Hi all,
Earlier today, the Senate in Brazil passed the Marco Civil bill, that has
some ambiguous provisions on net neutrality. It was passed on urgent basis
in anticipation of NetMundial, a meeting on internet governance that will
be held in Brazil tomorrow and Thursday.
We have prepared an op-ed (see below) explaining how certain types of net
neutrality laws impact Wikipedia Zero, and we will try to get it published
around the closing of NetMundial. The purpose of this op-ed is to make sure
that there is an accurate portrayal of Wikipedia Zero in the net neutrality
debate, particularly in countries that are relevant to this project.
While we don't plan to take a direct advocacy position on net neutrality at
this point, we will continue to develop a position on Wikipedia Zero. We
would therefore like to hear your thoughts on this topic.
Best,
Yana
---
* Free Access to Knowledge Should Not Be a Net Neutrality Issue In recent
months, lawmakers around the world have been considering net neutrality
rules that aim to preserve the Internet's original promise as an open
forum. But certain provisions of net neutrality laws could threaten the
free spread of information in surprising ways. In particular, such
provisions could prevent non-commercial initiatives like Wikipedia Zero
from providing truly free access to the online encyclopedia in the Global
South. Legislators must be careful to avoid these unintended consequences.
Net neutrality advocates are right to be concerned that forcing users to
pay for faster data delivery could easily push small and non-commercial
publishers and content creators out of the market. Since its inception, a
key tenet of the Internet has been equal treatment of data from all
sources: Internet service providers must deliver content from blogs or
startups with the same speed as content from major media companies or huge
tech firms. Allowing Internet service providers to charge more for faster
delivery of certain kinds of content would favor players with deep pockets,
who could then muscle out smaller competitors. But to date the discussion
has largely ignored a potential pitfall: might certain provisions of net
neutrality laws unintentionally hamper the free flow of information they
seek to protect? Just consider the net neutrality law passed by the
Netherlands in 2012, sometimes presented as a model for legislation
elsewhere. The Dutch Telecommunications Act aims to enforce net neutrality,
in part, by prohibiting ISPs from charging subscribers different rates
based on the services they access, for example VoIP or instant messaging.
However the Dutch law would also prohibit ISPs from providing free access
to certain sites, as they would technically be charging different rates (in
this case, nothing) for different services. It's worth noting that not all
net neutrality rules include these provisions: the FCC's previous Open
Internet Rules, for example, simply focused on prohibiting blocking and
unreasonable discrimination against content providers. Similarly, the
current version of the pending Marco Civil bill in Brazil does not prohibit
paid or free Internet connection as long as ISPs do not monitor, filter, or
block the content of data packets. But the Dutch law, and any laws modeled
on it, might interfere with initiatives that rely on zero-rated data, like
the "Wikipedia Zero" program across the Global South, which essentially
aims to have all carriers in a given country zero-rate Wikipedia so it can
become a true public good, with unfettered access for everyone. When
carriers commit to waiving data fees, Wikipedia Zero can provide
schoolchildren with a virtual encyclopedia in places where they don't have
access to books or libraries, spread practical knowledge about agriculture,
sanitation, and wellness, and deliver outside information to people living
under repressive regimes. Eventually Wikipedia Zero will extend to free
editing of entries as well, empowering users in developing countries with a
platform for free speech. Wikipedia Zero isn't the only free service that
could suffer from specific provisions of some net neutrality laws. The
Refugees United mobile app allows victims of political upheavals and
natural disasters to find lost family members and friends free of cost,
also relying on zero-rated data. And Mobilium Africa's Smart Health app,
launched in September 2013, aims to educate Android users in Africa about
HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, including prevention, symptoms, and
treatment, for free. These initiatives are just the beginning: as the cost
of mobile handsets falls and mobile penetration rises across the developing
world, there will be even more opportunities for creative services that
empower users, raise standards of living, and bring transparency and
accountability to government through free delivery of information. Yet all
these current and future initiatives could be undone by a few lines of
legislation - inadvertently thwarting free access to information in the
name of the free Internet. Net neutrality is undoubtedly a major concern.
As lawmakers craft new rules they must take care not to unintentionally
hinder the very cause they are trying to advance. Net neutrality rules
should focus on enshrining the "end-to-end" principle, which states that
Internet service providers do not distinguish between data flowing over the
network based on its application or content. Net neutrality rules should
not prevent the zero-rating of non-commercial initiatives, like Wikipedia
Zero, that do not pay for any preferential treatment and do not interfere
with the open Internet. *
--
Yana Welinder
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867
NOTICE: For legal reasons, I may only serve as a lawyer for the Wikimedia
Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer
for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
capacity.
Hi all,
just to let you know that we have now revamped the EU Policy portal on
Meta-Wiki.[1] The idea was to make is clearer what will happen next and how
one can help out.
Please let me know if you find things that need to be further edited.
Dimi
[1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy
FYI, it looks like a draft of the EU Commission's response to the recent
copyright consultation has been leaked. Summary here:
http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/super-kat-exclusive-heres-commission…
Actual draft here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0xcflgrav01tqlb/White%20Paper%20%28internal%20dra…
The blog says: "From a first reading, this [blogger] actually thinks that
it is not very ambitious, and pretty aimed at the preservation of the *status
quo*."
But there are important nuances in there, like:
*Civil enforcement*
According to the Commission... a number of policy considerations should be
explored further, including clarifying what intermediaries can be involved
and how, and *focusing on the 'follow the money' approach*.
That's going to be an important one for us to keep an eye on - not that
we're "the money" per se, but that sort of 'focus' tends to be poorly
targeted and catch us by mistake.
I haven't been able to read it all yet, but thought I'd share here -
interested to hear other people's take.
Luis
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
Great work Dimi!
Looks very good!
Romaine
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:10:51 +0200
> From: Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov(a)gmail.com>
> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
> <Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Advocacy Advisors] EU Policy Portal on Meta-Wiki
> Message-ID:
> <CAK4vM4Sp+xuC-QorrpC5B-=
> u+6qXb2gNfyPe7PgchCuZP_rPYg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi all,
>
> just to let you know that we have now revamped the EU Policy portal on
> Meta-Wiki.[1] The idea was to make is clearer what will happen next and how
> one can help out.
>
> Please let me know if you find things that need to be further edited.
>
> Dimi
>
> [1]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy
>
Dear list,
as was decided during the Big Fat Brussels Meeting vol. 2 [1], the Free
Knowledge Advocacy Group is now a member of the Open Policy Network. [2]
The OPN is a group that aims to support open policy advocates and advocacy.
One of the first activities to be realised is the *Institute for Open
Leadership* [3]. This is an annual weeklong institute to train new leaders
in education, science, and public policy fields on the values and
implementation of openness in licensing, policies, and practices.
The first such institue will take place in January 2015 in or around San
Francisco. Anyone in the world interested in Open Policy can apply. The
deadline is the *30th of June*. [4]
There is a plan to organise the next institute in Europe and Asia, but if
you're interested just go for it - no need to wait until then.
Let me know if you have follow-up questions!
Dimi
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy/Big_Fat_Brussels_Meeting_Vol._2/m…
[2]http://openpolicynetwork.org/about/#members
[3]http://openpolicynetwork.org/iol/
[4]https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/42762
Hi Dimitar,
Yes, we received the message around midday on Friday. I didn't have time to email it out to Advocacy Advisors at that time as I had to prepare our press release responding to BUS's statements and then I had to rush to meet a friend that was visiting from Finland for the weekend.
On Friday WMSE simultaneously published a press release and blog post (now also available in English): http://wikimediasverige.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/angaende-stamningsansokan-…
The board has also been preparing a debate article during the weekend.
In short, the situation is the following: It is legal to take photos, it is also for sure legal to publish them in for example books and sell the books. The unclarity is if it is also okay to publish them online. BUS states that it isn't and they want us (and others) to pay for the online publication, while our (and the legal expertise that we have contracted to look into this) believe that it is perfectly fine to also publish online.
Hence, our conclusion is that BUS is charging municipalities and other actors to pay for something they shouldn't have to pay for and, what is worse, preventing them to share the photos that they have for free online. Their legal interpretation hasn't been questioned in court before. We believe that this is because the municipalities and other actors are to unsure and don't want to risk pissing of BUS, a rather powerful organization in Sweden, and the artists. This is something that has been mentioned in private conversations. Now we have the chance to get this clarified.
I don't want to speculate about our chances of winning, but we are certainly hopeful! Worst case scenario, we will have our main lobbying priority clarified within the year!
Regards,
John
- - - -
John Andersson
Wikimedia Sverige
Project Manager
Phone: +46(0)73-3965189
Email: john.andersson(a)wikimedia.se
Skype: johnandersson86
Be sure to follow us on Twitter at @WikiEuropeana and @WikimediaSE
Would you like to support free knowledge and Wikipedia? Please consider becoming a member of Wikimedia Sverige! We need your support.
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:56:32 +0200
Subject: WMSE being sued over FoP
From: dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov(a)gmail.com
To: john.andersson(a)wikimedia.se
CC: jan.engelmann(a)wikimedia.de; barbara.fischer(a)wikimedia.de
Hi John,
I came across this today:
Wikimedia Sverige is being sued by Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige
(BUS), an organization working with copyright issues and representing
artists. WM SE has presented a portal (http://offentligkonst.se/) that displays cc-licenced pictures from Wikimedia Commons. As we're working with FoP (studies and advocacy) within the FKAGEU, is there anything else we should know about this case? How are the chances of them succeeding? Is there something about Swedish FoP legislation that is unclear?
Also, do you mind if I share this on Advocacy Advisors?
Let us know if we can be of any help!
Cheers,
Dimi
Hi all,
I just came back from my talk with the Google policy team in Brussels about
the recent CJEU ruling [1] that had them provide a take-down request form.
[1]
Here's my initial notes:
- They will not de-index sites, they will simply modify the results for
searching a given name.
- According to their lawyer, the court didn't specify the technological
method, it just told them to remove "URLs linked to a name". They were not
asked to de-index.
- Modification of the results only apply to the EU Google domains.
Searches from outside Europe remain unchanged.
- Currently their entire legal team is collectively responsible for
making the decision on which requests to be granted.
- They see this as a "right to privacy" vs. "freedom of expression"
balancing issue and are unhappy with the ruling, as, according to them, it
gives more weight to the "right to privacy".
- Google doesn't want to play court and judge here. They'd like to
figure out a way for someone else to make the decisions as to which
requests should be granted (talking about Internet Governance)
- We agreed that the future General Data Protection Regulation in the EU
will have a major impact on this and that the court ruling put "right to be
fogotten" on the policy agenda in this field. Work on the Regulation is
expected to resume around December/January
- As we don't know what all the actors think of this (digital rights
groups, industry, policy-makers) it would be important to map the different
positions over the next few months
- We agreed that it would be good to have public, broad round-table on
the topic "right to be fogotten" in Spetember/October in Brussels (just an
idea so far)
I basically explained to them how the Wikimedia movement is constructed and
the roles of the different organisations and communities. I also told them
that we can't have a position on this as long as we don't have the results
of an in-depth legal analysis, but for us it would also be good to know
what all the stakeholders think about this issue. I also agreed that it is
a "right to privacy" vs. "freedom of expression" balancing act here. I
added that IMO there might be a higher risk of censorship if the removal
decisions are left up to each company/organisation as it currenlty is.
I am thinkingthat if the idea of having a round-touble on this in Brussels
proves popular among other NGOs, companies and policy-makers we should most
definitely join in. If it remians a Google-only organised event, we might
need to be more careful.
Cheers,
Dimi
[1]
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageI…
[2]https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?rd=1
Dear all,
I hope you don't mind me posting this here, but since I was elected to
the European Parliament and intend to work on copyright in the JURI
committee, I am hiring a policy advisor on copyright:
http://senficon.eu/job-offer-policy-advisor-on-copyright/
I would greatly appreciate it if you could forward this job offer to
relevant groups and individuals.
http://senficon.eu/job-offers/
Thanks!
Julia Reda
MEP for the Pirate Party
Hi all,
On June 5, the coordinators of the Necessary and Proportionate principles
are organizing an international action day to raise more awareness of
government surveillance around the world. June 5th marks the one year
anniversary of the Snowden revelations. The coordinators are encouraging
organizations and individuals to do events around the action day and blog
about the actions that will be taking place.
We're putting together a blog post about various events around the world
that will take place on June 5th. If any of you are participating in some
actions on that day or blogging about it, please let us know so that we can
include it in our blog post.
Best,
Yana
--
Yana Welinder
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867
@yanatweets <https://twitter.com/yanatweets>
NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal
disclaimer<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>
.