The Economist seems to think that the pharmaceutical industry is changing its business model.
"LIPITOR is a drugs company's dream. The cholesterol pill made by Pfizer, an American pharmaceuticals giant, is the world's best-selling drug. Last year it earned over $13 billion in revenues. Other hugely successful drugs include GlaxoSmithKline's Advair, an asthma remedy, and Plavix, a blood thinner, which is sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis. Both enjoy billions of dollars in annual sales. Despite such rewards, however, pharmaceutical companies are reconsidering their pursuit of blockbuster drugs, as new technology permits the creation of niche remedies that target rare ailments or sub-populations of people suffering from common diseases."
Friday, July 06, 2007
Cameron: Term extension in exchange for being nice
The Register has a nice take on David Cameron's offer to the BPI earlier this week to extend the term of copyright in sound recordings in exchange for censoring artists who the Tory leader believes promote anti-social behavior through their music.
"A Tory government would only make the necessary representations in Europe if the industry agreed to invest in projects which further his take on what a healthy society should be. Speaking directly to middle England, he fingered family breakdown, rates of teenage pregnancy, rates of substance abuse and rates of criminal activity as symptoms of popular culture's demonic influence on The Kids...
Riffing on the current music scene, Cameron said: "It's an anti-learning culture where it's cool to bunk off, it's cool to be bad, it's cool not to try." Modern beat combos of the 1950s obviously weren't required listening at Eton."
You know Cameron gets more like Blair every day.
"A Tory government would only make the necessary representations in Europe if the industry agreed to invest in projects which further his take on what a healthy society should be. Speaking directly to middle England, he fingered family breakdown, rates of teenage pregnancy, rates of substance abuse and rates of criminal activity as symptoms of popular culture's demonic influence on The Kids...
Riffing on the current music scene, Cameron said: "It's an anti-learning culture where it's cool to bunk off, it's cool to be bad, it's cool not to try." Modern beat combos of the 1950s obviously weren't required listening at Eton."
You know Cameron gets more like Blair every day.
Latest EDRI-gram published
The latest edition of the excellent EDRI-gram is available. Sample:
"Final agreements between EU and USA on PNR and SWIFT
"Final agreements between EU and USA on PNR and SWIFT
4 July, 2007
» After a long and difficult period of negotiations, on 28-29 June 2007, final agreements were reached between EU and USA on the data regarding European financial transactions operated by Belgian consortium SWIFT and on the passenger name records (PNR) issue respectively.
Regarding the access to financial data from SWIFT, the US has committed to use any data received from SWIFT exclusively for counter-terrorism purposes, the data retention period being of 5 years.
SWIFT is also bound to "adequately" protect the privacy of data according to EU principles as laid out in 2000 and further more, from now on, all banks using SWIFT will have to inform their customers about any transfers of their data.
According to a spokesman for Commission Vice-President Franco Frattini, an "agreement had been reached on the substance of the new Passenger Name Records (PNR) system, with only technical details and EU national parliaments' opinion still to be resolved". The agreement will replace the interim agreement due to expire at the end of July 2007.
Both sets of negotiations resulted in the EU having obtained the power to inspect US investigators' use of European data. The EU has insisted on this, considering that US privacy laws would not protect European citizens' data from being abused. However, according to Gus Hosein from Privacy International, the EU won only limited oversight over the US use of PNR data.
The PNR agreement reduced the number of pieces of data that can be collected by the US authorities from 34 pieces to 19, including name, contact information, payment details, travel agency, itinerary and baggage information, but excluding sensitive data such as ethnicity.
The US will be allowed to store the data for a seven year period under an "active" or "operational" regime and can extend this period by 8 years for "dormant" data which would be accessible under stricter rules. This means a 15 year storage period in total as compared to three years as previously agreed. The EU officials however state that the agreement has more safeguards than before.
In a letter to the German interior minister Wolfgang Schauble, the European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx has still shown concern believing that the privacy rights of air passengers between the EU and US will be threatened by the agreement struck on 29 June.
A good point is that, for the first time, EU citizens will also be covered by the US Privacy Act which means they can enforce their rights in US courts. The new PNR system deal must be ratified by national parliaments before taking effect as expected at the end of July 2007.
But the PNR data started to look interesting also for the European officials. Just a few days after the car bomb attack in Glasgow and London, the commissioner Franco Frattini announced that he would propose in October a new draft containing anti-terrorism measures, including creating a European PNR system. In this way, the airlines flying to the EU would be obliged to share passengers private data with Europe's secret services. It is not clear yet if the scheme will cover intra-European flights.
Draft text - PNR Agreement (28.06.2007)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jul/eu-usa-pnr-agreement-2007.pdf
EU-US data-sharing deals renew privacy concerns (29.06.2007)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/eu-us-data-sharing-deals-renew-pri...
EU legitimises US travel and bank data snoops (28.06.2007)
http://euobserver.com/22/24384
US gives in to EU demands over data (29.06.2007)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/29/us_eu_data_use/
Europe's banks must inform customers of US snooping (27.06.2007)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/27/swift-disclosure_rules_for-eur...
New PNR Agreement with the United States of America - Peter Hustinx letter to the German Minister of Interior (27.06.2007)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jun/eu-us-pnr-hustinx-letter.pdf
Air passengers to face EU anti-terror screening (4.07.2007)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/air-passengers-face-eu-anti-terro...
EU plans air passenger data exchange system (3.07.2007)
http://euobserver.com/9/24416"
Boyle on the inefficiencies of freedom
James Boyle has been making a lot of sense, as usual, on the subject of copyright over at the FT.
"Sometimes, freedom can just come to seem inefficient. Old-fashioned. Something that can be subcontracted away. That is the time to worry. Or so it seemed to me when I read about a new license that the Copyright Clearance Center is offering American academic institutions. The centre is a non-profit organisation. Its worthy purpose is to act as a central clearance center for permissions requests. If you are a teacher who wants to assemble a course-pack of readings for your students, the centre will clear the permissions from the copyright holders and collect licensing fees for them, allowing you to do your job without hiring a law firm for each batch of homework. Some of you may be surprised that such a process is even necessary. You may remember that the American copyright act explicitly declares the making of “multiple copies for educational use” to be a “fair use” – a privileged freedom statutorily removed from the monopoly Congress has granted the copyright holder. If no permission is required, why is such a centre even necessary?...
It is bad for the goals of copyright – promoting expression, culture and the dissemination of ideas – if every use of copyrighted works is controlled. Parody, satire, criticism – all of these depend crucially on fair use. So does education and scholarship even when, perhaps especially when, the person whose works you are copying does not want you to do so. The gaps in copyright – areas of freedom the statute explicitly outlines – are as important as the rights given to the author. In a world where we “solve” uncertainty about the extent of fair use by blanket licenses, the actual area of that freedom will atrophy. This makes fair use sound like a muscle – use it or lose it? But that is the reality...
Teachers and students may come to understand their freedom to make educational copies as granted by license, not law. That may not be of much concern for wealthy colleges that find it easier to just pay a flat fee rather than educate their students and teachers about fair use. But it is a great concern for poorer institutions and for the rest of us. What about an individual teacher who needs to reproduce copyrighted works in order to teach her students about a controversial and litigious religious sect or the internal operations of a company that makes voting machines – and finds herself sued for her pains? Or teachers of art, music or film who need material not covered by the license?"
"Sometimes, freedom can just come to seem inefficient. Old-fashioned. Something that can be subcontracted away. That is the time to worry. Or so it seemed to me when I read about a new license that the Copyright Clearance Center is offering American academic institutions. The centre is a non-profit organisation. Its worthy purpose is to act as a central clearance center for permissions requests. If you are a teacher who wants to assemble a course-pack of readings for your students, the centre will clear the permissions from the copyright holders and collect licensing fees for them, allowing you to do your job without hiring a law firm for each batch of homework. Some of you may be surprised that such a process is even necessary. You may remember that the American copyright act explicitly declares the making of “multiple copies for educational use” to be a “fair use” – a privileged freedom statutorily removed from the monopoly Congress has granted the copyright holder. If no permission is required, why is such a centre even necessary?...
It is bad for the goals of copyright – promoting expression, culture and the dissemination of ideas – if every use of copyrighted works is controlled. Parody, satire, criticism – all of these depend crucially on fair use. So does education and scholarship even when, perhaps especially when, the person whose works you are copying does not want you to do so. The gaps in copyright – areas of freedom the statute explicitly outlines – are as important as the rights given to the author. In a world where we “solve” uncertainty about the extent of fair use by blanket licenses, the actual area of that freedom will atrophy. This makes fair use sound like a muscle – use it or lose it? But that is the reality...
Teachers and students may come to understand their freedom to make educational copies as granted by license, not law. That may not be of much concern for wealthy colleges that find it easier to just pay a flat fee rather than educate their students and teachers about fair use. But it is a great concern for poorer institutions and for the rest of us. What about an individual teacher who needs to reproduce copyrighted works in order to teach her students about a controversial and litigious religious sect or the internal operations of a company that makes voting machines – and finds herself sued for her pains? Or teachers of art, music or film who need material not covered by the license?"
Digital data ticking time bomb
From the BBC:
"The growing problem of accessing old digital file formats is a "ticking time bomb", the chief executive of the UK National Archives has warned.
Natalie Ceeney said society faced the possibility of "losing years of critical knowledge" because modern PCs could not always open old file formats."
"The growing problem of accessing old digital file formats is a "ticking time bomb", the chief executive of the UK National Archives has warned.
Natalie Ceeney said society faced the possibility of "losing years of critical knowledge" because modern PCs could not always open old file formats."
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Bush commutes Scooter Libby's jail sentence
President Bush has issued an order of executive clemency in favour of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby:
"WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, 2 years' supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH"
Libby was convicted of perjury in the investigation relating to the the illegal leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been publicly critical of the Bush administration claims of Saddam Hussein's sourcing of nuclear materials in Africa. It has widely been believed that Plame's name was leaked by the administration in retaliation. Libby wasn't convicted of leaking the name but of lying and obstructing the investigation into the leak. He was within days of having to report to prison, since efforts keep him out of jail until an appeal was heard had failed; but I guess Dick Cheney had no intention of seeing his friend going to jail, especially since it was the result of him taking the heat for the political machinations of the White House.
It would be interesting to know whether this has created a rift between the president and vice president since I suspect Cheney and Libby would have preferred a full pardon rather than a commuted sentence? Then again maybe the pardon will come just as the president leaves office at the beginning of 2009?
No charges have yet been brought against anyone for leaking an active CIA agent's name as far as I know. Something doesn't seem quite right there.
I suspect there will be some thoughtful commentary over at Balkanization on the matter soon.
Update: Edward Lazarus is one of those who thinks there is no justification for the President's decision
"Bush's failure of justification is damning. Commutation, especially in a high-profile and politically-charged case, is a serious undertaking. It is an unreviewable act that has the extraordinary effect of exempting a single individual from the usual application of the law.
Here, the presiding judge, a Republican, deemed the evidence of Scooter's guilt to be overwhelming. Moreover, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, including two Republicans, has concluded that Scooter has no substantial issues on which to base an appeal.
Against this backdrop, Bush bears the burden of showing that his act of commutation served an aspect of fairness and justice that would be otherwise slighted in Scooter's case. Absent such a rationale, the commutation must be seen as one of three things (or some combination of any of three): a decision simply to substitute Bush's sense of justice for that of the court's; an act of political and personal loyalty; or, more nefariously, an attempt to insure Scooter's silence.
To varying degrees, all three possibilities point to an Administration that considers itself above customary legal constraint - a consistent and dangerous theme for this Administration. Since I write this on July 4, it seems only fitting to describe this as un-American - or at least hostile to the America we desire to be."
"WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, 2 years' supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH"
Libby was convicted of perjury in the investigation relating to the the illegal leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been publicly critical of the Bush administration claims of Saddam Hussein's sourcing of nuclear materials in Africa. It has widely been believed that Plame's name was leaked by the administration in retaliation. Libby wasn't convicted of leaking the name but of lying and obstructing the investigation into the leak. He was within days of having to report to prison, since efforts keep him out of jail until an appeal was heard had failed; but I guess Dick Cheney had no intention of seeing his friend going to jail, especially since it was the result of him taking the heat for the political machinations of the White House.
It would be interesting to know whether this has created a rift between the president and vice president since I suspect Cheney and Libby would have preferred a full pardon rather than a commuted sentence? Then again maybe the pardon will come just as the president leaves office at the beginning of 2009?
No charges have yet been brought against anyone for leaking an active CIA agent's name as far as I know. Something doesn't seem quite right there.
I suspect there will be some thoughtful commentary over at Balkanization on the matter soon.
Update: Edward Lazarus is one of those who thinks there is no justification for the President's decision
"Bush's failure of justification is damning. Commutation, especially in a high-profile and politically-charged case, is a serious undertaking. It is an unreviewable act that has the extraordinary effect of exempting a single individual from the usual application of the law.
Here, the presiding judge, a Republican, deemed the evidence of Scooter's guilt to be overwhelming. Moreover, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, including two Republicans, has concluded that Scooter has no substantial issues on which to base an appeal.
Against this backdrop, Bush bears the burden of showing that his act of commutation served an aspect of fairness and justice that would be otherwise slighted in Scooter's case. Absent such a rationale, the commutation must be seen as one of three things (or some combination of any of three): a decision simply to substitute Bush's sense of justice for that of the court's; an act of political and personal loyalty; or, more nefariously, an attempt to insure Scooter's silence.
To varying degrees, all three possibilities point to an Administration that considers itself above customary legal constraint - a consistent and dangerous theme for this Administration. Since I write this on July 4, it seems only fitting to describe this as un-American - or at least hostile to the America we desire to be."
Monday, July 02, 2007
Educators ignore digital media at our peril
Another fun rant from Tony about the need to incorporate digital media tools in education: we ignore digital media at OUr peril.
Check out the possibilities with Gapminder for instance.
Check out the possibilities with Gapminder for instance.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Google sued for defamation
It has been fairly common for ISPs and webhosting services to be sued for defamation in the UK ever since Laurence Godfrey successfully sued Demon for defamation many Internet moons ago. But now Google is in the defamation firing line, as Brian Retkin, CEO of domain name registrar, dotWORLDS.net, has decided to sue the search giant for libel.
False allegations about Mr Retkin have been repeatedly surfacing and he reckons the only way to stop them is to get Google to remove them permanently. Google for its part has said it has blacklisted the material complained of by Mr Retkin and:
"Google is not responsible for the content of any result of a query which may be presented to a user of Google's web search service. Google has absolutely no connection, control or ability to direct or influence the content of web pages which may be shown as links within any given set of search results."
Whilst you may have come sympathy for Mr Retkin's ongoing predicament and frustrations it can't be right to hold Google responsible in this instance, especially if the company has made a strong effort to address his specific complaints as they have arisen. The devil will be in the detail of the case but this is certainly one to watch very closely, as the knock-on effects of a successful suit on Mr Retkin's part could be substantial.
False allegations about Mr Retkin have been repeatedly surfacing and he reckons the only way to stop them is to get Google to remove them permanently. Google for its part has said it has blacklisted the material complained of by Mr Retkin and:
"Google is not responsible for the content of any result of a query which may be presented to a user of Google's web search service. Google has absolutely no connection, control or ability to direct or influence the content of web pages which may be shown as links within any given set of search results."
Whilst you may have come sympathy for Mr Retkin's ongoing predicament and frustrations it can't be right to hold Google responsible in this instance, especially if the company has made a strong effort to address his specific complaints as they have arisen. The devil will be in the detail of the case but this is certainly one to watch very closely, as the knock-on effects of a successful suit on Mr Retkin's part could be substantial.
Another ID card fan takes the helm at the Home Office
The new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is another card carrying ID card fan. Not surprising given the new prime minister's invocation of the empty tough- on-terrorism rhetoric.
24 uploader a danger to public safety?
I wonder, with all the fuss about the UK government releasing convicted criminals early to ease overcrowding in prisons and thereby apparently endangering public safety, whether this guy should be considered sufficiently dangerous to be put away for three years. He has reportedly admitted uploading pirated copies of the latest series of 24 to the Internet. It possibly makes him a danger to the Fox broadcasting network revenues but hardly public safety.
Well I guess Lessig, now he's changing focus, would say that when it comes to politics you've gotta follow the money.
Well I guess Lessig, now he's changing focus, would say that when it comes to politics you've gotta follow the money.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
EU and US Reach Deal on Sharing Passenger Data
EU and US Reach Deal on Sharing Passenger Data. No real details are available yet, though this article says:
"However information from EU sources suggested that under the new draft agreement the 34 types of data now transferred would be reduced to 19 types. The US would be able to store the data for up to 15 years, but after the first seven years it would only be able to access the data under strict conditions."
"However information from EU sources suggested that under the new draft agreement the 34 types of data now transferred would be reduced to 19 types. The US would be able to store the data for up to 15 years, but after the first seven years it would only be able to access the data under strict conditions."
Biomedical Journals and Global Poverty: Is HINARI a Step Backwards?
Via Teresa Hackett (eIFL) and the A2K list: Biomedical Journals and Global Poverty: Is HINARI a Step Backwards?
Javier Villafuerte-Gálvez, Walter H. Curioso and Oscar Gayoso write:
"Much has been written about how open access to biomedical journals is vital for researchers in developing countries [1], but so much more needs to be done.
Javier Villafuerte-Gálvez, Walter H. Curioso and Oscar Gayoso write:
"Much has been written about how open access to biomedical journals is vital for researchers in developing countries [1], but so much more needs to be done.
Our experience in Peru with the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI), an initiative managed by the World Health Organization that helps promote access to scientific information by providing free (or low cost) online access to major science journals, is not as accessible as hoped for and, in fact, is getting worse. When HINARI launched in 2003, it provided access to more than 2,300 major journals in biomedical and related social sciences [2].
In April 2007, we conducted a review of the first 150 science journals available through HINARI with the highest impact factors on the Science Citation Index [3]. We excluded open-access journals and journals that make online access free to low-income countries (e.g., The New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal Publishing Group). We could not access any of the top five journals from major publishers such as Nature and Elsevier-Science Direct. In other words, from the Nature Publishing Group we had no access to Nature Reviews Cancer, Nature Reviews Immunology, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, Nature, or Nature Medicine, and from Elsevier ScienceDirect we had no access to Cell, Cancer Cell, Current Opinion in Cell Biology, Immunity, or Molecular Cell. In addition, we could not access any of the first-level journals from Blackwell, Oxford Press University, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, or Wiley and Sons. In 2003, all these journals were available...
Our findings suggest that we not only have access to a reduced number of biomedical journals on HINARI, but we also have no access to the biomedical journals that have the highest impact factors. The HINARI Web site states that it is still incorporating new journal collections. However, we are afraid that any addition that will not provide access to major publishers (such as the Nature Publishing Group, Elsevier ScienceDirect, or Lippincott Williams and Wilkins) could lack real impact according to HINARI's goals...We fear that the loss of access to many key journals that are published by the major companies could be a major setback to the education of medical students in Peru and perhaps around the world. Furthermore, it could make biomedical research in developing countries like Peru, a key element in fighting poverty, even scarcer.In conclusion, students and researchers in developing countries such as Peru, working at the frontlines of global health problems, need to access more biomedical journals in order to practice evidence-based health care and conduct high-quality research. The recent loss of access to many key biomedical journals in Peru could be a step backwards. We hope the situation described in this letter might help lend support to the proposal of Godlee et al., who suggested that the World Health Organization and its partners should take the lead in establishing an international collaborative group along the lines of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to achieve the goal of “Universal access to essential health-care information by 2015” or “Health information for all” [4]."
The book is nearly there
The sharp-eyed amongst you will have noticed a new image of a book cover in the left hand column. My publishers tell me that the plan is for my book, Digital Decision Making: Back to the Future, to be available within the next 2 to 3 weeks.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
I own that recipe and I'll sue
From the NYT:
"Sometimes, Rebecca Charles wishes she were a little less influential.
She was, she asserts, the first chef in New York who took lobster rolls, fried clams and other sturdy utility players of New England seafood cookery and lifted them to all-star status on her menu. Since opening Pearl Oyster Bar in the West Village 10 years ago, she has ruefully watched the arrival of a string of restaurants she considers “knockoffs” of her own.
Yesterday she filed suit in Federal District Court in Manhattan against the latest and, she said, the most brazen of her imitators: Ed McFarland, chef and co-owner of Ed’s Lobster Bar in SoHo and her sous-chef at Pearl for six years."
NY evote code remains public for now
It seems that attempts by evoting vendors lobbyists and Microsoft to weaken evoting laws relating to making voting machine software code publicly accessible have failed.
"With this year's New York Senate and Assembly session now ended, local voting activists are chalking up a victory for the public at the expense of Microsoft Corp. and the e-voting industry.
The activists had feared that Microsoft and a handful of e-voting device vendors would quietly weaken the state's strict e-voting software escrow law before the current legislative session ended on Friday. Approved two years ago by the legislature (download PDF), the law requires voting system vendors to place all source code and other related software in escrow for the New York State Board of Elections so it can be examined as needed. The law also dictates that a voting system vendor waives all intellectual property and trade right secret rights should the software need to be reviewed in court.
Microsoft, whose Windows software is used in some of the vendors' devices, sought to amend the law to avoid the strict escrow provisions."
Thanks to David Gerard via ORG for the pointer.
"With this year's New York Senate and Assembly session now ended, local voting activists are chalking up a victory for the public at the expense of Microsoft Corp. and the e-voting industry.
The activists had feared that Microsoft and a handful of e-voting device vendors would quietly weaken the state's strict e-voting software escrow law before the current legislative session ended on Friday. Approved two years ago by the legislature (download PDF), the law requires voting system vendors to place all source code and other related software in escrow for the New York State Board of Elections so it can be examined as needed. The law also dictates that a voting system vendor waives all intellectual property and trade right secret rights should the software need to be reviewed in court.
Microsoft, whose Windows software is used in some of the vendors' devices, sought to amend the law to avoid the strict escrow provisions."
Thanks to David Gerard via ORG for the pointer.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Mother sues RIAA
In a twist to the usual p2p tales, a mother who was on the receiving end of an RIAA lawsuit, which that auspicious organisation eventually dropped, has now sued the RIAA alleging their investigation methods are criminal.
" Tanya Andersen, who had been defending herself against a debilitating RIAA lawsuit for about two years before the RIAA dropped its case, has launched a bigtime offensive against her former accusers, filing suit today against Atlantic Recording Corporation, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG Recordings, and BMG Music, the RIAA, MediaSentry, and Settlement Support Center.
" Tanya Andersen, who had been defending herself against a debilitating RIAA lawsuit for about two years before the RIAA dropped its case, has launched a bigtime offensive against her former accusers, filing suit today against Atlantic Recording Corporation, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG Recordings, and BMG Music, the RIAA, MediaSentry, and Settlement Support Center.
Andersen's Complaint (on Internet Law and Regulation) calls out the labels, their legal prosecution/lobbying arm (the RIAA), and the oft-maligned software it uses to find alleged infringers (MediaSentry). It claims the RIAA's methods are criminal, and that their lawyers are needlessly vicious in pursuing defendants."
Monday, June 25, 2007
Big brother comes to Univeristy
Troy University in Alabama has reportedly decided that the way to ensure the integrity of exams taken online is to install a camera in the student's home to monitor them during the exam. In addition the device allegedly locks the student's computer to prevent them searching the web for answers whilst taking the exam.
It won't work of course, for the same reasons drm doesn't work and Internet voting doesn't work. The Open University has been doing distance teaching and assessment for a long time now. We have not yet found a way to do remote exams in the student's place of residence without having an invigilator present. Generally when it comes to exams, students travel to a local centre at a set time and date, along with their peers in that particular geographic area and take their exams like 'conventional' students. People, following carefully crafted procedures, still trump technology when it comes to maintaining the integrity of the examination process.
Thanks to Michael Geist for the link.
It won't work of course, for the same reasons drm doesn't work and Internet voting doesn't work. The Open University has been doing distance teaching and assessment for a long time now. We have not yet found a way to do remote exams in the student's place of residence without having an invigilator present. Generally when it comes to exams, students travel to a local centre at a set time and date, along with their peers in that particular geographic area and take their exams like 'conventional' students. People, following carefully crafted procedures, still trump technology when it comes to maintaining the integrity of the examination process.
Thanks to Michael Geist for the link.
Don't be evil: fight Net censorship
It seems that Google are trying to get back into the good books of cyber-rights geeks by asking the US government to make Internet censorship an international trade issue.
"The online search giant is taking a novel approach to the problem by asking U.S. trade officials to treat Internet restrictions as international trade barriers, similar to other hurdles to global commerce, such as tariffs.
Google sees the dramatic increase in government Net censorship, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, as a potential threat to its advertising-driven business model, and wants government officials to consider the issue in economic, rather than just political, terms.
"It's fair to say that censorship is the No. 1 barrier to trade that we face," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. A Google spokesman said Monday that McLaughlin has met with officials from the U.S. Trade Representative's office several times this year to discuss the issue.
"If censorship regimes create barriers to trade in violation of international trade rules, the USTR would get involved," USTR spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said. She added though that human rights issues, such as censorship, typically falls under the purview of the State Department."
"The online search giant is taking a novel approach to the problem by asking U.S. trade officials to treat Internet restrictions as international trade barriers, similar to other hurdles to global commerce, such as tariffs.
Google sees the dramatic increase in government Net censorship, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, as a potential threat to its advertising-driven business model, and wants government officials to consider the issue in economic, rather than just political, terms.
"It's fair to say that censorship is the No. 1 barrier to trade that we face," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs. A Google spokesman said Monday that McLaughlin has met with officials from the U.S. Trade Representative's office several times this year to discuss the issue.
"If censorship regimes create barriers to trade in violation of international trade rules, the USTR would get involved," USTR spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said. She added though that human rights issues, such as censorship, typically falls under the purview of the State Department."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)