From akozak at berkeley.edu  Wed Jul  1 12:56:37 2009
From: akozak at berkeley.edu (Alex Kozak)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:56:37 -0700
Subject: [FC-discuss] CC swag pictures
Message-ID: <d9dd4fec0907010956w23fcea4ajf5f6fc98a82ea021@mail.gmail.com>

I just got a request from Allison, our Development Assistant at CC, for
pictures of people in Creative Commons swag for the CC website (
https://support.creativecommons.org/store).

If you have a picture of you or someone else in CC swag, would like to see
it on the CC website, and (ideally) have permission from the person in the
picture, please email it to allison at creativecommons.org.

Thanks!

- AK

-- 
Alex Kozak
akozak at berkeley.edu
916.225.2718
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090701/45d4cd15/attachment-0001.htm 

From wesley at freeculturenyu.org  Thu Jul  2 15:22:02 2009
From: wesley at freeculturenyu.org (Wesley Chen)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:22:02 -0700
Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards Working Group
In-Reply-To: <767eb04e0906301833v79baa13fk3586335ff63b5ae@mail.gmail.com>
References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com> 
	<7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com> 
	<d9dd4fec0906300828se1d947ex143364b48fe41e20@mail.gmail.com> 
	<dfae87ff0906301020m265d9afai84b3665aa8f6d539@mail.gmail.com> 
	<dfae87ff0906301020v57ddcb5em9276b7c6ec6afd8b@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30906301100u2869c0eeq7aeaa271c2b9b3bf@mail.gmail.com> 
	<CD24585E-72D5-4BE1-BA29-857E74B1DD5A@gmail.com>
	<5396c0d10906301254g3ba86b9el259948c1c4fee3b0@mail.gmail.com> 
	<767eb04e0906301833v79baa13fk3586335ff63b5ae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb1f7ec30907021222ta11e190g8892d3b2e0a567ff@mail.gmail.com>

Hey all,If you haven't already signed up for the Open University listserv,
do so here ASAP:
http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openuniversity

We plan to have a conference call or IRC chat next Tue Jul 7 in the evening
EDT.

Make sure you're on the list, so we can send out more details about this
upcoming discussion.

All the best,
Wesley

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Alex Leavitt <alexleavitt at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Matthew O. Brimer<mobrimer at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Add me to the list as well. Great to see this effort getting support.
>> > Cheers,
>> > -MOB
>> > On Jun 30, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Wesley Chen wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course!
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, D. Parker Phinney <
>> gameguy43 at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> count me in.
>> >>
>> >> Rich Jones wrote:
>> >> > Yes please!
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Jun 30, 2009 11:29 AM, "Alex Kozak" <akozak at berkeley.edu
>> >> >> <mailto:akozak at berkeley.edu>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Same.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Brian Rowe <brian at freedomforip.org
>> >> >> <mailto:brian at freedomforip.org>> wrote: > > I am interested in...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Alex Kozak
>> >> >> akozak at berkeley.edu <mailto:akozak at berkeley.edu>
>> >> >> 916.225.2718
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Discuss mailing list
>> >> >> Discuss at freeculture.org <mailto:Discuss at freeculture.org>
>> >> >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Discuss mailing list
>> >> > Discuss at freeculture.org
>> >> > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> D Parker Phinney
>> >> madebyparker.com
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Discuss mailing list
>> >> Discuss at freeculture.org
>> >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discuss mailing list
>> > Discuss at freeculture.org
>> > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Discuss mailing list
>> > Discuss at freeculture.org
>> > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at freeculture.org
>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090702/3413cdfd/attachment.htm 

From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Mon Jul  6 14:21:47 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:21:47 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] DOJ Opens Review of Telecom Industry
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A5240BB.9AB67BFC@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124689740762401297.html


DOJ Opens Review of Telecom Industry


By AMOL SHARMA

JULY 6, 2009, 12:42 P.M. ET


The Department of Justice has begun an initial review to determine
whether large U.S. telecom companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon
Communications Inc. have abused the market power they've amassed in
recent years, according to people familiar with the matter.

The review of potential anti-competitive practices is in its very
early stages, and it isn't a formal investigation of any specific
company at this point, the people said. It isn't clear whether the
agency intends to launch an official inquiry.

Among the areas the Justice Department could explore is whether
wireless carriers are hurting smaller competitors by locking up
popular phones through exclusive agreements with handset makers,
according to the people. In recent weeks lawmakers and regulators have
raised questions about deals such as AT&T's exclusive right to provide
service for Apple Inc.'s popular iPhone in the U.S.

The Justice Department may also review whether telecom carriers are
unduly restricting the types of services other companies can offer on
their networks, one person familiar with the situation said.

The scrutiny of the telecom industry is an indication of the Obama
administration's aggressive stance on antitrust enforcement. The
Justice Department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, has said she
wants to reassert the government's role in policing monopolistic and
anti-competitive practices by powerful companies.

The statute that governs such behavior ? the Sherman Antitrust Act ?
was used by the government in cases against giants ranging from
Standard Oil to Microsoft Corp. But it lay essentially dormant during
the Bush years, with the agency bringing no major case.

Now Ms. Varney plans to revive that area of U.S. law, and the telecom
industry is among several sectors ? including health care and
agriculture ? that are coming under scrutiny, the people familiar with
the matter said. She is already tackling one high-tech area by
investigating Google Inc.'s settlement with authors and publishers
over its Book Search product.

Through a spasm of consolidation and organic growth, AT&T and Verizon
have become the two dominant players in telecommunications, with the
largest networks and major clout over equipment makers. Combined, they
control 90 million landline customers and 60% of the 270 million U.S.
wireless subscribers. They also operate large portions of the Internet
backbone, ferrying data across the country and overseas.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Some antitrust experts said the government would have a tough time
opening a Sherman Act case against telecom providers if it chooses to
do so. To bring a case, the government must show that a company is
abusing its market power.

"It would be a very hard case to make," said Donald Russell, a
Washington attorney who reviewed a number of major telecom mergers as
a DOJ antitrust lawyer in the Clinton Administration. "You don't have
any firm that's in a dominant position. Usually, you need to show a
firm has real market power."

Write to Amol Sharma at amol.sharma at wsj.com


From james.love at keionline.org  Mon Jul  6 18:43:48 2009
From: james.love at keionline.org (James Love)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Open Source aspects Oracle/Sun merger
In-Reply-To: <cb1f7ec30907021222ta11e190g8892d3b2e0a567ff@mail.gmail.com>
References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<7b43a54c0906300703h7e8d660ai1f03451112dfe398@mail.gmail.com>
	<d9dd4fec0906300828se1d947ex143364b48fe41e20@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfae87ff0906301020m265d9afai84b3665aa8f6d539@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfae87ff0906301020v57ddcb5em9276b7c6ec6afd8b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30906301100u2869c0eeq7aeaa271c2b9b3bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD24585E-72D5-4BE1-BA29-857E74B1DD5A@gmail.com>
	<5396c0d10906301254g3ba86b9el259948c1c4fee3b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<767eb04e0906301833v79baa13fk3586335ff63b5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30907021222ta11e190g8892d3b2e0a567ff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1246920228.32613.6.camel@dell1420>

KEI is meeting with DOJ on Wed to discuss the open source aspects of the
Oracle/Sun merger.  We will be focusing on MySQL, Java and OO.o.
-- 
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.6584


From akozak at berkeley.edu  Mon Jul  6 19:42:28 2009
From: akozak at berkeley.edu (Alex Kozak)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:42:28 -0700
Subject: [FC-discuss] Open Source aspects Oracle/Sun merger
In-Reply-To: <1246920228.32613.6.camel@dell1420>
References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfae87ff0906301020m265d9afai84b3665aa8f6d539@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfae87ff0906301020v57ddcb5em9276b7c6ec6afd8b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30906301100u2869c0eeq7aeaa271c2b9b3bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD24585E-72D5-4BE1-BA29-857E74B1DD5A@gmail.com>
	<5396c0d10906301254g3ba86b9el259948c1c4fee3b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<767eb04e0906301833v79baa13fk3586335ff63b5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30907021222ta11e190g8892d3b2e0a567ff@mail.gmail.com>
	<1246920228.32613.6.camel@dell1420>
Message-ID: <d9dd4fec0907061642o129834cdx4f2ddd4dbb29c5d0@mail.gmail.com>

For the sake of discussion, what are the open source issues related to the
merger?
- Alex Kozak

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:43 PM, James Love <james.love at keionline.org> wrote:

> KEI is meeting with DOJ on Wed to discuss the open source aspects of the
> Oracle/Sun merger.  We will be focusing on MySQL, Java and OO.o.
> --
> James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
> Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile
> +41.76.413.6584
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
Alex Kozak
akozak at berkeley.edu
916.225.2718
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090706/f0fcda7c/attachment.htm 

From mrenoch at phantomcynthetics.com  Mon Jul  6 22:48:29 2009
From: mrenoch at phantomcynthetics.com (Jonah Bossewitch)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:48:29 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] July NYC Evolver Spore Event
Message-ID: <4A52B77D.4090006@phantomcynthetics.com>

Hey Everyone -

I hope you are having a fun summer.

I started this inquiry on the NYU local list, but came up short. I am in
search of some generic fc schwag, and wondering if anyone can point me
in the right direction. I am up for doing some local printing, but would
love some stickers, or starter kits, and the like. Any suggestions?

Here are more details:

I have been hanging out a bit lately w/ the Evolver.net crew (a non-
corporate social network that is a spinoff of the
http://realitysandwich.com/
magazine. Think -- psychodelic hippies and nyc burners). They have a
ton of great energy, and have even latched on (somewhat superficially)
to open source/free culture rhetoric. There is likely lots to gain by
cross-pollinating our ways of thinking/living/being.

Anyway, they have been trying to organize monthly "spore" events, and
I have been in touch with an organizer of the upcoming july event. A
portion of the evening is devoted to outside groups tabling. This is
the event coming up on wed july 15th

http://www.evolver.net/event/spores_beyond_money

I was toying w/ the idea of tabling for free culture at this event.

Is anyone else interested in joining me?

Where/how would I go about borrowing schwag to stock the table with?

This was an event I went to a few months back that I really enjoyed:

http://alchemicalmusings.org/2009/04/20/intentional-energy/

Be prepared for plenty of new age flake, but its in really good
faith ;-)

What do you think?

cheers,
/Jonah

From wesley at freeculturenyu.org  Tue Jul  7 01:00:52 2009
From: wesley at freeculturenyu.org (Wesley Chen)
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:00:52 -0700
Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards conference call on Tue
	Jul 7
Message-ID: <cb1f7ec30907062200j6b81dff5v1a3cf816f5197f6@mail.gmail.com>

Hey all,If you're interested in the Open University Report Cards project,
join in on our conference call TODAY, TUE JUL 7, AT 9 PM EDT (in about 20
hrs).

We'll be hashing out our mission, goals, and timeline.

Here's how to get in on the call:
1. Dial (712) 432-1590
2. Enter access code 119229#

Please mute your mic when listening to prevent feedback and noise. (Worst
case scenario: we'll move the call to IRC.)

Back chatter will take place simultaneously in #freeculture on
irc.freenode.net.

Can't make it? A recording and outline of the call will be posted on the SFC
wiki. Stay tuned for a link.

Estimated call time: 30 mins to whenever we feel like it. Hope to hear from
you!

All the best,
Wesley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090706/ff50730a/attachment-0001.htm 

From james.love at keionline.org  Tue Jul  7 11:38:34 2009
From: james.love at keionline.org (James Love)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:38:34 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Open Source aspects Oracle/Sun merger
In-Reply-To: <1246981081.14174.12.camel@dell1420>
References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfae87ff0906301020m265d9afai84b3665aa8f6d539@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfae87ff0906301020v57ddcb5em9276b7c6ec6afd8b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30906301100u2869c0eeq7aeaa271c2b9b3bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD24585E-72D5-4BE1-BA29-857E74B1DD5A@gmail.com>
	<5396c0d10906301254g3ba86b9el259948c1c4fee3b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<767eb04e0906301833v79baa13fk3586335ff63b5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30907021222ta11e190g8892d3b2e0a567ff@mail.gmail.com>
	<1246920228.32613.6.camel@dell1420>
	<d9dd4fec0907061642o129834cdx4f2ddd4dbb29c5d0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1246981081.14174.12.camel@dell1420>
Message-ID: <1246981114.14174.13.camel@dell1420>

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 11:38 -0400, James Love wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:42 -0700, Alex Kozak wrote:
> For the sake of discussion, what are the open source issues related to
> the merger?
> - Alex Kozak

   MySQL (the M in LAMP) provide a very important free open source SQL
database.  Oracle provides a very pricy closed source database.  Prices
for licensing the Oracle database and the Microsoft SQL server have been
driven down by competition.  MySQL is part of that competition.

   What will happen to MySQL if the merger goes through?  Will it have
efficient investment to continue to be as relevant has it has become?
Should Oracle be allowed to acquire MySQL?  Is the fact that MySQL can
be forked enough of protection for the users of MySQL?

  OpenOffice.Org (OO.o) is right now the main thing checking Microsoft's
monopoly power in the office suite market, and providing a challenge to
Microsoft's control over data formats, by implementing ODF.  Sun was
providing the most support to this project.  Will Oracle be tempted to
cut a deal with Microsoft, to cut off support for OO.o?  

  Java is now a pretty important part of the web.  Sun discusses some of
the openness issues here:

http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#h

There are issues, I believe, regarding the patents on Java, that are not
resolved by the licensing of most of the software code.


> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:43 PM, James Love <james.love at keionline.org>
> wrote:
>         KEI is meeting with DOJ on Wed to discuss the open source
>         aspects of the
>         Oracle/Sun merger.  We will be focusing on MySQL, Java and
>         OO.o.
>         --
>         James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
>         http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
>         Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva
>         Mobile +41.76.413.6584
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Discuss mailing list
>         Discuss at freeculture.org
>         http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alex Kozak
> akozak at berkeley.edu
> 916.225.2718
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-- 
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.6584


From james.love at keionline.org  Tue Jul  7 12:05:18 2009
From: james.love at keionline.org (James Love)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:05:18 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Open Source aspects Oracle/Sun merger
In-Reply-To: <1246981114.14174.13.camel@dell1420>
References: <827235d0906300650u63f3fe7bxfc76e9b0ec7f28bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfae87ff0906301020m265d9afai84b3665aa8f6d539@mail.gmail.com>
	<dfae87ff0906301020v57ddcb5em9276b7c6ec6afd8b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A4A4CCB.6060400@gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30906301100u2869c0eeq7aeaa271c2b9b3bf@mail.gmail.com>
	<CD24585E-72D5-4BE1-BA29-857E74B1DD5A@gmail.com>
	<5396c0d10906301254g3ba86b9el259948c1c4fee3b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<767eb04e0906301833v79baa13fk3586335ff63b5ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<cb1f7ec30907021222ta11e190g8892d3b2e0a567ff@mail.gmail.com>
	<1246920228.32613.6.camel@dell1420>
	<d9dd4fec0907061642o129834cdx4f2ddd4dbb29c5d0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1246981081.14174.12.camel@dell1420>
	<1246981114.14174.13.camel@dell1420>
Message-ID: <1246982719.14174.16.camel@dell1420>

(Sorry about the typos and other mistakes in the message below)

Some market share info for MySQL are available in these links.  

http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/

http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/presskits/2008-0116/mysql_factsataglance.pdf

On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 11:38 -0400, James Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 11:38 -0400, James Love wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:42 -0700, Alex Kozak wrote:
> > For the sake of discussion, what are the open source issues related to
> > the merger?
> > - Alex Kozak
> 
>    MySQL (the M in LAMP) provide a very important free open source SQL
> database.  Oracle provides a very pricy closed source database.  Prices
> for licensing the Oracle database and the Microsoft SQL server have been
> driven down by competition.  MySQL is part of that competition.
> 
>    What will happen to MySQL if the merger goes through?  Will it have
> efficient investment to continue to be as relevant has it has become?
> Should Oracle be allowed to acquire MySQL?  Is the fact that MySQL can
> be forked enough of protection for the users of MySQL?
> 
>   OpenOffice.Org (OO.o) is right now the main thing checking Microsoft's
> monopoly power in the office suite market, and providing a challenge to
> Microsoft's control over data formats, by implementing ODF.  Sun was
> providing the most support to this project.  Will Oracle be tempted to
> cut a deal with Microsoft, to cut off support for OO.o?  
> 
>   Java is now a pretty important part of the web.  Sun discusses some of
> the openness issues here:
> 
> http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#h
> 
> There are issues, I believe, regarding the patents on Java, that are not
> resolved by the licensing of most of the software code.
> 
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:43 PM, James Love <james.love at keionline.org>
> > wrote:
> >         KEI is meeting with DOJ on Wed to discuss the open source
> >         aspects of the
> >         Oracle/Sun merger.  We will be focusing on MySQL, Java and
> >         OO.o.
> >         --
> >         James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
> >         http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
> >         Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva
> >         Mobile +41.76.413.6584
> >         
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Discuss mailing list
> >         Discuss at freeculture.org
> >         http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Alex Kozak
> > akozak at berkeley.edu
> > 916.225.2718
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at freeculture.org
> > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-- 
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.6584


From james.love at keionline.org  Tue Jul  7 12:07:45 2009
From: james.love at keionline.org (James Love)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:07:45 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] RMS on Mysql
Message-ID: <1246982865.14174.18.camel@dell1420>



-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org>
Reply-to: rms at gnu.org
To: James Love <james.love at keionline.org>
Cc: malini.aisola at keionline.org
Subject: Re: Mysql
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:00:56 -0400

Does FSF have an opinion in the Oracle acquisition of MySQL?

The danger is clear: it puts MySQL under the control of a company that
distributes a proprietary database.  The company might decide to block
certain improvements in MySQL if they might enable some users to migrate
to it from Oracle.

-- 
James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org
Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.6584


From wesley at freeculturenyu.org  Tue Jul  7 21:06:38 2009
From: wesley at freeculturenyu.org (Wesley Chen)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:06:38 -0700
Subject: [FC-discuss] Open University Report Cards conference call on
	Tue Jul 7
In-Reply-To: <cb1f7ec30907062200j6b81dff5v1a3cf816f5197f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cb1f7ec30907062200j6b81dff5v1a3cf816f5197f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cb1f7ec30907071806l7969aee5v7cc3b86d9f4adf6c@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies, I sent out the wrong phone number. Try this instead:Dial - (712)
432-0080
Enter Access Code - 119229#

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Wesley Chen <wesley at freeculturenyu.org>wrote:

> Hey all,If you're interested in the Open University Report Cards project,
> join in on our conference call TODAY, TUE JUL 7, AT 9 PM EDT (in about 20
> hrs).
>
> We'll be hashing out our mission, goals, and timeline.
>
> Here's how to get in on the call:
> 1. Dial (712) 432-1590
> 2. Enter access code 119229#
>
> Please mute your mic when listening to prevent feedback and noise. (Worst
> case scenario: we'll move the call to IRC.)
>
> Back chatter will take place simultaneously in #freeculture on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> Can't make it? A recording and outline of the call will be posted on the
> SFC wiki. Stay tuned for a link.
>
> Estimated call time: 30 mins to whenever we feel like it. Hope to hear from
> you!
>
> All the best,
> Wesley
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090707/b5ab8cfa/attachment.htm 

From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Wed Jul  8 06:59:06 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:59:06 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A547BFA.AB02DE63@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


(This is a supremely succinct, lucid statement from Christian
Engstrom, the Pirate Party candidate newly elected to the European
Parliament.  He presents the crossroads at which we stand, and thereby
provides us an argument that illustrates its own inherent strengths
against the prospects of palladiated computing and using
"anti-counterfeiting" as a rubric for eradicating the valid traditions
and most important characteristics of copyright.  -- Seth)


> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/87c523a4-6b18-11de-861d-00144feabdc0.html


Copyright laws threaten our online freedom


By Christian Engstr?m

Published: July 7 2009 18:10


If you search for Elvis Presley in Wikipedia, you will find a lot of
text and a few pictures that have been cleared for distribution. But
you will find no music and no film clips, due to copyright
restrictions. What we think of as our common cultural heritage is not
?ours? at all.

On MySpace and YouTube, creative people post audio and video remixes
for others to enjoy, until they are replaced by take-down notices
handed out by big film and record companies. Technology opens up
possibilities; copyright law shuts them down.

This was never the intent. Copyright was meant to encourage culture,
not restrict it. This is reason enough for reform. But the current
regime has even more damaging effects. In order to uphold copyright
laws, governments are beginning to restrict our right to communicate
with each other in private, without being monitored.

File-sharing occurs whenever one individual sends a file to another.
The only way to even try to limit this process is to monitor all
communication between ordinary people. Despite the crackdown on
Napster, Kazaa and other peer-to-peer services over the past decade,
the volume of file-sharing has grown exponentially. Even if the
authorities closed down all other possibilities, people could still
send copyrighted files as attachments to e-mails or through private
networks. If people start doing that, should we give the government
the right to monitor all mail and all encrypted networks? Whenever
there are ways of communicating in private, they will be used to share
copyrighted material. If you want to stop people doing this, you must
remove the right to communicate in private. There is no other option.
Society has to make a choice.

The world is at a crossroads. The internet and new information
technologies are so powerful that no matter what we do, society will
change. But the direction has not been decided.

The technology could be used to create a Big Brother society beyond
our nightmares, where governments and corporations monitor every
detail of our lives. In the former East Germany, the government needed
tens of thousands of employees to keep track of the citizens using
typewriters, pencils and index cards. Today a computer can do the same
thing a million times faster, at the push of a button. There are many
politicians who want to push that button.

The same technology could instead be used to create a society that
embraces spontaneity, collaboration and diversity. Where the citizens
are no longer passive consumers being fed information and culture
through one-way media, but are instead active participants
collaborating on a journey into the future.

The internet it still in its infancy, but already we see fantastic
things appearing as if by magic. Take Linux, the free computer
operating system, or Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Witness the
participatory culture of MySpace and YouTube, or the growth of the
Pirate Bay, which makes the world?s culture easily available to
anybody with an internet connection. But where technology opens up new
possibilities, our intellectual property laws do their best to
restrict them. Linux is held back by patents, the rest of the examples
by copyright.

The public increasingly recognises the need for reform. That was why
Piratpartiet ? the Pirate party ? won 7.1 per cent of the popular vote
in Sweden in the European Union elections. This gave us a seat in the
European parliament for the first time.

Our manifesto is to reform copyright laws and gradually abolish the
patent system. We oppose mass surveillance and censorship on the net,
as in the rest of society. We want to make the EU more democratic and
transparent. This is our entire platform.

We intend to devote all our time and energy to protecting the
fundamental civil liberties on the net and elsewhere. Seven per cent
of Swedish voters agreed with us that it makes sense to put other
political differences aside in order to ensure this.

Political decisions taken over the next five years are likely to set
the course we take into the information society, and will affect the
lives of millions for many years into the future. Will we let our
fears lead us towards a dystopian Big Brother state, or will we have
the courage and wisdom to choose an exciting future in a free and open
society?

The information revolution is happening here and now. It is up to us
to decide what future we want.

The writer is the Pirate party?s member of the European parliament.


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Thu Jul  9 08:07:51 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:07:51 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] NY FC Fighters Needed -- Stand Against Trademark Abuse
	at ICANN
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A55DD97.C2DA9DA8@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


Hi folks, this is you.  We *need to get to this hearing, the New York
phase of a rapid series of meetings around the world by ICANN.  Please
see the blurb below.  You MUST REGISTER by TOMORROW.  It's at the
Millennium Hotel this Monday.

(Others in other cities, get ready)

This is the rollout for the new Global Top Level Domains.  It's the
supposed public input phase.  But it's also about putting in place a
massive, global change in trademark policy.

Get this -- the group that put this plan together (the "Implementation
Recommendation Team" or IRT) has already closed shop before initiating
these meetings -- so what's the point?

Domain names don't match up with trademark law -- DNS is about giving
symbols one universal address.  Language is not.  You don't trademark
"Apple" -- you reserve the use of that trademark to market a
particular kind of goods or service.  Thus we have Apple Computers and
The Beatles' Apple music company.  Or Sun Oil in Canada, a completely
separate company from Sun Oil in America -- and certainly not the same
as the Sun computing company.  There's also fair use -- and of course
free speech.

The MPAA and International Trademark have had a hand in ICANN from its
inception, when they required the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. 
Now, along with rolling out new global Top Level Domains, trademark
owners are ramming through a new process that goes well beyond that. 
They are pulling out the stops to get ICANN to implement what will in
practical terms amount to a huge revision in the nature of trademark,
back by strong practical action.  Along with a new "Uniform Rapid
Suspension System" to shut down sites quickly, they are establishing
ICANN as playing the role of policing trademarks -- which by law is
the trademark holders' responsibility.

The thing to remember is that while domain names and trademarks might
be hard to get a hold of politically, this sets a huge precedent that
will change trademark beyond that area.  So we call them on their
process.

(Among other things, this will mean no more Yes Men.  :-) )

Kathy Kleiman of the ICANN "Noncommercial Users Constituency" will be
able to brief you more fully.  She can also explain what went down in
the previous discussions, where they've essentially ignored all the
substantive points she presented.  It's up to us to come in in numbers
and say we got their number.

See below blurb from Kathy.


Seth




ICANN Public Consultation: Should New Top Level Domains Include Broad
New Trademark Protections?


On Mon, July 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers  (ICANN) will hold a public consultation at the Hudson
Theatre,  Millennium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, to discuss the
"rules of the  road" for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), future
competitors to  .COM, .ORG and .NET.


A group of trademark attorneys, representing large brand owners, in
May wrote a report calling on ICANN to create broad new trademark
protections before opening up new gTLDs.

   A. IP Clearinghouse: a massive database of registered and 
      unregistered trademark rights created by ICANN (IRT 
      Report, pp. 12-16

   B. Globally Protected Marks List: a list of global marks 
      created and maintained by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 16-
      22)

   C. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): A ultra-fast 
      takedown service with little notice or time to respond 
      by domain name registrants (IRT, pp. 25-37)


These proposals have been criticized as outside the mission and scope
of  ICANN, a technical body, and outside the protections and limits
of  trademark law. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency writes "We
fear the impact of the IRT Proposals on free speech and fair use
online.  Trademark owners don't own strings of letters, they have a
trademark for  specific goods and services. Basic words like APPLE,
TIDE, SUN and TIME belong to all of us. Many important domain names
will be lost, or worse,  blocked before they can be registered." 

Approval of the IRT Report is being rushed through ICANN with minimal 
opportunity to comment. It is vital that ICANN hear comment as soon
as  possible, and Monday is an opportunity to speak. 

ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency will be hosting a breakfast
at the Millennium Hotel on Monday morning. Please contact NCUC
Co-Founder  Kathy Kleiman, kathy at kathykleiman.com
<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>,  for more details. 


Registration to speak on 7/13 at this link (deadline 7/10):
http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/


IRT Report: 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm

IP Justice Comments: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00210.html

EFF Australia Comments: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00179.html

Noncommercial Users Constituency Website with comments: 
http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/


From ml at creativecommons.org  Tue Jul 14 20:27:19 2009
From: ml at creativecommons.org (Mike Linksvayer)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:27:19 -0700
Subject: [FC-discuss] AcaWiki community manager wanted
Message-ID: <c03154ae0907141727r542c0c0blacdf674ddfbf085f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi there. Hopefully this will be of interest to you or someone you
know passionate about open access and wikis -- please pass along.
AcaWiki is the new project of Neeru Paharia, who some of you may have
met during her time with Creative Commons. I think it has lots of
potential.

Mike


AcaWiki (acawiki.org) is a new not-for-profit project with the mission
to make summaries of academic papers and literature reviews accessible
to the world. Today, most academic papers are not accessible to the
general public due to restrictive copyright policies held by
publishers. Because of these policies, most of the public is locked
out of accessing cutting-edge research. Furthermore many academic
papers are written with complicated jargon that?s difficult for
outsiders to understand.

To make academic knowledge accessible, we have built a user-friendly
semantic wiki that enables people to post human-readable summaries of
academic papers and literature reviews to acawiki.org. All content on
the site is available under a Creative Commons Attribution license to
guarantee maximum access throughout the world.

At this point AcaWiki is being run by a small group of dedicated
volunteers; however starting a community wiki takes serious time and
effort. We are looking to hire a part-time Community Manager to build
community, culture, and content during the site?s first six months of
operations. While our success is surely against the odds given the
entrenched nature of a closed-access culture, we are passionate and
determined to make the project a success and would be thrilled to find
someone who shares our enthusiasm for open access.

If interested please a short letter of interest and your resume to
acawikisummaries at gmail.com

From akozak at creativecommons.org  Wed Jul 15 01:32:47 2009
From: akozak at creativecommons.org (Alex Kozak)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:32:47 -0700
Subject: [FC-discuss] Huge announcement today: Obama announces $50 million
	for CC licensed content
Message-ID: <f92c498e0907142232n73e8ead6nc46c990ffb2e33b4@mail.gmail.com>

This is huge!

Word on the street is that Obama's American Graduation Initiative announced
today (
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Investing-in-Education-The-American-Graduation-Initiative/)
includes $50 million for creating open online courses, we're told under a CC
license.

Relevant text from his speech:
*
"Even as we repair bricks and mortar, we have an opportunity to build a new
virtual infrastructure to complement the education and training community
colleges can offer.  So we're going to support the creation of a new online,
open-source clearinghouse of courses so that community colleges across the
country can offer more classes without building more classrooms.  And this
will make a big difference especially for rural campuses that a lot of times
have struggled -- attract -- have to struggle to attract students and
faculty.  And this will make it possible for a professor to complement his
lecture with an online exercise, or for a student who can't be away from her
family to still keep up with her coursework.  We don't know where this kind
of experiment will lead, but that's exactly why we ought to try it because I
think there's a possibility that online education can provide especially for
people who are already in the workforce and want to retrain the chance to
upgrade their skills without having to quit their job."*

Thanks to everyone who continues to advocate for open content. There is much
more to be done!

-- 
Alex Kozak
Education Program Assistant
ccLearn, Creative Commons
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090714/3aa2f9a4/attachment.htm 

From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Wed Jul 15 07:16:07 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:16:07 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Key Questions for Sotomayor (or Any SCOTUS Nominee
	Today)
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A5DBA77.3815F7D3@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


(The item below may seem tangential to the area of information freedom
at first, but I think its implications and relevance will be very
clear with only short reflection.  It is a letter from POCLAD to the
Judiciary Committee with questions for Sotomayor that they also
recommended for the Alito hearings.  I don't think they need to depict
the Supreme Court's exercise of authority quite the way they do, and
while there is a relevant case imminent, I think they do not need to
emphasize the issue of campaign contributions so much as they seem
to.  The issue they are illustrating could easily have enormous, broad
appeal across the political spectrum.  There are *many* issues they
are touching upon, related to corporations, the commerce clause,
sovereignty and self-determination, the issues many of us are dealing
with in the international arena, the economy, trade and the market,
governance, democracy, and the general abyssmal condition that the
world is in right now, that POCLAD could also easily allude to, that
would resonate with all of us. -- Seth)


> http://www.poclad.org/media/SenJudiciaryReSotomayor.pdf


Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy
Instigating democratic conversations and actions that contest the
authority of corporations to govern
Box 246 S. Yarmouth, MA 02664
www.poclad.org
people at ...
508-398-1145


OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE US SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

from the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD)


July 14, 2009


Dear US Senate Judiciary Committee Members,

The Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) calls on you
to continue your questioning of US Supreme Court nominee Sonia
Sotomayor.  Judge Sotomayor's position on the larger issue of this
nation's democracy, trampled by the rights and powers of corporations
to govern, have so far been left untouched and unexplored in Senate
confirmation hearings.

The vast majority of non-criminal cases to be brought before the nine
robed ones of the Supreme Court in the next few years will relate to
matters of corporate "rights," protections, and dominance and their
impact on the rights of human beings in this so-called democracy.  It
is appropriate, therefore, that questions be asked concerning the
doctrines of corporate autonomy and authority that insulate these
collections of capital and property from control by the people and
their legislatures - a control that existed at one time in this
nation.

Have the judiciary's efforts been so successful over the last 200
years to find corporations within the US Constitution and bestow
constitutional "rights" upon them that current lawmakers fail even to
question this democratic and illegitimate reality? Indeed, for two
centuries Supreme Court justices, the closest institution we have to
Kings and Queens, have been at the center of affirming and expanding
corporate rule and placing corporations well beyond the authority of
the people. We hope you do not concur with this history and its
consequences.

We hope the questions on the following page are asked of nominee
Sotomayor during her Senate hearings. Only after she responds to these
concerns and her answers promptly made available to the general public
and to all U.S. Senators should voting on her confirmation occur. It
should be noted that these questions were the same that we requested
be put to Judge Samuel Alito during his January, 2006 confirmation
hearings. To our knowledge, none of them were asked.

The appointment for life of a person who will assume a position of
vast and seemingly ever growing power in our society demands an
exhaustive review of every issue area that he/she is likely to address
in the high court. Corporate constitutional rights and their impact on
our rights as self-governing human beings certainly qualify as one
such area of questioning. This decision is of the utmost importance to
the fate of the country.

Respectfully,

The Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy

Attachments:
Questions for Supreme Court Justice Nominee Sonia Sotomayer

Quotes from Previous Supreme Court Decisions and Justices on
Corporations


Questions for Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor

First a bit of background. In a 1978 case, First National Bank of
Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court decided, 5 to 4, that business
corporations -- just as flesh and blood like you and me -- have a
First Amendment right to spend their money to influence elections.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented. "It might reasonably be
concluded," he wrote, "that those properties, so beneficial in the
economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere." The
late Chief Justice went on to write: "Furthermore, it might be argued
that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to
effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial
corporations to exist."

-- Do you believe that corporate money in our elections poses "special
dangers in the political sphere"?

-- Do you believe "that liberties of political expression" are
necessary "to effectuate the purposes for which States permit
commercial corporations to exist"?"

-- Do you believe that money is speech? Or is it property?

In 1886, only eighteen years after the people ratified the Fourteenth
Amendment, the Supreme Court had before it Santa Clara County v.
Southern Pacific Railroad. The issue was whether the Amendment's
guarantee of equal protection barred California from taxing property
owned by a corporation differently from property owned by a human
being. Chief Justice Morrison Waite disposed of it with a bolt-from- 
the-blue pronouncement: "The Court does not wish to hear argument on
the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, which forbids a state to deny any person the equal
protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of
the opinion that it does." The conferring of Fourteenth Amendment
rights on the corporate form appeared in a clerk's headnote to the
case.

-- How would you characterize the Court's refusal to hear argument in
a momentous case before deciding it?

-- Was the "person" whose basic rights the framers and the people
sought to protect through the 14th amendment to the Constitution the
newly freed slave?

-- Was the "person" a corporation?

-- Is a corporation a person "born or naturalized in the United
States"?

-- In proclaiming a paper entity to be a person, was the court
faithful to the intent of the framers of the Amendment and to the
intent of the people who ratified it?

-- How would you characterize the court's refusal to hear argument in
a momentous case before deciding it?

-- Would you describe the court's action in Santa Clara as
conservative? As radical? As open-minded?

-- Would you characterize the Court's Santa Clara action as being an
example of judicial activism?

---

Quotes from Previous Supreme Court Decisions and Justices on
Corporations 

Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911):

All who recall the condition of the country in 1890 will remember that
there was everywhere, among the people generally, a deep feeling of
unrest. The nation had been rid of human slavery-- fortunately, as
all  now feel--but the conviction was universal that the country was
in real danger from another kind of slavery sought to be fastened on
the American people: namely, the slavery that would result from
aggregations of capital in the hands of a few individuals and
corporations controlling, for their own profit and advantage
exclusively, the entire business of the country, including the
production and sale of the necessities of life.

Liggett Co. v. Lee 288 U.S. 517 (1933) (dissent by Justice Brandeis):

The prevalence of the corporation in America has led men of this
generation to act, at times, as if the privilege of doing business in
corporate form were inherent in the citizen; and has led them to
accept the evils attendant upon the free and unrestricted use of the
corporate mechanism as if these evils were the inescapable price of
civilized life and, hence, to be borne with resignation.  Throughout
the greater part of our history, a different view prevailed.  Although
the value of this instrumentality in commerce and industry was fully
recognized, incorporation for business was commonly denied long after
it had been freely granted for religious, educational and charitable
purposes.  It was denied because of fear.  Fear of encroachment upon
the liberties and opportunities of the individual.  Fear of the
subjection of labor to capital.  Fear of monopoly.  Fear that the
absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might
bring evils. . . There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent
in large aggregations of capital, particularly when held by
corporations. 

Justice Brandeis warned ominously of the threat to democracy that
justifies sovereign control of corporations:

Able and discerning scholars have pictured for us the economic and
social results of thus removing all limitations upon the size and
activities of business corporations and of vesting in their managers
vast powers once exercised by stockholders--results not designed by
the states and long unsuspected. . . .  Through size, corporations,
once merely an efficient tool employed by individuals in the conduct
of private business, have become an institution--an institution which
has brought such concentration of economic power that so-called
private corporations are sometimes able to dominate the state.  The
typical business corporation of the last century, owned by a small
group of individuals, managed by their owners, and limited in size by
their personal wealth, is being supplanted by huge concerns in which
the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of employees and the
property of tens or hundreds of thousands of investors are subjected,
through the corporate mechanism, to the control of a few men.

Ownership has been separated from control; and this separation has
removed many of the checks which formerly operated to curb the misuse
of wealth and power. And as ownership of the shares is becoming
continually more dispersed, the power which formerly accompanied
ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few.
 The changes thereby wrought in the lives of the workers, of the
owners and of the general public, are so fundamental and far-reaching
as to lead these scholars to compare the evolving "corporate system"
with the feudal system; and to lead other men of insight and
experience to assert that this "master institution of civilized life"
is committing it to the rule of a plutocracy.  Liggett, pp. 564-565. 

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)
Dissents by Justices White, Brennan, Marshall

...the special status of corporations has placed them in a position to
control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated,
dominate not only our economy but the very heart of our democracy, the
electoral process... The State need not allow its own creation to
consume it.


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Thu Jul 16 09:58:50 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:58:50 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] NY FC Fighters Needed -- Stand Against Trademark
	Abuse at ICANN
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A55DD97.C2DA9DA8@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A5F321A.CE56CA51@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


Hi all -- notes after the New York and London sessions have wrapped:


I found odd 1) the Implementation Recommendations Team's presenting of
recommendations without taking up the impact they would have on
established legal trademark traditions, and 2) that ICANN had chosen
to set up a panel constituted of representatives of large trademark
interests -- after a more participatory process had already been
conducted within ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organizations
policymaking process.

In the following video I ask the above questions:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfQrLVeFwcE


Of most note are Kathy Kleiman's comments for the Non-Commercial Users
Constituency (NCUC):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgUC869bTVM

This page from the NCUC describes quite clearly what's happening in
terms of how the decision process has been conducted and constituted:
> http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html


The IRT proposes to set up:

An IP Clearing House
A Globally Protected Marks list
A Uniform Rapid Suspension System
A Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Rebecca MacKinnon and Graham Chenoweth describe the prior restraint
issue associated with the plan here:
> http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_globally_protected_marks_list_gpml/


You'll find the slides from the IRT's presentation here:
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/presentation-irt-13jul09-en.pdf


ISOC's Public Interest Registry had this to say:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/comments_on_icanns_irt_final_report/

"We believe the Final Report puts too much emphasis on obliging
registries to enforce trademark rights, in place of requiring ICANN to
devote more resources to enforcing its contracts with registrars. We
also believe that ICANN already has the legal tools to deal with the
admittedly rare instances where a registry is in business to profit
from trademark infringement. Adding a new legal process and giving
rights to outsiders who are not parties to the ICANN-registry
agreements is likely to increase litigation and its expense for all
concerned. It is not likely to deal effectively with the real problems
of cybersquatting."


ISOC New York has posted a few videos here, including Jay Sulzberger
speaking in his own capacity, and Phil Corwin of the Internet Commerce
Association (more will be posted soon):
> http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=769


Two more comments from Saul Hansell on the New York Times blog:

The Best Internet Addresses Will Cost a Cool .Million
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-cost-a-cool-million/

Brokering Peace Between Brand Owners and Domainers
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owners-and-domainers/


This is the overview/announcement for these meetings:
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm


There are two more to go, in Tokyo and Abu Dhabi, in the next couple
of weeks.  Have only heard dribs from the London meet so far.


Seth Johnson



David Farber wrote:
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
> Date: July 9, 2009 6:09:28 PM EDT
> To: dave at farber.net
> Subject: NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN
> Reply-To: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org
> 
> Hi Dave -- anybody in New York who wants to call out the ICANN's
> "Implementation Recommendation Team" for their attempt provide tools
> for abusing trademark while they roll out the new Global Top Level
> Domains, needs to REGISTER BY TOMORROW here:
> 
> > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/
> 
> And then show up THIS MONDAY (sorry for the shouting, but those are
> the key terms in this message) at the Millenium Hotel, 145 West 44th
> Street.
> 
> See the blurb below my signature from Kathy Kleiman, among those who
> have been there from the inception of ICANN and watching out for all
> of us.
> 
> (Others in other cities, check out the schedule of meetings and get
> ready -- they are hitting several cities in a rapid fire fashion this
> month.)
> 
> The MPAA and International Trademark Association have had a hand in
> ICANN from its inception, when they prevailed in establishing the
> Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.  Now, along with rolling out new
> global Top Level Domains, trademark holders are ramming through a new
> process that goes well beyond that.  They are pulling out the stops to
> get ICANN to implement what will in practical terms amount to a huge
> revision in the nature of trademark, backed by strong action on the
> part of ICANN.  Along with a new "Uniform Rapid Suspension System" to
> shut down sites quickly, they are establishing ICANN as playing the
> role of policing trademarks -- which by law is the trademark holders'
> responsibility.
> 
> Domain names don't match up with trademark law -- DNS is about giving
> symbols one universal address.  Language is not.  You don't trademark
> "Apple" -- you reserve the use of that trademark to market a
> particular kind of goods or service.  Thus we have Apple Computers and
> The Beatles' Apple music company.  Or Sun Oil in Canada, a completely
> separate company from Sun Oil in America -- and certainly not the same
> as the Sun computing company.  And trademark is also subject to fair
> use and of course free speech.
> 
> While of course this becomes a tool for draconian action in the area
> of domain names, it also sets the stage for a major revision in the
> basic conception of trademark policy, allowing this to extend further.
> 
> Seth Johnson
> (Random Internet Activist)
> 
> ICANN Public Consultation: Should New Top Level Domains Include Broad
> New Trademark Protections?
> 
> On Mon, July 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers  (ICANN) will hold a public consultation at the Hudson
> Theatre,  Millennium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, to discuss the
> "rules of the  road" for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), future
> competitors to  .COM, .ORG and .NET.
> 
> A group of trademark attorneys, representing large brand owners, in
> May wrote a report calling on ICANN to create broad new trademark
> protections before opening up new gTLDs.
> 
>    A. IP Clearinghouse: a massive database of registered and
>       unregistered trademark rights created by ICANN (IRT
>       Report, pp. 12-16
> 
>    B. Globally Protected Marks List: a list of global marks
>       created and maintained by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 16-
>       22)
> 
>    C. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): A ultra-fast
>       takedown service with little notice or time to respond
>       by domain name registrants (IRT, pp. 25-37)
> 
> These proposals have been criticized as outside the mission and scope
> of  ICANN, a technical body, and outside the protections and limits
> of  trademark law. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency writes "We
> fear the impact of the IRT Proposals on free speech and fair use
> online.  Trademark owners don't own strings of letters, they have a
> trademark for  specific goods and services. Basic words like APPLE,
> TIDE, SUN and TIME belong to all of us. Many important domain names
> will be lost, or worse,  blocked before they can be registered."
> 
> Approval of the IRT Report is being rushed through ICANN with minimal
> opportunity to comment. It is vital that ICANN hear comment as soon
> as  possible, and Monday is an opportunity to speak.
> 
> ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency will be hosting a breakfast
> at the Millennium Hotel on Monday morning. Please contact NCUC
> Co-Founder  Kathy Kleiman, kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>,  for more details.
> 
> Registration to speak on 7/13 at this link (deadline 7/10):
> http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/
> 
> IRT Report:
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm
> 
> IP Justice Comments:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00210.html
> 
> EFF Australia Comments:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00179.html
> 
> Noncommercial Users Constituency Website with comments:
> http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


From fcb at fredbenenson.com  Thu Jul 16 12:42:27 2009
From: fcb at fredbenenson.com (Fred Benenson)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:42:27 -0700
Subject: [FC-discuss] Fwd: [Icommons] Free Culture Research Workshop 2009
In-Reply-To: <4A5F25AA.6060802@icommons.org>
References: <4A5F25AA.6060802@icommons.org>
Message-ID: <8e447b720907160942v6d9930d3q9a50d59b94cdb66e@mail.gmail.com>

FYI, this should be a great gathering.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Diane Cabell <dc at icommons.org>
Date: Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:05 AM
Subject: [Icommons] Free Culture Research Workshop 2009
To: icommons at lists.ibiblio.org


The Free Culture Research Workshop 2009
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5486> is looking for scholars working on:

       * Studies on the use and growth of open/free licensing models
       * Critical analyses of the role of Creative Commons or similar
         models in promoting a Free Culture
       * Building innovative technical, legal, organizational, or
         business solutions and interfaces between the sharing economy
         and the commercial economy
       * Modeling incentives, innovation and community dynamics in open
         collaborative peer production and in related social networks
       * Economic models for the sustainability of commons-based production
       * Successes and failures of open licensing
       * Analyses of policies, court rulings or industry moves that
         influence the future of Free Culture
       * Regional studies of Free Culture with global lessons/implications
       * Lessons from implementations of open/free licensing and
         distribution models for specific communities
       * Definitions of openness and freedom for different media types,
         users and communities
       * Broader sociopolitical, legal and cultural implications of
         Free Culture initiatives and peer production practices
       * Free Culture, Memory Institutions and the broader Public Sector
       * Open Science/ Research/ Education
       * Cooperation theory and practice, dynamics of cooperation and
         competition
       * Methodological approaches for studying the characteristics,
         history, impact or growth of Free Culture

It is tremendously exciting to see the commons attracting this research
interest. The workshop will be held October 23 at Harvard. Submissions
are due August 9. <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/5486>

Also see the last year?s post on the First Interdisciplinary Research
Workshop on Free Culture <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8436>.

_______________________________________________
Icommons mailing list
Icommons at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090716/9192fe07/attachment.htm 

From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Fri Jul 17 18:23:52 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:23:52 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] VIDEO RESTORED Re: NY FC Fighters Needed -- Stand
 Against Trademark Abuse at ICANN
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A55DD97.C2DA9DA8@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A5F321A.CE56CA51@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A60F9F8.8A614484@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


Hi folks -- the video links below work now that the Youtube video
account has been reactivated.  -- Seth


Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> Hi all -- notes after the New York and London sessions have wrapped:
> 
> I found odd 1) the Implementation Recommendations Team's presenting of
> recommendations without taking up the impact they would have on
> established legal trademark traditions, and 2) that ICANN had chosen
> to set up a panel constituted of representatives of large trademark
> interests -- after a more participatory process had already been
> conducted within ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organizations
> policymaking process.
> 
> In the following video I ask the above questions:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfQrLVeFwcE
> 
> Of most note are Kathy Kleiman's comments for the Non-Commercial Users
> Constituency (NCUC):
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgUC869bTVM
> 
> This page from the NCUC describes quite clearly what's happening in
> terms of how the decision process has been conducted and constituted:
> > http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html
> 
> The IRT proposes to set up:
> 
> An IP Clearing House
> A Globally Protected Marks list
> A Uniform Rapid Suspension System
> A Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Mechanism
> 
> Rebecca MacKinnon and Graham Chenoweth describe the prior restraint
> issue associated with the plan here:
> > http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2009/07/icann-and-free-speech.html
> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090621_mahmoud_ahmadinejad_globally_protected_marks_list_gpml/
> 
> You'll find the slides from the IRT's presentation here:
> > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/presentation-irt-13jul09-en.pdf
> 
> ISOC's Public Interest Registry had this to say:
> > http://www.circleid.com/posts/comments_on_icanns_irt_final_report/
> 
> "We believe the Final Report puts too much emphasis on obliging
> registries to enforce trademark rights, in place of requiring ICANN to
> devote more resources to enforcing its contracts with registrars. We
> also believe that ICANN already has the legal tools to deal with the
> admittedly rare instances where a registry is in business to profit
> from trademark infringement. Adding a new legal process and giving
> rights to outsiders who are not parties to the ICANN-registry
> agreements is likely to increase litigation and its expense for all
> concerned. It is not likely to deal effectively with the real problems
> of cybersquatting."
> 
> ISOC New York has posted a few videos here, including Jay Sulzberger
> speaking in his own capacity, and Phil Corwin of the Internet Commerce
> Association (more will be posted soon):
> > http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=769
> 
> Two more comments from Saul Hansell on the New York Times blog:
> 
> The Best Internet Addresses Will Cost a Cool .Million
> > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-cost-a-cool-million/
> 
> Brokering Peace Between Brand Owners and Domainers
> > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owners-and-domainers/
> 
> This is the overview/announcement for these meetings:
> > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm
> 
> There are two more to go, in Tokyo and Abu Dhabi, in the next couple
> of weeks.  Have only heard dribs from the London meet so far.
> 
> Seth Johnson
> 
> David Farber wrote:
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
> > Date: July 9, 2009 6:09:28 PM EDT
> > To: dave at farber.net
> > Subject: NY-ers Needed to Stop Trademark Abuse at ICANN
> > Reply-To: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org
> >
> > Hi Dave -- anybody in New York who wants to call out the ICANN's
> > "Implementation Recommendation Team" for their attempt provide tools
> > for abusing trademark while they roll out the new Global Top Level
> > Domains, needs to REGISTER BY TOMORROW here:
> >
> > > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/
> >
> > And then show up THIS MONDAY (sorry for the shouting, but those are
> > the key terms in this message) at the Millenium Hotel, 145 West 44th
> > Street.
> >
> > See the blurb below my signature from Kathy Kleiman, among those who
> > have been there from the inception of ICANN and watching out for all
> > of us.
> >
> > (Others in other cities, check out the schedule of meetings and get
> > ready -- they are hitting several cities in a rapid fire fashion this
> > month.)
> >
> > The MPAA and International Trademark Association have had a hand in
> > ICANN from its inception, when they prevailed in establishing the
> > Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.  Now, along with rolling out new
> > global Top Level Domains, trademark holders are ramming through a new
> > process that goes well beyond that.  They are pulling out the stops to
> > get ICANN to implement what will in practical terms amount to a huge
> > revision in the nature of trademark, backed by strong action on the
> > part of ICANN.  Along with a new "Uniform Rapid Suspension System" to
> > shut down sites quickly, they are establishing ICANN as playing the
> > role of policing trademarks -- which by law is the trademark holders'
> > responsibility.
> >
> > Domain names don't match up with trademark law -- DNS is about giving
> > symbols one universal address.  Language is not.  You don't trademark
> > "Apple" -- you reserve the use of that trademark to market a
> > particular kind of goods or service.  Thus we have Apple Computers and
> > The Beatles' Apple music company.  Or Sun Oil in Canada, a completely
> > separate company from Sun Oil in America -- and certainly not the same
> > as the Sun computing company.  And trademark is also subject to fair
> > use and of course free speech.
> >
> > While of course this becomes a tool for draconian action in the area
> > of domain names, it also sets the stage for a major revision in the
> > basic conception of trademark policy, allowing this to extend further.
> >
> > Seth Johnson
> > (Random Internet Activist)
> >
> > ICANN Public Consultation: Should New Top Level Domains Include Broad
> > New Trademark Protections?
> >
> > On Mon, July 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> > Numbers  (ICANN) will hold a public consultation at the Hudson
> > Theatre,  Millennium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, to discuss the
> > "rules of the  road" for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), future
> > competitors to  .COM, .ORG and .NET.
> >
> > A group of trademark attorneys, representing large brand owners, in
> > May wrote a report calling on ICANN to create broad new trademark
> > protections before opening up new gTLDs.
> >
> >    A. IP Clearinghouse: a massive database of registered and
> >       unregistered trademark rights created by ICANN (IRT
> >       Report, pp. 12-16
> >
> >    B. Globally Protected Marks List: a list of global marks
> >       created and maintained by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 16-
> >       22)
> >
> >    C. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): A ultra-fast
> >       takedown service with little notice or time to respond
> >       by domain name registrants (IRT, pp. 25-37)
> >
> > These proposals have been criticized as outside the mission and scope
> > of  ICANN, a technical body, and outside the protections and limits
> > of  trademark law. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency writes "We
> > fear the impact of the IRT Proposals on free speech and fair use
> > online.  Trademark owners don't own strings of letters, they have a
> > trademark for  specific goods and services. Basic words like APPLE,
> > TIDE, SUN and TIME belong to all of us. Many important domain names
> > will be lost, or worse,  blocked before they can be registered."
> >
> > Approval of the IRT Report is being rushed through ICANN with minimal
> > opportunity to comment. It is vital that ICANN hear comment as soon
> > as  possible, and Monday is an opportunity to speak.
> >
> > ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency will be hosting a breakfast
> > at the Millennium Hotel on Monday morning. Please contact NCUC
> > Co-Founder  Kathy Kleiman, kathy at kathykleiman.com
> > <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>,  for more details.
> >
> > Registration to speak on 7/13 at this link (deadline 7/10):
> > http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/
> >
> > IRT Report:
> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm
> >
> > IP Justice Comments:
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00210.html
> >
> > EFF Australia Comments:
> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00179.html
> >
> > Noncommercial Users Constituency Website with comments:
> > http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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.


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Thu Jul  9 08:07:51 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:07:51 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] NY FC Fighters Needed -- Stand Against Trademark Abuse
	at ICANN
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A55DD97.C2DA9DA8@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


Hi folks, this is you.  We *need to get to this hearing, the New York
phase of a rapid series of meetings around the world by ICANN.  Please
see the blurb below.  You MUST REGISTER by TOMORROW.  It's at the
Millennium Hotel this Monday.

(Others in other cities, get ready)

This is the rollout for the new Global Top Level Domains.  It's the
supposed public input phase.  But it's also about putting in place a
massive, global change in trademark policy.

Get this -- the group that put this plan together (the "Implementation
Recommendation Team" or IRT) has already closed shop before initiating
these meetings -- so what's the point?

Domain names don't match up with trademark law -- DNS is about giving
symbols one universal address.  Language is not.  You don't trademark
"Apple" -- you reserve the use of that trademark to market a
particular kind of goods or service.  Thus we have Apple Computers and
The Beatles' Apple music company.  Or Sun Oil in Canada, a completely
separate company from Sun Oil in America -- and certainly not the same
as the Sun computing company.  There's also fair use -- and of course
free speech.

The MPAA and International Trademark have had a hand in ICANN from its
inception, when they required the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. 
Now, along with rolling out new global Top Level Domains, trademark
owners are ramming through a new process that goes well beyond that. 
They are pulling out the stops to get ICANN to implement what will in
practical terms amount to a huge revision in the nature of trademark,
back by strong practical action.  Along with a new "Uniform Rapid
Suspension System" to shut down sites quickly, they are establishing
ICANN as playing the role of policing trademarks -- which by law is
the trademark holders' responsibility.

The thing to remember is that while domain names and trademarks might
be hard to get a hold of politically, this sets a huge precedent that
will change trademark beyond that area.  So we call them on their
process.

(Among other things, this will mean no more Yes Men.  :-) )

Kathy Kleiman of the ICANN "Noncommercial Users Constituency" will be
able to brief you more fully.  She can also explain what went down in
the previous discussions, where they've essentially ignored all the
substantive points she presented.  It's up to us to come in in numbers
and say we got their number.

See below blurb from Kathy.


Seth




ICANN Public Consultation: Should New Top Level Domains Include Broad
New Trademark Protections?


On Mon, July 13, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers  (ICANN) will hold a public consultation at the Hudson
Theatre,  Millennium Hotel, 145 West 44th Street, to discuss the
"rules of the  road" for new generic top level domains (gTLDs), future
competitors to  .COM, .ORG and .NET.


A group of trademark attorneys, representing large brand owners, in
May wrote a report calling on ICANN to create broad new trademark
protections before opening up new gTLDs.

   A. IP Clearinghouse: a massive database of registered and 
      unregistered trademark rights created by ICANN (IRT 
      Report, pp. 12-16

   B. Globally Protected Marks List: a list of global marks 
      created and maintained by ICANN (IRT Report, pp. 16-
      22)

   C. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): A ultra-fast 
      takedown service with little notice or time to respond 
      by domain name registrants (IRT, pp. 25-37)


These proposals have been criticized as outside the mission and scope
of  ICANN, a technical body, and outside the protections and limits
of  trademark law. ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency writes "We
fear the impact of the IRT Proposals on free speech and fair use
online.  Trademark owners don't own strings of letters, they have a
trademark for  specific goods and services. Basic words like APPLE,
TIDE, SUN and TIME belong to all of us. Many important domain names
will be lost, or worse,  blocked before they can be registered." 

Approval of the IRT Report is being rushed through ICANN with minimal 
opportunity to comment. It is vital that ICANN hear comment as soon
as  possible, and Monday is an opportunity to speak. 

ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency will be hosting a breakfast
at the Millennium Hotel on Monday morning. Please contact NCUC
Co-Founder  Kathy Kleiman, kathy at kathykleiman.com
<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>,  for more details. 


Registration to speak on 7/13 at this link (deadline 7/10):
http://www.registration123.com/ICANN/GTLD/


IRT Report: 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm

IP Justice Comments: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00210.html

EFF Australia Comments: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/msg00179.html

Noncommercial Users Constituency Website with comments: 
http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/


From kdonovan11 at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 06:23:39 2009
From: kdonovan11 at gmail.com (Kevin Donovan)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:23:39 +0200
Subject: [FC-discuss] Fwd: Appalling op-ed in today's WSJ
In-Reply-To: <100711.37465.qm@web84003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <100711.37465.qm@web84003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <827235d0907210323u466b31d4m46c01f62d25c54ca@mail.gmail.com>

A Georgetown professor alerted me to an awful WSJ op-ed on Mark Helprin. The
op-ed and his response is below. Would encourage others to respond, as well.


On 7/20/09, Michael R. Nelson
<mnelson at pobox.com<http://mc/compose?to=mnelson at pobox.com>>
wrote:
> There's an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal praising Mark Helprin's
book
> on why we need a longer term for copyright. I was so mad I wrote the
> following post on the WSJ Web site.  (I hope you'll weigh in to.)
>
> As a loyal and long-time reader of the Wall Street Journal who has read
thousands of op-eds in your pages, I have never been more appalled or
dismayed than I was when I read "A Writer's Tale" in this morning's edition.
Not only did the author, L. Gordon Crovitz, praise Mark Helprin's
simple-minded arguments for extending the term of copyright, he showed that
he understands the copyright system even less than Mr. Helprin. Intellectual
property is NOT like real estate. More than 200 years ago, in the US, a
printing press cost the equivalent of at least a million dollars. So the
Founding Fathers granted publishers a 14-year monopoly--a copyright--to
encourage them to invest in the equipment, talent, and distribution network
needed to print books and newspapers. Today, the Internet and digital
technologies have dramatically reduced the cost of creating and distributing
content. Yet for some reason, authors and content owners think they need
MORE incentives to create and distribute content. Mr. Helprin thinks that
authors will write more and singers will record more if their grandchildren
can be assured a steady stream of royalties. I disagree. What copyright
owners are really trying to do is use copyright to limit competition from
new creative content. When I took English literature classes in college, I
reading great poems of the 18th century that had more footnotes than
lines--every other phrase was borrowed or adopted from another, earlier
classic poem. Creativity is about new ideas and expressions but it's also
about repurposing and adapting old content.

The Wall Street Journal prides itself on its economic analysis and
fact-based reporting. So Mr. Crovitz should consider the following
fact--several of the world's top economists have analyzed the benefits of
the copyright system. Using different approaches, they have tried to
calculate the optimum term of a copyright, assuming the goal of the
copyright system is to maximize the benefit to society--rather than solely
the benefit to Disney and other content owners. The answer? Depending upon
the assumptions made, somewhere between six and fourteen years!! In other
words, our Founding Fathers were right back in 1790.

Larry Lessig has done an outstanding analysis of the misperceptions and
inaccuracies in Mark Helprin's book. It's available at
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/05/20/Halperin-print.pdf. I suggest Mr.
Crovitz read it and then write a retraction. Or better yet, perhaps the Wall
Street Journal should give Larry Lessig at least as much space as it
dedicated to Mr. Crovitz's attempt to praise (and sell) Helprin's book.
Incidentally, I note that the Journal has run four pieces on Mark Helprin's
book: an op-ed by Mr. Helprin, a positive book review, today's piece by Mr.
Crovitz, and two letters to the editors. That's not a balanced assessment of
the arguments Mr. Helprin makes. Is it possible that this reflects the fact
that News Corp., which owns the Wall Street Journal, has been one of the
most ardent advocates for extending the copyright monopoly even further and
limiting fair use. Or might it be due to the fact that News Corps. owns
HarperCollins, Mark Helprin's publisher?



From johns at fsf.org  Tue Jul 21 15:18:42 2009
From: johns at fsf.org (John Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:18:42 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Help DbD get 1,984 reviews highlighting Kindle DRM
Message-ID: <87hbx5g7zh.fsf@myles.home.wjsullivan.net>

As I'm sure most of you know by now, over the weekend, Amazon deleted
purchased copies of George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm from the e-book
readers of hundreds of users. Can you help us give the Kindle the 1-star
reviews it deserves on Amazon's own site? Our goal? 1,984 reviews!

Act now: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/1248
Digg it: http://digg.com/gadgets/Tell_Kindle_buyers_Amazon_can_delete_your_books

We're relaunching our Defective by Design Amazon tagging campaign, and
we couldn't have picked a better occasion, or a better target. New York
Times tech writer David Pogue summarizes it best:

"This morning, hundreds of Amazon Kindle owners awoke to discover that
books by a certain famous author had mysteriously disappeared from their
e-book readers. These were books that they had bought and paid
for?thought they owned .... You want to know the best part? The juicy,
plump, dripping irony? The author who was the victim of this Big
Brotherish plot was none other than George Orwell. And the books were
'1984' and 'Animal Farm.'"

Come and help us save potential Kindle buyers from being Swindled, on
Amazon's own site. We'll be tagging the Kindle as "defective by design"
and "1984", and we'll be writing persuasive, honest, 1-star reviews.
(Amazon is now in fact *suggesting* those tags based on the fact that so
many people have already used them, which is pretty funny.)

Over the coming weeks, we'll be selecting more DRM-infected products for
the tags and the 1-star reviews they deserve. We're looking for hot new
products, or products that make particularly appalling use of DRM. If
you'd like to suggest one, email us at info at defectivebydesign.org

Thanks for all you do, and stay tuned!


From gabrieljoel at gmail.com  Mon Jul 27 11:20:49 2009
From: gabrieljoel at gmail.com (Gabriel Joel Perez)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:20:49 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Simple idea for Free Culture promotion
Message-ID: <9a442d030907270820v22bca61fi20f51f27052a33ea@mail.gmail.com>

When I mention that I participate on my University's chapter of Students for
Free Culture people ask me what Free Culture its all about. I always
struggle to express the idea of Free Culture in a short time. I'm
experimenting with new ways of expressing what Free Culture is but haven't
found anything pretty good yet. I still find what best of summarizes what
the Free Culture movement is all about is our manifesto,
http://freeculture.org/manifesto/. What about creating Free Culture
"business cards" with something on the back that expresses what Free Culture
is all about. We could start with a shorter version of the manifesto but we
could then go start experimenting with other things. I think having a Free
Culture "business card" could help us out a lot on introducing people to
Free Culture.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://freeculture.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20090727/de71950d/attachment.htm 

From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Mon Jul 27 13:04:36 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:04:36 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Joel Faces the Bogus RIAA Music Today
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


(Please do all you can to support Joel Tennenbaum.  Even if you fear
the arguments being presented, or you presume that he's going down. 
Whatever the result, his legal team is raising some serious stakes,
and Joel has chosen to trust them.  What he's confronting affects us
all, and the outcome will affect us all as well.  -- Seth)


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jul/27/filesharing-music-industry


How it Feels to be Sued for $4.5 Million


Joel Tenebaum and his legal team


When I contemplate the above sum, I have to remind myself what I'm
being charged with. Investment fraud? An attack against the
government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave


To a certain extent, I'm afraid to write this. Though they've already
seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they
won't do it again. For the past four years, they've been threatening
me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends,
and myself twice ? the first time for nine hours, the second for
seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that
went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/19/illegal-filesharing-fine).

When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I'm being
charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack
against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to
cave.

No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always
the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which
are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association
of America (RIAA) has operated under. "How did they get you?" I'm
asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for
the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared
music. And that's when a look appears on the face of whoever I'm
talking to, the horrified "it could have been me!" look.

The reason this has remained so silent despite passionate opposition
is that nearly all people settle. My story of becoming an exception
started four years ago.

In 2005, my parents received a letter from Sony BMG, Warner, Atlantic
Records, Arista Records, and UMG Records claiming "copyright
infringement". They were given a number to call, which was their
"settlement information line", a call centre staffed by operators who,
we are emphatically told, are "not attorneys". The process of
collecting money from these threats was so huge, they had set up a
1-800-DONT-SUE-ME-style call centre.

The operators did little more than ask how you would pay (they wanted
$3,000, I believe) and repeated intimidating lawsuit statistics. I
sent them a money order for $500, which they returned. I told them I
couldn't pay any more. We discussed whether I might qualify for
"financial hardship", and then I stopped hearing from them, which I
didn't question. I graduated from college and began studying for my
physics doctorate.

And then in August 2007, I came home from work to find a stack of
papers, maybe 50 pages thick, sitting at the door to my apartment.
That's when I found out what it was like to have possibly the most
talented copyright lawyers in the business, bankrolled by
multibillion-dollar corporations, throwing everything they had at
someone who wanted to share Come As You Are with other Nirvana fans.

I had assumed that as an equal in a court of law in the United States,
my story would be told and a just outcome would result. I discovered
the sheer magnitude of obstacles in your way to get your say in court.
And even if you get to trial, (which only one other person, Jammie
Thomas Rasset, has done) you're still far from equal with the machine
controlling 85% of commercial music in the US.

But to even start fighting assumes you (a) know what you're even being
sued for and (b) have a concept of what grounds to fight it on. Most
of the time you know nothing except for the huge stack of paper
written in legalese that says you owe several thousand dollars and it
will probably cost you more than that just to hire a lawyer. If you
can find one.

I had frequent contact with one of their Colorado counsel. While she
was impudent to the point of vicious ("Come on Joel, I think you did
it"), I continued to use phrases like "I respect your position" and
"we have a respectful difference of opinion". I have no record of this
intimidation because the person in question made sure to keep contact
restricted to phonecalls.

Every conversation consisted of her trying to get information out of
me about my defense, telling me how much bigger the settlement would
be if I didn't settle now. Shaken, I would call my mother, who was a
state-paid lawyer in child custody cases, and ask her what to do. We
blindly fired all kinds of motions at them. Eventually my mother
became afraid to answer my calls, worried it would be about the case.
For the court "settlement" I offered $5,250, which the RIAA declined,
asking $10,500. I saw myself on a conveyor belt, being pulled
inexorably toward the meshing of razor-sharp gears.

Then in summer 2008, I arrived home to find a letter addressed to me.
The return address said "Harvard Law School". Curiously, I opened and
read it. "My name is Charles Nesson, professor of Law at Harvard. I
caught wind of your case," it said. "I can be of any assistance, don't
hesitate to call." I called. Nesson picked up. I said, "Yes, you can
be of assistance!" My mom drafted a letter to him, summarising where
we were. The opening line read, "Dear Professor Godsend".

Since then I've learned that you don't have to accept phone contact
from the RIAA lawyers, but could demand correspondence by mail. I've
been deposed twice ? for nine hours one day and for another seven a
few weeks ago ? where I was asked every irrelevant question about my
life, cars that I owned, websites I've operated. The RIAA will try to
denigrate this, saying I was only talking for seven hours and then
five and a half, but I was stuck in their office the entire time. You
think it makes any difference to me when I can't work?

My sisters, dad and mother have all been deposed. My high-school
friends, friends of the family too. My computer's been seized and hard
drive copied, and my parents and sister narrowly escaped the same fate
for their computers. And the professor who supervises my teaching is
continually frustrated with my need to have people cover for me, while
my research in grad school is put on hold to deal with people whose
full-time job is to keep an anvil over my head. I have to consider
every unrelated thing I do in my private life in the event that I'm
interrogated under oath about it. I wonder how I'll stand up in a
courtroom for hours having litigators try to convince a jury of my
guilt and the reprehensibility of my character.

But the support helps. I've had a great team of Nesson's students
helping and the professor himself has been magnificent. Most of all,
I'm touched by the warm messages of support from the people who've
written in, Twittered, and Facebooked me (though I've been too
paranoid to friend strangers lately). Best hopes to others dealing
with the same: Brittany Kruger, Jammie Thomas, and the other 39,997 of
us.

The trial starts today, 27 Monday July. Regrettably, it won't be
webcast as we requested due to the RIAA's successful opposition, but
we will tweet [http://twitter.com/joelfightsback] (with the hashtag
#jfb) and blog as much as possible, and there is a website where you
can follow us and learn more (http://www.joelfightsback.com/).


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Tue Jul 28 16:27:48 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:27:48 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Joel Faces the Bogus RIAA Music Today
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A6F5F44.9E03C034@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>



As I have mentioned in the past, I hope that Nesson makes reference to
the legislative and broader debate preceding the enactment of the fair
use statute in the United States, to lay the basis for his argument. 
That's where the ground would have to be for the kind of case he said
he wanted to present, though he now apparently has to do this without
specifically appealing to fair use as such.  That's because the judge
disallowed that argument jsut before the case began.  Note that
Tennenbaum does not deny actually doing the things that are the
subject of the charges against him.

My sense is that the fact that the argument was barred in this case
(and that Nesson did not waver in his pressing for it) will only
result in that fact being thrown into relief by this case.  Sometimes
the world can only realize it's crazy after its claims for what is
crazy are made the specific question.  Nesson may have already done us
all the greatest favor he could have rendered unto us by the vehicle
of this case, regardless of its outcome.


Seth


Seth Johnson wrote:
> 
> (Please do all you can to support Joel Tennenbaum.  Even if you fear
> the arguments being presented, or you presume that he's going down.
> Whatever the result, his legal team is raising some serious stakes,
> and Joel has chosen to trust them.  What he's confronting affects us
> all, and the outcome will affect us all as well.  -- Seth)
> 
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jul/27/filesharing-music-industry
> 
> How it Feels to be Sued for $4.5 Million
> 
> Joel Tenebaum and his legal team
> 
> When I contemplate the above sum, I have to remind myself what I'm
> being charged with. Investment fraud? An attack against the
> government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave
> 
> To a certain extent, I'm afraid to write this. Though they've already
> seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they
> won't do it again. For the past four years, they've been threatening
> me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends,
> and myself twice ? the first time for nine hours, the second for
> seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that
> went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m
> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/19/illegal-filesharing-fine).
> 
> When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I'm being
> charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack
> against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to
> cave.
> 
> No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always
> the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which
> are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association
> of America (RIAA) has operated under. "How did they get you?" I'm
> asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for
> the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared
> music. And that's when a look appears on the face of whoever I'm
> talking to, the horrified "it could have been me!" look.
> 
> The reason this has remained so silent despite passionate opposition
> is that nearly all people settle. My story of becoming an exception
> started four years ago.
> 
> In 2005, my parents received a letter from Sony BMG, Warner, Atlantic
> Records, Arista Records, and UMG Records claiming "copyright
> infringement". They were given a number to call, which was their
> "settlement information line", a call centre staffed by operators who,
> we are emphatically told, are "not attorneys". The process of
> collecting money from these threats was so huge, they had set up a
> 1-800-DONT-SUE-ME-style call centre.
> 
> The operators did little more than ask how you would pay (they wanted
> $3,000, I believe) and repeated intimidating lawsuit statistics. I
> sent them a money order for $500, which they returned. I told them I
> couldn't pay any more. We discussed whether I might qualify for
> "financial hardship", and then I stopped hearing from them, which I
> didn't question. I graduated from college and began studying for my
> physics doctorate.
> 
> And then in August 2007, I came home from work to find a stack of
> papers, maybe 50 pages thick, sitting at the door to my apartment.
> That's when I found out what it was like to have possibly the most
> talented copyright lawyers in the business, bankrolled by
> multibillion-dollar corporations, throwing everything they had at
> someone who wanted to share Come As You Are with other Nirvana fans.
> 
> I had assumed that as an equal in a court of law in the United States,
> my story would be told and a just outcome would result. I discovered
> the sheer magnitude of obstacles in your way to get your say in court.
> And even if you get to trial, (which only one other person, Jammie
> Thomas Rasset, has done) you're still far from equal with the machine
> controlling 85% of commercial music in the US.
> 
> But to even start fighting assumes you (a) know what you're even being
> sued for and (b) have a concept of what grounds to fight it on. Most
> of the time you know nothing except for the huge stack of paper
> written in legalese that says you owe several thousand dollars and it
> will probably cost you more than that just to hire a lawyer. If you
> can find one.
> 
> I had frequent contact with one of their Colorado counsel. While she
> was impudent to the point of vicious ("Come on Joel, I think you did
> it"), I continued to use phrases like "I respect your position" and
> "we have a respectful difference of opinion". I have no record of this
> intimidation because the person in question made sure to keep contact
> restricted to phonecalls.
> 
> Every conversation consisted of her trying to get information out of
> me about my defense, telling me how much bigger the settlement would
> be if I didn't settle now. Shaken, I would call my mother, who was a
> state-paid lawyer in child custody cases, and ask her what to do. We
> blindly fired all kinds of motions at them. Eventually my mother
> became afraid to answer my calls, worried it would be about the case.
> For the court "settlement" I offered $5,250, which the RIAA declined,
> asking $10,500. I saw myself on a conveyor belt, being pulled
> inexorably toward the meshing of razor-sharp gears.
> 
> Then in summer 2008, I arrived home to find a letter addressed to me.
> The return address said "Harvard Law School". Curiously, I opened and
> read it. "My name is Charles Nesson, professor of Law at Harvard. I
> caught wind of your case," it said. "I can be of any assistance, don't
> hesitate to call." I called. Nesson picked up. I said, "Yes, you can
> be of assistance!" My mom drafted a letter to him, summarising where
> we were. The opening line read, "Dear Professor Godsend".
> 
> Since then I've learned that you don't have to accept phone contact
> from the RIAA lawyers, but could demand correspondence by mail. I've
> been deposed twice ? for nine hours one day and for another seven a
> few weeks ago ? where I was asked every irrelevant question about my
> life, cars that I owned, websites I've operated. The RIAA will try to
> denigrate this, saying I was only talking for seven hours and then
> five and a half, but I was stuck in their office the entire time. You
> think it makes any difference to me when I can't work?
> 
> My sisters, dad and mother have all been deposed. My high-school
> friends, friends of the family too. My computer's been seized and hard
> drive copied, and my parents and sister narrowly escaped the same fate
> for their computers. And the professor who supervises my teaching is
> continually frustrated with my need to have people cover for me, while
> my research in grad school is put on hold to deal with people whose
> full-time job is to keep an anvil over my head. I have to consider
> every unrelated thing I do in my private life in the event that I'm
> interrogated under oath about it. I wonder how I'll stand up in a
> courtroom for hours having litigators try to convince a jury of my
> guilt and the reprehensibility of my character.
> 
> But the support helps. I've had a great team of Nesson's students
> helping and the professor himself has been magnificent. Most of all,
> I'm touched by the warm messages of support from the people who've
> written in, Twittered, and Facebooked me (though I've been too
> paranoid to friend strangers lately). Best hopes to others dealing
> with the same: Brittany Kruger, Jammie Thomas, and the other 39,997 of
> us.
> 
> The trial starts today, 27 Monday July. Regrettably, it won't be
> webcast as we requested due to the RIAA's successful opposition, but
> we will tweet [http://twitter.com/joelfightsback] (with the hashtag
> #jfb) and blog as much as possible, and there is a website where you
> can follow us and learn more (http://www.joelfightsback.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.


From mikekanning at gmail.com  Wed Jul 29 12:12:33 2009
From: mikekanning at gmail.com (Michael Kanning)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:12:33 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Help starting new chapter
Message-ID: <4A7074F1.10605@mail.usf.edu>

Hello Free Culture discussion list-ers,

My parter and I are interested in starting a Students for Free Culture 
chapter at our university. We have sent emails to 
newgroup at freeculture.org as well as freedom at freeculture.org and received 
no replies. Perhaps this organization not active during the summer 
months, or we are not pursuing the correct channels for establishing a 
new chapter. I am sorry if this discussion list is not the correct venue 
for this question but I hope that someone here will be able to be of 
some assistance.

I hope everyone is enjoying the summer and we look forward to working 
with some of you soon.

Thanks,
Michael Kanning

From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Thu Jul 30 17:54:51 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:54:51 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Attuned to the EU's New Pirates
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A7216AB.A2152690@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/in-tune-with-the-needs-of-the-eu-s-new-pirates/65659.aspx


In Tune With the Needs of the EU's New Pirates


By Jarle Hetland

30.07.2009 / 04:10 CET


Erik Josefsson's battles for electronic freedoms led him to the
European Parliament.


It was an injury that sent Erik Josefsson along the path that led him
to where he is today, working as political adviser to Christian
Engstr?m, a member of the European Parliament for Sweden's Pirate
Party, which seeks to reform copyright and patent laws, and is now
Sweden's third largest party. Though it has no direct link with the
Pirate Bay filesharing website, support for the Pirate Party was
boosted by a decision from a Swedish court in April that the Pirate
Bay's activities were illegal. 

After receiving a masters degree in music in 1997, Josefsson was
working as a professional double bass player in orchestras in his
native Sweden when a shoulder injury put an end to that career.

He then decided to take advantage of his earlier studies in maths and
physics and landed a job as a software developer.

Soon afterwards he joined a group for users of the Linux operating
system. Among the many issues discussed was the importance of access
to source codes for developers, either to fix software problems or to
develop new applications.

The GNU General Public Licence for software was, he says, the main
subject of conversation between developers who put their work ethics
before their own or their business' interests.

Before he knew it, Josefsson was part of a movement which claims to be
saving the world from corporate control. In 2002 he became one of the
leading opponents of the EU's software patent directive. He co-founded
the Swedish chapter of the Foundation for a Free Information
Infrastructure (FFII) with Engstr?m and, without any knowledge of how
to lobby politicians, he spearheaded the campaign against the
directive.

"When the directive was proposed in 2002, I and many others started
following this from scratch," he says. "We were computer programmers,
students or entrepreneurs, and we knew nothing about how the EU
worked.

"It eventually developed into a grassroots movement equal in strength
to the business associations and lobby groups you normally find in
Brussels, to those whose views are normally heard and listened to," he
says.

Patent protest

The movement grew out of the blogosphere ? or more correctly,
Josefsson says, out of the ?mailsphere' ? and the organising element
was no individual or organisation, but a classical self-generating
political process.

"It was like seeing a catastrophe about to happen. Imagine a bus about
to drive into a crowd of people; you want to stop the bus before it
happens. We didn't have time to launch a proper organisation and we
never asked questions about how we should do things. We just had to do
it."

By early 2005, more than 400,000 people had signed a petition against
the software patent directive and later that year it was rejected by
the Parliament.

Although Josefsson is keen to stress the collective effort involved in
stopping the directive, it was also a personal victory.

Josefsson continued at the FFII until 2007, when he started working
for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an organisation that
seeks to defend freedoms on the internet and data privacy.

Joining the pirates

Earlier this year, Josefsson was a candidate to be an MEP for
V?nstrepartiet (Left Party), a left-wing party. Although the
45-year-old was not elected, he "stole", as he puts it, more than 700
votes from his current employer, the Pirate Party.

Josefsson's knowledge of EU affairs and his long-time partnership with
Engstr?m make it easy to understand why the Pirate Party disregarded
his one-time opposition to the movement's transformation into a
political party and chose him for his current job.

"The Pirate Party grew out of organisations such as FFII and EFF, not
the Pirate Bay. When the party was launched in 2006 I thought it would
be more difficult to make people listen to us. In the end I was
wrong," says Josefsson, who will also be working for the Green group
in the Parliament. "To me, this role is natural and it feels good to
be working for the political group that first took an interest in the
issues I was campaigning for."

Although it was an injury that started the chain of events that
brought Josefsson to the heart of the Parliament, he has not
completely forgotten his old partner, the double bass. In August he
will once again be performing, this time at a summer opera back in his
home town of Malm?.


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Thu Jul 30 19:15:35 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:15:35 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] RMS re: the Swedish Pirate Party's Platform
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A722997.7772F1F0@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


(I'm inclined to think that as the kind of policy the Pirate Party
platform represents gains footing, we would be able to take up the
problems with EULAs on information products without many of the
unproductive assumptions that are more easily propagated under the
current kind of copyright regime. I don't think that's enough of a
solution, but it should be borne in mind.  -- Seth)


> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html


How the Swedish Pirate Party Platform Backfires on Free Software


by Richard Stallman


The bullying of the copyright industry in Sweden inspired the launch
of the first political party whose platform is to reduce copyright
restrictions: the Pirate Party. Its platform includes the prohibition
of Digital Restrictions Management, legalization of noncommercial
sharing of published works, and shortening of copyright for commercial
use to a five-year period. Five years after publication, any published
work would go into the public domain.

I support these changes, in general; but the specific combination
chosen by the Swedish Pirate Party backfires ironically in the special
case of free software. I'm sure that they did not intend to hurt free
software, but that's what would happen.

The GNU General Public License and other copyleft licenses use
copyright law to defend freedom for every user. The GPL permits
everyone to publish modified works, but only under the same license.
Redistribution of the unmodified work must also preserve the license.
And all redistributors must give users access to the software's source
code.

How would the Swedish Pirate Party's platform affect copylefted free
software? After five years, its source code would go into the public
domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to include
it in their programs. But what about the reverse case?

Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright,
and the users don't have the source code. Even if copyright permits
noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it. In addition, the users,
not having the source code, do not control what the program does when
they run it. To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and
give the developer control over you.

So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright
after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source
code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the
source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The
program could even have a ?time bomb? in it to make it stop working
after 5 years, in which case the ?public domain? copies would not run
at all.

Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software
developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it
would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source
code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the
bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object
code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software
an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright ? one
that free software does not share.

We also use copyright to partially deflect the danger of software
patents. We cannot make our programs safe from them ? no program is
ever safe from software patents in a country which allows them ? but
at least we prevent them from being used to make the program
effectively non-free. The Swedish Pirate Party proposes to abolish
software patents, and if that is done, this issue would go away. But
until that is achieved, we must not lose our only defense for
protection from patents.

Once the Swedish Pirate Party had announced its platform, free
software developers noticed this effect and began proposing a special
rule for free software: to make copyright last longer for free
software, so that it can continue to be copylefted. This explicit
exception for free software would counterbalance the effective
exception for proprietary software. Even ten years ought to be enough,
I think. However, the proposal met with resistance from the Pirate
Party's leaders, who objected to the idea of a longer copyright for a
special case.

I could support a law that would make GPL-covered software's source
code available in the public domain after 5 years, provided it has the
same effect on proprietary software's source code. After all, copyleft
is a means to an end (users' freedom), not an end in itself. And I'd
rather not be an advocate for a stronger copyright.

So I proposed that the Pirate Party platform require proprietary
software's source code to be put in escrow when the binaries are
released. The escrowed source code would then be released in the
public domain after 5 years. Rather than making free software an
official exception to the 5-year copyright rule, this would eliminate
proprietary software's unofficial exception. Either way, the result is
fair.

A Pirate Party supporter proposed a more general variant of the first
suggestion: a general scheme to make copyright last longer as the
public is granted more freedoms in using the work. The advantage of
this is that free software becomes part of a general pattern of
varying copyright term, rather than a lone exception.

I'd prefer the escrow solution, but any of these methods would avoid a
prejudicial effect specifically against free software. There may be
other solutions that would also do the job. One way or another, the
Pirate Party of Sweden should avoid placing a handicap on a movement
to defend the public from marauding giants.


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Thu Jul 30 19:50:07 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:50:07 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Joel Tenenbaum: I Shared Music Files
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A7231AF.415F86FB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


(RT @joelfightsback: "this is me. i used the computer. This is how it
is. I did it.")


> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10299794-93.html


Joel Tenenbaum admits in court he shared music files


by Greg Sandoval

July 30, 2009 8:38 AM PDT


There's no subterfuge with Joel Tenenbaum.

The graduate student accused of copyright violations admitted in court
on Thursday that he shared files and knew others were downloading the
music he made available on Kazaa, according to a Twitter post from
blogger Ben Sheffner.

Sheffner, a copyright lawyer who is covering the story from the
courtroom, wrote "(Music industry) attorney getting scores of
admissions from Tenenbaum. Joel doesn't resist."

The four major music labels, Universal Music Group, Warner Music
Group, EMI and Sony Music filed the copyright suit against Tenenbaum
and in previous statements he denied sharing, according to Sheffner.

By admitting guilt, it appears Tenenbaum is going to take his chances
that his attorney, Prof. Charles Nesson can convince the jury that
sharing unauthorized music files doesn't cause that much harm and
ordering defendants to pay big damages isn't justified.

Tenenbaum, along with Jammie Thomas-Rasset, are the only people
accused of illegal file sharing that have taken their cases before a
jury. In June, Thomas was found liable of copyright infringement and
ordered to pay nearly $2 million.


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Thu Jul 30 19:58:28 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:58:28 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Court: It's All Up to the Jury
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A7233A4.DCBF62B7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/court-leaves-all-issues-other-than.html

 
The Court Leaves All Issues, Other Than Copyright Ownership, to the
Jury, in SONY v. Tenenbaum


Thursday, July 30, 2009

posted by Ray Beckerman @ 7/30/2009 07:45:00 PM


In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Court ruled that all
issues other than copyright ownership will be left to the jury.

    Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered with 
    respect to Rule 50 motion: The Court will make required 
    findings concerning copyright ownership, but leave all 
    remaining issues -- infringement (reproduction and 
    distribution), damages and willfulness -- for the jury, 
    out of an abundance of caution. The Court does so in 
    part because the statutory damages inquiry obliges the 
    jury to consider some of the same issues as the 
    infringement inquiry, i.e. the nature of the 
    infringement. (Gertner, Nancy)


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Thu Jul 30 23:49:05 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:49:05 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Proposed Jury Instructions on Damages in Sony v.
	Tenenbaum
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A7269B1.E1514CF4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/defendant-submits-proposed-jury.html

 
Defendant submits proposed jury instruction on damages in SONY v
Tenenbaum


Thursday, July 30, 2009

posted by Ray Beckerman @ 7/30/2009 07:52:00 PM


Defendant has submitted a proposed jury instruction on damages in SONY
BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum.

Defendant's proposed jury instruction on damages:
> http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090730DeftsProposedJuryInstrDamages.pdf

--

> http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090730DeftsProposedJuryInstrDamages.pdf


DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JURY INSTRUCTION

RE: DAMAGES

Without waiving his objections that any amount of statutory damages in
this case would be excessive and unconstitutional, and not applicable
to a non?commercial user, the Defendant requests that the jury be
instructed that they may consider the following factors in determining
the amount of statutory damages:

1. Whether or not the infringement was for a commercial purpose, or
for profit;

2. Whether or not the infringer acted maliciously with the intent to
injure the copyright holder;

3. The age and maturity of the infringer.

It is clear that the Copyright Act contemplates that the highest
damages be extracted only from the worst offenders, and that the high
end of the continuum of infringers is occupied by malicious commercial
enterprises in the business of selling unauthorized copies for profit.
The jury's decision?making process must be channeled to effect this
legislative intent.


Date: July 30, 2009


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Fri Jul 31 06:11:37 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:11:37 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Tenenbaum Day 3: Witnesses
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A72C359.482F752F@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/day-three-witnesses-in-sony-v-tenenbaum.html

 
Day three witnesses in Sony v. Tenenbaum


BY MARC BOURGEOIS

Wednesday, July 29, 2009


Antonio Franko

Wednesday's first witness was Antonio Franko, a high school friend of
Joels. He hasn't seen Joel for several years and was asked some basic
questions, about his use of a computer in Joel's bedroom, and about
Joel's music collection. In similar testimony to Mr. Chappel he stated
that he'd used the computer but never to use KaZaA or download music,
despite deposition testimony from Joel that he may have. He testified
also that Joel had a good sized music collection, including some
burned CDs.

Dr. Doug Jacobson

Most of the morning and a portion of the afternoon was testimony from
Dr. Doug Jacobson, the Plaintiff's expert witness. He began by going
over his qualifications and his curriculum vitae and was admitted as
an expert with no objection from Plaintiffs. He explained that he was
asked to produce a report for Plaintiffs about the MediaSentry data he
reviewed in this case, and eventually to issue a supplemental report
after examining a computer hard drive from Joel's Gateway computer.

He then began explaining how peer to peer networks work, and how KaZaA
works specifically. After describing technical details about peers,
supernodes, and IP addressing he moved on to the user experience of
the KaZaA application. He explained that users search in KaZaA for
files, then they can choose files from the results returned to begin
the files downloading on to their computer. He explained that the
users in the peer to peer network typically don't know each other, and
only identify one another by their IP address. He was asked to explain
some features of KaZaA 2.0, which he explained had an option to scan
for files that you may wish to share with the KaZaA application, and
that this was an option that would only occur after the user chose to
run it. He was asked if KaZaA could be used to listen to music from
other computers on the network. He explained that this could only
happen if the music was first downloaded from the other computer.

Dr. Jacobson then testified about the report he prepared on the
MediaSentry evidence. He testified that he had reviewed the
MediaSentry information and formed the opinion that Joel Tenenbaum had
used that computer, and that he had used it to copy and distribute
copyrighted files. His opinion was based on the evidence that
MediaSentry was able to start the download of 1000+ files and collect
MetaData and successfully continue the download for a subset of these
files. He examined the screenshots of the shared folder and stated
that all of the files listed were available for distribution. He
testified that the initiation process on all files serves the purpose
of proving that the file does indeed exists, and gathers the meta data
about the file for further evidence.

He then began to explain in more detail than Mr. Connelly some of the
information contained on MediaSentry's data log. He explained the
makeup of the request packets and response packets, including the
source and destination IP address on the packets, as well as some of
the header information such as the request of the file by its file
hash, and the header fields showing KaZaA username and KaZaA IP
address. He went into the most detail on a file where a request was
sent several times without a response to sublimeguy14's computer
before a response was recieved from a different user (nick_c). He
explained the packets in this case showed that the file started
downloading from someone else, but eventually finished downloading
with a transfer from sublimeguy14's computer. He stated from all of
his analysis that he had no doubts about the MediaSentry information
and believed that sublimeguy14 was distributing the entire file with
that hash code. He also stated his belief that all of the files were
available for distribution based on MediaSentry being able to obtain
the meta data for all of them.

He also testified as to a number of tracks about his belief that the
files came from the internet and were not ripped, based on the meta
data that MediaSentry was able to obtain. The format and completion of
the meta data was not consistent among many of the files, making him
form the opinion that they were not ripped by the same computer. He
explained that if they were ripped the meta data would likely have
been consistent from the same software performing the ripping on
multiple tracks.

Dr. Jacobson was asked whether or not he believed a wireless router
was involved in this case. He explained that in the case where a
router was involved the X-KaZaA-IP: header field would differ from the
source IP address of the data packet, with the former being a private
IP address. He explained that this address was identical in all of the
data packets from sublimeguy14's computer, which indicated there was
no wireless router. He also pointed to the partial file received from
nick_c which showed a 192.168.x.x IP address in the X-KaZaA-IP:
header, which he explained meant that nick_c was using a router to
connect his computer to the internet.

Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Jacobson if he had any doubts or concerns about
the accuracy or methodology of MediaSentry, to which he replied that
he had none. He also testified that he had no concerns about hte data
provided by Cox Communications.

He was asked about the concept of pollution, which he explained was a
situation where a file name does not match what is in the content of
the file. He testified that he had no basis to believe that pollution
occurred in this case. His opinion is based upon the data lengths of
the files matching those of legitimate versions, and having proper
meta data. His opinion he stated was also supported by the finding
that those files that were completely downloaded did match what their
file names claimed that they were.

He was asked about the concept of IP spoofing, which he testified was
difficult to perform on the public internet and that he had no reason
to believe that it took place in this case.

After a brief break Dr. Jacobson then began testifying about his
forensic examination of a hard drive from a Gateway computer that Joel
owned. He testified that this computer was different than the computer
that Joel had in 2004 in his bedroom, he stated that he performed his
investigation about a month ago.

He explained his process of examining the hard drive, by recieving a
forensics copy of the drive and using the EnCase software to examine
it. He testified to several points he discovered during his
examination:

  * Windows had been reinstalled on the computer on 
    3/31/2009.
  * There were two registry files which could not be opened, 
    which he indicated was evidence that they were attempted 
    to be deleted.
  * The file sharing program LimeWire was on the machine, 
    and he believed it to be operable.
  * He found evidence of over 2700 music files in the C:\My 
    Music folder which LimeWire was sharing, but that this 
    folder itself had it some point been deleted.
  * He was able to identify several songs that were once in 
    the C:\My Music folder that were at issue in this case.
  * He found several hundred exact matches to files in the 
    C:\My Music folder that were being distributed by 
    sublimeguy14 at KaZaA
  * He also found a My Music folder under Joel's My 
    Documents folder, which contained a similar folder 
    structure and many of the files that were removed from 
    the C:\My Music folder.
  * He had formed the opinion based on the inconsistent meta 
    data in the files he found during the forensic 
    examination that they were downloaded and distributed on 
    the internet.

Upon cross examination Professor Nesson asked Dr. Jacobson was he was
being paid for his work. He stated that his rate in these cases was
$200 per hour, and that he had probably worked 40-50 hours on this
case. He testified that he has probably prepared about 300 reports for
the recording industry in these types of cases, but most of them did
not involve a forensic examination. He estimated that his total
earnings from his work for the recording industry to be in the range
of $100,000 - $120,000.

He was asked if he had any relationship to MediaSentry. He stated that
he did not have a relationship to MediaSentry, but he did discuss
their data handling protocols with them. He admitted that he had never
examined or tested their software. He was asked about the MediaSentry
statement that their software had a zero-error rate. He stated that in
the MediaSentry data that he had examined that he had never found any
errors, but admitted that a zero-error rate that is something that is
hard for software to achieve.

Dr. Jacobson was then asked why MediaSentry only downloaded 7 of the
files they found in the shared folder. He stated that it would have
been infeasible to download them all, because it would have taken a
long period of time. He was asked that for the remainder of the files
it would be impossible to know if they were the sound files they
stated they were or not, because there was no underlying file. Dr.
Jacobson agreed that an audio comparison could not be made, but that
it was still his opinion that all of the remaining files were present
for distribution.

Professor Nesson asked Dr. Jacobson that if a spoofed file was present
in the directory if it would look the same as the other files from the
meta data, to which he admitted that a spoofed copy could contain the
correct meta data as well.

Professor Nesson then returned to asking Dr. Jacobson about a company
he mentioned that he formed during his description of his credentials.
He asked about the product, such as to whom it would be sold and what
its purpose it was. Dr. Jacobson stated the market for the product was
any customer that wanted to control peer to peer traffic on their
network.

Dr. Jacobson was then asked about the InfraGuard group of which he is
a member. He was asked in basic detail about what it was, and asked if
copyright infringement had ever been discussed at an InfraGuard
meeting. He stated could never recall his chapter discussing copyright
infringement but that the chapters were each free to operate in their
own way.

Testimony then broke for lunch, after which Dr. Jacobson resumed
testifying. He was asked to describe the user friendly aspects of
KaZaA, and he described the process of searching for a file and double
clicking it to download. He asked what other active action needed to
be taken to distribute the file, which he said there was none, it just
happened after the download completed, the only active action was
double clicking the file for the initial download.

Professor Nesson then proceeded along a line of questioning about the
quality of music files found in the shared folder, and asked Dr.
Jacobson to compare them to the quality of music that would be found
on CDs. He stated that the MP3 files would be of lower quality, but
that most people could not tell by simply listening. He conceded on
further questioning that some people could likely discern the
difference in quality between the two. He then began to ask if someone
might download these lower quality files on the internet before
purchasing the higher quality CDs in the stores, but his line of
questioning was stopped based on sustained objections from Plaintiffs
that this questioning was out of the scope of the direct examination.

Professor Nesson then asked some questions about pirate rip groups and
asked if there was any malicious quality to the way these groups put
out music. This question as well as others in a similar line of
questioning were also stopped on sustained objections.

The examination then turned to the issue of the re-installation of the
operating system that Dr. Jacobson testified about. Professor Nesson
asked if htere was any evidence that the re-installation of the
operating system was for any malicious purpose, or if there was any
evidence that the number of music files was reduced after the
operating system was re-installed. Dr. Jacobson answered in the
negative to both of these questions. He was then asked about the two
registry files that the EnCase software was unable to open. Dr.
Jacobson previously testified that missing the data from these
registry files made it impossible for him to determine some things
about the configuration of the computer. Professor Nesson asked him
more specifically about which registry files were unable to be opened.
One was the NTUSER.dat file for the all users profile. Professor
Nesson asked about this file and its relation to a NTUSER.dat file in
the "joel" profile that was able to be opened, and asked if that meant
he should be able to find information about Joel's user account and
settings. Dr. Jacobson stated that what settings were stored in what
location would depend on the way in which the software was installed,
so he cannot tell for sure what exactly was in the registry file he
was unable to open.

Professor Nesson's final question concerned Dr. Jacobson's report that
750 music files were added to the machine in October of 2007. He asked
whether or not these files could have come from being added to the
iTunes library if Joel had begun using iTunes at that time. Dr.
Jacobson stated that he did not know if iTunes made a copy of files
that were added to the library, or what method it used to make a copy
if it did, so he could not say for certain.

Upon redirect Dr. Jacobson was asked about the report he prepared in
this case. He stated that it was twelve pages long, with several
hundred pages of attachments, and that it was quite lengthy for this
type of report.

He was asked directly about his testing of MediaSentry software. He
stated that MediaSentry used KaZaA, and that he had tested and used
KaZaA and he was also familiar with the theory of the type of capture
software MediaSentry uses.

He was again asked about the 25 files at issue in the case that were
not downloaded. He again stated that all of the files are consistent,
and what they purported themselves to be.

On recross Dr. Jacobson was asked if KaZaA contained Malware. He
stated that it would be more accurate to say that it contained Adware.
He was asked if the MediaSentry computers had adware on them. He
stated that he has not investigated their computers beyond what
MediaSentry has told him, which is that they keep their computers
clean.

JoAn Cho

Ms. Cho of UMG Recordings testified similarly to Mr. Leak of Sony in
regards to the UMG songs that were at issue in the case. I won't go
into great detail about her direct examination, because it was
essentially identical to that of Mr. Leak. Nothing was said that was a
great deal different than what Mr. Leak said. She echoed Mr. Leak's
testimony that only 13 of the numberous sound files they owned that
were found in the shared folder were being pursued because they wanted
to pursue a reasonable number.

Defendant's co-counsel Matt Feinberg cross-examined Ms. Cho. He asked
about the Doe suit that was filed in Georgia to serve a subpoena on
Cox Communications and also asked if Cox had ever challenged the
methods used to obtain subscriber information. She testified that she
was not familar with whether or not Cox had challeged the methods. He
asked about the number of lawsuits that the recording companies had
filed, to which she said she couldn't give an exact number filed. She
was also asked about her other worked performed for UMG, such as being
involved in other cases. Mr. Feinberg attempted to ask her what made
the number of songs they chose to sue on reasonable, to which she
stated she was not involved in making the decision on the number to
pursue, but that it was done by others at her company. He asked if
part of the reason for the lawsuits was to teach a lesson, to which
she stated that it in part was and was in part to receive
compensation. She was asked about legitimate online sales at the time,
to which she specified a few services, as well as testified about the
pricing of individual tracks available on iTunes both previously and
currently.

On redirect she was asked about the purpose of the Doe suits, which
she stated was a method by which they use to obtain subscriber
information. She was also asked about chain of title and described the
process of proving chain of title through various corporate documents
about recording contracts, copyright registrations, and mergers and
acquisitions.

Stan Liebowitz

Dr. Liebowitz Economist from the University of Texas. He described his
career history as well as books and articles he had written before he
was admitted as an expert in Economics with no objection. The heart of
Dr. Liebowitz's testimony focused on the fact that record company
sales had increased from 1973 through 1999 before dropping, after
which they have dropped consistently. He testified as to his opinion
that file sharing was the reason for this drop in sales, supported by
his research as well as his analysis of many other reasons why sales
might drop of which his economic studies had revealed none. He also
testified that he could not show the economic effect of Joel in
specific, but stated that file sharing as a whole had resulted in
great harm to the industry.

Professor Nesson began his cross examination of Dr. Liebowitz asking
about his report that the fundamental problem was the erosion of
property rights brought about by file sharing. Dr. Liebowitz agreed.
Professor Nesson read a portion of Dr. Liebowitz's book from 2001
where he stated that it could not yet be seen what effect file sharing
would have on music sales. Dr. Liebowitz stated that he agreed with
every word that was read from his book, but stated that it was written
in 2001, and his further studies since that time showed that time more
data has become available which supplemented his opinion that file
sharing had great harm.

The hour hit five o'clock and Plaintiffs wished to finish with this
witness, but Professor Nesson stated that he had quite a bit to go and
Judge Gertner released the jury for the day. The cross examination of
Dr. Liebowitz will resume tomorrow morning.


Plaintiffs indicated that they have three witnesses remaining,
including Joel, plus two depositions to read in. They anticipate they
will finish their case tomorrow. Professor Nesson indicate that he
would be able to present his entire case on Friday. Judge Gertner
indicated that closing arguments will be immediately after testimony
is concluded.


posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/29/2009 08:25:00 PM


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Fri Jul 31 06:43:34 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:43:34 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Tenenbaum Day 4: "I did it. This is how it is."
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A72CAD6.273A6B08@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/day-four-in-sony-v-tenenbaum.html

 
Day four in Sony v. Tenenbaum


BY MARC BOURGEOIS

Friday, July 31, 2009


Testimony in day four of Sony v. Tenenbaum began with the continuing
cross-examination of Dr. Stanley Liebowitz

Professor Nesson continued his questioning from a point that he
offered he and Dr. Liebowitz both agreed, that the recording companies
began having declining revenues at a point after which Napster made
file sharing ubiquitous and due to the weakening of the property
rights of copyright holders. Professor Nesson asked that given the new
situation that had emerged if he believed that it was true that the
same companies may not emerge as leaders when a new business plan
plays out as the companies that were previously the leaders. He asked
the Doctor about an opinion he offered in his 2001 book that DRM would
be a part of the future of the music business. Dr. Liebowitz responded
that he was hopeful that DRM would be successful in restricting the
ability to copy music so that it would strengthen the property rights
of the copyright holders, but stated that DRM turned out to provide
only limited protection because it was relatively easy to defeat, such
as by burning CDs. He then asked about when the industry first offered
a product that was not restricted, and was comparable to the open MP3
file, he testified that he thought this happened in the 2007 time
frame.

Professor Nesson asked Dr. Liebowitz to explain to the jury an example
in his report which used a jewelry store. He explained his analogy of
one where a jewelry store owner was continuously robbed, thus forcing
the owner in to a different business model, such as selling for
another store. He generalized that this was a similar weakening of
property right which was detrimental to society because it would force
someone in to an unanticipated occupation, which despite how
successful they may be at it would be a loss to society because it
prevented someone from being in the occupation they desired. Professor
read in to this analogy comparing it to a store with no locks on the
doors or other methods by which it would be robbed or an alternative
product to jewels. Under this testimony Dr. Liebowitz maintained his
position, but did say that under a system where people have strong
enough will to break the laws relating to strong property rights that
there may not be an enforceable system which gives people the strong
property rights they once enjoyed.

He was asked if it was his position that if there was a weakening of
property rights that it led to a decline in production in general. He
agreed, and stated that this weakening of property rights likely led
to a drop of production in sound recordings in general. He was asked
if other experts in his field believed that the dip in record sales
was not due to file sharing, and offered Oberholzer-Gee's paper as an
example of a economist who disagreed with his position. He questioned
Dr. Liebowitz on an assertion in an Oberholzer-Gee paper that stated
the number of annual music albums released doubled since 2000. Dr.
Liebowitz said that he believed these numbers were not necessarily
reliable because it only included the number of releases registered
with Nielsen, and not necessarily the number of professional quality
albums released, which could not necessarily be compared since in
previous times it would not be possible to come by numbers for the
number of amateur quality music released and thus the current numbers
from Nielsen would be comparing apples to oranges with previous
numbers they released.

He then went in to a sports analogy to explain his proposition about
professional quality versus amateur quality albums released. He
explained that if the market for professional quality sports went away
because due to some market change professional sports franchises could
no longer sell tickets or make money from broadcasting that it would
not eliminate sports being played, since there is plenty of amateur
sports being played where the participants do not make money, but
since money is being paid to professional sports that the market
overall prefers these kind of sports. He explained that if the
property rights of the professional franchises were eliminated it
would be a harm to society because the professional tier of sports
would go away and would likely impact the total production of sports
for the marketplace.

He was then asked about the network effect, whereby the more people
that have access to technology the more overall value the whole
technology had. He explained this with an analogy to the telephone,
but concluded that a network effect due to file sharing was not
likely.

Upon redirect Dr. Liebowitz was asked if he agreed with the opinions
provided in the Oberholzer-Gee paper. He responded that he did not. He
was asked if there was any reason to believe that the specific
plaintiffs in this case would be companies that would not survive in
the new marketplace that was emerging, to which he also replied that
he thought there was no reason these companies should fail.

Joel Tenenbaum

The main witness of day four was the Defendant, Joel Tenenbaum. Joel
was asked basic questions about where he currently lived, as well as
where he had previously lived, and what computers he had both at his
Providence home and in college. He said nothing surprising about his
computer at home or at college that hadn't been revealed in previous
testimony. He also testified that he had used the sublimeguy14
username, admitted that he had used KaZaA, and that the KaZaA shared
folder in the screenshots from MediaSentry were his. He also testified
that it was not uncommon for him to see other people uploading files
from him on the KaZaA traffic tab. Mr. Reynolds then asked the
Defendant about the case that was against him. He testified that he
first found out about the case from his mother. He was asked about his
responses to interrogatories which asked who else may have used his
computer or KaZaA and requests for admissions about file sharing use.
His answers to both stating no knowledge were shown to the jury to
each of these questionnaires.

The questioning then turned to his deposition testimony where he
stated that there were many people who could have used his KaZaA
account, friends, other people who had stayed at his house, etc. He
also testified that he had never actually seen any of these people use
KaZaA. He was then asked about his musical tastes and asked if he
liked several artists that appeared in the KaZaA shared folder. He
testified that he had burned CDs of the music in his shared, and
testified that he had ripped CDs to his computer. He testified that he
had never filled in the "comments" meta data on any of the files
ripped to his PC. He testified that he may have changed the meta data
on some files to be consistent with others for it to be easier to find
in music programs, but did not do so for much of the music that he
had.

Joel was asked about a video he had recorded from a Deftones
performance on the David Letterman show. He testified that he had
recorded this video and put it himself in to his KaZaA shared folder
and made it known on a Deftones forum that he had done so for others
to download it from him.

Joel was then asked about his computer and music usage habits at
Goucher college, where he stated he and other students had used the
Network Neighborhood feature of Windows to share music with one
another in college. He was shown numerous items from Goucher college
warning about copyright infringement and peer to peer file sharing,
all of which he admitted to having received at some point as a Goucher
student. He was asked about other file sharing software such as
Napster, LimeWire, and iMesh and admitted that he had used them all.
He testified when asked that he did all of this to recieve the most
amount of music with the least effort.

Joel was asked about his letter to Plaintiffs after initially learning
that he may be sued for copyright infringement. The letter included a
line stating he was not near his computer in Providence at the time of
writing, but would return later and delete any copyrighted material if
it existed. He was also asked about the inspection of his computer and
the re installation of his computer, which he stated he took to Best
Buy to have done while inspection was pending, but asked Best Buy to
preserve all of the music because of the Plaintiffs inspection which
was potentially pending. He stated that he took this to be done
because the computer wouldn't boot up anymore. He was asked if he had
any reason to disbelieve anything in Dr. Jacbson's report stating that
he didn't because Dr. Jacobson was "a competent professional". He
testified that he had listened to, talked about, made mixes of, and
made available for distribution all of the music in his shared folder.

On cross-examination Professor Nesson asked Joel about his personal
and family history, places he had lived, when he became interested in
music, to which he explained with great narrative detail. He testified
about his usage of music, including borrowing CDs from friends, making
mix tapes from the radio, and purchasing music CDs from record stores.
He was asked what he found attractive about Napster to which he said
he'd previously used Yahoo! search to attempt to find mp3 files, but
it was much easier when Napster came about. He testified that he was
not the person who originally installed Napster on his computer in
Providence. He explained that Napster was a giant library of songs in
front of you and "the Google of music". He stated he did not have a
sense that it was illegal at the time he was using it. He also stated
that his friends also used Napster, and he was never insterest in
hurting the artists and record companies.

Professor Nesson asked about Joel's high school life and how he used
music throughout that time period, which he described driving around
with his friends listening to music in his car, and was asked about
his car which he testified that he and his father had installed a good
deal of upgraded stereo equipment in.

Joel testified that also used KaZaA and found it to be similar to
Napster in function. He was asked about his letter to Plaintiff and
why he didn't remove his music files as the letter said he would. He
stated that he intended to, but could not make himself do it after all
of the time he had put in to assembling the music collection. He then
described what happened at college afterwards, with his college moving
more and more year after year at college to make file sharing
applications not work, to which he stated that around his junior year
none of the applications he had used worked properly anymore. He
stated he continued buying CDs during this time period, due to quality
issues.

Professor Nesson then turned to issues of the present lawsuit and why
he lied on his written interrogatories. Joel said that his answers
seemed like the best response to give without a lawyer. He also asked
about some of his deposition testimony which he stated that he was
less than fully forthcoming in it. He eventually was asked if he was
taking responsibility, to which he said, "I did it".

He stated that he stopped in 2007 or 2008 because of problems using
filesharing with malware on his machine, encountering spoof file, and
because he began using iTunes. He stated that this lawsuit was one of
the reasons he stopped using file sharing.

He stated that during the time Plaintiffs accused him of infringement,
August of 2004, he was not aware of iTunes. He stated he may have
heard of some other music services but that he wasn't in a position to
switch his music acquisition to any other method. He was asked if he
ever used file sharing for the purpose of selling or any other
commercial activity, which he said he did not, that his use was
entirely personal.

The redirect was very short, asking about his bringing his computer to
Best Buy and if his intention was to destroy evidence by doing so, he
stated it wasn't he just did so because it wouldn't run. He was asked
about his testimony that he shared music with friends and was asked if
his friends with everyone on KaZaA and Napster, which he said he was
not. He was asked if he was now admitting liability, to which he said
yes.

Ron Wilcox

Mr. Wilcox is with Warner music group and formerly of Sony. He
testified as to the sale of music beginning in the early 1980s through
the present time. He explained the advent of the CD and that it was
not built with any encryption because the threat of copying was not
seen as a major threat at that time. He testified as to music industry
efforts in the 1990s to explore digital distribution methods, to which
he described generally in terms of the amount of effort expended on
it, but no specifics. He testified that all the technologies they
looked at during this time included some sort of copy protection.

He testified that efforts to add encryption to CDs were never fully
explored because it would have left a lot of existing equipment
obsolete and they did not believe this would be something that the
marketplace would accept. He testified about early forms of DRM such
as FairPlay on iTunes.

His cross examination was short, being asked about Warner's reaction
to Napster which he said concerned the company because it was an
illegitimate free product. He was asked if Warner or Sony ever tried
to partner with peer to peer services which he said they had but that
the partnerships never went very far because of animosity on the peer
to peer side and stated they never seriously wanted to work with
record companies in the way that they wante.d

Silda Palerm

Ms. Palerm's testimony was to authenticate the Warner tracks at issue
in the case. The only other issue she testified to was that Warner had
had an over 50% reduction in force since the year 2000. On cross
examination Mr. Feinberg asked if the reduction in force was at all
attributable to the economy. Ms. Palerm stated her opinion that since
the bulk of reduction in force was prior to the economy having trouble
that she believed it was due to file sharing.

After Ms. Palerm Plaintiffs ended their case.

Plaintiffs after the conclusion of their case moved for a directed
verdict on the issue of copyright ownership, liability, and
willfulness. Defendant conceded ownership, but not any of the other
factors. Judge Gertner indicated she was inclined to direct on the
issue of liability based on testimony but still planned to go to the
jury with willfulness and the award. The Defendant indicated that they
will likely wrap up their case by mid-morning on Friday, after which
there will be closing arguments. Plaintiffs indicated they only needed
20-30 minutes for their closing.

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal
download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies
indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists
riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable
music player


posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/31/2009 01:51:00 AM


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Fri Jul 31 05:50:34 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:50:34 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Tenenbaum Day 1: Jury Selection,
	Reporting by Mark Bourgeois
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A72BE6A.6EC1FD8C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


(Mark Bourgeois' introduction at bottom.  -- Seth)

> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/jury-selection-encompases-first-day-of.html


Monday, July 27, 2009
 
Jury selection consumes first day of Sony v. Tenenbaum

BY MARC BOURGEOIS

Almost the entirety of day one of the Sony v. Tenenbaum trial was
devoted to jury selection. Opening statements will begin tomorrow at
9:00a.m. My updates for this trial will likely be limited to end of
day wrap-ups as I am not permitted to bring any electronic devices
into the courthouse, much less the courtroom, as I lack the needed
credentials to do so.

The morning began with a very brief reading of Judge Gertner's order
on the summary judgment motion that was entered early in the morning.
She also stated that any constitutional questions raised by the
parties in regard to damages would be a question saved for post trial,
if and when there is a damage award.

The parties then discussed timing for each side to present their case,
as the judge has announced that the trial should last one week. Judge
Gertner stated that she wanted the trial to move expeditiously, but
would not impose specific time limits on either side. She wants to
have the case to the jury by the end of the week, but deliberation
could go to next week.

Prof. Nesson then asked the court about whether or not the jury would
be instructed on the range of damages as is stated in the copyright
act, and stated he would like the jury instruction not to include the
specific range, but rather ask that the jury if it awards damages
simply be instructed to award damages that are just. Cites Feltner v.
Columbia as his authority for this instruction. Plaintiffs object and
Judge Gertner states that she will take the issue under advisement and
rule before the opening statements, as Professor Nesson has indicated
that the form of the instruction will play in to how he presents his
opening.

Professor Nesson then stated two other objections, he would like to
modify the geography of the courtroom to better present the defense to
the jury, and the issue of Debbie Rosenbaum participating in the case.
The courtroom was slightly modified with the position of the defense
counsel table, and Ms. Rosenbaum is permitted to sit at the counsel
table and assist Professor Nesson.

The jury selection voir dire then began. The voir dire went very
quickly with the group in opening court, with several jurors being
excused for their inability to sit on the case due to unresolvable
scheduling issues. No one claims to have heard, read, or seen anything
about the case and no one claims to know any parties or witnesses to
the case. The selection then proceeded in an adjacent courtroom with
voir dire by the parties, one juror at a time, without the presence of
the remainder of the jury.

This process lasted until about 4:15pm until a panel of 16 was
selected, and each side was allowed 3 peremptory challenges, leaving a
total of 10 jurors to sit on the case. After the jurors were selected
they were sworn in and asked to come back tomorrow morning at 9:00am
for opening statements.

Parties then brought up some issues of their concern prior to opening
statements. Plaintiffs do not wish for Professor Nesson to being up
certain issues that were raised in voir dire that they do not believe
are relevant to the case. Some of these issues include his
representation of Tenenbaum pro bono, references to terms more
appropriate to a criminal proceeding, his personal choice of wardrobe,
and Joel's (as opposed to both parties') right to a jury. Judge
Gertner agrees with Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs also bring up the use of demonstrative exhibits in
opening statements. Plaintiffs indicate they do not plan to use any
demonstrative exhibits in their opening statement, but ask to know if
Defendant does. Professor Nesson states that he does have two. One is
in image of the Necker Cube. The other is a box of styrofoam, to which
he intends to liken the image of an album and intends to show breaking
into pieces along with the advent of the internet.

Plaintiffs object to these demonstrations, but Judge Gertner overrules
and explains that the opening statement must have relevance to the
testimony that witnesses will provide, but gives license for counsel
to present how they choose. What these demonstratives will mean won't
be found out until tomorrow.

Judge Gertner then denies Defendant's proposed jury instruction not
listing the statutory range. The range will be available to the jury.

Judge Gertner brought up the issue of the innocent infringer defense.
There was then some discussion between the parties, but the defense
will not be allowed in this case because it was not asserted early
enough in the case.

Judge Gertner then gave an order regarding the testimony which will be
allowed by Johan Pouwelse. He will be allowed to testify as an expert
with regards to the times of appearance of Napster, iTunes, and other
peer-to-peer related services. He will also be able to testify as to
alternative methodologies to those employed by Dr. Jacobson. He will
not be allowed to testify to anything relating to the marketplace for
music or anything else related to economics.

The day ended with Judge Gertner encouraging the parties to move the
case quickly. She specifically stated that she didn't see the need for
the MediaSentry witness, as there isn't an issue as to the fact that
their investigation led to the correct person. Mr. Reynolds for the
Plaintiffs argued that there were other issues to which MediaSentry
would testify about, such as about what exactly was uploaded or
downloaded.

Plaintiffs then offered for the defense the list of the first three
witnesses they will call tomorrow, which are G. Wade Leak (Sony),
Chris Connelly (MediaSentry), and Mark Matteo (Cox Communications)



Docket entry for first day:

    Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before 
    Judge Nancy Gertner: Jury Trial held on 7/27/2009. Voir 
    Dire begins; 10 Juror's selected and sworn; openings and 
    evidence to begin on Tues 7/28/09 at 9:00am, court 
    adjourned. (lobby conference held re: media/list of jury 
    pool) (Court Reporter: O'hara.)(Attorneys present: Atty 
    Reynolds, Pariser, Cloherty, Burton, Oppenheim, Nesson, 
    Kamholtz, Feinberg) (Molloy, Maryellen) 



[Ed. note. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Judge is
deciding at this time what the jury instruction will allow in terms of
statutory damages. How can she determine that, without seeing what
actual damages have been shown?

Also it sounds like she's decided to allow a free for all on the
opening statements, so the RIAA lawyers will talk about how their
business model is hurting and it's because of all of those "pirates"
out there.

Sounds like I'm not getting wishes numbered 3 and 4 from my wish list
{http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-wish-list-for-mondays-sony-v.html}.

Plus it sounds like the jury selection process was allowed to be the
same kind of charade the Capitol v. Thomas process had been.

I think I'm going to be sick. -R.B.]


posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/27/2009 05:28:00 PM

--

> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/marc-bourgeois-to-cover-sony-bmg-music.html


Marc Bourgeois to cover Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Joel Tenenbaum
trial in person


posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/26/2009 05:20:00 PM


Hello everyone,

I'm Marc W. Bourgeois, and I will be providing on-site coverage of the
Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Joel Tenenbaum trial as was done with
Capitol v. Thomas-Rasset.

I currently work for a Madison, WI based online retailer managing
system and network infrastructure. I've previously worked for the
information technology department at the University of Wisconsin,
Division of University Housing, where a portion of my job
responsibilities included the processing of copyright related
cease-and-desist (DMCA) notifications and the technical aspects
relating to the recording industry pre-litigation campaign targeting
colleges and universities. [I should note that while Joel Tenenbaum
was a college student at the time of the alleged copyright
infringement he was not living in a University operated residence
facility, and the incarnation of the pre-litigation program of which I
was involved had not yet been created.]

While I anticipate my twitter updates may be less frequent during this
trial than the previous, I will also be providing them at:
http://twitter.com/mwbourgeois

Thank you and I look forward to providing readers this first-hand
perspective of events this week.


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Fri Jul 31 07:49:50 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:49:50 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Court: Oops, Jury Does Not Decide Guilt,
	Just Everything Else
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A72DA5E.19D81CEE@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/


Friday, July 31, 2009
 
Court reverses itself, will direct a verdict on liability, in SONY v
Tenenbaum

The Court has reversed itself and has stated now that it will direct
liability in favor of plaintiffs in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v.
Tenenbaum.

    Judge Nancy Gertner: Electronic ORDER entered with 
    respect to reconsideration of rule 50 motion: The Court 
    has reviewed the transcript of the defendant's 
    testimony, which had not been before the Court at the 
    time of the earlier ruling. The last question asked by 
    Mr. Reynolds on direct examination was Question: "Mr. 
    Tenenbaum, on the stand now, are you now admitting 
    liability for downloading and distributing all 30 sound 
    recordings that are at issue and listed on Exhibits 55 
    and 56 of the exhibits?" Answer: "Yes." Notwithstanding 
    the protestations of Tenenbaum's counsel, Tenenbaum's 
    statement plainly admits liability on both downloading 
    and distributing, does so in the very language of the 
    statute (no "making available" ambiguity) and does so 
    with respect to each and every sound recording at issue 
    here. Thus, the Court reverses its earlier ruling; Rule 
    50 motion is granted with respect to infringement. The 
    only issues for the jury are willfulness and damages. 
    (Gertner, Nancy) 

[Ed. note. The judge's ruling is erroneous. The question : "are you
admitting liability" is a legal question, not a factual question,
which Mr. Tenenbaum was not qualified to answer. For the Court to base
its decision on that is wrong. -R.B.]


From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Fri Jul 31 06:08:59 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:08:59 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] Tenenbaum Day 2: Opening Statements + Witnesses
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A72C2BB.91FC04C5@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/opening-statements-in-sony-v-tenenbaum.html


Opening statements in Sony v. Tenenbaum


BY MARC BOURGEIOS

posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/28/2009 06:17:00 PM


The second day of Sony v. Tenenbaum began as promised with the opening
statements of Plaintiffs followed by Defendant.

Mr. Reynolds for the Plaintiff began his opening by describing the
nature of the recording companies, stating that they are made up of
real people who work to record and distribute music for the public to
enjoy. He stated that his clients face a significant threat to their
livelihood from copyright infringement on the internet. He stated his
intention to show that Defendant had downloaded and distributed
thousands of song files, all on the internet for free. He stated that
while the infringement was massive his clients in the case were only
focusing on thirty of these songs. He stated that these songs were
distributed to millions of people without their permission with the
KaZaA file sharing application. He described in basic terms what file
sharing was, stating that it was sharing files with strangers that the
Defendant did not know and described how the KaZaA application was
downloaded and installed to a computer. He described the process of
searching for song files and finding those available for downloading.

Mr Reynolds stated that his clients hired MediaSentry, and on August,
10th of 2004 that MediaSentry was searching for files as any other
user would do. They then discovered a user with the username of
sublimeguy14 at KaZaA who had over 800 song files on his computer, and
that some of these files were distributed to MediaSentry. He stated
his clients listened to these files and verified that they were in
fact sound files of songs that his clients sell. He then stated that
evidence would not be presented of other distribution other than to
MediaSentry, because the KaZaA application does not keep long files,
and is designed so that no one else can see what is happening when
these files are distributed on the internet. He stated however that
they know other distributions took place because that was the entire
purpose of the KaZaA application. He then described metadata in other
files that MediaSentry was able to imply other transfers for two
reasons, first that the metadata showed evidence that these files were
downloaded from the internet and second that the data packets shown
would show an IP address that identifies a specific device on the
internet.

He then described that while they knew this information, they still
did not know the identity of an anonymous sublimeguy14 at KaZaA. He then
described the process of locating a subscriber, J. Tenenbaum, via a
subpoena on an Internet Service Provider, Cox Communications. Mr.
Reynolds then proceeded to describe other evidence that would be shown
by witnesses, such as the name sublimeguy14 being used by the
Defendant for other this, and that the Defendant would admit that the
KaZaA shared folder that was found was the one that he set up. He then
said that Defendant had attempted to blame others when they contact
for settlement, including other family members and friends. He then
stated that they would show evidence of a computer investigated by
Plaintiffs that would show over 2000 music files on it, and had other
file sharing software installed. Mr. Reynolds wrapped up the statement
by stating the jury would hear that defendant knew what he was doing
and knew that it was illegal, and would hear about the harm this type
of activity causes the music industry. He asked that the jury to hold
Defendant responsible for his actions.

Professor Nesson then began his opening statement for the Defendant by
stating that this story began long before 2004, it began in 1999 when
Napster was created. Plaintiffs had great success in years prior
selling music between the advent of the Compact Disc and when file
sharing came in to popularity with Napster. He then described that
before the internet the process of stealing music would likely involve
stealing physical goods from a physical retailer, but now that it was
something that could be done in someone?s own bedroom via the
internet. Professor Nesson described Joel?s background as a high
school student around the time that Napster came into existence and
described a summary of his life thereafter, going to college and
eventually enrolling in a PhD program at Boston University. He told
the jury that that they would hear from Joel?s family. He described
the Plaintiffs business model as a cube of styrofoam that was breaking
up in the new world of bits on the internet. He described the
Plaintiffs having a problem, and needing a new business model in
regards to the new technologies that had developed on the internet.

Professor Nesson said that Mr. Reynolds was attempting to portray Joel
as someone who ducked away from his responsibility, and described the
process that the case had put Joel through, with multiple depositions
and other difficulties to his life. Professor Nesson held up a poster
of the Necker Cube, and asked the jury to look at it, despite it being
a two-dimensional object was usually seen as a three-dimensional cube,
but that many people could see it in two ways. If you see the cube in
one form for a while and stare at it, often the cube will appear in a
different perspective. He likened this to the situation Plaintiffs
were attempting to place Joel in, that his actions could be seen in
two different ways. He asked the jury to see the case from Joel?s
point of view, and stated that he did not have the burden of proof. He
asked the jury to recognize the impediment that he has gone through to
reach them and allow them to see his point of view. Professor Nesson
states that no profit was sought by Joel, and that Joel was not the
part of any criminal syndicate. He then began describing the
litigation the recording industry engaged in starting with their suits
against Napster and Grokster. At this point the Plaintiffs object to
what Professor Nesson is attempting to describe, and their objections
are sustained.

He then said that the campaign got to the point where they couldn?t go
after the services any longer, and they needed to begin litigation
against individuals, and that this is where the lawsuit has its
origins. He described the case as about 30 songs in two categories.
Those songs first learned of in August 2007, a list of seven that was
later reduced to five. He described the other category as an
additional 25. He asked the jury to focus on the difference between
the two categories and asked the jury to find if Joel infringed on
each one. He asked the jury if they do get to a point where they have
to determine damages to award damages that are just. He asks that if
the jury finds a violation that they find it to be a minor violation.
He states that if he did violate any laws that the violation was a
part of the generation of which Joel is a member.

At this point Professor Nesson is reminded he is running out of time
for his opening statement and concludes his statement by thanking the
jury for their time.

Witnesses begin with Wade Leak of Sony.

[Ed. note. I'm definitely going to be sick. -R.B.]

---


> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/07/witnesses-in-day-two-of-sony-v.html


Witnesses in day two of Sony v. Tenenbaum


BY MARC BOURGEOIS

posted by Marc W. Bourgeois @ 7/28/2009 07:04:00 PM


Wade Leak

Wade Leak of Sony BMG Music Entertainment began by describing what the
record companies do. They find new music, work with artists to match
these artists with songwriters and producers and described the basic
process of working with an artist to produce an album. He stated that
the record companies primary source of revenue is sale of record
albums and online sales of the tracks that they produce.

He states that he is familiar with the songs Sony and Arista are suing
over in the case. He identifies three songs that MediaSentry
downloaded and four additional songs which the copyrights were owned
by his companies in this case. He stated that Sony registered all the
copyrights of these recordings and described the content of the
certified copy of the copyright registration from the copyright
office. He stated that Sony has the exclusive right to these songs and
that they were sold in albums and also sold digitally.

He then described that MediaSentry was hired to gather evidence of
online infringement and that MediaSentry found a user,
sublimeguy14 at KaZaA distributing these songs. MediaSentry downloaded
all of the three songs he initially identified, he listened to these
tracks and determined that they were identical to the songs that are
sold by his companies. He described the process of using a John Doe
suit to obtain the subscriber information for the IP address
MediaSentry identified from Cox Communications and sent a letter to J.
Tenenbaum to put him on notice of a copyright infringement claim. He
then described the screenshots of the sublimeguy14 at KaZaA?s shared
folder and identified many works that are owned by Sony that they are
not pursuing claims on in this case. When asked why they were not
pursuing claims on all these files he stated that they were pursuing
claims on a ?reasonable? number of songs. He stated that he wanted
fans to buy his companies music, and that copyright is instrumental in
making this happen.

He was asked why they were suing individuals in this manner. He
described their initial attempts to go after file sharing services, as
well as PR efforts that the recording industry attempted. Eventually
they decided to go after individuals engaging in file sharing because
they had no choice. He stated that he wanted people to love music, but
he also wanted them to pay for it. He likened the activity to
shoplifting, but in the digital universe. He stated that they do not
make money from these cases, because their expenses exceed any
settlements they get through them. He said that the reduced revenue
due to lost sales has led to numerous job losses at Sony. The stated
that many people feel file sharing is a victimless offense, but the
victims are those at Sony who have lost their jobs in recent years. He
stated that Sony is seeking statutory damages in this case and does
not have a number in mind of damages they would like to see awarded.

On cross examination Professor Nesson asked Mr. Leak about how they
hired MediaSentry and how thew coordinated with the RIAA, and again
asked about the issue of money in these cases. Mr. Leak repeated that
their expenses exceed any settlements they receive and that the goal
in the campaign is education. He stated that most settle these claims
before there is even a suit. He then asked about why Sony did not sue
on all the files they saw in the shared folder, and he again repeated
the intent to pursue a reasonable number. He did state that each was
infringement and was willful, and they could have sued on many more
songs.

Professor Nesson then focused on the issue of revenue. He focused on
the numbers from several albums that showed that the revenue figures
show a much greater amount of gross revenue from album sales than from
the sales of digital tracks as a general trend in all of the revenue
information for Sony tracks that he is asked to look at. He was asked
to describe the digital services that were available in 2004.

He was also asked to describe the difference between the songs listed
on the first exhibit of five and the other twenty-five identified,
after which he brought up the issue of spoofed songs being available
on file sharing networks. He asked if the songs that were not fully
downloaded could be so-called ?spoof? songs put out on file-sharing
services to discourage people from using them. Mr. Leak stated that
their spoofing efforts were only focused on front-line releases, and
that they would not have been directed at these tracks because they
were all catalog tracks. Mr. Leak stated that each of the songs in the
shared folder represents a displaced sale and that the shared folder
was evidence that these files were available for potentially millions
of people free. He then again described in a way he attempted to under
direct examination that was objected to, the difficulty of his
business competing with a marketplace where music is available as
described for free and likened it to being in the business of selling
televisions where a truck pulls up outside your store and begins
giving away televisions for free.

Mr. Nesson then attempted to proceed down a line of questioning
regarding Sony?s ownership of Michael Jackson copyrights, which is
quickly shut down by Plaintiffs sustained objections to the questions.

He then asked about the labels no longer initialing new cases. Mr.
Leak stated that he was not involved in the decision regarding not
pursuing new cases, but stated that they were still continuing with
cases that had already begun. He also stated that they reserve the
right to start new cases at any time.

Professor Nesson?s questions then wrapped up asking about what damage
he thought was appropriate, and the answer was just that he wanted an
award that was relative to his culpability and that his activity
showed a blatant disregard for copyrights.

On redirect Mr. Oppenheim returned to the issue of revenue. Mr. Leak
described the life cycle of a track and described different events
that could cause a boost in sales at various times, such as the track
being used in a movie or television show or a greatest hits album
being released that would explain some of the variations in revenue
numbers that were shown earlier.

He then described the lower amounts shown for digital sales were in
part due to piracy, in part to it being new technology, and in part
due to the figures only being for the specific tracks being sold, and
not being full albums.

Chris Connelly

Mr. Connelly identified himself as an employee of
MediaSenty/MediaDefender. He described his work as to protect the
copyrights of his clients, specifically in cases such as these, to
search peer to peer networks as any other user would do for their
clients copyrighted works. He described the process of installing
KaZaA from KaZaA.com and the initial configuration process where the
user self-selects a username and sets up a shared folder. He described
the process of searching for files, selecting them, and downloading
them. He described their process as something any other user would do,
with the exception that they collect evidence of what is done, such as
the packets that are transferred between MediaSentry and KaZaA users
and the collection of screenshots produced by their process. He also
testified that their process had a 'zero-error rate', meaning they had
no examples of cases where the data they collected turned out to be
erroneous.

He then described the evidence that they found, such as the
screenshots of the sublimeguy14 at KaZaA shared folder. He described the
user log that they created which showed the meta-data they were able
to transfer from over 800 files in this shared folder. He also
described the data log showing packets between a Cox Communications IP
address and MediaSentry. He was brought many pages of these logs
showing mp3 files, kpl files, and MetaData collected about them. He
testified that most of these files most likely did not come from
ripped CDs due to disparities in format of meta-data, varying
bitrates, et. cetera. which indicated that they most likely came from
different originating sources throughout the internet. One part of the
data log showed a portion where the sublimeguy14 at KaZaA computer did
not respond to several requests, which he described as 'most likely
because the computer was busy' and the requested file then starting to
download from a different PC. He described this process as part of the
way KaZaA worked. He did testify that he had no evidence of other
transfers between sublimeguy14 at KaZaA and any other party, because
peer-to-peer software does not show these activities taking place.

On cross-examination he again admitted he had no evidence of any other
transfers and Professor Nesson focused on some tracks that had
meta-data indicating they were ripped by someone named 'havok', he
asked if he had ever seen any songs indicating they came from
sublimeguy14 in any other case, to which he indicated he had not, but
that since none of the metadata from this shared folder had that name
in them that even if he had seen files that came from this shared
folder in any other case they would not contain that name.

The questioning then turned to the issue of impact. He went back to
the multi-source downloading testimony and asked that if someone had
attempted to download the songs and sublimeguy14's computer refused to
provide them that this would not have likely been an impediment to
anyone else recieving the files. Mr. Connelly stated that other users
probably could have recieved the files from other sources if
sublimeguy14's computer did not provide them. Professor Nesson then
stated that the fact that if Joel shared that it didn't change the
picture much, given that so many users are online with KaZaA at any
given time.

Professor Nesson then went to the issue of distribution. He described
distribution as a word that has an active component as in 'a
distributor'. He asked what actively Joel would have had to do to
distribute the files after they were downloaded to a shared folder.
Mr. Connelly stated that nothing needed to be done, when asked if it
was someone else that had to actively request the files in the shared
folder after Joel 'left them there' Mr. Connelly agreed.

Mark Matteo

Mr. Matteo works for Cox Communications and stated he had no relation
to Plaintiffs in the case. He stated that his group at Cox was
involved in the subpoena served on this case requesting subscriber
information for specific IP addresses at specific dates and times. He
described Cox's process for checking multiple systems to tie this
information together with subscriber data and that both their
technical and billing systems came back with the same information in
this case, that the subscriber indicated by the IP address and date
and time in question was a J. Tenenbaum of Providence, RI.

He stated that Cox sent a letter to the subscriber indicating that
someone had subpoenaed information about their service in a civil
case. He also pointed out when asked about specific sections in the
Cox Acceptable Use policy in regards to copyright. He stated that he
had no doubt that Cox identified the correct subscriber in this case.

On cross examination Mr. Matteo was asked about the letter he sent,
which had the language that a lawsuit had already been filed in
comparison to the initial letter sent by Plaintiffs indicating that
they file a case if the issue was not resolved. Professor Nesson asked
Mr. Matteo about the case Fonovisa v. Does 1-76 in which the subpoena
was issued. He also asked Mr. Matteo about the subscriber name of J.
Tenenbaum, and introduced Joel's mother Judith Tenenbaum.

James Chappel

Mr. Chappel is a high school friend of Joel. He was asked by
Plaintiffs about the PC in Joel's Providence home located in Joel's
bedroom. He was asked if he'd ever used it, to which he had indicated
that he had used it to check e-mail on rare occasion while he was in
high school. He was asked if he'd ever used KaZaA on the PC or any
other in the Tenenbaum home, to which he said he had not. He testified
that he had never used the sublimeguy14 username, knew what
filesharing was, and had seen some 'blank' CDs in Joel's bedroom while
he was in high school. He also testified that he had heard Joel brag
about obtaining music free on the internet while he was in high
school.

On cross-examination Professor Nesson asked if he was mad at Joel for
implying he may have used KaZaA on the computer in his bedroom. At
first Mr. Chappel was hesitant to answer, but did indicate he was
annoyed by the fact. He testified that he had not been deposed in the
case, but did 'sign something' for Plaintiffs. After a sidebar
conference a letter written to Plaintiffs by Mr. Chappel was
introduced indicating that he had often heard Joel brag in high school
about always having the latest music and getting it from the internet.
He indicated he wrote the letter along with a statement he was sent by
Plaintiffs and signed that was written 'in their words' because he
felt he wanted to submit something that he wrote in his own words.

Dr. Arthur Tenenbaum

Joel Tenenbaum's father was the last live witness of the day, being
asked by Plaintiffs mostly yes or no questions about artists his son
liked, and whether or not he had ever seen Joel use KaZaA. He
testified that he had seen Joel use KaZaA and even was shown by him
the process of using it at one point to try to obtain music that was
more in his fathers taste. He also indicated that he had called Joel
after reading about lawsuits during Joel's freshman year of college to
caution Joel not to do it. He testified that Joel had told him that
you would only be sued if you 'did it a lot'.

Tova Tenenbaum and Abagail Nathan

Deposition testimony was read from Tova Tenenbaum and Abagail Nathan,
Joel's younger and older sister. Both testified about Joel's music
tastes and that they never saw anyone else use the computer for
downloading music and had never done so themselves. Tova indicated
that in Joel's car which she now drove he left several burned CDs.


From webleader+rss-bot at freeculture.org  Fri Jul 31 09:15:04 2009
From: webleader+rss-bot at freeculture.org (FreeCulture.org - Students for Free Culture)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:15:04 -0000
Subject: [FC-discuss] Work for Creative Commons as a Software Engineer
Message-ID: <20090731131505.15F0A5E61B5E@freeculture.org>

Writes Fred Benenson on our blog:

As you may or may not know, [Creative Commons][1] (full disclosure: CC
is my current employer) frequently looks to Students for Free Culture
when hiring for openings and new positions. Right now, CC is currently
employing at least 4 once-students who have been involved in SFC, so if
you're helping out with your chapter and think you're a fit, you should
[definitely consider applying for the position][2]:

> Creative Commons is hiring a software engineer for our technology
team, based in San Francisco. The ideal candidate would have experience
in a few key areas (Python, Linux, web development) and the ability to
learn quickly. Interest in the semantic web doesn?t hurt, either. We?ll
begin reviewing resumes and scheduling interviews May 15, 2009.

[See the job description for application details][3], and good luck!

   [1]: http://www.creativecommons.org

   [2]: http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14265

   [3]: http://creativecommons.org/about/opportunities#engineer

URL: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/05/01/work-for-creative-commons-as-a-software-engineer/

From webleader+rss-bot at freeculture.org  Fri Jul 31 09:15:05 2009
From: webleader+rss-bot at freeculture.org (FreeCulture.org - Students for Free Culture)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:15:05 -0000
Subject: [FC-discuss] SFC supports the Student Statement on The Right to
	Research
Message-ID: <20090731131505.4D39A5E61B5E@freeculture.org>

Writes Kevin Driscoll on our blog:

[SPARC][1] (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition)
issued a statement today urging students and other members of the
academic community to support Open Access to research:

> Learning and inquiry are impeded when scholars lack access to fellow
researchers? work, and when students lack access to the work of scholars
before them.

The full text of the statement is available at
[www.righttoresearch.org][2] and will serve as a terrific starting point
for discussions of Open Access issues. Forward it to your chapter
members and bring it up at the next meeting. Use it in conversation with
faculty at your school.

Of all the work we're engaged with on our campuses, Open Access to
research may be our nearest victory. Keep the momentum going!

   [1]: http://www.arl.org/sparc

   [2]: http://www.righttoresearch.org

URL: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/06/10/sfc-supports-the-student-statement-on-the-right-to-research/

From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org  Fri Jul 31 18:53:45 2009
From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:53:45 -0400
Subject: [FC-discuss] NY Times: $675,000 for Tenenbaum
References: <48804B00.D0DBC06C@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<49524E67.7FA9D2EB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
	<4A6DDE24.575D14DB@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <4A7375F9.890C2D9F@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>


> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/31/business/AP-US-TEC-MusicDownload.html?_r=1


Student Must Pay $675,000 in Downloading Case


Published: July 31, 2009

Filed at 6:21 p.m. ET


BOSTON (AP) -- A Boston University student has been ordered to pay
$675,000 to four record labels for illegally downloading and sharing
music.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted he downloaded and
distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how
much in damages to award the record labels.

Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to
$30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per
track if the jury finds the infringements were willful. The maximum
jurors could have awarded in Tenenbaum's case was $4.5 million.

The case is only the nation's second music downloading case against an
individual to go to trial.

Last month, a federal jury in Minneapolis ruled a Minnesota woman must
pay nearly $2 million for copyright infringement.


From webleader+rss-bot at freeculture.org  Fri Jul 31 09:15:05 2009
From: webleader+rss-bot at freeculture.org (FreeCulture.org - Students for Free Culture)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:15:05 -0000
Subject: [FC-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Ask_Not_What_Your_Country_Can_Do_For_Free_?=
	=?utf-8?q?Culture=E2=80=A6?=
Message-ID: <20090731131505.205745E61B5A@freeculture.org>

Writes Kevin Donovan on our blog:

As you undoubtedly know, President Obama has led an unprecedented era of
openness in American governance, and although [the record is mixed][1],
there is much reason for hope. One of the more interesting examples of
participatory government that has emerged has been the crowdsourcing of
citizen input during the transistion period where Americans could submit
feedback for the newly elected administration and others could vote for
their favorites.

Now, the Office of Public Enagagement has [published a PDF of the top
suggestions][2] (also available [online][3]). It provides a zeitgeist of
sorts for the American public, and, excitingly, many of the topics are
related to our work at Students for Free Culture.?

A couple commenters desired increased access to knowledge (A2K):

> _Libraries of all types need our support, 10810 points_

>

> ?The library connects us with the insight and knowledge, painfully
extracted from Nature, of thegreatest minds that ever were, with the
best teachers, drawn from the entire planet and from allour history, to
instruct us without tiring, and to inspire us to make our own
contribution to thecollective knowledge of the human species. I think
the health of our civilization, the depth ofour awareness about the
underpinnings of our culture and our concern for the future can all
betested by how well we support our libraries.? ~Carl Sagan, Cosmos

>

> Carl said it best. Please continue and expand upon the support
provided to libraries of all types.

>

> - NJ Busch

and

> _Create an online E-Library, 8100 points_

>

> Start a program scanning the library of congress into an online
library where it can be accessed?for free. It would make it so much
easier and cheaper for public/ school libraries to offer the?people they
serve quality access to knowledge. Going hand in hand with the plan
already in place?to drastically expand broadband lines and invest in
21st century schools, this would do much to?improve American education
while making it more cost effective. It would also save money and?the
enviornement by reducing the amount of paper purchased by the government
when stocking multiple libraries with the same books.

>

> - Kevin J. Kauth

While others pointed to the need for supporting innovation and
creativity:

> _Focus on the Art and Creativity, 12970 points_

>

> It is always the arts that are first to be cut back in our schools and
communities, yet the arts are

>

> at the very center of creativity. This is where creative skills are
born, not just for artists and musicians,?but for scientists, engineers,
researchers, innovators, and all thinking peoples. Now, if ever,?is the
time when we need creative thought and creative action to find the means
and the human?energy and spirit to find our way out of the problems that
face us.

>

> - Maples

and

> _Expand Small Business Innovation Programs, 6550 points_

>

> The [Small Business Innovation Research][4] (SBIR) program has been
providing near-term growth?with long-term benefits for many years now.
It is an established yet dynamic program created?and administered by the
federal government.?

>

> Because the program administration and guidelines are already in
place, an expansion of the?program could be accomplished almost
overnight, perhaps by merely generalizing a previous?Executive Order
(for example, 13329).

>

> - Next Generation

Others encouraged more technology-enabled transparency:

> _people talking to government, 41740 points_

>

> One of the problems with politcs is that the people?s voice isn?t
heard. This website is amazing!?Please expand this so that people can
vote on things that congress votes on. This will show?congress what the
constituants want. You can have the people vote on items and then
show?how their congress people voted on the same issue. It?s been too
long that a small, disconected?group of people control the lives of the
US population. The American people have NOT stood up.?Expand this
website so that the people?s voice can be heard again. Great job with
change.gov.

>

> WE WANT MORE!

>

> - aDAM

and

> _Honesty and Transparency, 45610 points_

>

> Whatever the issue -- economy, energy, forgein policy, health care,
homeland security, or other?- it is most important that honesty and
transparency guide the debate. In communicating with?the American
people, the President and his representatives must remain true to the
principles of?honesty and transparency.

>

> - GeneL

and

> _Vote and debate all bills online and show what industries contribute
the most to each Representatives campaign, 40080 points_

>

> Vote and debate all bills online and show what industries contribute
the most to each Representatives?campaign while they are voting. Let?s
show the American people who really run the?country!

>

> - JimBO

Some people called for the government to provide for open technological
platforms:

> _National WiFi, 23540 points_

>

> Internet access in the new emerging world and culture needs to be a
right and not a privilage.?Those who cannot afford broadband access will
be left behind dispreportionately. Broadband?Internet Access needs to be
avalible to all Americans and most especially to those who can?t
afford?it. Let?s make this a priority.Further National WiFi access will
broaden new business opportunities in a new emerging economy.?Americans
could have cell phones that have no service fees, internet access at any
location?and the ability to be in contact with anyone or anything
instantly. The possibilites are endless.

>

> - Jesse E

and

> _Restore Net Neutrality Protections to the Internet, 46220 points_

>

> During the campaign, Barack Obama pledged to ?take a backseat to no
one in my commitment?to Net Neutrality? and to ?protect the Internet?s
traditional openness to innovation and creativity?and ensure that it
remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will revitalize
our democracy.??The administration can show it?s commitment by working
with the new Congress and?FCC to pass laws that make Net Neutrality the
cornerstone to protecting innovation, free speech?and choice on the
Internet.

>

> - TimKarr

Finally, many people recognized the need to protect civil liberties,
such as privacy:

> _Find a Balance Between US Security and Civil Liberties, 15660 points_

>

> With the reversal of many civil liberties by the Bush administration
in the past eight years in the?name of Terrorism, we need to find a
balance between protecting our country without giving?up our cherished
rights as American Citizens. I am hoping a balance can be met without
giving?agencies carte blanche and no oversight.

>

> - Admiralu

There are certainly points for disagreement on the particulars of these
proposals, but as a general impression of the importance and widespread
interest in the topics that matter to Students for Free Culture, this is
an encouraging sign that the tides of public opinion are recognizing the
importance of innovation, transparency, civil liberties and the role
that technology can have in promoting those.

Now, it would seem, the question is what can Free Culture do for your
country?

   [1]: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/11/grading_whitehous
egov_round_tw.html

   [2]: http://www.whitehouse.gov/asset.aspx?AssetId=1580

   [3]: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ope/

   [4]: http://www.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/sbir/

URL: http://freeculture.org/blog/2009/05/12/ask-not-what-your-country-can-do-for-free-culture/