The Internet was 20 yesterday
January 1 1983 was the day when the switchover to TCP/IP was made. One of the most significant dates in our history, IMHO. (But then as the author of a brief history of the phenomenon, I would say that, wouldn’t I?) “Call it one small switch for man, but one giant switch for mankind.com”, was how Wired put it. Personally, I would have left out the dot-com bit.
Blogging and the fate of Senator Lott
Steven Johnson on the role of Blogs in unhorsing Lott: “I think the last few days have been a great example of what political blogging is capable of: not breaking new stories, but keeping stories alive that the mainstream press, for whatever reason, decides to ignore. It’s like a journalistic flotation device: the blogosphere can pump air back into a story that’s starting to sink, and when it bobs back up to the surface again, big media has to pay attention. If Lott actually ends up stepping down over this, it will be a watershed event for bloggers everywhere.”
Lott did have to stand down, and Steven was right.
More on the ‘social’ effects of wireless
The “NYT” reports that, on campuses that have installed WiFi networks, lecturers are finding it even more difficult than usual to retain students’ attention! Well, well, well.
Tagann an Breathar Mor go hEireann
Translation: Big Brother comes to Ireland. There was a time when Irish legislation on e-commerce and the Net was a beacon of good sense and government restraint (especially compared with the UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000. No longer. The current Irish regime is planning a Bill with ferocious data-retention powers. Karlin Lillington has written a fine opinion piece in the Irish Times attacking the proposal and pointing out the slippery slope down which the government now proposes to slide.
Dave Winer: “I just realized that we now have two Irish tech bloggers, Sean McGrath and Karlin Lillington“. [Scripting News]
Wonder if I count — an Irishman living in Cambridge UK and writing for a London newspaper? Nice to see Sean’s Blog and to see that he runs an interesting company from Enniscrone — a lovely seaside resort in which I spent many happy childhood days. It was famous, if I remember correctly, for its seaweed baths, which were supposed to have excellent restorative powers. [Just looked at the map and Lo! Kilcullen’s Seaweed Baths are still in business. Hallelujah!]
‘Happy Christmas’ in legalese
From an anonymous source on the Net.
Dear Friends
On advice of Counsel, and in view of our increasingly litigious society, we retained an attorney specialising in Greetings and Holiday law to write the following holiday greeting this year. The sentiments are our own.
WHEREAS the party of the First Part (hereinafter called the Wishor) acknowledges the existence of the Party of the Second Part (the Wishee):
Please accept, without obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, prudently budgeted, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practised with the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of Wishee’s choice, but with respect for the religious/secular traditions of others, or (but not limited to) Wishee’s choice not to practise religious or secular traditions.
Also, may all Wishees and their families enjoy a financially-successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated celebration of the generally accepted calendar year 2003, but with due respect for the calendars of other cultures or sects, and having regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, sexual preference, political party affiliation, choice of computer platform, or dietary preference of the Wishee.
NOTICE ++ NOTICE ++ NOTICE ++ NOTICE ++ NOTICE
By accepting this greeting, Wishee is bound by the following terms:
(1) This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal.
(2) This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be made to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the Wishor are acknowledged.
(3) This greeting in no way implies intent or promise by the Wishor to implement any of the wishes.
(4) This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain Wishees in certain jurisdictions, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the Wishor.
(5) Certain States in the United States or other Countries may restrict Wishee’s right to said greetings; it is the responsibility of said Wishees to verify the legality of such greetings within their jurisdiction. In no case shall Wishor assume responsibility for legality of the greeting in any jurisdiction.
(6) This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected within the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.
(7) The above warranty should not be construed as a promise of issuance of any further holiday greeting, which shall occur only at the sole discretion of the Wishor.
(8) Any reference or addendum to this greeting in Wishor’s handwriting to “the Lord”, ‘Father Christmas”, “our Saviour”, or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, dead or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them in respect of this greeting, and all proprietary rights in any referenced third party names and images are hereby acknowledged.
(8) By opening this greeting, Wishee implies acceptance of the terms and conditions enumerated within this greeting. If Wishee does not agree with the terms and conditions, Wishee should, at his/heer optioln, either destroy this greeting or write “Refused – return to Sender” on outer envelope and return by certified mail to Wishor, at Wishee’s own expense.
Creative Commons licensing issues
I’m planning to put this weblog into the Creative Commons system, but was wondering how to do so without appearing to claim rights on other people’s stuff that I quote and use. Thanks to Denise Howells for solving the problem by creating the necessary wording.
So is Peter Pan free or not?
Sobering excerpt from Larry Lessig’s Weblog:”Two weeks ago at the Creative Commons launch, I tried to sell the virtues of building rather than suing. The reality is that we need to do both. As Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society has announced, we filed a lawsuit last week to defend the right of Emily Somma to distribute a children’s book that builds upon the story of Peter Pan.
Peter Pan was created by Scottish playwright James M. Barrie (1860-1937). The character was born in a 1902 book called The Little White Bird and then developed into the play Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up, in 1904. In 1906, the section of The Little White Bird that originated Peter Pan was published separately as a book called Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens. Finally, Barrie turned his highly successful play into a book called Peter and Wendy in 1911.
All these works have entered the public domain in America. But because Barrie continued to produce works based on the Peter Pan story, the holders of those copyrights claim that there can be no derivative works using the Peter Pan character so long as those later works remain under copyright. (In England, by special law, the copyright for Barrie’s work is perpetual). Thus, the holders of Barrie’s copyright claim a perpetual right to control derivative works based on Peter Pan, even though the original work passed into the public domain.
Emily Somma, a Canadian, has written a wonderful children’s book, After the Rain, that uses some of the Peter Pan story, but for very different ends. Peter Pan, you might remember, is afraid of growing up. In Somma’s story, children rescue Peter Pan from this fear. Thus, like the best of derivative works, Somma’s story builds on the past, but does something different with it.
Yet Somma is now threatened with a legal action in the United States if she distributes her book in the United States, even though her work plainly builds on work that is in the public domain. This, we believe, is wrong. It is just one example of an important class of cases where current copyright holders demand the right to control the use of work that is in the public domain just because their work builds upon work that is now in the public domain.
Stay tuned for more news, or tune your reader to the CIS RSS feed for updates on the case. Peter Pan is already free. It’s time the law (and lawyers) to recognize it. “
I didn’t know about the ‘perpetual copyright’ on Peter Pan. Seems daft. Wonder how the publishers swung that one.
US universities try again on DMCA
Chronicle story. ” College groups are again asking the U.S. Copyright Office to allow scholars to bypass technological devices that restrict electronic access to copyrighted works.
In a letter to the Copyright Office, the groups say that a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, known as the “anti-circumvention provision,” needs to be revised to permit “fair use” of copyrighted material for research and teaching.
Researchers and scholars maintain that they must be able to bypass the access-control devices and view digital texts and images without fear of breaking the law. The groups note that academic users have long been able to view nonelectronic copyrighted material under existing fair-use provisions of copyright law.”
In-Room Chat as a Social Tool — an experiment by Clay Shirky and friends
Fascinating piece by Clay Shirky reporting what happens when you give participants in a group discussion a chat-room, the contents of which are projected onto a screen so that all meeting participants can read it. As ever with Shirky, the commentary is intelligent and judicious, and frank about both the pluses and minuses of the experiment. Two interesting points: from the photographs, it looks as though most of those attending the meeting were using Apple PowerBooks or iBooks (which indicates a non-representative sample); and the observation by Shirky and another participant, Steven Johnson, that the online Chat had “sucked the humor out of the discussion”. (The jokes were mostly in the Chat transcript, it seems.)