Special Announcement on behalf of AlterNet Media/How Social Tech Fuels Iran's Election Revolution

Dear AlterNet Reader,

We write what the corporate media won't

Coverage of our liberties and rights has always been a top priority at AlterNet. But after the financial meltdown, our funding has disappeared. We need your support to continue our work.

The erosion of rights in our society is epidemic. In any given moment any one of us is vulnerable.

AlterNet has told hundreds of stories about people who have been caught up in official paranoia, misinformation, and misguided attempts to make us safe. No Fly Lists (even Ted Kennedy was on the list!), mistaken identities, false accusations, illegal wiretaps, data mining, and even hijacking of web sites and Facebook pages -- all of these are daily occurrences.

Our coverage gives voice to stories ignored by the corporate press. AlterNet is your insurance policy to help protect our rights and liberties by keeping stories alive, never giving up. We need your support to keep telling these important stories.

Please, this is important. Anything you can give to support our work will help.

Don Hazen
Don Hazen
Executive Editor, AlterNet.org

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

How Social Tech Fuels Iran's Election Revolution

Posted by Deanna Zandt, DeannaZandt.com at 8:50 AM on June 15, 2009.

It's less about celebrity and more about connection, humanity and the ability to inject values into the wider culture in a populist way.
There's a ton of great material out there on the nuances of the Iranian election and protests, and I just want to quickly throw some thoughts into the ring.

First, from an American media perspective, here was another great moment for folks to demand what they wanted to see covered on national news media. What a moment of media dissonance: As protests erupted -- and in some cases, turned violent -- in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere in Iran, major broadcast media in the U.S. had little to no news on the events at all. By using the hashtag1 #CNNfail to collect all of the dissatisfaction on Twitter, Americans were able to shift the focus of the conversation and eventually influence CNN's decision makers to start covering stories by Sunday.

It's reminiscent of #AmazonFAIL (when Amazon accidentally delisted 58,000 books, fueling a social media revolt), in the sense that within a pretty short time frame (less than 24 hours), major news organizations simply could not ignore the story unfolding -- via reportage and commentary -- on social media. I remind folks to think about how this sort of situation would have unfolded even five years ago: Bloggers would blog, perhaps media watchdog organizations would get a grassroots campaign together, and maybe within a week, if we were lucky, we'd see some influence. Now, with so many people participating in the conversation, we have immense power to quickly shift both focus and perception.

This is why, when it comes to politics and advocacy work, it's important to look at a bigger picture beyond just who's using Facebook to get votes, or which representatives of governments tweet with pizazz. It's less about celebrity and more about connection, humanity and the ability to inject our values into the wider culture in a fundamentally populist way.

Another fascinating angle of this story is the bootstrapping of access to technology after the Iranian government began blocking access. Facebook was blocked in late May, when reformist candidate Moussavi had around 5,200 supporters. Not long into the protests this weekend, access to major portions of the Internet (including Twitter), as well as SMS texting, were blocked. Not to be stopped, protesters within Iran are receiving information about accessing proxy servers from folks setting them up outside of the country, and stories continue to flood out.

Honestly, there is just no blocking The Internet, y'all. What the Iranian government is trying to do is, in effect, akin to trying to stop water or electricity from flowing. There is so much infrastructure in place at this point, they'd basically have to blow up most of it to stop people from accessing the outside world. Of course, I wouldn't put it past Ahmadinejad, now that I think about it ...

1 What's a hashtag? It's a keyword that people add to their tweets, so that conversations around a particular topic can be easily tracked.

Digg!

Tagged as: iran, internet, ahmadinejad, twitter, facebook, social media, iran election, hashtag
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Iran has cracked down on hundreds of thousands of protesters who have poured into the streets in an act of breathtaking defiance to protest the contested results of last week's presidential election.
Let Iran know that the global community is monitoring their every move.


Dear Reader,

The government of Iran swiftly kicked the machinery of repression into high gear over the last several days in response to the largest public demonstrations of opposition that country has seen in 3 decades.

Iranian authorities have violently cracked down on the wave of protesters who have taken to the streets since June 13th in an act of breathtaking defiance to protest the contested results of last week's presidential election.

Protests over the last few days have drawn up to 1 million people despite a ban on opposition protests. Basij (paramilitary) forces opened fire indiscriminately into the crowd on Monday, killing several people and injuring several others.

According to reports, as many as five students at Tehran University were shot dead last weekend. Motorcycle-mounted riot police have severely beaten large numbers of protesters with clubs and night sticks.

Authorities have detained hundreds of opposition politicians, journalists, human rights activists and students since June 13, including highly respected human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani, a close colleague of Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi.
Excessive violence against Iranian protestors

Iranian authorities have taken aggressive measures to stifle dissent and stem the flow of information -- both inside and outside of the country -- about the widespread unrest.

While the Iranian government had granted journalists short-term visas to cover the elections, authorities have subsequently curtailed freedom of speech through blocking cell phones, text messaging, email and Web sites.

Nonetheless, Iranian protesters have circumvented efforts to seal off the country and have succeeded in transmitting accounts of the explosive violence of the last few days to the outside world.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said in an unprecedented announcement Monday that an investigation into alleged election fraud would be carried out. Public protests are likely to continue as Iranian authorities attempt to resolve the hotly contested election results. And many fear that Iranian authorities will continue to respond with attempts to stamp out the demonstrations.

We need to ensure that those at the highest echelons of power in Iran are aware that, despite their best efforts at concealing their bloody crackdown, the global community is monitoring their every move.

Help us send the vital message today to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that we refuse to remain silent when authorities use bloody violence to crush dissent and deny Iranian citizens their freedom of speech and association.

Thank you for your action,

Elise, Zahir and the rest of the Amnesty International Iran rapid response team
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Ominous message from the Iranian Supreme Leader
Individuals at Risk, Middle East | Posted by: Geoffrey Mock, June 19, 2009 at 9:55 PM


Today, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, spoke to the crowd at the weekly Friday Prayer and made what many have interpreted as a warning to those opposing the contested election results to cease their public protests or else face possible severe reprisals. The reprisals in question have been viewed as thinly veiled references to violence by government agents and Basij, or paramilitaries. The Supreme Leader said that opposition leaders would be held responsible for any bloodshed that resulted from the banned opposition rallies.

Although the protests in the streets in the first few days after the elections were met with attacks by baton-wielding riot police on motorcycles, and on Monday by deadly indiscriminate shooting into the crowd that left up to seven people fatally wounded and many more injured, the massive street protests since Monday have been largely peaceful, although random violence carried out by vigilantes and Basij have been reported.
Human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani is one of the activists who have been arrested in the aftermath of election protests in Iran.

Human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani is one of the activists who have been arrested in the aftermath of election protests in Iran.

The Iranian authorities have conducted their severest repressive measures in the form of mass detentions of journalists, students, opposition politicians and human rights activists. Among those arrested are human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani, a close associate of Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi and a member of the Center for Human Rights Defenders.

However it has been an open question to what extent the Iranian authorities would be willing to unleash the full force of its military and riot police against the vast numbers of protesters in the streets. The potential for such use of violence to result in large-scale bloodshed is alarming.

Amnesty International has expressed concern that an opposition rally that is said to be planned for tomorrow may be met with the use of excessive violence. We urge the authorities to respect the right of the Iranian people to engage in the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and association.

Written by Elise Auerbach, AIUSA Iranian country specialist

There's more...

PERMALINK Comment (1)
China Mandates PC Companies Install Software That Censors
Asia, Business & Human Rights | Posted by: Corporate Action Network, June 19, 2009 at 2:26 PM

By Tony Cruz, Amnesty International USA’s Business & Economic Relations Group

Starting July 1, 2009, the Chinese government is mandating all PC makers such as Hewlett Packard and Dell install software that filters Internet content. The government says it is to help give parents control over inappropriate material, such as pornography, but Business Week reports that the software blocks political and religious websites. And after the government of China’s recent internet crackdown on the 20th anniversary of Tienanmen Square earlier this month, and the widely known controversial self-censorship of companies such as Yahoo and Google, it is clear that the Chinese government continues to use technology to suppress freedom of expression.

For the last three years, I’ve represented Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) at Yahoo! and Google’s shareholder meetings addressing their decisions to self-censor. I’ve asked executives to support freedom of expression on the Internet through such legislation as the Global Online Freedom Act (H.R. 275) which could help IT companies resist information requests by the Chinese government.

Imagine this scenario: if Yahoo! and Google backed this legislation three years ago, the choice facing HP and Dell today would be an easy one — respect human rights or go to jail. But they have not taken concrete steps to rectify their decision to self-censor, a decision that even Google co-founder Sergei Brin calls a “mistake”. In fact, AIUSA recently pulled out of the multi-stakeholder initiative we joined in 2007, with the goal of establishing voluntary principles to promote and respect human rights on the Internet, because we saw no tangible results.

This week we’re able to see in real-time how critical the Internet is for Iranians as a forum for protest and communication. In China, the Internet is equally vital in voicing dissent and discussing justice and rights. If PC companies cave into the Chinese government’s demands to install software that filters internet content, then it could be the next step towards stifling this budding online democratic movement towards accountability, transparency, citizens’ right to participate.

So what’s next for PC companies? Will they be pioneers in socially responsible business practices or will they bend to the Great Firewall of China?

Join us in defending online freedom in China by taking this simple action.

With contributions from Anna Phelan (BERG) and Lillian Tan, Corporate Action Network Intern

There's more...

PERMALINK Comment (1)
U.S. Obligation to Freed Gitmo Detainees
United States, War on Terror | Posted by: Tom Parker, June 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM

(Originally posted on Daily Kos)

Four Uighur former Guantanamo inmates are now in Bermuda, other detainees have been released to France, Chad, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Hungary, Italy and Palau appear to have joined the ranks of countries prepared to accept detainees cleared for release. The pace of releases finally seems to be picking up and that is a cause for optimism.

But, while groups like Amnesty are pleased to see these individuals finally released from wrongful detention, we are disturbed that there has been no public announcement that any of these individuals will receive compensation for their ill-treatment or any assistance from the United States in rebuilding their lives or coming to terms with their experiences.

Many of you reading this blog may feel that this is a side issue but it is not. International law requires the U.S. to provide remedy to those who have been wrongfully imprisoned.

Consider for a moment what the men recently released have lost. They have lost seven years of their lives. Quite apart from the personal deprivation of liberty that is also seven years of lost earning potential - one fifth of a working life. Their families too have been without their primary breadwinner all this time.

Furthermore, what kind of future do they have to look forward to? They certainly haven’t had the opportunity to learn or develop a trade while in detention, nor are many of them returning to a society they know well. Some may not even speak the local language. However idyllic Bermuda may appear in press photographs, it is a world away from the Central Asian steppe the Uighurs are used to.

Some released inmates may be grappling with medical or mental health problems. Defense attorney, Jeffrey Colman, a thirty-five year veteran of the criminal justice system who has represented four GITMO inmates this week described the facility as:

“Unlike any other institution… there is a level of hopelessness unlike anything I have ever seen.”

We know 5 inmates have committed suicide since the camp opened and in March this year the Department of Defense reported that 34 inmates were on hunger strike. Such figures give some insight into the harrowing nature of the detainees’ experiences - yet no provision has been made to support their rehabilitation.

Closing Guantanamo is not in and of itself enough. We have a moral and legal obligation to aid the reintegration of former inmates back into society. These men have been convicted of no crime. In our system that means they are innocent. No ifs or buts.

Innocent men wrongly held for seven years have a right to compensation. The Obama administration can’t simply shove them out the gates of Camp Delta and forget about them. The United States must take responsibility for rebuilding lives it has ruined.

There's more...

PERMALINK Comment (1)
Forcible Evictions of HIV-positive Families in Cambodia
Asia, Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, Individuals at Risk | Posted by: Bryna Subherwal, June 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Yesterday morning, the Cambodian government forcibly evicted about 20 families living with HIV/AIDS from their homes in Borei Keila and resettled them at Tuol Sambo, a resettlement site just outside the capital, Phnom Penh. The site lacks clean water and electricity and has limited access to medical services. Evicted families were compensated with inadequate housing at the site and 50 kilograms of rice, soy sauce, fish sauce, water jars and US$250, but they were warned that anyone who did not comply with the move would not receive compensation. A human rights worker present during the transition described the families as despondent and noted that those who are ill were exhausted by the move.

When Amnesty International visited the site – in a semi-rural area where houses are built from green metal sheets – villagers in the vicinity saw it as a place for HIV/AIDS victims. The evicted families expressed fears that being forced to live in this separate, distinct location will bring more discrimination and stigmatization than they already are forced to deal with because of their status as HIV-positive.

Forced evictions are a tactic Cambodia has employed more and more often, and this is not the first time the Cambodian government has taken this sort of action against people living with HIV-AIDS. In March 2007, the Municipality of Phnom Penh resettled an additional 32 families living with HIV/ AIDS against their will in temporary green, corrugated-metal shelters in appalling conditions to make way for the construction of a number of new houses. The families believe that the authorities are discriminating against them because of their HIV status.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Four WOZA Members Arrested Today
Africa, Individuals at Risk, Violence Against Women | Posted by: Bryna Subherwal, June 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Four members of the Zimbabwe group Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) were arrested and detained today after taking part in a peaceful demonstration outside of the Meikles hotel in Harare. The WOZA members are believed to have been seriously injured after they were allegedly beaten by police at the demonstration. The arrests and beatings of these human rights defenders occurred while the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, was in Harare on the final day of a fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe. Amnesty International has been informed that police accused the WOZA members of demonstrating in front of International visitors in order to embarrass the government and understands that this is why they were arrested. The four WOZA members, who are currently detained at Harare Central police station, have allegedly been denied access to medical care by the Law and Order section of the Zimbabwe Republic Police. Another demonstration in Bulawayo was was violently broken up by police on Wednesday.

We hope to have ways for people to take action available soon. Meanwhile, read more about the WOZA case and take general action.

PERMALINK Comments (2)
A Clear Scientific Consensus that the Death Penalty does NOT Deter
Death Penalty, United States | Posted by: Brian Evans, June 18, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment. And the few recent studies purporting to prove a deterrent effect, though getting heavy play in the media, have failed to impress the larger scientific community, which has exposed them as flawed and inconsistent.

The latest issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology contains a study by a Sociology professor and a graduate student at the University of Colorado-Boulder (Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock), examining the opinions of leading criminology experts on the deterrence effects of the death penalty.

The results reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder—a level of consensus comparable to the agreement among scientists regarding global climate change. At the same time, only 9.2% of surveyed experts indicated that they believed the death penalty results in a significant drop in murder cases (56.6% completely disagreed with that statement, while 32.9% thought the correlation between capital punishment and lower homicide numbers to be “largely inaccurate”; 1.3% were uncertain).

The study builds upon previous research, published in 1996, in which the opinions of 67 leading experts in the field of criminology were surveyed. The most recent study sent the same questions to a new group of experts (a total of 73), among whom were fellows from the American Society of Criminology, as well as award-winning criminology scholars.

A majority of respondents also expressed the opinion that death penalty states don’t have lower homicide rates than states where capital punishment has been abolished. The authors point to empirical evidence that backs this up — in 2007 murder rates in states that still had the death penalty exceeded those in states that have abolished it by no less than 42%. More than eighteen percent of surveyed experts went even further and actually expressed the belief that the death penalty leads to a higher rate of murders, something the authors call the ‘brutalization hypothesis.’

In addition, a majority of respondents involved in both the 2008 and the 1996 studies believe that “(d)ebates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.” Overall, the authors conclude that there is no significant difference between the opinions of experts from the 1996 and the 2008 time periods and that “a vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth.”

Radelet and Lacock also discuss and point to significant inconsistencies in a number of studies conducted by economists, who have found the death penalty to have a deterrent effect. These inconsistencies lead them to conclude that “(r)ecent econometric studies, which posit that the death penalty has a marginal deterrent effect beyond that of long-term imprisonment, are so limited or flawed that they have failed to undermine consensus.”

There's more...

PERMALINK Comments (12)
Protests and Crackdowns Spread Throughout Iran
Middle East | Posted by: Elise Auerbach, June 18, 2009 at 11:33 AM

There is a misconception that protests against Iran’s contested election results have been confined to Tehran. That is not the case. Although the largest protests have indeed been taking place in Tehran, Iranians in many other cities and towns have been taking to the streets. Unfortunately, the crackdown carried out by Iranian authorities has correspondingly extended to every corner of the country.

Mir Hossein Mousavi hails from Azerbaijan, in the northern part of Iran. The capital of Azerbaijan province, Tabriz, has seen some of the most severe crackdowns. Seventeen political activists including those associated with the Nehzat-e Azadi (Freedom Movement) were detained on Monday night after they held a peaceful protest in Abresan Square in Tabriz. Security forces entered the dormitories at Tabriz University and detained ten students who had been involved in demonstrations. Student leader Amir Mardani and Dr. Ghaffari Farzadi, a leading member of the Nehzat-e Azadi and a lecturer at Tabriz University, were among those detained.

In the city of Oroumiye, local media reported on Tuesday that two people had been killed and hundreds more detained in a crackdown on about 3,000 people protesting in Imam Street.

In Shiraz, southern Iran, security forces used tear gas as they forced their way into a library at Shiraz University. Reports say that several students were beaten and around 100 were detained. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one person may have been killed. The chancellor of that university, Mohammadhadi Sadeghi, resigned on Tuesday in protest.

Meanwhile, in Mashhad, in the northeast, there were further reports of security forces attacking students and in Zahedan, in Iran’s southeast, two students are among at least three activists who have been detained.

In one particularly ominous piece of news, Reuters reported that Mohammad Reza Habibi, the public prosecutor in the central province of Esfahan, had warned demonstrators that they could be charged with engaging in “Mohareb” or “Enmity with God”—a crime punishable by death according to Iranian law. It was not clear if his warning applied only to Esfahan, where there have been violent clashes, or the country as a whole.

Protests are expected to continue today as a large opposition rally has been called. Large crowds can also be expected to congregate for Friday prayers on the following day. Amnesty International has called for the Iranian authorities to refrain from using violence against peaceful protesters and to release all those detained for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and association.

There's more...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Ibrahim Yazdi Detained in Tehran
Middle East | Posted by: Zahir Janmohamed, June 17, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Ibrahim Yazdi, the Secretary General of the Freedom Movement of Iran political party, was just arrested at 3 PM today by the Iranian Security Forces at the Pars Hospital, according to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. He has since been transferred to the Evin Prison in northwest Tehran.

Yazdi was Deputy Prime Minister for Revolutionary Affairs for the interim Iranian government in 1979 directly after the Islamic Revolution. He also served as Foreign Minister and was elected to the Islamic Consultative Assembly parliament, serving for 4 years.

As recently as Saturday, the day after Iranians went to the polls, Yazdi was speaking out against what he saw as a rigged election. Such discourse may have contributed to his arrest.

100 others have allegedly been detained alongside Yazdi.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Venezuela Files New Charges Against Globovisión for TV Program that Predicted Chavez's Death/Mexican Journalist Was Killed to Intimidate Others, Confe

JOURNALISM IN THE AMERICAS


Venezuela Files New Charges Against Globovisión for TV Program that Predicted Chavez's Death

Employees of Venezuela's broadcasting regulator, Conatel, appeared at the headquarters of Globovisión on Tuesday (June 16) to inform the TV news channel of the fourth charges against it, El Nacional reports.
Conatel is investigating whether Globovisión committed violations during several of its programs, including a broadcast last October of "Hello Citizen" (Aló Ciudadano), in which the editor of an opposition newspaper predicted the death of President Hugo Chávez, El Universal reports. The programs were already under investigation to determine whether their broadcasts had threatened public order, but the government now wishes to see if it can file criminal charges, El Universal explains.
Globovisión's director, Alberto Federico Ravell, insists that there is no legal basis for closing the network. In his view, the Chávez administration is doing all it can to find fault with its directors and to remove the station from the air, Globovisión reports.

• Posted by Ingrid Bachmann/DG at 06/16/2009 - 10:31

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Mexican Journalist Was Killed to Intimidate Others, Confessed Assassin Says

Last month's killing of Mexican reporter Eliseo Barrón was intended to scare local journalists against interfering with the work of drug traffickers, El Universal and EFE report.
Five men, including a regional leader of Los Zetas, the armed branch of the Gulf Cartel, were arrested for the killing. One of the five, gunman Israel Sánchez Jaimes, admitted having killed the reporter from La Opinión last month on order of the leader of Los Zetas in the states of Durango and Coahuila, Milenio adds.
The Mexican government had offered a reward for information about the killing, generating criticisms over impunity and the authorities' failure to solve other journalist killings.
Separately, in the state of Chihuahua, El Diario de Juárez reported that the state attorney general's office has known the identity of the killer of reporter Armando Rodríguez (killed in November 2008) since February, including possible links with criminal organizations, but nothing has been done to arrest him or his accomplices.

Educational Research Network for West and Central Africa

Educational Research Network for West and Central Africa
BP E 1854, Bamako, Mali, Mali
Tel: +223-20211612 Fax:
http://www.ernwaca.org


About: ERNWACA (Educational Research Network for West And Central Africa) was founded in 1989 by researchers at a meeting in Freetown in response to their precarious institutional contexts. It was preceded by the West African Research Training Program, for Francophone countries, created in 1974. ERNWACA members include several hundred researchers in sixt ... show more

Mission: The mission of ERNWACA is to promote African expertise in the field of educational research.

FRIEND since: 10 Jun 2009
Incorporated in: Mali
Organisation presence: Regional
Organisation sector: Civil Society
Countries of Operation: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Repulic, Congo, Cote d'lvoire, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo,
Thematic Interests:
Access To Knowledge
Capacity Building/ Skills Development, Content Development, Indigenous Knowledge, Infrastructure, Local Content Development, Multilingualism/ Language/ Translation, Policy, Technology Tools,
Education
Content Development, e-Learning/ e-Teaching, Extracurricular Training, Formal - Higher Education, Formal - Primary Education, Formal - Secondary Education, Informal, Infrastructure, Open & Distance Learning (ODL), Policy, Research, Teaching/ Capacity Building for Teachers, Vocational Training/ Skills Development,
Resource Mobilisation
Capacity Building Strategy/ Planning, Civil Society Empowerment, Fundraising, Infrastructure, Investments/ Grants/ Venture Capital/ Financing Mechanism, Organisational Capacity Building, Volunteerism,
~Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships
Advocacy, Partnership Brokering/ Mentoring, Research, Training,
~Other Cross-Cutting Themes
Communication for Development, Community Issues, eGovernance and eGovernment, eSecurity and Cybersafety, Gender, Innovation, Intellectual Property Rights, Internet Governance, Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Methodologies, Regulatory and Policy Issues, Social Entrepreneurship, Sustainability, Technology Development, Telecentres/ Community Multimedia Centres, Youth,
Expertise:
Advocacy, Capacity Building/Skills Development/Training, Content Development, Evaluation, Funding/Investment, Incubation, Media/Publishing, Research, Technology/ Infrastructure Development, Volunteerism,


Edited by:MUKTI MAJID, Dacca, Bangladesh

Leading Russian media propose draft law to fight content stealing/Europe’s elections: why they matter/

saleemul.huq@iied.org,
pamela.harling@iied.org


Leading Russian media propose draft law to fight content stealing

Leading Russian news agencies and media outlets have agreed on proposals for a draft law on granting news reports the legal status of goods and imposing fines for illegal publishing of copyrighted material. The Mass Communication Council at the Russian Communications Ministry met on Wednesday to discuss measures to protect intellectual property. RIA Novosti, Interfax, the Kommersant publishing house, Vedomosti and Gazeta.ru took part. 'The main goal of the proposed amendments to a number of laws is to turn news into goods which must be paid for,' RIA Novosti Editor-in-Chief Svetlana Mironyuk said. She said websites that are not registered media outlets are actively taking news content from professional sources, in violation of copyright laws. 'Firstly, this is unscrupulous competition, and secondly, it steals readers from professional media and consequently cuts profits from advertising posted on their websites,' Mironyuk said. Mikhail Mikhailin, editor-in-chief of Gazeta.ru, said it was necessary to 'set the rules of the game' on the online media market. The initiators of the draft suggested that offenders attempting to publish copyright material without citing the copyright holder pay fines ranging from RUB 2,000 (EUR 46) to RUB 20,000 (EUR 461), depending on whether they are individuals or legal entities. Alexander Zharov, a deputy communications minister, called for prosecution of plagiarists. (Ria Novosti)

14:3711/06/2009
MOSCOW, June 11 (RIA Novosti) - Leading Russian news agencies and media outlets have agreed on proposals for a draft law on granting news reports the legal status of goods and imposing fines for illegal publishing of copyrighted material.

The Mass Communication Council at the Russian Communications Ministry met on Wednesday to discuss measures to protect intellectual property. RIA Novosti, Interfax, the Kommersant publishing house, Vedomosti and Gazeta.ru took part.

“The main goal of the proposed amendments to a number of laws is to turn news into goods which must be paid for,” RIA Novosti Editor-in-Chief Svetlana Mironyuk said.

She said websites that are not registered media outlets are actively taking news content from professional sources, in violation of copyright laws.

“Firstly, this is unscrupulous competition, and secondly, it steals readers from professional media and consequently cuts profits from advertising posted on their websites,” Mironyuk said.

Mikhail Mikhailin, editor-in-chief of Gazeta.ru, said it was necessary to “set the rules of the game” on the online media market.

The initiators of the draft suggested that offenders attempting to publish copyright material without citing the copyright holder pay fines ranging from 2,000 rubles ($65) to 20,000 rubles ($647), depending on whether they are individuals or legal entities.

Alexander Zharov, a deputy communications minister, called for prosecution of plagiarists.

“Copyright holders should be protected,” he said, pledging to promote the draft law as soon as all online media representatives take a consolidated stand on the issue.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Europe’s elections: why they matter
Hugo Brady, 2 - 06 - 2009
European voters seem indifferent to an institution that is nonetheless set to play an increasing role in the European Union’s decision-making, says Hugo Brady.
(This article was first published on 1 June 2009)
2 - 06 - 2009


European Union citizens will cast their votes to elect a new European parliament on 4-7 June 2009. The current opinion-polls indicate that they will do so without much enthusiasm. Indeed, there is every chance that the average turnout will be the lowest ever - it has fallen at every election since the first time that Europeans directly elected their MEPs in 1979, and sank to 45.6% in 2004. But despite the prevailing apathy, this election matters. During its next five-year term, the European parliament will influence what the EU decides in areas as diverse as financial services, trade, climate change, energy security and immigration.
Hugo Brady is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform (CER)

This article is also published on the website of the CER

Also by Hugo Brady in openDemocracy:

"Europe's ‘reform treaty': ends and beginnings" (18 October 2007) - with Katinka Barysch
Why do European elections so often struggle to capture the public imagination? Evidently, voters think the stakes are lower than in national elections - or at any rate less clear. Unlike legislative elections in a member-state, European elections do not, strictly speaking, lead to the formation of a new government. Moreover, the European parliament can often seem distant because few voters know what it - alongside the other two main EU institutions, the commission and the council of ministers - actually does.
Even if they do, the areas where the parliament exercises most influence seem technical and dull. Voters tend to be less interested in arguments such as home versus host regulation of service companies, or the pros and cons of "unbundling" vertically-integrated energy companies, than in the subjects which dominate domestic elections - tax and spending, health and education policy, foreign and defence policy. These are among the issues on which the European parliament has no say.
Politics and institution
The members of the European parliament (MEPs) - who will number 736 after the current election round - are remote from most voters. The party-list system used in most countries means that few electors know the names of their MEPs. European constituencies are huge, making it difficult for any voter to meet an MEP; in national politics members of parliament can more easily hold "surgeries" to meet constituents. Furthermore, the process-heavy, non-adversarial way in which the parliament operates attracts little attention from media and voters. Political groups in the parliament stand out less clearly than in most national assemblies.
Although they are organised on a conventional left-right spectrum, they are composed of MEPs from very different national traditions, which makes them less monolithic. There is also no great difference between the policies proposed by the three biggest groups, the centre-right European People's Party (EPP), the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES) and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).
In addition, the parliament lacks political theatre. Many of its proceedings revolve around consensus-building and horse-trading in specialist committees.
Eurosceptics sometimes argue that these flaws weaken the legitimacy of the European parliament as a representative institution. That argument is unfair, for two reasons.
The first is that the parliament's job is not to replace national assemblies but to complement them, by providing an additional layer of democratic representation in European Union policy.
The second is that the parliament has become a serious actor. During its 2004-09 term, it influenced EU policy in areas as diverse as climate change, energy, the cross-border provision of services, telecoms regulation and the authorisation of chemicals. This trend is set to continue, especially if (depending on the result of Ireland's referendum, likely to be held in October 2009) the Lisbon treaty enters into force. The parliament would then have the power of "co-decision" - an equal say to the council of ministers - over virtually all legislation, instead of around 70% as is now the case. In particular, the Lisbon treaty would give the European parliament much more legislative power on justice and home affairs.
Process and people
The future political balance of the parliament will be largely determined by the outcome of voting in the big six member-states: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain. The EPP seems likely to remain the largest political group in the parliament, albeit with a reduced majority (in part because Britain's Conservatives have pledged to leave it). The Party of European Socialists (PES), for its part, should increase its representation, but only a little. When other groupings are taken into account (including the new group that the British Conservatives plan to lead) the centre-right is likely to dominate the EP.
If current opinion-polls are an accurate guide, the centre-left will fail to draw much advantage from the economic crisis. In the largest member-states, centre-left parties are either unpopular incumbents (as in Britain, Germany and Spain), or in opposition and disarray (as in France, Italy and Poland). The great unknown is how well populist fringe groups of the left and right - those who are really opposed to the current political and economic system - will perform. It would still be a major surprise if fringe parties won much more than fifty seats.
The balance of the parties matters for the leadership of the European commission. In June 2009, the European council is due to nominate the commission's next president. European Union leaders are likely to offer José Manuel Barroso, who is affiliated with the EPP, a second five-year term. But if the PES becomes the largest group in the parliament, they will try and insist on one of their own. The newly elected parliament is due to approve the European council's nominee for commission president in July. If the centre-right does end up dominating the parliament, Barroso will be voted in.
In autumn 2009 the parliament will hold hearings on the individual commissioners proposed by governments. These hearings matter. In 2004, the parliament did not like the look of Silvio Berlusconi's nominee, Rocco Buttiglione, on account of his views on gays and women - and it forced Berlusconi to withdraw him.
In January 2010 the parliament will vote to invest the entire team of commissioners. If it is implemented, the Lisbon treaty will make more explicit the need for the appointment of the commission president to "take into account" the results of the European elections. In the long run, whatever happens to that treaty, the commission is likely to become more directly accountable to the parliament. But whether that makes Europeans any more willing to vote for MEPs is another matter.

Edited by : MUKTI MAJID,DACCA,BANGLADESH.