Probably a little bit of both.
On the more-or-less innocent side, some academic institutions are genuinely
worried about some "new" aspects of information reuse that this partially
addresses, like data mining/data extraction. I think this is just a phase
and they'll grow out of it, but we (free/open community) have not yet done
a great job addressing why freedom to do data mining is important.
On the "pull the wool" side, this is damaging to interoperability and
republishing - both of which are important to us and very scary to the
publishing industry. So the publishers (and this is definitely an
initiative from publishers) have a lot of incentive to constantly try to
redefine "open access" until they can break it with those terms.
The letter we've been asked to join focuses primarily on the
interoperability argument, which I think is appropriate for them; the blog
post I'm thinking about would be more focused on intellectual freedom.
Luis
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Jon Davies <jon.davies(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
wrote:
> Would really be worth calling them out on this. Perhaps they are just
> Innocent or perhaps trying to pull the wool?
>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:27:18 -0700
>> From: Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org>
>> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
>> <advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: [Advocacy Advisors] non-free academic publishing licenses
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> CAM2wSz5503dZREk43hwMLer2udW7BE0C4AMyy8pOxiUDR_hBPw(a)mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi, all-
>>
>> An academic publishing group called STM (The International Association of
>> Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers) has published some "open"
>> licenses that, well, aren't really open. In my reading, they fail both the
>> OKFN's open definition and freedomdefined.org's definition, so would not
>> be
>> acceptable on Commons or other WMF projects.
>>
>> Andrés Guadamuz has written about this more here:
>>
>> http://www.technollama.co.uk/academic-publishers-draft-and-release-their-ow…
>>
>> I'm considering drafting a WMF blog post on this issue, because of the
>> potential for confusion and the limitations on reuse[1]. I've also been
>> made aware of a potential letter on the subject from a variety of related
>> organizations that we'll consider signing on to.
>>
>> This is not advocacy per se, since it is a private group and not a
>> government, but I wanted to give you all a heads up in case you were asked
>> about it by publishers or other people in the open access movement.
>>
>> Have a great weekend-
>> Luis
>>
>> [1] We have piles of materials from legitimately open-licensed journals,
>> like PLOS:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_from_PLOS_journals
>> (seriously,
>> I spent minutes clicking around in there and never got past the letter A,
>> alphabetically)
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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>.*
>>
Hi all,
I've set up a page [1] and requested a room for our networking lunch on
Sunday. It will be in parallel with the WikiWomen's Lunch, so I apologise
to everyone whose scheduling now got even harder. This was, however, the
best possible timeslot I could manage.
As it is not possible to get a list of all Wikimania attendees and filter
out the digital and policy activists among them to send out invitations,
please help me by inviting anyone you know will be present and interested.
Thanks,
Dimi
[1]https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Networking_Lunch
Hi all,
here's a short overview of all the advocacy-related events that will be
going on during Wikimania:
*Presentation Liquid Lobbying* [1]
Saturday (9th) between 15:30-16:00
@Fountain Room
*Panel Discussion Liquid Lobbying* [2]
Saturday (9th) between 16:30-18:00
@Fountain Room
*Digital Rights Lunch* [3]
Sunday (10th) between 13:00-14:30
@ room TBD
*Working on Strategy*
Monday (11th) between 12:00-14:00
@ Wikimedia UK Offices
*Alternative: Dimi will be at the Barbican on Thursday (7th) at 16:00 to
talk to everyone who can't be there on Monday. Meet you at registration
desk.*
*Wendy's Weasel Whiteboard on Wheels*
Throughout the event. Look out for a weasel on top of a white board on
wheels. (Yeah, I know you could have guessed that yourself.)
Cheers,
Dimi
[1]
https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Liquid_Lobbying_-_How_…
[2]
https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Liquid_Lobbying_-_How_…
[3]https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Networking_Lunch
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.
(With apologies for cross-posting)
Hello everyone,
tl:dr - Wikimedia UK and Demos are looking to community-source a submission
to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy and we need your help! Get
involved here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Connecting_knowledge_to_power:_the_future_o…>
Recently the Speaker of the House of Commons established a commission
<http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/speakers-commission-o…>
to
investigate the opportunities digital technology can bring for
parliamentary democracy in the UK. This consultation is a public exercise
which attempts to explore various themes relating to digital democracy.
Wikimedia UK <https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Main_Page> and Demos
<http://www.demos.co.uk/>, working with Wikimedians, have been exploring
whether the norms and values of the Wikimedia community can be applied to
this kind of consultation, especially the consensus-based approach to
writing and enacting Wikipedia policy.
The experiment has been going well and led to a community-sourced
submission to the first theme which was looking at how technology can
facilitate better scrutiny of the work of Parliament. You can view this
submission here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Connecting_knowledge_to_power:_the_future_o….>.
The talk page is also worth a look as the discussion offered some really
useful insights into how the content was reached.
However, we need your help. The second theme of the consultation has now
been published and it is about digital representation. We would love for as
many people to take part in this exercise as possible. The Commission was
really appreciative of the efforts of the community first time around and
it would be great to come up with another excellent community-driven
submission. You can view the questions that are being asked, and
participate in creating the submission, here
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Connecting_knowledge_to_power:_the_future_o…>
.
A third theme will follow in the next couple of months and a similar
approach will be taken then. Finally, once the Commission closes for
submissions, Demos and Wikimedia UK will write up a comprehensive report on
the process and what we have learned which we will, of course, make
available to the community.
Thank you for any and all help, it is very much appreciated.
Stevie
--
Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Hi all,
the European Commission has postponed the white paper on copyright, but has
released the review of the consultation answers today. [1]
We had originally planned to bring out a position paper as a response to
the white paper. Due to latest events (it was postponed and there are
competing positions within the Commission) we now think it might be best to
make ourselves heard ahead of its publishing, so the Commission has a
chance to incorporate our concerns in it.
Therefore we would like to request your comments and edits on a draft
position paper we would like the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU and all
interested chapters/organisations/individuals to sign. It can be found on
Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright
The basic idea is to support those within the institutions who are
defending positions in line with our goals of EU-wide Freedom of Panorama
and public domain for government works. We also want to make sure there is
no talk about copyright term extensions.
In light of latest developments here in Brussels, we would like to wrap
this up during Wikimania in London. We would therefore ideally aim to have
all comments and edits by the 29th of July, so we can ask the chapter
boards to approve and sign it.
Let me know if you're unhappy about the process or have any other
questions.
Cheers,
Dimi
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-July/000611.html
Would really be worth calling them out on this. Perhaps they are just
Innocent or perhaps trying to pull the wool?
On 26 July 2014 13:01, <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. non-free academic publishing licenses (Luis Villa)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:27:18 -0700
> From: Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA
> <advocacy_advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Advocacy Advisors] non-free academic publishing licenses
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAM2wSz5503dZREk43hwMLer2udW7BE0C4AMyy8pOxiUDR_hBPw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi, all-
>
> An academic publishing group called STM (The International Association of
> Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers) has published some "open"
> licenses that, well, aren't really open. In my reading, they fail both the
> OKFN's open definition and freedomdefined.org's definition, so would not
> be
> acceptable on Commons or other WMF projects.
>
> Andrés Guadamuz has written about this more here:
>
> http://www.technollama.co.uk/academic-publishers-draft-and-release-their-ow…
>
> I'm considering drafting a WMF blog post on this issue, because of the
> potential for confusion and the limitations on reuse[1]. I've also been
> made aware of a potential letter on the subject from a variety of related
> organizations that we'll consider signing on to.
>
> This is not advocacy per se, since it is a private group and not a
> government, but I wanted to give you all a heads up in case you were asked
> about it by publishers or other people in the open access movement.
>
> Have a great weekend-
> Luis
>
> [1] We have piles of materials from legitimately open-licensed journals,
> like PLOS:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_from_PLOS_journals
> (seriously,
> I spent minutes clicking around in there and never got past the letter A,
> alphabetically)
>
>
> --
> 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>.*
>
Hi, all-
An academic publishing group called STM (The International Association of
Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers) has published some "open"
licenses that, well, aren't really open. In my reading, they fail both the
OKFN's open definition and freedomdefined.org's definition, so would not be
acceptable on Commons or other WMF projects.
Andrés Guadamuz has written about this more here:
http://www.technollama.co.uk/academic-publishers-draft-and-release-their-ow…
I'm considering drafting a WMF blog post on this issue, because of the
potential for confusion and the limitations on reuse[1]. I've also been
made aware of a potential letter on the subject from a variety of related
organizations that we'll consider signing on to.
This is not advocacy per se, since it is a private group and not a
government, but I wanted to give you all a heads up in case you were asked
about it by publishers or other people in the open access movement.
Have a great weekend-
Luis
[1] We have piles of materials from legitimately open-licensed journals,
like PLOS:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_from_PLOS_journals
(seriously,
I spent minutes clicking around in there and never got past the letter A,
alphabetically)
--
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>.*
Hello everybody,
The Commission (DG MARKT) published their report on the "Public
Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules" yesterday [1][2].
I haven't had time to read through the 100 pages in detail, but since the
major struggle is whether the Commission should legislate on more
harmonisation or not and having a universal FoP exception would be an act
of harmonisation, I mined the document for just that.
Pro harmonisation:
- *Institutional users* generally consider that territoriality of
copyright creates problems in particular in the area of exceptions, where a
higher level of harmonisation is needed.
- *Many respondents* consider that *market-led solutions have not proven
to be effective* and that harmonisation measures
- [on collective management] *Many respondents* also point out that
there are already national systems of identifiers, and that some degree of
harmonisation, standardisation and interoperability could be desirable
here.
- *Institutional users* generally support copyright harmonisation which
implies making exceptions mandatory and harmonising their scope to a
greater extent.
- *A minority of authors and performers* would seek a harmonisation or
clarification of the existing exceptions
- [*Intermediaries/service providers*] Many respondents from this group
argue for more harmonisation and legal certainty in the area of exceptions.
- Representatives of *academia, civil society or think-tanks* generally
consider that the optional nature of the exceptions is problematic and that
exceptions should be further harmonised.
Contra harmonisation:
- *Film producers* generally consider that the current EU copyright
rules should not be changed
- [*Authors/performers*] Most respondents in these stakeholder groups
are against any further harmonisation, which they consider would risk a
weakening of copyright protection in Europe at the expense of creators.
- *Collective Management Organisations* consider that the territoriality
of exceptions does not constitute a problem for right holders, businesses
or consumers
- Educational *publishers* and representatives of the *software industry*
warn that a further harmonisation [...] could undermine the role of
licences
Neutral or split on harmonisation:
- *Academics* (depending on the specific question this groups seems
divided)
- *Member States* (some want more harmonisation, others want to keep
options)
Reminder:
The White Paper (as an answer to which were/are preparing a position paper)
was supposed to be published alongside this document, but was postponed due
to negative opinions by other units of the Commission (namely DG CONNECT
and DG RESEARCH).
The question now is whether we should react to the consultation answers in
some way or wait for the actual white paper or do something in-between
(e.g. publish a position paper before the white paper is published)? Any
thoughts?
Cheers,
Dimi
[1]
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/inde…
[2]
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs…