Jordan S. Hatcher: “Why we can’t use the same open licensing approach for databases as we do for content and software.“

Comments welcome!

For those not familiar with this area, my big picture layman’s summary of the semantic web / linked data: Make more stuff machine readable so that we can do smarter and better things with machines.

One of the strands of developing semantic web technology deals with building out copyright (and other IP) permissions into the framework. You can find out what the rights cover what, and where to go to get copyright permissions, etc, generally through adding metadata (data about data).

Going back to my lay interpretation, this means “making copyright permissions machine readable so that machines can do smarter and better stuff when dealing with copyright permissions”.

Creative Commons for example has started this through giving each of its licenses a set of machine readable code and through developing standards around these machine readable expressions of their licenses such as ccREL. Incidentally they give their licenses out in three versions: human readable (a summary), lawyer readable (the actual license) and machine readable (the extra stuff in the copy and paste code they provide).

Incidentally, at ISWC, there was a really interesting presentation on a paper (PDF) on looking at attribution, Creative Commons, and Flickr within a semantic web framework and ways to make compliant attribution in CC licenses easier.

I’m not qualified to go into deep detail on the technical side of implementing rights into the semantic web, so I’ll leave that to others. I’m thinking more about the big picture on how you build out such a framework for copyright and what approach you take.

Where do you start when trying to describe copyright licenses for the web?

I see (and have seen presented by others) three options:

• Option 1. Start with copyright law and write out permissions based on each of the individual rights bundled up with copyright.
• Option 2. Start with what users may do with a work and then whether you grant them permission.
• Option 3. Start with current copyright licensing practice and how copyright gets bundled and used by licensors currently.

I see options 2 or 3 as the only real way to go. Starting with copyright law (Option 1), and expressing the rights – such as simply “distribution” – paints with entirely too broad a brush. To express a permission in terms of “distribution” misses the fine grained control that copyright gives rightsholders.

For example, industry practice (say in the movie industry) often break down the broad distribution right into very fine grained levels, such as:

• by geographic region – North America market versus European market
• by media type – theatrical vs satellite rights vs DVD rights
• by time – licenses last for set number of years

Option 1 – starting with copyright law – also has a further wrinkle: What copyright law do you use? Copyright consists of national rights harmonised by international treaties. The Berne Convention (or rather, Berne via TRIPs) sets a floor and not a ceiling, and member states have fairly wide variation in how the implement and enforce it. Using Berne as a “copyright law for the global internet” may be tempting but is inaccurate – 171 countries on the internet mean 171 different sets of copyright law. One specific right such as “distribution” means in one place may mean something different somewhere else, and you have to find ways to express both of those differences (though that is not to say that this can’t be done or that semantic web technologies aren’t addressing the problem of different definitions).

Options 2 and 3 admittedly aren’t too far apart from each other. Mainly I see this as a difference in tone rather than a deep divide:

• Option 2 starts with the hypothetical user and asks what could he or she possibly do with the work, versus
• Option 3 starts with industry practice in licensing and asks how do licensors typically license their works.

I think Option 3 is probably the more practical of the two, as while copyright law may allow super fine grained control at times, the key is what level of control most rightsholders usually exercise and how they bundle those rights. Mechanical rights, for example, are the name given by the industry to the right to reproduce and distribute a music CD, but aren’t a single right granted by statute.

Either way, more fine grained expressions of copyright will get built into the next generation of web technologies – indeed this has already started with ccREL and others. Starting with existing copyright practice and building out from there seems to make the most sense to me.

YMMV

UPDATE Everyone’s slides are linked to through the ISWC wiki page on our tutorial and will soon be up on the tutorial homepage.

I’m really pleased to be participating in an open data tutorial at this year’s International Semantic Web Conference in Washington DC, together with Leigh and Tom from Talis and Kaitlin from Science Commons. Thanks to Talis for helping get me over to DC for the event.

We’re really excited as it’s a half day on the topic, which means that we get to cover it in depth. I’ll cover the legal bits, while Tom and Leigh do the semantic end of the spectrum and Kaitlin the social aspects. Slides and more info, closer to time.

I’ll be staying through most of the conference, so if you are planning on being there and want to chat open data, please give me a shout.

Also, for those of you that can’t make it, we’re doing a workshop in London on 13th November: Open Data and the Semantic Web.

====

Luddism 2.0, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Web

Andrés Guadamuz

Andres starts out with the traditional apology.

Destroying machines and the history of luddism – at one point there were more british soldiers fighting luddites than fighting in the Napoleon wars. Historical = Luddite 1.0.

The Difference Engine and the first computers – Charles Babbage & co.

Luddism 2.0

There will always be some luddism – in terms of technophobia (eg Daily Mail). Not just Daily Mail, but many other newspapers and content on all mediums (information, articles, and editorials) equal a steady drip of anti technology / technophobic statements.

Dystoian future gazing

- minimal public funds for research
- no broadband investment
- draconian IP

oh wait. the future is here.

snap.

=========

The Crossover Point

Peter K. Yu

Same issues – downloads / sharing. Graduated response = digital guillotine for consumers. Piracy in the US in the 1800’s (copyright pirates of foreign novels such as Dickens). Martin Chuzzlewit as Dickens response. Clay report and the mutilation and alteration of works by US publishers of UK works (cut Dickens down to a more readable 300 pages from 800). US authors fought back as well as being hurt by the underselling of foreign works (hard to compete).

So there is a trajectory from piracy to IP respectful (such as BRIC countries). This is the crossover point.

Challenges:

- the finish line keeps on moving (FTAs / bilateral treaties keep ratcheting up the standard for being “ip compliant”)
- uncertainty of crossover – where is the tipping point?

Where is the crossover point? Starting The Crossover Point Project

Comapring US, Germany and Japan (crossed over) with BRIC and Nigeria and Malaysia.

Filesharing as a war between humans and machines.

Where is copyright? It’s artificial an depends on laws. It’s complex.

What’s the future for copyright? How to move beyond it

ME: For a more serious view of this by Yu, see From Pirates to Partners: Protecting Intellectual Property in China in the Twenty-First Century among his other papers.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=245548

====

Net Neutrality More than Economics

Chris Marsden

Net neutrality is 10 years old this year. The end of end-to-end? (this death toll has been going for ten years).

Europe response to net neutrality is that not a problem here “we have better competition law”. Bush era = absolute fantasy era in terms of telecoms public policy, regulation, competition and anti-trust.

24kbps is effective rate of what ISPs provide (analysis masons for ofcom (2009)). BBC iPlayer runs at 850kbps. ISPs don’t actually provision what they advertise in terms of broadband.

Accurate information will allow people to see through the broadband / telecoms veil. more information is good for people in terms of knowing what is blocked (human rights / net neutrality / DPI) and what they are getting (market / consumer protection / competition / net neutrality).

===

Incentives and Constraints for Dutch Public Broadcasters to Adopt Creative Commons Licensing

Maarten Brinkerink and Inge van Beekum

Review of the (really neat and amazing) Images for the Future project. http://www.beeldenvoordetoekomst.nl/en

Using CC-BY-SA as preferred license. Also only publicly showing images / content in low quality.

Economic arguments – state’s TV licence fee, membership contribution, and indirect profits.
Production quality arguments – recontextualization, cultural heritage and the cultural and collective memory.

What are the incentives for public broadcasters to sign up?

–
Me: not sure why this is the preferred license for a public institution. I think that CC-BY (or even a public domain dedication such as CC0) is best bet to match public remit.

When people say “creative commons license” must always unpack – there are six very different main licenses and not all of them open under the open definition. http://opendefinition.org/

===

Creative Commons licenses incompatibilities : when sharing needs to be rationalized

Melanie Dulong de Rosnay

CC as goal to facilitate sharing and remix.

Does the CC math 11 options reduced to 6 options, with 4 versions, over 50 jurisdictions = too many licenses (Amen to that!). The lawyer readable code is often not that readable to lawyers or humans. There are issues around mixing the licenses and incompatibility on their face (CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND for example) and more subtle problems (like around database rights) Unported has problems around scope and how everything plays out in each jurisdiction.

Three options to help simplify based on community input:

- Attribution
- Representation
- Collection (re derivative works)

Attribution – Wikimedia terms of use as an example, including Global Voices and Flickr as ways to get more.

Representation – this is the warranty problem of how do you make sure that whoever licensed content under CC had the rights to do so and cleared it for other infringement. How to solve this problem, as the question is really difficult for the licensor to answer?

Collection – more clarity needed around want is a collective work and what is an adaptation.

Question

—
Me – all great points. I’d say that the guidelines are interesting — the core is that they may not be part of the actual contract/license, but they build up a community of practice to bake in the understanding to how it would be interpreted (this is part of the Open Data Commons ODbL discussion as well).

======

Copyright and torts

(for lack of a given title)
Steven Hetcher

NB that this is a new paper and not Location, Location Still Matters: Pop Stars, User-Generated Popular Culture & The Dislocation Of Non-Location as in programme

The combo of torts and copyright. Long separate in many ways, but the core bit is the analysis of actors and the nature of the injury. Property right analysis (copyright) focuses on “do you have property” and “was there a taking around the property”. Shows that copyright may be immature in that it doesn’t take into the arguments around the nature of the injury.

His end policy argument – judges should put in fair use into questions around amateur remix.

Interesting point about moving fair use from a shield to a sword and that judges in the US can make this switch within the law.

—
Me – parallels to Patry’s SCL talk from earlier this year Crafting an Effective Copyright Law and readers should listen to it if able.

====

Protecting the public domain: a five point plan’

Ray Corrigan

Digital environmentalism — mixing parallels from environmentalism to digital domain.

Key parts from environmental / biology:
- survey of world flora and fauna – you know more and more about rich global diversity
- biological wealth – pharma prospecting
- conservation – saving what remains
- restore the wild lands

In the digital domain:
- comprehensive survey of global knowledge
- can build the digital wealth
- need for digital sustainability
- can we save what remains – public domain in IP
- restore the wild lands – maybe a safe harbor in copyright

I’m liveblogging the 4th annual Gikii conference, kindly hosted by IViR in Amsterdam. (Gikii Programme)

=====

Intended Data Beneficiaries

Andrea Matwyshyn

(apologies both to Andrea and to readers – the Gikii dinner took its toll and as a result was a bit late to the first session. I did manage to catch the end of the talk and the Q&A)

Andrea’s core seems to be contractual privity and trying to bring in beyond those named in the contract to those actually harmed in a privacy breach. Example would be data analysis company contracted to a credit card company – no contractual relationship with credit card customer with data analysis

=====

Is it possible to control personal information that was uploaded by others without the intention to harm or infringe?

Arno R. Lodder

Personal self determination. Mostly about all the information that you can find out about people through using online search tools. Idea that the intention behind putting info online should be a factor – not sure I agree. Mostly about that internet and search means people can find out more information about you, and that information might be false.

=====

Twit or Tweet? Legal Issues Associated with Twitter and other Micro-Blogging Sites”

Caroline Wilson

Micro-blogging – anything new? Not so much — all the same issues with blogging etc.

Why are people doing it? Easy and instant.

Sector increased in three different ways
- many dedicated services have developed
- increasing microblogging in established apps (facebook status updates)
- more niche microblogs (yammer and mysay as an example)

Format = concise and there lies part of the attraction.

How to define – “required concise content” as part of the service

Legal issues:
- identity (trademarks, personal names) (this is the same issue with domain names and trademarks)
- authenticity (ghost tweeting – outsourced twittering)
- copyright – doing a precis in 140 characters as interesting test case in idea/expression dichotomy. retweets as copyright and convention of retweeting.

Hashtags as a domain name — Caroline sees that someone will try to assert rights over ownership of a hashtag soon. Very interesting!

Contract as Queen and private ordering as part of the equation. Also the IT law problem of law will be slow to catch up and technical solutions will be primary.

=====

The Googlification of Copyright: The Google Books Settlement and its consequences for Europe
Bernt Hugenholtz

Google Book Settlement = GBS
Factors

- (practical) monopoly of google
- privacy
- practical licensing
- open content licensing short-circuited
- orphan works should be settled by legislature and not private ordering

GBS was only for US – European Union and other countries not affected. Class actions not here in Europe + national nature of copyright even in EU = different incentives. Is there a sea change in the Commission? Recent press release of McCreavy / Redding says that this may be a problem that Europe can’t have a similar Google books settlement because there is too much fragmentation. IvIR/Bernt/&co says that there is too much frag in EU on © and so should look at a Europe wide copyright. (they did a study within the last few years to commission on this)

Question from audience – seems google’s strategy is to drag out dispute until they complete digitisation and then as a practical matter they won because got all the data. Is this the strategy in Europe? Response – one way to do the PPP route which is quite popular in Europe (public private partnership) as strategy to get settlement.

======

Towards new methods for resolving the conflict between copyright and the free flow of information

Ot van Daalen & Iris Kieft

p2p as toxic -> how to make it sustainable is the question?

Current conflict resolution procedures available:
- the courts
- legislative / public policy / lobbying

Question from audience – agree that sustainability is key, but that the players keep changing so it makes it difficult.

=====

France: the land of the Linux? The case of DRM interoperability and reverse-engineering

Nicolas Jondet

Open source users rely on reverse engineering of DRMs for interoperability. DRMs aren’t really part of the open source space and are a feature of the “proprietary world”.

If you use the decompilation exception it is a way around some of the market – recent French decision that is complex and possibly idiosyncratic. End message is that it is okay to use decomplied DRMs, especially in the absence of legal alternatives

Already starting to see DVD Flash etc on open source.

Me: great insights into a jurisdiction that can be hard to get access to on what is going on in open source

====

EAT ME

Miranda Mowbray & Burkhard Schaffer

Memory spot mico computers.

Medical microbots – selfassembling stomach bots and you. Molecular computing can speed up computing – data as DNA strings. Molecular computing scales better than conventional computing.

We are DNA robots.

Data protection law implications. Digital DNA data and processing. We are DNA storage devices that store data about other people (our relatives, etc). We are all data processors.

Evidence law implications = distinction between computer generated statements and eyewitness statements. (me: Think about red light cameras and evidence statements by technicians that they were working correctly at the time they took the picture). We don’t do this in the human/DNA space *now, but in fact are starting to – brain scans.

Is this the start of the end of a distinction between storing data in carbon — people and their DNA — and silicon — forensic computing — in evidence law.

Follow up question from audience: Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the act of observation changing things (esp in quantum computing). Answer: happens in human evidence — act of remembering effectively overwrites with what you think you remembered.

====

Blade Runner, Time Scarcity, and the Optimal Lifespan of Robots and Clones

FE Guerra-Pujol

Turing and the question of lifespan of robots and clone – theme of Blade Runner (me – PKD again).

Coase and clones. Maybe the problem in bladerunner framework not robot rights but rather Tyrell’s monopoly on replicants and the ability of replicants to go to other corps, collectively bargain, and so on. Ties into IP rights in this instance as well (how would IP tie replicants to Tyrell corp)

My added obligatory Tears in the Rain quote:

I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I’ve watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. Time to die.

======

CyberTags: The third generation of electronic offender monitoring systems

Richard Jones

Electronic monitoring of offenders – future gazing.

Big question – does electronic monitoring work? Definitely not clear at all that works without other things such as rehab programs. Often just left to monitor (spew out data) without much.

New monitors can tell if on drugs, have two way voice communications (talking to your ankle tag!), sleep pattern monitoring (for drug use), location monitoring for exclusion zones.

New gen involves way to build in some of the rehab type bits into the monitoring — late to report for curfew, your probation officer calls you up and asks you why.

Ideology – new directions in rehabilitation theory – reshape the identify of the person: “desistance”.

Alternative reality tunnel of thinking about this as a “cyborg” – feedback of data changes behaviour.

Q’s – points out ethics of memory erasure.

Me – interesting to match this with the AI stuff earlier. The electronic nanny state.

====

Death on the web
Lilian Edwards

What to do with web accounts, email, business accounts (eBay), profiles and everything else online when dead? The legal norm is that there is no norm. Every site has a different rule/ToS, no code of practice, etc. It’s a hard issue for people to deal with as a practical matter, and a patchwork of laws — contracts with people, banking laws, criminal law, and so on. One of the practical problems is that anyone that can access your password (say if you had a partner that knew it) can get in and change, delete, use, take your online stuff before anyone else (such as your desired heirs) can try to make the various providers give them the passwords.

=====
ZombAIs and Family law
Burkhard Schaffer

Zombie plus AI (artificial intelligence) = ZombAIs

Main quest for AIs and the law – to reason about law similar to a judge (the level of understanding by a machine).

In the AI context = learn from the vampire experience when addressing AIs – artificial blood for vamps therefore artificial brains for zombAIs.

Problems with the computer judge

- robustness – interpreting law under changing circumstances

Watched Total Recall clip of Arnie telling himself who he really is because he wiped his brain to go deep undercover (me: the core PKD theme of what is real and what is human).

In context of wills and intestacy — could have video there. Extension is an AI of you after death.

Historical precedent: Jeremy Bentham’s corpse sat at university meeting and cast votes in abstentia as part of his will.

What about the hacked AI representation of you: The ZombAI. Looks like you but really a third party.

JH comments – very transhumanist – essentially uploading people (mind uploading). This feels like thoughts on an intermediate step – uploaded self AIs that perhaps aren’t as good as being the actual person, and should we let them interact with the physical world. Surely many of the questions / problems (can AIs vote, hold physical property, money, etc) are eliminated when moving to a wholly virtually

=========

Beware the ZombAIs at the gate:
Shawn Harmon and Wiebke Abel

AI = systems that act like humans. New frontier is nanotech and synthetic biology.

Nano risks – security and privacy (ubiquitous surveillance)

Convergence coming b/w nano, syn bio, and AI – socio ethical issues at forefront and how will they play out. Ownership issues, how can regulation cope?

=========

My comments:

This session struck me as the trajectory of mind uploading and transhumanism.

First, Lilian with what do we do today with the dumb stuff out there on the internet – the diaspora of passwords, accounts, profiles and data that make up “me” on the web.

Second, Burkhard with what happens when you have AIs that can make decisions like you would, but less than full autonomy? How does this impact existing legal structures: intestacy, moral and ethical dillemas in family law (find out child that never knew existed). Focus on software.

Third, Wiebke and Shawn with likely scenarios of convergence in a “wet” world (see recent Wired column on wet by Warren Ellis) and synthetic humans / or synthetic augmentation of humans and AI.

My thought is the next stage is really when everything goes virtual — how much will all these concepts from real property and the physical world matter?