現在、気候変動を口実に原発を増やすことを、日本政府をはじめ多くの国で始めている。日本では、原爆投下、第五福竜丸事件、福島原発の過酷な事故などを経験しながら、政府の意向に同調する気配が濃厚のようである。また日本は地震大国であり、原発事故の可能性は非常に高い。しかし、福島事故後の政府の対応、報道機関の原発事故の無視などもあり、原発の根本的問題点が多数の人に理解されていない。筆者は、こうした問題の全体像を広く知らせるべく「放射線被ばくの全体像：人類は核と共存できない」（明石書店、2022）を出版しました。そのあと書きの部分をここに再現します。

　フリーランスの編集者、ライター、デザイナー、漫画家、イラストレーター、校正者などが加入するユニオン出版ネットワーク（通称出版ネッツ）は、世田谷区史編さんに係る争議解決の内容・著作者人格権尊重を広く周知する取り組みの一環として、1月17日、文化庁、公正取引委員会、総務省自治行政局に対して「世田谷区史編さんに係る争議解決のご報告と著作者人格権尊重についての要望」を提出した。 ・全国の自治体に対し、自治体史誌等の編さんに際して著作者人格権と学問の自由を尊重すること ・行政機関と民..

If you’ve got lawyers and a copyright, the law gives you tremendous power to silence speech you don’t like. Copyright’s statutory damages can be as high as $150,000 per work infringed, even if no actual harm is done. This makes it far too dangerous to rely on the limitations and exceptions to fair use, as you may face a financial death sentence if a court decides you got it wrong. Most would-be speakers back down in the face of such risks, no matter now legitimate their use. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides an incentive for platforms to remove content on your say-so, without a judge ever reviewing your papers. The special procedures and damages available to copyright owners make it one of the most appealing mechanisms for removing unwanted speech from the internet.

Copyright owners have intimidated researchers away from disclosing that their software spies on users or is full of bugs that make it unsafe. When a blockbuster entertainment product inspires people to tell their own stories by depicting themselves in the same world or costumes, a letter from the studio’s lawyers will usually convince them to stay silent. And whose who sell software write their own law into End User License Agreements and can threaten any user who disobeys them with copyright damages.

Culture has always been a conversation, not a product that is packaged up for consumption.

These are only a few of the ways that copyright is a civil liberties nightmare in the modern age, and only a few of the abuses of copyright that we fight against in court. Copyright started out as a way for European rulers to ensure that publishers remained friendly to the government, and we still see this dynamic in the cozy relationship between Hollywood and the US military and police forces. But more and more it’s been a way for private entities that are already powerful to prevent both market competition and contrary ideas from challenging their dominance.

The imbalance of power between authors and the owners of mass media is the main reason that authors only get a small share of the value they create. Copyright is at its best when it protects a creator from being beaten to market by those who own mass media channels, giving them some leverage to negotiate. With that small bit of leverage, they can get paid something rather than nothing, though the publishing deals in highly concentrated industries are famously one-sided.

But, too often, we see copyright at its worst instead, and there is no good reason for copyright law to be as broad and draconian as it is now. It lasts essentially forever, as you will probably be dead before any new works you cherished as a child will enter the public domain. It is uniquely favored by the courts as a means for controlling speech, with ordinary First Amendment considerations taking a back seat to the interests of content owners. The would-be speaker has to prove their right to speak: for example, by persuading a court that they were making a fair use. And the penalties for a court deciding your use was infringing are devastating. It’s even used as a supposed justification for spying on and filtering the internet. Anyone familiar with automated copyright controls like ContentID on YouTube knows how restrictive they tend to be.

Bizarrely, copyright has grown so broad that it doesn’t just bar others from reproducing a work or adapting it into another medium such as film, it even prevents making original stories with a character or setting “owned” by the copyright owner. For the vast majority of our history, humans have built on and retold one another’s stories. Culture has always been a conversation, not a product that is packaged up for consumption.

The same is true for innovation, with a boom in software technology coming before copyright was applied to software. And, thanks to free software licenses that remove the default, restrictive behavior of copyright, we have communities of scrappy innovators building tools that we all rely upon for a functioning internet. When the people who depend upon a technology have a say in creating it and have the option to build their own to suit their needs, we’re much more likely to get technology that serves our interests and respects our privacy and autonomy. That's far superior to technology that comes into our homes as an agent of its creators, seeking to exploit us for advertising data, or limit our choices of apps and hardware to serve another’s profit motive.

EFF has been at the vanguard for decades, fighting back against copyright overreach in the digital world. More than ever, people need to be able to tell their stories, criticize the powerful and the status quo, and to communicate with technologies that aren’t censored by overzealous copyright bots.

日本の入管難民制度を語る際、「日本は難民認定者数が少な過ぎる」とよく言われる。２０２４年３月に入管庁が示した統計によると２０２３年の難民認定者数は３０３人。１３,８２３人が難民申請を行なっている状況を考えると、認定率はわずか４パーセントほどで、これは同年のアメリカやイギリスの難民認定率約６０パーセントと比較すると圧倒的に低い数値である。（岩本裕之）

1月30日、グテーレス国連事務総長記者会見が突然、中止になりました。　「決ったら報せる」と報道官は言ったけど理由は明かしませんでした。　記者陣もその理由を質しませんでした。　国連はみんなのお金で賄われているということを、関係者は自覚してください。　国連は、アメリカのためにあるのではありません。　国連は、イスラエルのためにあるのではありません。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　経済産業省が１２月下旬に発表した２０４０年度電源構成などを中心とした第７次エネルギー基本計画（エネ基）の素案は、衰退の原発事業のテコ入れを図る中身だ。その要点は①「原発依存度を可能な限り低減」の文言を削除、②原発を最大限活用、③廃炉にした原発の敷地内での建て替え、④同じ電力会社なら別の原発の敷地内でも建て替えを認める、⑤原発建設コストの上ぶれ分を電力会社が回収できる仕組みを検討――。電力会社の要望に沿う原発回帰案は、４０年度の..

Hitachi Energyが提供するFOXMAN-UNおよびUNEMには、複数の脆弱性が存在します。

今の時期、イタリアでは幼稚園から高校まで、学校への申し込みを受け付けている時期です。「オープンデイ」と言って、これから入る学校を見学できるシステムもあります。我が家の双子も今年９月からは中学校に入ります。（サトウノリコ＝イタリア在住）

New Rock Technologiesが提供する複数の製品には、複数の脆弱性が存在します。