|
Copyright Management and Control Systems: Metering Hardware Devices Those have to be acquired and installed by the user. For example under a debit card approach, the user purchases a debit card that is pre-loaded with a certain amount of value. After installation, the debit card is debited automatically as the user consumes copyrighted works. Digital Certificates Hereby a certification authority issues to a user an electronic file that identifies the user as the owner of a public key. Those digital certificates, besides Centralized Computing Under this approach all of the executables remain at the server. Each time the executable is used, the user's computer must establish contact with the server, allowing the central computer to meter access. Access Codes Access code devices permit users to "unlock" protective mechanisms (e.g. date bombs or functional limitations) embedded in copyrighted works. Copyright owners can meter the usage of their works, either by unlocking the Copyright Clearinghouses Under this approach copyright owners would commission "clearinghouses" with the ability to license the use of their works. A user would pay a license fee to obtain rights concerning the intellectual property. |
|
|
|
Think Tanks and Corporate Money Looking at the financial situation of think tanks, different funding patterns can be found. While financial contributions from foundations play an important role especially for conservative think tanks, also contributions from governments are made to certain institutions. Yet one of the most important funding sources are corporate donors and individual contributors. Although the extent to which - in most cases conservative - think tanks rely on corporate funding varies, from the US$ 158 million spent by the top 20 conservative think tanks, more than half of it was contributed by corporations or businessmen. |
|
|
|
Recent "Digital Copyright" Legislation: European Union Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society In November 1996 the European Commission adopted a communication concerning the follow-up to the Green Paper on - the legal protection of computer programs - rental right, lending right and certain rights related to copyright in the field of - copyright and related rights applicable to broadcasting of programs by satellite and cable retransmission - the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights - the legal protection of databases The proposal was first presented by the Commission in January 1998, amended in May 1999 and currently is at second reading before the Parliament. Final adoption of the Directive could take place at the end of 2000 or the beginning of 2001 respectively. A full-text version for download (pdf file) of the amended proposal for a Directive on copyright and related rights in the Information Society is available on the website of the European Commission (DG Internal Market): General critique concerning the proposed EU Directive includes: - Open networks The new law could require (technological) surveillance of communications to ensure enforcement. Also because Service Providers might be legally liable for transmitting unauthorized copies, the might in turn have to deny access to anybody who could not provide them with financial guaranties or insurance. - Interoperable systems The draft could negate the already established right in EU law for software firms to make their systems interoperable with the dominant copyright protected systems. This would be a threat to the democratic and economic rights of users. - Publicly available information It is yet unclear whether new legal protections against the bypassing of Comments from the library, archives and documentation community on the amended Directive embrace: The Library Association EBLIDA (European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations) Society of Archivists (U.K.) and Public Record Office (U.K.) EFPICC (European Fair Practices In Copyright Campaign) |
|
|
|
The Microsoft Case Shortly after Microsoft was faced with federal antitrust charges, full-page newspaper ads supporting Microsoft's claim of innocence were run by the |
|
|
|
Recent "Digital Copyright" Legislation: U.S. DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) The debates in the House and Senate preceding the signing into law of the DMCA by U.S. President Clinton in October 1998 indicated that the principal object of the Act is to promote the U.S. economy by establishing an efficient Internet marketplace in copyrighted works. The DMCA implements the two 1996 A full-text version of the DMCA is available from: The Library of Congress: Thomas (Legislative Information on the Internet): Moreover the U.S. Copyright Office provides a memorandum, which briefly summarizes each of the five titles of the DMCA (pdf format): The DMCA has been criticized for not clarifying the range of legal principles on the liability of ISPs and creating exceptions to only some of the provisions; therefore giving copyright owners even more rights. Among the variety of comments on the DMCA are: Lutzker, Arnold P.: Primer on the Digital Millennium: What the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Copyright Term Extension Act Mean for the Library Community. Lutzker & Lutzker law firm and the Association of Research Libraries: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Highlights of New Copyright Provision Establishing Limitation of Liability for Online Service Providers. |
|
|
|
Corporate Money and Politics The fact that corporate money is seeking to influence public policy is nothing unusual. From the different ways of how private money helps to shape politics the first, and most familiar is direct campaign contributions to political candidates and parties, which is especially widespread in the United States. While the second great river of money goes to underwrite lobbying apparatus in diverse state capitals, the third form of attempts to influence public policy making is less well-known, but nearly as wide and deep as the two others - it is money which underwrites a vast network of public policy think tanks and advocacy groups. Although tried to be labeled in another way, unmistakably, these donations are naked attempts by corporations and other donors, to influence the political process. |
|
|
|
Operating the net: overview The Net consists of thousands of thousands of governmental and private networks linked together. No legal authority determines how and where networks can be connected together, this is something the managers of networks have to agree about. So there is no way of ever gaining ultimate control of the Internet. Although each of these networks is operated and controlled by an organization, no single organization operates and controls the Net. Instead of a central authority governing the Net, several bodies assure the operability of the Net by developing and setting technical specifications for the Net and by the control of the technical key functions of the Net as the coordination of the domain name system and the allocation of IP numbers. Originally, the Net was a research project funded and maintained by the US Government and developed in collaboration by scientists and engineers. As the standards developed for ensuring operability ensued from technical functionality, technical coordination gradually grew out of necessity and was restricted to a minimum and performed by volunteers. Later, in the 1980s, those occupied with the development of technical specifications organized themselves under the umbrella of the Internet Society in virtual organizations as the Internet Engineering Task Force, which were neither officially established nor being based on other structures than mailing lists and commitment, but nonetheless still serve as task forces for the development of standards ensuring the interoperability on the Net. Since the late 80s and the early 90s, with the enormous growth of the Net - which was promoted by the invention of Since the year 2000, a new model for technical coordination has been emerging: Formerly performed by several bodies, technical coordination is transferred to a single non-governmental organization: the Internet Coordination of Assigned Numbers and Names. |
|
|
|
Netiquette Although referred to as a single body of rules, there is not just one Netiquette, but there are several, though overlapping largely. Proposing general guidelines for posting messages to newsgroups and mailing lists and using the Well-known Netiquettes are the |
|
|
|
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) Founded in 1973 by 239 banks from 15 countries, SWIFT is responsible for maintaining the world's most important network dedicated to financial transaction processing. Although facing competition from smart cards, e.g., SWIFT can rely on an increasing clientèle. In September 1999 SWIFT served 6,710 live users in 189 countries. |
|
|
|
Instinet Instinet, a wholly owned subsidiary of |
|
|
|
Proprietary Network Proprietary networks are computer networks with standards different to the ones proposed by the |
|
|
|
Europe Online Established in 1998 and privately held, Europe Online created and operates the world's largest broadband "Internet via the Sky" network. The Europe Online "Internet via the Sky" service is available to subscribers in English, French, German, Dutch and Danish with more languages to come. http://www.europeonline.com |
|
|
|
Mass production The term mass production refers to the application of the principles of specialization, |
|
|
|
Extranet An Extranet is an Intranet with limited and controlled access by authenticated outside users, a business-to-business Intranet, e.g. |
|
|
|
America Online Founded in 1985, America Online is the world's biggest Internet service provider serving almost every second user. Additionally, America Online operates CompuServe, the Netscape Netcenter and several AOL.com portals. As the owner of Netscape, Inc. America Online plays also an important role in the Web browser market. In January 2000 America Online merged with Time Warner, the worlds leading media conglomerate, in a US$ 243,3 billion deal, making America Online the senior partner with 55 percent in the new company. |
|
|