CC is turning 5 and to celebrate we’re throwing a community-wide party. If you’ll be in the San Francisco Bay Area on December 15, join us for a night of celebrating the commons at a party generously sponsored by Mozilla and Last.fm. The evening will feature announcements by Joi Ito and Lawrence Lessig, a live acoustic performance by Gilberto Gil, video remixing by Phi Phenomenon, and music provided by DJ Spooky. Space is limited so please RSVP to party@creativecommons.org as soon as possible to let us know if you will be joining us (seriously, please do this!). Details are listed on our birthday flyer.
If you’re not in the Bay Area, don’t worry. There will also be parties in Berlin and New York City. For more details about these events, or if you want to register a party in your own part of the world, check out our wiki page for more information. Air Mozilla will be streaming Gilberto Gil’s performance for those who won’t be able to attend any of the parties. And of course, please feel free to celebrate CC in Second Life as well.
No matter where you are in the world, we invite you to celebrate CC’s five years of helping to keep culture free and celebrate the future of participatory culture.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Ireland frees up some public data
Free O’Data: Ireland makes (some) data free, Free Our Data: the blog, November 26, 2007. Excerpt:
...Ireland’s geographical agency, the GSI, has made a number of its datasets about boreholes available for free online.
Announced by the minister, the web page itself is a bit spartan: “Minister Ryan launches Spatial Data Projects to allow free online access to Departmental data. GSI, along with PAD, EMD and Engineering Divisions of DCENR, all contributed data to these series of web map viewers, data download pages and GIS web services. Click on www.dcenr.gov.ie/spatial+pages [Note: this isn’t a valid page, or at least not to me on my Mac] or http://www.gsi.ie/mapping for further details.” ...
An interesting contrast with the Environment Agency for England and Wales, which as we pointed out in May, is trying to charge people for details about water extraction locations....
Free O’Data: Ireland makes (some) data free, Free Our Data: the blog, November 26, 2007. Excerpt:
...Ireland’s geographical agency, the GSI, has made a number of its datasets about boreholes available for free online.
Announced by the minister, the web page itself is a bit spartan: “Minister Ryan launches Spatial Data Projects to allow free online access to Departmental data. GSI, along with PAD, EMD and Engineering Divisions of DCENR, all contributed data to these series of web map viewers, data download pages and GIS web services. Click on www.dcenr.gov.ie/spatial+pages [Note: this isn’t a valid page, or at least not to me on my Mac] or http://www.gsi.ie/mapping for further details.” ...
An interesting contrast with the Environment Agency for England and Wales, which as we pointed out in May, is trying to charge people for details about water extraction locations....
Swedish couple names baby boy "Google"
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
October 21, 2005
A Swedish Lebanese couple, Walid Elias and Carol Kai, has chosen to name their first born son Google, after the well-known search engine.
The Swedish tax authority, which normally frowns on unusal names, apparently had no objections.
The father, Walid Elias Kai, says he's a "great fan" of the search engine and wanted to honor the service by naming his son after it. But Mr. Kai says he and his wife also chose the name because of the similar word googol. "[Googol] means 1 followed by 100 zeroes," stated Mr. Kai, "and I want my son to have lots of friends – I want him to be social, so the name also symbolises this."
Upon hearing the news, authors of the Google weblog wrote, "We wish him long life and good health, and hope his schoolmates aren't too hard on him."
Google Kai already has his own website at http://www.google-kai.com/
Sources
"I name this baby “Google”". The Local Newspaper Sweden, October 20, 2005
Karen Wickre, Google Blog team "We get letters". Google, October 18, 2005
This page is archived and is no longer publicly editable. Please note any corrections or other issues with the article on the administrators' alert page. Also, sources may no longer be available online.
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
October 21, 2005
A Swedish Lebanese couple, Walid Elias and Carol Kai, has chosen to name their first born son Google, after the well-known search engine.
The Swedish tax authority, which normally frowns on unusal names, apparently had no objections.
The father, Walid Elias Kai, says he's a "great fan" of the search engine and wanted to honor the service by naming his son after it. But Mr. Kai says he and his wife also chose the name because of the similar word googol. "[Googol] means 1 followed by 100 zeroes," stated Mr. Kai, "and I want my son to have lots of friends – I want him to be social, so the name also symbolises this."
Upon hearing the news, authors of the Google weblog wrote, "We wish him long life and good health, and hope his schoolmates aren't too hard on him."
Google Kai already has his own website at http://www.google-kai.com/
Sources
"I name this baby “Google”". The Local Newspaper Sweden, October 20, 2005
Karen Wickre, Google Blog team "We get letters". Google, October 18, 2005
This page is archived and is no longer publicly editable. Please note any corrections or other issues with the article on the administrators' alert page. Also, sources may no longer be available online.
From WordPress...
Survey: Finland is the world's greenest country
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
October 5, 2007
A new survey into the world's greenest and most livable countries has concluded that out of 141 countries reviewed, Finland is the greenest.
Some of the top 20, in order, were Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, Uruguay, Denmark, Canada, Japan, Israel, Italy, Slovenia, France, Netherlands, Portugal, New Zealand and Greece. The poorest results went to African countries, which dominated the bottom of the table, with Ethiopia coming in last place.
"Finland wins high marks for air and water quality, a low incidence of infant disease and how well it protects citizens from water pollution and natural disasters," commented the study. Other factors taken into account when ranking the countries included quality of education and income level.
Some other results were the United Kingdom at 25th, the United States at 23rd and China at 84.
The study also looked at individual cities. Of the 72 examined, Stockholm came out on top, followed in order by Oslo, Munich and Paris. A total of four German cities were ranked in the top ten - Munich, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Dusseldorf - and French cities Lyon and Nantes joined Paris in the top ten as well. New York came in at 15th and London at 27th. At the bottom end were mainly Asian cities, with Beijing's air pollution problems earning it the lowest spot in the table. Guangzhou and Shanghai were also near the bottom.
Have an opinion on this story? Post It!
[edit] Sources
"Reader's Digest study says Finland best for living". Reuters, October 5, 2007
Annabella Bulacan "Finland Ranks As World's Most Livable Country; Beijing Is Dirtiest City". allheadlinenews.com, October 5, 2007
"It's official! Ireland really is green". U.TV, October 5, 2007
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Survey:_Finland_is_the_world%27s_greenest_country"
Survey: Finland is the world's greenest country
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
October 5, 2007
A new survey into the world's greenest and most livable countries has concluded that out of 141 countries reviewed, Finland is the greenest.
Some of the top 20, in order, were Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, Uruguay, Denmark, Canada, Japan, Israel, Italy, Slovenia, France, Netherlands, Portugal, New Zealand and Greece. The poorest results went to African countries, which dominated the bottom of the table, with Ethiopia coming in last place.
"Finland wins high marks for air and water quality, a low incidence of infant disease and how well it protects citizens from water pollution and natural disasters," commented the study. Other factors taken into account when ranking the countries included quality of education and income level.
Some other results were the United Kingdom at 25th, the United States at 23rd and China at 84.
The study also looked at individual cities. Of the 72 examined, Stockholm came out on top, followed in order by Oslo, Munich and Paris. A total of four German cities were ranked in the top ten - Munich, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Dusseldorf - and French cities Lyon and Nantes joined Paris in the top ten as well. New York came in at 15th and London at 27th. At the bottom end were mainly Asian cities, with Beijing's air pollution problems earning it the lowest spot in the table. Guangzhou and Shanghai were also near the bottom.
Have an opinion on this story? Post It!
[edit] Sources
"Reader's Digest study says Finland best for living". Reuters, October 5, 2007
Annabella Bulacan "Finland Ranks As World's Most Livable Country; Beijing Is Dirtiest City". allheadlinenews.com, October 5, 2007
"It's official! Ireland really is green". U.TV, October 5, 2007
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Survey:_Finland_is_the_world%27s_greenest_country"
Boing Boing is the most popular blog in the world, as ranked by Technorati http://www.technorati.com/blogs/www.boingboing.net
This is a blog about the art and science of blogs, bloging, and bloged blogs.
Below is an interesting look at copyright from Public Knowledge: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/copyright
Copyright, put simply, is a personal monopoly on an original writing, song, piece of art, or a group of any of those, for 70 years after the death of the creator. If a corporation is the creator, the copyright monopoly lasts for 95 years.
Generally, copyright prevents others from being able to show, copy, perform, modify, or distribute the original work without the owner’s permission. The amount of control copyright gives to creators lets them charge more for their work, or determine how they want their works to be used.
As with most things in life, though, there are exceptions to the general rule of broad control. For instance, copyright does not trump free speech because as a society, we hold higher the right to uncensored communication than the monopoly rights of an artist.
Why do we have copyright?
The Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) reads Congress shall have the power to:
promote the progress of science…by securing for limited times to authors…the exclusive right to their respective writings…
What does that mean? The easy answer is that scientists and artists alike, who enrich our society with their discoveries and works, are granted an additional incentive to innovate and create new works of art. It’s an exchange—share the work with society and society will allow you a limited monopoly. The goal is to disseminate ideas and enrich the public, while creating an incentive for the artist. After a limited time the artist’s monopoly would dissolve and the work would return completely to the public.
The concept of “returning” works to the public suggests that no new idea is truly new, that it is only built from some previous societal knowledge. Perhaps this return concept can be best understood through the words of Sir Isaac Newton, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” The Constitution specifies, “limited times” to ensure that artists to not rest on their laurels but continue to innovate.
What are the limits of copyright?
Without limitations on the scope and application of copyright, it would be nearly impossible to share, resell, lend, or even talk about creative works. For instance, selling a used CD and lending a book to a friend both implicate the copyright owner’s exclusive right to distribute the work. Quoting from a news article or your favorite movie on a blog implicate the reproduction right. Singing aloud, or playing a radio so that others can hear implicates the performance right.
But instead of requiring us to get written permission from copyright owners in each of these cases, copyright law provides limitations and exceptions to creators’ rights, so that ordinary uses of the work aren’t hampered, and information and expression can flow freely.
For instance, the first sale doctrine says that once a particular copy of a work has been sold, the owner of that copy can distribute it however they want—reselling it, lending it out, or giving it away.
Fair use is another limitation to copyright, and a particularly flexible and useful one. Basically, fair use balances the creator’s need for protection against the user’s need to use the work without permission, taking into account whether this use will hurt the market for the original work. It is the primary (but not the only) way that the law balances copyright with the need to use copyrighted works when reporting news, conducting research, or criticizing or discussing works. It also allows for new, beneficial uses, like home recording.
These aren’t the only limitations and exceptions to copyright, just some of the more prominent ones. Other limitations deal more specifically with certain public performances, library uses of works, and other situations.
Other laws
The exchange in copyright between the creator and the public—limited monopoly in return for certain usage rights—has been worked out over the years, and continues to evolve. But other, non-copyright laws have been springing up that control how the public can use copyrighted works, while remaining outside of the normal boundaries of copyright law. For example, there are specific anti-bootlegging laws that prohibit making video recordings in a movie theater. While this is already a violation of copyright, the anti-bootlegging law isn’t necessarily subject to the same exceptions and limitations as copyright law. Thus, someone recording a short clip and charged under the anti-bootlegging statute wouldn’t be able to claim fair use as a defense.
The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA represent another example of this “para-copyright.” Although the DMCA is part of copyright law, circumventing DRM isn’t a copyright infringement, so the exceptions and limitations to copyright don’t apply. So even if a user circumvents DRM in order to make a fair use of a work, the circumvention is still illegal, even if the use isn’t.
About this Issue
Share
Resources
Legislation
Litigation
Press Releases
Projects
Publications
Articles
Filings
Recent Blog Entries
House Committee on Education and Labor Puts out "supporters of intellectual property theft" Propaganda
Nov 15 2007 - 1:44pm
A look at S. 2317, The Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007
Nov 13 2007 - 6:36pm
ACT NOW! House Sneaks Higher Ed Filtering Requirement in 750 Page Education Bill
Nov 12 2007 - 5:05pm
iPod, Ringtones, Guitar Hero, and Phase: All Music Apps are not treated equally
Nov 8 2007 - 6:21pm
AT&T's Copyright Filtering Technology No Better (and Maybe Worse) than the Rest
Nov 8 2007 - 11:22am
more
Recent Legislation
H.R. 2033: Design Piracy Prohibition Act
Apr 25 2007 - 5:00pm
H.R. 1201: Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship (FAIRUSE) Act of 2007
Feb 27 2007 - 11:10am
S.522: Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act
Feb 7 2007 - 5:00pm
S.256: Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music (PERFORM) Act of 2007
Jan 11 2007 - 4:29pm
H.R. 6052: Copyright Modernization Act of 2006
Sep 11 2006 - 10:06am
more
Recent Litigation
Twentieth Century Fox et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation et ano.
Atlantic Recording Corp., et al. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc.
RIAA vs. Alleged File Traders
RIAA v. Verizon
Online Policy Group v. Diebold
more
Reading List
CDT: Policy Beta
Susan Crawford blog
Cybertelecom
EFF: DeepLinks
IPac Blog
KEI Policy Blogs: WIPO Casting Treaty
Lawrence Lessig
On the Commons.org
Open Access News
SIVACRACY.NET
The Technology Liberation Front
Tim Wu: What’s New
Organizations
Below is an interesting look at copyright from Public Knowledge: http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/copyright
Copyright, put simply, is a personal monopoly on an original writing, song, piece of art, or a group of any of those, for 70 years after the death of the creator. If a corporation is the creator, the copyright monopoly lasts for 95 years.
Generally, copyright prevents others from being able to show, copy, perform, modify, or distribute the original work without the owner’s permission. The amount of control copyright gives to creators lets them charge more for their work, or determine how they want their works to be used.
As with most things in life, though, there are exceptions to the general rule of broad control. For instance, copyright does not trump free speech because as a society, we hold higher the right to uncensored communication than the monopoly rights of an artist.
Why do we have copyright?
The Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) reads Congress shall have the power to:
promote the progress of science…by securing for limited times to authors…the exclusive right to their respective writings…
What does that mean? The easy answer is that scientists and artists alike, who enrich our society with their discoveries and works, are granted an additional incentive to innovate and create new works of art. It’s an exchange—share the work with society and society will allow you a limited monopoly. The goal is to disseminate ideas and enrich the public, while creating an incentive for the artist. After a limited time the artist’s monopoly would dissolve and the work would return completely to the public.
The concept of “returning” works to the public suggests that no new idea is truly new, that it is only built from some previous societal knowledge. Perhaps this return concept can be best understood through the words of Sir Isaac Newton, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” The Constitution specifies, “limited times” to ensure that artists to not rest on their laurels but continue to innovate.
What are the limits of copyright?
Without limitations on the scope and application of copyright, it would be nearly impossible to share, resell, lend, or even talk about creative works. For instance, selling a used CD and lending a book to a friend both implicate the copyright owner’s exclusive right to distribute the work. Quoting from a news article or your favorite movie on a blog implicate the reproduction right. Singing aloud, or playing a radio so that others can hear implicates the performance right.
But instead of requiring us to get written permission from copyright owners in each of these cases, copyright law provides limitations and exceptions to creators’ rights, so that ordinary uses of the work aren’t hampered, and information and expression can flow freely.
For instance, the first sale doctrine says that once a particular copy of a work has been sold, the owner of that copy can distribute it however they want—reselling it, lending it out, or giving it away.
Fair use is another limitation to copyright, and a particularly flexible and useful one. Basically, fair use balances the creator’s need for protection against the user’s need to use the work without permission, taking into account whether this use will hurt the market for the original work. It is the primary (but not the only) way that the law balances copyright with the need to use copyrighted works when reporting news, conducting research, or criticizing or discussing works. It also allows for new, beneficial uses, like home recording.
These aren’t the only limitations and exceptions to copyright, just some of the more prominent ones. Other limitations deal more specifically with certain public performances, library uses of works, and other situations.
Other laws
The exchange in copyright between the creator and the public—limited monopoly in return for certain usage rights—has been worked out over the years, and continues to evolve. But other, non-copyright laws have been springing up that control how the public can use copyrighted works, while remaining outside of the normal boundaries of copyright law. For example, there are specific anti-bootlegging laws that prohibit making video recordings in a movie theater. While this is already a violation of copyright, the anti-bootlegging law isn’t necessarily subject to the same exceptions and limitations as copyright law. Thus, someone recording a short clip and charged under the anti-bootlegging statute wouldn’t be able to claim fair use as a defense.
The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA represent another example of this “para-copyright.” Although the DMCA is part of copyright law, circumventing DRM isn’t a copyright infringement, so the exceptions and limitations to copyright don’t apply. So even if a user circumvents DRM in order to make a fair use of a work, the circumvention is still illegal, even if the use isn’t.
About this Issue
Share
Resources
Legislation
Litigation
Press Releases
Projects
Publications
Articles
Filings
Recent Blog Entries
House Committee on Education and Labor Puts out "supporters of intellectual property theft" Propaganda
Nov 15 2007 - 1:44pm
A look at S. 2317, The Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007
Nov 13 2007 - 6:36pm
ACT NOW! House Sneaks Higher Ed Filtering Requirement in 750 Page Education Bill
Nov 12 2007 - 5:05pm
iPod, Ringtones, Guitar Hero, and Phase: All Music Apps are not treated equally
Nov 8 2007 - 6:21pm
AT&T's Copyright Filtering Technology No Better (and Maybe Worse) than the Rest
Nov 8 2007 - 11:22am
more
Recent Legislation
H.R. 2033: Design Piracy Prohibition Act
Apr 25 2007 - 5:00pm
H.R. 1201: Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship (FAIRUSE) Act of 2007
Feb 27 2007 - 11:10am
S.522: Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act
Feb 7 2007 - 5:00pm
S.256: Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music (PERFORM) Act of 2007
Jan 11 2007 - 4:29pm
H.R. 6052: Copyright Modernization Act of 2006
Sep 11 2006 - 10:06am
more
Recent Litigation
Twentieth Century Fox et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation et ano.
Atlantic Recording Corp., et al. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc.
RIAA vs. Alleged File Traders
RIAA v. Verizon
Online Policy Group v. Diebold
more
Reading List
CDT: Policy Beta
Susan Crawford blog
Cybertelecom
EFF: DeepLinks
IPac Blog
KEI Policy Blogs: WIPO Casting Treaty
Lawrence Lessig
On the Commons.org
Open Access News
SIVACRACY.NET
The Technology Liberation Front
Tim Wu: What’s New
Organizations
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)