Hello, everybody!
This month there has been some gossip about legislative or non-legislative
Copyright reform which might be proposed either before or after the
elections and might include an opt-in provision or not... Well, at least
there’s talk about it.
Dimi
Past editions on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/MR
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/MR>
tl;dr
Open Access is to be compulsory in the EU’s Horizon 2020 funding programme.
The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that an Estonian website
is liable for third-party comments on their website. The European
Parliament LIBE committee has passed its version of the Data Protection
Regulation, making the "right to be forgotten" into the "right to be
erased".
ToC
1. European Court of Justice Backs Freedom of Information
2. European Court Rules Website Liable for Third-Party Comments
3. Studies on Intellectual Property Released & IP Infringements Observatory
Meeting
4. Open Access in EU’s Horizon 2020 Funding Programme
5. Data Protection Regulation - Committee Vote
6. Commission Requesting Citizens’ Feedback on Internet Policies
7. Creative Commons Takes Global Position on Copyright Reform
-----------------
-----------------
#ECJ #FoI
1. European Court of Justice Backs Freedom of Information
Why is this relevant?
Freedom of Information is our community’s top ranked topic in our Policy
Issues Survey. [14] Apart from being a cornerstone of transparency, the
access to more government documents would provide reliable sources for
Wikipedia articles, thereby improving the overall quality.
What happened?
Documents requested from the European Council under Freedom of Information
law were released only after masking member states’ positions (i.e. which
countries were in favour or against certain points). The Spanish based NGO
promoting free access to information - Access Info Europe - appealed to the
European Court of Justice against this practice. In the court case the
European Parliament, the United Kingdom and Greece sided with Access Info
Europe, while France, Spain and the Czech Republic supported the Council.
The ECJ ruled that the effectiveness of the decision making process does
not trump the need for transparency, thereby prohibiting the erasure of
Member States’ positions from released documents on a general basis. [15]
What comes next?
The European Council will have to release documents informing the public
which countries were for or against a certain text. Further attempts by
civil society organisations to “open up” the Council are expected, as it is
still considered the least transparent of the EU’s institutions.
In the future, public institutions will need to conclusively prove stated
reasons when refusing access to information.
-----------------
-----------------
#ECHR
2. European Court Rules Website Liable for Third-Party Comments
Why is this relevant?
A landmark decision that makes internet platform operators liable for user
generated content on their websites. This decision is not only about the
specific case, but has to be regarded against the backdrop of freedom of
speech online.
What happened?
The European Court of Human Rights (Council of Europe, Strasbourg) has
upheld an Estonian court’s decision making a news portal operated by Delfi
AS liable for clearly illegal (defamatory) comments, even though website
moderators had deleted them after being informed. [7]
What comes next?
Civil society organisations have claimed that this decision will lead to
even more legal uncertainty and preventive, privately-enforced censorship.
An appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR is to be expected. [8]
-----------------
-----------------
#IPstudy #LSE #OHIM
3. Studies on Intellectual Property Released & IP Infringements Observatory
Meeting
Why is this relevant?
Albeit to different extents, such studies occupy public and political
debates and help shape the narratives of the debates. With copyright being
seeded as one of the first major reform initiatives of the next Commission
in 2014, the current back and forth will set the starting points of the
expected consultation and stakeholder dialogue.
What happened?
The European Commission has founded an European Observatory on
Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights to “understand the
challenges” and “enhance cooperation” in the field of counterfeiting and
piracy. [1] As part of the initiative it has commissioned a study on the
Contribution of Intellectual Property to the Economy, that it plans to
update every two years. This study claims that 50% of the EU economy is
“IPR intensive”. [2] In a strange coincidence, the same week this study was
released, the London School of Economics released their own research,
stating that there is no proof online file-sharing is hurting the industry.
[3]
What comes next?
As the Commission has been criticised for having only industry associations
in the IPR Infringements Observatory they took the step to invite several
civil society organisations to their yearly plenary in Alicante - namely
European Digital Rights (EDRi), the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)
and us. At the two-day meeting me and Nikolas Becker (WMDE board member)
requested that a complementary study on the contribution of open licensing
and the public domain to the European economy be commissioned and that the
observatory needs to start taking into account infringements on free
licenses and the copyfraud cases. EDRi stated that it isn’t enough to just
produce studies on how many people are downloading illegal content, but
that future studies will need to explain what the motivation behind such
actions is.
Commission representatives (esp. DG MARKT and the Observatory staff)
demonstrated openness to said proposals and committed to organise a further
meeting with civil society in Brussels where they will try to include these
points into the 2014 work programme.
On a general note, Jean Bergevin form DG MARKT mentioned that the
Commission is working on a legislative or non-legislative copyright reform
proposal, which at least in part will be announced by the end of the year.
Beginning of next year a decision will be made whether to proceed with the
dossier or wait for the next Commission to be appointed.
-----------------
-----------------
#OA #Horizon2020
4. Open Access in EU’s Horizon 2020 Funding Programme
Why is this relevant?
Horizon 2020 will be the EU’s framework programme for funding research and
innovation for the period 2014-2020. Currently the last details of the
funding criteria are being ironed out. [4] Things like compulsory Open
Access licensing for works produced with money from this budget were on
stake.
What happened?
A meeting at the European Parliament aptly titled “Open Science Works” was
organised to discuss the situation regarding Horizon 2020. [5] Among others
Alma Swan (SPARC Europe) and Gwen Franck from Creative Commons participated
in the event. Good news is that the Commission has agreed to make open
access a mandatory condition for funding research. The issues now are that
there is no enforcement possibility (i.e. there is no way make scientists
publish their works under OA if they don’t do it voluntarily) and that the
Commission refuses to specify the type of license required.
What comes next?
The Commission representative (Celina Ramjoué, DG CONNECT) admitted that
they were afraid of including an OA enforcement procedure and specifying
the type of licensing, as they were afraid of “strong backlash if they they
pushed too far”.
At productive and friendly talks after the session I managed to talk to
both, Alma Swan and Celina Ramjoué about the importance of licensing and
the definition of Free Cultural Works. [6] While the former agreed that
SPARC Europe would support such licensing, the latter was weary of making
promising statements and instead emphasised that the only way to make the
Commission start talking about such things internally is to have it
requested from several organisations. Together with SPARC Europe and
Creative Commons we agreed to keep each other informed posted and to try
and harmonise civil society actions in the future.
-----------------
-----------------
#EUdataP
5. EU General Data Protection Regulation - Committee Vote
Why is this relevant?
This concerns the general ecosystem of the internet, an environment we and
our projects are born into and dependant upon. Furthermore, the Wikimedia
Foundation is currently reviewing its privacy policy [9] and it would be
productive to also take non-US legislations as well as different cultural
debates and sensitivities into account.
What happened?
The LIBE Committee of the European Parliament has voted on its version of
the General Data Protection Regulation proposal. [10][11] One of the
changes is that the “right to be forgotten” was replaced by the “right of
erasure”, which means that a freedom of speech element was included (e.g. A
blogger will remain free to comment on a photo was subsequently taken
down).
The Parliament also supported the Commission proposal on strict rules on
how data is transferred to non-EU countries, meaning that an additional EU
authority might have to be asked for permission. At the same time the
updated version widened the circumstances in which a company can process
user data without prior consent.
At the same time this new version was criticised by civil rights groups for
meaning well, but tearing huge loopholes into the system. [12]
What comes next?
The LIBE Committee has given Rapporteur Jan-Philipp Albrecht (Greens/EFA) a
mandate to negotiate a final text with the Council. It is the Council where
adoption continues to stall with Member States finding it hard to agree on
several parts, one of them being how national data protection authorities
should cooperate with each other. This is also a crucial point which will
determine how and where citizens will be able to file complaints.
-----------------
-----------------
#DigitalAgenda
6. Commission Requesting Citizens’ Feedback on Internet Governance
Why is this relevant?
Internet policies are important to our ecosystem and it should be welcomed
that the Commission is trying to open up the debate to new players and make
access easier, cheaper and less time consuming.
What happened?
As part of its initiative to include more citizens in the legislative
process and its efforts to promote its so-called Digital Agenda, the
European Commission is asking for opinions on internet policy issues,
currently focused on the future of Internet Governance. The request for
comments is open until the 8. November. [13]
What comes next?
To be blunt, I don’t think anybody really knows. The comments could be used
to start an actual stakeholder dialogue on Internet Governance or remain
unheard. This, to a large extent, depends on how many answers the
Commission will receive.
-----------------
-----------------
#cc #copyright #fixcopyright
7. Creative Commons Takes Global Position on Copyright Reform
Why is this relevant?
The vast majority of our content is licensed under Creative Commons
licenses. Creative Commons is not only a global partner of Wikimedia, but
also a like-minded organisation with considerable community overlaps.
What happened?
In an initiative undertaken by their chapters, Creative Commons has
released a policy position stating that CC licenses are “not a fix for the
problems of the copyright system” and that a meaningful reform is still
needed. [16]
The corresponding blog post explains that CCHQ, affiliates and community
have worked together to produce the policy statement. The process was also
used to clarify the extent to which both CCHQ and the CC chapters are
allowed to engage in advocacy. [17]
What comes next?
A discussion on whether Wikimedia should undertake a similar step was
sparked off on the advocacy advisors mailing list [18]. As a result, a talk
page has been created on meta-wiki and everybody is more than welcome to
comment on the proposal.[19]
-----------------
-----------------
[1]
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/observatory/#maincontent…
[2]http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/OBS/IPContributionReport.en.do
[3]
http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2013/09/CreativeIndustries.…
[4]http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-timeline
[5]http://openaccess.be/2013/10/15/open-science-works/
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Cultural_Works
[7]http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4529626-5466299
[8]
http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37287/en/european-court-str…
[9]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Privacy_policy
[10]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-923_en.htm
[11]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/bg/news-room/content/20131021IPR22706/ht…
[12]http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.20/data-protection-vote-meps
[13]
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/content/europe-and-internet-global-c…
[14]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Policy_Issues_Survey_20…
[15]
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageInd…
[16]http://creativecommons.org/about/reform
[17]https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39639
[18]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2013-October/000239.…
[19]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advocacy
Can we stick to advocacy issues on this list please?
On 29 November 2013 12:01, <advocacy_advisors-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Send Advocacy_Advisors mailing list submissions to
> advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> advocacy_advisors-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> advocacy_advisors-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advocacy_Advisors digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (Amgine)
> 2. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (James Salsman)
> 3. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (Raul Veede)
> 4. Re: Which would help volunteer editors more? (James Salsman)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:09:40 +0100
> From: Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for Wikimedia
> <advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors
> more?
> Message-ID: <52974EA4.1060203(a)wikimedians.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 27/11/13 02:24 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> > The idea that the economic and physiological health of the editor
> > pool isn't a large determinant of the proportion choosing to edit,
> > if not the largest that we may have any meaningful control over
> > after everything we've tried so far, simply does not seem
> > defensible. What does it mean to empower a potential editor with
> > the ability to share knowledge, if their circumstances leave them
> > without the inclination to do so? That is the difference between
> > empowering and merely enabling, is it not? A slightly more complete
> > encyclopedia with society crumbling around it is not an improvement
> > over a less complete encyclopedia in symbiosis with a flourishing
> > society.
>
>
> Two points of disagreement:
> * "that we may have any meaningful control over"
> * "does not seem defensible"
>
> I do not believe we have meaningful control over either the economic
> or the physiological health of the editor pool. We do note even have
> significant relevance to either hugely divergent measure.
>
> Therefore it *is* completely defensible.
>
> Until you can support your statements with objective, repeatable,
> observations you should probably avoid castigating others for what is
> your beliefs or moral codes. It tends to make people less aligned with
> your goals because of their opposition to your methods.
>
> Amgine
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:23:44 +0800
> From: James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
> <advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Which would help volunteer editors
> more?
> Message-ID:
> <CAD4=uZYT8zS9xZGNwWQXwMNKEBi6ULcnV_B5eLuwjU=
> hiYFCmQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Nov 28, 2013 10:09 PM, "Amgine" <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca> wrote:
> >
> > I do not believe we have meaningful control over either the economic
> > or the physiological health of the editor pool.
>
> It has been established by example that the English Wikipedia is able to
> influence its readership politically to generate very large scale effective
> political change from calls to action. We are also a primary source of
> information about health for both physicians and lay people. More directly,
> the Foundation now makes decisions about how to compensate editors and
> chapters based on the merit of their proposals as submitted, directly.
>
> So, for example, if there were a banner directing people to fixmyjob.comor
> heathcare-now.org, there is no reason to believe it would not generate
> very
> substantial support from readers and have a large actual, and probably
> measurable, impact on the extent to which they are truly empowered to
> contribute.
>
> Ignoring political realities of the factors that influence the day to day
> lives of editors, potential, current, and former, is just that -- willful
> ignorance. When the legal team was threatened with the potential
> troublesome overhead of removing links due to SOPA/PIPA, the community
> supported action to prevent that. When are we going to take action to
> support the wider editor community?
>
> Pretending that political and economic factors are somehow out of the scope
> of the mission requires imagining that the mission statement says something
> about them. It does not. What is the relative impact on a potential editor
> who might not be able to include hyperlinks to copyrighted media because of
> SOPA versus one who has to work two jobs to make ends meet?
>
> Why is political neutrality on economic issues preferable to political
> neutrality on intellectual property law issues? The latter is a subset of
> the former. Acting as though one side of economic political debates is not
> more accurate than their opposition in the face of overwhelming evidence to
> the contrary is tantamount to the worst kind of "he said, she said"
> journalism, which in this case is not only an affront to the readers who
> expect occasional rational calls to action, but actively harms the rate at
> which the encyclopedia is improved.
>
I get emails like this every day. Are they appropriate for this list?
Best regards,
James Salsman
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Stephen Miles" <info(a)winwithoutwar.org>
Date: Nov 25, 2013 2:45 AM
Subject: We have a deal...now the hard work begins!
To: "James Salsman" <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
Cc:
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2fe/268…>
[image:
Win Without War]<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2fe/268…>
Dear James,
Breaking news! After three rounds of marathon negotiations - and 34 years
of confrontation - Iran, the United States, and our international partners
just signed a deal to halt Iran's nuclear program. This is an extraordinary
moment, a historic milestone and an amazing opportunity for peace.
But, before the ink on the agreement was dry, the right-wing hawks who are
itching for war with Iran were already condemning the deal and plotting to
kill it in Congress. Senator Rubio put out a statement immediately after
the agreement was signed claiming that it made war more, not less likely.
He and his colleagues in the Senate have vowed to kill the deal with the
passage of new sanctions<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f9/268…>
.
We cannot allow them to get away with it. We are gearing up for a major
campaign to stop the hawks, save the deal and give diplomacy – and hope – a
fighting chance.
*But we need you to succeed. Help us make a stand for diplomacy and peace!
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f8/268…>*
Coming only months after a diplomatic breakthrough that led to the
destruction of Syria's chemical weapons threat, this deal proves once again
that diplomacy works and that there are solutions besides bombs to
America's security challenges. And that's why the American public supports
a diplomatic deal with Iran by a two-to-one margin.
But this is by no means a done deal. The same 'experts' who said that the
Iraq War would be a cakewalk now want us to believe that the President is
'naive' and that diplomacy cannot work. Republicans in Congress were out in
force on the Sunday talk shows to denounce the President while pledging to
undermine this landmark deal.
*That's why we need your help!
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f8/268…>*
We are already fighting back hard to support diplomacy and give peace a
chance. Over the past year, Win Without War and our partners have
positioned ourselves to marshal grassroots support and mobilize our allies
in Washington to win this fight. Now, that fight is joined! We are
ready to launch our biggest effort yet to ensure that the US and the world
will win without war but we cannot do it alone!
*Please contribute what you can to help support diplomacy today! Your
tax-deductible donation of $100, $50, $25, or any amount that's right for
you will go directly to fighting for peace.
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f8/268…>*
Thank you for working for peace!
Stephen, Angela, Tom and the Win Without War Team
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Follow us on Twitter: @WinWithoutWar - Like us on
Facebook<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2fb/268…>
Win Without War depends on the support of our members to bring your voice
to Congress.
Please consider making a tax deductible donation today.
<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2f8/268…>
UNSUBSCRIBE<http://www.winwithoutwar.org/page/m/1aa3ef3d/76a755b1/722ea865/64c1e2fa/268…>
Many of the issues I have recommended advocacy are discussed in the
draft presentation at http://talknicer.com/susjam/susjam.pdf
I would greatly appreciate review and comment.
Free culture concerns weigh particularly heavily in slide 10.
Best regards,
James Salsman
Very interesting, as usual - thanks for sharing, Dimi. #3 in particular
seems worth following; I'm glad to see you and Nikolas are involved.
Luis
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for cross-posting (from Advocacy Advisors-l), but I want to
> popularise the mailing list.
>
>
> Hello, everybody!
>
> This month there has been some gossip about legislative or non-legislative
> copyright reform which might be proposed either before or after the
> elections and might include an opt-in provision or not... Well, at least
> there’s talk about it.
>
> Dimi
>
>
> Past editions on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/MR
>
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/MR>
>
> tl;dr
>
> Open Access is to be compulsory in the EU’s Horizon 2020 funding programme.
> The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that an Estonian website
> is liable for third-party comments on their website. The European
> Parliament LIBE committee has passed its version of the Data Protection
> Regulation, making the "right to be forgotten" into the "right to be
> erased".
>
>
> ToC
>
> 1. European Court of Justice Backs Freedom of Information
>
> 2. European Court Rules Website Liable for Third-Party Comments
>
> 3. Studies on Intellectual Property Released & IP Infringements Observatory
> Meeting
>
> 4. Open Access in EU’s Horizon 2020 Funding Programme
>
> 5. Data Protection Regulation - Committee Vote
>
> 6. Commission Requesting Citizens’ Feedback on Internet Policies
>
> 7. Creative Commons Takes Global Position on Copyright Reform
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #ECJ #FoI
>
> 1. European Court of Justice Backs Freedom of Information
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> Freedom of Information is our community’s top ranked topic in our Policy
> Issues Survey. [14] Apart from being a cornerstone of transparency, the
> access to more government documents would provide reliable sources for
> Wikipedia articles, thereby improving the overall quality.
>
> What happened?
>
> Documents requested from the European Council under Freedom of Information
> law were released only after masking member states’ positions (i.e. which
> countries were in favour or against certain points). The Spanish based NGO
> promoting free access to information - Access Info Europe - appealed to the
> European Court of Justice against this practice. In the court case the
> European Parliament, the United Kingdom and Greece sided with Access Info
> Europe, while France, Spain and the Czech Republic supported the Council.
>
> The ECJ ruled that the effectiveness of the decision making process does
> not trump the need for transparency, thereby prohibiting the erasure of
> Member States’ positions from released documents on a general basis. [15]
>
>
> What comes next?
>
> The European Council will have to release documents informing the public
> which countries were for or against a certain text. Further attempts by
> civil society organisations to “open up” the Council are expected, as it is
> still considered the least transparent of the EU’s institutions.
>
> In the future, public institutions will need to conclusively prove stated
> reasons when refusing access to information.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #ECHR
>
> 2. European Court Rules Website Liable for Third-Party Comments
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> A landmark decision that makes internet platform operators liable for user
> generated content on their websites. This decision is not only about the
> specific case, but has to be regarded against the backdrop of freedom of
> speech online.
>
> What happened?
>
> The European Court of Human Rights (Council of Europe, Strasbourg) has
> upheld an Estonian court’s decision making a news portal operated by Delfi
> AS liable for clearly illegal (defamatory) comments, even though website
> moderators had deleted them after being informed. [7]
>
> What comes next?
>
> Civil society organisations have claimed that this decision will lead to
> even more legal uncertainty and preventive, privately-enforced censorship.
> An appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR is to be expected. [8]
>
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #IPstudy #LSE #OHIM
>
> 3. Studies on Intellectual Property Released & IP Infringements Observatory
> Meeting
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> Albeit to different extents, such studies occupy public and political
> debates and help shape the narratives of the debates. With copyright being
> seeded as one of the first major reform initiatives of the next Commission
> in 2014, the current back and forth will set the starting points of the
> expected consultation and stakeholder dialogue.
>
> What happened?
>
> The European Commission has founded an European Observatory on
> Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights to “understand the
> challenges” and “enhance cooperation” in the field of counterfeiting and
> piracy. [1] As part of the initiative it has commissioned a study on the
> Contribution of Intellectual Property to the Economy, that it plans to
> update every two years. This study claims that 50% of the EU economy is
> “IPR intensive”. [2] In a strange coincidence, the same week this study was
> released, the London School of Economics released their own research,
> stating that there is no proof online file-sharing is hurting the industry.
> [3]
>
> What comes next?
>
> As the Commission has been criticised for having only industry associations
> in the IPR Infringements Observatory they took the step to invite several
> civil society organisations to their yearly plenary in Alicante - namely
> European Digital Rights (EDRi), the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)
> and us. At the two-day meeting me and Nikolas Becker (WMDE board member)
> requested that a complementary study on the contribution of open licensing
> and the public domain to the European economy be commissioned and that the
> observatory needs to start taking into account infringements on free
> licenses and the copyfraud cases. EDRi stated that it isn’t enough to just
> produce studies on how many people are downloading illegal content, but
> that future studies will need to explain what the motivation behind such
> actions is.
>
> Commission representatives (esp. DG MARKT and the Observatory staff)
> demonstrated openness to said proposals and committed to organise a further
> meeting with civil society in Brussels where they will try to include these
> points into the 2014 work programme.
>
> On a general note, Jean Bergevin form DG MARKT mentioned that the
> Commission is working on a legislative or non-legislative copyright reform
> proposal, which at least in part will be announced by the end of the year.
> Beginning of next year a decision will be made whether to proceed with the
> dossier or wait for the next Commission to be appointed.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #OA #Horizon2020
>
> 4. Open Access in EU’s Horizon 2020 Funding Programme
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> Horizon 2020 will be the EU’s framework programme for funding research and
> innovation for the period 2014-2020. Currently the last details of the
> funding criteria are being ironed out. [4] Things like compulsory Open
> Access licensing for works produced with money from this budget were on
> stake.
>
> What happened?
>
> A meeting at the European Parliament aptly titled “Open Science Works” was
> organised to discuss the situation regarding Horizon 2020. [5] Among others
> Alma Swan (SPARC Europe) and Gwen Franck from Creative Commons participated
> in the event. Good news is that the Commission has agreed to make open
> access a mandatory condition for funding research. The issues now are that
> there is no enforcement possibility (i.e. there is no way make scientists
> publish their works under OA if they don’t do it voluntarily) and that the
> Commission refuses to specify the type of license required.
>
> What comes next?
>
> The Commission representative (Celina Ramjoué, DG CONNECT) admitted that
> they were afraid of including an OA enforcement procedure and specifying
> the type of licensing, as they were afraid of “strong backlash if they they
> pushed too far”.
>
> At productive and friendly talks after the session I managed to talk to
> both, Alma Swan and Celina Ramjoué about the importance of licensing and
> the definition of Free Cultural Works. [6] While the former agreed that
> SPARC Europe would support such licensing, the latter was weary of making
> promising statements and instead emphasised that the only way to make the
> Commission start talking about such things internally is to have it
> requested from several organisations. Together with SPARC Europe and
> Creative Commons we agreed to keep each other informed posted and to try
> and harmonise civil society actions in the future.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #EUdataP
>
> 5. EU General Data Protection Regulation - Committee Vote
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> This concerns the general ecosystem of the internet, an environment we and
> our projects are born into and dependant upon. Furthermore, the Wikimedia
> Foundation is currently reviewing its privacy policy [9] and it would be
> productive to also take non-US legislations as well as different cultural
> debates and sensitivities into account.
>
> What happened?
>
> The LIBE Committee of the European Parliament has voted on its version of
> the General Data Protection Regulation proposal. [10][11] One of the
> changes is that the “right to be forgotten” was replaced by the “right of
> erasure”, which means that a freedom of speech element was included (e.g. A
> blogger will remain free to comment on a photo was subsequently taken
> down).
>
> The Parliament also supported the Commission proposal on strict rules on
> how data is transferred to non-EU countries, meaning that an additional EU
> authority might have to be asked for permission. At the same time the
> updated version widened the circumstances in which a company can process
> user data without prior consent.
>
> At the same time this new version was criticised by civil rights groups for
> meaning well, but tearing huge loopholes into the system. [12]
>
>
> What comes next?
>
> The LIBE Committee has given Rapporteur Jan-Philipp Albrecht (Greens/EFA) a
> mandate to negotiate a final text with the Council. It is the Council where
> adoption continues to stall with Member States finding it hard to agree on
> several parts, one of them being how national data protection authorities
> should cooperate with each other. This is also a crucial point which will
> determine how and where citizens will be able to file complaints.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #DigitalAgenda
>
> 6. Commission Requesting Citizens’ Feedback on Internet Governance
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> Internet policies are important to our ecosystem and it should be welcomed
> that the Commission is trying to open up the debate to new players and make
> access easier, cheaper and less time consuming.
>
> What happened?
>
> As part of its initiative to include more citizens in the legislative
> process and its efforts to promote its so-called Digital Agenda, the
> European Commission is asking for opinions on internet policy issues,
> currently focused on the future of Internet Governance. The request for
> comments is open until the 8. November. [13]
>
> What comes next?
>
> To be blunt, I don’t think anybody really knows. The comments could be used
> to start an actual stakeholder dialogue on Internet Governance or remain
> unheard. This, to a large extent, depends on how many answers the
> Commission will receive.
>
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #cc #copyright #fixcopyright
>
> 7. Creative Commons Takes Global Position on Copyright Reform
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> The vast majority of our content is licensed under Creative Commons
> licenses. Creative Commons is not only a global partner of Wikimedia, but
> also a like-minded organisation with considerable community overlaps.
>
> What happened?
>
> In an initiative undertaken by their chapters, Creative Commons has
> released a policy position stating that CC licenses are “not a fix for the
> problems of the copyright system” and that a meaningful reform is still
> needed. [16]
>
> The corresponding blog post explains that CCHQ, affiliates and community
> have worked together to produce the policy statement. The process was also
> used to clarify the extent to which both CCHQ and the CC chapters are
> allowed to engage in advocacy. [17]
>
>
> What comes next?
>
> A discussion on whether Wikimedia should undertake a similar step was
> sparked off on the advocacy advisors mailing list [18]. As a result, a talk
> page has been created on meta-wiki and everybody is more than welcome to
> comment on the proposal.[19]
>
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> [1]
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/observatory/#maincontent…
>
> [2]http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/pages/OBS/IPContributionReport.en.do
>
> [3]
>
> http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2013/09/CreativeIndustries.…
>
> [4]http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-timeline
>
> [5]http://openaccess.be/2013/10/15/open-science-works/
>
> [6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Cultural_Works
>
> [7]http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4529626-5466299
>
> [8]
>
> http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37287/en/european-court-str…
>
> [9]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Privacy_policy
>
> [10]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-923_en.htm
>
> [11]
>
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/bg/news-room/content/20131021IPR22706/ht…
>
> [12]http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.20/data-protection-vote-meps
>
> [13]
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/content/europe-and-internet-global-c…
>
> [14]
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Policy_Issues_Survey_20…
>
> [15]
>
> http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageInd…
>
> [16]http://creativecommons.org/about/reform
>
> [17]https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39639
>
> [18]
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2013-October/000239.…
>
> [19]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advocacy
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810
NOTICE: *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.*