t byfield on Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:20:33 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> dossier: WIPO knuckles under on open-source software |
as always, jamie love's been flushing out the scoundrels -- this time at WIPO, which first agreed to a meeting on open, collaborative tools then knuckled under to IPR psychotics intent on suppressing anything and everything 'open,' in particular open-source software. here's a dossier of his recent work on WIPO, culled from cptech's 'random bits' list. luckily, science journos are picking up the story. cheers, t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1) wash post's jonathan krim: the quiet war over open-source (at WIPO) (2) lessig on WIPO (3) MS et al lobby WIPO (4) WIPO uses open source (5) OSAIA letter on WIPO to boland (6)_nature_ on WIPO fiasco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1) wash post's jonathan krim: the quiet war over open-source (at WIPO) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - < http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2003-August/001094.html > WP's Jonathan Krim: The Quiet War Over Open-Source (at WIPO) James Love [4]james.love@cptech.org Thu Aug 21 10:16:04 2003 Traveling, and didn't see this yesterday. It has some interesting quotes from the very quotable Lois Boland. Jamie [11]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html washingtonpost.com The Quiet War Over Open-Source By Jonathan Krim Thursday, August 21, 2003; Page E01 Every day now, it seems, we do battle with technology. If it isn't spam, it's worms. If it isn't the worms, it's viruses, or hacking, or identity theft. Sometimes, it's the gadgets and software we buy that are still too hard to use. But as technology in general, and the Internet in particular, drives deeper into the fabric of daily life, battles also rage behind the scenes. They are struggles for control over how the Internet should work, over who sets the rules for its pipes and gateways and who owns the material that moves through them. These are the wars fought with armies of corporate lobbyists, technologists and citizen activists but largely ignored by the general public. And none is larger, or carries higher financial stakes, than the issue with the eye-glazing name of intellectual property. Consumers are getting a taste of this right now, as the major record companies sue hundreds of people for stealing their works by using file-sharing programs. On another front, "open-source" software, which relies on collaboration and sharing of computer code rather than traditional for-profit development and distribution of programs, is capturing the attention of cash-strapped governments and businesses as a less-expensive alternative to commercial products. Open-source software has been embraced by some companies that are building businesses around it. But it is the bane of others, including the industry's most powerful player, Microsoft Corp. The world's largest software maker is lobbying furiously in state, national and international capitals against laws that would promote the consideration or use of open-source software. So alarmed agents of Microsoft sprang into high gear in June after a surprising quote appeared in Nature magazine from an official of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The official said that the Switzerland-based group of about 180 nations, which promotes intellectual-property rights and standards around the globe, was intrigued by the growth of the open-source movement and welcomed the idea of a meeting devoted to open-source's place in the intellectual-property landscape. The proposal for the meeting had come in a letter from nearly 60 technologists, economists and academics from around the world, and was organized by James Love, who runs the Ralph Nader-affiliated Consumer Project on Technology. Love and others argue that in some areas, such as pharmaceuticals or software that powers critical infrastructure or educational tools, developing nations in particular would benefit from less restrictive or alternative copyright, patent or trademark systems. In short order, lobbyists from Microsoft-funded trade groups were pushing officials at the State Department and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to squelch the meeting. One lobbyist, Emery Simon with the Business Software Alliance, said his group objected to the suggestion in the proposal that overly broad or restrictive intellectual-property rights might in some cases stunt technological innovation and economic growth. Simon insists that his group does not oppose open-source software, or discussion of the issue, but fights to defend the notion that a strong system of proprietary rights offers the best avenue for the development of groundbreaking software by giving its inventors economic incentive to do so. And he said that the BSA's governing board, composed of several companies in addition to Microsoft, unanimously opposed the letter and the meeting. The U.S. government, which wields considerable clout in WIPO, might not have needed prodding from Microsoft to demand that the idea of an open-source meeting be quashed. Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights. "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said. She added that the WIPO official who embraced the meeting had done so without proper consultation with the member states, and that WIPO's budget already is strained and cannot accommodate another meeting next year. Boland said that if groups such as Love's want an international forum for discussion of open-source, they need to find another organization to host it. The WIPO official, Francis Gurry, did not return numerous calls for comment, but the organization has said it no longer has plans for an open-source gathering. The meeting dust-up is further inflaming an argument that has the fervor of religious debate. Open-source proponents note that its software is here to stay, gaining adoption within the federal government and elsewhere. And they argue that many open-source models rely on property rights through licenses, but apply them in less traditional ways. More broadly, though, they envision a world in which the Internet is the connective tissue that creates a public commons, a place where art and technology should be shared as well as bought and sold. Why, they ask, should that not be debated with vigor? But open-source is not just a political challenge. It strikes a starkly different, and sometimes opposite, pose from that of traditional capitalist systems. And that prospect quickly draws the lobbyists, even if the public isn't tuned in. Jonathan Krim's e-mail address is [12]krimj@washpost.com. -- James Love [13]http://www.cptech.org mailto:[14]james.love@cptech.org mobile +1.202.361.3040 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (2) lessig on WIPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - < http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2003-August/001095.html > [Random-bits] Lessig on USG and WIPO Open Source mtg James Love [4]james.love@cptech.org Fri Aug 22 11:16:01 2003 ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [IP] Lessig on USG and WIPO Open Source mtg From: "Dave Farber" <[11]dave@farber.net> Date: Fri, August 22, 2003 10:13 am To: [12]ip@v2.listbox.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:06:05 -0400 >From: "Mike O'Dell" <[13]mo@ccr.org> >Subject: lessig on USG and WIPO Open Source mtg >To: [14]dave@farber.net > > >[15]http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml the extremists in power I don't even know how to begin this story, so stupid and extreme it is. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was convinced by Jamie Love and others to hold a meeting about "open collaborative models to develop public goods." One of those models is, of course, open source and free software. Lobbyists for Microsoft and others apparently (according to <[16]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html>this extraordinary story by Jonathan Krim) started lobbying the US government to get the meeting cancelled. No surprise there. Open source and free software is a competitor to MSFT's products. Lobbying is increasingly the way competition is waged in America. But the astonishing part is the justification for the US opposing the meeting. According to the Post, Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said "that open-source software runs counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property rights." As she is quoted as saying, "To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO." If Lois Bola said this, then she should be asked to resign. The level of ignorance built into that statement is astonishing, and the idea that a government official of her level would be so ignorant is an embarrassment. First, and most obviously, open-source software is based in intellectual-property rights. It can't exist (and free software can't have its effect) without it. Second, the goal of WIPO, and the goal of any government, should be to promote the right balance of intellectual-property rights, not simply to promote intellectual property rights. And finally, if an intellectual property right holder wants to "disclaim" or "waive" her rights, what business is it of WIPOs? Why should WIPO oppose a copyright or patent rights holder's choice to do with his or her rights what he or she wants? These points are basic. They should be fundamental. That someone who doesn't understand them is at a high level of this government just shows how extreme IP policy in America has become. Archives at: [17]http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ -- James Love [18]http://www.cptech.org mailto:[19]james.love@cptech.org mobile +1.202.361.3040 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (3) MS et al lobby WIPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org> Subject: [Random-bits] A few details of Microsoft's lobbying against WIPO event Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:44:35 -0400 >From the TechDaily article, it appears as though WIPO had received a number of calls in opposition to the meeting on open collaborative efforts to create public goods. Microsoft has been I believe the main private sector actor in this (even though the request for the meeting was quite broader than free/open software). One group active in opposing the WIPO event was BSA, a group often run as if it is a subsidiary of Microsoft. BSA's Emory Simon was making calls and taking meetings with senior US government officials to oppose the meeting.. Jeri Clausing, a former NYT reporter now working for BSA was calling reporters to tell them that WIPO had cancelled the meeting, and Jeri also told at least one reporter she had correspondence that WIPO had sent to me, which I found somewhat surprising. (In this case, just a letter that seemed like a standard acknowledgement of the request, that Jeri claimed was something more). According to Jeri (whom I called), Mario Correa from BSA was also working to block the WIPO meeting. Mario is the head of "software policy" for BSA. Mario has been active in opposing government proposals to require open source software procruement (see below). Another Micosoft agent who appears to have been instrumental in raising the spector of that open/free software was a violation of the GATT was long time Micorosoft defender Jonathan Zuck. Zuck's group ACT (web page doesn't work well with Mozilla, so use MS's EI) features an article by former USPTO and WIPO offical and recent big pharma lobbyist Dick Wilder about the "lessons the Open Source community can learn from the SCO/IBM lawsuit." Act has opposed goverment rules to favor open source software development and also claims such rules are a GATT violation. jamie http://global.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleases/2003-06-12.1653.phtml BSA Testimony on Federal Policy and Open Source Software before the Center for Strategic and International Studies Prepared Remarks of Mario Correa Director of Software Policy Business Software Alliance (BSA) Before the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Federal Policy and Open Source Software June 12, 2003 Random-bits mailing list Random-bits@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (4) WIPO uses open source - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org> Subject: [Random-bits] WIPO goes open source (for it's own software) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:20:18 -0400 (EDT) STANDING COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS WORKING GROUP Second Session Geneva, February 3 to 7, 2003 REPORT Adopted by the Working Group INTRODUCTION 1. The Information Technology Projects Working Group (ITPWG) of the Standing Committee on Information Technologies (SCIT) held its second session from February 3 to 5, 2003. 2. The following Member States of WIPO were represented at the session: Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America and Zambia (38). 3. Representatives of League of Arab States (LAS), the Benelux Trademark Office (BBM), the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Patent Documentation Group (PDG) and the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (6) took part in the session. 4. The list of participants appears as Annex I to this report. 57. The Secretariat also reminded delegates that the software will be made available free to Member States and applicants; the editor and the Client will be available free of charge and downloadable via the PCT-SAFE website; the receiving server software will be made available to any Receiving Office under the PCT who requests it; and a low level certificate will be obtainable via a WIPO website and it is planned via WIPONET. In addition, the Secretariat also expressed interest to participate in some form of open source, and was already working with the EPO towards such an arrangement. With regard to an enterprise version of PCT-SAFE, contact had been made with patent management software vendors to see if they were interested in deploying PCT-SAFE software into their own environments and thereby providing a more multi-user, integrated solution to the niche of the market where their customers are placed. 60. The Delegation of the EPO took the floor to comment upon the strength of cooperation and harmonisation with WIPO. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was under preparation to cover the server software whereby the EPO will take over the PCT client or plug-in once it is operational and it will be maintained by PCT-SAFE. In respect of open source, the EPO had decided to go open source for its full epoline software with respect to electronic-filing. Finally, the EPO reminded the Secretariat of the need to include all electronic filing systems in its promotion of the functionality of online filing under the PCT. 61. In response to a question from the Delegation of the United Kingdom about the future developments of the online filing system and their inclusion within the MOU between WIPO and the EPO, the Secretariat was pleased to report that the move, by the EPO to open source, would mean that future cooperation would be assured and would take place in a more rich development environment. 73. In introducing document SCIT/ITPWG/2/5, the Secretariat reminded delegates that although the process of IPC Reform was likely to continue for some time, the CLAIMS Project was scheduled for completion by the end of 2003. The IPC classification system currently comprised some 70,000 entries and under the reformed system would include a small core layer with 20,000 stable entries coupled with an advanced layer modeled on the US Classification which is continuously updated. The goal of the reform effort was to establish a Master Classification Database searchable by the advanced layer. The CLAIMS Project itself comprised four tracks; automatic categorization, translation or linguistic support, development of IPC tutor areas and IPC support conforming to the ad hoc needs of the IPC reform community. Problems had been experienced with the translation systems but these had been expected and some success was recorded. With regard to the IPC tutorials track, open source software had been used for development and had proved cost effective. The system had been developed by the end of 2002 and is currently being loaded with data. -- James Love http://www.cptech.org mailto:james.love@cptech.org mobile +1.202.361.3040 _______________________________________________ Random-bits mailing list Random-bits@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (5) OSAIA letter on WIPO to boland - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org> Subject: [Random-bits] OSAIA letter to Lois Boland, et al. on WIPO and Open Source Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:45:30 -0400 http://osaia.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7 http://www.osaia.org/documents/pto_letter_032108.pdf Open Source & Industry Alliance _www.osaia.org_ contact: Ed Black 202.783.0070 x 110 (Office) 202.297.2242 (Mobile) Will Rodger 202.783.0070 x 105 (Office) 202.486.6774 (Mobile) NEWS RELEASE August 22, 2003 For Immediate Release OSAIA to Administration: Open Source IS Protected by Copyright The Open Source And Industry Alliance (OSAIA) today deplored recent comments of a US Patent and Trademark Office official who claimed that copyright law does not protect the rights of open source developers. Since open source software licenses rely largely on copyright for their enforceability, copyright protection is vitally important to protect open source developers from illegal use and reproduction. In a letter sent to Lois Boland, acting director of the USPTO Office of International Relations, OSAIA invited the PTO to begin a dialogue with the open source community in order to correct misperceptions concerning open source software, which can be used, copied, modified and distributed without additional charge so long as additional terms of the license are fulfilled. "The assertion that open source software is not covered by copyright is patently absurd," OSAIA Founder Ed Black said. "There is no basis for this claim anywhere in law or industry practice. We're simply flabbergasted to hear such statements from government officials who are supposed to support the rights and obligations of those who use and produce intellectual property. Because we assume that this position by PTO lacks Administration sanction, we believe clarification is necessary." Text of the letter follows. ---------------------------------------------- August 22, 2003 Ms. Lois Boland Acting Director Office of International Relations United States Patent & Trademark Office 2121 Crystal Drive Crystal Park 2 Suite 902 Arlington, VA 22202 Dear Ms. Boland: We are writing to express our concern about some statements that have been attributed to you concerning the copyrightability of open source software. These statements were allegedly made in reply to questions concerning the cancellation of the proposed World Intellectual Property Organization public meeting on openly developed technologies, including open source software. According to an August 19, 2003 article in National Journal's Technology Daily, you said that open-source software is not protected under copyright law, but only under contract law. Additionally, you reportedly said that "[t]o have a meeting whose primary objective is to waive or remove [intellectual property] protections seems to go against the mission" of the WIPO. We sincerely hope this article misquoted you, because these statements reflect a profound misunderstanding of open source licenses and the copyright law. Computer programs have protection under the Copyright Act the instant they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression -- that is, the instant they are written. Open source licenses such as the General Public License or the Berkeley Software Distribution license are copyright licenses. They typically affirm that the copyright in the software belongs to the licensor, the software's author. The licensor grant the licensee the right to reproduce and distribute the work, or to create derivative works, so long as the licensee fulfills certain conditions, such as publishing the source code of derivative works, and making derivative works available to others on royalty free terms. Thus, the GPL and the BSD are not "waivers" of intellectual property rights, but assertions of them. Instead of receiving a royalty fee for the license, the open source licensor is receiving something that might be of even greater value -- access to the licensee's creative output. Significantly, the licensee's subsequent creative output benefits not only the licensor, but also the entire community of open source developers and users. In turn, the creative outputs of these other open source developers benefit the original licensor and licensee, as well as the open source community as a whole. Open sources licenses, therefore, represent a new means of generating significant value from copyrights in computer programs. They do so in a way that unquestionably promotes the progress of science and the useful arts -- the Constitutional objective of our intellectual property system. Because open source licenses are based on copyright law and further its objectives in an innovative way, we feel that study of open source licenses is squarely within the mission of WIPO. WIPO is an excellent forum for examining whether the open source model can apply to other forms of IP dependent technology, such as pharmaceuticals. The open source approach may not be appropriate for all developers, users, and software products. But open source licenses have existed since the 1970s, and have led to significant technological innovations that have benefited millions of government, corporate and individual users around the world. Moreover, many successful information technology businesses have been built upon or are now involved with the development and distribution of open source products and services. Companies so involved include Intel, Dell, Apple, Oracle, IBM, Sun, Novell, Red Hat, SuSE and thousands more. Of all the companies who have written software under the GPL as well as non-GPL software to run in conjunction with such programs, none, to our knowledge, has ever suggested that their rights were not protected by copyright. Precisely because of the market's rapid acceptance of open source software, a handful of companies threatened by the emergence of the open source business model have been disseminating misinformation concerning open source software and licenses. We would be pleased to meet with you at your earliest convenience to clear up any misconceptions you may have. Sincerely, Ed Black Founder Open Source And Industry Alliance President & CEO Computer & Communications Industry Association cc: Undersecretary, Intellectual Property & Director Patent & Trademark Office James Rogan Undersecretary, Technology Philip Bond Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Member Senate Committee on the Judiciary Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., House Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Thomas M. Davis III, House Committee on Government Reform Chairman Representative Lamar S. Smith, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Representative John Conyers Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary Representative Howard L. Berman, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property ### /OSAIA is a project of CCIA. CCIA is an international, nonprofit association of computer and communications industry firms, representing a broad cross-section of the industry. CCIA is dedicated to preserving full, free and open competition throughout its industry. Our members employ over a half million workers and generate annual revenues in excess of $300 billion./ 666 11th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 _______________________________________________ Random-bits mailing list Random-bits@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (6)_nature_ on WIPO fiasco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org> Subject: [Random-bits] Nature: Lobbying by US business interests has shot down proposed WIPO meeting to explore "open" models of innovation Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:11:36 -0400 Few items on the WIPO meeting dispute, including at the end, today's article in Nature. Here is the link to the Slashdot article: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/08/22/2014231.shtml?tid=103&tid=117&tid=99 Lessig's blog now has a lot of comments on this http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml Paul Kedrosky's slagging me in the Canadian press: http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=238F46ED-4396-4CE9-AB21-4E05167D31D1 Text of Nature article. NATURE|VOL 424 |28AUGUST 2003 |www.nature.com/ news Declan Butler Lobbying by US business interests has shot down a proposed meeting, to be held by the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) next year, to explore 'open' models of innovation. A group of leading scientists and economists suggested the meeting in a 7 July letter to Kamil Idris, director-general of WIPO. They highlighted the explosion of various open and collaborative projects to create public goods, such as the Human Genome Project and opensource software, and said it was time for WIPO to include the approach in its deliberations. Francis Gurry, assistant director-general and legal counsel at WIPO, told Nature at the time that the agency welcomed the idea as "a very important and interesting development". He added that "the director-general looks forward with enthusiasm to taking up the invitation to organize a conference to explore the scope and application of these models"(see Nature 424, 118; 2003). But Gurry's words seem to have triggered a backlash from firms that would rather see WIPO working to protect their intellectual property rights. Gurry says WIPO has since been inundated with calls from trade and consumer groups and government representatives. It is understood that lobbyists such as the Business Software Alliance, which is partly funded by Microsoft, also pressed the US state department and the US Patent and Trademark Office to have the meeting called off. US government officials have since spoken out against the idea. "The request for an open discussion on a range of projects became transformed into a domestically, as opposed to internationally, polarized debate about just one 'project':opensource software," says Gurry. As a result, he says, the meeting is now unlikely to take place. "The possibility of conducting a policy discussion on intellectual property of the sort appropriate for an international organization became increasingly remote,"he claims. In the United States, the European Union and elsewhere, governments are considering measures to encourage the public procurement of open-source software, such as the Linux operating system. This is being vigorously opposed by some software companies and by the Business Software Alliance. Economist Paul David of Stanford University in California,who signed the letter,says he is "appalled"that the meeting should be "scuttled because of the mere presence of opensource software in a list of many other forms of collaborative knowledge production". But Lois Boland, director of international relations for the US Patent and Trademark Business backlash kills off software meeting Office, says that open-source software is contrary to WIPO's mission to promote intellectual property rights."To hold a meeting to disclaim or waive such rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals ofWIPO,"she says. The Washington-based Computer and Communications Industry Association, which represents small companies that support open-source software, has attacked WIPO's decision not to hold the meeting. Edward Black, president of the group, says that the association has written to Boland to complain about her comments. Tim Hubbard,a genomicist at the Sanger Institute near Cambridge, UK, and a signatory to the letter, says he is still hopeful that the meeting may happen."It's not the role of industries regulated by such regimes to inhibit discussion,"he argues. Empty seats: lobbying means the Linux penguin will not witness a discussion of intellectual property. _______________________________________________ Random-bits mailing list Random-bits@lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net