Copyright and Mass Digitization

Output Type: Book Revie

And they lived happily ever after UPC Telekabel: a copyright fairy tale or a chance to strike a fair balance?

The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling by the EU Court of Justice on the interpretation of Article 8(3) of the Directive 2001/29/EC, and of certain fundamental rights protected by European Union law

Copyright as Monopoly: The Italian Fire Under the Ashes

This essay provides an overview of some research that is in its early stages. The principal purpose of the authors is to understand whether, in a Continental European legal system such as the Italian one – traditionally led by a strong historical and normative vision of copyright (or author’s right) as natural right and nowadays influenced by the EU propertization trend – it is yet possible to foresee a different approach that is prone to interpreting the exclusivity of copyright in terms of monopoly. The latter approach, to some extent, might in fact be more relevant to restricting copyright protection by limiting the exclusive rights (ius excludendi alios) while supporting the public interest. Besides, the vision of “copyright as monopoly” seems in particular to play an overriding role within the digital context, where property is less apt in terms of the promotion and sharing of knowledge and, on the contrary, monopolistic jeopardy is sensibly flourishing

A Legal Perspective on Training Models for Natural Language Processing

A significant concern in processing natural language data is the often unclear legal status of the input and output data/resources. In this paper, we investigate this problem by discussing a typical activity in Natural Language Processing: the training of a machine learning model from an annotated corpus. We examine which legal rules apply at relevant steps and how they affect the legal status of the results, especially in terms of copyright and copyright-related rights

Plagio e norme sociali

First paragraph: «People cannot eat and drink norms», sostiene Muzafer Sherif1. Le norme non si mangiano né si bevono. Le norme si osservano o si trasgrediscono. Esse nascono, si modificano e, talvolta, perfino si estinguono. Le norme sono strumenti regolatori d’imprescindibile utilità ed essenzialità per il buon vivere sociale.&nbsp

Plagiarism as an axiom of legal similarity: a critical and interdisciplinary study of the Italian author's right and the UK copyright systems on the moral right of attribution

Plagiarism may have accompanied acts of creation, either endorsing or contradicting them. Esteemed as a general rule of literature or censured as literary larceny, it embodies the disavowal of authorship in the intellectual works of others and thus breaches their right to be acknowledged as authors, while also feasibly deceiving the public and, in any case, contradicting the universal rule of creative imitation. Historically entangled with the concepts of counterfeiting and piracy, it only later reached an autonomous collocation as a violation of the moral right of attribution. Placed in the broadest context of copyright law, it yet struggles against its confinement to a strict legal characterisation, given its colourful appearance and inherent inconsistency according to the type of works or field of knowledge to which it relates, thus refuting any unyielding interpretation. In such a mutable context, the purpose of this research, which revolves around the systems of Italy and the United Kingdom, is to explore a view of plagiarism that appreciates the different instances in which a genuine borrowing or a deceitful practice appear, considering the dimension of copyright infringement, but also looking at other possible legal and non-legal means of construal. Given these premises, an accurate exploration of the phenomenon requires a preliminary consideration of the manifold literature on the subject, which increasingly progresses together with the development of technology and social practices. Furthermore, its literal absence in statutory law does not impede finding a collocation in the context of the judiciary, which is analysed with reference to the legal systems of both Italy and the United Kingdom. This does not infer that courts deliver a flawless and unfailing interpretation of plagiarism. On the contrary, a careful reading of the ruling confirms that the narrow realm of copyright law is shrinking. However, the unpredictability of the statutory and judicial approach towards plagiarism may also be welcomed as an attempt by the law to acknowledge the difficulty to appraise its complexity. Therefore, the present study openly adopts an interdisciplinary and comparative analysis that may help to describe its controversial legal breadth while also possibly unravelling any other principled range

In Vivo Therapeutic Potential of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Depends on the Source and the Isolation Procedure

SummaryOver the last several years, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been isolated from different tissues following a variety of different procedures. Here, we comparatively assess the ex vivo and in vivo properties of MSCs isolated from either adipose tissue or bone marrow by different purification protocols. After MSC transplantation into a mouse model of hindlimb ischemia, clinical and histological analysis revealed that bone marrow MSCs purified on adhesive substrates exerted the best therapeutic activity, preserving tissue viability and promoting formation of new arterioles without directly transdifferentiating into vascular cells. In keeping with these observations, these cells abundantly expressed cytokines involved in vessel maturation and cell retention. These findings indicate that the choice of MSC source and purification protocol is critical in determining the therapeutic potential of these cells and warrant the standardization of an optimal MSC isolation procedure in order to select the best conditions to move forward to more effective clinical experimentation

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Why We Need a Text and Data Mining Exception (But it is Not Enough)

Extended Abstrac