The A2K Movement… Keeps Moving. Literally.

I just got back from the Yale conference on A2K (April 27-29 - Yale Law School). You can find plenty of information on panels and speakers on the Yale ISP website. There's also a Jack Balkin's blog where you can find his opening speech. And here’s Robin’s Gross blog on the event.

There were five plenary panels (the social movement of a2k, mobilizing industry, governments, technologists and civil society) and maybe 12 policy panels. It was hard enough to decide which one to attend, and it’s impossible to report on all of them. I give up. Imagine over 100 people sticking to the venue, not only because the New Haven spring was kind of disgusting, but also because no one wanted to “miss” someone or something.

The quality and diversity of the speakers were impressive. There were some cult figures of the a2k movement (you know whom I'm talking about, right?). You had famous academics, a large and smart crew of Yale law students, kickass activists from many fields, enlightened industry people, government representatives (though not from the U.S., I am not sure why) and a few WIPO and foundation representatives.












At first, everyone was doing his or her job, playing his or her role as planned (choreographed?). However, it gets tiring and you cannot really maintain that for 3 days. Besides, it's when the players "try new ideas" that things get interesting. That is what was happening in the hallways, outside the dining hall, inside classrooms, etc. Many presentations were great, but all the informal discussions were important.

As Gwen Hinze and many others said during these informal talks, what made Yale's second conference on a2k so cool was the sense of belonging to a diverse international community. We had a (prestigious) place to meet and work together, plan, plot, eat, drink and enjoy being part of a larger social movement.











Now, really interesting to me was the presence of all the "new" people, the new faces, the new blood. New to me of course, probably well known to others, like the ISP organizers. From the beginning, the














plenary on "a2k as a social movement", the participants seemed to be determined to be "inclusive and to listen to all." Well, to be honest, in the hallways, there were some expressions of frustration (when some old issues were raised --again!), but more often people were expressing interest in the new "blood" that was being injected in this clearly live/organic a2k.

With a new crowd comes the fear of dilution, or even for some a threat to what one can call the informal a2k establishment (you know whom I'm talking about, right?) but from them also comes the hope of sustainability.

The policy panel I moderated was about open access to literature. Many thanks to Jami Johnson of Yale Law School who organized the panel AND kept time (and has good notes see wiki).

The speakers were an exceptional collection of writers/editors of literary journals like Tin House, Kwani? and Transition, affiliated with Blackplanet.com, AOL Black Voices, and the Alternative Law Forum. In some ways, the panel did its job as described in the program. It “explored the benefits of open access literature in fostering cross-cultural dialogue and in improving information flow between and among nations.” For sure, Achal Prabhala, Binyavanga Wainaina, Gary Dauphin, Rob Spillman, and Michael Vazquez were more fun than many conference speakers as they engaged in a lively dialogue about the role of small (but successful) literary magazines, a domain of publishing that is not typically interested a2k ideas. They talked about new business models and experimental modes of publication and archiving and how the Collective they have created recently will fit in some ways in the open access to literature frame.

The Heron Collective started in December 2006. A group of friends/colleagues got together in Nairobi, Kenya to talk about how to formalize an entire series of interactions by which they were trying find a way to create a system that would do something for themselves and a much larger public. The members of the collective want Heron to be an open access literature collective. Licensed through open content licensing, the content will be freely accessible and freely usable. They still have to work on all of this of course, it was just created.

Why did these magazines (some prefer the term journals) decide to do this? In the words of Achal because "they all know each other", they share "a common grammar", a common sense of humor and many other things. They are young, contemporary, open to new business models. They will probably use a developing nations CC license developed to provide for licenses where literature could be distributed commercially in developed countries but open access in developing nations. Right now, the Collective is working on its' policies on open archives and open licensing. They’re also working on circulation issues, distribution and production. As Achal noted "Nothing obviously useful: just serious fun".

One issue we did not talk about enough (we ran out of time), but that is pressing to me (we’re are creating our own open access journal right now), is how the hell will these kind of journals get sustainable funding if they become open access? Right now, they have funds from subscribers and donations. They’re thinking of increasing the “service” part of what they do as editors, maybe selling T-shirts and other things on the Collective website.

Thinking about possible new business models (or copyright and licenses) is not that exciting. And it is not what they want to do with their lives. However, it looks as if they will have to spend some time doing just that, and maybe they’ll come up with creative solutions. They are all super-creative for sure.



I never got to discuss with them other possible funding mechanisms (some of them outrageous—and that would have been fun for me) if we manage to decentralize markets for donations for open access journal.

For example, could we get some funding agency like the National Endowment for Humanities to provide grants structured to pay the authors?

Could we have some State or Federal tax credit for donations to journals?

Could we have a requirement that federally or state-funded universities, libraries, and/or other institutions donate minimum amounts to some journal of their choice? That could be linked to the library budget (let’s say they give 10% of what they give to expensive fee-based journals). Or, could we have obligations in certain sectors that they contribute to the open journal of their choice? Like publishers of computer games could give $.50 per game (nobody really likes publishers of computer games, right?) or like broadcasting or TV organizations? How about owners of government subsidized sports stadiums?

Why not?

Maybe we’ll get to talk again at a2k3?

OECD June 2008 Ministerial: some issues are jelling?

The OECD-NSF Workshop -- "Social and Economic Factors Shaping the Future of the Internet" was held in the National Science Foundation Boardroom, in Arlington on 31st January 2007.

See more document (including our proposal on open standards) at: http://www.oecd.org/document/59/0,2340,en_2649_34223_37921851_1_1_1_1,00.html#add

This meeting was per invitation only (we all had 2 badges, one for the building and one for the room?) but the spacious boardroom overlooking Arlington, Virginia was almost full. A large round table with the 33 speakers surrounded by about 60 people coming from Washington DC, Canada, Japan and other places. The meeting was formal and recorded but I do not know when and if anything about it will be public.

The OECD had invited “internet experts” to prepare for the June 2008 Ministerial meeting in Seoul, Korea. Participants included “founders”, Internet cult figures, ambassador, US Government people, big businesses, a few public interest groups (EPIC, CPTech, CPSR and PK), and also many academics. Many knew each others, some from the early days of “internet policy making”, OECD meetings, ICANN and other “prestigious gatherings” of stakeholders.

The stated goals of the meeting was to explore the “Social and Economic Factors Shaping the Future of the Internet” according to a list of 30 proposed issues (see below) that participants had ranked in priority, urgency and difficulty before the meeting. The premise was that whether you think the Internet is working great or not, it is time to start thinking about the “future of the Internet”. It was a little odd to be (at 8am) with a relatively small group of people working on the “future on the Internet” but since WIFI was working, one was able to do some reality check once in a while.

The keynote speaker, David Clark (MIT) launched the discussion with a great (and classic) speech and a call for a new research agenda “to face the opportunities and challenges ahead”. The starting point was that "the Internet must be accessible, trusted and secure, as well as able to robustly scale to meet the increasing reliance placed on it." What do you want the global network to look like in 15 to 20 years, he asked. And he called for us to “step away from constraints and start imagining why we should re-conceive the Internet and what were the challenges and desired outcomes”.

For the workshop organizers, there are “three trends that are increasingly influencing the current Internet’s ability to meet the requirements of users:
- Widening security threats endanger network operation;
- Digital convergence increases the functionality and places new demands on the Internet; and
- An increasing number and variety of communities and businesses critically rely on the Internet.”

The following 30 issues were divided into 4 sessions: economic landscape (1-16), Social implications (17-25), the international dimension (26-30) followed by a "priority setting and a wrap-up.

1/ Ensuring a healthy ecosystem for private network service providers.
2/ Financing edge infrastructure build-out.
3/ Ensuring investments in better technologies continue to be made.
4/ Ensuring competition and innovation at the service level/at the edge.
5/ Using public investment incentives e.g. universal service obligations or other.
6/ Adapting public policy to network convergence: content/broadcasting convergence, telecommunications unbundling, fixed/mobile convergence, spectrum.
7/ Dealing with traffic exchange between networks.
8/ Empowering and protecting consumers.
9/ Preserving the Internet’s capacity to foster innovation and competition.
10/ Addressing new requirements of the shift from a one person per PC paradigm to a complex multi-device environment, especially wireless.
11/ Improving naming and addressing schemes to improve efficiency of internetworking and scalability of routing.
12/ Overcoming the global Internet protocol adoption problem. 4
13/ Developing holistic approaches to security of information systems and networks
14/ Aligning incentives of all stakeholders to increase security.
15/ Ensuring the Internet meets requirements as critical information infrastructure
16/ Being able to measure / assess the network’s performance for informed policy.
17/ Preserving the participatory nature of Internet content production.
18/ Encouraging interoperability of technologies and applications.
19/ Balancing interests of suppliers and users (e.g. IPR or DRM).
20/ Considering social norms, ethical values and existing laws in the development of Internet services.
21/ Factoring in societal benefits and public policy objectives (e-health, e-education, etc.) in considering “return-on-network investment”.
22/ Conducting societal risk assessments of possible impacts of mobile wireless and sensor networks and taking responsibility.
23/ Effectively protecting personal data in managing digital identities.
24/ Ensuring “privacy by design”.
25/ Balancing law enforcement needs with freedom, privacy and business impacts.
26/ Considering different national contexts’ and cultures’ impact on policy stances.
27/ Partnering internationally for research and development.
28/ Cross-border law enforcement for online security, privacy, consumer protection.
29/ Addressing political challenges to the Internet as it has evolved.
30/ Facilitating Internet roll-out in developing countries.

Now, on a OECD brochure on the OECD Minesterial meeting on the Future of the Internet (Seoul, Korea, 17-18 June 2008) you can read that 3 issues have been highlighted:

1/ Previously distinc communication platforms and services, such as broadcasting and telephony, are converging;
2/ The Internet has become a critical global economic and social infrastructure and;
3/ Security threats are increasingly severe and sophisticated

This could mean that the main issues for the 2008 Ministerial will be convergence, economics and security. If they jell.

What's up re Open Standards at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)?

The first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is next week in Athens, Greece (Oct 30-Nov 2). The IGF is a product of the WSIS-Tunis Agenda and was given an open-ended and ambiguous mandate. It operates with the support of the Secretary-General of the UN, who has asked for a "process aimed at enhancing cooperation on international public policy issues related to the Internet."

The IGF is a new paradigm as it is a "multi-stakeholder policy dialogue," where civil society NGOs, business interests, international organizations, and governments will interact in contours that as yet have to be clearly defined.

A good example of this multi-stakeholder policy dialogue is the Open Standards workshop (Nov 2) sponsored by CPTech, Sun Microsystems, the W3C and the Yale Information Society Project. The purpose of the workshop is to promote understanding of the value of open ICT standards to economic development and social welfare and to collectively discuss related problems and solutions, including the role of government policies and procurement.

The sponsors believe that the IGF should proactively address issues of openness and interoperability in the Information Society by paying particular attention to ICT standards as outlined in paragraph 44 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles. To help frame this requested action, the sponsors are proposing two statements of principles: one on open IT standards and requested IGF action and the other specific to government policies and procurement.

The intent is to create a "dynamic coalition" in IGF around these principles. This coalition will work to refine these principles and suggested solutions with the intent of spurring collective action in WSIS/IGF and relevant fora.

We invite you to review these statements at (http://www.cptech.org/a2k/igf/athens110206/)
and participate in this "dynamic coalition."

There is a mailing list for this purpose. Details on how to sign up are at: http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/openstds

More details: contact Thiru Balasubramaniam (CPTech) email thiru at cptech.org or Susy Struble (SUN) email susy at sun.com

IGF Website: http://www.igfgreece2006.gr/

More news on this after the IGF meeting.

WIPO little Dialogue at SCCR 15 re the broadcasting treaty

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights 15 Sept 11-13, 2006.



in the series you have to be there to believe it.

On Tuesday September 12, 2006:

NGO person: So, what do you think is going to happen now? A recommendation to convene a diplomatic conference?

WIPO Secretary person: Well, there are two possibilities, two possible disasters. There's a diplomatic conference and it's a failure. Or 2) the treaty is so narrow and it's a useless and not signed by member states. Disasters.

NGO: What about the third possibility? It's a bad treaty and it is bad for the public? Another possible disaster?

WIPO Secretary person: Huh?

Sign on for Support of Access to Science Bill

Dear colleagues,

The bipartisan Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006,introduced on May 2, 2006 by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), would require that US Government agencies make manuscripts of journal articles stemming from research funded by that agency publicly available via the Internet. The manuscripts will be maintained and preserved in a digital archive maintained by that agency or in another suitable repository that permits free public access, interoperability, and long-term preservation. Each manuscript will be freely available to users without charge within six months after it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

If Congress passes the bill into law, there will be a significant improvement in access to research as well as an increase of visibility of their works for researchers that are partially or totally funded in agencies whose annual extramural research budgets exceed $100 million.

The bill recognizes the benefits of timely sharing of research and the cost effective means to accelerate scientific advancement in using the internet. The beneficiaries will be scientists, scholars, funders as well as taxpayers whose investment in scientific research will be enhanced by technology transfer, timely and broad application of research to healthcare and more informed policy development.

Because it will improve access to science, the legislation is supported by various national organizations of academic libraries – including the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, Association of College and Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, and SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition).

CPTech is writing a letter of support for the Federal research public access act of 2006 that we will send to Senators Cornyn and Lieberman next week. If you would like to sign on, let me know, I'll send you my first draft (or if you prefer you can write you own letter and fax it at numbers below).

I understand Senators Cornyn and Lieberman are hearing in force from publishers who oppose it, and we want to make sure they hear from us too.

Here is the full contact info for both senators:

Senator John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856

Senator Joe Lieberman
706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4041 Voice
(202) 224-9750 Fax

MORE INFO at:

Bill Seeks Access to Tax-Funded Research Grant Recipients Would Be Required to Post Findings on Internet
By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 3, 2006; Page A21

TAXPAYER ALLIANCE SUPPORTS SENATE BILL BROADENING ACCESS TO FEDERAL RESEARCH
Cornyn-Lieberman Bill Requires Key Federal Funders to Post Research on Internet,
Bill Introduced on First Anniversary of NIH Public Access Policy Implementation

SPARC Advocacy Resources The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 FAQ

What's up with "Vivendi amendments" of French law?

I keep hearing from European colleagues about the bad and sometimes "supernatural" influence of industry lobbyists in the US Congress. Hum, they have to recognize that the situation is not that different in Brussels (where you find the same industry representatives you see at WIPO and other fora) and now also in the hallways of France's Senate. For example, what's up with the "Vivendi Amendments"?

Some observers of the debate about the new copyright law in France have noticed the reference to the "Vivendi amendments". On French list ESCAPE, the President of FFII France, Gérald Sédrati-Dinet tells the story:

[SNIP and roughly translated]

On the original documents for Article 12 and 14 of the new law, the DADVSI, adopted by the Senate last Thursday, you find the name of Sylvie Forbin, European Affairs for Vivendi, and also the names of Jerome Soulet (Content department of France telecom), Chantal Soumare, assistant of Thierry Desurmont, VP of the SACEM.

Knowing this, some people expected that the senators would denounce the provisions "revealing the extreme pressure that threatens the process of a serious parlementary debate favoring special interests to the detriment of the public interest" to quote the EUCD.info asking for an investigation after expression of outrage by Bernard Carayon duting the show "Complement d'enquete" (http://eucd.info/262.shtml).

Considering especially that the debate had started on the morning of May 4 by an intervention by Michel Charasse asking that "the hallways be cleaned of all the lobbyists".

However, no scandal followed. A revealing statistic: Vivendi was refered to 30 times during the entire debate but there was only 3 references in the Senate debate (sénateurs UDF Catherine Morin-Desailly et Philippe Nogrix).

Worst, in the debate regarding civil party of the amendment article 14 quater http://www.senat.fr/seances/s200605/s20060510/s20060510007.html#R14quater), the rapporteur of the Cultural Commission, Michel Thiolliere (party radical) explained his support for the ammendment after having proposed to delete it.

"The commission expressed some reservations regarding the provisions adopted by the general assembly, provisions that established a form of civil liability for publishers and providers of software manifestly used for illegal sharing of protected works, and that had led us to support an amendment for the deletion of the article.

During the last 2 weeks, we have continued to work on this, coordinating with the government and various stakeholders about the advantages and disadvantages of a system to which the cultural industries representatives are in favor because they see it as a system to efficiently protect their rights."

At least, he does not refer to the authors and artists' interests but to the "cultural sector representatives" interest.

Maybe it's better not to say the names of the beneficiaries of these measures criticized by the entire French software industry?

By contrast, the names of the critics are: le consortium Object Web (French and foreign firms) Atos Origin, Bull, Dassault, France Télécom, Thalès, Red Hat - as well as researchers from l'Institut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique, l'INRIA, le Commissariat à l'énergie atomique, le CEA, le Centre national de la recherche scientifique, le CNRS", and some representatives from Sun Microsystems.

END OF Gérald Sédrati-Dinet'S QUOTE ROUGHLY TRANSLATED

**************************************
ORIGINAL POST


Vivendi

Sur mes beaux amendements
Sur mes tables de la loi
Sur le sable au Luxembourg
J'écris ton nom...

... tout du moins, on le laisse écrit mais on ne le prononce jamais.

On se souvient en effet que les articles 12 bis et 14 quater de la loi
DADVSI, tels qu'adoptés par le Sénat jeudi, proviennent d'amendements
dont les documents originaux font apparaître les noms de Sylvie FORBIN,
directrice des affaires institutionnelles et européennes de Vivendi
Universal, mais également de Jérome SOULET, directeur à la division
contenu de France Télécom ou Chantal SOUMARÉ, assistante de Thierry
DESURMONT, Vice-président du directoire de la Sacem...

Sachant cela, on aurait pu s'attendre à ce que les sénateurs dénoncent
des dispositions "révélant l'existence de pressions très graves de
nature à entraver le bon déroulement des débats parlementaires et
favorisant la défense d'intérêts particuliers au détriment de l'intérêt
général" (pour reprendre les mots d'EUCD.info demandant une enquête
parlementaire après l'indignation de Bernard Carayon, dans l'émission
"Complément d'enquêtes" http://eucd.info/262.shtml).

Surtout que les débats avaient débuté le matin du 4 mai par une
intervention de Michel Charasse demandant à ce que l'on "nettoie les
couloirs des lobbyistes de tout poil".

Mais non, pas de scandale par la suite. Une statistique révélatrice :
alors que "Vivendi" a été cité par 30 fois dans l'ensemble des débats à
l'Assemblée nationale, on ne trouve en tout et pour tout que 3
occurrences dans les débats au Sénat (par les sénateurs UDF Catherine
Morin-Desailly et Philippe Nogrix).

Pire, dans les débats concernant la partie civile de l'amendement «
Vivendi » (article 14 quater
http://www.senat.fr/seances/s200605/s20060510/s20060510007.html#R14quater),
le rapporteur pour la commission culturelle, Michel Thiollière (parti
radical) expliquait son soutien à cet amendement après avoir en premier
lieu proposer de le supprimer :

"La commission s'était montrée réservée sur le dispositif adopté par
l'Assemblée nationale, qui instaure une forme de responsabilité civile
des éditeurs et des fournisseurs de logiciels manifestement utilisés
pour des échanges illicites d'oeuvres protégées, et cela nous avait
conduits à adopter un amendement de suppression du présent article.

Au cours des deux semaines qui se sont écoulées, notre réflexion s'est
poursuivie, notamment en liaison avec le Gouvernement et avec les
différentes parties concernées, sur les avantages et les inconvénients
d'un dispositif auquel les représentants de la filière culturelle, et
les artistes notamment, sont très attachés, car ils y voient un moyen
efficace de défense de leurs droits."

Au moins, il ne parle plus de favoriser l'intérêt des auteurs et
artistes culturels mais bien ceux des "représentants de la filière
culturelle".

Le ministre de la culture a été encore plus lapidaire : il s'est déclaré
favorable à l'amendement du rapporteur et défavorable à tous les autres,
sans se donner la peine d'expliquer cet avis.

Mieux vaut-il ne pas prononcer les noms des bénéficiaires de ces mesures
critiquées par l'ensemble du secteur logiciel français ?

(A contrario, les noms des critiques sont bien cités : "Le consortium
Object Web, qui regroupe des entreprises françaises et étrangères - Atos
Origin, Bull, Dassault, France Télécom, Thalès, Red Hat - ainsi que des
acteurs de la recherche - l'Institut national de recherche en
informatique et en automatique, l'INRIA, le Commissariat à l'énergie
atomique, le CEA, le Centre national de la recherche scientifique, le
CNRS", "des représentants de la société Sun Microsystems"...)

Alors peut-être serait-il bon d'enfin expliciter l'acronyme DADVSI pour
souligner combien ceux qui ont le pouvoir de légiférer sur cette loi
sont en train de mettre ce pouvoir au service d'intérêts bien particuliers :

Droits Accordés Directement à Vivendi pour son Soutien Indéfectible

- --
Gérald Sédrati-Dinet
Président de la FFII France et vice-président de la FFII
http://www.ffii.fr/
http://www.ffii.org/

France: New copyright and related right law passed the Senate

Last night the Senate has concluded the debate on the new copyright and related rights law and voted. It passed the Senate. Socialists, greens and communists voted no. UDF abstained. UMP voted for. 292 votes, 164 for and 128 against (some UMP and RDSE dissented).

Article 7 (Interoperability) in its first version protected cpmpetition, innovation (free software) and consumers.

However, last night, the "Vivendi amendment" passed without major modification.

Article 7 has been entirely re-written and provisions regarding competition and free software have been deleted. See new text at:
http://pasunblog.org/article.php3?id_article=32

Regarding regulation and the role of judicial authorities for the choice about technical measures, it looks as if the Vivendi amendment which imposes implementation of TPM by judicial authorities will pass.

Regarding exceptions and limitations, the law appears to create a body that will regulated TPMs. The new regulations authority, maybe known as mediators, is the body one can turn to if there is a concern that the TPM unduly restricts access to the work, but only as it relates to interoperability.

I haven't been able to wade through the other articles to understand how the French will deal (if at all) with other access issues, such as the ability to overcome a TPM to get access to public domain work.

There is some additional regulatory control of TPM that has concerns data protection (privacy) and security.

But look out for amendment 18, additional provisions for article 7, regarding the "Regulatory authority for technical measures" that has replaced the mediators' version and could prohibit the publication of the source code:

« Le titulaire des droits sur la mesure technique ne peut imposer au bénéficiaire de renoncer à la publication du code source et de la documentation technique de son logiciel indépendant et interopérant que s’il apporte la preuve que celle-ci aurait pour effet de porter gravement atteinte à la sécurité et à l’efficacité de ladite mesure technique. »
Espérons que la défense de l’interêt général sera plus consensuelle lors de la prochaine séance...

Roughly translated "The owners of rights on technical measures cannot impose on the beneficiary the prohibition of publication of the source code and the technical documentation of its interoperable and independant software unless he can prove that doing so would be seriously detrimental to the security and efficiency of the technical measure"

Next step: end of May a mixted commission will meet and make a final decision.
http://www.senat.fr/role/fiche/cmp.html

So, there are disagreements between the Assemblee and the Senate and there might be some more debate during the second reading of the text but few reasons to be optimistic.

It is rather confusing to many observers, see:
http://www.ratiatum.com/news3113_Le_Senat_adopte_le_projet_de_loi_DADVSI.html

Some say this is worst than other implementations in Europe (see Ireland, UK, Germany).
--

Has the US been candid about the status of the broadcasters/webcasters treaty?

The USPTO and the Copyright Office have not been candid when talking to Congress about the progress of their efforts relating to the latest WIPO "internet" treaty or the "Proposed treaty on the protection of broadcasting, cablecasting and webcasting organizations".

At the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Twelfth Session (SCCR/12) Nov 17, 2004 to Nov 19, 2004 (Report) the US delegations is quoted by WIPO as stating: "The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the Revised Consolidated Text offered solid ground for a speedy convening of a diplomatic conference on the protection of broadcasting organizations. Promoting the communication of information to the public by all technological means was a goal that benefited both developed and developing countries. Protecting the intellectual property and other legitimate interests of such communicators created a crucial incentive for dissemination of and for providing access to information. It was necessary to take into account the progress of technology and therefore to include webcasting in the scope of protection of the proposed treaty. There was no reason to exclude one category of public communicator by reason of the technological means by which the communication took place".

At the WIPO General Assembly : Thirty-Second (17th ordinary) Session (WO/GA/32) Sep 26, 2005 to Oct 5, 2005, you find:

"9. Given the progress which has been made to conclude a treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations, it is recommended that the WIPO General Assembly approve the convening of a Diplomatic Conference.

10. It is further recommended that the WIPO General Assembly approve the organizational and procedural matters of the WIPO Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations, as described in Annexes II to IV to this document".

The timeline below shows that there's been a lot of work done on the issue of creating these new intellectual property rights for broadcasters, cablecaster and webcasters and that the treaty is moving forward. We have not had one public consultation meeting about the topic unless you count private meetings of the US delegation with Ben Ivens (NAB), Jonathan Potter and Seth Greenstein (DiMA) and a few others. We are asking (again) for a public discussion with stakeholders before a diplomatic conference date is set and the scope of the text is quasi impossible to change. Waiting for the implementation period as some have suggested is a mistake as we all saw when the DMCA was done as an implementation of the WCT and WPPT.


Broadcasting, Cablecasting and Webcasting Treaty Timeline

WIPO Symposium on copyright, broadcasting and new technologies for countries of Latin America and the Caribbean Cancun Mexico Feb 1998

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : First Session (SCCR/1)
Nov 2, 1998 to Nov 10, 1998
Audio visual performances
protection of databases
protection of the rights of broadcasting organizations

Regional roundtable on WBT Minsk Belarus April 1999
Regional roundtable on WBT Vilnius Lithuania April 1999

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Second Session (SCCR/2)
May 4, 1999 to May 11, 1999
Agenda item 4: PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATIONS SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBER STATES OF WIPO (Japan) AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY BY MARCH 31, 1999

Regional roundtable on WBT Asia and Pacific Manila Philippines June-July 1999
Regional roundtable on WBT Arab countries Rabat, Morocco June 1999
Regionla roundtable on WBT for African countries Cotonou, Benin June 1999
Regional roundtable on WBT for latin American and Caribbean countries Buenos Aires, Argentina June 1999

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Third Session (SCCR/3)
Nov 16, 1999 to Nov 20, 1999
AGENDA ITEM 4: PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF BROADCASTING ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL BY ARGENTINA

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Fourth Session (SCCR/4)
Apr 11, 2000 to Apr 14, 2000
4. Protection of Audiovisual Performances

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Fifth Session (SCCR/5)
May 7, 2001 to May 11, 2001
Protection of Databases
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations
-Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal by the Delegation of Kyrgyzstan)
-Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal by the Delegation of Sudan)
-Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal by the Delegation of Japan)
-Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations: Comparative Table of Proposals Received by April 30, 2001

Regional Seminar for countries of Asia and the Pacific Manila Philippines Oct 2001

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Sixth Session (SCCR/6)
Nov 26, 2001 to Nov 30, 2001
Protection of Databases
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations
-Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (submitted by the European Community and its Member States)
-Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (proposal by Ukraine)

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Seventh Session (SCCR/7)
May 13, 2002 to May 17, 2002
Database protection
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations
-Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal by the Eastern Republic of Uruguay)
-Protection of the Righs of Broadcasting Organizations - Comparative Table of Proposals Received by May 6, 2002

Information days and Meeting of the CISAC African Committee Rabat Morocco October 2002
Information meeting Geneva Switzerland November 2002

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Eighth Session (SCCR/8)
Nov 4, 2002 to Nov 8, 2002
Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: Terms and Concepts
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by September 16, 2002
NOTE: Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal submitted by the United States of America) including webcasting

Information meeting Geneva Switzerland June 2003

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Ninth Session (SCCR/9)
Jun 23, 2003 to Jun 27, 2003
Proposal on the Legal Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Kenya)
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Revised Proposal submitted by the United States of America)
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by April 15, 2003
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Egypt)
Issues Concerning "Webcaster" in New WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty (Submitted by Japan)
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal Submitted by Canada)

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Tenth Session (SCCR/10)
Nov 3, 2003 to Nov 5, 2003
Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by September 15, 2003

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Eleventh Session (SCCR/11)
Jun 7, 2004 to Jun 9, 2004
Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations and Cablecasting Organizations (submitted by Singapore)
Consolidated Text for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
NOTE: At its eleventh session in June 2004, after an assessment of the progress made in the discussions on the substantive issues, the SCCR recommended that the WIPO General Assembly “… consider, beginning at its September/October session in 2004, the possibility of convening, at an appropriate time, a diplomatic conference on the protection of broadcasting organizations.

General Assembly 2004:
NOTE In its thirty-first session, which took place from September 27 to October 5, 2004, the WIPO General Assembly was invited to consider approving the convening of a Diplomatic Conference “at an appropriate time.” While many delegations supported the convening of a Conference, it was suggested that the question should be carried over to the agenda of the 2005 session of the WIPO General Assembly, with the following conclusion (WO/GA/31/15, paragraph 56):

“The General Assembly noted the contents of document WO/GA/31/7 and requested the SCCR to accelerate its work on the protection of broadcasting organizations with a view to approving the convening of a diplomatic conference by the WIPO General Assembly in 2005.”


Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Twelfth Session (SCCR/12)
Nov 17, 2004 to Nov 19, 2004
Revised Consolidated Text for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
Second Revised Consolidated Text for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
Working Paper on Alternative and Non-Mandatory Solutions on the Protection in Relation to Webcasting
QUOTE from REPORT:
1. The Delegation of the United States of America stated that the Revised Consolidated Text offered solid ground for a speedy convening of a diplomatic conference on the protection of broadcasting organizations. Promoting the communication of information to the public by all technological means was a goal that benefited both developed and developing countries. Protecting the intellectual property and other legitimate interests of such communicators created a crucial incentive for dissemination of and for providing access to information. It was necessary to take into account the progress of technology and therefore to include webcasting in the scope of protection of the proposed treaty. There was no reason to exclude one category of public communicator by reason of the technological means by which the communication took place.


Regional Consultations for Caucasian, Central Asian and Eastern Countries Moscow, Russian Federation May 2005
Regional Consultations for African countries Nairobi Kenya may 2005
Regional Consultations for Arab Countries Rabat, Morocco May 2005
Regional Consultations for Latin America and the Caribbean Cartagena, Colombia July 2005
Regional Consultation for the Central European and Baltic States Bucharest Romani July 2005
Regional Consulation for the Asia Pacific countries Manila Philippines July 2005
Unofficial Meeting of Group B (US, EU etc) Brussels, Belgium September 2006

WIPO General Assembly : Thirty-Second (17th ordinary) Session (WO/GA/32) Sep 26, 2005 to Oct 5, 2005
WIPO GENERAL ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second (17th Ordinary) Session
Geneva, September 26 to October 5, 2005

9. Given the progress which has been made to conclude a treaty on the protection of broadcasting organizations, it is recommended that the WIPO General Assembly approve the convening of a Diplomatic Conference.

10. It is further recommended that the WIPO General Assembly approve the organizational and procedural matters of the WIPO Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations, as described in Annexes II to IV to this document.


Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Thirteenth Session (SCCR/13) Nov 21, 2005 to Nov 23, 2005
Proposal by Brazil on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
Proposal by Chile Concerning the Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
QUOTE from Report:
The United Stated had consistently argued that intellectual property rights should be extended to all of the distributors that operate in the digital world. It was absolutely essential to address the issue of webcasting, as it was the way broadcasting would be done in the future.

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Fourteenth Session (SCCR/14) May 1, 2006 to May 5, 2006
Draft Basic Proposal for the WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations Including Non-Mandatory Appendix on the Protection in Relation to Webcasting
Working Paper for the Preparation of the Basic Proposal for a Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations
Proposal by Colombia Concerning Article 16 of the Consolidated Text for the Draft Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations


NEXT STEPS?

Deadline for new draft proposal for WBT August 1, 2006

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights : Fifteenth Session (SCCR/15) September 2006 (TBA)

General Assembly Fall 2006
Decision on diplomatic conference in 2007

SCCR meeting on webcasting and simulcasting ?

Diplomatic conference IN 2007?

Fixing one orphan work problem and creating a new one

Matt Skelton (US Copyright Office) at a conference in DC on Friday describing the process for their work on orphan works that resulted in a "Report on Orphan works" with recommended statutory language (see http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/):

"There was a request by Hatch and Leahy last year... and then more support from Congress. Then, in January, a notice of inquiry and public comments and then reply comments. 720 initial comments and 140 reply comments. And then we had several roundtables in Washington DC... and in California with 43 participants. ... in Berkeley 21 participants. And then we had informal meetings...about 17 meetings with 24 organizations. And now the January report.."

Everyone is pretty happy the Copyright office is trying to solve the orphan works problem (you know how frustrating it is when you want to get permission to use a work but you cannot find the owner...who might be dead or just not responsive). Almost everyone, some trade associations, like media photographers, do not think it is in the interest of their members who'd rather not compete with "whatever" is available on the internet (sometimes even for free!).

But it looks as if the Copyright Office is quite satisfied about their proposed solution and recommendations: orphan works problem is real, it is elusive to quantify and describe, some situations may be adressed by existing law but many are not...so, new legislation is necessary (specific language is in the report). To summarize, they recommend a reasonnable treshold requirements for diligent search (before use) and limitation of remedies if the user can prove he conducted a reasonnable search.

One can only wish that 1 ) they would follow the same process of various public consultations regarding their work on creating new rights for webcasters (see WIPO proposed treaty that would include webcasting) and that 2) they address (before it's too late?)...the orphan works problems that will certainly come up with creating a new layer of rights on the internet. It would not make sense to fix the orphan (copyright) work problem while creating a new orphan (webcast) work problem at the same time. Unless some people are just enjoying the process?

It's not just about music

While many observers are focusing on music download related issue for the DAVSI or the new copyright and related rights in France, it is worth noting (thanks to Herve le Crosnier's post on French list "Escape") the position taken by universities and libraries on the lack of exception for educational purposes. The association of university presidents (CPU) and the association of university librarians (ABDU) are circulating a sign-on letter (see below in French) where they express their surprise that:

- France is one of the few European member states that does not include an exception for education in the implementation of the Directive;

- Legislators and the education minister have agreed that educational institutions should pay for use while they already contribute to the right owners by almost 3 millions of euros for copies of protected works; in addition, the libraries also have to pay lending rights.

The two associations are concerned that this new legislation will end up increasing the existing domination of works in English (representing the bulk of what is available online).

And they ask: does the Culture Minister responsible for this new law wish that our only reference be google and our only available resources in English?

The list of signatories is impressive. see below.

http://www.cpu.fr/ActU/Actu.asp?Id=1081&Inst=CPU
Motion relative à l'exception pédagogique
Motion CPU / ADBU

NON au paiement de droits d'auteurs sur les documents numériques ; OUI à "l'exception pédagogique" garantissant l'exonération des droits d'auteurs en faveur des activités d'enseignement et de recherche, et des bibliothèques.

La Conférence des présidents d'université (CPU) et l'Association des directeurs et des personnels de direction des bibliothèques universitaires et de la documentation (ADBU) regrettent que les débats concernant le projet de loi sur le droit d'auteur et les droits voisins dans la société de l'information se soient essentiellement focalisés sur les questions de téléchargement.

La CPU et l'ABDU rappellent que la directive européenne de 2001 sur les droits d'auteur, que cette loi transpose, prévoit "l'exception pédagogique" permettant d'exonérer de droits d'auteur les oeuvres numériques utilisées dans le cadre des activités d'enseignement et de recherche, et des bibliothèques.

La CPU et l'ABDU s'étonnent donc :

- que la France soit l'un des rares pays européens à ne pas avoir retenu dans son projet de loi une telle exception ;

- que le législateur et le Ministère de l'éducation nationale aient accepté de faire contribuer les établissements d'enseignement, au premier rang desquels les universités et les bibliothèques, au paiement du droit d'auteur pour l'ensemble des utilisations qu'ils peuvent faire d'oeuvres de l'esprit alors que les universités contribuent déjà à la défense du droit d'auteur en versant, près de 3 millions d'euros pour la photocopie d'oeuvres protégées (la fameuse lutte contre le "photocopillage") ; les bibliothèques quant à elles doivent déjà faire face au paiement de droits de prêt diminuant fortement leur pouvoir d'achat.

La CPU et l'ADBU dénoncent une législation qui risque d'aboutir à une domination accrue de la littérature de langue anglaise déjà majoritaire parmi les ressources d'information disponibles en ligne. Le Ministère de la culture, responsable de cette loi, souhaite-t-il que notre seule référence soit Google et que nos seules sources soient les données anglo-saxonnes ?

En conséquence, la CPU et l'ABDU demandent au Ministère de la culture de proposer au Parlement d'accepter l'exonération prévue par la directive, comme l'ont déjà fait nos pays voisins et en appellent au Parlement qui, doit à l'instar des parlements des pays européens, permettre aux universités et aux bibliothèques d'assurer leur mission et de garantir l'accès à la culture française.
24/02/2006

Liens en relation avec le sujet :
Les signataires
Aix Marseille 1 - Provence, Paul TORDO
Aix Marseille 2 - Méditerranée, Yvon BERLAND
Aix Marseille 3 - Paul Cézanne, Philippe TCHAMITCHIAN
Amiens - Picardie Jules Verne, Gilles DEMAILLY
Angers, Alain BARREAU
Antilles - Guyane, Alain ARCONTE
Arras - Artois, Jacques SYS
Avignon et Pays du Vaucluse, Michel VOLLE
Belfort - Montbéliard, Pascal FOURNIER
Besançon - Franche-Comté, Claude CONDE
Bordeaux 1 - Sciences et Technologies, Alain BOUDOU
Bordeaux 2 - Victor Segalen, Bernard BEGAUD
Bordeaux 3 - Michel de Montaigne, SINGARAVELOU
Bordeaux 4 - Montesquieu, Jean-Pierre LABORDE
Brest - Bretagne Occidentale, Jean-Claude BODÉRÉ
Bretagne-Sud - Lorient - Vannes, Eric MARTIN
Caen - Basse-Normandie, Nicole LE QUERLER
Cergy-Pontoise, Thierry COULHON
Chambéry - Savoie, Claude JAMEUX
Clermont-Ferrand 1 - Auvergne, Annie VEYRE
Clermont-Ferrand 2 - Blaise Pascal, Albert ODOUARD
CNAM, Laurence PAYE-JEANNENEY
Compiègne, Ronan STEPHAN
Corse - Pascal Paoli, Antoine AÏELLO
Dijon - Bourgogne, Jean-Claude FORTIER
Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Danièle HERVIEU-LÉGER
Ecole Normale Supérieure, Monique CANTO SPERBER
Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan, Claire DUPAS
Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Olivier FARON
Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon, Philippe GILLET
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Marie-Françoise COUREL
Evry - Val d'Essonne, Daniel ANDRÉ
Grenoble 1 - Joseph Fourier, Yannick VALLEE
Grenoble 2 - Pierre Mendes France, Claude COURLET
Grenoble 3 - Stendhal, Patrick CHEZAUD
INSA Rouen, Roger GOGLU
INSA Toulouse, Louis CASTEX
Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, Richard DESCOINGS
Institut de Physique du Globe, Vincent COURTILLOT
INALCO, Jacques LEGRAND
Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Paul JACQUET
Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Louis SCHUFFENECKER
Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, Gilbert CASAMATTA
La Réunion, Serge SVIZZERO
La Rochelle, Michel POUYLLAU
Le Havre, Camille GALAP
Le Mans - Maine, Maurice HENRY
Lille 1 - Sciences et Technologies de Lille, Hervé BAUSSART
Lille 2 - Droit et Santé, Christian SERGHERAERT
Lille 3 - Charles de Gaulle, Jean-Claude DUPAS
Limoges, Jacques FONTANILLE
Littoral - Côte d'Opale, Edward ANTHONY
Lyon 1 - Claude Bernard, Domitien DEBOUZIE
Lyon 2 - Lumière, Gilbert PUECH
Lyon 3 - Jean Moulin, Guy LAVOREL
Marne-la-Vallée, Yves LICHTENBERGER
Metz – Paul Verlaine, Richard LIOGER
Montpellier 1, Dominique DEVILLE de PERIERE
Montpellier 2, Jacques BONNAFÉ
Montpellier 3 - Paul Valéry, Jean-Marie MIOSSEC
Mulhouse - Haute Alsace, Guy SCHULTZ
Nancy 1 - Henri Poincaré, Jean-Pierre FINANCE
Nancy 2, Herbert NERY
Nantes, François RESCHE
Nice Sophia Antipolis, Albert MAROUANI
Nouvelle Calédonie, Alain FAGES
Observatoire de Paris, Daniel EGRET
Orléans, Gérald GUILLAUMET
Paris 1 - Panthéon Sorbonne, Pierre-Yves HÉNIN
Paris 2 - Panthéon Assas, Jacqueline DUTHEIL de la ROCHÈRE
Paris 3 - Sorbonne Nouvelle, Bernard BOSREDON
Paris 4 - Paris Sorbonne, Jean-Robert PITTE
Paris 5 - René Descartes, Jean-François DHAINAUT
Paris 6 - Pierre et Marie Curie, Gilbert BÉRÉZIAT
Paris 7 - Denis Diderot, Benoît EURIN
Paris 8 - Vincennes Saint-Denis, Pierre LUNEL
Paris 9 - Dauphine, Bernard de MONTMORILLON
Paris 10 - Nanterre, Olivier AUDEOUD
Paris 11 - Paris-Sud, Anita BERSELLINI
Paris 12 - Val-de-Marne, Simone BONNAFOUS
Paris 13 - Paris-Nord, Alain NEUMAN
Pau et Pays de l'Adour, Jean-Michel UHALDEBORDE
Perpignan, François FÉRAL
Poitiers, Jean-Pierre GESSON
Polynésie française, Louise PELTZER
Reims, Champagne, Ardenne, Gérard MARY
Rennes 1, Bertrand FORTIN
Rennes 2 - Haute Bretagne, Marc GONTARD
Rouen, Jean-Luc NAHEL
Saint Etienne - Jean Monnet, Robert FOUQUET
Strasbourg 1 - Louis Pasteur, Bernard CARRIÈRE
Strasbourg 2 - Marc Bloch, François-Xavier CUCHE
Strasbourg 3 - Robert Schuman, Florence BENOÎT-ROHMER
Toulon - Var, Bruno RAVAZ
Toulouse 1 - Sciences Sociales, Henry ROUSSILLON
Toulouse 3 - Paul Sabatier, Jean-François SAUTEREAU
Tours - François Rabelais, Michel LUSSAULT
Troyes, Christian LERMINIAUX
Valenciennes et Hainaut Cambresis, Marie-Pierre MAIRESSE
Versailles - Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, Sylvie FAUCHEUX

Marie-Dominique HEUSSE, présidente de l'ADBU.

Spreading broadband....

Today, I'm taking a little break from copyright and related rights but not from access work, so I just went to an interesting meeting at The Center for American Progress & Free Press.

Since high speed internet is truly becoming a basic public utility, like water, gas or electricity, it is clear that consumers and businesses have the same interest in getting broadband coverage at an affordable price. Of course not all businesses are in favor... not the broadband businesses that are trying to bar municipalities from providing wireless to their citizens. They have been trying to outlaw the practice in 13 states but have been defeated in 12 so far.

This morning, Mayor William H. Graham told the story from the point of view of the "not-techie" mayor of a small town in Indiana called Scottsburg. About 6,000 people that before he made broadband a reality, were unemployed (25% at the time) or about to become unemployed. Trying to get his citizens up to high speed, he was told he would have to spend about $6 million to get broadband! No way. So, the town spent $385,000 to bring wifi and is now providing it to 3 counties. Unemployement has fallen to 4.5% and businesses are staying in his town. But he knows he has to defeat bad legislations pushed by broadband providers again and again.

Clearly our federal government must protect us from the cable and telephone monopolies that would destroy innovative projects like Wireless Philadelphia and other cities and there are some good bills pending I heard. Municipalities must be free to decide for themselves which technologies best serve their citizens. And not just in the US, think about possiblities, real possibilities, to bridge the digital divide and provide access to the internet in countries where bringing miles of wires is not a remote possibility.

And how to build your own networking system in any municipality, company or neighborhood at:
http://www.communityinternet.us/
Freepress makes it look easy!

More on politics of wifi in the US:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.podesta.html

Program of the event and bios of speakers (all excellent).

Get in touch with Frannie Wellings for more info.

Frannie Wellings
Program Manager
Free Press
(202) 265-1490 x 21
http://www.freepress.net



Let There Be Wi-Fi: Community Broadband and the Future of the Internet
Jim Baller, Founder, Baller Herbst Law Group
Mayor William H. Graham, Scottsburg, Indiana
Greg Richardson, Founder and Managing Partner, Civitium LLC

Moderated by:

Ben Scott, Policy Director, Free Press
Introduction by:
Mark Lloyd, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

Most people know “broadband” as an alternative to their old, slow dial-up Internet connection. But in terms of powering economies, broadband could be the 21st century equivalent of electricity. Broadband is about much more than checking your e-mail or browsing on eBay. In the near future, telephone, television, radio and the Web all will be delivered to your home via a single broadband connection. In the not-so-distant future, broadband will be an indispensable part of economic, personal, and public life. The countries that achieve universal broadband are going to hold significant advantages over those that don't. And so far, the United States is poised to be a follower—not a leader—in the broadband economy.

Despite fierce opposition from telecom companies and their political allies, some municipalities are finding ways to provide broadband to their residents. Community Internet projects are already up and running in dozens of small towns like Scottsburg, Indiana, and are coming soon to bigger cities like Philadelphia, Portland, and Minneapolis. These cities recognize broadband as perhaps the single most important factor in transforming their local economies and the lives of average citizens. Community Internet could revolutionize and democratize communications in this country. But the major obstacle to universal, affordable broadband access for all Americans is not economic or technical. It's political.

Please join us for a discussion on the importance of a universal, affordable broadband access for bridging the digital divide and helping to drive American economic competitiveness in the 21st century.

Friday, February 10, 2006
Program: 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM

Center for American Progress
1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Map and Directions

Biographies:

Jim Baller is the founder of the Baller Herbst Law Group, a national law firm based in Washington and Minneapolis. He is a leading expert on Community Internet, representing local governments and public power utilities in matters involving telecommunications, Internet access, and barriers to the public-sector entry into communications. His clients include the American Public Power Association (APPA), the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), regional and state utility associations and municipal leagues, and numerous individual local governments and public power utilities in more than 35 states. Mr. Baller is a frequent speaker and author on communications matters and a graduate of Dartmouth College and Cornell Law School.

William H. Graham has been Mayor of the City of Scottsburg since 1988. When he took office, the city had one of the highest unemployment rates in the state and was on the decline. He has been instrumental in attracting new businesses and keeping old ones, in large part due to his aggressive communications planning. When the telecommunications and cable companies of the state were unwilling to offer broadband to his residents, Mayor Graham started a city broadband utility. He managed to retain the employers who threatened to leave if they were forced to stick with dial-up Internet access, and with them, increased the jobs and commerce of his city.

Greg Richardson is the Founder and Managing Partner for Civitium LLC. Civitium is the market-leading management and technology consulting firm for municipal governments and institutions that are applying wireless technology as the foundation for Digital Communities. Civitium serves as the lead advisor for many of the most high-profile Digital Community initiatives in the world, including Philadelphia, San Francisco and Houston. Prior to founding Civitium, he served as the Director of Wireless Consulting for Siemens in the United States.

Ben Scott is Policy Director of Free Press. He heads up the Washington, D.C. office, dedicated to monitoring and analyzing media policymaking to increase public awareness and participation. Before joining Free Press, he worked as a legislative fellow handling telecommunications policy for Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is also in the final stages of his doctoral degree in communications from the University of Illinois. He is the author of several scholarly articles on American journalism history and the politics of media regulation as well as co-editor of two books, Our Unfree Press (The New Press, 2004) and The Future of Media (Seven Stories, 2005).

Mark Lloyd is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress focusing on communications policy issues, including universal service, advanced telecommunications deployment, media concentration and diversity. From the fall of 2002 until the summer of 2004, Mr. Lloyd was a Martin Luther King, Jr. Visiting Scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught communications policy and wrote and conducted research on the relationship between communications policy and strong democratic communities. He also served as the Executive Director of the Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan project he co-founded in 1997 to bring civil rights principles and advocacy to the communications policy debate. He also has nearly 20 years of experience as a print and broadcast journalist, including work as a reporter and producer at NBC and CNN, and is the recipient of several awards including an Emmy and a Cine Golden Eagle. He has served on the boards of directors of dozens of national and local organizations, including the Independent Television Service, OMB Watch, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. He has also served as a consultant to the Clinton White House, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Institute and the Smithsonian Institution. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and his law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center.

---

The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies reflect these values. We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Free Press is a national organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates. The ultimate aim of Free Press is to generate a range of policies that will produce a more competitive and democratic media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector. For more information on the promise of Community Internet, please visit www.freepress.net/communityinternet .

Open Access and New Models of Creative production, plug for books and policies

I just came back from a two-day symposium at MIT on "The Economics of Open Content" Jan 23-24, 2006. Organized by Peter Kaufman of Intelligent Television, the meeting featured about 40 great speakers from commercial media industries (publishing, film, music, television, video, software, education materials, gaming) together with representatives from prestigious academic institutions.

For me, there was two main focus: open access and new models of creative production. A lot of discussions turned on how to actually fund open access... and about whether that was even an important issue for the people at the symposium. And then, you also had someone like Yochai Benkler who did a great presentation of what he analyses in his upcoming book (under CC and accessible to us all soon) "The Wealth of Networks: how Social prodution transforms Markets and Freedom". For his keynote on day 2, open access and new models of production was presented not as an issue of economics nor a "copyright problem" but as an existing social practice transforming not only business models but how free we can be!

It was not a "policy wonk" crowd but all these people are serioulsy studying how to make open access to knowledge happen faster and better. And many among them are "practitioners" as demonstrated by the MIT Courseware (all PDF sadly they're not using ODF!) and the work done at the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (great works if you get the university password).

See Program and speakers at http://www.intellingenttelevision.com/research.htm

Other interesting authors who spoke at the meeting and who have new books out:

Eric von Hippel who wrote Democratizing Innovation (available at http://mitpress.mit.edu/democratizing_innovation_PDF

James Surowiecki, staff writer for The New Yorker, auhtor of: The Wisdom of Crowds

John Willinsky: The Access Principle, The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship (MIT Press)

And a good announcement: The MIT Press Journal Information Technologies and International Development (ITID) is in transition toward going open access.

And now, some "optimal national open access policy from India":
From: "Teresa Hackett (eIFL)"
Date: January 25, 2006 10:21:45 AM EST
To: "A2K (E-mail)"
Subject: [A2k] Optimal National OA Policy-suggestions from India

************************

The special session on Open Access held at the 93rd Indian Science
Congress at MANAGE, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, on 6 January 2006, came up with the following recommendation for "Optimal National Open Access Policy".

The Government of India [including DST, DSIR, CSIR, DBT, DoD, DAE, DRDO, ICAR, ICMR, UGC, IITs, IISc, and NITs] expects authors of research papers resulting from publicly-funded research to maximise the opportunities to make their results available for free. To this end the Government:

. Requires electronic copies of any research paper that has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and is supported in whole or in part by Government funding, to be deposited into an institutional open access repository immediately upon acceptance for publication.

. Encourages Government Grant Holders to publish in a suitable Open Access Journal where one exists; the Government will cover the publication costs, if any.

. Encourages Government Grant Holders to retain ownership of the copyright of published papers where possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Subbiah Arunachalam
Distinguished Fellow, MSSRF &
Coordinator of the session


FAQs

What are the benefits to researchers of Open Access?

As authors, researchers benefit because their research papers are given a much wider dissemination and can be read without restriction by anyone with Internet access. This increases the impact of their research. Indeed, evidence is accumulating to show that open access articles are cited 25-250% more than non-open access articles from the same journal and year[1]. As readers, researchers benefit because they will increasingly be able to search the full text of all the research published in their area, not just the research available to them via the subscriptions their institution can afford.

What are the benefits to [country]?

First, [country's] research will be more accessible to global researchers, hence better known and more widely used and cited. The prestige of high-profile [country] researchers will increase; even lesser-known researchers will gain more exposure and impact. Second, all [country] research will be open to [country] entrepreneurs and the general public, provided only that they have Internet access. This will be beneficial both commercially and culturally. Third, access, usage and citation data on this research will increasingly become available, shaping national and researcher policies.

What should be deposited when I have a paper ready for publication? The final manuscript of an author's research paper should be deposited. This is the author's own final draft, as accepted for journal publication, including all modifications resulting from the peer-review process. (In some cases publishers may permit their own published version, either in SGML/XML or PDF, to be deposited; this too is
welcome, but is not a requirement.

When should papers be deposited?

An electronic version of the author's final manuscript resulting from research supported, in whole or in part, by Government funding must be submitted upon acceptance for publication.

Will authors still be able to publish in a journal of their choice?

Authors will still decide in which journal they choose to publish their research papers. They will, however, have to ensure that a copy of the final, peer-reviewed paper is deposited in their institutional repository upon acceptance for publication.

How can I find out whether my journal has an open access-compliant policy with regard to depositing my manuscript in my institutional repository?

You should consult the individual journal's policy which is given at:
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php or at http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers.html

So what should authors do?

In advance of making any agreement with or commitment to a publisher at any stage, authors must ensure that the agreement or commitment does not conflict with the author's obligations under the Government's Grant Conditions. Specifically, authors should inform the journal that they have an existing obligation to deposit in an open access repository and check whether the publisher's policy is in conflict with this obligation. The Government's Grant Conditions are mandatory and binding on institutions, grant holders, and all others supported by a grant. An author's obligations to the Government will therefore, except during a brief transitional period, pre-date any agreement with a journal.

What is an open access journal?

An open access journal makes articles it publishes freely accessible online[2]. Some open access journals also cover their costs by charging the author's institution or funder for publication. The Government will cover such open access publication costs where needed.

What kind of papers should I submit?

The policy applies to peer-reviewed, original (primary) research publications and reviews that have been supported, in whole or in part, by Government funding. The policy does not apply to book chapters, editorials, or book reviews.

Do I need to deposit my paper if the journal publishing my research already provides immediate open access to my articles?

Deposit is not required but is still recommended even if a manuscript has been accepted by an open access journal. Your institution will still wish to have your work deposited in its repository to enable it to maintain a compete record of institutional research output.


[1] Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Gingras, Y. (2005)
Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and
How it Increases Research Citation Impact (pdf 8pp)
IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 4, December 2005
also Author eprint, 16 December 2005 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11688/

[2] Directory of Open Access Journals www.doaj.org

_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

S. 2104 mandates open access for publicly funded research paper, this could be great news!

Thanks to John T. Mitchell (Interaction Law) for pointing to this recently proposed bill. This is big. It mandates open access!

According to the Bill, final manuscript resulting from publicly funded research should be made publicly available on the Internet through PubMed Central not later than 6 months after the date of publication of the manuscript. Failure to submit to the National Library of Medicine within 6 months may result in the loss of public funding for the investigators involved.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:23:./temp/~bddrq0:@@@P

S.2104
Title: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish the American Center for Cures to accelerate the development of public and private research efforts towards tools and therapies for human diseases with the goal of early disease detection, prevention, and cure, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] (introduced 12/14/2005) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 12/14/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL
Sen Carper, Thomas R. [DE] - 12/14/2005
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 12/14/2005
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 12/14/2005

“SEC. 499H-1. PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENT FOR RESEARCH.

“(a) In General.—The Secretary shall require all funded investigators, whether direct employees of the Department of Health and Human Services or recipients of grants, contracts, or other support of the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to submit to the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health (referred to in this section as the ‘National Library of Medicine’), upon acceptance for publication in a journal or other publication included in the PubMed directory, final manuscripts resulting from research in which direct costs are supported in whole or in part by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

“(b) Public Availability.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The National Library of Medicine shall include all such manuscripts described in subsection (a), after peer review, for display in the National Library of Medicine’s digital library archive, PubMed Central. The copyright holder of a manuscript described in subsection (a) may request the author’s manuscript be replaced with final published text.

“(2) TIMELINE.—A manuscript described in subsection (a) shall become publicly available on the Internet through PubMed Central not later than 6 months after the date of publication of the manuscript.

“(3) LOSS OF FUNDING FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT ON TIME.—Failure to submit required information under this section to the National Library of Medicine within 6 months of the date of publication of the manuscript involved shall be considered by the Secretary in the context of grant compliance review and may result in the loss of public funding for the investigators involved as determined appropriate by the agency involved.

More on Open Access on Peter Suber's site:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_12_04_fosblogarchive.html

Copyright: What's going on in France now?

Philippe Aigrain and Bloomberg article on the copyright debate in France

The debate on the copyright and related rights law in France were interrupted late last night and left many of us confused. We know the negotiations will resume on January 17, 2006.

Philippe Aigrain ( philippe.aigrain@wanadoo.fr) who has been involved in the debate explained a few things in an email. This is a quick translation of his main points (and I apologize to Philippe whose English is better than mine) summarizing his take on what has just happened in France.

For Philippe Aigrain, the results are mixed and there are some "partial and fragile victories" for people who have been supporting legal licensing with remuneration for downloading. The Minister of culture and the recording studio lobbyists will sure come back to the vote in January but he sees some progress.

The opposition between free versus remuneration has moved to a debate about ways to finance cultural productions compatible with individual choice and media diversity. Moreover, there's now an awareness that going for more and more detailed control can lead to the loss of fundamental freedoms. For Philippe, some clarification are still badly needed. There's a vagueness in the proposals for global licenses and the fact that it is presented as "optional" could be a mistake. However, there is some support for a license based on payments of all subscribers. One of the biggest advantage of this would be that control and surveillance would be not be necessary. It will also be consistent with levies on copies and blank tapes for example.

Some of the amendments related to a global license have not been discussed yet and hopefully there will be clarification. In particular, the question of how the money would be distributed to authors and creators by a collective society and how to deal with authors and creators who have chosen to freely distribute their works (see amendemnt 200 by the PS).

Another important amendment (134 PC=136 UMP=144 UDF, supported by the PS and modified in re of encrypted televisions) was adopted. It limits the definition of technological measures that can be legally protected against circumvention. Excluded from the definition are formats, protocols, algorithms and cryptology methods as such. This amendment protect free software and research but it must be completed by a vote on amendment 93 stating that circumvention cannot be prohibited when the purpose is a legal use or allowed by contract.

On the negative side, the rejection of exceptions for research and education, for libraries and archives as well as the rejection of the clarification regarding the right to quote (including audio visual works) reminds us that France is conservative regarding these activities. Some work is still needed to convince negotiators that this is really about creation of knowledge for the future and the concrete exercise of democratic debate.

Finally, Philippe Aigrain explains what he sees as lessons learned when comparing the debate about the text of the legislation and the fight against software patents. It is possible to succeed while leading a thematic fight on a question that goes across political parties whether nationally or at the European level. Actually, there's been important and mutual influences between European and national movements. Civil society players have developed synergies between their European and antional activities. However, these campaigns against powerful lobbyists and regarding texts intentionnally technical and complex are exhausting and difficult to repeat. It is necessary to have a clarification of the underlying political debate to have a better influence at the top. The fragile success always rest on such clarification in limited areas but to generalize and to give it a concrete weight remains hard work.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aVSbCR7TCDvc&refer=europe

French Parliament Votes to Allow Web File Sharing (Update2)

Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The French Parliament voted last night to allow free sharing of music and movies on the Internet, setting up a conflict with the government and media companies.

If the amendment survives, France would be the first country to legalize so called peer-to-peer downloading, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal counsel to the Association of Audionautes, a French group that defends people accused of improperly sharing music files.

The law would be a blow to media companies that are suing people for downloading or sharing music and movie files. Companies such as Walt Disney Co., Viacom Inc. and News Corp.'s Fox say free downloading of unauthorized copies of TV shows and movies before they are released on DVD will cost them $5 billion in revenue this year.

``The deputies used this vote to show their independence from the government, but they don't know what they are doing,'' Nicolas Seydoux, chief executive of French cinema company Gaumont SA, said in an interview on France Inter radio. ``We are not trying to ban anything, just to make sure the work of others isn't stolen.''

The amendment was approved 30 to 28 at close to midnight yesterday. While there are 577 members of the lower house, few were present for the vote. French Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres has asked that parliament debate on the amendment again today, Agence France Presse reported.

Media Crackdown

Legal music downloading sites such as Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes have French-language sites, as do major music companies such as Vivendi Universal SA. Last night's amendment would allow someone having bought a song from one of those sites to share it with family or friends.

Media companies have cracked down on such illegal downloads. Grokster Ltd. last month shut down its online file- sharing service and will pay $50 million to settle a lawsuit by music and film studios accusing the company of helping people pirate copyrighted songs and movies.

The entertainment industry has fought free movie and music file sharing for more than five years, saying it loses billions of dollars annually. Napster Inc., which closed in the wake of an industry lawsuit in 2000, now operates as a paid service and gives some user fees to music and film companies and artists.

Upper House

The French vote needs to go through more steps to become law. It can be overturned if it is debated again and voted down in the lower house. It also needs a vote from the upper house, or the Senate.

The amendment, which is attached to a bill on intellectual property rights, states that ``authors cannot forbid the reproduction of works that are made on any format from an online communications service when they are intended to be used privately'' and not for commercial use.

Parliament is debating a bill that would transpose a 2001 European Union directive on intellectual rights into French law. The government had introduced articles into the bill that would make file-sharing akin to counterfeiting, punishable by prison sentences of up to three years and fines of up to 300,000 euros ($355,000).

`At Risk'

``The vote puts the livelihoods of people in the music and film industry at risk,'' Gaumont's Seydoux said.

Consumer groups such as UFC-Que Choisir had protested the government's proposed bill.

Soufron of Audionautes said any system that allowed unlimited downloading could be accompanied by a system similar to the royalty tax that exists for blank compact disks and DVDs.

Music companies ``are not looking for a new model, they want total control,'' Soufron said.

Under the amendment, Internet service providers would pay part of their revenue to Sacem, a group that has handled artists' royalties since 1851, Soufron said. Details of the payments are not in the amendment. The group redistributed 578 million euros to musicians last year.

It's getting pretty chilly in France

As my colleague Gwen Hinze (EFF) puts it "Evil afoot in France"! really, it's worth looking at the intense debate on where copyright law is taking le Droit d'auteur.

The copyright and related rights in the information society bill (DADVSI) (n°1206) which the French government has been debating for 2 days (rushing through it by using an emergency procedure) goes much further than the EU Directive. Of course, it legalizes technical devices installed by CD and DVD publishers and imposes criminal penalty against people who attempt to remove the TPMs. It could make it illegal to create a compilation of music files, to transfer the files, to lend a CD, to read a CD with a free software or to make a copy of it for private use.

We're talking about 3-year jail sentence and a fine of 300 000 Eurosf for acts such as converting to MP3 format a protected file, publishing technical information, designing distributing software that would allow access even if the main purpose is not to bypass protection (which is not the case in the EU Copyright directive) etc.

Of course, here we have the DMCA and it's been chilly too. But I think it could be worse in France where limitations and exceptions are...extremely limited. So far it seems that the only exceptions addresses the obstacles face by the disabled users (while the EU Directive allowed exceptions for research, education etc). More when things become clearer.

Find more, mostly in French here:

http://eucd.info/index.php?English-readers

http://www.framasoft.net/

Philippe Aigrain:
http://www.debatpublic.net/Members/paigrain/blogue/votes/

http://www.temps-nouveaux.net/article.php3?id_article=151

Stream of the debate info
http://forum.framasoft.org/viewtopic.php?t=12852

les amendement sont à
http://recherche.assemblee-nationale.fr/amendements/resultats.asp?NUM_INIT=1206

les députés sont listés à
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/tribun/comm3.asp

et le compte rendu officiel devrait être à:
http://assemblee-nationale.fr/12/cra/2005-2006/109.asp

texte du projet de loi :
voir http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/dossiers/031206.asp

The issue of making ODF accessible to people with disabilities

Note that for example Jaws, a Microsoft software application for the blind and visually impaired cost around $850 to which you have to add upgrade agreement (around $200). And you can check out other outrageous prices at the National Federation of the Blind (http://www.nfb.org/tech/computer.htm#p). It's expensive for employers (public or private), libraries and consumers.

It seems to me that the issue for disabled persons is whether or not, on January 1, 2007 (the implementation date for ODF in Massachusetts) there will be solutions to make ODF accessible to them. According to a blog written by Bob Sutor, IBM vice president of standards and open source, IBM plans to have its ODF-compliant solution accessible to person with disability as early as 2007.

Let's hope, the vendors are serious about time... and are talking about a better, more affordable and more open application to garantee access for people with disabilities.

Check out this article (sorry for the self promotion, it's not intended), it is not as diplomatic as others and is really clear:

ODF: The Better, More Affordable Office Standard
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
December 15, 2005

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1902178,00.asp

Opinion: If you take a close look, as many people have, it's clear that ODF, and not Open XML, is the better document standard.

I know that Brian Charlson is sincere about his desire to make sure that access is maintained to office documents for people with disabilities. He has a long track record of supporting accessible computer technology.

However, when he said, "The blindness community wants to make sure it's not against ODF [OpenDocument format]. We're against implementation without a guarantee that we won't lose the [few] jobs we have" at the Open Forum on the Future of Electronic Data Formats for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I think it's too easy to take this the wrong way.

Yes, many products already exist that can make existing Microsoft formats more usable. However, the key word is 'existing.'

Even if you buy that Microsoft's Open XML will be a true open-standard—which I, and many others, certainly don't—it's not the format that's being used and supported today.

One way or the other, people with disabilities are going to have to buy or have their existing equipment upgraded to be able to use tomorrow's office documents.

At least in the case of ODF, the standard already exists. Open XML doesn't exist yet as a Microsoft proposal. There is no Office 12 yet. There is no Ecma Open XML standard yet. There will be, but that's not today.

Charlson is concerned that the higher the price for the new technology, the greater the risk to jobs for the disabled population.

He's right to be concerned.

The cost of proprietary software and standards vs. open-source software and open standards has been a constant concern of mine.

This isn't just a software issue though. If you look at history at all, it's clear that anytime there's a closed system, anytime there's a monopoly, prices go up.

Whether it's oil or office suites, if one entity, whether it's OPEC or Microsoft, is calling the shots, then the prices are going to go up.

If you take a closer look at the situation, as Curtis Chong, president of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, did recently, you're likely conclude that ODF actually makes more sense for PWD (People With Disabilities) than Microsoft's promises.

This isn't just a concern for PWDs. Every one stands to benefit from more affordable, more open software.

Dr. Manon Ress, a director at the CPTech (Consumer Project on Technology), a Washington, DC-based non-profit created about 20 years ago by Ralph Nader, sees ODF as a major consumer issue.

In her blog, Ress wrote, "What's at stake? If we compare what is going on with the monopoly on word processing to the openness, creativity and innovation in the field of authoring tools for the web, it becomes clear that we could see important changes if ODF becomes the mandated standard."

Why? Because, "ODF is important for insuring access, competition, cost savings and data sharing now and in the future," said Ress.

And as for Open XML, "for many IT industries, let's say 'other than Microsoft,' the possible merger of the 2 standards Ecma and ODF could take years…and time is only on one side here. They see OASIS as the 'natural governing body' for XML and open standards models. ODF is an existing standard, so why the delay? Who benefits from the delay and the lack of public awareness? Well, we know who."

I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

Librarians are also lining up behind ODF.

In a recent letter to the Massachusetts government, a coalition of American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association and the Special Libraries Association, wrote, "documents in relatively long-term storage such as the hard drives of servers can be read only by programs that have backwards compatibility.

"Such backwards compatibility may be difficult to achieve in 100 years because the developer of the program used to create the document may have gone out of business and the proprietary specifications of the document format may have disappeared."

Yes, even Microsoft might disappear.

And, remember Microsoft, at best, will just be making its format open. The boys from Redmond have never said anything about the technology needed to render it correctly. It's