Registration is now closed, but here is the programme for this year’s Gikii. The good news is that I am in the first session.
09:30-10:45 First morning session (3): Doomsday
- Christopher Lever, Fortun@e 500: A Consideration of the Contract Law Consequences of Cache Poisoning
- Clive Feather, Resilience of the PGP “web of trust” and the disruption of criminal networks (no abstract)
- Mathias Klang, Strangelove and Salami: An illustration of the unintended consequences of technical solutions
10:45-11:15 Coffee Break
11:15-12:30 Second Morning session (3): Digital Identities and Legal Life After Death
- Burkhard Schafer, ZombAIs and family law: technology beyond the grave
- Lillian Edwards, Death 2.0
- Wiebke Abel, Shawn H.E. Harmon, Future Tech: Governance & Ethics In The Age Of Artificially Enhanced Man (Or ‘Beware The Zombais At The Gate’)
12:30-13:30 Lunch (on location)
13:30-15:15 First Afternoon session (4): Robots and Interfaces with Humans
- F.E. Guerra-Pujol, Blade Runner, Time Scarcity and the Optimal Lifespan of Robots and Clones’
- Miranda Mowbray and Burkhard Schafer, EAT ME
- Dr Richard Jones, ‘CyberTags: The third generation of electronic offender-monitoring systems’
15:15-15:45 Coffee Break
15:45-17:30 Second Afternoon session (4): Copyright: Take A Bite!
- Bernt Hugenholz, ‘A Future of Levies: The Taxification of Copyright’
- Ot van Daalen & Iris Kieft, Towards new methods for resolving the conflict between copyright and the free flow of information
- Nicolas Jondet, France: the land of the Linux? The case of DRM interoperability and reverse-engineering
19:30 Sponsored conference diner.
09:15-10:30 First morning session (3): New Media Harms
- Andrea Matwyshyn, Intended Data Beneficiaries
- Arno R. Lodder, Is it possible to control personal information that was uploaded by others without the intention to harm or infringe?
- Caroline Wilson, Twit or Tweet? Legal Issues Associated with Twitter and other Micro-Blogging Sites”
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
11:00-12:30 Second Morning session (4): Making and Sharing
- Maarten Brinkerink, Inge van Beekum, Incentives and Constraints for Dutch Public Broadcasters to Adopt Creative Commons Licensing
- Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Creative Commons licenses incompatibilities : when sharing needs to be rationalized
- Steven Hetcher, Location, Location Still Matters: Pop Stars, User-Generated Popular Culture & The Dislocation Of Non-Location
- Ray Corrigan, Protecting the public domain: a five point plan’
12:30-13:30 Lunch (on location)
13:30-15:15 First Afternoon session (4): The World Explained
- Andrés Guadamuz, Luddism 2.0, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Web
- Peter K. Yu, The Crossover Point
- Chris Marsden, Net Neutrality as a Debate About More Than Economics
15:15-15:45 Coffee Break
15:45-17:30 Second Afternoon session (4): Fundamental rights
- Joris van Hoboken, Search Engine Censorship: New Metaphors for the Suppression of Findability
- Judith Rauhofer, “Get out of my head, bloodsucker!” Notions of surveillance in the vampire mind
- Martin Jones, Sousveillance: The Emergent Digital Eye Witness
- TJ McIntyre, Won’t somebody please think of the children!?
TorrentFreak reports that the torrent search engine Mininova:
…has lost its civil dispute with Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN. The judge ruled that Mininova is not directly responsible for any copyright infringement, but ordered it to remove all torrents linking to copyrighted material within three months, or face a penalty of up to 5 million euros.
The courts attitude towards the site was very different to the Swedish Pirate Bay case since it was not BREIN’s intention was not to shut down the site. But they demanded a filtering of infringing keywords to ensure that copyright holders were protected.
The court agreed with BREIN’s assessment that Mininova is not doing enough to protect the rights of copyright holders, and ordered the site to remove all torrent files that link to infringing content within three months, or pay a penalty up to 5 million euros ($7 million).
The interesting thing is that the courts are demanding that Mininova do more than apply a takedown policy that allows copyright holders to remove infringing torrents but stop short from demanding the site is liable for everything straight away (which was the Swedish approach). The fact that “doing more” is extremely complex (and therefore costly) did not impress the courts.
The Pirate Bay is back online (at least the front page) with an updated version of Churchill’s We shall fight them on the beaches speech
We have, ourselves, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Internets, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.
Even though large parts of Internets and many old and famous trackers have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Ifpi and all the odious apparatus of MPAA rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the ef-nets and darknets, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Internets, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the baywords.org, we shall fight on the /. and on the digg, we shall fight in the courts;
we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, the Internets or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the Anon Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in Cerf’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
TPB Crew, for now and until when needed.
An interesting thing about Churchill’s speech was that when he paused for applause/effect in the middle of the speech he whispered to an aide, “and we shall fight with the butt end of broken beer bottles because that’s bloody well all we’ve got.”
Wikipedia is planning to add a feature called “flagged revisions” which will fundamentally alter the basic philosophy of WIkipedia. The plan will effect the articles of now living people and will require trusted voluntary Wikipedia editors to accept changes made to any article. Prior to acceptance the changes will not be visible. The New York Times writes:
The change is part of a growing realization on the part of Wikipedia’s leaders that as the site grows more influential, they must transform its embrace-the-chaos culture into something more mature and dependable.
The original free for all attitude where anyone can change articles – which is still the main boast of Wikipedia – has not been true since the Seigenthaler “scandal” in 2005. After John Seigenthaler was accused in a Wikipedia article of being directly involved in both the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy Wikipedia removed anonymous edits.
But the basic change occurring now is that the simple user cannot change articles (of now living people) which means that the balance of power in the creation of online information on Wikipedia shifts and gives the voluntary editor more power – even in relation to the knowledgeable writer.
Considering the past problems and the ways in which Wikipedia articles are often used for marketing and boastfulness these changes are probably necessary. But at the same time it is sad to see that the power over the online knowledge infrastructure is fundamentally shifting from the users into the hands of the gatekeepers.
Nothing surprising that academia studies the effects of Wikipedia on everything from online collaboration to coffee making (ok so the latter is an exaggeration, maybe) but it was very nice to see that Wikipedia has a page that collects academic research on Wikipedia. Now that I think about it – it seems obvious that Wikipedia has such a page.
Whatever, it’s a useful page.