Doctorat en philosophie et lettres / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

The problem of the study was to analyze conditions of the South African press, including effects of apartheid legislation on the free flow of information. The method of research was mail questionnaire to editors of twenty-two South African daily newspapers. The study showed that the South African press is restricted by legislation and additional laws are expected. Other information from the study includes the following: at least four main laws impede the free flow of information; the press has ready access to government officials; Die Burger and The Star are considered the most influential newspapers; and Prime Minister Vorster's recent advice that the press "put your house in order" seems aimed largely at key English-language newspapers.

No description available.

Este trabalho analisa a criação da Lei de Acesso à Informação Pública no Brasil, sob a lente da literatura de formação da agenda da área de políticas públicas. Com isso, buscou-se identificar quem foram os atores na arena política decisória e quais eram seus interesses na pauta do direito à informação. A partir das investigações realizadas por meio de documentos públicos e entrevistas, constatou-se uma particularidade interessante do caso brasileiro: o envolvimento ativo de um corpo burocrático, formado por funcionários do alto escalão da Controladoria Geral da União, que liderou esta agenda pelo Executivo. A tese colocada neste trabalho é a de que uma das motivações da CGU em propor esta agenda foi garantir a abertura de documentos públicos, a fim de obter acesso a documentos e informações fundamentais para o controle interno desempenhado pelo órgão. Nesta lógica, a Lei de Acesso à Informação, de certa forma, contribui para a burocracia controlar a própria burocracia. Este trabalho tem um recorte temporal bastante delimitado: o estudo parte de 2003, data da primeira proposição de projeto de lei para regulamentando o acesso à informação, pela Câmara dos Deputados, até a sanção do projeto de lei elaborado pelo Executivo, em 2011. Ao longo destes nove anos, houve disputas em torno do que seria o direito à informação pública, a quem serviriam tais informações e quem conduziria esta pauta na agenda governamental. Como veremos, o Executivo foi o ator com mais recursos e poder de influência no campo decisório / This Dissertation sought to analyse the passage of the Freedom of Information Law in Brazil, known as Access to Public Information Law, through the lens of agenda-setting literature in public policy. The aim of this study is to identify the players at the political arena and their role in designing and negotiating a bill that guarantees access to public information and to their interest in advocating for the right to information and for the public transparency. From the investigations carried out by analysing public documents and interviews, it was found an interesting feature of the Brazilian case: the active involvement of a bureaucratic body composed of senior officials of the Federal Comptroller General (CGU), who led this agenda by the Executive. The thesis of this research is that one of the main motivation of the CGU in this agenda was to ensure the opening of public documents in order to gain access to documents and to key information about the transfer of federal government resources and funds to states and municipalities for internal control purposes. The Brazilian Access to Public Information Law, somehow, allows the state bureaucracy to control bureaucracy itself. This work comprises a delimited period: it starts in 2003, when the first proposal of a bill to regulate access to information was presented at the Chamber of Deputies, by a member of the Parliament, until the sanction of the bill that was made by the Executive, in 2011. During these nine years, there were disputes over what should be the right to public information, to whom such information would be useful and for what purpose and who would lead this agenda. As we shall see, the Executive, represented by CGU was the actor with more resources and power to bargain in favour of this agenda at the decision-making arena

Este trabalho procura debater a liberdade constitucional de informação sob um viés não usual ao direito constitucional brasileiro. Seu ponto de partida é a proteção ao sigilo de fonte para jornalistas profissionais, consagrada pelo texto constitucional. Essa regra parece pressupor uma distinção possível e clara entre jornalistas e demais cidadãos. Mas como compreendê-la em um cenário atual no qual: a) as condições tecnológicas permitem que qualquer cidadão, a um custo baixo ou quase inexistente, publique informações para um número indistinto de pessoas, e; b) o Supremo Tribunal Federal tenha reconhecido que o Estado não pode exigir a obtenção de um diploma de ensino superior para diferenciar a categoria de jornalistas? Logo, o pano de fundo deste trabalho é a possibilidade de o Estado diferenciar jornalistas de demais cidadãos com relação à concessão de prerrogativas para o exercício da liberdade de informação. Nos Estados Unidos, esse é um debate relevante ao menos desde a década de 1970. São apresentados seus principais aspectos: por um lado, a jurisprudência de sua Suprema Corte, que se negou sistematicamente a diferenciar direitos próprios à liberdade de imprensa (Press Clause) em comparação com a liberdade de expressão (Speech Clause); por outro, as abordagens funcional e institucional à liberdade de imprensa, composta respectivamente por autores favoráveis e críticos àquela linha jurisprudencial. Ao final, a partir de uma perspectiva crítica e da adoção de fundamentos jurídicos, busca-se analisar a regra constitucional do sigilo de fonte e propor parâmetros interpretativos para sua aplicação. / This paper seeks to debate the constitutional freedom of information under an aspect not common to Brazilian constitutional law. The departure point is the reporters privilege, constitutionally protected for professionals by law. That rule seems assume a possible and clear distinction between journalists and other citizens. But how to understand it under a scenario where: a) the technological conditions allow any citizen, with very cheap or barely existing costs, to publish information for an indistinct number of people, and; b) the Supreme Federal Court has recognized that the State may not license journalists by a college degree diploma? Thus, the background subject of this paper is the possibility that the State differentiates journalists from other citizens in regard to the concession of prerogatives for the exercise of the freedom of information. In the United States, this has been a relevant debate at least since de 1970s. The main aspects are presented: on one hand, the Supreme Courts case law that has systematically denied to differentiate exclusive rights deriving from the Press Clause in comparison to the Speech Clause; on the other hand, the functional and institutional approaches to freedom of the press, respectively representing the authors favorable and critics to that judicial construction. Finally, taking on from a critic perspective and adopting legal fundaments, it seeks to analyze the constitutional rule of the reporters privilege and to propose interpretative standards for it.

Le droit d’auteur est le théâtre de conflits entre différents intérêts. D’un côté ceux de l’auteur et de ses ayants droit, de l’autre ceux du public, des exploitants et des intermédiaires techniques de l’Internet. Le droit d’auteur s’est construit en prenant en compte ces tensions entre les différentes parties prenantes. Or, aujourd’hui, les droits fondamentaux sont invoqués par chacun des acteurs du droit d’auteur pour la défense de ses intérêts propres. Ces normes, ayant une valeur supra-législative, sont de nature à exercer une influence sur l’équilibre du droit d’auteur mis en place par le législateur et interprété par le juge. Le travail présenté se propose d’analyser l’intensité de cette influence tant dans l’élaboration législative du droit que dans son application jurisprudentielle. La démarche envisagée est celle d’un examen de l’importance des droits fondamentaux sur le droit d’auteur des fondations législatives historiques aux récents développements jurisprudentiels. / Different interests could come into conflicts in copyright law : on one hand those of the author and his/her right holders, and on the other hand those of the copyright industry and the Internet services. Copyright law takes all these interests into account. But now fundamental rights are cited by each actor to defend its own interest. These rights could influence copyright law’s balance. This thesis analyses the intensity of fundamental rights’ influence on copyright law’s legislation and jurisprudence.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Public Administration / Master / Master of Public Administration

No description available.

1980年，在美國拜杜法案（Bayh-Dole Act）通過以後，政府補助研發成果從原屬於國家財產，下放歸屬權於研發單位。因此研發單位可自行管理並將研發成果授權至產業界，將研發成果商品化，此過程稱之為「技術移轉」。技術移轉是一個非常細膩且複雜的過程，有許多因素會左右技術移轉的成敗，其中包括：技術之品質、法律限制、政策因素、產業需求和資訊流通等因素。技術移轉將可以使研發成果商品化， 有助於提升政府稅收和權利金收入，並且推動科學發展和增加就業機會，為國家創造經濟收入。 本研究旨探如何提升政府補助國立生醫研究單位－台灣國家衛生研究院（NHRI）之授權績效。本研究將採用美國國家衛生研究院（NIH）之授權績效和授權執行方式當參考指標。為了得到精準和可信的數據，本研究僅截取官方之年報和網站的資料。與此同時，本研究末將會提供如何提升授權績效之建議。 此研究發現就2010年而言，NIH和NHRI之授權績效可謂旗鼓相當。儘管台灣立法規定「政府資訊公開法」，此研究發現台灣國家衛生研究院有選擇性的發表其授權績效的跡象。由於政府所有開銷均從其預算而來，而政府預算部分自人民納稅所得，因此監督政府績效是普羅大眾的基本權利。人民有權監督，並且要求政府就其管理、執行成效做出解釋。然而，台灣國家衛生研究院之資訊不透明舉動，限制了人民監督的權利，此舉將會因缺乏監督而惡性循環的造成授權績效更為疲弱。此外，此研究亦發現較少的授權契約種類、授權策略在地化、研發成果披露之不明確性、智慧財產委員會專利申請和授權策略失衡是造成NHRI授權成果疲弱的因素。 / Since the passage of U.S. Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, government-funded research inventions were no longer considered as government property. Invention could be patented and be licensed to industry through the process of commercialization for revenue return. Commercialization will create revenue in the form of royalty and taxes to the government, further driving scientific improvement and increase job opportunities. Technology commercialization is a very delicate process and there are a lot of factors that might alter the success, including but not limited to i) the quality of invention, ii) legislation restriction, iii) policy incentives, iv) industry interest, v) availability of information and etc. If managed properly, technology commercialization could bring high value to the academic institutes that developed an invention, to government that financially support academic research and to general public that could benefit from the invention itself. This study intends to identify the factors of the weak licensing performance in Taiwan government-funded national biomedical research organization, National Health Research Institute (NHRI). To evaluate the licensing performance of NHRI, this study will compare the licensing performance of NHRI with National Institute of Health (NIH) in the United States. To get accurate and formal data, this study will mainly retrieve data from official annual report and website. By comparing the practice of technology commercialization process of both institutes, this study could suggest possible flaws in NHRI’s licensing process in comparison to NIH. At the same time, this study will give suggestions to achieve a better licensing performance. This study concluded that both institute performed equally in FY 2010, but it has been noticed that NHRI were selectively in disclosing its licensing performance statistics and it is difficult to retrieve general information from NHRI, despite the availability of Freedom of Government Information Law (Taiwan). It’s the basic right for the general public to be able to supervise and surveillance a government agency’s performance as it utilizes the taxes contributed by a citizen in a country. The limitation of information disclosure by NHRI has made it difficult for general public supervise its licensing performance, of which might further contribute to even weaker licensing performance due to lack of supervision. This research also concluded that few options of licensing contracts, localization in licensing strategy, confusion in technology disclosure, possible misalignment of patenting & licensing strategy of the IP Management Committee contributes to weak licensing performance in the NHRI.