[governance] Fwd: Some issues where IGF could make a difference
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Thu Mar 2 16:31:36 EST 2006
Folks, the articles below give links to some real and present threats to
Internet futures that haven't been given much space yet in the WSIS/IGF policy
issues context.
This leads me to a couple of thoughts:
1. The idea that three issues is enough for IGF is something we should oppose
(Adam wrote about this elsewhere)
2. Although spam and multilingualism must be up there, these issues have
technical components as well as regulatory ones. Some of those below are purely
regulatory issues, and in my mind that makes them a good target where IGF might
achieve something.
(with thanks to Seth Johnson for spreading this excellent summary on open access
issues)
All the best
Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +617 3870 1181
Fax +617 3105 7404
Mob +614 1966 7772
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet)
www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005)
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-06.htm
< SNIP >
Three gathering storms that could cause collateral damage for
open access
After the 9/11 attacks, some network security experts said that
skillful malefactors could bring down the internet. That was a
breathtaking and unexpected threat to OA that most of us had
never considered.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-19-01.htm#luke
Insofar as digital apocalypse is really a threat, then in the
years since 2001 it has become almost equally threatening to
non-OA journals, which have either dropped their print editions
or depend heavily on their online editions.
But threats to OA from left-field have not disappeared. Here are
three more, all making news in February: (1) the webcasting
treaty, (2) the opposition to network neutrality, and (3) the end
of free email.
By saying they're from left-field, I don't mean to suggest that
they're unlikely to materialize, only that the organizations
pursuing them are not deliberately targeting OA and have never
weighed the interests of OA in their calculations. Like
retrograde copyright reforms, they are policy proposals to
benefit corporate behemoths regardless of the collateral damage
they wreak across the landscape.
(1) The webcasting treaty
A draft treaty now before WIPO would create a new level of
protection, above and beyond copyright, for "webcasters" --anyone
who sends images and sounds "at substantially the same time" over
the internet. The proposal would let webcasters block the
copying and redistribution of the webcasts even if the copyright
holder had consented to OA, even if the webcast content had a
valid Creative Commons license or equivalent, even if the content
was in the public domain, and even if the content was legally
uncopyrightable.
Most digital journal articles would be spared because they're
just text, or just text and images. But the treaty would apply
to multimedia scholarship and could inhibit its further
development, for example in conference video presentations, open
courseware projects, podcasts of Stanford lectures, and LibraVox
audio files of print books scanned by the Open Content Alliance.
And of course once the ISPs get their foot in the door, the
treaty could be amended to apply to other kinds of content down
the road.
Wherever the treaty applies, authors and copyright-holders could
not authorize OA on their own. They would need the permission of
the webcasting ISP, for which it might charge a fee. The
internet would no longer be a medium in which the intent to give
away content could easily and unilaterally be matched with the
deed. Middlemen who want to make money could trump the decisions
of authors who want to offer free access to their work. Of
course these middlemen are already being paid twice over for
their webcasts by uploaders and downloaders. The webcast right
would last for 50 years, and the clock would start over whenever
the content was re-posted online. Fair use would not apply.
The treaty's main proponents are all based in the U.S.: Yahoo,
Fox, the National Academy of Broadcasters, and the U.S.
Government. But if WIPO adopts it, it will apply worldwide.
If you're wondering why this is supposed to be a good idea,
you're not alone.
Text of the proposed webcasting treaty.
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/sccr12.2rev2.doc
The CPTech page on the webasting treaty.
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/
The EFF page on the webcasting treaty.
http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/
Art Brodsky, WIPO Broadcasting Treaty Debated, In The Know,
Public Knowledge, February 28, 2006.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/itk-20060228#story2
The U.S. National Academies hosted a Public Symposium on the
Proposed WIPO Webcasting Treaty, Washington D.C., February 27,
2006.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/biso/Webcasting_Treaty_Symposium.html
The presentations and discussion are available in a large MP3
file.
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/nas-webcasting22feb06.mp3
James Boyle, More rights are wrong for webcasters, Financial
Times, February 17, 2006.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/441306be-2eb6-11da-9aed-00000e2511c8.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_02_12_fosblogarchive.html#114018548953355262
James Love, A UN/WIPO Plan to Regulate Distribution of
Information on the Internet, Huffington Post, November 30, 2005.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/a-unwipo-plan-to-regulat_b_11480.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_11_27_fosblogarchive.html#113355684157002030
* Here three related measures, two potential and one actual, to
trump the OA decision and impose an unwanted fee.
In the middle of last year, the Canadian Parliament began
debating a copyright reform bill called C-60 that would force
users to pay copyright royalties on OA content when used in
school or for homework, but not when the same content was used
from home. Worse than the webcasting treaty, it would apply to
plain text files and images.
http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/2005-2006/1005/807.amendments.to.copyright.law.could.cost.universities.php
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_10_02_fosblogarchive.html#112870147446697615
Australia is now considering a similar policy that would charge a
fee for browsing internet pages in school, even OA pages, and
give the money to copyright-holders who don't provide OA.
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18288580%5E15343%5E%5Enbv%5E15306-15318,00.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_02_26_fosblogarchive.html#114115370382657796
In the UK, a 17.5% value-added tax (VAT) applies to online
journals (OA and non-OA), and not to print journals. Traditional
publishers and OA proponents have both called on the government
to lift this burden from ejournals, but so far without success.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1200416,00.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_04_18_fosblogarchive.html#108263971523986402
(2) Opposition to net neutrality
>From its birth, the internet embodied the principle of net
neutrality: the pipes were equally open for all kinds of lawful
transmission. ISPs couldn't discriminate and favor one kind over
another. The internet owes its phenomenal growth to the network
neutrality principle, which allowed all comers big and small
(most small when they first launched) to have the same access to
users as anyone else.
But now cable and telecom companies want to discriminate, charge
premium prices for premium service, and give second-rate service
to everyone else. If we relax the principle of net neutrality,
then ISPs could, if they wanted, limit the software and hardware
you could connect to the net. They could charge you more if you
send or receive more than a set number of emails. They could
block emails containing certain keywords or emails from people or
organizations they disliked, and block traffic to or from
competitor web sites. They could make filtered service the
default and force users to pay extra for the wide open internet.
If you tried to shop at a store that hasn't paid them a kickback,
they could steer you to a store that has.
The telecom companies say that none of these scenarios has
occurred or is likely to occur. But in a white paper for Public
Knowledge, John Windhausen documents eight cases of ISPs
deliberately blocking certain kinds of lawful traffic or
services.
The telecom companies complain that usage giants like Google and
eBay are getting a "free ride" on the telecom infrastructure.
But Google and eBay pay well for network access and so do all of
their users.
U.S. law requires "communication services" like telephone
companies to operate on the principle of net neutrality but does
not require "information services" to do so. Currently,
broadband internet services fall into the second category, and
now they want to exercise their right to discriminate. Because
re-classifying the companies, or imposing the principle of net
neutrality, would "regulate the internet", the broadband
companies use the rhetoric of internet freedom fighters. But
this is dishonest. Network neutrality is the result of
regulation; the absence of regulation lets ISP's play favorites.
If they win, it will be a victory for the freedom to block
traffic and undercut the freedom to send and receive any lawful
content.
If companies like AT&T and Verizon have their way, there will be
two tiers of internet service: fast and expensive and slow and
cheap (or cheaper). We unwealthy users --students, scholars,
universities, and small publishers-- wouldn't be forced offline,
just forced into the slow lane. Because the fast lane would
reserve a chunk of bandwidth for the wealthy, the peons would
crowd together in what remained, reducing service below current
levels. New services starting in the slow lane wouldn't have a
fighting chance against entrenched players in the fast lane.
Think about eBay in 1995, Google in 1999, or Skype in 2002
without the level playing field provided by network neutrality.
Or think about any OA journal or repository today.
If Congress changes the rules for U.S. broadband providers, users
outside the U.S. will not be affected --unless they want to use
content or services from U.S. providers or unless their
governments decide, with or without arm-twisting, to "harmonize"
with U.S. law.
Ken Belson, Senate Bill to Address Fears of Blocked Access to
Net, New York Times, March 2, 2006. On Senator Ron Wyden's bill
to codify the principle of network neutrality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/technology/02online.html
Art Brodsky, Net Neutrality Enters Murky Legislative State, In
The Know, Public Knowledge, February 28, 2006.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/itk-20060228#story1
Steven Levy, When the Net Goes From Free to Fee, Newsweek,
February 27, 2006.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11433420/site/newsweek
Peter Svensson., Future of the Internet Highway Debated,
Associated Press, February 26, 2006.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060226/D8G0F178A.html
Mark Lloyd, Net Neutrality (or Back to the Future), Center for
American Progress, February 21. 2006.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1432287
Tollbooths on the Internet Highway, an unsigned editorial in the
New York Times, February 20, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/opinion/20mon1.html
Michael Arnone, Experts: Don't shoot messenger to protect
Internet, Federal Computer Week, February 17, 2006. Quoting Paul
Twomey, President and CEO of ICANN.
http://www.fcw.com/article92363-02-17-06-Web&RSS=yes
David Bollier, Save the Internet! February 13, 2006.
http://onthecommons.org/node/826?PHPSESSID=ecc2670e1b9431e46f1f2107fbbf31d0
Bill Thompson, Why the net should stay neutral, BBC News,
February 12, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4700430.stm
John Oates, Vint Cerf condemns two-tier internet, The Register,
February 8, 2006.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/08/cerf_calls_for_neutral_net/
Lawrence Lessig's Senate testimony on net neutrality, February 7,
2006.
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/Lessig_Testimony_2.pdf
Daniel Berninger, Net Neutrality Not An Optional Feature of
Internet, a guest column in Om Malik's blog, February 6, 2006.
http://gigaom.com/2006/02/06/net-neutrality-not-an-optional-feature-of-internet
Gigi Sohn, Don't blow it, Congress, C|Net, February 6, 2006.
http://news.com.com/Dont+blow+it,+Congress/2010-1023_3-6035094.html?tag=fd_carsl
John Windhausen, Good Fences Make Bad Broadband, a white paper
from Public Knowledge, February 6, 2006.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/papers/pk-net-neutrality-whitep-20060206
There's been a Slashdot thread on the two-tier internet since
January 19, 2006.
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/01/19/1816210.shtml
Michael Geist, Towards a two-tier internet, BBC News, December
22, 2005.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm
Common Cause position (undated)
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951
Common Cause action alert (US citizens only)
http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1408869&action=5458&template=x.ascx
(3) The end of free email
Yahoo and AOL have announced plans to charge extra for guaranteed
delivery of email. If you think that delivery is good enough
now, then Yahoo and AOL ominously explain that those who don't
pay extra may find that their messages end up in spam filters.
The new surcharge on mail wouldn't buy a glitch-free network;
Yahoo and AOL can't provide that. The surcharge would pay for an
escort past filters with varying and unknown criteria.
If you don't pay, will you at least have the same service you
have today --unimproved but also undiminished? The answer is
no. AOL has already said that customers who don't pay will
receive email without images or active links. If AOL users
couldn't leave, this would be extortion. But they can leave and
should start thinking about doing it.
Yahoo and AOL are not saying that the purpose is to gouge users.
They're saying that the purpose is to defeat spammers, who would
presumably not want to pay the surcharge on each of their
millions of messages. But of course if you trust email that your
ISP has carefully escorted past the spam filters, then some
spammers will find that higher costs on a smaller mailing list
will pay for themselves in gullible user strikes. Nor will it
stop spam sent to the people who don't pay the new fee.
Moreover, most filters are not under the control of Yahoo and AOL
and will continue to block whatever they block now. And you'll
be gouged too.
The program is insidious and would lead almost everyone to pay
the fees if they could --account holders at Yahoo and AOL and the
bulk mailers who send to Yahoo and AOL addresses. It would also
lead other email providers to adopt similar policies or fear that
they were leaving money on the table. This would harm everyone
who sends or receives non-spam mass mailings. This newsletter is
an example but only one of many. The program would harm every
form of OA content delivered by email, from emailed eprints and
listserv postings to journal current-awareness messages like
tables of contents and the results of stored searches. It would
hurt non-profit groups and informal communities that network by
email, including academic and political groups. Cash-strapped
operations relying on email for distribution would either be
forced to shut down or face higher costs that threaten their
stability.
In 2003 I wrote about some other crude measures to stop spam that
would cause similar collateral damage for OA. The new Yahoo/AOL
plan is just another example in a long history of overreaching
spam remedies. This one has the distinction of increasing
corporate revenue and using spam reduction as the pretext.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/07-04-03.htm#prodigality
Associated Press, AOL vows to institute fee-based service despite
protests, SiliconValley.com, February 28, 2006.
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/13977134.htm
Saul Hansell, Plan for Fees on Some E-Mail Spurs Protest, New
York Times, February 28, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/technology/28mail.html
Michael Geist, The Slippery Slope of Two Tier Email, Toronto
Star, February 13, 2006.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1103
Russell, Monetizing the Mailbox, ContentBlogger, February 10,
2006.
http://shore.com/commentary/weblogs/2006_02_01_m_archive.html#113958236324150806
Suzanne Goldenberg, Internet giants announce plans to charge for
speedier emails, The Guardian, February 6, 2006.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1703192,00.html
MoveOn.org's position statement (undated)
http://civic.moveon.org/mediaaction/alerts/Stop_AOL_email_scheme.html
MoveOn.org's action alert
http://civic.moveon.org/emailtax/
Strange Bedfellows Unite to Fight AOL's "Email Tax" (press
release from EFF), February 24, 2006. (The strange bedfellows
are the EFF, the Free Press, Craig Newmark of Craiglist,
representatives from the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, the
Association of Cancer Online Resources, and dozens of other
non-profits.)
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_02.php#004440
* Postscript. If you're worried about terrorists taking down the
internet, here's *some* reassurance.
John C. Doyle and seven co-authors, The "robust yet fragile"
nature of the Internet, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, October 11, 2005.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/102/41/14497
Excerpt: "Here, we have shown that there exist technological,
economic, and graph theoretic reasons why the most important SF
[Scale-Free] claim (i.e., that the Internet has 'hubs' that form
an Achilles' heel through which most traffic flows and the loss
of which would fragment the Internet and constitute its attack
vulnerability) cannot be (and is not) true for the current
router-level Internet."
< SNIP >
==========
This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821),
written by Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I
express in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily
reflect those of SPARC.
To unsubscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OANews-off at arl.org>.
Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to
interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of
this issue, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the
first two sites below.
SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access
Forum
http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html
Peter Suber's page of related information, including the
newsletter editorial position
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm
Newsletter, archived back issues
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm
Forum, archived postings
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html
Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm
Timeline of the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
Open Access Overview
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
peter.suber at earlham.edu
SOAN is an open-access publication under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License. Users may freely copy,
distribute, and display its contents, but must give credit to the
author. To read the full license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list