Governance of Massive Multiauthor Collaboration – Linux, Wikipedia, and Other Networks: Governed by Bilateral Contracts, Partnerships, or Something in Between?

Open collaborative projects are moving to the foreground of knowledge production. Some online user communities develop into longterm projects that generate a highly valuable and at the same time freely accessible output. Traditional copyright law that is organized around the idea of a single creative entity is not well equipped to accommodate the needs of these forms of collaboration. In order to enable a peculiar network-type of interaction participants instead draw on public licensing models that determine the freedoms to use individual contributions. With the help of these access rules the operational logic of the project can be implemented successfully. However, as the case of the Wikipedia GFDL-CC license transition demonstrates, the adaptation of access rules in networks to new circumstances raises collective action problems and suffers from pitfalls caused by the fact that public licensing is grounded in individual copyright. Legal governance of open collaboration projects is a largely unexplored field. The article argues that the license steward of a public license assumes the position of a fiduciary of the knowledge commons generated under the license regime. Ultimately, the governance of decentralized networks translates into a composite of organizational and contractual elements. It is concluded that the production of global knowledge commons relies on rules of transnational private law.

Workfare Work: The Impact of Workfare on the Worker/Client Relationship

This article details the American experience of welfare reform, and specifically its experience instituting workfare programs for participants. In the United States, the term "welfare" is most commonly used to refer to the program for single mothers and their families, formerly called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and now, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). In 1996, politicians "ended welfare as we know it" by fundamentally changing this program with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). The principal focus of the 1996 reform is mandatory work requirements enforced by sanctions and strict time limits on welfare receipt. While PRWORA's emphasis on work is not new, the difference is its significant ideological and policy commitment to employment, enforced by time limits. When welfare reform was enacted, some of its proponents recognized that welfare offices would have to change in order to develop individualized workfare plans, monitor progress, and impose sanctions. The "culture" of welfare offices had to be changed from being solely concerned with eligibility and compliance to individual, intensive casework. In this article, I will discuss how implementing workfare programs have influenced the relationship between clients and their workers at the welfare office. I start by describing the burdens faced by offices even before the enactment of welfare reform. Local welfare offices were expected to run programs that emphasized compliance and eligibility at the same time as workfare programs, which require intensive, personal case management. The next section of the paper will focus on strategies welfare offices and workers use to navigate these contradictory expectations. Lastly, I will present information on how clients react to workfare programs and some reasons they acquiesce to workfare contracts despite their unmet needs. I conclude with recommendations of how to make workfare truly work for welfare clients.

The Risk Management of Minimum Return Guarantees

Contracts paying a guaranteed minimum rate of return and a fraction of a positive excess rate, which is specified relative to a benchmark portfolio, are closely related to unit-linked life-insurance products and can be considered as alternatives to direct investment in the underlying benchmark. They contain an embedded power option, and the key issue is the tractable and realistic hedging of this option, in order to rigorously justify valuation by arbitrage arguments and prevent the guarantees from becoming uncontrollable liabilities to the issuer. We show how to determine the contract parameters conservatively and implement robust risk-management strategies.

Marginalization of the Youth – a Current Societal Development?

The last two years a discussion on reforming the public sector has emerged. At its very heart we find important concepts like ‘quality reform’, ‘democracy’, and ‘development’. Recently I have presented an example of the ‘quality reform’ in SocMag, and this leads me to prolong that discussion on central themes on welfare state and democracy. Much energy is invested in arguing about management of the public sector: Do we need more competition from private companies? Do we need more control? Are more contracts concerning outcome needed? Can we be sure about the accountability needed from politicians? How much documentation, effectiveness measurement, bureaucracy, and evidence-based policy and practice are we looking for? A number of interesting questions – but strange enough we do not discuss the purpose of ‘keeping a welfare state’. What sort of understanding is lying behind the welfare state, and what kind of democracy are we drawing upon?

Efforts and Models of Education for Parents: the Danish Approach

The report examines the relationship between day care institutions, schools and so called “parents unfamiliar to education” as well as the relationship between the institutions. With in Danish public and professional discourse concepts like parents unfamiliar to education are usually referring to environments, parents or families with either no or just very restricted experience of education except for the basic school (folkeskole). The “grand old man” of Danish educational research, Prof. Em. Erik Jørgen Hansen, defines the concept as follows: Parents who are distant from or not familiar with education, are parents without tradition of education and by that fact they are not able to contribute constructively in order to back up their own children during their education. Many teachers and pedagogues are not used to that term; they rather prefer concepts like “socially exposed” or “socially disadvantaged” parents or social classes or strata. The report does not only focus on parents who are not capable to support the school achievements of their children, since a low level of education is usually connected with social disadvantage. Such parents are often not capable of understanding and meeting the demands from side of the school when sending their children to school. They lack the competencies or the necessary competence of action. For the moment being much attention is done from side of the Ministries of Education and Social Affairs (recently renamed Ministry of Welfare) in order to create equal possibilities for all children. Many kinds of expertise (directions, counsels, researchers, etc.) have been more than eager to promote recommendations aiming at achieving the ambitious goal: 2015 95% of all young people should complement a full education (classes 10.-12.). Research results are pointing out the importance of increased participation of parents. In other word the agenda is set for ‘parents’ education’. It seems necessary to underline that Danish welfare policy has been changing rather radical. The classic model was an understanding of welfare as social assurance and/or as social distribution – based on social solidarity. The modern model looks like welfare as social service and/or social investment. This means that citizens are changing role – from user and/or citizen to consumer and/or investor. The Danish state is in correspondence with decisions taken by the government investing in a national future shaped by global competition. The new models of welfare – “service” and “investment” – imply severe changes in hitherto known concepts of family life, relationship between parents and children etc. As an example the investment model points at a new implementation of the relationship between social rights and the rights of freedom. The service model has demonstrated that weakness that the access to qualified services in the field of health or education is becoming more and more dependent of the private purchasing power. The weakness of the investment model is that it represents a sort of “The Winner takes it all” – since a political majority is enabled to make agendas in societal fields former protected by the tripartite power and the rights of freedom of the citizens. The outcome of the Danish development seems to be an establishment of a political governed public service industry which on one side are capable of competing on market conditions and on the other are able being governed by contracts. This represents a new form of close linking of politics, economy and professional work. Attempts of controlling education, pedagogy and thereby the population are not a recent invention. In European history we could easily point at several such experiments. The real news is the linking between political priorities and exercise of public activities by economic incentives. By defining visible goals for the public servants, by introducing measurement of achievements and effects, and by implementing a new wage policy depending on achievements and/or effects a new system of accountability is manufactured. The consequences are already perceptible. The government decides to do some special interventions concerning parents, children or youngsters, the public servants on municipality level are instructed to carry out their services by following a manual, and the parents are no longer protected by privacy. Protection of privacy and minority is no longer a valuable argumentation to prevent further interventions in people’s life (health, food, school, etc.). The citizens are becoming objects of investment, also implying that people are investing in their own health, education, and family. This means that investments in changes of life style and development of competences go hand in hand. The below mentioned programmes are conditioned by this shift.

The Monotonicity Puzzle: An Experimental Investigation of Incentive Structures

Non-monotone incentive structures, which - according to theory - are able to induce optimal behavior, are often regarded as empirically less relevant for labor relationships. We compare the performance of a theoretically optimal non-monotone contract with a monotone one under controlled laboratory conditions. Implementing some features relevant to real-world employment relationships, our paper demonstrates that, in fact, the frequency of income-maximizing decisions made by agents is higher under the monotone contract. Although this observed behavior does not change the superiority of the non-monotone contract for principals, they do not choose this contract type in a significant way. This is what we call the monotonicity puzzle. Detailed investigations of decisions provide a clue for solving the puzzle and a possible explanation for the popularity of monotone contracts.

Kontent i Pravo v. Masterhost Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment of 23 December 2008, Nr. 10962/08 Translation and Comment

This Judgment by the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation can be considered as a landmark ruling for Internet Service Provider’s (ISP) liability. The Court stipulates for the first time concise principles under which circumstances an ISP shall be exempt from liability for transmitting copyright infringing content. But due to the legislation on ISP liability in the Russian Federation it depends on the type of information which rules of liability apply to ISP. As far as a violation of intellectual property rights is claimed, the principles given now by the Supreme Arbitration Court are applicable, which basically follow the liability limitations of the so called EU E-Commerce Directive. But, furthermore, preventive measures that are provided in service provider contracts to suppress a violation through the use of services should be taken into account as well. On the other hand, as far as other information is concerned the limitations of the respective Information Law might be applicable which stipulates different liability requirements. This article gives a translation of the Supreme Arbitration Court’s decision as well as a comment on its key rulings with respect to the legal framework and on possible consequences for practice.

Transnational Law for Transnational Communities The Emergence of a Lex Mercatoria (or Lex Informatica) for International Creative Communities

Open Source Communities and content-oriented projects (Creative Commons etc.) have reached a new level of economic and cultural significance in some areas of the Internet ecosystem. These communities have developed their own set of legal rules covering licensing issues, intellectual property management, project governance rules etc. Typical Open Source licenses and project rules are written without any reference to national law. This paper considers the question whether these license contracts and other legal rules are to be qualified as a lex mercatoria (or lex informatica) of these communities.

Open Data and Earth Observations The Case of Opening Up Access to and Use of Earth Observation Data Through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems

Earth observations (EO) represent a growing and valuable resource for many scientific, research and practical applications carried out by users around the world. Access to EO data for some applications or activities, like climate change research or emergency response activities, becomes indispensable for their success. However, often EO data or products made of them are (or are claimed to be) subject to intellectual property law protection and are licensed under specific conditions regarding access and use. Restrictive conditions on data use can be prohibitive for further work with the data. Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is an initiative led by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) with the aim to provide coordinated, comprehensive, and sustained EO and information for making informed decisions in various areas beneficial to societies, their functioning and development. It seeks to share data with users world-wide with the fewest possible restrictions on their use by implementing GEOSS Data Sharing Principles adopted by GEO. The Principles proclaim full and open exchange of data shared within GEOSS, while recognising relevant international instruments and national policies and legislation through which restrictions on the use of data may be imposed.The paper focuses on the issue of the legal interoperability of data that are shared with varying restrictions on use with the aim to explore the options of making data interoperable. The main question it addresses is whether the public domain or its equivalents represent the best mechanism to ensure legal interoperability of data. To this end, the paper analyses legal protection regimes and their norms applicable to EO data. Based on the findings, it highlights the existing public law statutory, regulatory, and policy approaches, as well as private law instruments, such as waivers, licenses and contracts, that may be used to place the datasets in the public domain, or otherwise make them publicly available for use and re-use without restrictions. It uses GEOSS and the particular characteristics of it as a system to identify the ways to reconcile the vast possibilities it provides through sharing of data from various sources and jurisdictions on the one hand, and the restrictions on the use of the shared resources on the other. On a more general level the paper seeks to draw attention to the obstacles and potential regulatory solutions for sharing factual or research data for the purposes that go beyond research and education.