Thursday, April 14, 2005
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Weekly Digest 4.13 for March 25, 2004
is now available at
http://www.markle.org/weekly_digest/weeklydigest_vol.4_issue13.pdf
Stefaan Verhulst- Markle Foundation
is now available at
http://www.markle.org/weekly_digest/weeklydigest_vol.4_issue13.pdf
Stefaan Verhulst- Markle Foundation
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
WIPO OFFERS NEW TOOL FOR ANALYSIS OF UDRP TRENDS
The Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has created and made available online a new information tool that offers a concise overview of trends in decisions taken under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) – a quick and cost effective dispute resolution procedure relating to Internet addresses. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions considers common and important substantive and procedural questions that have been extracted from the over 7,000 UDRP cases handled so far by WIPO. The Overview is available at http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/overview/index.html.
"By offering a concise overview of UDRP decision trends, this new tool will further enhance the consistency and reasoning of decisions taken under the UDRP and will help parties to better assess their chances under the UDRP," said Mr. Francis Gurry, WIPO Deputy Director General who oversees the work of the Center. Mr. Gurry said he expected a wide variety of professionals, as well as Internet users to benefit from this analysis. "Of course, legal practitioners will find this tool very useful. But I also expect academics, policy-makers, as well as existing and potential owners of domain names to benefit from the analysis of thousands of cases we have handled to date," he added.
The UDRP, which was proposed by WIPO and has become accepted as an international standard for resolving domain name disputes, is designed specifically to discourage and resolve the abusive registration of trademarks as domain names. Under the UDRP, a complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, that the respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain name and that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Disputes are decided by independent panelists drawn from the Center’s list of 400 trademark specialists from over 50 countries.
The rules governing the UDRP – whose popularity stems from its cost-effectiveness, the predictability of the process and swift enforcement of the results – are clear and concise. As a result, as the WIPO Overview shows, consensus or clear majority views have developed on most issues. However, with UDRP decisions covering a multitude of facts and arguments, it is hard to avoid genuine differences of opinion on some of the issues, all the more so in view of the fact that panelists and parties come from a multitude of jurisdictions. By providing this analysis of UDRP decisions, the new WIPO Overview will enhance the predictability of the UDRP mechanism.
The introduction to this new tool on WIPO’s website recalls that decision-making authority under the UDRP lies exclusively with the appointed panels. The Overview assists awareness of their views on key procedural and substantial issues. Decision references supporting each line of opinion are included, with over 100 decisions from over 80 different UDRP panelists listed.
While some of the listed issues arise only infrequently, all of them are, or are perceived to be, relevant to the operation of the UDRP. The Center’s identification of questions and evaluation of opinions is based on the 7,000 UDRP cases it has administered through February 2005. More detailed information on all views is available from the Center’s frequently used online Legal Index of WIPO Panel Decisions (http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/legalindex), as well as from the decisions themselves which are also available on-line.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
European iLaw program
The first European iLaw program will take place in Turin, Italy, on 25-27 May 2005 at the Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli; it will be organized in cooperation with the Berkman Center and will feature an intensive three-day schedule dedicated to the analysis of legal, economic, and technical issues related to the Internet and digital technologies in general. Five world-famous professors from the Harvard Law School, who will be joined by select Italian and European professors, will address topics such as:
http://ilaw.ieiit.cnr.it/index_en.html
- the future of copyright on the Internet;
- Intellectual property and software protection measures;
- the architecture of the Internet;
- cyberspace regulation: from peer-to-peer to wireless, digital contents and privacy.
http://ilaw.ieiit.cnr.it/index_en.html
Monday, February 21, 2005
WIPO ACADEMY OFFERS NEW COURSES IN 2005
Since the launch of its General Course on Intellectual Property (DL 101), in 1999, some 33,000 participants from 180 countries have registered for the course. In 2003, an interactive learning management system was deployed by the Academy which provided on-line learning resources for participants and a live discussion forum. The Academy’s tutorial faculty includes some 80 experienced IP teachers and experts from across the globe who tutor in 7 languages. The next General Course on Intellectual Property (DL 101) will start on March 1, 2005. The course is available in 7 languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Russian) and is free-of-charge. To register for the course, please go to ( http://academy.wipo.int). Since 2003, completion of this course has been a requirement to participate in other training programs offered by the Academy and other institutions.
New advanced courses on different aspects of intellectual property will also be available this year. These include the Advanced Course on Copyright and Related Rights (DL 201) in English, French and Spanish. This course covers a range of issues including WIPO’s role in this area as well as recent developments and trends in the area of international copyright law. The course will run from May 1 to July 10, 2005.
The Advanced course on Electronic Commerce and Intellectual Property (DL202) will also be available in English. This course covers IP aspects of e-commerce in three main areas, namely copyright, trademarks and patents. This course will run from May 1 to June 15, 2005.
Registration dates for both courses run from March 1 to 15, 2005.
Three additional courses: Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property (DL 203), Biotechnology and Intellectual Property (DL 204) and the International Protection of Plant Varieties (DL-205) are expected to be launched later this year.
These courses will be offered on a fee basis with reduced charges for participants from certain countries. Further information about fees is available from the Academy website (http:// academy.wipo.int).
The WIPO Summer School will also resume this year. This is a four-week program in English held in Geneva from July 4 to 29, 2005. The program consists of lectures and individual or group research on assigned topics. The program is open to candidates from all regions of the world and from all academic backgrounds. Details of how to apply for the WIPO Summer School are available at http://www.wipo.int/academy.
Friday, February 18, 2005
SOME SAMPLES OF EU CASE LAW:
TELECOMMUNICATION - COMPETITION POLICY-
TREATY, ARTICLE 82 - 86 (*)
DOMINANT POSITION: ABUSE :
TELEFONICA SA : INTERNATIONAL DIALLING CODE : GIBRALTAR : REFUSAL TO RECOGNISE
By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint by the applicant filed on 31 October 1996 alleging that the Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC in refusing to recognise Gibraltar's International Dialling Code (‘350’) and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. The applicant later converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86 EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12 EC against Spain, alleging that Telefonica was acting under instructions from the Spanish Government, which claims sovereignty over Gibraltar. /
LAWTEL TEXT: Action by Gibtelcom Limited against the Commission 15/9/2004
Action for the annulment of a Commission Decision rejecting a complaint that Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position.
Gibtelcom Limited claimed the Court should annul a Commission Decision rejecting Gibtelecom's complaint under Arts 86 and 82 of the EC Treaty, that Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position, by refusing to recognise Gibraltar's international dialling code, and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. Gibtelcom argued that the Commission had erred in finding that Telefonica SA was not a public undertaking or that it enjoyed special rights. Further, Gibtelcom argued that Spain had infringed Directives 90/388, 97/33, 2002/21 and 2002/77. Gibtelcom also contended breach of its legitimate expectations, and failure of the Commission to act within a reasonable period.
2004/C284/48 C284 p.24 (Application)
(Case T-365/04) 2004/C 284/47) Official Journal of the European Union,
_____________________________________________
WANADOO INTERACTIVE SA v COMMISSION
CFI
Action brought by Wanadoo Interactive S.A. against the Commission 2/10/2003
COMPETITION POLICY - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FINE : ANNULMENT : PREDATORY PRICING : PACK EXTENSE : WANADOO ADSL : INTERNET : ART.82 EC TREATY
Action for the annulment of the Commission Decision imposing a fine on Wanadoo Interactive for infringing Art.82 EC Treaty.
Wanadoo Interactive brought an action before the Court claiming that it should:(1) annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2003, imposing a fine of 10.35 million euros upon it;(2) in the alternative, withdraw the fine or reduce its amount.Wanadoo Interactive, which was a French limited liability company 99 % owned by Wanadoo SA, which was in turn owned as to 70.6 % by France Telecom, challenged the Commission's decision accusing it of infringing Art.82 EC Treaty by charging predatory prices for its Pack eXtense and Wanadoo ADSL services which did not allow it to cover its variable costs from March to August 2001 or its full costs from August 2001 until 15 October 2002, as part of plan aimed at pre-empting the market for high-output internet access services. On that basis, the Commission imposed a fine of 10.35 million euros.In support of its action, Wanadoo Interactive claimed that essential procedural requirements and in particular, its defence rights had been infringed. It also argued that the Commission had infringed Art.82 EC Treaty.
2003/C289/70 (Application) p.34
Judgment: case pending.
Application: Full Text (copyright European Communities)
Document No. ER0234003 - http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=ER0234003&HL=Y&BK=Y
____________________
Case T-59/03 - (1) TQ3
TRAVEL SOLUTIONS GMBH (2) TQ3 TRAVEL SOLUTIONS EMEA GMBH v COMMISSION
CFI
Action by TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH and TQ3 Travel Solutions EMEA GmbH against the Commission 19/2/2003
COMPETITION POLICY - TRANSPORT - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
OPODO LIMITED: AIRLINES: ONLINE TRAVEL PORTAL: MERGER : COMPLAINT : ART.81 EC TREATY : ART.82 EC TREATY
Action for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 9 December 2002 rejecting the applicants' complaint against the notified joint venture setting up Opodo Limited.
The applicants were active in the travel agency business, especially for business passenger air transport services and connected services. On 3 November 2000, a joint venture agreement setting up Opodo Limited, an online travel portal created by nine of the largest European airlines, was notified to the Commission. Following the Notice published by the Commission setting out the undertakings proposed by the notifying parties and the intention of the Commission to clear the joint venture (see 2001/C323/03), one of the applicants filed a formal complaint against the creation of Opodo, alleging infringements of Art.81 and Art.82 EC Treaty. In the contested Decision, the Commission rejected the complaint of the applicant. The applicants therefore brought an action before the Court, claiming that it should annul the Commission Decision of 9 December 2002 rejecting their complaint in Case COMP/A.38321/D2-TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH/Opodo Limited.The applicants submitted various arguments in support of their application including manifest error of assessment, an infringement of the Commission's obligation to investigate complaints with due diligence, with respect to the risk of coordination under Art.81(1) EC Treaty and with respect to discrimination under Art.82(2) EC Treaty.
2003/C101/85 (Application)
Judgment: case pending.
Application: Full Text (copyright European Communities)
Document No. ER0205903 http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=ER0205903&HL=Y&BK=Y
_______________________
http://www.qlinks.net/quicklinks/competit.htm : http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/88
Mergers: Commission clears BT’s acquisition of Infonet
The European Commission has approved under the EU Merger Regulation the acquisition by British Telecommunications of Infonet Services Corporation, a US operator providing global telecommunications services to large multinational corporations. As the incremental share of the target company in these services is limited, the Commission considers that the operation will not significantly impede effective competition in the European Economic Area (EEA) or any substantial part of it.
With its acquisition of all issued and outstanding shares in Infonet Services Corporation (“Infonet”), British Telecommunications (“BT”) acquires control of the whole of Infonet.
The Commission investigated the competitive effects of the proposed transaction on the possible markets for global telecommunications services (“GTS”) that are provided to multinational corporations (“MNCs”). It found that the transaction would not change significantly the market conditions either on a global or on a European scale as Infonet brings only a minimal incremental market share to BT. The combined BT/Infonet will continue to face a number of competitors that are present in these markets. In addition, customers have indicated that they will still have the possibility to switch competitively to alternative GTS suppliers.
BT, a company organised under the laws of England and Wales, is a provider of telecommunications services on a worldwide basis. Its principal activities include local, national and international telecommunications services, internet products and services and IT solutions. Among other things, BT provides global telecommunications services to MNCs with global operations.
Infonet is a Delaware (US) company and its shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Infonet’s main shareholders are Swisscom, TeliaSonera, KDDI, KPN, Telefonica and Telstra, which together hold approximately 97% of the voting rights. The rest of the shares is held by other, smaller shareholders. Infonet provides GTS to a range of MNCs on a global basis and (unlike BT) has a comparatively strong presence in the Americas and in the Asia Pacific region. Infonet provides its services through its worldwide network, including broadband, wired and wireless services, IP Video VPN, and integrated security services.
http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=AC0105312&HL=Y&BK=Y
___________________________
R (On the application of (1)
T-MOBILE (UK) LTD (2) VODAFONE LTD (3) ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD) v (1) THE COMPETITION COMMISSION (2) DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS (2003)
[2003] EWHC 1566
QBD (Moses J) 27/6/2003
TELECOMMUNICATIONS - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
OFTEL : TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1984 : INTERCONNECTION DIRECTIVE : MOBILE PHONES : COMPETITION COMMISSION : CALL TERMINATION CHARGES : FAIR CHARGES : CAPS : LICENCE MODIFICATIONS : INTERCONNECTION : NETWORK OPERATORS : REVENUES : MOBILE MARKET : MARKET POWER : PRICE CONTROLS : PUBLIC INTEREST : CONSUMERS : ADVERSE EFFECTS : COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 97/33/EC : AMENDING DIRECTIVE 98/61 : FAIRNESS : REASONABLENESS : RATIONALITY
Challenge against recommendations of the Competition Commission that charges for call termination made by mobile network operators exceeded its assessment of a fair charge and should be capped and challenge to the imposition by the Director General of Telecommunications of such caps by way of licence modifications and proposals to continue such regulation after the new European regime fell to be implemented on 25 July 2003 were dismissed.
____________________________
(*) Requires Lawtel registration: www.lawtel.com and/or Athens Password
__________________________________________________
TELECOMMUNICATION - COMPETITION POLICY-
TREATY, ARTICLE 82 - 86 (*)
DOMINANT POSITION: ABUSE :
TELEFONICA SA : INTERNATIONAL DIALLING CODE : GIBRALTAR : REFUSAL TO RECOGNISE
By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint by the applicant filed on 31 October 1996 alleging that the Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC in refusing to recognise Gibraltar's International Dialling Code (‘350’) and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. The applicant later converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86 EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12 EC against Spain, alleging that Telefonica was acting under instructions from the Spanish Government, which claims sovereignty over Gibraltar. /
LAWTEL TEXT: Action by Gibtelcom Limited against the Commission 15/9/2004
Action for the annulment of a Commission Decision rejecting a complaint that Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position.
Gibtelcom Limited claimed the Court should annul a Commission Decision rejecting Gibtelecom's complaint under Arts 86 and 82 of the EC Treaty, that Telefonica SA, had committed a series of abuses of dominant position, by refusing to recognise Gibraltar's international dialling code, and insisting on acceptance of restrictive conditions for the exchange of automatic direct dial traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. Gibtelcom argued that the Commission had erred in finding that Telefonica SA was not a public undertaking or that it enjoyed special rights. Further, Gibtelcom argued that Spain had infringed Directives 90/388, 97/33, 2002/21 and 2002/77. Gibtelcom also contended breach of its legitimate expectations, and failure of the Commission to act within a reasonable period.
2004/C284/48 C284 p.24 (Application)
(Case T-365/04) 2004/C 284/47) Official Journal of the European Union,
_____________________________________________
WANADOO INTERACTIVE SA v COMMISSION
CFI
Action brought by Wanadoo Interactive S.A. against the Commission 2/10/2003
COMPETITION POLICY - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FINE : ANNULMENT : PREDATORY PRICING : PACK EXTENSE : WANADOO ADSL : INTERNET : ART.82 EC TREATY
Action for the annulment of the Commission Decision imposing a fine on Wanadoo Interactive for infringing Art.82 EC Treaty.
Wanadoo Interactive brought an action before the Court claiming that it should:(1) annul the Commission's decision of 16 July 2003, imposing a fine of 10.35 million euros upon it;(2) in the alternative, withdraw the fine or reduce its amount.Wanadoo Interactive, which was a French limited liability company 99 % owned by Wanadoo SA, which was in turn owned as to 70.6 % by France Telecom, challenged the Commission's decision accusing it of infringing Art.82 EC Treaty by charging predatory prices for its Pack eXtense and Wanadoo ADSL services which did not allow it to cover its variable costs from March to August 2001 or its full costs from August 2001 until 15 October 2002, as part of plan aimed at pre-empting the market for high-output internet access services. On that basis, the Commission imposed a fine of 10.35 million euros.In support of its action, Wanadoo Interactive claimed that essential procedural requirements and in particular, its defence rights had been infringed. It also argued that the Commission had infringed Art.82 EC Treaty.
2003/C289/70 (Application) p.34
Judgment: case pending.
Application: Full Text (copyright European Communities)
Document No. ER0234003 - http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=ER0234003&HL=Y&BK=Y
____________________
Case T-59/03 - (1) TQ3
TRAVEL SOLUTIONS GMBH (2) TQ3 TRAVEL SOLUTIONS EMEA GMBH v COMMISSION
CFI
Action by TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH and TQ3 Travel Solutions EMEA GmbH against the Commission 19/2/2003
COMPETITION POLICY - TRANSPORT - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - TELECOMMUNICATIONS
OPODO LIMITED: AIRLINES: ONLINE TRAVEL PORTAL: MERGER : COMPLAINT : ART.81 EC TREATY : ART.82 EC TREATY
Action for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 9 December 2002 rejecting the applicants' complaint against the notified joint venture setting up Opodo Limited.
The applicants were active in the travel agency business, especially for business passenger air transport services and connected services. On 3 November 2000, a joint venture agreement setting up Opodo Limited, an online travel portal created by nine of the largest European airlines, was notified to the Commission. Following the Notice published by the Commission setting out the undertakings proposed by the notifying parties and the intention of the Commission to clear the joint venture (see 2001/C323/03), one of the applicants filed a formal complaint against the creation of Opodo, alleging infringements of Art.81 and Art.82 EC Treaty. In the contested Decision, the Commission rejected the complaint of the applicant. The applicants therefore brought an action before the Court, claiming that it should annul the Commission Decision of 9 December 2002 rejecting their complaint in Case COMP/A.38321/D2-TQ3 Travel Solutions GmbH/Opodo Limited.The applicants submitted various arguments in support of their application including manifest error of assessment, an infringement of the Commission's obligation to investigate complaints with due diligence, with respect to the risk of coordination under Art.81(1) EC Treaty and with respect to discrimination under Art.82(2) EC Treaty.
2003/C101/85 (Application)
Judgment: case pending.
Application: Full Text (copyright European Communities)
Document No. ER0205903 http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=ER0205903&HL=Y&BK=Y
_______________________
http://www.qlinks.net/quicklinks/competit.htm : http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/88
Mergers: Commission clears BT’s acquisition of Infonet
The European Commission has approved under the EU Merger Regulation the acquisition by British Telecommunications of Infonet Services Corporation, a US operator providing global telecommunications services to large multinational corporations. As the incremental share of the target company in these services is limited, the Commission considers that the operation will not significantly impede effective competition in the European Economic Area (EEA) or any substantial part of it.
With its acquisition of all issued and outstanding shares in Infonet Services Corporation (“Infonet”), British Telecommunications (“BT”) acquires control of the whole of Infonet.
The Commission investigated the competitive effects of the proposed transaction on the possible markets for global telecommunications services (“GTS”) that are provided to multinational corporations (“MNCs”). It found that the transaction would not change significantly the market conditions either on a global or on a European scale as Infonet brings only a minimal incremental market share to BT. The combined BT/Infonet will continue to face a number of competitors that are present in these markets. In addition, customers have indicated that they will still have the possibility to switch competitively to alternative GTS suppliers.
BT, a company organised under the laws of England and Wales, is a provider of telecommunications services on a worldwide basis. Its principal activities include local, national and international telecommunications services, internet products and services and IT solutions. Among other things, BT provides global telecommunications services to MNCs with global operations.
Infonet is a Delaware (US) company and its shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Infonet’s main shareholders are Swisscom, TeliaSonera, KDDI, KPN, Telefonica and Telstra, which together hold approximately 97% of the voting rights. The rest of the shares is held by other, smaller shareholders. Infonet provides GTS to a range of MNCs on a global basis and (unlike BT) has a comparatively strong presence in the Americas and in the Asia Pacific region. Infonet provides its services through its worldwide network, including broadband, wired and wireless services, IP Video VPN, and integrated security services.
http://www.lawtel.com/~8cca8aa0edc04289afa422a0ec080ce7~/content/display.asp?ID=AC0105312&HL=Y&BK=Y
___________________________
R (On the application of (1)
T-MOBILE (UK) LTD (2) VODAFONE LTD (3) ORANGE PERSONAL COMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD) v (1) THE COMPETITION COMMISSION (2) DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS (2003)
[2003] EWHC 1566
QBD (Moses J) 27/6/2003
TELECOMMUNICATIONS - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
OFTEL : TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1984 : INTERCONNECTION DIRECTIVE : MOBILE PHONES : COMPETITION COMMISSION : CALL TERMINATION CHARGES : FAIR CHARGES : CAPS : LICENCE MODIFICATIONS : INTERCONNECTION : NETWORK OPERATORS : REVENUES : MOBILE MARKET : MARKET POWER : PRICE CONTROLS : PUBLIC INTEREST : CONSUMERS : ADVERSE EFFECTS : COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 97/33/EC : AMENDING DIRECTIVE 98/61 : FAIRNESS : REASONABLENESS : RATIONALITY
Challenge against recommendations of the Competition Commission that charges for call termination made by mobile network operators exceeded its assessment of a fair charge and should be capped and challenge to the imposition by the Director General of Telecommunications of such caps by way of licence modifications and proposals to continue such regulation after the new European regime fell to be implemented on 25 July 2003 were dismissed.
____________________________
(*) Requires Lawtel registration: www.lawtel.com and/or Athens Password
__________________________________________________
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
UNESCO’s Information for All Programme - 20 February
The deadline for submission of proposals to be funded under UNESCO’s Information for All Programme, an international information society initiative launched in 2001, will expire on 20 February 2005. The call for proposals was launched end of last year.
Proposals with budgets ranging from approximately US$25,000 (national projects) to US$45,000 (international projects) should cover one of three areas: information literacy, preservation of information, and ethical, legal and societal implications of the information society.
Projects shall have specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound objectives and be operationally, technically and financially feasible. They must include an evaluation component. Projects submitted should also contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and correspond to the areas of the Action Plan adopted by the World Summit on the Information Society.
Project applicants must complete on-line project proposals forms at http://www.unesco.org/webworld/ifapprojects, where detailed submission guidelines are available. Applications must be submitted no later than 20 February 2005.
The Information for All Programme (IFAP) provides a framework for international co-operation and international and regional partnerships. It supports the development of common strategies, methods and tools for building inclusive, open and pluralistic knowledge societies and for narrowing the gap between the information rich and the information poor. IFAP contribute to the fulfillment of UNESCO's mandate to contribute to "education for all", to the "free exchange of ideas and knowledge" and to "increase the means of communication between peoples".
The Special Fund of the Information for All Programme (IFAP Special Fund) is supported by voluntary contributions from
Monday, February 14, 2005
Friday, February 11, 2005
Online Music
Romanian Copyright Office sets fixed fee for online music
============================================================
The Arbitration Commission of the Romanian Copyright Office (ORDA) has published two remarkable decisions on the price for online music andring-tones. Romanian internet users will have to pay a fixed annual feefor any music they wish to offer on their website (via streaming or for downloading) of approximately 80 euro (3 million Romanian Lei). If the website owner charges a fee for music to be downloaded, they will have topay 10% of the fee to the collecting society, with a minimum of 8 eurocent per downloaded track, independent of the origin of the music. The decisions followed after unsuccessful negotiations between theRomanian Musical Performing and Mechanical Rights Society, the Romanian Association of ISPs and the association of ring-tone providers. Thedecisions were published in the Official Monitor no. 58 of 18 January2005. Even though the name of the first decision is 'methodology for usingmusical works on the Internet' the methodology refers only to web-pages. The copyright owner only has the right to opt-out. He can provide the collecting society with a list of musical works that cannot be used on theInternet.The Commission also decided on the methodology for using musical works asring-tones, along the same lines. Providers of ring-tones will have to pay10% of the fee they charged, with a minimum of 8 eurocent. Again the authors can only opt-out, by providing the collecting society with a list of works that should not be turned into ring-tones.The ISP association has announced they will appeal the decision, because they still find the 10% charge much too high.
ORDA (Romanian Copyright Office) http://www.orda.ro
UCMR - ADA (Romanian music collecting society) http://www.ucmr-ada.ro
ANISP (ISP association) http://www.anisp.ro
Musical works methodology decision (in Romanian, 18.01.2005) http://www.legi-internet.ro/utilizare_muzica_pe_internet.htm
Ring tones methodology decision (in Romanian, 18.01.2005) http://www.legi-internet.ro/utilizare_ringtonuri
============================================================
The Arbitration Commission of the Romanian Copyright Office (ORDA) has published two remarkable decisions on the price for online music andring-tones. Romanian internet users will have to pay a fixed annual feefor any music they wish to offer on their website (via streaming or for downloading) of approximately 80 euro (3 million Romanian Lei). If the website owner charges a fee for music to be downloaded, they will have topay 10% of the fee to the collecting society, with a minimum of 8 eurocent per downloaded track, independent of the origin of the music. The decisions followed after unsuccessful negotiations between theRomanian Musical Performing and Mechanical Rights Society, the Romanian Association of ISPs and the association of ring-tone providers. Thedecisions were published in the Official Monitor no. 58 of 18 January2005. Even though the name of the first decision is 'methodology for usingmusical works on the Internet' the methodology refers only to web-pages. The copyright owner only has the right to opt-out. He can provide the collecting society with a list of musical works that cannot be used on theInternet.The Commission also decided on the methodology for using musical works asring-tones, along the same lines. Providers of ring-tones will have to pay10% of the fee they charged, with a minimum of 8 eurocent. Again the authors can only opt-out, by providing the collecting society with a list of works that should not be turned into ring-tones.The ISP association has announced they will appeal the decision, because they still find the 10% charge much too high.
ORDA (Romanian Copyright Office) http://www.orda.ro
UCMR - ADA (Romanian music collecting society) http://www.ucmr-ada.ro
ANISP (ISP association) http://www.anisp.ro
Musical works methodology decision (in Romanian, 18.01.2005) http://www.legi-internet.ro/utilizare_muzica_pe_internet.htm
Ring tones methodology decision (in Romanian, 18.01.2005) http://www.legi-internet.ro/utilizare_ringtonuri
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Thursday, January 13, 2005
CIS is HIRING
2005-2006 FELLOWSHIP POSITION WITH
CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS), located at Stanford Law
School, is offering a one-year Fellowship (2004-2005) to work in
conjunction with its Cyberlaw Clinic on public interest litigation
involving technology and the Internet.
The Center for Internet and Society is a leading center for the study
of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology.
CIS was founded by Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and is headed by
Executive Director attorney Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the
Cyberlaw Clinic.
The CIS Clinic is an in- house clinic of eight students assisting in
the direct representation of clients in matters involving security,
privacy, free speech scientific innovation and technology, as well as
policy analysis and public information campaigns. Illustrative
litigation includes representing a company that distributes
peer-to-peer file sharing software in a lawsuit filed by the
recording industry; protecting the rights of Internet publishers to
speak anonymously on- line; and protecting speech interests against
claims of intellectual property infringement.
The Fellow will be directly and primarily responsible for one or more
of the intellectual property 'impact' cases that CIS is litigating.
She will also assist on other CIS litigation and work with students
in the Cyberlaw Clinic on cases and projects on an as-needed basis.
In addition, the Fellowship may provide the opportunity for the
pursuit of individual research and scholarship.
The position is for 12 months, with the possibility of renewal for a
second twelve months. The start date is flexible, anytime from July
2005 to September 2005. At least two years of post-law school civil
litigation experience is required. Salary is $40,000 per year, with
benefits. Interested applicants should submit a cover letter, resume,
writing sample and a list of references by February 28, 2005 to
Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick at: Crown Quadrangle, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610 or through the CIS website.
For further information, please contact Ms. Granick's legal
assistant, Joanne Newman, at: 650-723-4336.
---------------------------------
SUMMER INTERNSHIP POSITION WITH STANFORD'S
CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School is
hiring a Summer Intern to work public interest issues involving
technology and the Internet.
The Center for Internet and Society is a leading center for the study
of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology.
CIS was founded by Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and is headed by
Executive Director attorney Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the
Cyberlaw Clinic. The Summer Intern works with Attorney Granick and
Professor Lessig on CIS and Cyberlaw Clinic litigation, including
cases challenging the extension of copyright to works that had passed
into the public domain, protecting the rights of Internet publishers
to speak anonymously on-line, protecting speech interests against
claims of intellectual property infringement, and providing legal
information in response to cease and desist letters sent to Internet
publishers.
The Summer Intern also assists in preparing materials and research
for Cyberlaw Clinic course and caseload, keeping the CIS website and
calendar up-to-date and various administrative tasks on an as-needed
basis. The position is for approximately 12 weeks. Second and third
year law students are preferred, as is experience with computers,
including email, instant messaging, Movable Type, and Excel. Hourly
rate in accordance with the Law School work-study rates, to be
announced. Interested applicants should submit a cover letter,
resume, writing sample and a list of references by February 28, 2004
to Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick at: Crown Quadrangle, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610. For further information,
please contact Ms. Granick's legal assistant, Joanne Newman, at:
650-723-4336.
CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS), located at Stanford Law
School, is offering a one-year Fellowship (2004-2005) to work in
conjunction with its Cyberlaw Clinic on public interest litigation
involving technology and the Internet.
The Center for Internet and Society is a leading center for the study
of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology.
CIS was founded by Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and is headed by
Executive Director attorney Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the
Cyberlaw Clinic.
The CIS Clinic is an in- house clinic of eight students assisting in
the direct representation of clients in matters involving security,
privacy, free speech scientific innovation and technology, as well as
policy analysis and public information campaigns. Illustrative
litigation includes representing a company that distributes
peer-to-peer file sharing software in a lawsuit filed by the
recording industry; protecting the rights of Internet publishers to
speak anonymously on- line; and protecting speech interests against
claims of intellectual property infringement.
The Fellow will be directly and primarily responsible for one or more
of the intellectual property 'impact' cases that CIS is litigating.
She will also assist on other CIS litigation and work with students
in the Cyberlaw Clinic on cases and projects on an as-needed basis.
In addition, the Fellowship may provide the opportunity for the
pursuit of individual research and scholarship.
The position is for 12 months, with the possibility of renewal for a
second twelve months. The start date is flexible, anytime from July
2005 to September 2005. At least two years of post-law school civil
litigation experience is required. Salary is $40,000 per year, with
benefits. Interested applicants should submit a cover letter, resume,
writing sample and a list of references by February 28, 2005 to
Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick at: Crown Quadrangle, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610 or through the CIS website.
For further information, please contact Ms. Granick's legal
assistant, Joanne Newman, at: 650-723-4336.
---------------------------------
SUMMER INTERNSHIP POSITION WITH STANFORD'S
CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY
The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School is
hiring a Summer Intern to work public interest issues involving
technology and the Internet.
The Center for Internet and Society is a leading center for the study
of the relationship between the public interest, law and technology.
CIS was founded by Professor of Law Lawrence Lessig and is headed by
Executive Director attorney Jennifer S. Granick, who also teaches the
Cyberlaw Clinic. The Summer Intern works with Attorney Granick and
Professor Lessig on CIS and Cyberlaw Clinic litigation, including
cases challenging the extension of copyright to works that had passed
into the public domain, protecting the rights of Internet publishers
to speak anonymously on-line, protecting speech interests against
claims of intellectual property infringement, and providing legal
information in response to cease and desist letters sent to Internet
publishers.
The Summer Intern also assists in preparing materials and research
for Cyberlaw Clinic course and caseload, keeping the CIS website and
calendar up-to-date and various administrative tasks on an as-needed
basis. The position is for approximately 12 weeks. Second and third
year law students are preferred, as is experience with computers,
including email, instant messaging, Movable Type, and Excel. Hourly
rate in accordance with the Law School work-study rates, to be
announced. Interested applicants should submit a cover letter,
resume, writing sample and a list of references by February 28, 2004
to Executive Director Jennifer S. Granick at: Crown Quadrangle, 559
Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, CA 94305-8610. For further information,
please contact Ms. Granick's legal assistant, Joanne Newman, at:
650-723-4336.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Monday, December 27, 2004
The Internet Governance Project released today (Tuesday Dec. 21) one of our most significant WSIS contributions: "A Framework Convention: An International Option for Internet Governance." http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/igp-FC.pdf
The paper, by John Mathiason, compares today's situation to the controversies over climate change in the 1980s. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, rather than seeking to solve all of the problems in a single treaty, pursued a "framework convention," which first established the principles and norms under which international action would proceed. It also set up a procedure for future negotiations over more detailed arrangements. We suggest a similar approach for Internet governance.The short paper (4 pages) can be downloaded at the Internet Governance Project web site: http://www.internetgovernance.org
The paper, by John Mathiason, compares today's situation to the controversies over climate change in the 1980s. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, rather than seeking to solve all of the problems in a single treaty, pursued a "framework convention," which first established the principles and norms under which international action would proceed. It also set up a procedure for future negotiations over more detailed arrangements. We suggest a similar approach for Internet governance.The short paper (4 pages) can be downloaded at the Internet Governance Project web site: http://www.internetgovernance.org
Friday, December 24, 2004
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Cybercrime Convention- Critisisms
The overall criticisms on the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime
The condition of the Convention to be entered into force was depending on 5 ratifications including at least 3 member States of the CoE.
As of December 12, 2004 [i] total number of signatures is 30 and there are 8 states those ratified. The protocol on “Acts of a racist or xenophobic nature” has received 22 signatures and one ratification. Although it entered into force in July 1, 2004 it cannot be said that the first effects are apparent, as few countries have ratified at the moment. The Convention aimed three main topics; “harmonisation of the national laws which define offences”, “definition of investigation and prosecution procedures to cope with global networks”, “establishment of a rapid and effective system of international co-operation” and made no party so satisfied in particular the NGO’s whose participation was not given importance. [ii] Most of the civil liberty organizations including “Cyber-Rights-Cyber-Liberties”[iii] criticized the Convention as follows:
The condition of the Convention to be entered into force was depending on 5 ratifications including at least 3 member States of the CoE.
As of December 12, 2004 [i] total number of signatures is 30 and there are 8 states those ratified. The protocol on “Acts of a racist or xenophobic nature” has received 22 signatures and one ratification. Although it entered into force in July 1, 2004 it cannot be said that the first effects are apparent, as few countries have ratified at the moment. The Convention aimed three main topics; “harmonisation of the national laws which define offences”, “definition of investigation and prosecution procedures to cope with global networks”, “establishment of a rapid and effective system of international co-operation” and made no party so satisfied in particular the NGO’s whose participation was not given importance. [ii] Most of the civil liberty organizations including “Cyber-Rights-Cyber-Liberties”[iii] criticized the Convention as follows:
- It is fundamentally imbalanced. It includes powers of computer search and seizure and government surveillance of voice, email and data communications, but no correspondingly standards to protect privacy and limit government use of such powers. In other words, the procedural provisions, which also are threatening the human rights, have more space than the substantial provisions.
- It has some positive and some negative elements. It is very broad, reaching far beyond computer crime as such. Whilst it requires signatories to adopt laws giving the government access to computer data (for all crimes) and while it states that such powers must be subject to procedural safeguards protecting privacy, it fails to specify such procedural safeguards. Accordingly, developing countries should be cautious in approaching the Council of Europe convention as a model. A major section of the treaty aims to require governments to cooperate with other countries seeking to search and seize computers, compel disclosure of data stored in computers, and carry out real-time interceptions – in all kinds of criminal cases – in other countries. It also covers extradition for computer crimes as defined under the treaty. [iv]
- The Explanatory Report states that the phrase “without right” may refer to conduct undertaken without contractual authority. This interpretation seems unwise, for it could make violations of a service provider’s terms of service into a criminal offence. Within the first drafts “hacking” was about to without any circumstances be criminalized, but later on it was formulated with “without right”. Whilst it is so sensitive matter to assess “who has or has not the right” through the objective criteria or substantial rules, leaving that to judges or law enforcement circles’ judgement is a way which is far from equity rules.
- It brings too heavy responsibilities to ISP’s. (Article 15)
- The word of “Privacy” has never been used in the Treaty except the “Introduction” volume of the explanatory report.
- A vague reference to proportionality will not be adequate to ensure that civil liberties are protected. It is recognized that countries have varying methods for protection of civil liberties, but as a Council of Europe Convention drafted in consultation with other democratic nations, this document missed an important opportunity to ensure that minimum standards consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and other international human rights instruments were actually implemented. This failure is, in part, a result of the non-transparency of the process. [v]
- It fails to consistently require dual criminality as a condition for mutual assistance between countries. No nation should ask another to interfere with the privacy of its citizens or to impose onerous requirements on its service providers to investigate acts, which are not a crime in the requested nation. Governments should not investigate a citizen who is acting lawfully, regardless of whatever mutual assistance conventions are in place. Article 34 (Mutual assistance regarding the interception of content data) allows interception to the extent permitted by other treaties and domestic law. An acceptable condition would have been that requests for interception could only take place if it is permitted under the relevant criminal law as an offence that merits interception in both countries. Requests should also have a specified level of authorisation, i.e. where warrants are only acted upon if they are received from a judicial authority in the requested country. [vi]
SPECIFICALLY:
- "Treaty on Cybercrime Sounds Like A Great Idea Until You Read Fine Print..."
The analogy between the WIPO treaty and the Convention on Cybercrime ... http://www.cryptome.org/cycrime-godwin.htm - Civil rights and ambiguity of crime “prevention” Statement by ALCEI - January 24, 2004
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/jan/datret.htm - "CoE "cybercrime" convention: legitimising internet surveillance"
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/mar/17b.htm - "Eight Reasons the US Should Reject the International Cybercrime TreatyThe International Cybercrime Convention: What Is It? "
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/Cybercrime_Feature.html
____________________________________________________
[i] Albania, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Romania. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/CadreListeTraites.htm
[ii] Under the acronym GILC (Global Internet Liberty Campaign), 22 associations in nine European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom), the US, Japan, Australia and South Africa have campaigned against the draft Convention. They saw it as a "portmanteau" text embodying measures, which are disproportionate, destructive of liberty, and a threat to fundamental rights and national sovereignty.
[iii] Dr. Yaman Akdeniz, “An Advocacy Handbook for the NGO’s, The CoE’s Cyber-Crime Convention 2001 and the additional protocol on the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems”, December 2003, Updated March 2004 – Online: http://www.cyber-rights.org/cybercrime/coe_handbook_crcl.pdf
[iv] http://www.infodev-security.net/handbook/
[v] http://www.crime-research.org/articles/CoE_Cybercrime/
[vi] http://www.crime-research.org/articles/CoE_Cybercrime/ P.3
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2004 -
available online on UNPAN
BTW: I started to study here !
A.T.
available online on UNPAN
BTW: I started to study here !
A.T.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)