tl;drFull throttle in Brussels this month - copyright decisions on
education, the public domain and upload filtering seem possible in the
European Parliament, while filters are still pending in the Council. The
PSI Directive and the Database Directive reforms are being drafted.
This and past reports:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor===Copyright Reform -
The (potentially) good
---
Education:As far as the education exception compromise goes (Article 4),
the battle in the Parliament is between “kind of good” and “bad”. JURI
Shadows managed to convince the Rapporteur to not exempt textbook
publishers from the scope of the exception - let’s see if that stands.
It seems that they also managed to kick out the temporary limitation
(proposed para 1c) when the exception could be applied only for the
duration of illustration of teaching (whatever that means in practice).
Here’s hoping article 4 is not the hill Rapporteur Voss would like to
proverbially die on[1], and both changes will be sustained.
---
Public Domain:Our bid to include a public domain safeguard in the EU
copyright reform is slowly weaving its way through the inner workings
European Parliament. A compromise text was hammered out during the
technical meeting (meeting of experts & advisors) and is being discussed
by the MEPs. The main open questions are whether it should be limited to
“preservation purposes” only (not clear how) and whether it should be
part of the “Preservation of cultural heritage” article or get its own
article. While the latter question is more an issue of practicality and
political tactics, on the former we are experiencing significant
pushback from the ALDE and ECR groups, that want to limit the safeguard.
===Copyright Reform - The bad & ugly Article 13
---
Article 13 should have landed in the garbage of legislative history long
time ago, but both JURI and Bulgarian Presidency[2] are tirelessly
trying to make it even worse. The parallel proposals become more and
more similar, which may have to do with the fact that, as it turns out,
at least some of MEP Voss’s compromise versions were in fact drafted by
the European Commission officials[3]. In a surprising twist of events,
however, in both JURI and BG drafts we can find a carve-out for online
encyclopaedia, which would not fall under the scope of the article.
While the Bulgarian version would exclude Wikimedia Commons resources
that are also used at Wikipedia, it seems that the Parliamentary take
would keep our projects intact by Article 13. Still, we believe that a
long list of carve-outs will not fix what will get broken by content
filtering and excessive intermediary liability.
===
Public Sector Information Directive Review
---
A review study on the Public Sector Information Directive [4] was
presented in Brussels this month. This is expected to be the last public
step before the commission proposes a reform of this legal act before
summer. The analysis and discussion revolved around para-public bodies
(i.e. energy and transport companies), the use of APIs and reduction of
exclusive agreements for data. The general assessment was that the
Directive is “having positive impact, but there is pressure to open up
more data”. The seemingly currently favourite policy option is to extend
the scope of the Directive to cover research and para-public bodies. A
provision to make sure “free of charge re-use” for all documents is on
the table, but is not included in the “preferred way forward” in the
analysis.
===
Tackling Illegal Content Online
---
The European Commission wants platforms to remove all sorts of illegal
information faster and more efficiently - from counterfeit product
offers, through hate speech, to terrorist content. The Inception Impact
Assessment mentions 3 possible interventions - from soft measures,
through targeted legal intervention to horizontal legislation including
automated content detection. In the feedback we pointed out that more
evidence is needed, also on how social media business models contribute
to the dissemination of controversial (also potentially harmful)
content. We also noted that any automated content detection requires a
thorough human oversight and decision-making to avoid overpolicing of
users’ activity online. Our full response will be available on a
dedicated meta page[5] at the end of business today.
===
French Constitutional Court answers to WMFR
---
In November 2017 Wikimédia France and La Quadrature du Net asked the
French Constitutional Court whether the Loi Création, a law that
establishes a new image right allowing administrators of public estates
to control the commercial use of their images is constitutional. [6] The
argument was, that this law realistically limits the public domain. An
decision was issued and it was, unfortunately, in the affirmative. An
interesting commentary on the decision can be read on the court’s site: [7]
===
[1]https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/978987997130469377
[2]https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/EU/XXVI/EU/01/60/EU_16061/imfname_10796990.pdf?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=0fac1d8a06-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_03_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-0fac1d8a06-188979681
[3]https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/973953977862774784
[4]https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0QRHCpjYWN2aERxdFhLM2ZtanVJdVRqTFZvc21F…
[5]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Illegal_Content_Feedback_2018
[6]https://www.laquadrature.net/en/Wikimedia-La-Quadrature-defend-public-dom…
[7]http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/download/2017687QPC2017687qpc_ccc.pdf
--
Anna Mazgal
EU Policy Advisor
Wikimedia
anna(a)wikimedia.be
@a2na
mobile: +32 487 222 945
51 Rue du Trône
BE-1050 Brussels
Hi everyone,
On Wednesday, the United States Senate passed the Allow States and Victims
to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (H.R. 1865, also known as FOSTA or
SESTA). This bill amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
which provides important legal protections for websites that host
user-generated content. As the House of Representatives passed the same
bill late last month, the bill will now proceed to the president for
signature.
Wikimedia has repeatedly expressed our concern about amendments to Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act
<https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/three-principles…>.
For over two decades, Section 230 has encouraged good-faith content
moderation, and protected not only large websites, but also small startups
and nonprofits. When websites act to keep their communities healthy and
free of toxic content, Section 230 has allowed them to do so without
undertaking new risks. FOSTA adds new ambiguity about when a platform has
"knowledge" of problematic user-uploaded content. This creates uncertainty
for websites that want to comply with the law while also protecting their
users’ freedom of expression. We’re disappointed to see the United States
Congress take this step in the wrong direction for the future of online
communities.
Best,
Leighanna
--
Leighanna Mixter
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
lmixter(a)wikimedia.org
NOTICE: *This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message 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,
In 30 minutes, we are hosting a lunch talk with Gisela Pérez de Acha, a
Mexican lawyer and activist who specializes in free speech and gender
rights within the digital world. The talk will be live-streamed via our Youtube
channel <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FeBVOd6HWs> and recorded.
Best,
Stephen
*About the talk*:
"Can we design better platforms to counter online gendered violence? The
feminist experience in Latin America"
The internet has made collaboration and access to knowledge easier for many
people around the world. However, many current internet technologies fail
large parts of society: social media platforms and other websites and
services continue to harbor online gendered violence.
In her talk, Gisela Pérez de Acha will demonstrate that the female
experience of online communication needs to be radically improved to ensure
women can safely participate in public discourse and exercise their right
to freedom of expression. Showcasing feminist projects from Latin America,
Gisela will illustrate the changes to internet infrastructure she and other
digital rights activists want to see to ensure women's rights are respected
in the digital context.
--
Stephen LaPorte
Legal Director
Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: 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 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>.*
Greetings all.
Perhaps a bit late to the party, Wikimedia Denmark sent a letter (link
<https://dk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dokumenter/Brev_af_17._marts_2018_til_Kulturm…>)
to the Danish Minister for Culture (the government official responsible
for the area of copyright) yesterday, explaining why article 11 & 13 of
the proposed copyright directive are problematic. There's no English
translation, but it's pretty much just a rephrasing of the arguments in
the template provided in the january monitoring report with a bit of
local issues/context thrown in as well. Hopefully they will at least be
persuaded to go from "inclined" to "skeptical".
All the best
Matthias Smed Larsen
WMDK Vice Chairman
Dear All,
the European Commission has launched a consultation to get feedback on
their Inception Feedback Assessment on measures to further improve
effectiveness of the fight against illegal content online. We have set
up a meta page
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Illegal_Content_Feedback_2018>
to gather your remarks, should you wish us to include anything on the
topic when we file the response. The instruction and the link to the
document to comment upon are specified and linked up on meta. I also
attach the pdf prepared by the EC for your convenience.
Please provide your remarks
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Illegal_Content_Feedback_2018>
on the points you find relevant until March 23rd. Then we have time to
incorporate them into the consultation response and resolve any
potential differences that may arise.
Best wishes,
Anna & Dimi
--
Anna Mazgal
EU Policy Advisor
Wikimedia
anna(a)wikimedia.be
@a2na
mobile: +32 487 222 945
51 Rue du Trône
BE-1050 Brussels
Hi everyone,
We wanted to give you an update on a pair of bills currently under
consideration in the United States Congress which would weaken intermediary
liability protections for hosts of user-generated content. For several
months, Congress has been considering two competing bills to address the
problem of online sex trafficking, by creating new holes in the protections
granted to online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill that combines
provisions of both the Senate bill (SESTA) and original House bill (FOSTA),
a move which has been described as the “worst of both worlds
<https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/02/congress-probably-will-ruin-s…>”
for online platforms. That hybrid bill will now proceed to the Senate,
where a vote is expected within the next two weeks.
At a time when there is increased pressure from policymakers on internet
platforms to monitor their websites for harmful or illegal content, we
remain concerned about any legislative changes to Section 230
<https://medium.com/@Wikimedia/three-principles-in-cda-230-that-make-wikiped…>.
This provision has been critical for enabling collaborative,
community-driven projects like Wikipedia. Any changes to these key
protections for websites require careful consideration of their impact, not
only on large technology companies, but on user-driven platforms of all
kinds. We will continue to support legislative frameworks that promote
freedom of expression and collaboration online in the US and other regions
of the world.
Best,
Leighanna
--
Leighanna Mixter
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
lmixter(a)wikimedia.org
NOTICE: *This message might have confidential or legally privileged
information in it. If you have received this message 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>.*
Dear list,
This year's Big Fat Brussels Meeting will take place on 28 & 29 April:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Big_Fat_Brussels_Meeting_V
Apart from the obligatory work on the ongoing EU copyright reform, we are
planning a lot of meetings between participants and public policy people
working in Brussels (including a number people from the EU institutions).
The goal isn't simply to meet up, but for participants to get a feeling for
the public debate surrounding access to knowledge issues and to develop an
understanding of how to best approach policy makers.
Follow-up national/regional actions will be expected from each participant.
Hope you can come! Limited travel funding is available.
Cheers,
Dimi