Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (5)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (9)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (9)
Keywords
- Internet (9) (remove)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (9) (remove)
Technologies carry politics since they embed values. It is therefore surprising that mainstream political and legal theory have taken the issue so lightly. Compared to what has been going on over the past few decades in the other branches of practical thought, namely ethics, economics and the law, political theory lags behind. Yet the current emphasis on Internet politics that polarizes the apologists holding the web to overcome the one-to-many architecture of opinion-building in traditional representative democracy, and the critics that warn cyber-optimism entails authoritarian technocracy has acted as a wake up call. This paper sets the problem – “What is it about ICTs, as opposed to previous technical devices, that impact on politics and determine uncertainty about democratic matters?” – into the broad context of practical philosophy, by offering a conceptual map of clusters of micro-problems and concrete examples relating to “e-democracy”. The point is to highlight when and why the hyphen of e-democracy has a conjunctive or a disjunctive function, in respect to stocktaking from past experiences and settled democratic theories. My claim is that there is considerable scope to analyse how and why online politics fails or succeeds. The field needs both further empirical and theoretical work.
This article documents and classifies instances of transnational intellectual property (IP) enforcement and licensing on the Internet with a particular focus on the territorial reach of the respective regimes. Regarding IP enforcement, I show that the bulk of transnational or even global measures is adopted in the context of “voluntary” self-regulation by various intermediaries, namely domain name registrars, access and host providers, search engines, and advertising and payment services. Global IP licensing is, in contrast, less prevalent than one might expect. It is practically limited to freely accessible Open Content, whereas markets for fee-based services remain territorially fragmented. Overall, three layers of IP governance on the Internet can be distinguished. Based on global licenses, Open Content is freely accessible everywhere. Plain IP infringements are equally combatted on a worldwide scale. Territorial fragmentation persists, instead, in the market segment of fee-based services and in hard cases of conflicts of IP laws/rights. All three universal norms (global accessibility, global illegality, global fragmentation) are supported by a quite solid, “rough” global consensus.
The revolution will be tweeted : how the internet can stimulate the public exercise of freedoms
(2012)
This article discusses how new technologies of communication, especially the Internet and, more specifically, social network services, can interfere in social interactions and in political relations. The main objective is to problematize the concept of public liberty and verify how the new technologies can promote the reoccupation of public spaces and the recovery of public life, in opposition to the tendency to valorize the private sphere, observed in the second half of the twentieth century. The theoretical benchmark adopted for the investigation is Hannah Arendt's theory about the exercise of fundamental political capacities in order to establish a public space of freedom, as presented in “On Revolution”. The “Praia da Estação” (“Station Beach”) case is chosen to test the hypothesis. In 2010 in the Brazilian city of Belo Horizonte, different individuals articulated a movement through blogs, Twitter and facebook, in order to protest against the Mayor’s act that banned the assembling of cultural events in one of the main public places of the city, the “Praça da Estação” (Station Square). By applying Arendt's concepts to the selected case, it is possible to demonstrate that the Internet can assume an important role against governmental arbitrariness and abuse of power, as it can stimulate the public exercise of fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of assembly and manifestation.
Während in vielen Wirtschaftsbereichen der Online-Vertragsabschluß trotz der bestehenden rechtlichen und technischen Unwägbarkeiten eine Alltäglichkeit geworden ist, liegen die Dinge in der Versicherungswirtschaft anders. Es sind zwar heute fast alle großen Versicherungsunternehmen im Netz; die überwiegende Zahl der Angebote bleibt aber noch weit hinter dem technisch bereits Möglichen zurück1. Als Grund für diese Zurückhaltung führen die Versicherungsunternehmen neben Sicherheitsrisiken vor allem rechtliche Probleme mit dem neuen Medium ins Feld2. Dieser Beitrag macht es sich deshalb zur Aufgabe, zunächst die Nutzungsmöglichkeiten des Internets für Versicherungsunternehmen darzustellen und die wirtschaftlichen Chancen des Internets für Versicherungsunternehmen aufzuzeigen, um dann eingehend die rechtlichen Probleme bei der Nutzung dieses neuen Mediums zum Abschluß und zur Abwicklung von Versicherungsverträgen zu erörtern. Auf diese Weise soll eine juristische Entscheidungshilfe für den Einsatz des Internets als Vertriebsmedium in der Versicherungswirtschaft gegeben werden.
This paper aims to assess the arguments that claim representative democracy may be enhanced or replaced by an updated electronic version. Focusing on the dimension of elections and electioneering as the core mechanism of representative democracy I will discuss: (1) the proximity argument used to claim the necessity of filling the gap between decision-makers and stakeholders; (2) the transparency argument, which claims to remove obstacles to the publicity of power; (3) the bottom-up argument, which calls for a new form of legitimacy that goes beyond classical mediation of parties or unions; (4) the public sphere argument, referred to the problem of hierarchical relation between voters and their representatives; (5) the disintermediation argument, used to describe the (supposed) new form of democracy following the massive use of ICTs. The first way of conceptualizing e-democracy as different from mainstream 20th century representative democracy regimes is to imagine it as a new form direct democracy: this conception is often underlying contemporary studies of e-voting. To avoid some of the ingenuousness of this conception of e-democracy, we should take a step back and consider a broader range of issues than mere gerrymandering around the electoral moment. Therefore I shall problematize the abovementioned approach by analyzing a wider range of problems connected to election and electioneering in their relation with ICTs.
Until three years ago, ICT Technologies represented a main “subordinate clause” within the “grammar” of Participatory Budgeting (PB), the tool made famous by the experience of Porto Alegre and today expanded to more than 1400 cities across the planet. In fact, PB – born to enhance deliberation and exchanges among citizens and local institutions – has long looked at ICTS as a sort of “pollution factor” which could be useful to foster transparency and to support the spreading of information but could also lead to a lowering in quality of public discussion, turning its “instantaneity” into “immediatism,” and its “time-saving accessibility” into “reductionism” and laziness in facing the complexity of public decision-making through citizens’ participation. At the same time, ICTs often regarded Participatory Budgeting as a tool that was too-complex and too-charged with ideology to cooperate with. But in the last three years, the barriers which prevented ICTs and Participatory Budgeting to establish a constructive dialogue started to shrink thanks to several experiences which demonstrated that technologies can help overcome some “cognitive injustices” if not just used as a means to “make simpler” the organization of participatory processes and to bring “larger numbers” of intervenients to the process. In fact, ICTs could be valorized as a space adding “diversity” to the processes and increasing outreach capacity. Paradoxically, the experiences helping to overcome the mutual skepticism between ICTs and PB did not come from the centre of the Global North, but were implemented in peripheral or semiperipheral countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Brazil, Dominican Republic and Portugal in Europe), sometimes in cities where the “digital divide” is still high (at least in terms of Internet connections) and a significant part of the population lives in informal settlements and/or areas with low indicators of “connection.” Somehow, these experiences were able to demystify the “scary monolithicism” of ICTs, showing that some instruments (like mobile phones, and especially the use of SMS text messaging) could grant a higher degree of connectivity, diffusion and accountability, while other dimensions (which could risk jeopardizing social inclusion) could be minimized through creativity. The paper tries to depict a possible panorama of collaboration for the near future, starting from descriptions of some of the above mentioned “turning-point” experiences – both in the Global North as well as in the Global South.
Finanzdienstleister unterliegen infolge zunehmender Deregulierung und Globalisierung und des damit verbundenen Auftretens ausländischer Anbieter einem starken Wettbewerbsdruck. Dieser wird sich durch den Wegfall der Wechselkursrisiken nach Einführung des Euro noch verstärken. Für Finanzdienstleister wird es zunehmend überlebensnotwendig, auf einen kostengünstigen Vertrieb ihrer Produkte zu achten. Unternehmen mit Direktvertrieb, namentlich die nur über Telefon, Fax, E-Mail und Internet erreichbaren Direktbanken, Direktversicherungen und Discount-Broker, erfreuen sich gerade wegen ihrer geringen Vertriebskosten wachsender Beliebtheit. Ein neuer EU-Richtlinienvorschlag für den Fernabsatz von Finanzdienstleistungen (Finanz-RLV)könnte den bestehenden Rechtsrahmen entscheidend verändern. Die betroffenen Kreise sollten sich folglich schon vor Erlaß und Umsetzung der Richtlinie in das mitgliedstaatliche Recht mit dem möglichen neuen Rechtsrahmen beschäftigen.
Nach vorherrschender Lesart prallen im Internet Exklusivitäts- und Zugangsinteressen aufeinander. Das Urheberrecht soll diesen Konflikt in ein angemessenes Gleichgewicht bringen. Im folgenden Beitrag werden die Auseinandersetzungen um das digitale Urheberrecht anders gedeutet. Demnach ist die Online-Kommunikation von zwei koexistierenden Kulturen geprägt, die sich je verschieden zum Urheberrecht verhalten. Die Ausgestaltung des digitalen Urheberrechts wird mit darüber entscheiden, ob das dynamische Nebeneinander von Exklusivitäts- und Zugangskultur fortdauert oder ob eine der beiden Kulturen verdrängt wird. Das Urheberrecht ist folglich als Teil der Internetregulierung zu betrachten.
According to the prevailing view, the purpose of digital copyright is to balance conflicting interests in exclusivity on the one hand and in access to information on the other. This article offers an alternative reading of the conflicts surrounding copyright in the digital era. It argues that two cultures of communication coexist on the internet, each of which has a different relationship to copyright. Whereas copyright institutionalizes and supports a culture of exclusivity, it is at best neutral towards a culture of free and open access. The article shows that, depending on the future regulation of copyright and the internet in general, the dynamic coexistence of these cultures may well be replaced by an overwhelming dominance of the culture of exclusivity.