small numbers of copies among > families." > > While it would be helpful to have fair use codified, consumers > already have these rights in theory. But they cannot exercise > them because of technical protection methods/digital rights > management. > > If the law is to be of assistance here, it needs to limit DRM. > And that's not likely to happen until Congress revisits the > Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibits the > circumvention of DRM technology. As Lawrence Lessig has > suggested, code is law. > > Thomas Claburn > InformationWeek > http://www.lot49.com > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [IP] Summerized -- Mossberg: Media Companies Go Too > > Far in Curbing Consumers' Activities > > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:00:20 -0400 > > From: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > > Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net > > To: Ip Ip <ip(a)v2.listbox.com> > > References: <BF7D1441.3B7C7%rforno(a)infowarrior.org> > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Richard Forno <rforno(a)infowarrior.org> > > Date: October 20, 2005 9:30:41 AM EDT > > To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior(a)g2-forward.org> > > Cc: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > > Subject: Mossberg: Media Companies Go Too Far in Curbing Consumers' > > Activities > > > > > > (Agree 100% with him.....rf) > > > > > > Media Companies Go Too Far in Curbing Consumers' Activities > > > > By WALTER S. MOSSBERG > > http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20051020.html > > They stand for Digital Rights Management, a set of > > technologies for limiting how people can use the music > > and video files they've purchased from legal downloading > > services. DRM is even being used to limit what you can do > > with the music you buy on physical CDs, or the TV shows you > > record with a TiVo or other digital video recorder. > > > > Once mainly known inside the media industries and among > > activists who follow copyright issues, DRM is gradually > > becoming familiar to average consumers, who are > > increasingly bumping up against its limitations. > > > > ...Using a DRM system it invented called FairPlay, Apple > > has rigged its songs, at the insistence of the record > > companies, so that they can be played only on a maximum of > > five computers, and so that you can burn only seven CDs > > containing the same playlist of purchased tracks. > > > > ...Some CD buyers are discovering to their dismay that new > > releases from certain record companies contain DRM code > > that makes it difficult to copy the songs to their > > computers, where millions prefer to keep their music. > > > > ...They believe that once a consumer legally buys a song > > or a video clip, the companies that sold them have no > > right to limit how the consumer uses them, any more than a > > car company should be able to limit what you can do with a > > car you've bought. > > > > ...The companies believe they need DRM technology to block > > the possibility that a song or video can be copied in > > large quantities and distributed over the Internet, thus > > robbing them of legitimate sales. > > > > ...Millions of copies of songs, TV shows and movies are > > being distributed over the Internet by people who have no > > legal right to do so, robbing media companies and artists > > of rightful compensation for their work. > > > > ...On the other hand, I believe that consumers should have > > broad leeway to use legally purchased music and video for > > personal, noncommercial purposes in any way they want -- > > as long as they don't engage in mass distribution. > > > > ...Instead of using DRM to stop some individual from > > copying a song to give to her brother, the industry should > > be focusing on ways to use DRM to stop the serious pirates > > -- people who upload massive quantities of music and > > videos to so-called file-sharing sites, or factories in > > China that churn out millions of pirate CDs and DVDs.

1 0

EPO Response to EU Parliament Motion on Biotechnology Patents
by Seth Johnson 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

(Well, the EPO responded. Would they respond similarly to an EU Parliament motion on software patents? -- Seth) > http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2005_10_27_e.htm "The EPO follows the EUs Directive on biotechnology patents" Munich, 27 October 2005 The European Patent Office (EPO) has noted the concern that several groups in the European Parliament have expressed about the grant of European patent EP 1257168 B1. However, the Office emphasises that it follows an extremely cautious approach in patenting biotechnological inventions. In motions communicated to the EPO, members of the European Parliament have stated that, in their view, the grant of this patent, which is entitled "Method of cryopreserving selected sperm cells", constitutes a violation of the Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (98/44/EC). The MEPs maintain that the patent also covers non-patentable human germ cells. They have therefore announced their intention to contest the grant of this patent by initiating an opposition procedure before the EPO. Other worries expressed in the motions concern the future development of the EPOs practice in patenting human embryonic stem cells. The President of the EPO, Alain Pompidou, has confirmed that such a patent was granted to the US Company XY Inc. of Fort Collins, Colorado, in February 2005, pointing out that the nine-month period during which oppositions to the patent can be filed by third parties will terminate on 2 November 2005: "The European patent grant procedure allows anyone to formally oppose a patent if they are of the opinion that it should not have been granted. This is an inbuilt legal remedy for establishing legal certainty on the patentability of an invention." Opposition procedure In view of the pending case, Mr Pompidou declined to comment on the individual objections expressed in the motions: "We take the concerns voiced by the MEPs very seriously. However, it will be the task of a dedicated EPO body, the opposition division, to consider the case in the light of the formal grounds brought forward by opponents. To date, such a procedure could not be opened as no oppositions have yet been filed." He added that every year around 5% of the patents granted by the EPO are contested in opposition proceedings. In two thirds of these cases, the patent is changed or even revoked in its entirety. The EPO grants patents by applying the European Patent Convention (EPC [http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/index.html]). The EPC forms the legal basis for the Office's institutional structure and its activities and operations. It has been ratified by the 31 member states of the European Patent Organisation (http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/members.htm), 24 of which are also member states of the European Union. The EPC has enabled the transnational protection of innovations by patents in the European market and is seen by many countries as a model for regional cooperation in the field of intellectual property. Since September 1999, the EPO has applied the EU Directive in its patenting practice. According to Mr Pompidou: "Following a decision of our supervisory body, the Administrative Council, this Directive has been incorporated into the EPC Implementing Regulations. We thus strictly adhere to the provisions of the EPC and the Biotechnology Directive." Strict quality standards and transparency Biotechnology is one of the technical fields in which large numbers of patent applications are filed every year. In 2004, the EPO received 6 581 patent applications in biotechnology and granted some 4 000 patents. "We apply very strict standards in examining these applications", the EPO President said. "The provisions of the EPC and the Directive, together with the case law of the Boards of Appeal, which are the EPO's judiciary, demand a restrictive approach to patenting biotechnological inventions. We are fully aware that this is a sensitive field of technology and also has important ethical implications. However, one should also bear in mind that obtaining a patent does not imply permission to actually use an invention. This is the responsibility of regulatory bodies, not of the EPO." Inbuilt legal remedies Mr Pompidou acknowledged that, despite all the quality controls in place at the EPO, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that some patents do not meet its high quality standards in all aspects. For the current year the EPO expects to receive 190 000 patent applications. In 2004 the Office granted 60 000 patents, each one of them after a rigorous three-step procedure involving a comprehensive novelty search through more than 55 million documents and a thorough examination for compliance of the claimed invention with patent law. "The task of our 3 400 patent examiners is extremely challenging. They work at the forefront of technology and have to take difficult decisions within a complex legal and ethical framework, knowing that there is always a risk of inaccuracy. However, the European patent system takes that risk fully into account and has inbuilt legal remedies to oppose granted patents", the EPO President explained. With the help of the EPOs free patent information services such as epoline® and esp@cenet®, it is possible for anyone to inspect files pending before the EPO at all times: "The patent system provides complete transparency on any case pending or granted. Anyone who wishes to do so can monitor progress on any file at all stages of the procedure and even send us observations without getting legally involved in the case, and we will have to take them to account." Restrictive approach to human embryonic stem cells On the question of human embryonic stem cells, President Pompidou pointed out that the EPO has so far taken a very restrictive approach to the patenting of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained from them. Following the "Edinburgh patent" case, the EPO has not granted patents for such inventions. Moreover, it has raised objections to the patentability of inventions pertaining to human embryonic stem cells in a number of applications that have been examined so far. The EPO's Technical Board of Appeal is called upon to give a first decision on the subject on 18 November. It has the option of referring the issue to the EPO's highest instance, the Enlarged Board of Appeal, for a definitive legal ruling. Information for journalists: 1. European patent EP 1 257 168 B1 was granted on 2 February 2005 to XY Inc., Fort Collins, CO (USA), based on a corresponding patent application filed with the EPO on 22 November 2002. The title is "Method of cryopreserving selected sperm cells". 2. Implementation of Directive 98/44/EC Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions was adopted on 6 July 1998. In its decision of 16 June 1999, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, which supervises the activities of the EPO and is composed of representatives of all the contracting states to the European Patent Convention (EPC), incorporated the relevant provisions of this Directive into European patent law. Though not legally subject to this formal requirement, the European Patent Organisation decided that European patent law needed to be brought into line with the Directive, primarily in order to comply with the requirement for uniformity in harmonised European patent law. 3. Exclusion from patentability of inventions whose exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality The EPC expressly stipulates that the human body, at the various stages of its formation and development, and the simple discovery of one of its elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot constitute patentable inventions. However, an element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to a natural element. Recital 16 of the Directive and the Guidelines for examination in the EPO state that such stages in the formation or development of the human body include germ cells. Moreover, Rule 23b(1) EPC states that the Directive must be used as a supplementary means of interpretation. This is intended in particular to ensure that the recitals preceding the provisions of the Directive are also taken into account and to promote a uniform Europe-wide interpretation of the relevant provisions. 4. Article 53a EPC, in line with Article 6(1) of the Directive, establishes a general principle of exclusion for inventions whose exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality. Article 6(2) of the Directive lays down an illustrative list of exclusions from patentability which the EPO has implemented by the introduction of Rule 23d EPC. Recital 38 of the Directive confirms that this list is not exhaustive and that any process whose application offends against human dignity is also excluded from patentability. It thus follows from both the provisions of the Directive and of the EPC that, as regards the human body and its elements, the applicable legal framework rigorously ensures that the human body effectively remains unavailable and inalienable and that human dignity is thus safeguarded. 5. Patentability of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained from them Rule 23d(c) EPC implements Article 6(2)c) of the Directive. It stipulates that European patents may not be granted in respect of biotechnological inventions which, in particular, concern uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes. The European Group on Ethics considered in its opinion No. 16 that there was no ethical reason for a complete ban on the patenting of inventions relating to stem cells or stem cell lines, although the normal requirements of patentability would have to be met. The EPO's departments of first instance have a much more restrictive practice on the patenting of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained therefrom. According to the practice of the EPO examining and opposition divisions, Rule 23d(c) EPC excludes from patentability all claims to the industrial or commercial use of human embryos and also all claims to associated products which necessitate the direct and unavoidable use of a human embryo, for example, embryonic cells. Appeals have been filed against several first-instance decisions. The EPO Boards of Appeal will now have to construe the wording of Rule 23d(c) EPC themselves and form their own conclusions on what falls within its scope. In their decisions, the members of the Boards are not bound by any instructions and must comply only with the provisions of the EPC. 6. Abuses and risks of a given technology A patent is an industrial property right for an intangible asset, the invention, which must represent a technological improvement. The right which it accords is to prevent all others - not just imitators but even independent devisers of the same idea - from using the invention for the duration of the patent. A patent does not authorise its holder to implement that invention, but merely entitles him to prohibit third parties from exploiting it for industrial and commercial purposes. In other words, the grant of a patent does not confer a positive right to use the invention without complying with all the applicable rules of the legal system. Regardless of whether or not a patent is granted, the inventor has to respect all legal provisions that might possibly prohibit the working or marketing of the subject-matter of his invention. Patent law is thus not a suitable tool for preventing any abuses or risks associated with a given technology. It cannot serve to replace or render superfluous national, European or international law which may impose restrictions or prohibitions or which concerns the monitoring of research and of the use or commercialisation of its results, notably from the point of view of the requirements of public health, safety, environmental protection, animal welfare, the preservation of genetic diversity and compliance with certain ethical standards. 7. Transparency The practice of the European Patent Office adheres strictly to the legal principles and high standards laid down by the European Patent Convention. The EPO provides for a maximum of transparency and information on its activities. Patent applications are published 18 months after filing or after the priority date. Once a European patent application has been published, the file relating to it is open to inspection. This means that any member of the public can view the communications between the Office, its first and second-instance departments and the parties involved in the procedure. Such file inspections can be made online and are free of charge. Furthermore, all European patent applications and patents can be accessed on the Internet at www.espacenet.com, while any legal and procedural status information can be obtained from the EPOs epoline® server at www.epoline.org free of charge. Procedural information on any patent can be retrieved from the Online European Patent Register. European patent law also provides for a highly developed system of legal remedies. Any person may present observations concerning the patentability of the invention in respect of which the application has been filed. In addition, any third party can file an opposition to a granted patent, without having to prove a direct interest in the case. The possibility of appeal exists both against the decisions of the examining and opposition divisions. Furthermore, proceedings to revoke the patent, even if its validity has been upheld in opposition proceedings and/or subsequent appeal proceedings, can be instituted in any designated contracting state.

1 0

[johns@fsf.org: European Report Threatens Consumers' Rights]
by Andres K. Foerster 28 Oct '05

28 Oct '05

----- Forwarded message from John Sullivan <johns(a)fsf.org> ----- To: info-fsf(a)gnu.org From: John Sullivan <johns(a)fsf.org> Subject: European Report Threatens Consumers' Rights EFF urges a fresh inquiry into the ramifications of DRM. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has criticized a European Commission group for assuming that digital rights management (DRM) is the only way to foster development of the home audiovisual market. Read the full release at EFF[1]. [1] http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_10.php#004064 -- John Sullivan Program Administrator | Phone: (617)542-5942 x23 51 Franklin Street, 5th Fl. | Fax: (617)542-2652 Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA | GPG: AE8600B6 _______________________________________________ info-fsf mailing list info-fsf(a)gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-fsf ----- End forwarded message ----- -- AKFoerster LPIC-1

1 0

EU Parliament Moves Against EPO "Designer Baby Patent"
by Seth Johnson 27 Oct '05

27 Oct '05

(This is significant not only in the subject matter of the motion, but as a confrontation of the problematic relationship between the EU Parliament and the EPO, wherein the EPO is not actually subject to EU Parliament oversight -- being "not a person" before the EPC is not really the key, so much as having patent policy developed, judged and executed independently of the representative legislative organ. -- Seth) > http://wiki.ffii.org/EpBio0510En 2005-10: European Parliament to vote resolution against EPO-granted "designer baby patent" -> [ Priorities | News ] The EPP (conservative) group in the European Parliament has introduced a motion calling the Parliament to file an opposition against a patent granted by the European Patent Office. The Legal Service of the EP is against this, contending that the EP is not a person in the sence of the European Patent Convention. Greens are in favor. * EP resolution to be voted 2005-10-26 (http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?TYPE-DOC=MOTION&REF=P6-RC-2005-0551&…) The motion was introduced by Klaus-Heiner Lehne MEP (http://wiki.ffii.org/KlausHeinerLehneEn) and somewhat amended through compromises with other party groups. In an unusual alliance on patents, both Lehne and the Green group are in favor of filing an opposition at the European Patent Office, whereas other MEPs such as Rainer Wieland (from Lehne's CDU group) would rather pass a resolution that calls on the Commission to file an opposition. The Parliament's Legal Service also believes that the Parliament is, unlike the Commission, not a legal person in the sense of the European Patent Convention. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow wednesday 2005-10-26 at noon. The question of whether to file opposition in the name of the EP may be subject to oral amendments in the last minute. Apart fom this, the resolution text seems to be settled. Timeline 2005-10-27 Preliminary report: Most of the Motion was carried. Additionally, and oral amedment saying "The EP decides to ask the European Commission to file an objection to patent EP1257168 without delay" was also carried. 2005-10-26 2005-10-25 Debate in JURI -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.

1 0

food data
by Graham Seaman 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

Hi, I'm trying to get hold of data on food composition (like the American USDA data at http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR18/sr18.html , but European). This is because the UK government requires payment of a license to use such data in programs, making free software using this data impractical (eg. a program for diabetics to assess carbohydrate intake). I would like to know if other European countries have a more sensible policy. Thanks Graham

1 0

licensing/copyright question
by Thomas Linden 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

Hello, I've got a complicated issue regarding a software I wrote. The software in question is a commandline firewall configuration tool for openbsd including webbased gui. It was a commercial project, but I never had a written contract with the company I wrote it for. They paid me a little bit for it, but at the end of the last year they stopped paying. Some months later I abandoned the project and stopped working on it. The company is no more interested in the project. The question now is, who owns the copyright on the software? From my point of view it is me, but I'm unsure. And, would it be legal to publish the software as opensource (say GPLed)? I'm located in germany, so german law applies. Thanks in advance, Thomas Linden -- \|/ -O- Thomas Linden (http://www.daemon.de/) /|\

3 2

Stockholm Challenge Award 2006
by Yong Liu 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

*Please circulate widely and apologies for cross-posting* I hope this will be of interest to you.If you have questions or comments, please contact Earl Mardle at earl.mardle(a)stockholmchallenge.se or Ulla Skid��n at ulla.skiden(a)stockholmchallenge.se. Best, Yong Liu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Stockholm Challenge Award 2006 is open for entries <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/news_right.asp?IdNr=150>THE STOCKHOLM CHALLENGE AWARD 2006 invites excellent ICT projects from all over the world to compete for the prestigious Challenge trophies. The Challenge is searching for the best initiatives that accelerate the use of information technology for the social and economic benefit of citizens and communities. The objective is to help local entrepreneurs, who work to close the digital divide, by bringing in research communities, development organisations and strong corporate initiatives. THE AWARDS WILL BE HANDED OUT IN SIX CATEGORIES <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=9>in the City Hall - on May 11, 2006. Special focus will be on projects in countries and regions with the greatest needs. There will also be an international Challenge conference in Stockholm on issues related to the role of ICTs in global development work. *THE AWARD IS OPEN FOR ENTRIES until December 31st 2005*. The application form <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/omtavling_index.html>is easily accessible on the home page. The Stockholm Challenge is headquartered at the IT University <http://www.it-univ.se/?lang=en>- a joint initiative by KTH<http://www.kth.se/eng/>(The Royal Institute of Technology) and Stockholm University <http://www.su.se/english> . It is managed by a consortium that also includes the City of Stockholm, Ericsson and Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. For more information, please contact: Project Manager Ulla Skid��n ulla.skiden(a)stockholmchallenge.se Telephone: + 46 8 7904469 Cell: +46 70 678 72 82 www.stockholmchallenge.se <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/> *Rules for participation in the Stockholm Challenge Award 2006<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=3> * These are the basic rules for the participation in the Stockholm Challenge Award. All competing projects must: 1. Include ICT Illustrate how ICT is used to create new or better traditional services and/or products, which are beneficial for human and social development. 2. Be implemented All competing projects must be up and running. They should be implemented/piloted since no less than three months. The Stockholm Challenge Award does not accept drafted concepts and ideas only. The jury will only evaluate and compare projects that can show measurable outcomes and impact. 3. Be linked to and/or supported by an established private or public organisation. 4. Be verifiable, i.e. able to present credible references. 5. Be free from religious, political or other personal beliefs. *To be noted:* *Projects that have won one of the Challenge categories in previous years cannot enter the competition again.* *All applications must be in English* *Evaluation criteria<http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=4> * Innovation, creativity and the convergence of ICT with many different disciplines are some of the qualities that are looked for in the competing projects. The jury, a group of international senior experts, base their evaluation on the following criteria, most of which all Challenge projects should meet: *Innovation* Competing projects should illustrate new and innovative ways of using ICT to improve the living and economical conditions especially of those with great needs. *Convergence* The addition of ICT as a tool to traditional development work can improve and widen the scope of the project impact. Projects should show successful convergences of different disciplines and sectors. *Inclusion* It is favourable for the competing projects to show that they bring individuals, groups and local organisations into larger communities �C national and global - such as medical, government, educational and cultural networks, as well business environments. *Equal Opportunity* It is important that the initiatives counteract inequality related to the likes of gender, origin, age, physical and/or mental disabilities. *Sustainability* An important factor is sustainability. Not only economic sustainability, i.e. how long the project will last and bring benefits to its users. Sustainability also includes the contribution of the project to a sustainable society and environment at large. *Opportunities <http://www.stockholmchallenge.se/show_facts.asp?IdNr=2>* To enter a project in the Stockholm Challenge Award is not only to participate in a prestigious international ICT competition - it is also a way to join networks of some of the best ICT entrepreneurs and pioneers in the world. Testimonials from many of the projects, which have competed in their respective categories over the years, say that it is the inspiration, the new ideas, contacts and partners that are the greatest rewards for a Challenger. The Stockholm Challenge represents excellent marketing through the exposure to media, and to private and public organizations that are involved in ICT work and implementations. It gives promotional opportunities for entrepreneurs, universities, cities, cities and regions. The Stockholm Challenge Final Events include a Best Practice Exhibition and a Conference. It is a meeting place for some the world's most successful IT entrepreneurs. Winners and finalists of the Stockholm Challenge are global role models for cities, companies, organisations, schools and others who are involved in adapting and spreading the use of ICT.

1 0

Free Software promotional materials
by Stephan Uhlmann 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

Hi, in preparation of the Software Freedom Day I'm currently looking for some ready-to-print material for Free Software promotion. That means flyers, posters, leaflets explaining the idea in general. Preferably short, easy to grasp and visually appealing. :) Any hints welcome. Thanks, Stephan

4 9

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion