propiedad intelestual

CC Salon

Please join us for the first CC Salon, taking place in San Francisco on Wednesday, March 8 from 6pm-9pm at Shine (1337 Mission Street).

CC Salon is a casual get-together focused on conversation and community-building and is open to anyone interested in art, technology, education, and copyright.

Featuring presentations by:
Josh Kinberg (FireAnt)
Eddie Codel (Geek Entertainment TV)
James Wagner Au (Second Life)

And music by:
Minus Kelvin (ccMixter)

¡ Sé creativo !

Las licencias cretive commons explicadas muy fáSil en un bonito video hecho en Harvard. Si trabajas en una discográfica, por ejemplo, ponte los cascos: se titula sé creativo, está narrado en español y es material subversivo.

For freedom's sake ...

Legal Guide for Bloggers

Lessig

La foto, bonito flyer para una conferencia. Una idea de Wired, en Mayo en NYC. Me gustaría ir.

El texto a continuación es del gran Lessig, en su blog, sobre la constitución europea y los patentes de SW, viejos desconocidos.

So despite the fact that the EU Parliament has rejected software patents for Europe, and despite the fact that there is not a qualified majority of member states supporting it, the EU Council has now endorsed their draft of the "Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions."

This struggle continues to astonish me. There's no good economic evidence that software patents do more good than harm. That's the reason the US should reconsider its software patent policy.

But why Europe would voluntarily adopt a policy that will only burden its software developers and only benefit US interests is beyond me.

They call it a "democracy" that they're building in Europe. I don't see it. Instead, they have created a government of bureaucrats, more easily captured by special interests than anything in the US.

P2P :: music to our ears !!

Una magnífica (y ya vieja) propuesta de la EFF. Licencias colectivas para el file sharing.

Making P2P Pay Artists

Online music distribution is here to stay. And although it presents a challenge to old business models, artists and copyright holders can make a living with these new technologies. Online distribution lowers costs and increases exposure; all that is needed are new ways for music lovers to support and pay the artists they love.

Below are short descriptions of several potential payment methods, with links to detailed analyses and examples. To simplify these descriptions, we use an economic metaphor: imagine all the dollars spent on music as a large pie. Until recently, each artist or copyright holder's slice of the pie was defined by the number of copies of physical recordings sold primarily through retail outlets. With the advent of high-quality, low-bandwidth digital recordings, slicing the pie becomes much more interesting - and potentially more rewarding for artists, copyright holders, and consumers alike.

The key is finding a new system for music lovers to compensate artists and copyright holders.
Voluntary Collective Licensing

It sounds obvious: major labels could get together and offer fair, non-discriminatory license terms for their music. This is called "voluntary collective licensing," and it has been keeping radio legal and getting songwriters paid for 70 years. It protects stations from lawsuits while collecting payment for the songs they play.

The record companies could solve the payment problem tomorrow, without changing any laws. Napster asked them to do it in 2001. Kazaa has also tried to get licenses in the past. Both requests were rejected by the major labels at the time, but it's not too late to start the dialogue.
Individual Compulsory Licenses

If artists, songwriters, and copyright holders were required to permit online copying in return for government-specified fees, companies could compete to painlessly collect these fees, do the accounting, and remit them to the artists. The payment to each artist need not directly reflect what each consumer pays, as long as the total across all artists and all consumers balances.

Anyone could start such an intermediary company. Some companies might charge a flat rate per month, some might charge per song or per bandwidth, some might offer a single lifetime payment. Consumers would have the option to sign up with whichever of these services was most convenient or least intrusive for them. Consumers who don't download music, or don't mind the risk of a lawsuit, would not be required to buy a license.
Ad Revenue Sharing

Sites like the Internet Underground Music Archive, EMusic.com, and Artistdirect.com provide an online space for fans to listen to music streams, download files, and interact with artists. In the meantime, these fans are viewing advertisements on the site, and the revenues are split between the site and the copyright holders.

Like radio, the money that funds the pie comes from advertisers, not consumers. But unlike radio, artists are rewarded directly. And since these sites often host a page for member artists, other payment methods are possible at the same time. IUMA, for example, compensates artists for both ad views and song downloads.
P2P Subscriptions

P2P software vendors could start charging for their service. Music lovers could pay a flat fee for the software or pay per downloaded song. The funds could be distributed to artists and copyright holders through licensing agreements with studios and labels or through a compulsory license. In 2001, Napster and Bertelsmann AG were considering such a subscription service. Although Napster's legal battles with the recording industry removed it from the playing field, recent attempts at a subscription service (such as Apple's iTunes Music Store) show that consumers are willing to pay for downloaded music.
Digital Patronage and Online Tipping

Direct contribution from music lovers is a very old form of artist compensation, ranging from a simple passing of the hat to the famed patronage of Florence's Medici family. As content has moved to digital form, so has the form of payment. With an online tip jar such as the Amazon Honor System, artists can ask for donations directly from their websites, in amounts as small as one dollar. Patronage sites such as MusicLink have also emerged, which allow consumers to seek out the musicians and songwriters they'd like to support. Either way, consumers are given an easy, secure method to give directly to the artists they admire.
Microrefunds

As a twist on online tip jars, Brad Templeton introduced the interesting idea of making "opt-out" the default for paying for copyrighted works. The system, called "microrefunds," would collect small fees for each copyrighted work accessed and total them into a monthly bill. Upon reviewing the bill, charges that seemed too high or were for songs the consumer did not enjoy could be revoked.

Instead of making a purchasing decision every time they want to hear a song, consumers could review their charges periodically. The billing could fit into a P2P subscription system, or as part of a music service such as the iTunes Music Store.
Bandwidth Levies

Several people have nominated ISPs as collection points for P2P. Every Internet user gets web access from an ISP, and most have a regular financial relationship with one as well. In exchange for protection from lawsuits, ISPs could sell "licensed" accounts (at an extra charge) to P2P users. Alternatively, they could charge everyone a smaller fee and give their customers blanket protection. The latter model would, however, charge people whether or not they download music.

There are many options available to make sure that artists receive fair compensation for their creativity. Today, convoluted and outdated copyright law is being used to claim that 60 million Americans are criminals. It's time to look seriously at the alternatives and start a dialogue with Congress to bring copyright law in tune with the digital age. Click here to read more about making P2P legal.

Para no mentar la bicha ...

... cualquier cosa:

En esta ocasión la Asociación de Internautas ha creado y configurado para esta campaña el IGNORER. Es un programa (para windows) que sustituye SGAE en todas sus posibles formas por $$$$ cuando navegamos por internet.

El programa ocupa solo 18 KB El funcionamiento es muy sencillo ya que no hay que configurar nada en el ordenador del usuario. Puedes descargarlo desde aquí

Take aktion : save betamax !

Why Save Betamax?

The short version: We're organizing a call-in day to Congress on September 14 to oppose new legislation that would undermine the Betamax decision (INDUCE Act). Sign up on the right.

Here's why: The Betamax VCR died more than 15 years ago, but the Supreme Court decision that made the Betamax and all other VCRs legal lived on. In Sony vs. Universal (known as the Betamax decision) the Court ruled that because VCRs have legitimate uses, the technology is legal—even if some people use it to copy movies. Of course, the movie industry was lucky it lost the case against VCRs, because home video soon became Hollywood's largest source of revenue. And the freedom to use and develop new technology that was protected by the Betamax decision set the stage for the incredible growth in computer technology we've seen in the last few decades.

Más info en www.savebetamax.org, una iniciativa que me llega a través de la Electronic Frontier Foundation. Se trata de que los americanos hagan saber a sus congresistas que no quieren que sea aprobada una nueva sección del Copyright Act, conocida como "the Induce Act".

Este cambio supondría renunciar a lo conseguido con la famosa sentencia del caso Betamax, extendiendo la responsabilidad por infracción del copyright a las empresas que "inducen" a la infracción con sus productos (aunque estos productos, como el video del caso Betamax, tengan significativos usos legales). Bajo la amenaza de las legiones de abogados que mantienen Hollywood y la industria discográfica, las empresas tecnológicas se verían abocadas a pedir permiso a la Industria para innovar.

Conclusiones:
Qué estúpidos y pesados los de la industria. Que buenos los de la EFF. Qué engrasado el sistema americano, con todas las fuerzas funcionando sobre el tablero. Ganará el futuro, ganará Betamax.

¿ Buffering de piratas y pornófilos ?

Ignacio Zafra, titula en El País del domingo, El festival de las descargas porno y el "pirateo" termina a toda máquina. Vaya, vaya, me pregunto dónde está Nacho Vidal que no está allí.

En la misma party, Pedro Farré, jefe de la oficina de defensa de la propiedad intelectual de SGAE, dice que si los derechos de Propiedad Intelectual no se protegen, la red de redes desaparecerá porque no tendrá contenidos. Surrealista total.

Al día siguiente, el tipo vuelve a lucirse.