tl;dr
The new Bulgarian Presidency of the Council is attempting some subtle moves
on copyright [0], while the Parliament seems to be gaining speed (but not
compromises) in its lead committee. “Fake news” were also talked about.
This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
=========
Copyright Reform - Bulgarian Presidency
---
New questions on old questions: Towards the end of its Presidency Estonia
asked Member States to position themselves politically on the controversial
elements of the EU copyright reform: the so-called press publishers' right
(Article 11) and the upload filtering (Article 13). The incoming Bulgarian
Presidency now also requested political guidance on these issues from
Member States. [1]
---
On upload filtering: In its questions Article 13, the Presidency delved
into the notion of 'communication to the public', a concept that tries to
define which actions constitute a copyright infringement (linking, framing,
hosting, promoting, etc.) and that is inconsistently ruled on by the Court
of Justice of the EU. While we understand the need for clarification,
introducing such a major legal definition halfway through the legislative
process without an impact assessment and proper public consultation seems
inconsistent with the “better regulation” principles. [2]
---
On the “link tax”: On Article 11, the Bulgarian Presidency posed further
questions only around 'Option A', which essentially mirrors the
Commission's proposal to create a new ancillary copyright across Europe.
The open question for the public is how much this indicates the
Presidency’s preference. Wikimedia strongly prefers 'Option B' in the
Council, a presumption of representation in court for publishers. This way
we can avoid a new restrictive layer of law preventing us from sharing
knowledge.
---
Positions of Members States: Meanwhile, the Julia Reda office has published
a chart with likely position of Member States in the Council. Check out
your own country’s behaviour here: [3]
---
Wikimedia actions: If you are unhappy with how your country is behaving in
Brussels and want to let them know, we have drafted answers to the
Bulgarian Presidency questions. [4] While we are working on floating these
in Brussels, we would be thrilled if you decided to localise and share
these with your Ministry back home. Let us know and we’ll help!
=========
Copyright Reform - European Parliament
---
Lead Committee: The Legal Affairs committee seems to be stepping up its
action on this file and the end of March timeline for a committee vote
suddenly doesn’t look completely impossible to keep. This being said, the
groups seem to be far from reaching compromises on the seemingly even less
divisive issues (i.e. everything but Articles 11&13). We will see how the
compromises on upload filters and the the link tax progress through
February to be able to assess the situation. Generally, a progressive half
seems to be forming around the S&D, Greens, Gue and EFDD groups, while the
EPP, ALDE and the ECR are keener on the Commission proposal.
---
Chances for positive change: While not breaking the internet is definitely
a priority, we have not given up working on positive change. The European
Parliament is the only place such change can be introduced, as the Council
is very unlikely to add new text. On Freedom of Panorama we are looking for
new allies among self-driving cars developers and virtual reality
applications producers (Do you know people working on this?). On education
we are working to include more beneficiaries and delete licensing override
in the current text (Do you know any educational institutions and
organisations that could support these changes in a letter to MEPs?). On
the “public domain safeguard” we basically need to convince the UK and
Polish Conservatives to support it (Do you know someone?).
===
Fake News HLEG
---
The European Commission has assembled a High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on
Fake News in order to work out proposals how to tackle this phenomenon.
Wikimedia is one of 35 organisations or individuals who were summoned. [5]
While the deliberations are confidential, the different sub-groups of the
HLEG are basically looking into the problem definition and actions that can
be taken by the lawmaker, platforms, publishers and users. Any ideas
welcome, experts can be included. More information possible off-list.
===
Is NC illegal? New study out!
---
Thanks to one of two 3K € research grants given out by the FKAGEU last year
[6] we now have a new study looking into “non-commercial” restriction of
copyright exceptions. Eleonora Rosati [6], a.k.a. Elawnora and known for
her IPKat posts, is the researcher behind this interesting read. Most
excitingly, she believes it might actually be illegal for Member States to
restrict exceptions with NC clauses, if this hasn’t been explicitly
mentioned in the Directive. Full read here: [7]
===
Wikimédia France & the Constitutional Court
---
As you probably know already, Wikimédia France and La Quadrature du Net are
asking the French Constitutional Court on the legality of a new image right
that, in our mind, infringes upon the public domain. [8] The hearing was
recently and if you enjoy listening to legal deliberations in French, you
may scratch your itch here: [9]. The verdict is expected on 2 February.
===
[0]
http://mepassistant.tumblr.com/post/170146417883/when-anyone-in-the-eurobub…
[1]http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15651-2017-INIT/en/pdf
[2]
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/democratic-change/better-regulat…
[3]https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/957993085207760896
[4]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ilo_i95thomOVYwPsJyYe18Yinu6rptSwRX6iAB…
[5]
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/experts-appointed-high-l…
[6]http://www.elawnora.com/
[7]https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-8-4-2017/4639/?searchterm=
[8]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/Domaines_nationaux
[9]
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/vide…
Forwarding this update regarding our NSA case.
-greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Katherine Maher <kmaher(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 4:14 PM
Subject: [Wmfall] Update on Wikimedia vs. NSA
To: Staff (All) <wmfall(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia Mailing List <
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi all,
I’d like to share an update and next steps in our lawsuit against the U.S.
National Security Agency (NSA), Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA.[1] As you’ll
recall, in March 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation joined eight other
plaintiffs in filing a suit in United States Federal District Court against
the NSA[2] and the Department of Justice,[3] among others. We have been
represented pro bono[4] by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)[5] and
the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.[6] The law
firm Cooley LLP[7] has also been serving as pro bono co-counsel for the
Foundation.
Since we’re coming on the three-year anniversary, I wanted to offer a
reminder of why we filed this suit. Our challenge supports the foundational
values of our movement: the right to freedom of expression and access to
information. Free knowledge requires freedom of inquiry, particularly in
the case of challenging and unpopular truths. Each day people around the
world engage with difficult and controversial subjects on Wikipedia and
other Wikimedia projects. Pervasive mass surveillance brings the threat of
reprisal, creates a chilling effect, and undermines the freedoms upon which
our projects and communities are founded. In bringing this suit, we joined
a tradition of knowledge stewards who have fought to preserve the integrity
of intellectual inquiry.
Our lawsuit challenges dragnet surveillance by the NSA, specifically the
large-scale seizing and searching of Internet communications frequently
referred to as “Upstream” surveillance.[8] The U.S. government is tapping
directly into the internet’s “backbone”[9]—the network of high-capacity
cables, switches, and routers that carry domestic and international
communications—and seizing and searching virtually all text-based internet
communications flowing into and out of the United States. It’s this
backbone that connects the global Wikimedia community to our projects.
These communications are being seized and searched without any requirement
that there be suspicion, for example, that the communications have a
connection to terrorism or national security threats.
Last May, we reached an important milestone: a Federal Court of Appeals[10]
in the United States ruled[11] that the Foundation alone had plausibly
alleged “standing”[12] to proceed with our claims that Upstream mass
surveillance seizes and searches of the online communications of Wikimedia
users, contributors and Foundation staff in violation of the U.S.
Constitution and other laws. The Court of Appeals’ ruling means that we are
the sole remaining plaintiff among the nine original co-plaintiffs. There
is still a long road ahead, but this intermediate victory makes this case
one of the most important vehicles for challenging the legality of this
particular NSA surveillance practice.
As a result of our win in the appellate court, we are now proceeding to the
next stage of the case: discovery.[13] In the U.S. court system, parties
use the discovery stage to exchange evidence and ask each other questions
about their claims. We have requested information and documents from the
government, and they have made similar requests from us. The entire phase,
which will also involve research and reports from experts, is expected to
last the next few months.
As part of our commitment to privacy, I want you to know about what this
stage of the case means for our data retention practices. Our goal in
bringing this lawsuit was to protect user information. In this case, like
other litigation in which we engage, we may sometimes be legally required
to preserve some information longer than the standard 90-day period in our
data retention guidelines. These special cases are acknowledged and
permitted by our privacy and data retention policies.[14]
As always, however, we remain committed to keeping user data no longer than
legally necessary. We never publish the exact details of litigation-related
data retention, as part of our legal strategy to keep personal data safe.
And we defend any personal data from disclosure to the maximum extent,
taking both legal and technical measures to do so. We are keeping sensitive
material encrypted and offline, and we have the support of the experienced
legal teams at the ACLU and Cooley in ensuring its safety and integrity.
Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA is currently one of the only freedom of
expression and access to knowledge cases being prosecuted against
government surveillance overreach. Unfortunately, the recent extension of
these surveillance practices by the U.S. Congress[15] demonstrates that the
courts may well be the only venue to stop or restrict these practices.
The nature of litigation means that we will not always be able to discuss
certain details of any case in public. For example, deliberations about
tactical or strategic decisions will need to remain confidential in order
to preserve the attorney-client privilege.[16] In such situations,
particularly in a sensitive and important case like this, we are always
balancing the need for confidentiality with our commitment to transparency.
So while some information will not be public, we want to be available to
address your questions, should you have any. Please direct them to Greg
Varnum gvarnum(a)wikimedia.org, who can help provide answers.
We will continue keeping you updated on our progress and anything that
might affect our communities and visitors to the Wikimedia sites.[17]
I would like to thank Tilman Bayer, Nuria Ruiz, Faidon Liambotis, Andrew
Otto, James Alexander, Brandon Black, Byron Bogaert, Dan Foy, Grace
Gellerman, Aeryn Palmer and Jim Buatti for their extensive dedication to
this case. And thanks to the C-levels supporting this work, Eileen
Hershenov, Victoria Coleman, and Toby Negrin.
Yours,
Katherine
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union
[6] https://knightcolumbia.org/
[7] https://www.cooley.com/
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
[11] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
[14] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines
[15]
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cyber-surveillance/trump-signs…
[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege
[17] https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/
*Previous updates for your review:*
June 23 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-present-future/
June 16 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/
May 23 2017
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
December 9 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/12/09/wikimedia-v-nsa-hearing-fourth-circui…
October 17 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/10/17/wikimedia-v-nsa-appeal-hearing/
May 9 2016 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/09/wikimedia-nsa-appeal/
April 11 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/new-resource-wikimedia-nsa/
February 17 2016
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/17/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-filed/
December 15 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/12/15/wikimedia-nsa-notice-of-appeal/
October 23 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/10/23/wikimedia-v-nsa-lawsuit-dismissal/
September 28 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/28/wikimedia-nsa-first-hearing/
September 4 2015
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/04/motion-to-dismiss-wikimedia-v-nsa/
March 10 2015 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
--
Katherine Maher
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885>
+1 (415) 712 4873 <(415)%20712-4873>
kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
https://annual.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wmfall mailing list
Wmfall(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfall
--
Gregory Varnum
Communications Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/>
gvarnum(a)wikimedia.org
Hello All,
Earlier this month, the Wikimedia Foundation, along with a coalition of 43
civil liberties, civil rights, and transparency organizations, signed a
letter
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/demandprogress/letters/Orgs_endorse_USA_Rights_ame…>
urging Congress to reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978…>,
the law that allegedly authorizes the mass surveillance challenged in our
lawsuit, Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency
<https://policy.wikimedia.org/stopsurveillance/>. In the letter, we urged
Congress to oppose a straightforward reauthorization of the law and to
support meaningful reforms.
On January 11th, the U.S. House of Representatives
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives>
quashed the opportunity for those reforms by voting to reauthorize Section
702 with minimal changes. The bill then went to the U.S. Senate
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate> for further
consideration. Despite opposition in the Senate from both major political
parties, on January 16th, a filibuster
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster> to block the bill narrowly
failed. Yesterday, the bill cleared the Senate, and it was signed into law
today
<https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/01/19/technology/19reuters-usa-trump-c…>.
Although we are deeply disappointed in this result, the Wikimedia
Foundation will continue to fight for user privacy, including in Wikimedia
Foundation v. NSA. We will keep you updated on further developments.
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>.*