bIPlog at boalt.org: Mount Saint Helens VolcanoCam Images: Terms of Use. Interesting because of the licences involved and the part about the attribution, or waiver, of copyright by an administration.

Michael Geist mentions that CC Canada is to launch today.

However, he gives that Ottawa Citizen link that is of little use…

Is this it? Or this? They both have been up for a while though.

Since CreativeCommons.ca redirects to the Cippic pages, I guess that’s where the fun is supposed to be at. But then they ask you to see the aforelinked international pages at Creative Commons « US ». Where is the party supposed to happen? Maybe it’ll be obvious tomorrow

WIPO 2.0: A Declaration for the Future of IP (Donna Wentworth): « 

There’s a battle going on at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) — one that could accurately be described as a struggle for the soul of the organization. The central question is whether WIPO will coninue to promote the protection of intellectual property for its own sake — IP « uber alles » — or, as a number of developing countries and others are advocating, pursue a range of initiatives that reflect such notions as « balance, » « innovation, » or « access. » What’s at stake is much more significant than the harmony or disharmony of IP regulations. As James Boyle points out in his Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property, WIPO decisions affect everything from the availability and price of AIDS drugs, to the patterns of international development, to the communications architecture of the Internet.

Ce dernier élément est particulièrement intéressant…

[Via Copyfight.]

Continuer la lecture →

Who’s in favor of a more development friendly WIPO? Please sign up.

Canoe has an article about Canadian Association of University Teachers’ position over changes to the Copyright Act in regards to extended blanket licensing proposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. A more detailed account of Canadian Association of University Teachers‘ concerns can be found here.

The 9th circuit has upheld the Grokster decision and makes this interesting obiter:

« The Copyright Owners urge a re-examination of the law in the light of what they believe to be proper public policy, expanding exponentially the reach of the doctrines of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. Not only would such a renovation conflict with binding precedent, it would be unwise. Doubtless, taking that step would satisfy the Copyright Owners’ immediate economic aims. However, it would also alter general copyright law in profound ways with unknown ultimate consequences outside the present context.

Further, as we have observed, we live in a quicksilver technological environment with courts ill-suited to fix the flow of internet innovation. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 1999). The introduction of new technology is always disruptive to old markets, and particularly to those copyright owners whose works are sold through well established distribution mechanisms. Yet, history has shown that time and market forces often provide equilibrium in balancing interests, whether the new technology be a player piano, a copier, a tape recorder, a video recorder, a personal computer, a karaoke machine, or an MP3 player. Thus, it is prudent for courts to exercise caution before restructuring liability theories for the purpose of addressing specific market abuses, despite their apparent present magnitude. »

[via IP and MG]

J’ai trouvé un lieu commun entre la santé publique et le droit des technologies. En fait, Slashdot l’a fait pour moi: L’article traite de la responsabilité des fournisseurs de services et de la divulgation des failles de sécurité qui pourraient affecter les utilisateurs de leurs services. La pratique qui prévaut actuellement, la loi du silence, montre selon moi une certaine immaturité de cette industrie; le constat reste que celle-ci ne traite pas ses clients avec une considération minimale et ne se positionne pas comme une partie d’une infrastructure respectable, solide et fiable, se réclamant de valeurs professionnelles. Serait-ce parce que la responsabilité corporative ne parait pas bien en assemblé des actionnaires? Bref, ce sont des peddlers et l’auto-régulation ne fonctionnera pas.

A comparer avec le manifeste « Software That Lasts 200 Years« .

«Le premier réflexe en droit c’est Que dit la Loi?»

– Professeur Yves Ouellette

From today’s BNA ILN:

Welcome to the Technology Law and World Economic Development Project (Techlawed Project). Launched by Professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa in July 2004, the project seeks to respond to the needs of developing countries for expert legal training in technology law issues such as e-commerce, intellectual property, and privacy law. The project will initially work with established U.N. agencies to support existing programs on a pro bono basis. In the longer term, the project hopes to team with law schools and other institutions in developing countries to provide technology law training and resources.

See the Lawbytes column where he reflects on a UNSECAP meeting.

Remember back in February, CRIA asked five Canadian ISPs to hand over the names of 29 IP addresses allegedly used in distributing musical works? And then remember the Federal Court denied the motion for disclosure in March? The latest development, CRIA has filed its appeal arguments. Read about it here.

The Supreme Court of Canada had the last word on the Tariff 22 case today: Canadian ISPs who are merely providing the internet connection to users do not owe any royalties to composers and performers for music downloaded. Read the decision here and the news here and here.

BTW, congrats and have fun Seek! Will miss you this side of the ocean!

Ever wonder what progress of science lies behind those brownish badly cut recycle piece of half-a-decent-ring cardboard that coffeee shops use as cup holder for your very warm coffee? Well, I took a look at the ones used by Second Cup (patent of 1995) and Starbucks (patent of 1993). One emphasizes on the value of using an interlocking sheet of pressed paper with « multiple nubbins and depressions » while the other focuses on its environmental friendliness as opposed to the « traditional » materials used such as polystyrene. Both press on the insulation value of the holder. Who knew that so much thought was put into creating the claims piece of recycle paper! And I thought that it was just a step up from using a napkin to hold your hot cup of coffee!

University of Ottawa’s Law and Technology Program is hosting another conference. « The Internet and the Law – A Global Conversation » will be held on October 1st and 2nd. So who’s coming?!? It will be fun!

Anthony Paonita has an article in Corporate Counsel on law related sites with RSS — Feeding Time

[via Bags and Baggage]