Bundle of Sticks

I decided to move to Wordpress.com account simply because of the usability of blogging client. Blogsome is too slow to manage without the help of a client and its xml-rpc has a serious problem. Though I think I spent some amount of time setting up this account, I think I should minimize the damage by now.

The new blog address is http://iplawyer.wordpress.com/

I have been so occupied with reading news about Dr. Hwang and his forged 2004 and 2005 papers that I have been somewhat negligent updating this blog.

From a spectator\’s point of view, Dr. Hwang offered me with great daily show comprising science, mystery, detective, and religious stories. From a lawyer\’s point of view, he leaves a lot to be thought about advising clients of how to behave when they had committed forgery or fraud. I am sure psychiatrists have lots to tell on the behavior of firm believers of him.

I will elaborate more on this series of incidents later on this blog.

I am writing this post from Zoundry blog writer, which is a great blogging tool especially when my blog server is not fast enough. However, there is a not so little problem with using any blogging client with Blogsome. That is Blogsome automatically escapes on quotation mark, double quotation mark, and slash. Given the frequency of using these marks, this should not (as opposed to shouldn\’t. see the problem?) be taken lightly.

So, I am seriously considering moving to wordpress.com free account only 30 days after I moved here from naver.com blog account. Difficult decision to make but will be made sooner than later.

이미 마감이 지난 일이지만 올해 몰라서 신청하지 못한 블로거들은 내년에 신청해봄직하다.  올해 마감은 9월 20일이었다.  아마 한국의 블로거들 중에 이런 주제에 대해 할 말 많은 사람들이 꽤 있을 것 같다.

Soros Foundations Network에서 펀딩하는 Open Society Institute에서 주최하는 International Policy Fellowship이 매년 응모자를 모집한다.  주소는  여기. (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/ipf)

자세한 내용은 아래에 있다.  한국에도 흔히 있는 논문공모전인 것 같은데 소로스 재단이라니까 왠지 돈을 좀 많이 줄 것 같은 느낌이 드는 것은 나만의 생각인가?

하지만 내용의 심도는 상당하다.  블로그와 위키를 중심으로 웹이 재편되어가는 시점에서 한 번 진지하게 논해볼 만한 주제들을 짚어가고 있다.  

—–

The International Policy Fellowship Program (IPF) of the Open Society
Institute has issued its annual call for fellowship proposals. Open
Information Policy is one of the program’s focal areas this year. Here are
details concerning this area, taken from the IPF website at
www.soros.org/initiatives/ipf :

“Advanced by the internet, alternatives to long-standing intellectual
property regimes have created an environment to re-assess the
relationship between democracy, open society and new information
technologies. The promise of open source technology with respect to
civil society and the incalculable leaps in information production by
means of open content and weblogs present a new platform for civic
participation. Whether and in what form such promises can be realized
lies at the basis of the research questions below.

 * Weblogs & Civic Discourse. How does the rapid expansion of
weblogs alter news production and civic discourse? Can it counter
ever-increasing concentration of ownership in the traditional mass
media? How do traditional notions of editorial standards and
journalistic professionalism apply to this new medium? Is the
‘blogosphere’ an enhancement of the public sphere, or does it threaten its disintegration?
 * Open Content & Sustainability. Open Access publishing is
revolutionizing scientific publishing. New alternative licensing systems like Creative Commons support decentralized information production, by making it easier for creators to share and permit re-use and
modification of their work, while retaining certain rights. What are the business models that are developing around these commons-based models of sharing freely online? These cases are by and large un-documented and seem to contrast starkly with well-established economic and legal norms that rest on notions of scarcity, exclusivity and controlled access.
 * Open Content & Standards. Wikipedia, a freely available
encyclopedia, is a visible and widely cited example of collaborative,
distributed knowledge production enabled by the Internet. Such models
seem to have great promise for more equitable access to knowledge; yet they also run the risk of dispensing with editorial standards. How can quality standards emerge in a distributed environment? Are they robust enough to be relied upon?
 * Open Source: Ownership and Control of Communications Technology. Communications technology (both hardware and software, and the standards on which most communications networks are based) is a key part of today’s infrastructure for civil society engagement. How do the different models of ownership and control of the knowledge underlying this infrastructure (expressed in technology standards and software,either open or proprietary) affect access and participation by civil society, in particular, civil society in developing countries?
 * Intellectual Property & Access to Knowledge: The case of Free
Trade Agreements. Intellectual property laws are a powerful instrument for controlling access to knowledge, and in some cases to restrict free speech. New standards shaped by rich-country interests are now being globalized and imposed on poorer countries. In recent years, bilateral Free Trade Agreements have become an important part of this process. How do those free trade agreements undermine the rule of law and basic principles of democratic lawmaking in countries around the world that are signing these agreements?”


*________________________*

*CALL FOR PROPOSALS*

*INTERNATIONAL POLICY FELLOWSHIPS, 2006-2007*

*All applications must be submitted online by September 20, 2005 from_
__www.soros.org/initiatives/ipf_ *

*_________________________*



The International Policy Fellowships (IPF) program is calling for
applications for 2006-2007 fellowships. Launched in 1998 and affiliated with the Open Society Institute and the Center for Policy Studies (CPS)of the Central European University in Budapest, these fellowships support analytical policy research in pursuance of open society goals such as the rule of law, democratic elections, diverse and vigorous civil societies, and respect for minorities. Each year the IPF program invites research proposals that address critical issues in the development of open societies. Successful applicants will demonstrate originality, sound project design and the strong likelihood that their project may lead to significant impact on policy.

The IPF program seeks to enhance the quality of policy research in the countries where the Soros Network operates, throughout Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Mongolia, as well as
Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. It places strong emphasis on independent research that is both rigorous and appreciative of practical implications. Analysis and evaluation of existing policy contexts should be based on explicit criteria and fellows should be able to communicate their ideas and findings in a variety of professional and public settings.

*Applicants are encouraged to submit individual, practical and
policy-oriented research proposals in the following subject areas. The product of each fellowship will be a detailed analysis of a major issue to be published in English and translated into other languages:*

*2006-7 Fellowship Issue Areas: General Framework: New Frontiers of
Democratic Politics*

 * *The Challenge of Wider Europe*
 * *Open Society Promotion in Predominantly Muslim Societies*
 * *Combating Open Society Threats*
 * *Combating the Resource Curse *
 * *Roma Exclusion *
 * *Open Information Policy *


 *Main Terms of the International Policy Fellowship Award*

 * Fellows receive supervision and support from a senior policy analyst
 * Fellows are invited to Budapest in April 2006 for initial
 orientation to the program
 * Optional specialized policy research and advocacy training courses in Budapest
 * Monthly stipends commensurate with local salaries
 * Budget for reasonable research, communications, travel,
 publication and advocacy costs
 * Discretionary funding for conference participation

*How to Apply*

Applicants should carefully complete the online application form found at www.soros.org/initiatives/ipf, which includes a project summary, research proposal (maximum 4 pages), and a resume/CV including a list of publications. Applicants may also include a letter of reference from an affiliated organization and a writing sample on the chosen topic.

Those who have no possibility to access the Internet should send an
e-mail to fellows@osi.hu to discuss alternate application solutions.
Applications sent by mail, fax or e-mail will not be considered unless given prior approval from IPF staff.

Applications must be submitted online by* September 20, 2005*. IPF does not consider late applications.

There was a news about Mecha-Know 21 project in Gyung Sang Nam Do (GSND) province in Korea.  Source here.
 
Mecha-Know 21 (link here.  No english site is provided.  Too bad.) is said to be the project of converting the province’s mechanical engineering industry into a knowledge-based industry.  What it does isn’t quite clear from the article but it seems the province selected about 200 technology R&D projects, supported the projects financially or otherwise, and helped put the results into production.  GSND is reported to have spent about $420 million from 2000 to 2004 and have acquired 440 intellectual property rights, of which 103 are patents, 191 pending patent applications, and 146 utility models.  Source here.

The economic effect looks sizeable.  GSND will continue to spend as much resources.  

GSND has been the center of mechanical engineering of Korea for decades.  Changing its mechanical industry base into a knowledge industry base is a concept proposed by the former president Kim Dae Jung.  We will see how this project goes.  

Linking my previous post on patent trolls, one interesting point is that Mecha-Know 21, presumably a government project, isn’t involved with production per se.  What it does seems to look more like financial and administrative assistance and IP management.  Doesn’t it look a little like what patent trolls do?  

Seriously, it may look like patent trolls.  If we adopt a law that prohibits owning and utilizing patents without actually producing something, we may have to shut down Mecha-Know21.

The eyes of the law do not know the color. (I think I heard something like this before but I can’t really remember the exact sentence.) 

troll
Pronunciation (trol)
n.
A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges.
Source here. 

Patent trolls, as the term is generally accepted, are testing small and medium sized businesses in Korea. (Source article in Korean)  The news article introduces several instances in which small or medium companies producing MP3 players were urged by patent trolls (mostly from the U.S. and the EU) to license their patents and pay license fee.  

According to Wikipedia,

Patent troll (also “patent pirate”) is a derogatory phrase coined by former Intel assistant general counsel Peter Detkin in 2001. Originally, it described an individual or company with a patent portfolio containing important, fundamental software patents, which it never intended to commercialize. Instead, a “patent troll” would actively pursue a strategy of looking for potential infringers and proposing license agreements to companies. Where the patent troll is unable to achieve a licensing agreement, it threatens, or enters, patent infringement litigation. To avoid litigation, companies often choose to settle by purchasing a license. Today, “patent troll” is used to describe a number of businesses using similar patent strategies.
Source here.

As I understand, the key element that differentiates a patent troll from a “patent child” (trolls are believed to eat children) is whether the individual or corporation does a production activity based on the patents.  Hence, the battle between two terms: “Non-Producing Entities” v. ”Patent Trolls.”  

Joe Beyers, IP-licensing chief, Hewlett-Packard, says in his CNet.com article:

Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)’s definition of patent troll is “a company or business function whose primary business activity is to acquire patents for the purpose of offensively asserting them against other companies.”

I couldn’t read the definition from IPO’s website because it is subscription based.  You may check it out at http://www.ipo.org/  Yearly membership fee is around $200 give and take.  Indeed, they think they have intellectual property within their password protected website that they own where the associate with each other.  Hence, the name Intellectual Property Owners Association website.  

Other website introduces several patent trolls like Acacia, Myhrvold, Pat-Rights, Inc., TechSearch.  It also introduces famous corporte patent trolls.

    * Fritz Teufel, patent troll of IBM and Bitkom
    * Tim Frain, patent troll of Nokia and EICTA
    * Thierry Sueur, patent troll of Air Liquide, MEDEF and UNICE
    * Christian Nguyen, patent troll of Thales, MEDEF and UNICE
    * Harald Hagedorn, patent troll of SAP
    * Wilhelm von Lieres, patent troll of Siemens
    * Marshall Phelps, patent troll of Microsoft, formerly IBM

So, Joe Beyers and those who think it’s apt to call them “patent trolls” think patent legal system shouldn’t be abused by those who use patents to extort money from innocent producers while they themselves don’t produce anything.  

On the other hand, Nathan Myhrvold who can be said the leading figure in patent trolling (as in “troll”-ing and “trolling”) said that

There isn’t any hard data to support … .  This is a great example of people having a bunch of anecdotes…I don’t see that it’s wrong to invent without making products.
Source here.

It isn’t easy to refute Myhrvold’s argument.  The beauty of the current legal system is that a loophole, if there is any, is always exploited by some smarties and such exploitation always rises to such level as to invite modification to the law.  As of now, there clearly are problems of patent system in some technical industries.  

As Professor Peter D. Junger wrote on his blog:

Of late, however, the Supreme Court has evidenced an increased willingness to review decisions of the Federal Circuit in patent cases. When one couples that with the fact that there is more and more evidence these days that software patents impede rather than support the progress of science and the useful arts, I am almost willing to predict that within the next few years the Supreme Court will once again declare that claims in patent applications describing computer programs are not patentable and that therefore so-called software patents are not valid.

, it is very suspicious that the patent system is working properly in the computer software industry.  

One of the examples that illustrates the problem is the most recent Eolas v. Microsoft case. Read the overview of the case at Wikipedia entry of Eolas. 

The inventor of the World Wide Web and the Director of the W3 Consortium Sir Tim Berners-Lee wrote to Under Secretary of Commerce, asking to invalidate this patent, in order to “eliminate this major impediment to the operation of the Web”. In a remarkable turn of events, the leaders of Open Source Community sided with Microsoft in fighting the patent due to its threat to the free nature of the Web and to the basic established HTML standards. The specific concerns of having one company (Eolas) controlling a critical piece of the Web framework were cited.
Source here. 

It tells us something that the leaders of Open Source Community sided with Microsoft.  And think about how many electronic goods are made without a software pre-installed on them? Therefore, this is not an issue confined in the software industry   It expands all over to industries that utilize computer software.  

But again, how are we gonna stop patent trolls?  Do we want a law that prohibits using a patent for garnering  license fees without actually using the patent?  We should be reminded that there are a number of inventors, individual or corporate, who invent without intending to produce products themselves.  Are we gonna ban them altogether? nbsp;Or do we have somethng else?  

어제 IPLeft에서 보내온 이메일입니다.

“저작권법 개악반대! 네티즌 선언!” 캠페인을 시작합니다.

http://www.ipleft.or.kr/antilaw

http://www.ipleft.or.kr/antilaw

지난 12월 6일 오전 열린우리당 이광철 의원과 우상호 의원이 각각 대표 발의 한 저작권법 개정안이 문화관광위원회 상임위를 통과했습니다. 하지만 이 저 작권법 개정안에는 인터넷에서의 소통을 심각하게 제약하고, 합법적인 정보이 용행위조차 불가능하게 할 수 있는 위험한 조항들이 포함되어 있습니다. 특히 우상호의원이 발의한 저작권법 개정안에는 P2P서비스뿐만 아니라, 정보통신기 술의 발전에 부정적인 영향을 미치고, 또한 프라이버시와 표현의 자유 등 정 보인권을 심각히 침해할 수 있는 독소조항들이 포함되어 있습니다. 이 법안이 국회 본회의를 통과한다면, 정부에 의해 인터넷 검열되고, 합법적인 소통조차 철저히 제한될 수도 있습니다.

이 법안이 국회 본회의에서 통과되지 않도록 “저작권법 개악반대! 네티즌 선 언” 캠페인에 동참하여, 네티즌의 자유로운 인터넷 세상을 지켜냅시다.

자세한 사항은 http://www.ipleft.or.kr/antilaw 페이지를 참고해 주시길 바 랍니다.

Sony BMG는 rootkit문제로 언론에 자주 오르락내리락 한다. rootkit 문제에서 곁가지로 들어가는 이슈는 Sony BMG가 open source software를 쓰면서 GPL, LPGL을 지키지 않았다는 것이다. 즉 Sony BMG가 저작권 침해행위를 했다고 말할 수 있는데, 그런 Sony BMG가 Cecilia Gonzalez라는 사람이 파일공유 프로그램을 통해 노래를 다운받았다고 저작권 침해로 고소를 해서 trial에서 이기고 appeal에서도 이겼다.

저작권 침해한 회사가 저작권 침해로 다른 사람을 고소하는 세상이다. 저작권법은 만인을 평등하게 대하는 법이라는 생각이 퍼뜩 들다가 Cecilia Gonzalez가 물어야 하는 배상금이 한 곡당 $750이라는 걸 알게 되고 그녀가 불법다운로드한 곡이 30곡이라는 걸 알게 되면 저작권법이 그닥 공평하지는 않다는 생각도 들게 된다.

판결문은 여기에서..

Background information first. This may seem silly to those who have basic knowledge of the East Asian geopolitics, but I’m quite sure there are so many English speaking people who don’t know there are two political entities under the name of Korea. South Korea and North Korea. They were one countries before the turmoil of the WWII severed it into two entities. Naturally, they speak the same language and there are people across the border who share the same ancestry. When I say I live in Korea, I mean South Korea and this shouldn’t surprise you because North Korea does not have a well constructed internet network.

Again, it’s not unnatural that there were great literature in Korean that people across the border equally enjoy. HONG Myung Hee is one of the novelists whose works have been praised regardless of the political entity. He lived and died in North Korea while his works were published in both entities. His novel Lim Kug Jung (임꺽정) has been lauded as one of the best epic novel written in Korean and thus made bestseller.

Hong passed away many years ago and his grandson HONG Suk Joong became a novelist. His novel Hwang Jin Hee (황진희) wasn’t introduced in South Korea until the defendant magazine Tong Il Moon Hak (통일문학) published part of Hwang Jin Hee (황진희). HONG Suk Joong sued a magazine for publishing Hong’s novel without permission from the copyright owner.

From legal point of view, it’s a simple copyright infringement case. It can’t get too complicated.

What makes the suit interesting is the cross-border nature of the suit. To the best of knowledge, there was no law suit raised by a North Korean against a South Korean or vice versa. The reason is obvious to the eyes of those who have basic knowledge of Korean politics. North Korea and South Korea are hostile. People cannot freely cross the border and visit the other part of the land. The less possible to bring a law suit against a person living on the other side of the border. This case will be recorded as the first law suit of such configuration.

Second interesting point is that there seems to be a copyright law system in North Korea while the entity’s ideology is the communism. My simple understanding of the communism says there is no property rights in a communist society comparable to those of a capitalist society. Topping my naive understanding, North Korea does have a copyright law system otherwise Hong wouldn’t be able to bring this suit. By a slightest chance, it is possible that North Korea does not have a copyright law system but does allow its citizens to claim copyright over their works outside of North Korea. But isn’t it too sci-fi-ish to assume so?

Third interesting point is that a South Korean government agency is a representative of Hong under a power of attorney. A South Korean government agency is representing a North Korean person for a law suit against a South Korean magazine? Where am I living, a biazarro world? Any way, the world is changing indeed.

If you want to read the original article, go here if you can read Korean.

I’ll throw some proper names for future reference.

HONG Myung Hee (홍명희): the author of the very famous novel Lim Kug Jung (임꺽정)

HONG Suk Joong (홍석중): grandson of HONG Myung Hee and author of Hwang Jin Hee (황진희)

Tong Il Moon Hak (통일문학): the defendant magazine.

Han Gyul Law Firm (법무법인 한결): plaintiff’s lawyer.

South North Economic and Cultural Cooperation Foundation (남북경제문화협력재단): plaintiff’s representative.

keywords: FSF, GPL, LGPL, FSOS, OSI, CC

이런 약자(acronym)들이 우리의 눈에 익게 된지도 꽤 되었다.  GPL은 FSF와 거의 동의어로 취급되니까 강산이 변할 시간만큼 인터넷을 서성거리다가 요즘은 꽤나 활발하게 움직이고 있다.  GPL을 보완한 LGPL, 그리고 Lawrence Lessig교수의 Creative Commons Licnese 등은 최근에 눈길을 끄는 라이선스 방식들이다.  

GPL은 주로 소프트웨어 분야에서만 이용되고 있는 분위기며 LGPL 역시 그러하다.  CC는 블로거들도 많이 이용하는 라이선스 방식이다.  블로그를 돌아다녀보면 사이드바에 CC 로고를 달아놓고 있는 곳들이 꽤 된다.  

요즘은 GPL 소프트웨어가 많아지다보니 open source proliferation이라는 말까지도 생겼다. nbsp;게다가 CC는 꽤 그럴싸한 로고까지 제작해서 배포하다보니 블로거들의 호응을 많이 받고 있다.  이제는 GPL이나 CC가 소수에 의한 시민운동과 같은 모양새를 벗어나서 브랜드 마케팅과 같은 모양을 띄고 있다.  어떤 블로그 사이트는 CC 로고를 붙이면서 자신이 진보적이라는(progressive) 이미지를 블로그에 가미하려는 것처럼 보이기도 한다.  진보라는 로고를 붙인 것과 비슷한 효과를 얻을 수 있는 것이다.  게다가 자신이 이런 새로운 운동들에 발 맞춰나갈 만큼 새로운 조류를 잘 알고 있다는 증명도 된다.  

• 소프트웨어 라이선스

GPL과 LGPL은 소프트웨어의 분야에서만 이용되어 왔다고 말해도 괜찮다.  원래가 소프트웨어 라이선스용으로 개발되었고 지금도 그렇게 쓰이고 있다.  GPL proliferation이 GPL 자체의 엄격한 정책으로 인해 발생하는 이슈에 대해서는 Nimmer 교수의 블로그에 좋은 글이 있다.  

• 블로깅

앞에서 언급한 바, 블로그에 CC로고를 달고 있는 곳이 많이 있다.  어떤 블로그에서는 블로그를 처음 시작할 때 CC에 가입하고 로고를 따오는 것을 권하기도 한다.  하지만 나는 블로그에 CC로고가 있는 것은 불필요한 잉여라고 생각한다.  그건 펌질이 사라지고 인용에 의한 블로깅이 대세로 자리잡은 현재상황과 코드가 맞는다.  

펌질(copy and paste) 문화는 미국이나 유럽 등에서는 거의 사라졌다.  지금 인터넷을 주도하는 블로그 공간에서는 펌질이 부도덕한 일로까지 여겨지고 있다.  대신 웹사이트나 블로그의 글에서 일부분을 발췌해서 인용(blockquote)하고 출처를 밝히는 것이 올바른 블로깅으로 여겨지고 있다.   이는 원저작자의 권리를 인정해준다는 데서 의미가 있을 뿐만 아니라 인터넷의 효율을 높이는 데 기여하기도 한다.  

원저작자의 권리는 단순히 상업적인 이익을 취할 권리만을 뜻하는 게 아니고, 인격권(moral rights)을 포함하는 광범위한 개념이다.  블로거라면 자신의 글이 허락없이 변형되고 자신이 썼다는 표식도 없이 인터넷을 돌아다니는 것을 원하지는 않을 것이다.  이런 인격권을 보장하기 위해서는 펌질을 하지 않고  인용을 통해 원저자를 명확하게 밝히는 것이 좋다.

검색엔진이 고도로 발달한 요즘에는 하나의 글은 하나의 검색가능한 사이트에 올라와 있으면 된다.  하나의 글이 펌질(copy and paste)되어서 여러 사이트에 올라가 있는 것은 검색 결과만 길게 해줄 뿐 검색의 효율성을 떨어뜨리고 검색자의 시간을 낭비하게 한다.  이런 면에서도 펌질보다는 인용과 원저자 밝힘을 하고 자신의 견해를 추가하는 방식의 블로깅이 더 낫다.

위의 두 가지 이유에서 다른 이의 글을 마음대로 퍼가서 복제하고 배포하고 전송할 필요성이 없으며 오히려 그러지 않는 것이 공공의 이익에 부합한다 할 수 있다.  

CC가 블로그에 불필요한 잉여라고 생각하는 것도 같은 이유이다.  블로깅을 하는 데 필요한 행위들 (일부분 인용, 논평, 사실 기사 복제)은 이미 현행 저작권법에서 공정이용(fair use) 조항으로 허용하고 있다.  즉 블로깅을 하는 데에 원저작의 라이선스를 받을 필요가 없다.  그렇다면 CC 로고도 역시 필요하지 않다.  

혹시 모르겠다.  어떤 이가 블로그 상에  CC라이선스된 글들을 모아서 짜깁기 해서 하나의 거대한 장편소설을 만들어낼지도.  그 때에는 CC라이선스가 도움이 될지도 모른다.  하지만 상업적 이용을 허가하지 않는 CC라이선스 글이 있을 때는 대략 난감할 수밖에 없다.  게다가 각각이 글들이 각자 다른 CC 라이선스 옵션을 갖고 있다면 그것도 대략 낭패이다.  

실질적인 질문으로, 내가 방문한 블로그에 CC로고가 달려있다 해서 내가 그 블로그에서 무엇을 ‘더’ 할 수 있는가?

• 위키 (Wiki)

CC라이선스가 의미를 가지는 분야가 있긴 하다.  바로 위키(Wiki)에서이다.  

CC의 창시자 Lawrence Lessig 교수가 위키를 이용해 Wired의 2nd edition을 만드는 책만들기 프로젝트의 경우 완성된 후 책을 판매할 때 저작권 문제가 불거지게 되기 때문에 미리 CC라이선스를 통해서 저작권 문제를 해결해 놓는 것이 필요하다.  하지만 그게 왜 꼭 CC여야 하는가는 질문에 답하기는 쉽지 않은 것 같다.  깨알같은 계약서보다는 이해하기 쉽기 때문에 CC를 써야 할까?  CC가 아니더라도 일반이 이해하기 쉽게 계약서를 쓰는 건 충분히 가능하다.  

공동작업으로 만든 Wired 2nd edition을 공중이 자유롭게 이용할 수 있기 때문에 의미가 있는 것이 아니냐?라고 질문할 수도 있을 것이다.  그래야만 한다고 본다.  Wikipedia처럼 만인이 만드는 책을 백만인이 볼 수 있다면 CC프로젝트가 의미가 있을 것이다.  물론 이것도 역시 CC가 아닌 간단한 계약서를 통해 해결할 수 있다.  (그런데 왜 Wired 2nd edition은 완성되고 나면 책을 사서 보라고 하는 것인지 하는 의문은 여전히 남는다.)

CC가 맞춤계약서(individualized contract)에 비해 나은 점은 CC는 하나의 브랜드가 되어서 사람들이 ‘코카콜라’라고 하면 그 맛의 균일함을 기대하듯이 “CC”라는 이름을 듣고서 그 라이선스의 내용을 바로 알 수 있으며 일관된 내용을 기대할 수 있다는 점이다.

Professor Nimmer (the author of the widely used copyright law textbook) wrote on the effect of Grokster case.  If you are a serious reader and not a casual gossiper, I recommend this article.  It deepened my understanding of Grokster.

See the article at Nimmer’s blog.

The key idea of Grokster is to introduce the “inducement liability.”  It is not a whole new concept.  We had contributory liability and vicarious liability which may be used to stop Grokster.  (see Nimmer’s article for the definition of these liabilities)   Inducement liability is a little bit broader than the previous two liabilities.  

Like Nimmer said, some acts that weren’t previously infringing may be found infringing after Grokster.  Intent is usually a matter of fact.  More fact digging after Grokster, fellas.

Amendment to the Information Law (the Korean title is very long. 정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률) has passed the National Assembly on Thursday December 8, 2005.  (No english news article is availale for now.)

The amendment can be called the Anti-phishing and anti-spam law.    

You can get the official documents from the bill’s page at the National Assembly site.  Below is a summarized translation of the summary of the law

1. Phishing
• Prohibited acts: Collecting others’ personal information by fraudulent acts on the internet.  Article 49(2), 63(1)(3) and 64(4).
2. Spamming
• Prohibited acts: Changing senders’ information while sending commercial or advertisement messages.  Article 50(6)(4) and 65(1)(4) and (5).
3. Illegal messages: 
• Prohibited acts: Sending messages to facilitate illegal acts such as selling narcotics or obscene materials.  Article 50(8) and 65(1)(6).
4. Identity of spammers can be subpoenaed.
• The identity of the senders of illegal advertising information can be subpoenaed on information service providers.  Article 55(2).
5. Due process concerns
• Procedural requirements for executing this law is specified in Article 55(4) and (5).
6. Solicitor/Aidor and abettor of spammers 
• Statutory grounds for punishing solicitor/aidor and abettor of spammers are provided. Article 67(1)

The summarization by the National Assembly is below.

3. 대안의 주요내용
===============

가. 정보통신망을 통한 속이는 행위로 타인의 개인정보를 수집하는 행위를 금지하고 처벌규정을 신설함(안 제49조의2, 제63조제1항제3호 및 제64조제4호 신설).

나. 영리목적의 광고성정보를 전송하면서 발신자정보를 위작․변작하는 행위를 금지하고, 처벌규정을 신설하며, 수신거부를 어렵게 하는 기술적 조치 등에 대한 처벌을 강화함(제50조제6항제4호 및 제65조제1항제4호 및 제5호 신설).

다. 마약, 음란물 판매 등 불법행위를 하기 위한 목적으로 영리목적의 광고성정보를 전송하는 행위를 금지하고 위반시 처벌규정을 신설함(안 제50조의8 및 제65조제1항제6호 신설).

라. 정보통신서비스제공자에 대하여 불법 광고성정보 전송자의 신원정보를 요청할 수 있는 법적 근거를 명문화함(안 제55조제2항 신설).

마. 정보통신서비스제공자 등의 법 위반 여부에 대한 검사시 검사일시, 검사내용 등에 대한 검사계획을 해당 정보통신서비스제공자 등에게 사전에 통지하도록 하고, 해당 사업장에 출입시 출입자, 출입시간, 출입목적 등이 표시된 문서를 관계인에게 교부하도록 함(안 제55조제4항 및 제5항 신설).

바. 불법으로 광고성정보를 전송하도록 사주한 자에 대한 처벌의 법적 근거를 명문화함(안 제67조제1항).

Here is the question.  Does an online music search program infringes on copyrights?  

About a month ago, an online music search engine was introduced called Qbox.  http://qbox.com/  It is a very simple search engine that keyword searches music available on the web, legally available I mean.  There are many websites that provide background music playing for consideration of about 500 Korean Won (50 US cents) per song.   This Qbox search engine only searches websites that provide legal background music playing for songs that were legally purchased.

The upfront question will be whether Qbox violates any copyright law or infringes on others’ copyright.  This question is a little tricky.  

Purchasing music means purchasing the license to listen to the music.  Most times, the license only has the permission to listen to the music privately.  Once the purchaser plays the music in public, he breaches the license agreement and thus infringes on copyright.  Traditionally, ‘playing in public’ meant playing music in front of people or at place where people may hear the music.  

What is ‘playing in public’ on the internet?  Unless a website is password protected, the website is open to public.  When a music is played on the website, people ‘may’ hear the music at any time and from anywhere.  This completely conflicts with the traditional notion of public performance.  Therefore, I think the purchase of music for playing on the purchaser’s website should mean the license includes public performance on the internet.  

If it’s so, I don’t find any reason to say Qbox infringes on any copyright.  

On the other hand, playing devil’s advocate, I could argue that the music was sold for purpose of playing on a website where the acquaintances of the website owner visit and listen to the music while reading the website.   Hence, the license should be interpreted for that exact narrow scope.  Qbox opens the possibility of public listening to music without even visiting the website.  What Qbox does is to redirect music hosted on private websites to public’s eyes scurring for free music.  

Then again, I could argue back that Qbox is only a slimmed down search engine specialized for music search which has also been done by other search engines.  If previous search engines were not infringing copyrights, neither does Qbox.

Firefox 1.5 did not work for me.  It failed me when I tried to download a file and crashed on me.  Then I tried Opera 8 which is a fabulous browser by all means.  However, I couldn’t feel exactly the way I felt when I was using Firefox.  (Of course, it is not a fox.)  And, I miss Firefox’s extensions a lot.  Correct me if Opera also has add-on functionality cause so far I don’t think Opera has add-ons.

I somehow got to know that Flock browser is innovative and has functions that suit Web 2.0.  It is based on Mozilla so Firefox extensions might work.  I test used Flock and I’m absolutely satisfied.  I like this blogging tool the most.  I always thought Blogger.com or Wordpress’s post editors can’t be the ultimate form of post editor because you have to open the editor page through a browser to edit, post, and/or republish the post.  It is simply clumsy.  I wanted a hybrid of an offline and online editor, which Flock definitely provides.  I think I’m gonna use Flock for quite a long time.

Korean netizens are firing up against Congressman Sang-Ho Woo who submitted a bill amending the Copyright Act to the Congress.  The proposed amendment contains several provisions that worry the netizens immensley.

I am writing on that topic on my Korean blog. (http://blog.naver.com/iplawyer)
I wrote on that topic on my Korean blog that is now dormant. (http://blog.naver.com/iplawyer)

I don’t think I have the energy to translate all I wrote on the blog.  I will just summarize them.  

Within today or tomorrow, Korea’s Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) is likely to announce its decision on the alleged unfair trade practices by Microsoft in Korea which include bundling messenger programs and a media player program into MS Windows operating systems.  This long awaited decision has been postponed many times because of the delicacy of the issue.  See the news article.

When it is verly likely that an adverse decision will be made against Microsoft, the company vows an appeal.  

Aside from the legal battle, there are skepticisms about the liklihood of success of the anti-trust measures.  

Welcome to iplawyer at Blogsome. This blog is for sharing ideas about intellectual property laws in Korea and the United States. I’m Kai. Just call me Kai. It’s my favorite pen name. I don’t use a last name for pen name.

I am a lawyer licensed in the State of Washington in the United States. I also passed the California bar but has not yet sworn in, so I can’t call myself a California lawyer, not that I’m missing out any of it.

I speak both English and Korean fluently. With the help of access to these languages, I can get updates from both countries rather easily. I’ll post either in Korean or English depending on the issue and my mood. Bear with me if you can’t speak either language.

I’d much love to share thoughts with you. I mean you who is reading my blog.