mfioretti: copyright* + file sharing*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

38 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. Con il suo regolamento Agcom ha tolto ai tribunali la giurisdizione culturale sull'illecito dei contenuti di Rete. Seguendo le pressanti indicazioni degli industriali, ripetute per un decennio, Agcom ha infine saltato il filtro previsto dalla legge per cui spetta ad un organismo che tutela l'interesse dei cittadini scegliere di volta in volta quali siano metodi, gradualità e conseguenze di un illecito penale.

    Esultano quindi gli estremisti del copyright ai quali finalmente è riuscito il giochino da tanto tempo sognato. Oggi bastano loro un paio di scartoffie digitali ed una generica richiesta di tutela di un proprio contenuto per allontanare dalla visione degli italiani decine di interi siti web attraverso un provvedimento coercitivo che interessa ovviamente anche i fornitori di connettività, ai quali eventuali disobbedienze costeranno salatissime multe.

    Tutto questo per saltare i tempi biblici e le paturnie di una magistratura largamente inefficiente e spesso inadeguata, ma anche per sancire una sorta di imbarazzante muro contro muro. Un noi e loro che si basa sulla constatazione secondo la quale esistono i miei diritti e nient'altro attorno. In nome della loro tutela qualsiasi scelta può essere accettabile, meglio se presa direttamente da me. Una legge del taglione digitale inaccettabile in una democrazia compiuta.

    Tutto il resto sono sciocchezze per chi ha voglia di crederci. La cortina fumogena di una Autorità dello Stato che ha scelto di votarsi ai desiderata dell'industria mettendo in secondissimo piano i diritti dei cittadini, che ha raccontato al mondo una favoletta morale sul bilanciamento fra offerta e coercizione fra grandi e piccoli pirati.
    Voting 0
  2. The government has promised to make ‘‘significant’’ changes to Australia’s copyright laws as a first-term commitment, although a spokesman for Arts Minister and Attorney General George Brandis said there was no firm timetable for this. The topic is also battling for attention ahead of the federal budget.

    Senator Brandis has warned that the government could legislate if a voluntary, industry-code of practice for ISPs isn't agreed. He has argued that ISPs ‘‘need to take some responsibility’’ for illegal downloading, because they ‘‘provide the facility which enables this to happen’’.

    The ALP, which unsuccessfully sought a voluntary scheme while in government, said it would examine any policy proposal put forward. But it said there was no single solution and the government was yet to ‘‘put forward a coherent policy proposal’’.

    ‘‘Labor supports the freedom of internet users, while also recognising that the rights of artists and copyright holders need to be protected,’’ a spokeswoman for shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus said.

    News Corp Australia, half owner of pay TV company Foxtel, told Fairfax Media that copyright infringement ‘‘hurts the creative community - it undermines investment, employment, business models and innovation.

    ‘‘We support the Attorney General’s approach, and while there isn’t a silver bullet, evidence from overseas suggest that such initiatives do work,’’ spokesman Stephen Browning said.

    Australians are among the biggest pirates per capita. Debate continues about whether this is driven by opportunism, the delays for overseas content to reach here, or an aversion to the country's higher prices.
    Voting 0
  3. According to the European Court of Justice, the amount of the levy payable for making private copies of a protected work may not take unlawful reproductions into account. This principle has been stated today in the decision ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie vergoeding (case C-435/12).

    This ruling will have an impact in countries where the private copy levies mechanism has been arbitrarily used as a compensation for the potential losses deriving from online piracy. In various countries (for instance Italy) the right-holders are lobbying the government to increase the levies on the grounds that their revenues are declining because of pirated content on the iNternet. By doing so, however, the industry blurs the difference between legal and illegal content and creates a contradiction: if pirated content is illegal it should be stopped, not remunerated, both things together are not possible.

    According to the court, the fact that no applicable technological measure to combat the making of unlawful private copies exists is not capable of calling that finding into question. The decision at stake involves a couple of relevant consequences for national policy makers and jurisdiction in the matter of private copy levies and fight to online piracy.
    Voting 0
  4. American East Coast rappers the Wu-Tang Clan have developed a revolutionary model for musicians to make money from their work. They are about to sell a copy of their new album, but in doing so they will also be able to say that they have shifted their entire stock.

    They have made just one copy of the album, which is currently locked safely in a vault, and which they expect to sell for a multi-million dollar price tag. When it’s gone, it’s gone. And for those of us who don’t have a couple of million lying around in order to create the world’s most exclusive music library, there will instead be a series of exhibits in galleries and the like: after paying an entry fee, visitors will go through heavy security and have the opportunity to listen via dedicated headphones (so don’t bother bringing along your James Bond style “headphones with hidden microphone”).

    Perhaps it’s just a publicity stunt. But if other musicians adopted the same business model, what other possibilities would this open up?
    Tags: , , , , by M. Fioretti (2014-03-28)
    Voting 0
  5. En Allemagne, un éditeur d'un logiciel open-source a été tenu pour responsable des contributions de tiers, au motif qu'il édite la version finale du programme.
    Voting 0
  6. There are many new ways to make money as an independent artist, but it is unlikely that we will make it from our future audiences. In the last year, new ways to approach releasing videos online have made it easier for artists to screen their work for free and still receive adequate funding. The show South Park has been pirated and streamed illegally online for years. South Park did not ignore this, they recognized the problem, created their own streaming site, and partnered with companies like Jack In The Box to stream in HD for free, provided that commercials played throughout the episodes. They weakened the blow of the pirates, made sure that their fans had incentive to visit their site, and all it took was speaking with outside parties for financing. Why can’t we do this?

    It would be terrible if commercials plagued feature films, but they may not have to. Videos appear online as a thumbnail of the uploader’s choice and when it is shared that thumbnail appears on websites and facebook pages. Even without watching the video, this rectangle that filmmakers design appears to anyone that happens upon it. The number of times that the frame appears far outnumbers its views and that data is made available on This seems to be an untapped resource for artists to partner with companies and feature advertising of their choice.
    Voting 0
  7. The pressure to behave that way, whether through a desire to preserve a safe harbour status or simply to tread carefully in the eyes of the law, is an unreasonable hack that appears to mend copyright law online but in fact abdicates the responsibility of legislators to properly remake copyright law for the meshed society and over-empowers legacy copyright barons. These changes to downloads are an inconvenience for open source developers, but should serve as a warning to the rest of us that the copyright system is beyond simple patching.
    Voting 0
  8. I have learned that “accessing” music and actually listening to it are two different things.
    Free downloading has created a kind of collector or hoarder who is unique to the digital age. In my university classes, I query my students about their downloading habits, and everyone who is deeply into music has figured out how to download music for free, despite the best efforts of the record business to stop them, and have far, far more music downloaded to their laptops and iPods than they will ever have time to listen to in their entire lives. Gigabytes and gigabytes of meaningless data. These same students invariably report that they have actually listened to all the
    music they paid for.

    If a virtual tree falls in a virtual forest and no one opens the file, does it still make a sound?
    This is a real conundrum. If by “commons” we mean, say, communally owned pastures in England, we are talking about finite resources that were valued as such and cared for accordingly by the surrounding community. But if by “commons” we mean a vast expanse of server farms that seems capable of expanding without meaningful limit, then we are speaking of something very different. Have I cheapened my music by not monetizing its recorded artifact?

    For most people for whom new music is an important part of their lives, however, the most relevant commons has become iTunes, Spotify, Pandora and so on – Web sites that allow the user to begin from their favorite music and then link outwards to music that has been somehow identified as similar. College kids and fanatical collectors might work late into the night figuring out how to get their files for free, but for most people, the sites listed above are the main way they discover
    new music. And these sites do not accept music that is free. They are all about making money.

    By giving away my music for free, I seem to have shut myself out of the new “commons”.
    Voting 0
  9. The pirates would be a limited menace were it not for search engines that point users to these rogue sites with no fear of legal consequence, thanks to a provision inserted into the 1998 copyright laws. A search for “Scott Turow free e-books” brought up 10 pirate sites out of the first 10 results on Yahoo, 8 of 8 on Bing and 6 of 10 on Google, with paid ads decorating the margins of all three pages.

    If I stood on a corner telling people who asked where they could buy stolen goods and collected a small fee for it, I’d be on my way to jail. And yet even while search engines sail under mottos like “Don’t be evil,” they do the same thing.
    Voting 0
  10. Turow, dall'alto delle sue royalty, non si accorge che gli ebook sono una vera manna per gli autori esordienti, quelli che non riescono a farsi pubblicare da un editore di qualche rilievo, e solo con gli ebook possono incassare un po' di diritti, se il pubblico apprezza le loro opere (diritti comunque molti più consistenti di quelli che potrebbero spuntare da un editore tradizionale).
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 4 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: copyright + file sharing

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle