Dear policy-interested friends,
Happy New Years (again!) and year of the Tiger - this time from the WMF Public Policy team!
At the start of this year we have fresh updates regarding the Human Rights Policy that the Foundation launched in December. As a refresher, here is the link to the Diff post about the policy:
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/12/09/what-the-wikimedia-foundations-new-hu…
Our two updates related to the Human Rights Policy are:
(1) The FAQ has been expanded and is now available in 8 languages. You can find it here: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Human_Rights_Policy/Frequently…
(2) We are participating in the Conversation with the Trustees (formerly the Board office hour) event on February 17 at 18:30 UTC. Our team will share more about the Human Rights Policy and will answer any questions that community members have. This conversation will replace the conversation hours we had planned to host about the policy. For more information about the conversation and how to join, see this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Community_Affairs_Comm…
As always, if you have more questions about the Human Rights Policy or the Public Policy team, feel free to reach out to me, Ziski (Fputz(a)wikimedia.org).
We hope to see some of you there!
~~ Ziski & The Public Policy Team
Let’s start with the basics: Happy New Year! Beyond that the most notable
piece of news is that the European Parliament has adopted its position on
the new content moderation rules, a.k.a. Digital Services Act and
“trilogues” are starting today. We will also give you an overview of what
to expect this year from the European Commission in terms of proposals.
—
Written by Dimi (dimi(a)wikimedia.be) & Anna (anna(a)wikimedia.be). Do get in
touch!
—
Now that we have our own blog, we will try to keep everything in this
letter *a bit shorter & with links*, so you can grab the updates here, but
still enjoy the in-depth reading elsewhere. Let’s go!
—
Digital Services Act trilogues begin, after the European Parliament has adopted
its position on 20 January
<https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0014_EN.pdf>.
During the committee votes MEPs had already made sure “notices” don’t
automatically oblige the platform to consider something illegal and
included language that distinguishes between service provider rules and
community made rules. We also have a “waiver” that could allow us to not
apply certain obligations on Wikipedia, such as out-of-court dispute
settlement mechanisms. During the plenary vote, solid language was added to
limit user tracking: “dark patterns
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern>”, targeted advertising based
on sensitive data (e.g. political and religious beliefs) and the targeting
of minors are to be banned.
—
Trilogue Sticking Points: The Council and the Commission have no language
on limiting or banning tracking and targeted advertising, while inside the
Parliament two large groups: EPP and Renew Europe didn’t quite embrace
those. On the other hand, the Council wants to make the European Commission
the authority in charge of overseeing “Very Large Online Platforms”
(Wikipedia is expected to be one), while the Parliament leaves this to
national regulators. We expect these to be the main sticking points. A
thorough comparison of the negotiating positions from a free knowledge
perspective is to be found on our blog:
-
Three Column Comparison
<https://wikimedia.brussels/the-eus-new-content-moderation-rules-community-d…>
-
Amendments that limit user tracking
<https://wikimedia.brussels/dsa-parliament-adopts-position-on-eu-content-mod…>
—
Commission to continue proposing regulations: The legislative frenzy that
is seeing files being proposed and passing at breakneck speed (by Brussels
standards) is not over. We expect:
1. The Data Act to be proposed on 23 February.
2. To see a new legislation on tackling child sexual abuse material online
on 8 March.
3. A presentation of something called the European Health Data Space on 22
June.
4. the unveiling of a right to repair initiative on 5 July.
5. A European Media Freedom Act on 13 July.
Hold on tight!
—
The Digital Markets Act is aiming at regulating competition among online
platforms. A quick deal is advertised by all sides, but fundamental
differences . A main issue is who will be designated a “gatekeeper”. The
European Parliament is suggesting tougher obligations on a smaller group of
services, the Council casts its net wider, but with fewer rules. This
tricky question should be discussed and decided first. A more detailed
analysis
<https://wikimedia.brussels/dma-votes-imco-vs-council-users-vs-member-states/>
is available.
—
The Data Act is expected to also reform the “sui generis” database right in
the EU. The results
<https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/public-consultation-data-act-summa…>
of the European Commission’s consultation were announced and aren’t very
conclusive. The majority (54%) agree that the ‘sui generis’ right should be
reviewed, in particular in relation to the status of machine-generated data
although almost half of these are unsure of the relation between this type
of data and the Database Directive.The main difficulty reported was
the lack of clarity of the ‘sui generis’ right (11% of
respondents to the section), but 20% also said they “experienced no
difficulties” (20%).
—
The Artificial Intelligence Act has finally found its home in the European
Parliament. The Civil Liberties (LIBE) and the Internal Market (IMCO)
committees will lead jointly, with MEPs Brando Benifei (S&D, IT) and Dragoş
Tudorache (RE, RO) at the helm. Plus, a well know face from the “copyright
wars”, Axel Voss (EPP, DE) will be at the helm of the Legal Affairs
committee (JURI), which got exclusive competence over provisions covering
information to users of high risk AI systems, transparency obligations,
codes of conduct and human oversight. One thing we are trying to figure out
is under which obligations a “anti-vandalism” bot written and maintained by
users on Wikipedia would fall. Expect more from us in the coming months.
—
Open Source Decision: The European Commission decided
<https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/api/files/C(2021)8759_…>
that all software produced by it or on its behalf is to be open source and
freely reusable.
—
Copyright transpositions: While countries like Bulgaria, Greece, Romania,
Portugal and Czechia are still waiting for their parliaments to even start
dealing with the copyright reform, Estonia, Austria and Spain have now
updated their rules. All three implement the public domain safeguard, but
Estonia and Austria include a few more safeguards for making sure uses
under copyright exceptions are protected. Spain transposed the law by
“emergency decree”, so the parliament could still amend it. Follow the DSM
Implementation Contest <https://eurovision.communia-association.org/> here.
Will anyone get the full 12 points?
—
One year of professional advocacy at Wikimedia France: Our Paris based
colleague Naphsica looks back at her first year at Wikimedia in a
Retrospective:
a year of advocacy at Wikimedia France
<https://wikimedia.brussels/retrospective-a-year-of-advocacy-at-wikimedia-fr…>.
Bon Wikiversaire! :)
Dear friends,
We are reaching out with an exciting opportunity! The WMF Global Advocacy team is submitting a handful of session proposals for RightsCon 2022 (June 6-10, 2022). We wish to feature the work of the incredible volunteers behind the diverse Wikimedia projects.
To apply, please submit your rough proposal outline by January 10. Details about the process and proposal resources are included in the application form. Form link here: https://forms.gle/BcXAqYTFc3xJTnhEA
About RightsCon: RightsCon is the world's leading summit on human rights in the digital age. It brings together academics, experts, rights activists, and all kinds of wonderful internet humans to problem-solve, share ideas, and launch new projects. Learn more about RightsCon here: https://www.rightscon.org/
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Ziski Putz
Dear all,
The policy team at WMF is very proud to announce the approval of the Human Rights Policy by the Board of Trustees on 8 December 2021. The full policy as well as some FAQs about it are available to read via this link: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Human_Rights_Policy#Frequently…
For more information about the policy and what it means for the Wikimedia Foundation’s work in
the coming years, you can check out our blog post on Diff: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/12/09/what-the-wikimedia-foundations-new-hu…
We invite you to join representatives of the Foundation’s Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams here for a conversation hour tomorrow, 10th
December, at 10:00 AM ET (15:00 UTC) to address any immediate concerns, questions, or suggestions regarding this policy or how it will be implemented. Please use this link to join: http://meet.google.com/wio-vdkw-phd
The session will be recorded for later viewing and you may submit questions by email to myself (fputz(a)wikimedia.org) or Ricky Gaines (rgaines(a)wikimedia.org) ahead of or following the conversation hour. Additional conversation hours on this policy will be made available in the coming weeks.
All the best,
Ziski Putz
Hello,
Creative Commons, SPARC, and EIFL are launching a global campaign<https://creativecommons.org/2021/11/08/creating-a-campaign-to-increase-open…> to make open sharing of climate and biodiversity research the default. Open Society Foundations is pleased to support this campaign.
We are looking for an enthusiastic Campaign Manager to devise, plan, and create materials for a four-year global campaign to open climate and biodiversity research; and then organize, coordinate, and deliver on that detailed campaign plan.
Job posting: https://creativecommons.org/about/team/opportunities/opportunity-campaign-m…
Application deadline January 4, 2022.
Cheers,
Melissa
Melissa Hagemann
Senior Program Officer
Information Program
Open Society Foundations
1730 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, #700
Washington, DC 20006
U.S.A.
'
Our Privacy Policy<https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/policies/privacy> sets out how and why we collect, store, use, and share your personal data, and it explains your rights and how to raise concerns with us.
'
The online regulation files are moving forward at light-speed by Brussels
standards. Proposed December last year, the Council has now wrapped up its
position on both files, while the Parliament has its position on the
Digital Markets Act. On the Digital Services Act we expect the lead
committee to come to an agreement before the Christmas break. This way the
final, inter-institutional negotiations can start very early 2022. Also,
the Data Governance Act is the first digital file to be finalised during
the current legislative period.
Anna & Dimi
This and previous reports on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
======
Digital Services Act (DSA)
---
In the Council, Member States agreed on a negotiating position.
Expectations were that the French Presidency would have to wrap it up in
January, but Slovenia actually managed to pull everyone together. From our
perspective we can welcome a “fix” and we helped avoid several pitfalls.
---
The fix is the language surrounding “actual knowledge”. Initially the text
sounded like any notice a service provider receives would lead to an
obligation to act and remove content. The agreed upon version of Article
14.3 is very clear that only some notices point to illegal content and
gives the provider space to assess. Another argument was around whether
there should be fixed deadlines for content removal. An interim version of
the DSA text suggested either 24h and 48h. We, and many others, made the
rounds arguing against it. In the end, this was dropped, the most
convincing argument for Member States being that this regulation is
horizontal, covering many types of content. It seemed to lawmakers that a
universal deadline can’t be appropriate for everything from Gucci handbags,
over sports live streams and music videos to holiday photos. Wikipedia is
likely to be categorised as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under this
new law. This will come with new transparency, risk assessment and
reporting duties, some of which we already cover. As Wikimedia projects
don’t run advertising, many VLOP obligations won’t apply. We discussed
whether we should ask for a carve-out, but strategically decided that we
want to demonstrate that we can take on responsibility and be open about
analysing our challenges and risks. This contrasts well against the
resistance coming from most for-profit platforms. Full negotiated text: [1]
---
Member States’ positions on the agreed negotiating position indicate that
quite a number of countries have an appetite to re-open some parts down the
line. Such statements are common. They indicate priorities, but as there is
already an agreed text, they often remain “for the record”. In this case
Germany and Denmark say they want stronger rules for marketplaces and
physical goods. Something that might come, as the EP rapporteur Schaldemose
also looks in this direction. Italy and Luxembourg indicated that they are
open to limit targeted advertising, also something still discussed in
Parliament. France reiterated that it wants the European Commission to be
responsible for the enforcement against VLOPs. Hungary and Poland want each
national regular to have powers over all VLOPs.
---
In the European Parliament, negotiations in the Internal Market and
Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) are still ongoing, with large parts of
the file already agreed upon. We are expecting the position to be adopted
in committee in December and in plenary in January. Similar to the
Council, the European Parliament has also fixed the “actual knowledge”
language in Article 14.3. Several attempts at fixed removal deadlines and
stay-down obligations have also been fended off. The EP will introduce some
sort of waiver for some requirements for some non-for profits (but only
covering small platforms) and some limitations on targeted advertising.
Details depend on the final round of compromises between MEPs. A clearer
language distinguishing between rules made by the service provider and
rules made by the community, somenthing we have advocated for, is part of
one of the compromise amednments and likely to be adopted at this point.
[2]
======
Digital Markets Act (DMA)
---
Achievement unlocked! The DMA went through the Council of the EU and the
IMCO Committee, ready for the intern-institutional negotiations a.k.a.
trilogues. The parliament version is still pending a plenary vote on
December 16.
---
The debate during the trilogues will centre on a fundamental question: does
Europe want to seriously target big tech and only big tech, or do we prefer
targeting more platforms with fewer obligations? Since both positions have
strong support, it may take months to agree which approach is the winning
one. We have a detailed scoop on what are the points of divergence and
where there will be little discussion in our blog. [3]
======
Data Governance Act (DGA)
---
Lawmakers from the Council and the Parliament reached an agreement on the
DGA yesterday. The DGA will create data clearinghouses to incentivise
companies sharing data among each other on a neutral space that belongs to
all. These will essentially be a new category of platforms called
“providers of data intermediation services”, which willl need to be
registered and come with a set of obligations. Unlike the Commission
proposals, services like Europeana and Wikidata are not in the scope in
this final version. One positive win is that public sector data re-use will
become a little bit easier, as the regulations prohibits public sector
bodies from using the sui generis database right to hinder re-use. The GDPR
remained untouched, which was an issue of many digital rights groups.
Finally, there will be a volutnary certification and logo - “data altruism
organisation recognised by the EU”, available to services that gather data
for the public interest and respect all of the EU’s data rules. The final
compromises can be seen here: [4]
======
Transposition of Copyright Directive
---
In France a new ordinance transposing the copyright directive was presented
to the Council of Ministers by the Minister of Culture Roselyne Bachelot.
The text implements exceptions for data mining, the use of protected works
in the context of digital and cross-border educational activities and
preservation of cultural heritage into French law. It only takes the bare
minimum of the European law on board. The educational exception only covers
parts of works and completely carves out works designed for educational
purposes and musical scores, which might actually go against the directive
and be a reason for litigation. France also “skips” the transposition of
Article 14 a.k.a. “public domain safeguard”, which might also be
incompatible with EU law. [5][6]
---
Spain: The government also wanted to implement the copyright directive by
Royal Decree, thus bypassing the parliamentary process. Wikimedia Spain,
Creative Commons Spain and partners are calling for a thorough
parliamentary deliberation: https://demud.wikimedia.es/
======
wikimedia.brussels
---
Our November blog posts for you:
-
e-Privacy: our quick fix to help nonprofits and protect consent
<https://wikimedia.brussels/e-privacy-our-quick-fix-to-help-nonprofits-and-p…>
- ePrivacy regulation will be another pillar, next to the GDPR, or
sustainable privacy practices online. It will also, potentially, make the
lives of nonprofits harder and Anna proposes how to avoid this unnecessary
pitfall.
-
Editorial: The DSA debate after Haugen and before the trilogues
<https://wikimedia.brussels/editorial-the-dsa-debate-after-haugen-and-before…>
- the recent Facebook (or shall we say “Meta”?) whistleblower was all the
rage in town in November. In his editorial, Dimi proposes an outlook on the
DSA taking on some of Ms Haugen’s points
-
DMA votes: IMCO vs. Council, users vs. Member States
<https://wikimedia.brussels/dma-votes-imco-vs-council-users-vs-member-states/>
- DMA has now a Council of the EU version and the IMCO version that goes
under a Plenary vote in December. Anna looked into differences and
similarities to make some predictions for the 2022 trilogues.
======
END
======
[1]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R3u5eg3PfPs_tCeD9rFp-UDUY3_gHD4z/view?usp=…
[2]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11KnGAAExje1rTNPlgC2u8_nKVPUMpBVG/view?usp=…
[3]
https://wikimedia.brussels/dma-votes-imco-vs-council-users-vs-member-states/
[04]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RSaPMtQhExzQW6L0jHdLtfCXXV1j8OQC/view?usp=…
[5]https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000044362034
[6]https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000044362026
How much money are the various Wikimedia Foundation affiliates
getting from Google, Facebook, and other major Internet behemoths? And
what is the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do in Brussels, Washington
DC, and elsewhere to counter the threat of what Harvard Social
Psychology Professor Emeritus Shoshana Zuboff calls, "The Age of
Surveillance Capitalism"?[1]
A variety of recent publications have reported that political
polarization has been increasing within the US and many other countries,
because Google, Facebook, and other Internet companies make money by
selling clicks -- changes in audience behaviors -- to advertisers. Their
AI software learns each individual's hot buttons and exploit that in
ways that is increasing political polarization worldwide. These
Internet companies aggressively lobby governments in Washington,
Brussels, different states in the US and probably elsewhere, to protect
their revenue streams against efforts to limit the threats all this
poses to democracy and world peace.
The 2021 United States Capitol attack[2] was almost certainly a
product of the funding model for Google and Facebook. If this trend
towards political polarization continues on its present course, where
will it end? This reminds me of the 1982 Falklands / Malvinas War,
where, at least according to some versions of the story, weak political
leaders in Argentina and the United Kingdom went to war in an effort to
improve their respective political situations.[3] Might something like
this happen in the not-too-distant future between the US and China?
Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry has suggested a computer
virus like Stuxnet could lead senior military and civilian leaders in
the US to believe they are being attacked and must themselves initiate a
nuclear response. Dan Ellsberg has claimed that the result would almost
certainly be a nuclear winter lasting a decade during which 98 percent
of humanity would starve to death if they didn't die of something else
sooner. My research on this issue suggests that such a nuclear war and
nuclear winter are likely but not certain,[4] and the risks are
increasing.[5]
Surveillance capitalism is distorting academic research. In 2017, a
researcher for the New America Foundation and his staff of 10 were fired
after publishing a report praising the EU’s historic decision to levy a
$2.7 billion fine on Google as the result of a multiyear antitrust
investigation. “Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around
Washington and Brussels, and then pulling strings”.[6]
Comments?
Spencer Graves
aka User:DavidMCEddy
[1] Shoshana Zuboff (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The
fight for a human future at the new frontier of power (PublicAffairs,
esp. pp. 54-55, 139, 84-86), available for free in PDF at:
https://we.riseup.net/assets/533560/Zuboff%2C+Shoshana.The+Age+of+Surveilla…
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack
Former President Trump continues to insist that the 2020 election was
stolen from him. Only two Republicans in the US House have publicly
opposed that claim, and Republican election officials in multiple states
have received death threats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_p…
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
[4] See references cited in:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Time_to_nuclear_Armageddon#Methodology
[5]
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Forecasting_nuclear_proliferation
[5] Zuboff, p. 86.
How much money are the various Wikimedia Foundation affiliates
getting from Google, Facebook, and other major Internet behemoths? And
what is the Wikimedia Foundation trying to do in Brussels, Washington
DC, and elsewhere to counter the threat of what Harvard Social
Psychology Professor Emeritus Shoshana Zuboff calls, "The Age of
Surveillance Capitalism"?[1]
A variety of recent publications have reported that political
polarization has been increasing within the US and many other countries,
because Google, Facebook, and other Internet companies make money by
selling clicks -- changes in audience behaviors -- to advertisers.
Their AI software learns each individual's hot buttons and exploit that
in ways that is increasing political polarization worldwide. These
Internet companies aggressively lobby governments in Washington,
Brussels, different states in the US and probably elsewhere, to protect
their revenue streams against efforts to limit the threats all this
poses to democracy and world peace.
The 2021 United States Capitol attack[2] was almost certainly a
product of the funding model for Google and Facebook. If this trend
towards political polarization continues on its present course, where
will it end? This reminds me of the 1982 Falklands / Malvinas War,
where, at least according to some versions of the story, weak political
leaders in Argentina and the United Kingdom went to war in an effort to
improve their respective political situations.[3] Might something like
this happen in the not-too-distant future between the US and China?
Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry has suggested a computer
virus like Stuxnet could lead senior military and civilian leaders in
the US to believe they are being attacked and must themselves initiate a
nuclear response. Dan Ellsberg has claimed that the result would almost
certainly be a nuclear winter lasting a decade during which 98 percent
of humanity would starve to death if they didn't die of something else
sooner. My research on this issue suggests that such a nuclear war and
nuclear winter are likely but not certain,[4] and the risks are
increasing.[5]
Surveillance capitalism is distorting academic research. In 2017, a
researcher for the New America Foundation and his staff of 10 were fired
after publishing a report praising the EU’s historic decision to levy a
$2.7 billion fine on Google as the result of a multiyear antitrust
investigation. “Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around
Washington and Brussels, and then pulling strings”.[6]
Comments?
Spencer Graves
aka User:DavidMCEddy
[1] Shoshana Zuboff (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The
fight for a human future at the new frontier of power (PublicAffairs,
esp. pp. 54-55, 139, 84-86), available for free in PDF at:
https://we.riseup.net/assets/533560/Zuboff%2C+Shoshana.The+Age+of+Surveilla…
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack
Former President Trump continues to insist that the 2020 election was
stolen from him. Only two Republicans in the US House have publicly
opposed that claim, and Republican election officials in multiple states
have received death threats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_p…
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
[4] See references cited in:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Time_to_nuclear_Armageddon#Methodology
[5]
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Forecasting_nuclear_proliferation
[5] Zuboff, p. 86.
Hi all,
I have a precise job to be done and decided to check this list for
potential volunteers.
As you may have read, the European Union is the world's first jurisdiction
to propose legislation on artificial intelligence. [1]
Long story short: We want to pitch the idea of mandatory open source for AI
systems used by the government. The current proposal contains lots of
fluffy language on transparency and on how citizens should always know
what's happening. We feel that an actual open source requirement would fit
in here. But we need to have concrete amendment suggestions at hand in
order to seriously pitch it. So I decided to trawl this list for brainpower
:)
Thanks and cheers,
Dimi
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206
The key parliamentary committee votes on acts regulating platforms, DSA and
DMA, were postponed from their 8 November dates. The new voting date could
be as early as the end of November or as late as February next year. In the
meanwhile, the Council seemingly dropped a suggestion to oblige platforms,
including Wikimedia’s, to react to take down notices within 24 hours.
Anna & Dimi
This and previous reports on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
======
Digital Services Act (DSA)
---
On of the hotly debated suggestions of the past month was the Slovenian
Presidency’s proposal to introduce “24 hour removal deadlines'' for Very
Large Online Platforms (any platform that has more than 45 million users in
the EU) when they receive a notice about illegal content from “trusted
flaggers” (a vaguely defined category that would include rights holders
organisations). This would, of course,force the WMF legal team to be much
more active in deletion decisions. We reached out to most Member States’
representatives in the negotiations explaining the tension this would cause
between our community moderation system and the Foundation as a service
provider. In fact, this suggestion was criticised by many countries and
stakeholders, for various reasons. It looks like it has been dropped for
now. See the Slovenian Presidency Proposal under Article 24a in the
document: [1]
---
One of the welcome codifications of the DSA is a comprehensive notice and
action framework: rules of how a user can file a notice about content they
think is illegal to the platform and how the platform should react. A well
written N&A system provides clear and balanced rules and ensures legal
certainty for diligent actors (which we believe we are!). We had some
remarks to the original commission proposal, which made it sound like every
notice we get is a proof of illegal content (see Article 14.3 in [2]). This
has since been fixed in the Council (e.g. first Slovenian Presidency’s
proposals here: [3]) and in most opinion giving committees. We have no
up-to-date text on this article from the lead Internal Market and Consumer
Protection committee (IMCO), but birds tell us things are moving in a
positive direction. Still, we must remain vigilant.
---
One of the worst changes that we could imagine would be ex-ante stay-down
obligations. This would basically take us back to the copyright reform’s
upload filter territory, a place where no one wants to be. Did I say no
one? Well, one large country in the West of Europe and its MEPs are
actually trying to sneak in similar provisions here and there. An example
of this can be seen in the Legal Affairs committee’s opinion on the file,
penned by Geoffroy Didier (EPP FR). [4]
---
Two exciting points of argument are on tracking & advertising and media
regulation. The lead rapporteur Christel Schaldemose (S&D DK) had proposed
to exempt media content from the terms of service rules of platforms,
meaning that platforms wouldn’t be allowed to block content by media
organisations. It looks like this did not find a majority in the
negotiations and we are expecting her to drop it. [5] At the same time
there is a serious campaign to prohibit targeted advertising that might
sound outlandish, but a report that calls for such a move actually had a
majority in the European Parliament in October 2020 [6] and the European
Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) also supports such a move. [7] Naturally,
the advertising industry is not amused [8], neither are Facebook, Google or
Apple. Proponents claim that contextual advertising can be similarly
effective without the data protection nightmare caused by tracking
necessary for targeted ads. Some of the compromises in the air include
opt-in or opt-out mechanisms or limiting the ban to specific advertising
(e.g. political campaigns). Exciting months ahead on this front.
---
A hot of the press compromise proposal in the IMCO committee proposes that
“very large online platforms shall make the core functionalities of their
services
interoperable to enable cross-platform exchange of information with third
parties.” [9] Now this unexpected, exciting and worthy of being supported.
======
Digital Markets Act (DMA)
---
The Internal Market Committee’s Rapporteur Schwab showed new compromise
amendments and for once we can report things are moving in the right
direction, in the complicated dance of two steps forward and one step pack.
It seems that DMA will include interoperability enabling users to connect
with each other through various platforms, and that possibility is now
extended to social media (score and score!). At the same time, the
Rapporteur wants the interconnection to be offered ensuring the same
quality as available or used by the gatekeeper for their own various
services (think posting on Instagram and Facebook at the same time).
It makes sense, but the risk is that if a gatekeeper wants to avoid
interconnecting with other services, it may decide it is more beneficial to
withdraw interconnection among its own services to effectively fall out of
the scope of this provision. Instead, we recommended MEPs to simply focus
on offering the interconnection guaranteeing a high level of security and
personal data protection.
======
Artificial Intelligence Act
---
It is still unclear which committee in the European Parliament will be
allowed to amend which parts of the AI Act. There is a fight between IMCO,
which also leads on DSA and DMA, and the Legal Affairs committee (JURI).
The question is whether IMCO alone will lead or it will have to split
competence with JURI. In IMCO the rapporteur on the file will be Brando
Benifei (S&D IT). [10] The Commission proposal is an extraordinarily messy
document laying out many well-sounding principles but full of gaps,
exceptions and exceptions to exceptions. We do not expect actual work to
start before December on this file, but we have agreed in principle with
the FSFE to work together on amendments covering open source, open datasets
(wherever possible) and some sort of “feature injection” a.k.a. public
testing opportunities for public sector applications at least. [11]
======
Data Governance Act in Trilogue
---
The negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council on the
Data Governance Act have begun. [12] It is called a trilogue, because the
European Commission also sits in on the meetings. The DGA aims to open up
more public sector data for re-use (including protected data). The risky
part of this is when personal data is concerned. The real upside is that
the EU is seriously considering a de facto repeal of the sui generis
database right for the public sector (i.e. they won’t be allowed to use
it). On the other side, the DGA also wants to create a sort of data
clearinghouses to help companies create large data pools. This normally
shouldn’t be of concern to us, but in some of the versions of the text the
definition of “data sharing service providers” could have actually covered
Wikidata and Wikipedia, which would come with new obligations not intended
for us. This seems solved now, but we will stay on top of the proceedings.
======
National Copyright Reforms
---
Croatia: The transposition law entered into force on 22 October. [13] We
struggle somewhat with the analysis in that language. Feel free to help us
out ;)
---
France: The transposition here is messy and fragmented. We still don’t know
when the French legislator plans to transpose the exceptions. But the
French Culture Ministry wants to grant itself the power to say which
platform provides access to “large amounts of copyrighted works”, and thus
need to negotiate licensing agreements.
----
Italy: The Italian Parliament’s Senate and Chamber published opinions on
the government draft. The government might take these into account or not,
as the transposition in Italy largely bypasses the parliamentary process by
means of a delegation law. [14]
---
Finland: The Finnish Government's transposition proposal is to be sent to
parliament before the end of the year. There currently is a public
consultation, which OKFI and WMFI are working on. [15] The new Finish
educational exception for online uses of works during teaching seems to be
immediate and not tied to extended collective licensing. On the other hand,
uses of digitisations of public domain works seem to be tied to extended
collective licensing, which we find contradictory.
---
Spain: Spain is also trying to avoid a proper parliamentary procedure by
intending to use a Royal Decree urgency procedure. Under this procedure the
parliament would have a month to accept or reject the bill, but not make
changes to it. Wikimedia España took a position on this in a press release.
[16]
---
Austria: Epicenter.works, GFF, Wikimedia Österreich, Communia, Creative
Commons Austria and the Cultural Broadcasting Archive jointly submitted a
position to the public consultation of the Austrian government's
transposition proposal. [17] One of the points of criticism is that the
government proposes to implement the newly obligatory caricature, pastiche
and parody exceptions (the “meme exceptions”) only for uses on online
sharing platforms. We recommend a universal exceptions valid both online
and offline.
---
Portugal: The government also wanted to pass the reform by government
decree under extraordinary powers, but has now decided to shift back to
regular parliamentary procedure. As there will be snap elections in
Portugal, the process will further be delayed. Wikimedia Portugal, D3 and
Communia are collaborating. Portugal is so far proposing the introduction
of a full parody & caricature exception.
---
Bulgaria: The government proposed its transposition law and ran a public
consultation. Communia member Digital Republic was part of the drafting
working group of the Ministry of Culture and also submitted a response to
the public consultation. [18] On the upside, the government proposes a
proper public domain safeguard and general new exceptions for parody,
pastiche and caricature. On the flipside, it limits the current broad
educational exceptions by melting it with the new, second, educational
exception mandated by the directive.
---
Luxembourg: The State Council issued its opinion on the government
transposition proposal, making mostly technical remarks. The bill still
needs to pass parliament. We are working with Chaos Computer Club
Luxembourg and Wikimedia Luxembourg on this. [19]
======
wikimedia.brussels
---
Our October blog posts for you:
-
DMA in IMCO: Shadows present ideas, Rapporteur shows a compromise
<https://wikimedia.brussels/dma-in-imco-shadows-present-ideas-rapporteur-sho…>
- Anna read the amendments to DMA so that you don’t have to and mapped out
where the Shadow Rapporteurs stand on the provisions expanding users’
choice and autonomy over their data.
-
You Shall Not Pass! Wikimedia Foundation Denied Observer Status At WIPO
<https://wikimedia.brussels/you-shall-not-pass-wikimedia-foundation-denied-o…>
- Justus walks you through the recent drama at WIPO, where China vetoed
civil society participation in the discussion.
-
Meet “ClueBot NG”, an AI Tool to tackle Wikipedia vandalism
<https://wikimedia.brussels/meet-cluebot-ng-an-anti-vandal-ai-bot-that-tries…>
- in his miniseries on AI at Wikimedia Dimi lets us in on the opportunities
and pitfalls AI poses for making the content better
======
END
======
[01]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pNcTsfAmcGWsUGsTwnRzmU_QXWKKmYNZ/view?usp=…
[02]
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A825%3AFIN
[03]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FkmKRTTXVbjd6wNxifnoqn8tbYt3C6Jx/view?usp=…
[04]https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AD-694960_EN.pdf
[05]
https://www.politico.eu/article/digital-services-act-europe-france-press-pu…
[06]
https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/21/eu-parliament-backs-tighter-rules-on-beha…
[07]
https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/10/eus-top-privacy-regulator-urges-ban-on-su…
[08]
https://iabeurope.eu/all-news/iab-europe-news/new-report-finds-ban-on-targe…
[09]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nodLV85-S1vPTd9olE02rJf01EIuQMcB/view?usp=…
[10]
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?refere…
[11]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nrmR9PIw2Y_A6Dmic_2NxP_smBWA9XLQ/view?usp=…
[12]
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=e…
[13]https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2021_10_111_1941.html
[14]
https://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/18/DDLPRES/0/1143637/index.html?part…
[15]https://www.notion.so/communia/Finland-ad2d30b2e9174a8c9cbbbb996775cbea
[16]https://twitter.com/wikimedia_es/status/1450832145904242692?s=20
[17]https://epicenter.works/document/3711
[18]https://www.strategy.bg/PublicConsultations/View.aspx?lang=bg-BG&Id=6348
[19]
https://www.notion.so/communia/Luxembourg-6afe7bf606384530baf79806c1b2fa32