September 25, 2009 11:18 am
Today a New York judge postponed a scheduled hearing in the Google books settlement because of pending changes to the agreement. Our tech blog reports:
In response to concerns raised by federal antitrust regulators, the Authors Guild and the Assn. of American Publishers are likely to make "significant changes to the current settlement agreement," wrote Judge Denny Chin. Holding a hearing on the agreement as currently written, he concluded, would make little sense.
Earlier this week, the publisher and author groups requested a delay in the proceedings so they could address copyright and antitrust issues raised by the Department of Justice in a brief filed last week.
The Google books settlement would create a rights registry for books, much like ASCAP for songs. The registry would administer payments for usage -- downloading and printing -- to the authors of books that are out of print. That Google would keep the fees for those books that have no clear owner -- "orphan works" -- is one of the contested issues of the proposed agreement.
There are other, less book-focused concerns. The Justice Department is investigating possible antitrust issues And industry rivals Yahoo and Microsoft have banded together, organizing some more vested players like the New York Library Assn., to oppose the proposed settlement.
We'll be listening for news on Oct. 7, when the court has said it will discuss how to proceed with the case.
-- Carolyn Kellogg-----From Los Angeles Times -BOOKS
Friday, September 25, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
FCC Chairman Calls for Formal Net Neutrality Rules
Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Monday, September 21, 2009 7:30 AM PDT
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will move to create formal net neutrality rules prohibiting Internet providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and applications, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Monday.
Genachowski announced a notice of proposed rulemaking, a process to formalize a set of broadband policy principles that the FCC has embraced since August 2005. In addition to the four policy principles. Genachowski called for two additional principles to be included in a formal set of net neutrality rules.
"The Internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity," Genachowski said in a speech before the Brookings Institution. "It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America. It is vital that we safeguard the free and open Internet."
The notice of proposed rulemaking will look not only into net neutrality rules on traditional wired broadband networks, but also explore whether to impose new rules on broadband networks offered by mobile phone carriers, the FCC said. Genachowski said he wants all six principles to apply to all platforms that access the Internet.
Mobile broadband services offered by carriers such as Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile have not been subject to the FCC's net neutrality principles.
The FCC has enforced the existing broadband policy principles on a case-by-case basis, but it has never made formal net neutrality rules. Broadband provider Comcast filed a lawsuit challenging the FCC's authority to enforce the principles after the agency ruled last August that Comcast had to stop slowing peer-to-peer traffic in the name of network management.
The Comcast lawsuit was filed late last year, and a ruling is pending. Comcast argued that the FCC needs to create a rule or get authority from the U.S. Congress to enforce net neutrality. In addition to Genachowski's new rulemaking, a bill pending in the U.S. Congress would give the FCC that authority.
Several broadband providers have opposed formal net neutrality rules, saying they could hamper provider efforts to roll out new services and manage their networks, and to protect against attacks and bandwidth hogs.
But Genachowski said there have been examples in recent years of broadband providers blocking or slowing applications, including peer-to-peer software and VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) service. There has been one example of a broadband provider blocking political content, he noted.
"Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges," he said. "The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas."
A Comcast spokeswoman said the company would comment soon. Representatives of AT&T, Verizon Wireless and CTIA, a trade group representing mobile carriers, weren't immediately available for comment.
There are four existing broadband principles that would be formalized:
-- Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
-- Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
-- Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
-- Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
In addition, Genachowski proposed two new principles. The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.
Genachowski will seek to launch a notice of proposed rulemaking during the FCC's October meeting. The notice will ask the public and interested companies for feedback on the proposed rules and their application, such as how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, what information broadband providers should disclose about their network management practices and how the rules apply to differing platforms, including mobile Internet access services, the FCC said.
From PC WORLD
-http://harlemblogosphere.blogspot.com
Monday, September 21, 2009 7:30 AM PDT
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will move to create formal net neutrality rules prohibiting Internet providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and applications, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Monday.
Genachowski announced a notice of proposed rulemaking, a process to formalize a set of broadband policy principles that the FCC has embraced since August 2005. In addition to the four policy principles. Genachowski called for two additional principles to be included in a formal set of net neutrality rules.
"The Internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity," Genachowski said in a speech before the Brookings Institution. "It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America. It is vital that we safeguard the free and open Internet."
The notice of proposed rulemaking will look not only into net neutrality rules on traditional wired broadband networks, but also explore whether to impose new rules on broadband networks offered by mobile phone carriers, the FCC said. Genachowski said he wants all six principles to apply to all platforms that access the Internet.
Mobile broadband services offered by carriers such as Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile have not been subject to the FCC's net neutrality principles.
The FCC has enforced the existing broadband policy principles on a case-by-case basis, but it has never made formal net neutrality rules. Broadband provider Comcast filed a lawsuit challenging the FCC's authority to enforce the principles after the agency ruled last August that Comcast had to stop slowing peer-to-peer traffic in the name of network management.
The Comcast lawsuit was filed late last year, and a ruling is pending. Comcast argued that the FCC needs to create a rule or get authority from the U.S. Congress to enforce net neutrality. In addition to Genachowski's new rulemaking, a bill pending in the U.S. Congress would give the FCC that authority.
Several broadband providers have opposed formal net neutrality rules, saying they could hamper provider efforts to roll out new services and manage their networks, and to protect against attacks and bandwidth hogs.
But Genachowski said there have been examples in recent years of broadband providers blocking or slowing applications, including peer-to-peer software and VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) service. There has been one example of a broadband provider blocking political content, he noted.
"Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges," he said. "The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas."
A Comcast spokeswoman said the company would comment soon. Representatives of AT&T, Verizon Wireless and CTIA, a trade group representing mobile carriers, weren't immediately available for comment.
There are four existing broadband principles that would be formalized:
-- Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
-- Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
-- Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
-- Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
In addition, Genachowski proposed two new principles. The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second principle would ensure that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.
Genachowski will seek to launch a notice of proposed rulemaking during the FCC's October meeting. The notice will ask the public and interested companies for feedback on the proposed rules and their application, such as how to determine whether network management practices are reasonable, what information broadband providers should disclose about their network management practices and how the rules apply to differing platforms, including mobile Internet access services, the FCC said.
From PC WORLD
-http://harlemblogosphere.blogspot.com
Friday, September 18, 2009
Robotic arm fetches Japanese cargo ship at space station
Unmanned H-II spacecraft delivers supplies for station's Japanese laboratory
By Sharon Gaudin September 18, 2009 01:47 PM ET
Computerworld - An unmanned Japanese cargo spacecraft yesterday was plucked out of space by a robotic arm and attached to the International Space Station.
The cargo spacecraft, dubbed the H-II Transfer Vehicle, was launched a week ago on its maiden voyage from the from the Tanegashima, Japan, Space Center. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency spacecraft carried about five tons of supplies for the Japanese Kibo laboratory at the station.
The H-II arrived at the space station late Thursday afternoon, and Flight Engineers Nicole Stott, Robert Thirsk and Frank De Winne, part of the space station crew, teamed up to use the station's robotic arm to grab the craft as it hovered 30-feet from the station. The Canadarm 2 robotic arm pulled the cargo ship in and attached it to the station.
The cargo, which is being transferred onto the space station, includes several pieces of equipment for that will be used in experiments, such as the study of gases in the Earth's ozone layer.
The H-II Transfer Vehicle, which was designed and built in Japan, is about 30 feet long and about 14 feet in diameter.
The Canadarm 2 technology has been heavily used by astronauts on the station in recent months.
For example, the crew of the space shuttle Discovery used the robotic arm earlier this month to move replacement parts and supplies from the shuttle's cargo bay to the space station. They also used the arm to help them remove a spent ammonia tank from the outside of the space station and replace it with a new one.
And in July, three different robots, including Canadarm 2, were used to help the crew of the space shuttle Endeavour install the final pieces of a Japanese laboratory to the station. For the nearly 11 days Endeavour was docked with the space station, at least one, if not two, robots were at work almost every day.
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
By Sharon Gaudin September 18, 2009 01:47 PM ET
Computerworld - An unmanned Japanese cargo spacecraft yesterday was plucked out of space by a robotic arm and attached to the International Space Station.
The cargo spacecraft, dubbed the H-II Transfer Vehicle, was launched a week ago on its maiden voyage from the from the Tanegashima, Japan, Space Center. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency spacecraft carried about five tons of supplies for the Japanese Kibo laboratory at the station.
The H-II arrived at the space station late Thursday afternoon, and Flight Engineers Nicole Stott, Robert Thirsk and Frank De Winne, part of the space station crew, teamed up to use the station's robotic arm to grab the craft as it hovered 30-feet from the station. The Canadarm 2 robotic arm pulled the cargo ship in and attached it to the station.
The cargo, which is being transferred onto the space station, includes several pieces of equipment for that will be used in experiments, such as the study of gases in the Earth's ozone layer.
The H-II Transfer Vehicle, which was designed and built in Japan, is about 30 feet long and about 14 feet in diameter.
The Canadarm 2 technology has been heavily used by astronauts on the station in recent months.
For example, the crew of the space shuttle Discovery used the robotic arm earlier this month to move replacement parts and supplies from the shuttle's cargo bay to the space station. They also used the arm to help them remove a spent ammonia tank from the outside of the space station and replace it with a new one.
And in July, three different robots, including Canadarm 2, were used to help the crew of the space shuttle Endeavour install the final pieces of a Japanese laboratory to the station. For the nearly 11 days Endeavour was docked with the space station, at least one, if not two, robots were at work almost every day.
--http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Keeping Google out of libraries
The proposed settlement between Google and US publishers must be resisted, argues Bill Thompson.- BBC NEWS TECHNO
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 10:50 UK
Google is in the middle of a massive project to scan and digitise every book it can get its hands on, whether old or new, and if it gets its way then the US courts will soon endorse an agreement between the search engine giant and the US book industry that will allow it to do this without fear of prosecution for copyright infringement.
Authors and publishers will get some money in return, and we will all benefit from the improved access to digitised books that Google will provide.
The deal sounds like a good one, but not everyone is happy with it. The Department of Justice in the US has begun an investigation to see if it is anti-competitive, and last month a number of library associations got together with Amazon, Yahoo! and Microsoft to form the Open Book Alliance which argues that it should not go forward.
The details of the settlement are complex, and it is almost impossible to be sure what would emerge from it because many of the provisions involve setting up things like a Book Rights Registry, and we don't yet know what they will look like.
World's librarian
But whatever the detail there remains a fundamental problem. It is not that the settlement will give Google indemnity from prosecution should it be found to have scanned books that are in copyright without the copyright owner's position, nor even that it gives Google freedom to exploit scanned content commercially.
It is, rather, that the settlement gives only Google these privileges, and places one company in a prime position to become the world's de facto librarian instead of encouraging open access, open standards and a plurality of services and service providers.
Neither Google nor any other company should be entrusted with that responsibility, and nothing in the detail of the agreement or the funds that will be made available to authors as a consequence can change this.
If Google is given a monopoly, either explicitly in the settlement or implicitly because any other scanning project would be forced to negotiate its own multi-million dollar agreement, then the deal must be rejected.
If we let Google have its settlement we will all be the poorer
Bill Thompson
The proposed settlement came about after Google began a project to scan and index millions of books, including many that are still in copyright.
It was sued by groups representing authors and publishers who felt that scanning books, even if the text was only used to create a searchable index which then pointed readers to the relevant text, was an unlicensed use and therefore illegal.
The book trade was also worried that Google might scan the books under the pretext of creating an index and then start offering them online or even selling them, even though it was always absolutely clear that such behaviour would be a breach of copyright.
Instead of fighting the case through the US courts and winning a great victory for those of us who believe that three hundred year-old notions of copyright should not be used arbitrarily to limit new ways of making use of creative works, Google announced in October 2008 that it had reached a settlement with the US Authors' Guild and the Association of American Publishers that would allow it to continue scanning with permission.
At the moment the settlement hangs in the balance, waiting for what is quaintly termed a 'fairness hearing' in US District Court on October 7.
At this hearing of the questions raised since the settlement was announced will be debated, including the question of how the relatively small Authors Guild came to speak for all published writers in the US, living and dead, in negotiating with Google.
One of the arguments being made in favour of Google, most clearly by US industry analyst Jeffrey Lindsay, is that Google deserves to benefit from having taken the risk of digitising books when the project's legal status was uncertain and that Google, unlike Microsoft and Yahoo!, has invested millions of dollars in the project and is committed to pushing forward.
Microsoft did indeed abandon its own book scanning project, Live Search Books, in 2008, largely on cost grounds but also because the legal uncertainties clearly exposed the company to potential liability in what was never a core area of its activity.
Tribal lands
But Lindsay's view seems hard to accept. Pretending that the world's libraries are some unexplored continent to be opened up and claimed by the adventurers from Mountain View may appeal to the frontier mentality of US commentators, but it is not a metaphor likely to have much appeal elsewhere.
For one thing the bookshelves of the worlds are already inhabited, just like the territory of the United States, and those of us who remember the fate of the Native Americans may not be happy to see Google build its railroad tracks over our tribal lands.
Even without the dodgy analogy, the project of digitising the information held in the world's printed books is too important to be dealt with purely as a commercial venture between rights holders and a potential supplier of services.
We are at an inflection point in world history, and the transition we are making from analogue to digital is happening so quickly and offers so many delights that there is a temptation to let the past moulder in archive boxes and concentrate solely on the new and digital.
For those who take that view then letting Google pay to digitise books is an uncontroversial decision, one that can deliver more digital stuff to search through without apparently costing anything.
George Santayana wrote 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it', but it may also be true that those who do not care to digitise their own past will end up paying a high price to regain what they give up so thoughtlessly.
If we let Google have its settlement we will all be the poorer. Not for a while, perhaps, but one day we will need more from this new library of Alexandria than Google is willing to offer, and find that the price it demands is more than we can pay.
Bill Thompson is an independent journalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 10:50 UK
Google is in the middle of a massive project to scan and digitise every book it can get its hands on, whether old or new, and if it gets its way then the US courts will soon endorse an agreement between the search engine giant and the US book industry that will allow it to do this without fear of prosecution for copyright infringement.
Authors and publishers will get some money in return, and we will all benefit from the improved access to digitised books that Google will provide.
The deal sounds like a good one, but not everyone is happy with it. The Department of Justice in the US has begun an investigation to see if it is anti-competitive, and last month a number of library associations got together with Amazon, Yahoo! and Microsoft to form the Open Book Alliance which argues that it should not go forward.
The details of the settlement are complex, and it is almost impossible to be sure what would emerge from it because many of the provisions involve setting up things like a Book Rights Registry, and we don't yet know what they will look like.
World's librarian
But whatever the detail there remains a fundamental problem. It is not that the settlement will give Google indemnity from prosecution should it be found to have scanned books that are in copyright without the copyright owner's position, nor even that it gives Google freedom to exploit scanned content commercially.
It is, rather, that the settlement gives only Google these privileges, and places one company in a prime position to become the world's de facto librarian instead of encouraging open access, open standards and a plurality of services and service providers.
Neither Google nor any other company should be entrusted with that responsibility, and nothing in the detail of the agreement or the funds that will be made available to authors as a consequence can change this.
If Google is given a monopoly, either explicitly in the settlement or implicitly because any other scanning project would be forced to negotiate its own multi-million dollar agreement, then the deal must be rejected.
If we let Google have its settlement we will all be the poorer
Bill Thompson
The proposed settlement came about after Google began a project to scan and index millions of books, including many that are still in copyright.
It was sued by groups representing authors and publishers who felt that scanning books, even if the text was only used to create a searchable index which then pointed readers to the relevant text, was an unlicensed use and therefore illegal.
The book trade was also worried that Google might scan the books under the pretext of creating an index and then start offering them online or even selling them, even though it was always absolutely clear that such behaviour would be a breach of copyright.
Instead of fighting the case through the US courts and winning a great victory for those of us who believe that three hundred year-old notions of copyright should not be used arbitrarily to limit new ways of making use of creative works, Google announced in October 2008 that it had reached a settlement with the US Authors' Guild and the Association of American Publishers that would allow it to continue scanning with permission.
At the moment the settlement hangs in the balance, waiting for what is quaintly termed a 'fairness hearing' in US District Court on October 7.
At this hearing of the questions raised since the settlement was announced will be debated, including the question of how the relatively small Authors Guild came to speak for all published writers in the US, living and dead, in negotiating with Google.
One of the arguments being made in favour of Google, most clearly by US industry analyst Jeffrey Lindsay, is that Google deserves to benefit from having taken the risk of digitising books when the project's legal status was uncertain and that Google, unlike Microsoft and Yahoo!, has invested millions of dollars in the project and is committed to pushing forward.
Microsoft did indeed abandon its own book scanning project, Live Search Books, in 2008, largely on cost grounds but also because the legal uncertainties clearly exposed the company to potential liability in what was never a core area of its activity.
Tribal lands
But Lindsay's view seems hard to accept. Pretending that the world's libraries are some unexplored continent to be opened up and claimed by the adventurers from Mountain View may appeal to the frontier mentality of US commentators, but it is not a metaphor likely to have much appeal elsewhere.
For one thing the bookshelves of the worlds are already inhabited, just like the territory of the United States, and those of us who remember the fate of the Native Americans may not be happy to see Google build its railroad tracks over our tribal lands.
Even without the dodgy analogy, the project of digitising the information held in the world's printed books is too important to be dealt with purely as a commercial venture between rights holders and a potential supplier of services.
We are at an inflection point in world history, and the transition we are making from analogue to digital is happening so quickly and offers so many delights that there is a temptation to let the past moulder in archive boxes and concentrate solely on the new and digital.
For those who take that view then letting Google pay to digitise books is an uncontroversial decision, one that can deliver more digital stuff to search through without apparently costing anything.
George Santayana wrote 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it', but it may also be true that those who do not care to digitise their own past will end up paying a high price to regain what they give up so thoughtlessly.
If we let Google have its settlement we will all be the poorer. Not for a while, perhaps, but one day we will need more from this new library of Alexandria than Google is willing to offer, and find that the price it demands is more than we can pay.
Bill Thompson is an independent journalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet
-http://davidsradiotv2000.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)