tl;dr
Most of Europe literally shuts down in August, but the past week has seen
activities accelerate back to full swing. We are setting the stage for a
decisive Legal Affairs committee vote on copyright, for which the
compromises will be negotiated in September.
This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
===
European Parliament on Copyright
---
Compromise Amendments: The rapporteur and shadow-rapporteurs of the
different political groups [1] in the lead Legal Affairs committee are
beginning to discuss compromise amendments. This means that they will look
through the tabled amendments and the opinions of the other committees and
see whether they can broadly agree on a common position. If this happens,
then this common position is proposed a new amendment called a compromise
amendment. Compromise amendments have a very high success rate in committee
votes. If there is no broad agreement between the groups, all the tabled
amendments will be voted on in a row until one receives a majority. In such
a case, all the amendments that are incompatible with it, fall. The
rapporteur, Mr. Voss (EPP DE) alone has the power to add compromise
amendments to the voting list to set the order in which the amendments will
be voted on.
---
Our Issues: We are hoping to get compromise amendments on “Safeguarding the
Public Domain” and on “Upload Filtering” provisions. Specifically on the
latter, a copy of the compromise struck in the Internal Market (IMCO) and
Civil Liberties (LIBE) committees would be acceptable. [2] (Article 13) It
would keep the current liability protections for information society
service providers (i.e. Wikimedia hosting Wikipedia) and wouldn’t force us
to sign compulsory licensing agreements. On Freedom of Panorama we will try
to get a positive compromise, but we might have to work towards a direct
vote on amendments, which means convincing as many MEPs as possible to vote
in favour of a full, EU-wide exception.
---
More Issues: Text and data mining and an ancillary copyright for press
publishers are major concerns. On the former, a large coalition of
libraries and civil society organisations will significantly step up their
communications efforts, as some of the amendments that will be vote n on
would in fact limit our current freedom of analyse text and data with
technical tools. The ancillary copyright issue has taken an even more
worrying spin in the Industry, Trade and Research (ITRE) committee by
including academic journals in its scope. [3] (Recital 33) This would
curtail open access publishing.
---
Something Positive: Meanwhile the Culture Committee (CULT) has finally
published the consolidated version of its opinion on the copyright reform.
[4] As you may recall, there are rightful worries that a new unwaivable
right demanded by music performers will make agreeing to free licenses
impossible for recordings. [5][6] Our compromise with the music performers
collecting societies has been proposed as a compromise amendment and
adopted [4] (see Amendment 92, Paragraph 2). The efforts on this are now to
make sure the same language is kept in the Legal Affairs committee.
===
Council Compromises on Copyright
---
Meanwhile the Estonian Presidency has leaked its draft compromises on the
same file. [7] The news is that they don’t really propose a compromise on
upload filtering and ancillary copyright. Instead Estonia is sharing two
options with the other Member States, thereby not revealing their own
position upfront.
---
Ancillary Copyright: The first option for the press publishers right is
outright poisonous, as it clearly includes hyperlinks in its scope. The
second one is laudable, as it stays away from creating a new right and
instead offers publishers a presumption of legal standing when it comes to
the intellectual property rights of press publications.
---
Upload Filtering: When it comes to protection of online platforms, neither
of the proposed options is positive. On one hand, the Estonian Presidency
adds language saying that the E-Commerce Directive, which lays down rules
about intermediary liability provisions that Wikimedia benefits from, shall
not be affected. At the same time these provisions are curbed in the actual
articles and recitals. The language suggests that services that store and
give access to user-generated content should take measures such as
implementing effective technologies to prevent the appearance of
rightholders content.
===
Database Directive: The European Commission ran a consultation [8] on the
Database Directive. This piece of legislation directly controls what we can
and cannot legally add to Wikidata, which is why the entire reform process
is a priority for us. We have submitted answers explaining how open data is
hindered by the additional sui generis protection established in the EU. [9]
We are currently writing a letter to the relevant units in DG Connect that
will outline examples of how “data donations” were hindered by the sui
generis right. We are looking at cases where an organisation or institution
wanted to open up their data or even directly add it to Wikidata, and where
this was either stopped or slowed down by the Database Directive. If you
have experienced such a situation, please do get in touch!
===
News from list members: Several civil liberties organisations joined to
create CLUE, the European umbrella organisation for civil liberties. [10]
Their scope is different from that of Wikimedia, but there is some amount
of overlap (freedom of speech, privacy). (10X Tisza)
===
[1]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2016/…
[2]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL…
[3]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL…
[4]
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL…
[5]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/another-fine-mess-ustr-has-gotten-us-…
[6]
https://creativecommons.org/2017/07/19/copyright-law-deny-creators-right-sh…
[7]
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2017/aug/eu-council-copyright-directive-esto…
[8]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Database_Directive_Consultation
[9]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Database_Directive_Cons…
[10]https://www.liberties.eu/en
Hi everyone,
Some of you in the United States may already be aware of a bill proposed
earlier in August in Congress that would weaken internet platforms'
intermediary liability protections under the Communications Decency Act,
Section 230
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act>.
The bill is S. 1693
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693/cosponsors>,
The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (known as "SESTA"), and its
counterpart in the House of Representatives (H.R. 1865). SESTA aims to
address the problem of online sex trafficking by creating new holes in the
intermediary liability rules for websites hosting user-generated content.
It would also amend federal trafficking laws to broaden the scope of
“participation” (meaning to be liable under the sex trafficking laws) to
potentially include websites used in certain ways by traffickers.
These bills are getting significant attention from people interested in
Internet policy and free expression online. CDA 230 is a crucial rule for
preserving the legal structure that supports and enables community-driven
platforms like the Wikimedia projects.
Here's what a few people we work with have said about the bill:
- The EFF has warned about the bill's effects
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/internet-censorship-bill-would-spell-…>
on freedom of expression and innovation
- The ACLU also penned a letter expressing concern with the bill
<https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-opposing-s-1693-stop-enabling-…>
on
free expression grounds
- A letter from R Street explains how the bill would actually be counter
productive
<http://www.rstreet.org/outreach/letter-new-liability-for-online-intermediar…>
to its goal
The Wikimedia Foundation has a position in favor of safe harbor rules
<https://policy.wikimedia.org/policy-landing/liability/> like CDA 230,
since they allow website hosts to act neutrally and avoid interfering with
community governance. The EFF has previously published a short interview
about the importance of these rules
<https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/successes/wikipedia> for Wikipedia.
Next week, Congress in the US will return from its August recess, you may
see more discussion around CDA 230 and this bill. Senate hearings on SESTA
are expected in later in September.
Best,
Stephen
--
Stephen LaPorte
Legal Director
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>.*