Publicpolicy August 2014

publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org

32 participants
12 discussions

[Advocacy Advisors] EU Policy Monitoring Report July
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 04 Aug '14

04 Aug '14

Hi all, this is the pre-Wikimania round-up of Brussels politics, policy and, frankly, gossip. The articles a bit longer than usual, but its been an exciting month :) See you in a few short days! Dimi Wikimedia and the EU July Report tl;dr The copyright reform white paper and impact assessment were postponed, while at about the same time the new Commission President made reforming copyright his top priority. Meanwhile the EC proclaimed Creative Commons licenses as a de-facto standard for public sector information, albeit in non-binding guidelines. This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor ToC 1. Copyright Consultation Review Released 2. EU Recommends Free Licenses for Public Sector Information 3. New Commission President Makes Copyright Reform Top Priority 4. Recommended Action: Advocacy at Wikimania ----------------- ----------------- #copyright 1. Copyright Consultation Review Released Why is this relevant? A consultation along with a white book and an impact assessment are usually the three steps the European Commission takes before drafting a new legislation proposal. It means that this will flow into a copyright reform proposal, something we expect during the coming Commission’s term. What happened? The Directorate-General for the Internal Market (DG MARKT) was supposed to release a white paper on copyright reform this July. As it turns out, two other DGs, namely DG Research and DG Connect, were not happy with the draft at the inter-service consultation, [1][2] forcing DG MARKT to withdraw it and start re-writing the document. For all we know, DG Connect and DG Research are in favour of harmonising limitations and exceptions and even would like to extend them, while DG MARKT prefers to have everything licensed. DG CULTURE tends to speak up for artists remuneration in a manner practically defending the status quo. In the course of exchanging arguments in public, DG Connect even picked up the Freedom of Panorama issue from us. [3][4] Trying to avoid a complete disaster, DG MARKT made sure to at least release its review of the copyright consultation.[5] A short summary can be found below (It is important to keep in mind that to get universal Freedom of Panorama in Europe, we’d need at least some harmonisation: Respondent group in favour of 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.) ->End Users (Consider that market-led solutions have not proven to be effective and that harmonisation measures are needed.) ->Institutional users (Generally support copyright harmonisation which implies making exceptions mandatory and harmonising their scope to a greater extent.) ->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.) -Academia, civil society or think-tanks (generally consider that the optional nature of the exceptions is problematic and that exceptions should be further harmonised.) Respondent group against further 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 doe not constitute a problem for right holders, businesses or consumers) ->Publishers & Software industry (Warn that further harmonisation could undermine the role of licences.) Split on further harmonisation: ->Academics (Depending on the specific question this groups seems divided) ->Member States (Some want more harmonisation, others want to keep options.) A very good overview of the main positions by stakeholder: https://i.imgur.com/lGqYDIt.png What comes next? We’re expecting the white paper and the impact assessment to not be published until at least October this year. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see who the new Commissioners dealing with copyright reform will be and make sure they get asked some relevant questions during their hearings at the European Parliament in September. At the same time, we need to make ourselves heard and try to strengthen the “pro harmonisation” position within the institutions. To achieve this we’re planning a position paper (comments welcome!). [6] ----------------- ----------------- #PSI #digitalagenda 2. EU Recommends Free Licenses for Public Sector Why is this relevant? While these are non-binding, they still represent the official opinion of the European Commission or at least DG Connect. It clearly states that public information and content should be free and re-usable without restriction, making it a useful argument in debates with other DGs and third-parties. What happened? Back in November 2013, me and Mathias from WMDE attended [7] a public hearing on the latter of implementing the revised Public Sector Information Directive to include re-use permissions. It was organised by DG Connect in Luxembourg, as many public sector bodies had signalled having a hard time understanding what needs to be done. Together with LAPSI [8] and CreativeCommons we were pushing the following points: -> No NC restrictions (distributing our brochure [9]) -> Free of charge access -> Using standard licenses that are really free (strongly proposing cc-0 and cc-by) -> We raised the issue of copyfraud The Commission published the guidelines this month [10], where it recommended: -> No licensing of material that is already in the public domain -> Using cc-0 as a default license -> Using cc-by where a public sector body doesn't feel comfortable with cc-0 -> If a body really needs to create an own license, it should make sure its compatible -> Marginal charges are allowed can include return on investment not higher than 5% of fixed interest rate --> However: online access and distribution should be free of charge I had the chance to talk to Szymon Lewandowski, Policy Officer for DG Connect, at an event in Brussels. According to him, they didn't include a statement on NC clauses, because they believed that this would only increase the chances of institutions thinking of such a possibility and thus using it. What comes next? Follow-up on the implementation in public bodies and see how many actually follow the guidelines. If the number is way low, this might be an argument to push for stronger measures (e.g. legislation) in a few years. However, these guidelines give us an immediate argument when negotiating the release of content with public bodies. ----------------- ----------------- #copyright #POTEC 3. New Commission President Makes Copyright Reform Top Priority Why is this relevant? Any kind of reform, but especially in the sector of intellectual property rights, depends on political will, which in turn depends on our ability to keep it on the agenda long enough. Copyright isn’t normally a major political topic (yet), so this is big. What happened? The newly elected President of the European Commission (due to the popularity of some TV shows the label #POTEC caught on) released his top 5 priorities [11] while running his campaign to get elected. Surprisingly, at number one we can read “we will need to have the courage to break down national silos in telecoms regulation, *in copyright* and data protection legislation”. This moves copyright reform to the top of the political agenda in Brussels over the next 5 years. . What comes next? We will need to see which Commissioner (i.e. with Directorate-General) will get the lead in copyright reform. Current holders are DG MARKT but theoretically it might go to DG Connect or even become a signature issue of Juncker himself. Julia Reda, MEP for the Pirate Party, asked a question regarding this during his hearing with the Greens/EFA group, [12] but there was no clear answer. Where this helps us immediately is that we can go up to any MEP of the two largest political groups in the European Parliament and say that the person they voted for supports copyright reform as his top priority. This makes them pay more attention. ----------------- ----------------- #Wikimania 4. Recommended Action Among other things we’re planning the following actions/campaigns in the next months: 1. Having Chapters mail the MEPs from their countries with our three issues [13] 2. Releasing a position paper on copyright reform [6] 3. Get volunteers to “adopt MEPs” from their own language/country/constituency [14] 4. Have clear strategy plans for FoP and PDGov (incl. argumentation) [15] You can join in and help with any of those, but you should also look out for us at Wikimania, where we can discuss everything at lengths :). Here’s the agenda: 1. Presentation Liquid Lobbying [16] - Saturday (9th) between 15:30-16:00 @ Fountain Room 2. Panel Discussion Liquid Lobbying [17] Saturday (9th) between 16:30-18:00 @Fountain Room 3. Digital Rights Lunch [18] Sunday (10th) between 13:00-14:30 @ room TBD 4. Working on Strategy Monday (11th) between 12:00-14:00 @ Wikimedia UK Offices 4.2. Alternative: Dimi will be at the Barbican on Thu(7th) at 16:00 for those who can’t make Mon 5. Wendy's Weasel Whiteboard on Wheels - throughout the conference ----------------- ----------------- [1]https://twitter.com/AgencEurope/status/490050254713421824 [2] http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/barnier-forced-to-delay-copyright-road… [3]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-528_en.htm [4]https://storify.com/dimi_z/atomium-and-freedom-of-panorama/ [5] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs… [6]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright [7] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-December/129015.html [8]http://www.lapsi-project.eu/ [9]http://www.wikimedia.de/images/1/15/CC-NC_Leitfaden_2013_engl.pdf [10]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-840_en.htm [11]http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities [12]http://senficon.eu/2014/07/frage-an-juncker-zum-urheberrecht/ [13]https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Letter_to_MEPs_with_images.pdf [14]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Engage/Adopt_a_MEP [15]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Strategy [16] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Liquid_Lobbying_-_How_… [17] https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Liquid_Lobbying_-_How_… [18]https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Networking_Lunch

2 2

[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality
by Yana Welinder 31 Jul '14

31 Jul '14

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.

5 13

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Publicpolicy August 2014