Publicpolicy September 2014

publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org

17 participants
10 discussions

[Advocacy Advisors] Questions on Economic Contribution of Public Domain and Open Licensing
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 14 Nov '14

14 Nov '14

Hi all, The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing". The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment. Thanks a lot! Dimi [1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home

5 12

[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero specifically excepted from ban of zero-rating services in Chile
by Cristian Consonni 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

(probably this can be commented by more qualified people than myself) TL;DR Chile's government (Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones, SUBTEL) has issued a circular (i.e. an explanation of the law), called circular n. 40[1], earlier in April this year stating that zero-rating go against the Chilean net neutrality law in force (spec. disposition n. 6 and 7. of law n. 18.168)[*]. Today SUBTEL has "confirmed to us [WMF and Wikimedia Chile] that the new order was not intended to prevent Wikipedia Zero and similar free knowledge initiatives" http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/09/22/chilean-regulator-welcomes-wikipedia-z… Well, in one word this is, for sure, "a thing". Cristian [1] http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativ… [*] {{es}} (end of page 1) "La estructura de la oferta en comento, importan a juicio de esta autoridad una contravención a las normas que en la especie regulan y prohiben conductas discriminatorias de contenidos, aplicaciones o servicios, que integran el principio de Neutralidad de Red contenidas en la normativa sectorial, y en particular al texto del articulo 24o H letra a) de la Ley [dispuesto 6o y 7o de la Ley no. 18,168]" {{en}} "The structure of the offers under scrutiny, imply to the judjement of this authority an infringement of the norms ... which regulate and prohibit conduct of discrimination of contents, applications or services which constitute the principle of Net Neutrality contained in the sectorial norms, and in particular in the text of the article 24th H letter a) of the [aforementioned] law"

5 15

[Advocacy Advisors] Questions to Commissioners-Designate
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

Hi all, next week the the hearings of the new Commissioners-Designate of the new European Commission will start in the European Parliament. The most relevant hearings for us will be: Günther Öttinger, German Commissioner-Deisgnate for Digital Economy and Society [1] ITRE/CULT Committees Hearing - Monday, 29 September, 18:30-21:30 Andrus Ansip, Estonaian Commissioner-Designate and VP of the Commission-Designate for the Digital Single Market [2] IMCO Committee Hearing - Monday, 6 October, 18:30-21:30 We could propose a MEP sitting in these committees to ask a question that might give us a clue who we will be dealing with over the next 5 years. After long consideration and many talks, I will pitch the following: "What is your position on the implementation of the Marakech Treaty (Treaty for the Blind)?". This covers two things important for us- their position on international agreements dealing with IP and their position on new exceptions&limitations to copyright. At the same time it is not provocative as it is something on the agenda anyway and doesn't ask the questions directly. We're more likely to get the question asked to Oettinger, which is a good thing, as we already know Anisp's position on international agreements (extremely pro-ACTA). Furthermore, Julia Reda, German MEP for the Pirate Party sitting the Green Group, has created a website that let's people directly ask questions to the Commissioners-Designate. [3] From what I've heard, Mr. Ansip might be willing to answer all of them in an "online hearing" at a later stage. Cheers, Dimi [1]http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/oettinger_en.pdf [2]http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/ansip_en.pdf [3]http://www.whatwouldyouask.eu/

4 4

[Advocacy Advisors] cultural heritage in a digital europe - Nov 11
by Lodewijk 27 Sep '14

27 Sep '14

Is anyone going to this event? https://juliareda.eu/2014/09/invitation-cultural-heritage-in-a-digital-euro… Lodewijk

3 2

[Advocacy Advisors] interesting post about "Right to be Forgotten"
by Stevie Benton 18 Sep '14

18 Sep '14

Hello everyone, Just saw this article via Twitter - http://www.softwareadvice.com/security/industryview/right-to-be-forgotten-2… It gets some views form the US on the Right to be Forgotten and suggests that there is a significant number of people in the US who believe that something similar could be initiated there. Worth a read I think. Thank you, 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.*

2 1

[Advocacy Advisors] Covering limited position letters in the WMF's guidelines for political advocacy
by Stephen LaPorte 15 Sep '14

15 Sep '14

Hello advisory group, We are making an addition to the WMF's guidelines for Policy and Political Advocacy. The purpose is to describe the WMF's approach to joining advocacy letters on topics that are consistent with our previous discussions on this list, such as advocating for the public domain, privacy protections, and free speech. In some circumstances, it can be difficult to share an advocacy letter publicly before it is finalized. Additionally, letters are often finalized on a short time frame, since there is a usually a deadline for when it will be effective, and this can pose some difficulty for prior consultation on the exact language. Even with this addition to our guidelines, we still aim to share letters on this list. You can see the addition here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundation_Pol… If you have any thoughts on these guidelines, you may share them on the talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Foundatio… Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation *NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and 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>.*

3 2

[Advocacy Advisors] will the WMF review advocacy strategy?
by James Salsman 12 Sep '14

12 Sep '14

Stephen, Does the Foundation intend to review the extent to which its advocacy choices, both to include and refrain from action on specific issue areas, are aligned with its mission? If so, when and how will that review take place. If not, why not? Sincerely, James Salsman

1 0

[Advocacy Advisors] Implications of Oettinger (new EU Commissioner) getting Digital Agenda *and* Copyright ?
by James Heald 12 Sep '14

12 Sep '14

Hi Dimi, Tell me if this isn't appropriate for a public list, or whether it's too EU microscopic a question, but are you hearing anything on the grapevine about the likely implications at DG Connect of it getting (i) Oettinger as its new Commissioner, and (ii) the Copyright policy team being transferred over from DG Market ? Both are presumably likely to have major implications. DG Connect (which also covers telecom regulation as a big part of its brief) and its various predecessors has in the past very much been 'our' directorate in Brussels, pushing hard for freedom and openness, never more so than when Neelie Kroes (together with DG Research) got the Copyright white paper kicked back to be re-done a few months ago. The present DG, Robert Madelin, spoke a few days ago to EurActiv http://www.euractiv.com/sections/innovation-enterprise/robert-madelin-eu-no… with words about copyright very much in that vein (scroll down about 4 screens), focussing on the need to enable better text and data mining (potentially a significant issue for Wikidata), and other issues. Moving copyright away from DG Markt could represent a big slap in the face from Juncker for the (stand-still) approach behind the previous whitepaper. In his "mandate letter" to Oettinger, it certainly sounds as if he wants some changes -- changes that Madelin's interview also appears very much to sing along with: http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/oettinger_en.pdf Juncker's aims for the portfolio (p.4) "we will need to break down national silos in telecoms regulation, in copyright and data protection legislation, in the management of radio waves and in the application of competition law." (ie much more Europeanisation and harmonisation of law) "You should also ensure that users are at the centre of your action. They should be able to use their mobile phones across Europe without having to pay roaming charges. They should be offered access to services, music, movies and sports events on their electronic devices wherever they are in Europe and regardless of borders. You will also need to ensure that the right conditions are set, including through copyright law, to support cultural and creative industries and exploit their potential for the economy." (Again, European-wide access to viewing subscriptions to copyright materials, overriding national-limited rights agreements is going to be quite a shift -- but very much in line with Juncker's commitment to Europeanisation) "Preparing, as part of the project team steered and coordinated by the Vice-President for the Digital Single Market, ambitious legislative steps towards a connected Digital Single Market. You should be ready to present these within the first six months, and they should be based on a clear assessment of the main obstacles still to be removed through EU action, either by implementing existing policies or proposing new measures... "Copyright rules should be modernised, during the first part of this mandate, in the light of the digital revolution, new consumer behaviour and Europe’s cultural diversity... [alongside telecoms rules and spectrum allocation, both identified as priorities]. But does this mean the existing DG Markt team lost the argument, and are now going to have to pipe to a new tune ? Or is it not so simple, and having lost Neelie Kroes *and* with a new influx of officials from DG Markt, is there a danger of the new team no longer being such cheerleaders for the case of freedom and openness ? (Open Knowledge, Open Data, Open Source, Open Access, Open Licensing, etc... ) I am interested as to what is the thinking on the ground in Brussels about this? As for Oettinger himself, his first action seems to have been to fire a shot at Google, committing himself that its "market power could be limited, adding that he would work to ensure that the search engine's services preserve neutrality and objectivity." http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/10/us-europe-google-oettinger-idUSKB… But that may be particularly a play to a domestic German audience. As former MEP Andrew Duff notes, a systematic trait of Juncker's commission is that "Juncker has identified the trouble spots and appointed the Commissioner-designate from the most troublesome country to look after that very dossier." So, "The German Gunther Oettinger who hails from the country that is the most protectionist against US digital enterprise is given the digital agenda portfolio." http://andrewduff.blogactiv.eu/2014/09/10/jean-claude-gsoh/ It may not be surprising therefore if Oettinger feels he needs to publicly establish a particular distance from Google, even though the Google competition case(s) don't at all fall within his remit -- how to prioritise them or not is a matter for DG Competition. He's also of course just spent 5 years fighting environmentalists (including his own department) at DG Environment, which means the Greens hate him, and no doubt it's probably mutual. This too makes it important to make sure that he doesn't identify 'Digital Agenda' / Open Culture with utopian Greens and Pirates and other radicals (or at least not only them); but with hard-as-nail calculating economistic neo-liberals like Neelie Kroes. The publishers, having previously said it was "absolutely crucial" that the copyright brief remained with DG Markt are now "looking forward to meeting with the new commissioner to explain how copyright underpins the dynamic and innovative businesses in publishing and the wider creative industries." http://www.thebookseller.com/news/juncker-commission-moves-copyright-enforc… One thing I'd be interested to hear thoughts on is whether Robert Madelin is likely to remain in post as DG Connect's director general, and therefore effectively become the new boss of the officials who've just been moved over from DG Market. In particular, Oettinger is notorious for being, in userbox terms, only an (en-2) speaker. Does Madelin speak good German? (almost certainly, but do we know?) Is Oettinger likely to prefer somebody with more native German? Oettinger's also presumably likely to install quite a German-speaking personal cabinet; which is therefore more likely to take its tune from positions in the Copyright debate in more German-speaking countries. Are there significant issues (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, etc) to be aware of in that? I assume, because it's quite a tech directorate, there are people we have reasonably good informal relations with at various levels in DG Connect (or if we don't, we know orgs/people that do), and probably even more so in DG Digit. Are we getting any sense from them as to which way *they* think the winds may be blowing? Who is up and who is down, and who is likely to come out on top in the end? Is there anything we can do for *them* in the near future. Do *they* think there will be new work needed to re-establish the positive economic case for freedom and openness with the new team, and of course our own signature issues like FoP ? (see also OT note on FoP issue below) Are things in the balance? Are there arguments that people in there need evidence/zingers to help to make? What can we do to help? Is there a risk the whole DG could go to the dark side? Fundamentally, we need to know where things are at. But that's quite enough email for now, All best, James. (OT, but key issue with FoP: we need to make sure it is clarified not a permitted-use exemption, but rather an exemption from a copyright being inherited into the derived work in the first place. This is important, because a permitted-use exemption technically only applies in the country where the use is permitted, whereas no derived copyright at all in the work would apply worldwide -- we got caught a couple of years ago by a US takedown of some photographs of sculptures in the U.K. on just this point). it now a priority to re-establish particular issues like FoP, and others where DG Connect

2 4

Re: [Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality
by effe iets anders 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

resending, as it seems this message never arrived. 2014-08-02 10:37 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>: > Hi Jens, > Just out of curiosity for clarification, given your Praesidium signature: > are you engaging this discussion strongly from your personal interest, or > did WMDE create a position on this issue be it formally or not? > > Thanks, lodewijk > On Aug 2, 2014 1:34 AM, "Jens Best" <jens.best(a)wikimedia.de> wrote: > >> Well, >> >> my first repsonse to Erics text: >> >> a lot of words, a lot of "believing in this & that", some emotional >> storytelling - but nothing on the simple fact that any zero-rating is a >> clear violation of net neutrality. >> >> So, is this supposed to be the opening of a discussion? For me this text >> doesn't sound like that any discussion with an open result is possible or >> even welcomed. >> >> This text is in clear contradiction to the recent statement of EFF. So is >> the Foundation willingly trying to violate one of the basic principles of >> an open web just to be part of the Facebook Zero, Google Zero, Coke Zero - >> Group? Is the foundation really that naive to not see that this way it >> becomes part of the marketing machine of access providers to deteriorate >> user habits? >> >> So, as a net neutrality advocate somebody has to ask him-/herself if >> he/she really wants to participate in a discussion which result is already >> determined. What is EFF saying to this clear violation of net neutrality by >> WMF? >> >> best regards >> >> Jens Best >> >> >> 2014-08-02 0:48 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder <ywelinder(a)wikimedia.org>: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I wanted to follow up on the discussion on Wikipedia Zero and net >>> neutrality on this list. We just posted a discussion on this topic: >>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-pro… >>> >>> 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>. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list >>> Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Jens Best >> Präsidium >> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. >> web: http://www.wikimedia.de >> mail: jens.best <http://goog_17221883>@wikimedia.de >> >> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. >> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts >> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig >> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, >> Steuernummer 27/681/51985. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list >> Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >> >>

21 42

[Advocacy Advisors] Fwd: Updates from the Intellectual Property Office
by Stevie Benton 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Hello everyone, I was fortunate enough to meet with the UK's Intellectual Property Office before I went on leave. Ros Lynch, their Head of Copyright, was quite sympathetic to our movement and mission and I believe we have the basis of a good working relationship in place now. She also arranged for a colleague to pass on some information on the latest activities of the IPO, which is below. The information about the Orphan Works Licensing Scheme may be of particular interest. Thanks and regards, Stevie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Margaret Haig Date: 28 August 2014 11:06 Subject: Updates from the Intellectual Property Office To: "stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk" <stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk> Dear Stevie, I understand that you met with Ros Lynch last week and she said we would send over some information on various topics. I am responding on her behalf. *Copyright Notices* The Copyright Notice service allows anyone to ask the IPO to provide basic guidance on an area of copyright law where there is particular confusion or misunderstanding. The service does not deal with specific disputes and is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice altogether, although the hope is that small businesses and individuals may be able to avoid obtaining expensive legal advice for some more straightforward matters. We also try to avoid areas where there is already a lot of guidance available (online or otherwise), so that a Notice meets a real need. The online request form is at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-copy/c-notice/c-notice-submit.htm. The first Notice was published this year on digital images, photographs and the internet <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-notice-201401.pdf>. We are currently working on Notices on assigning copyright, amateur music performance and knitting patterns; these are all based on subject areas where a Notice has been requested. We can notify you when the Notices are published if you would like. *UK Orphan Works Licensing Scheme* Orphan works are those copyright works where the right holder is unknown or cannot be found. At present, this means that the work cannot be licensed for use. The licensing scheme for orphan works will have effect in the UK only, which allows for commercial and non-commercial use of any orphan work. This will create new cultural and commercial opportunities, as well as helping to reunite copyright owners with their work and with appropriate remuneration. It will be operated by an authorising body (the Intellectual Property Office). Those who wish to use orphan works will apply, specify the type of use, pay an administrative fee, and conduct a diligent search for the orphan right holder. The authorising body will check whether the search is sufficiently diligent, and if appropriate issue a licence for up to seven years, on payment of a licence fee. A licence may be renewed if a refreshed diligent search is completed. The licence fee will be kept for the right holder for eight years. At the end of this period, the Government will use the unclaimed fees to defray set-up and running costs of the authorising body. Any surplus may be used for social, cultural and education activities, or otherwise at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The authorising body may also agree to pay the licence fee to a returning right holder after eight years in exceptional circumstances. There is more information about orphan works in our consultation document and response, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/copyright-uk-orphan-works-licen…. This page also has the individual responses to the consultation, which may or may not be of interest to you. The regulations were laid in Parliament in July and we expect the debates to be in October. *Copyright Exceptions* I believe you also wanted the link to the guidance which has been published on the new copyright exceptions: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-copyright-law. If you have queries on any of these topics, please feel free to email me. My work areas include Copyright Notices and Orphan Works, but I can easily put you in touch with someone on Exceptions if required. Kind regards, Margaret

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Publicpolicy September 2014