Wikitopia: Balancing intellectual property rights within open source research databases

Wiki “communities” based on the open access ideology allow any visitor to easily add, remove or edit content. However, there are a slew of ethics and policy challenges inherent in their use. Open source software developers are faced with the dilemma of openly sharing their intellectual property and prevent others from claiming proprietary rights from the code they freely shared to the public? Intellectual Property rights licensing, ironically, is the route by which open software developers have chosen to regulate their free code in cyberspace. Open source code is generally free on the surface; but in reality, it comes with obligations which are enforceable by law. Aside from the potential liability for intellectual property infringement, the use of open software raises competition law and tort liability issues. The European Union has developed the European Public License which is written in conformity with the copyright, product liability and consumer protection laws of the 27 member states. The EU Commission has also proposed a new Directive which will extend the principles of consumer protection rules to cover licensing agreements of products like software. This paper will address the various legal issues that may arise in open source community sharing.     

Regulating E-commerce: Formal Transactions in the Digital Age

As digital transactions become more common the need to regulate the commercial frontier of cyberspace becomes increasingly urgent. This has been recognised by national governments, supranational bodies and international organisations. The regulations proposed have though been offered in a piecemeal fashion. National governments attempt to fit cyberspace within the four corners of their (familiar) domestic jurisprudence, and even supranational and international bodies have been guilty of simply extending previous rules to the realm of cyberspace. This paper suggests that a coherent approach to the regulation of electronic commerce may start with an identification and application of principles rather than with the transference of rules. It uses as a reference, proposals for the modernisation of land transfer systems introduced in Canada and Australasia, currently being evaluated by the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and the Law Commission/HM Registry. Underlying these proposals is a central issue: how are traditional formal requirements for property transactions accommodated in cyberspace? More fundamentally, if that most formal of transactions, the transfer of real property, can be modernised to meet the challenge of a new digital age, can not all modes of commerce be similarly modernised for the digital era? This paper evaluates whether a principled approach to answering these questions can, more generally, provide a workable framework for approaching e-commerce regulation.     

环境侵权中的精神损害赔偿制度初探

环境污染通常以危害范围广、后果严重、社会影响大为特征。它不但会对人的生命健康、财产或其他合法权益等造成损害,还会给受害人带来巨大的精神伤害和痛苦。环境侵权作为一种新型的侵权行为,其损害赔偿法律制度存在许多不完善之处。目前的法律法规中并无有关环境侵权精神损害赔偿的原则规定,在一定程度上造成了执法尺度的混乱,受害人的权益难于得到有效的维护。笔者建议将精神损害赔偿纳入我国环境侵权损害赔偿范围,确立环境侵权损害赔偿的社会化原则,以及法官自由裁量和最高限额的赔偿原则,从而有效地防止环境侵权行为,维护受害人的合法权利。     

The flip side of ISP’s liability regimes: The ambiguous protection of fundamental rights and liberties in private digital spaces

Since the inception of the Internet, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been used to segment cyberspace and make it possible for national states to apply their local laws to conduct having effects within their borders. This is true in particular in the realm of intellectual property. When one looks at the national regulatory regimes supposedly framing the behavior of ISPs, there appear to be more similarities than differences at a first glance. Does this mean that the national or regional legal frameworks regulating the behavior of ISPs, which are increasingly considered to be the sword of public authorities, should be identical in all legal systems? Is it not true that the content of these national or regional legal frameworks regulating the behavior of ISPs should partly depend upon the local trade-offs among conflicting fundamental rights and liberties? Indeed, private power can jeopardize the exercise and the very core of individuals’ prerogatives as much as public power and priorities vary from one legal system to another. This paper therefore seeks to highlight the dependence of national regulatory modes framing the conduct of ISPs upon the strength of certain fundamental rights and liberties. More precisely, while the first part aims to explore the influence of certain fundamental rights and liberties upon the regulatory modes set up by national legislators, and in particular free speech, from the perspective of the user-to-user relationship, the second part of this article is devoted to the protection of these fundamental rights and liberties from the perspective of the intermediary-to-user relationship. It shows that at least within two legal systems the dependence described initially is in reality altered by the prevalence of the intermediary’s interests, even if the latter are in part affected by a recent trend towards more state interventionism. As a result, national solutions appear to be less innovative than foreseen.     

The 2013 CLSR-LSPI seminar on electronic identity: The global challenge – Presented at the 8th International Conference on Legal,Security and Privacy issues in IT Law (LSPI) November 11–15, 2013, Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd., Bangkok,Thailand

We are the middle of a global identity crisis. New notions of identity are made possible in the online world where people eagerly share their personal data and leave ‘digital footprints’. Multiple, partial identities emerge distributed across cyberspace divorced from the physical person. The representation of personal characteristics in data sets, together with developing technologies and systems for identity management, in turn change how we are identified. Trustworthy means of electronic identification is now a key issue for business, governments and individuals in the fight against online identity crime. Yet, along with the increasing economic value of digital identity, there are also risks of identity misuse by organisations that mine large data sets for commercial purposes and in some cases by governments. Data proliferation and the non-transparency of processing practices make it impossible for the individual to track and police their use. Potential risks encompass not only threats to our privacy, but also knowledge-engineering that can falsify digital profiles attributed to us with harmful consequences. This panel session will address some of the big challenges around identity in the digital age and what they mean for policy and law (its regulation and protection). Questions for discussion include: What does identity mean today? What types of legal solutions are fit for purpose to protect modern identity interests? What rights, obligations and responsibilities should be associated with our digital identities? Should identity management be regulated and who should be held liable and for what? What should be the role of private and public sectors in identity assurance schemes? What are the global drivers of identity policies? How can due process be ensured where automated technologies affect the rights and concerns of citizens? How can individuals be more empowered to control their identity data and give informed consent to its use? How are biometrics and location-tracking devices used in body surveillance changing the identity landscape?     

The emergence of biobanks in the legal landscape: towards a new model of governance

Biobanks are increasingly seen as new tools for medical research. Their main purpose is to collect, store, and distribute human body materials. These activities are regulated by legal instruments which are heterogeneous in source (national and international), and in form (binding and non-binding). We analyse these to underline the need for a new model of governance for modern biobanks. The protection initially ensured by respect for fundamental rights will need to focus on more interactions with society in order to ensure biobanks' sustainability. International regulation is more oriented on ethical principles and traces the limits of the uses of genetics, while European regulation is more concerned with the protection of fundamental rights and the elaboration of standards for biobanks' quality assurance. But is this protection adequate and sufficient? Do we need to move from the biomedical research analogy to new forms of legal protection, and governance systems which involve citizens?     

海域物权的法律属性研究及立法模式选择

随着社会形势的发展变化，海域事实上已经逐渐取得了类似于土地的不动产地位。因此，需要对传统民法的物权理论进行革新：注重自然资源物权与传统物权的协调；对物权客体特定性的含义进行重新定位；对自然资源物权进行类型化分析；海域物权与土地物权并列，都应受民事立法和特别立法的共同规范。宪法中应明确规定海域资源的法律地位，物权法也应对海域物权的基本问题做出规定，并通过专门立法来协调在海域物权中的公益与私益冲突。     

Four Lessons for Developing Countries from the Trade Negotiations Over Access to Medicines

After the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) came into operation in 1995 developing countries have found themselves in a process of continual negotiation over intellectual property rights and access to medicines. These negotiations have taken place in the World Trade Organization and in the context of free trade agreements. The paper suggests that the only real win for developing countries has been the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health in 2001. What have been the lessons for developing countries in a decade of negotiations over access to medicines? Drawing on themes of rule complexity and regulatory ritualism the paper discusses four key lessons for developing countries. It concludes by arguing that developing countries will do better if they adopt a networked governance approach to negotiation rather than continuing to rely on traditional coalition formation.     

DIGITAL BORDER CONTROLS

The article examines to what extent territory plays a role in internet regulation, especially whether an equivalent to physical border controls for cyberspace already exists in Germany, i.e. digital border controls. To that end, both the abstract relevance of the territorial principle and specific examples of legal commands that cause the free flow of data to be interrupted or modified along state boundaries are scrutinized.     

Can and Should Greenhouse Gases Be Regulated as Hazardous Air Pollutants under Clean Air Act Sec. 112?

This article poses three questions: (1) Can greenhouse gases be regulated under § 112 of the Clean Air Act? (2) If they were to be regulated in this way, what would the practical consequences be? (3) Should greenhouse gases be regulated this way? To summarize the offered answers: greenhouse gases can indeed be regulated under § 112; if they were to be regulated, the practical consequences would be substantial but potentially manageable; and whether or not they should be regulated in this way depends entirely on the nature and survival of the upcoming New Source Performance Standards under § 111(d). If § 111(d) regulation survives, the question of whether or not § 112 regulation could coexist arises, with the answer being in the affirmative albeit with potentially prohibitive difficulties. If § 111(d) regulation fails, § 112 regulation may serve as a regulatory last resort on which the Environmental Protection Agency may have to rely in order to seriously tackle the threat of climate change.     

Smokers vs. nonsmokers in the work place: clearing the air.

As the antismoking movement grows, employees are becoming more vociferous about their right to a work environment free from tobacco smoke and its toxic effects. In response to these concerns, ordinances regulating smoke in public places and in some cases banning it altogether have been passed in several states and some cities. Likewise, courts have addressed the issue of nonsmokers' rights in the work place. In the following article, the authors examine the scope of regulation thus far and the prospect of future regulation on smoking in the work place. They also examine court, National Labor Relations Board, and arbitration decisions that have dealt with the rights of smokers and nonsmokers.     

e-Youth before its judges - Legal protection of minors in cyberspace

The present paper¹ aims both at introducing the legal aspects of the protection of minors in cyberspace and analysing and criticizing certain main features embedded in this legal approach of young people protection. After a short introduction underlining the concept of child’s rights and the reason why this right has been particularly proclaimed in the context of the cyberspace, the first section describes the new technological features of the ICT environment and linked to this evolution the increasing risks the minors are confronted with. A typology of cyber abuses is proposed on the basis of these considerations. A list of EU or Council of Europe texts directly or indirectly related to the minors’ protection into the cyberspace is provided. The second section intends to analyse certain characteristics of the legal approach as regards the ways by which that protection is conceived and effectively ensured. Different principles and methods might be considered as keywords summarizing the legal approach and to a certain extent, fixing a partition of responsibilities taking fully into account the diversity of actors might be deduced from the different regulatory documents.The third section comes back to the different complementary means by which the Law is envisaging the minors’ protection. The obligation to create awareness about the potential risks minors might incur definitively is the first one. The omnipresent reference in all the legal texts to the role of self-regulatory interventions constitutes another pillar of the protection envisaged by the Law. After having described the multiple instruments developed in the context of this self-regulation (labels, codes of conduct, hotlines, ODR…) or even co-regulation, the paper examines the conditions set by the European legislators as regards these instruments. Technology might be considered as a fourth method for protecting children. Our concern will be to see how the Law is addressing new requirements as regards the technological solutions and their implementation. The present debates about the liability of the actors involved in applications or services targeted or not vis-à-vis the minors like SNS or VSP operators are evoked. As a final point the question of the increasing competences of LEA and the reinforcement of the criminal provisions in order to fight cyber abuses against minors will be debated. In conclusion, we will address final recommendations about the way by which it would be possible to reconcile effective minors’ protection and liberties into the cyberspace.     

Cultures in Orbit,or Justi-fying Differences in Cosmic Space: On Categorization,Territorialization and Rights Recognition

The many constraints of outer space experience challenge the human ability to coexist. Paradoxically, astronauts assert that on the international space station there are no conflicts or, at least, that they are able to manage their differences, behavioral as well as cognitive, in full respect of human rights and the imperatives of cooperative living. The question is: Why? Why in those difficult, a-terrestrial, and therefore almost unnatural conditions do human beings seem to be able to peacefully and collaboratively live together? What is there beyond terrestrial boundary conditions that allows for such a result? And what can we learn from the astronauts’ experience about the (lack of) effectiveness of human rights on Earth? My proposal is that the a-terrestrial dimension deeply alters the mind/body indexical framework and, in this way, disentangles the human inclination to semiosis from the cognitive and behavioral habits of categorization and territorialization inherent in the experience on Earth. If analyzed through the spectrum of an interdisciplinary approach involving anthropology, semiology, law, and human geography, I think that outer space enterprises can offer many insights into the cognitive and ethical/political hindrances to the effectiveness of human rights and their intercultural uses. Meanwhile the compulsive greed for a possessive territorialization of outer space and celestial bodies is growing by leaps and bounds. It haunts and imbues both astropolitics and space law. The astronauts’ semio-anthropological experience of human rights and cooperative coexistence seems to have been left in orbit. The future requires awareness and action by anthropologists, semioticians, cognitive scientists, geographers and lawyers, working all together in an interdisciplinary effort to move beyond approaching the experiential with a territorial mindset. The hope is that the “dark dream” of human exploitation/colonization of outer space will not turn from a political and legal speculation into a future reality.     

Automated decision-making in the EU Member States: The right to explanation and other “suitable safeguards” in the national legislations

The aim of this paper is to analyse the very recently approved national Member States’ laws that have implemented the GDPR in the field of automated decision-making (prohibition, exceptions, safeguards): all national legislations have been analysed and in particular 9 Member States Law address the case of automated decision making providing specific exemptions and relevant safeguards, as requested by Article 22(2)(b) of the GDPR (Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, the United Kingdom, Ireland).The approaches are very diverse: the scope of the provision can be narrow (just automated decisions producing legal or similarly detrimental effects) or wide (any decision with a significant impact) and even specific safeguards proposed are very diverse.After this overview, this article will also address the following questions: are Member States free to broaden the scope of automated decision-making regulation? Are ‘positive decisions’ allowed under Article 22, GDPR, as some Member States seem to affirm? Which safeguards can better guarantee rights and freedoms of the data subject?In particular, while most Member States refers just to the three safeguards mentioned at Article 22(3) (i.e. subject's right to express one's point of view; right to obtain human intervention; right to contest the decision), three approaches seem very innovative: a) some States guarantee a right to legibility/explanation about the algorithmic decisions (France and Hungary); b) other States (Ireland and United Kingdom) regulate human intervention on algorithmic decisions through an effective accountability mechanism (e.g. notification, explanation of why such contestation has not been accepted, etc.); c) another State (Slovenia) require an innovative form of human rights impact assessments on automated decision-making.     

CYBER‐ABUSE—A NEW WORLDWIDE THREAT TO CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

Cyberspace is a new frontier for both international and domestic family law. On the one hand, it presents great opportunities for society and, on the other, great dangers particularly for children. This paper explores a number of issues from a domestic and international family law perspective. These issues include:

• ? What is cyberspace, how has it emerged, and where is it likely to go?
• ? What are the potential dangers for children that arise from children's engagement with cyberspace?
• ? What is the nature and extent of domestic and international family laws that protect children from the dangers of cyberspace?
• ? What are some of the present and emerging policy issues that impact on these matters?

Cyber‐abuse is a term that encompasses a wide range of aggressive online activities.     

深层链接法律规制理论的反思与重构

所有具有或者可能具有重大的经济或实际重要性的作品利用方式，原则上都应当保留给作者。中国著作权法“应当由著作权人享有的其他权利”为应对技术发展提供了充分的制度空间。深层链接对著作权人具有重要商业利益，应属于著作权人专有权的涵盖范围；相比于适用兜底条款，采取扩张解释“信息网络传播权”的方式更优。借鉴国际版权法学界早期应对固定服务卫星传播的规制方案，并结合《世界知识产权组织版权条约》的文本与外交会议文件，可提炼出“间接提供理论”，以合理平衡著作权人、网络服务提供者与公众之间的利益关系。     

Chilling ISPs… when private regulators act without adequate public framework…

Self-regulation has found its adepts very early, but more academics are beginning to question its appropriateness and calling for a “hybrid regulation” as cyberspace becomes more and more an essential means of communication in everyday life. Yet, today the private sector has never been so strong within cyberspace and the chances to see the flowering of what U.S. lawyers know as public forums keep on diminishing. The success of filtering measures, the implementation is which is most of the time opaque, confirms this trend. More generally, the desire to see private powers confined in the digital environment is far from being granted. This is certainly due in part to the relative obsolescence of legal concepts that are inapt to frame the behavior of intermediaries, which do play the role of regulators. This paper thus seeks to determine and analyse the legal framework within which intermediaries act in cyberspace.     

Determining health care rights from behind a veil of ignorance

Should our society establish positive rights to health care that each citizen could claim, as many health policy analysts believe? Or should it provide only background rules of contract and property law and leave the provision of health care to the free market, as Richard Epstein advocates in Mortal Peril? In this article, Professor Korobkin argues that this question should be addressed from the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" perspective. That is, the question should be answered by asking what kind of society would individuals agree to form if they had no knowledge of their individual skills or endowments; if they did not know whether they were rich or poor, healthy or sick, weak or strong. Professor Korobkin contends that individuals behind such a veil of ignorance would balance their inherent risk aversion (which favors a safety net of "rights") against the inefficient incentives created by rights regimes that would reduce net social wealth (which favors a free market). Whether they would choose to establish rights to health care or not is ultimately an empirical question that turns on how inefficient any particular right would be. The question thus requires a case-by-case analysis of proposed rights. The article then considers the policy issues of (1) community rating of private health insurance and (2) the mandated provision of emergency medical care. It concludes that in these cases the inefficient incentives created by establishing rights are probably smaller and/or controllable enough to lead individuals behind the veil of ignorance to favor a regime of positive rights.     

Citizenship in schools: the gap between theory and practice

Upon leaving school, young people are expected to play an active part as citizens in a democratic society. Are schools providing them with the tools to do this? Citizenship is taught in schools, but to what extent is it practised? Many safety issues concerning student behaviour and student conflict confront school authorities. In what ways are students learning to take responsibility for the safety of their school environments? Generally, schools in New Zealand and in comparative jurisdictions continue to operate on a traditional authoritarian hierarchical basis. Within these structures students could rightly feel that schooling is something which is ‘done to them’ rather than their being engaged as active participants. School authorities have a moral and legal responsibility to maintain a learning environment which is physically and emotionally safe and free from hostility. Traditionally reactive measures such as searching, drug testing and exclusion are used by schools with the aim of fulfilment of that duty. Research indicates that these measures have met with limited success in terms of school safety, and that in any event they may expose school authorities to challenge from students on the basis that their rights have been violated.     

Net neutrality: A user's guide

Net neutrality is a complex issue that has generated intense levels of political discussion in the United States, but which has yet to attract significant attention from regulators in the UK. Nevertheless, the question of whether network operators should be prevented from blocking or prioritising certain network traffic or traffic from particular sources is a significant one for a wide range of stakeholders in the digital networked economy. Network operators contend that the build costs for the next generation of networks are so high that they must be permitted to monetise their control over this infrastructure as efficiently as possible. Meanwhile, an eclectic mix of interests including content and service providers, free speech and special interest groups and entertainers, argue that net neutrality regulation is necessary to guarantee that the Internet's core values and social utility are preserved. This article offers an introduction to net neutrality from a UK perspective. The authors explain the technical, commercial, political and legal considerations that underpin the issue and suggest that, whilst net neutrality regulation in its strongest incarnation is not practical or desirable, a level of regulatory action designed to enhance the choices of end users is the best way forward.