Monday, February 10, 2014
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Disruptive Competition Part 2: What Role for Regulators and Competition Policy?
Judoeconomics.wordpress.com, here.
Saturday, February 08, 2014
Friday, February 07, 2014
Gare d’appalto per l’acquisto aggregato di farmaci antitumorali: possibile intesa anticoncorrenziale
AGCM, Provvedimento di avvio qui.
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Richtlinie Big Data
Datenschutzstelle (DSS) der Landesverwaltung des Fürstentums Liechtenstein, hier.
A profile of current and future audiovisual audience
Attentional, Headway International and Harris Interactive for the European Commission, here.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
Mergers after cartels: How markets react to cartel breakdown
S. Davies, P. Osmosi, M. Graffenberger, here.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
“Human Rights” Protection for Corporate Antitrust Defendants: Are We Not Going Overboard?
A. Sánchez Graells, F. Marcos, here.
Monday, February 03, 2014
TeleCinco v. YouTube
Andiencia Provincial Civil de Madrid, Sentencia n. 11/2014, 14 de enero de 2014, aquì.
Sunday, February 02, 2014
Saturday, February 01, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
Copyright, Permissions, and Fair Use among Visual Artists and the Academic and Museum Visual Arts Communities
Issues Report to the College Art Association, here.
AG Kokott on cartelists' civil liability for "umbrella pricing"
Case C‑557/12, KONE AG and Others, here.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Secondary Liability for Trademark Infringement On the Internet
Kernochan Center, Columbia Law School, Symposium, Video here.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Access to data protection remedies in EU Member States
FRA– European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, here.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Regulating Smart Metering in Europe: Technological, Economic and Legal Challenges
G. Cervigni, P. Larouche, here.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Friday, January 24, 2014
Connected Televisions - Convergence and Emerging Business Models
OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 23, here.
Judge Rules in Favor of DOJ Finding Bazaarvoice / PowerReviews Merger Anticompetitive
McDermott Will & Emery, here.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Graduated Response Policy and the Behavior of Digital Pirates: Evidence from the French Three-Strike (Hadopi) Law
M. Arnold, E. Darmon, S. Dejean, T. Pénard, here.
Open Experience : Quels modèles économiques pour l’Open dans l’Art et la Culture ?
Scinfolex.wordpress.com, ici.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Assessing Innovation Effects in U.S. Merger Cases: An Empirical analysis
B. Kern, R. Dewenter, W. Kerber, here.
Les processus de normalisation et de certification sont-ils pro-concurrentiels?
Autorité de la concurrence, ici (avis à rendre).
Norms and Values in Digital Media: Rethinking Intellectual Property in the Digital Age
World Economic Forum, here.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
Open Data : ouverture et partage des données publiques culturelles
C. Domange, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, ici.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete market investigation
Competition Commission, Final Report, here.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Against the "Making Available" Right
G. Lunne, Statement, Committee on the Judiciary, Hearing:The Scope of Copyright, here.
Barnier on the Unified Patent Court and the risk of patent trolls
Answer to a MEP's question to the Commission, here.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Open Data Licensing (With Emphasis on the Italian Public Sector): Guidelines for Choosing and Applying the Most Suitable License
C. Piana, S. Aliprandi, Presentations's video and slides here.
How the Google Consent Order Alters the Process and Outcomes of Frand Bargaining
E. Dorsey, M. McGuire, here.
Thursday, January 09, 2014
AG Cruz Villalón: l’exception de copie privée ne s’applique qu’aux reproductions réalisées à partir de sources licites
Affaire C‑435/12, ACI Adam BV et al. contre Stichting de Thuiskopie, ici.
Wednesday, January 08, 2014
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
Global Congress Declaration on Fundamental Public Interest Principles for International Intellectual Property Negotiations
Adopted at the Third Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, University of Cape Town, December 13, 2013, here.
Antitrust Marathon V: When in Rome Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law
P. Marsden, S. Weber Waller, P. Fabbio, here.
Monday, January 06, 2014
What technological developments (and related legal issues) will 2014 bring?
Taylorwessing.com, here.
Competition law, intellectual property rights and dynamic analysis: Towards a new institutional “equilibrium ?”
F. Jenny, I. Lianos, H. Hovenkamp. F. Marshall, S. Sivaramjani Thambisetty, here.
Chapters, in detail:
I. Lianos, Introduction
S. Thamisetty, WHY PATENT LAW DOESN’T DO INNOVATION POLICY
H. Hovenkamp, INSTITUTIONAL ADVANTAGE IN COMPETITION AND INNOVATION POLICY
F. Jenny, ANTICOMPETITIVE ABUSES OF PATENT SYSTEMS AND THE ROLE OF COMPETITION AUTHORITIES
F. Marshall, A STUDY OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH COLLABORATION
Chapters, in detail:
I. Lianos, Introduction
S. Thamisetty, WHY PATENT LAW DOESN’T DO INNOVATION POLICY
H. Hovenkamp, INSTITUTIONAL ADVANTAGE IN COMPETITION AND INNOVATION POLICY
F. Jenny, ANTICOMPETITIVE ABUSES OF PATENT SYSTEMS AND THE ROLE OF COMPETITION AUTHORITIES
F. Marshall, A STUDY OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH COLLABORATION
From Hydrogen Peroxide to Comcast: The New Rigor in Antitrust Class Actions
J. Keyte, P. Eckles, and K. Hoffman Lent, here.
Friday, January 03, 2014
Friday, December 27, 2013
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Monday, December 23, 2013
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
EFTA Court Judgement on Principles Governing PSI Charging
Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. and Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State, Case E-7/13, 16 December 2013, here.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Advocates Release Best Practices for Making Open Government Data “License-Free”
E-pluribusunum.com, here
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Unglue.it opens a new chapter – a bookstore for books that want to be free
Libraries.wright.edu, here.
The Politics of the EU Court Data Retention Opinion: End to Mass Surveillance?
Freedom-to-tinker.com, here.
Il Trattato di Marrakesh per favorire l'accesso alle opere da parte di persone con difficoltà di lettura: aspetti applicativi
S. Vezzoso (this blog's author), here.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Innovation & Intellectual Property: Collaborative Dynamics in Africa
J. de Beer, C. Armstrong, C. Oguamanam & T. Schonwetter, here.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Data Protection Principles for the 21st Century - Revising the 1980 OECD Guidelines
F. Cate, P. Cullen, V. Mayer-Schönberger, here (pdf download).
Visualizing TPP Negotiating Positions with New Leaks: Salt Lake City
Topromotetheprogress.wordpress.com, here.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Monday, December 09, 2013
France's sovereign patent fund takes aim at LG and HTC in the US and Germany
Iam-magazine.com, here.
Intellectual property and competition policy
J. Almunia, here. Important update on (too?) many open issues: SEP, patent trolls, Google Search, etc.
UK Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit goes global in its pursuit of illegal websites
Cityoflondon.police.uk, here.
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Study on business models for Linked Open Government Data
Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) Programme of the European Commission, here.
Saturday, December 07, 2013
Friday, December 06, 2013
Thursday, December 05, 2013
The Holy See on the TPP
Statement, 9th Session of the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization
Bali, here (p.4-5).
Bali, here (p.4-5).
Public Consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules
Here.Press Release, here.
Some highlights:
"The principle of EU exhaustion of the distribution right applies in the case of the distribution of physical copies (e.g. when a tangible article such as a CD or a book, etc. is sold, the right holder cannot prevent the further distribution of that tangible article). The issue that arises here is whether this principle can also be applied in the case of an act of transmission equivalent in its effect to distribution (i.e. where the buyer acquires the property of the copy). This raises difficult questions, notably relating to the practical application of such an approach (how to avoid re-sellers keeping and using a copy of a work after they have “re-sold” it – this is often referred to as the “forward and delete” question {The UsedSoft ruling had an answer to that} as well as to the economic implications of the creation of a second-hand market of copies of perfect quality that never deteriorate (in contrast to the second-hand market for physical goods) {also, technical solutions possible?}
Some highlights:
"The principle of EU exhaustion of the distribution right applies in the case of the distribution of physical copies (e.g. when a tangible article such as a CD or a book, etc. is sold, the right holder cannot prevent the further distribution of that tangible article). The issue that arises here is whether this principle can also be applied in the case of an act of transmission equivalent in its effect to distribution (i.e. where the buyer acquires the property of the copy). This raises difficult questions, notably relating to the practical application of such an approach (how to avoid re-sellers keeping and using a copy of a work after they have “re-sold” it – this is often referred to as the “forward and delete” question {The UsedSoft ruling had an answer to that} as well as to the economic implications of the creation of a second-hand market of copies of perfect quality that never deteriorate (in contrast to the second-hand market for physical goods) {also, technical solutions possible?}
Finally, the question of flexibility and adaptability is being raised: what is the best mechanism
to ensure that the EU and Member States’ regulatory frameworks adapt when necessary
(either to clarify that certain uses are covered by an exception or to confirm that for certain
uses the authorisation of rightholders is required)? The main question here is whether
a greater degree of flexibility can be introduced in the EU and Member States regulatory
framework while ensuring the required legal certainty, including for the functioning of the
Single Market, and respecting the EU's international obligations. {pretty straightforward answer: yes, on all accounts}.
Teaching (exception)
Some argue that the law should provide for better possibilities for distance learning and study at home {indeed: my longish take here, Italian only}.
Marrakesh Treaty
The EU and its Member States have started work to sign and ratify the Treaty {how far advanced are they, really? }This may require the adoption of certain provisions at EU level (e.g. to ensure the possibility to exchange accessible format copies across borders).
A specific Working Group was set up on this issue in the framework of the "Licences for Europe" stakeholder dialogue. No consensus was reached among participating stakeholders on either the problems to be addressed or the results. At the same time, practical solutions to facilitate text and data mining of subscription-based scientific content were presented by publishers as an outcome of “Licences for Europe”. In the context of these discussions, other stakeholders argued that no additional licences should be required to mine material to which access has been provided through a subscription agreement and considered that a specific exception for text and data mining should be introduced {following some proposals at State level...Shouldn't it be the other way round?} possibly on the basis of a distinction between commercial and non-commercial.
Teaching (exception)
Some argue that the law should provide for better possibilities for distance learning and study at home {indeed: my longish take here, Italian only}.
Marrakesh Treaty
The EU and its Member States have started work to sign and ratify the Treaty {how far advanced are they, really? }This may require the adoption of certain provisions at EU level (e.g. to ensure the possibility to exchange accessible format copies across borders).
A specific Working Group was set up on this issue in the framework of the "Licences for Europe" stakeholder dialogue. No consensus was reached among participating stakeholders on either the problems to be addressed or the results. At the same time, practical solutions to facilitate text and data mining of subscription-based scientific content were presented by publishers as an outcome of “Licences for Europe”. In the context of these discussions, other stakeholders argued that no additional licences should be required to mine material to which access has been provided through a subscription agreement and considered that a specific exception for text and data mining should be introduced {following some proposals at State level...Shouldn't it be the other way round?} possibly on the basis of a distinction between commercial and non-commercial.
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Open Data in Transition: Intellectual Property, Competition, and Regulatory Issues
Thursday 19th December 2013
University of Trento
University of Trento
Venue: Department of Economics and Management
Conference Programme here.
Monday, December 02, 2013
Sunday, December 01, 2013
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Film Producers and Distributors Obtain Site Block from Paris Court
The1709blog.blogspot.co.uk, here.
Bundesgerichtshof zur Nutzung urheberrechtlich geschützter Werke auf elektronischen Lernplattformen von Universitäten
Urteil vom 28. November 2013 - I ZR 76/12 - Meilensteine der Psychologie, Pressemitteilung hier.
Pour le respect des droits fondamentaux des lecteurs dans un environnement numérique
Association des Bibliothécaires de France, ici.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
The Three-Step-Test Revisited: How to Use the Test’s Flexibility in National Copyright Law
C. Geiger, D. Gervais, M. Senftleben, here.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Sustainability of Open Source software communities beyond a fork: How and why has the LibreOffice project evolved?
J. Gamalielsson, B. Lundell, here.
Brussels to launch antitrust probe into sales of pay-TV rights
Financial Times, here.
"Joaquín Almunia, the EU competition commissioner, last year sanctioned a “fact finding” effort in light of the (Murphy) ruling to see whether barriers to cross-border access merited antitrust scrutiny and possible enforcement action.
Some investigators are now poised to step up their inquiries into whether “absolute territorial protection clauses” break competition law. These stop licensees from selling to other countries or accepting unsolicited demands from overseas customers to pay to access the content.
......
Maurits Dolmans, a partner at Cleary Gottlieb, said the 2011 Premier League case concerned satellite sports broadcasting and the court left open whether it could be applied at all to other distribution channels and other forms of content.
“The Commission will have to take into account different economic factors,” he said. “Forcing EU-wide licensing may be attractive for consumers in richer countries, who may pay less, but not necessarily for consumers in poorer countries, who might be forced to pay more.”
Maurits Dolmans, a partner at Cleary Gottlieb, said the 2011 Premier League case concerned satellite sports broadcasting and the court left open whether it could be applied at all to other distribution channels and other forms of content.
“The Commission will have to take into account different economic factors,” he said. “Forcing EU-wide licensing may be attractive for consumers in richer countries, who may pay less, but not necessarily for consumers in poorer countries, who might be forced to pay more.”
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Le policy universitarie in materia di Accesso Aperto alla scienza: l’esperienza dell’Università di Trieste
Seminario, 27 novembre 2013, Università di Trento, qui.
Programma
14.30
Saluti della Rettrice - prof.ssa Daria de Pretis
14.40
Introduzione – prof. Roberto Caso, delegato della Rettrice per l’Open Access e le politiche contro il plagio
15.00
La policy dell’Università di Trieste in materia di accesso aperto – prof. Fabio Benedetti, Presidente della Commissione di Ateneo per l’accesso aperto dell’Università di Trieste
15.30 - 16.00
Dibattito
Programma
14.30
Saluti della Rettrice - prof.ssa Daria de Pretis
14.40
Introduzione – prof. Roberto Caso, delegato della Rettrice per l’Open Access e le politiche contro il plagio
15.00
La policy dell’Università di Trieste in materia di accesso aperto – prof. Fabio Benedetti, Presidente della Commissione di Ateneo per l’accesso aperto dell’Università di Trieste
15.30 - 16.00
Dibattito
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Delivering the Benefits? Efficiencies and Airline Mergers (US Airways-American)
AAI White Paper (D. Moss), here.
India's PM (also) on competition policy
Inaugural address at the 3rd BRICS International Competition Conference, here.
Software patent reform just died in the House, thanks to IBM and Microsoft
Washingtonpost.com, here.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Hidden efficiencies: On the relevance of business justifications in abuse of dominance cases
H. Friederiszick, L. Gratz, here.
Convention 108 with Additional Protocol and Modernisation proposals
CAHDATA, Council of Europe, here.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
The Rise of Innovative Business Models: Content Delivery Methods in the Digital Age
Hearing, Committee on the Judiciary, here.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Study on Intellectual Property and Brain Drain - A Mapping Exercise
WIPO Secreteriat, peer-reviewed by F. Lissoni, here.
Information Resellers - Consumer Privacy Framework Needs to Reflect Changes in Technology and the Marketplace
US Government Accountability Office, here.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Italy: Open Data Action Plan
Department for Public Administration in cooperation with the Agency for Digital Italy (AgID), here.
Content Creation, Access to Information, Open Internet
Workshop, Internet Governance Forum, Transcript here.
La legge italiana sull’accesso aperto agli articoli scientifici: l’inizio di un percorso normativo
R. Caso, P. Galimberti, here.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Friday, November 08, 2013
The quest for behavioural Antitrust. Beyond the label battle, towards a cognitive approach
L. Arnaudo, Agcm Collana "Temi e problemi", qui.
"It's not always fun to live in an authors' rights country"
B. Hugenholtz, Flexing Authors’ Rights, Peter Jaszi Distinguished Lecture on Intellectual Property, Video here (from 1:14:16).
"It's not always fun to live in an authors' rights country" at 1:23:38.
Highly recommended, in the following some notes I took:
Who could be against "fair" use in Europe and elsewhere?
A number of historic reasons:
- civil law tradition: the law should be made by the people, the judge should be no more than "la bouche de la loi" (mouthpiece of the law)
- authors' rights: different rationale, constitutions at national level hardly ever mention intellectual property: there to protect authors as a matter of natural justice; exceptions narrowly interpreted. As part of that, the moral rights' tradition.
Broader concerns:
- affecting legal certainty
- opening the floodgates to piracy
- fear of US legal imperialism ("fair US to us")
Legal arguments:
- fair use in conflict with the Berne Convention, with TRIPS
But:
- civil law is already dominated by general principles, and unwritten law also a source of law
- generally, moral rights do not impede the introduction of more flexible norms
- public interest and balancing of rights already part of the discussion
- fair use is not wild, it is fairly predictable, despite being open
- 2010 "Vorschaubilder" case involving thumbnails: German Court looking for ways to justify them, and cooked up a theory of "implied consent." Reasonable solution, but we need more legal certainty.
- three-step test as a safety net
Legal transplants rarely work, but in Europe we need more flexibility, and the European and international legal frameworks do tolerate it (problems exist, but are not insurmountable).
Evidence pointing in the direction of flexibility:
- Recital 2, InfoSoc Directive: "The European Council, meeting at Corfu on 24 and 25 June 1994, stressed the need to create a general and flexible legal framework at Community level in order to foster the development of the information society in Europe."
Limitations and exceptions (LE) rather loosely circumscribed, rather like prototypes (eg., art. 5(3)(d) InfoSoc Directive: "quotations for purposes such as criticism or review"; (i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material; (k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche; not even the French know what pastiche means...perhaps user generated content?), with ample room for maneuver (Sweden, very broad quotation exception: quote to the extent necessary for the purpose, in accordance with proper uses).
Three-step test not that much of a problem:
- "certain special cases": flexible norms can be reasonably predictable, eg fair use is not all encompassing
"It's not always fun to live in an authors' rights country" at 1:23:38.
Highly recommended, in the following some notes I took:
Who could be against "fair" use in Europe and elsewhere?
A number of historic reasons:
- civil law tradition: the law should be made by the people, the judge should be no more than "la bouche de la loi" (mouthpiece of the law)
- authors' rights: different rationale, constitutions at national level hardly ever mention intellectual property: there to protect authors as a matter of natural justice; exceptions narrowly interpreted. As part of that, the moral rights' tradition.
Broader concerns:
- affecting legal certainty
- opening the floodgates to piracy
- fear of US legal imperialism ("fair US to us")
Legal arguments:
- fair use in conflict with the Berne Convention, with TRIPS
But:
- civil law is already dominated by general principles, and unwritten law also a source of law
- generally, moral rights do not impede the introduction of more flexible norms
- public interest and balancing of rights already part of the discussion
- fair use is not wild, it is fairly predictable, despite being open
- 2010 "Vorschaubilder" case involving thumbnails: German Court looking for ways to justify them, and cooked up a theory of "implied consent." Reasonable solution, but we need more legal certainty.
- three-step test as a safety net
Legal transplants rarely work, but in Europe we need more flexibility, and the European and international legal frameworks do tolerate it (problems exist, but are not insurmountable).
Evidence pointing in the direction of flexibility:
- Recital 2, InfoSoc Directive: "The European Council, meeting at Corfu on 24 and 25 June 1994, stressed the need to create a general and flexible legal framework at Community level in order to foster the development of the information society in Europe."
Limitations and exceptions (LE) rather loosely circumscribed, rather like prototypes (eg., art. 5(3)(d) InfoSoc Directive: "quotations for purposes such as criticism or review"; (i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material; (k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche; not even the French know what pastiche means...perhaps user generated content?), with ample room for maneuver (Sweden, very broad quotation exception: quote to the extent necessary for the purpose, in accordance with proper uses).
Three-step test not that much of a problem:
- "certain special cases": flexible norms can be reasonably predictable, eg fair use is not all encompassing
- "prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder": flexible norms do not necessary prejudice authors' and rightholders' rights
- nobody has ever complained to the WTO about the US fair use rule.
- the Berne three-step conceived against the background of all LE existing at that time, fair use included (US not part of Berne at that time, but future adherence was already part of the picture).
Discussions on flexibilities in the EU
Luckily, the idea of introducing more flexibility is gaining momentum at the EU political level, inspired by the UK and Irish examples among others. Also the Netherlands is forcefully making that point in Europe.
Irish Copyright Review Report suggesting the introduction of some sort of fair use, complementing exiting LE.
Kind of flexibilities that work: two approaches
- Extend existing LE to create more room for maneuver
- the South Korean/Irish approach: flexibility alongside circumscribed LE (civil law) - rule of complementary flexibility; similarly, the Wittem project - European Copyright Code advocating it, at article 5.5:
"Further limitations
Any other use that is comparable to the uses enumerated in art. 5.1 to 5.4(1) is permitted provided that the corresponding requirements of the relevant limitation are met and the use does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties."
Who cares about flexibilities in copyright? Everybody is infringing copyright anyway on a daily basis (only speaking for the Netherlands)
Law abiding citizens, and students.
Institutional users (such as libraries) and innovators: chilling effects.
Authors themselves.
Everybody believing in copyright, and Prof. Hugenholtz certainly does: increasing gap between social norms of the people "in Internet" and the law of copyright; social legitimacy of copyright currently under serious threat.
- the Berne three-step conceived against the background of all LE existing at that time, fair use included (US not part of Berne at that time, but future adherence was already part of the picture).
Discussions on flexibilities in the EU
Luckily, the idea of introducing more flexibility is gaining momentum at the EU political level, inspired by the UK and Irish examples among others. Also the Netherlands is forcefully making that point in Europe.
Irish Copyright Review Report suggesting the introduction of some sort of fair use, complementing exiting LE.
Kind of flexibilities that work: two approaches
- Extend existing LE to create more room for maneuver
- the South Korean/Irish approach: flexibility alongside circumscribed LE (civil law) - rule of complementary flexibility; similarly, the Wittem project - European Copyright Code advocating it, at article 5.5:
"Further limitations
Any other use that is comparable to the uses enumerated in art. 5.1 to 5.4(1) is permitted provided that the corresponding requirements of the relevant limitation are met and the use does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties."
Who cares about flexibilities in copyright? Everybody is infringing copyright anyway on a daily basis (only speaking for the Netherlands)
Law abiding citizens, and students.
Institutional users (such as libraries) and innovators: chilling effects.
Authors themselves.
Everybody believing in copyright, and Prof. Hugenholtz certainly does: increasing gap between social norms of the people "in Internet" and the law of copyright; social legitimacy of copyright currently under serious threat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Don't look for it in Rome... Nearly two months on, the Commission’s DMA non-compliance decision against Meta was finally published... -
And two seconds later she did block me 😇- nothing personal, ofc. Just belonging myself to one of those DMA groupies as annoying as mosqu... -
P. Samuelson, here.
-
D. Baldacci, here.
-
Orf.at, hier (Max Schrems ab 9:34).
-
Podcast, here.
-
T. Höppner, here.
-
Not the usual Competition Commissioner's statement. Whole-of-Commission Approach? EC, here . [Dutch company buying an US company, mind...