Hello!
I have been approached by the European Commission's Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) with a to-be-released study they have conducted. It is about "New Business Models" delivering copyrighted content online and they are running something like a non-public RfC. We have the chance to comment on the draft if we wish to do so.
I am not convinced this document falls strictly within our focus, but nontheless, please let me know if you want to take a look at the report and come up with some remarks. I can still communicate comments until the end of the week. Later than that the OHIM can't promise they will take our opinion into account.
NB: The OHIM is the institution that is going to conduct a study requested by us on "Benefits of public domain and open licensed works to the European economy" in the coming year. Their reports are published by the Commission and form part of the political narrative surrounding IP rights in Brussels, which gives them some importance when talking about copyright legislation.
Cheers, Dimi
It is an interesting document. Some notes:
1. The framing is wrong - it should be "production models", or "sustainability models", not "business models" - the assumption that production of copyrighted works has to happen through "business" is a harmful and anti-democratic in an age where every citizen has access to tools that can publish to the entire world. 2. Ditto use of "the industry", as if "the industry" is the only meaningful producer of content. (Really, these two points alone could make for a great blog post; this paper is far from the only one that makes these two mistakes but is particularly blatant in use of the framing.) 3. In part as a result of this framing, it is sad but not surprising that no citizen/public interest groups were consulted in the creation of the material. Not sure we'd want to say that to them publicly, but if we decide not to offer informal comment I'd want to say that publicly in a blog post when this is published. 4. If the purpose of the observatory is to study infringement, then clearly peer production should be listed as a "business model" and the infringement of peer-produced material should be treated on a par with material produced through the other production models. I'm sure this group can come up with examples of infringement of our material and of other peer-produced content. 5. Music: no mention of tools like Soundcloud (.de-based!) that are intended to democratize music creation and publication. 6. Video: no mention of how Youtube/Vimeo has created a vast amount of non-industry video content creation, or of regular traditional media industry infringement of citizen-created video without penalty or concern. (If we wanted to write this up formally for them, we'd want to find some examples of this.) 7. Sports: I can't speak to the EU, but in the US, fan-created commentary (such as sbnation.com) is now a huge source of reporting on sports news, often delivering better quality than the traditional news sources. Probably not directly relevant to this section, though (unless there have been legal threats in the EU around fan-provided live-streaming commentary). 8. Press content: at least in the US, donor-supported/non-profit media is an increasingly important source of news; lots of detail here: http://www.journalism.org/2013/06/10/nonprofit-journalism/ Don't know if there are EU-based examples of this. 9. Social media: with regards to 4.7 (news/social media), it should be noted that social media probably disproportionately *helps* peer-produced media, since that historically has very few resources to use for marketing/distribution, and so must rely on word-of-mouth. 10. Sec. 4 and 5 consider "news" and "books"; amazingly, neither consider new text-centric methods of production of copyrighted works, like wikis or blogs. Again shows how blind this is to the actual innovation happening in the content space. 11. Books: no mention that technical protection measures have encouraged monopolization of the distribution channels, to the detriment of traditional distribution channels and to blossoming antitrust problems in the US (and presumably soon in the EU). 12. 6.2: a mention of communities! But on cue, statement that these authors may not be being remunerated, as if remuneration was the only potential goal for creators. Youtube gets mentioned here, but not in Sec. 1 (Music) or Sec. 2 (Audiovisual), which is insane. 13. Sec. 7, Business Software: doesn't mention open source. Completely nuts. 14. Sec. 8, video games: no mention that this is a golden era for independently-produced games. Not sure that fits our narrative very well, at least not without a lot of explanation. 15. B2B Services: this feels overly focused on remuneration/commercial licensing; I suppose that is inevitable to some extent, but it seems like it would be worth noting the increased options for free, high-quality content that business can use (e.g., Flickr photos and Commons for stock photography). 16. "The fact that the legal offers is at least as diverse as the illegal one" - ahhahahhahahhahaha. Really, it is quite amazing that they think that providing a "portal" will increase awareness of legal content. The best way to increase awareness of legal content is to provide it legally online and advertise it as such...
So, these were not brief. I am unlikely to have time this week to select the most important points here and craft them into something - but I think at least a brief statement to them to the effect of "we think this completely ignores many legal sources of non-industry content and many sustainability models, such as focus on non-remunerative incentives and voluntary contributions" would be worth making.
HTH-
Luis
These are all very important points and it would be great if someone could work something up this week, so that we can respond. I'm not myself around, unfortunately, but I hope that somebody might be able to pick this up in the next few days. Shouldn't need too much work, as Luis has done most of the thinking.
Michael
On 18 Feb 2014, at 02:31, Luis Villa wrote:
It is an interesting document. Some notes: The framing is wrong - it should be "production models", or "sustainability models", not "business models" - the assumption that production of copyrighted works has to happen through "business" is a harmful and anti-democratic in an age where every citizen has access to tools that can publish to the entire world. Ditto use of "the industry", as if "the industry" is the only meaningful producer of content. (Really, these two points alone could make for a great blog post; this paper is far from the only one that makes these two mistakes but is particularly blatant in use of the framing.) In part as a result of this framing, it is sad but not surprising that no citizen/public interest groups were consulted in the creation of the material. Not sure we'd want to say that to them publicly, but if we decide not to offer informal comment I'd want to say that publicly in a blog post when this is published. If the purpose of the observatory is to study infringement, then clearly peer production should be listed as a "business model" and the infringement of peer-produced material should be treated on a par with material produced through the other production models. I'm sure this group can come up with examples of infringement of our material and of other peer-produced content. Music: no mention of tools like Soundcloud (.de-based!) that are intended to democratize music creation and publication. Video: no mention of how Youtube/Vimeo has created a vast amount of non-industry video content creation, or of regular traditional media industry infringement of citizen-created video without penalty or concern. (If we wanted to write this up formally for them, we'd want to find some examples of this.) Sports: I can't speak to the EU, but in the US, fan-created commentary (such as sbnation.com) is now a huge source of reporting on sports news, often delivering better quality than the traditional news sources. Probably not directly relevant to this section, though (unless there have been legal threats in the EU around fan-provided live-streaming commentary). Press content: at least in the US, donor-supported/non-profit media is an increasingly important source of news; lots of detail here: http://www.journalism.org/2013/06/10/nonprofit-journalism/ Don't know if there are EU-based examples of this. Social media: with regards to 4.7 (news/social media), it should be noted that social media probably disproportionately *helps* peer-produced media, since that historically has very few resources to use for marketing/distribution, and so must rely on word-of-mouth. Sec. 4 and 5 consider "news" and "books"; amazingly, neither consider new text-centric methods of production of copyrighted works, like wikis or blogs. Again shows how blind this is to the actual innovation happening in the content space. Books: no mention that technical protection measures have encouraged monopolization of the distribution channels, to the detriment of traditional distribution channels and to blossoming antitrust problems in the US (and presumably soon in the EU). 6.2: a mention of communities! But on cue, statement that these authors may not be being remunerated, as if remuneration was the only potential goal for creators. Youtube gets mentioned here, but not in Sec. 1 (Music) or Sec. 2 (Audiovisual), which is insane. Sec. 7, Business Software: doesn't mention open source. Completely nuts. Sec. 8, video games: no mention that this is a golden era for independently-produced games. Not sure that fits our narrative very well, at least not without a lot of explanation. B2B Services: this feels overly focused on remuneration/commercial licensing; I suppose that is inevitable to some extent, but it seems like it would be worth noting the increased options for free, high-quality content that business can use (e.g., Flickr photos and Commons for stock photography). "The fact that the legal offers is at least as diverse as the illegal one" - ahhahahhahahhahaha. Really, it is quite amazing that they think that providing a "portal" will increase awareness of legal content. The best way to increase awareness of legal content is to provide it legally online and advertise it as such... So, these were not brief. I am unlikely to have time this week to select the most important points here and craft them into something - but I think at least a brief statement to them to the effect of "we think this completely ignores many legal sources of non-industry content and many sustainability models, such as focus on non-remunerative incentives and voluntary contributions" would be worth making.
HTH-
Luis
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Thanks for the responses, Luis! It always helps to have several people look at something, as one can always miss a few points. I might rework some of the answers from the European perspective. Otherwise all the points seem relevant.
I am currently looking into the studies they cite on pages 34 and 35. The last three paragraphs make strong assumptions that need to be backed up by (very) strong evidence. The link to the first study is dead and there is no citation to the second quoted study (the IPSOS one). On top of that I am not convinced the studies actually say what is claimed here.
Also, at the end they cite their own "IP Perception" study, which was equally cirticised across the board when it was published some months ago. There seems to be a poliferation of low-quality, assumption driven research here.
I will see what other civil society orgs have prepared as notes and report back here.
As to commenting on this report: It does not have to be "official", as this document is not public and this version in particular never will be (only on this mailing list :D). Hence, our comments on it won't be public either (except for this mailing list). What I mean is that I can either draft an email with our comments and send it over or alternatively just meet with the OHIM people and point out our remarks over a cup of coffee. The latter option would save us the need to write up something official, although a written response always carries more weight. On the other hand a face-to-face meeting offers a better chance to engage with people. Not sure which is the better approach... I will keep you posted either way.
Dimi
2014-02-18 11:12 GMT+01:00 Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name:
These are all very important points and it would be great if someone could work something up this week, so that we can respond. I'm not myself around, unfortunately, but I hope that somebody might be able to pick this up in the next few days. Shouldn't need too much work, as Luis has done most of the thinking.
Michael
On 18 Feb 2014, at 02:31, Luis Villa wrote:
It is an interesting document. Some notes:
- The framing is wrong - it should be "production models", or
"sustainability models", not "business models" - the assumption that production of copyrighted works has to happen through "business" is a harmful and anti-democratic in an age where every citizen has access to tools that can publish to the entire world. 2. Ditto use of "the industry", as if "the industry" is the only meaningful producer of content. (Really, these two points alone could make for a great blog post; this paper is far from the only one that makes these two mistakes but is particularly blatant in use of the framing.) 3. In part as a result of this framing, it is sad but not surprising that no citizen/public interest groups were consulted in the creation of the material. Not sure we'd want to say that to them publicly, but if we decide not to offer informal comment I'd want to say that publicly in a blog post when this is published. 4. If the purpose of the observatory is to study infringement, then clearly peer production should be listed as a "business model" and the infringement of peer-produced material should be treated on a par with material produced through the other production models. I'm sure this group can come up with examples of infringement of our material and of other peer-produced content. 5. Music: no mention of tools like Soundcloud (.de-based!) that are intended to democratize music creation and publication. 6. Video: no mention of how Youtube/Vimeo has created a vast amount of non-industry video content creation, or of regular traditional media industry infringement of citizen-created video without penalty or concern. (If we wanted to write this up formally for them, we'd want to find some examples of this.) 7. Sports: I can't speak to the EU, but in the US, fan-created commentary (such as sbnation.com) is now a huge source of reporting on sports news, often delivering better quality than the traditional news sources. Probably not directly relevant to this section, though (unless there have been legal threats in the EU around fan-provided live-streaming commentary). 8. Press content: at least in the US, donor-supported/non-profit media is an increasingly important source of news; lots of detail here: http://www.journalism.org/2013/06/10/nonprofit-journalism/ Don't know if there are EU-based examples of this. 9. Social media: with regards to 4.7 (news/social media), it should be noted that social media probably disproportionately *helps* peer-produced media, since that historically has very few resources to use for marketing/distribution, and so must rely on word-of-mouth. 10. Sec. 4 and 5 consider "news" and "books"; amazingly, neither consider new text-centric methods of production of copyrighted works, like wikis or blogs. Again shows how blind this is to the actual innovation happening in the content space. 11. Books: no mention that technical protection measures have encouraged monopolization of the distribution channels, to the detriment of traditional distribution channels and to blossoming antitrust problems in the US (and presumably soon in the EU). 12. 6.2: a mention of communities! But on cue, statement that these authors may not be being remunerated, as if remuneration was the only potential goal for creators. Youtube gets mentioned here, but not in Sec. 1 (Music) or Sec. 2 (Audiovisual), which is insane. 13. Sec. 7, Business Software: doesn't mention open source. Completely nuts. 14. Sec. 8, video games: no mention that this is a golden era for independently-produced games. Not sure that fits our narrative very well, at least not without a lot of explanation. 15. B2B Services: this feels overly focused on remuneration/commercial licensing; I suppose that is inevitable to some extent, but it seems like it would be worth noting the increased options for free, high-quality content that business can use (e.g., Flickr photos and Commons for stock photography). 16. "The fact that the legal offers is at least as diverse as the illegal one" - ahhahahhahahhahaha. Really, it is quite amazing that they think that providing a "portal" will increase awareness of legal content. The best way to increase awareness of legal content is to provide it legally online and advertise it as such...
So, these were not brief. I am unlikely to have time this week to select the most important points here and craft them into something - but I think at least a brief statement to them to the effect of "we think this completely ignores many legal sources of non-industry content and many sustainability models, such as focus on non-remunerative incentives and voluntary contributions" would be worth making.
HTH-
Luis _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the responses, Luis! It always helps to have several people look at something, as one can always miss a few points. I might rework some of the answers from the European perspective. Otherwise all the points seem relevant.
Feel free to rework however you'd like - these were very much random notes, not something intended for directly sending to the EU :)
<snip>
I will see what other civil society orgs have prepared as notes and report
back here.
As to commenting on this report: It does not have to be "official", as this document is not public and this version in particular never will be (only on this mailing list :D). Hence, our comments on it won't be public either (except for this mailing list).
Reminder to everyone here: this mailing list is very public and my comments have already been blogged by a list member :)
Luis
Dimi
2014-02-18 11:12 GMT+01:00 Michael Maggs Michael@maggs.name:
These are all very important points and it would be great if someone could
work something up this week, so that we can respond. I'm not myself around, unfortunately, but I hope that somebody might be able to pick this up in the next few days. Shouldn't need too much work, as Luis has done most of the thinking.
Michael
On 18 Feb 2014, at 02:31, Luis Villa wrote:
It is an interesting document. Some notes:
- The framing is wrong - it should be "production models", or
"sustainability models", not "business models" - the assumption that production of copyrighted works has to happen through "business" is a harmful and anti-democratic in an age where every citizen has access to tools that can publish to the entire world. 2. Ditto use of "the industry", as if "the industry" is the only meaningful producer of content. (Really, these two points alone could make for a great blog post; this paper is far from the only one that makes these two mistakes but is particularly blatant in use of the framing.) 3. In part as a result of this framing, it is sad but not surprising that no citizen/public interest groups were consulted in the creation of the material. Not sure we'd want to say that to them publicly, but if we decide not to offer informal comment I'd want to say that publicly in a blog post when this is published. 4. If the purpose of the observatory is to study infringement, then clearly peer production should be listed as a "business model" and the infringement of peer-produced material should be treated on a par with material produced through the other production models. I'm sure this group can come up with examples of infringement of our material and of other peer-produced content. 5. Music: no mention of tools like Soundcloud (.de-based!) that are intended to democratize music creation and publication. 6. Video: no mention of how Youtube/Vimeo has created a vast amount of non-industry video content creation, or of regular traditional media industry infringement of citizen-created video without penalty or concern. (If we wanted to write this up formally for them, we'd want to find some examples of this.) 7. Sports: I can't speak to the EU, but in the US, fan-created commentary (such as sbnation.com) is now a huge source of reporting on sports news, often delivering better quality than the traditional news sources. Probably not directly relevant to this section, though (unless there have been legal threats in the EU around fan-provided live-streaming commentary). 8. Press content: at least in the US, donor-supported/non-profit media is an increasingly important source of news; lots of detail here: http://www.journalism.org/2013/06/10/nonprofit-journalism/ Don't know if there are EU-based examples of this. 9. Social media: with regards to 4.7 (news/social media), it should be noted that social media probably disproportionately *helps* peer-produced media, since that historically has very few resources to use for marketing/distribution, and so must rely on word-of-mouth. 10. Sec. 4 and 5 consider "news" and "books"; amazingly, neither consider new text-centric methods of production of copyrighted works, like wikis or blogs. Again shows how blind this is to the actual innovation happening in the content space. 11. Books: no mention that technical protection measures have encouraged monopolization of the distribution channels, to the detriment of traditional distribution channels and to blossoming antitrust problems in the US (and presumably soon in the EU). 12. 6.2: a mention of communities! But on cue, statement that these authors may not be being remunerated, as if remuneration was the only potential goal for creators. Youtube gets mentioned here, but not in Sec. 1 (Music) or Sec. 2 (Audiovisual), which is insane. 13. Sec. 7, Business Software: doesn't mention open source. Completely nuts. 14. Sec. 8, video games: no mention that this is a golden era for independently-produced games. Not sure that fits our narrative very well, at least not without a lot of explanation. 15. B2B Services: this feels overly focused on remuneration/commercial licensing; I suppose that is inevitable to some extent, but it seems like it would be worth noting the increased options for free, high-quality content that business can use (e.g., Flickr photos and Commons for stock photography). 16. "The fact that the legal offers is at least as diverse as the illegal one" - ahhahahhahahhahaha. Really, it is quite amazing that they think that providing a "portal" will increase awareness of legal content. The best way to increase awareness of legal content is to provide it legally online and advertise it as such...
So, these were not brief. I am unlikely to have time this week to select the most important points here and craft them into something - but I think at least a brief statement to them to the effect of "we think this completely ignores many legal sources of non-industry content and many sustainability models, such as focus on non-remunerative incentives and voluntary contributions" would be worth making.
HTH-
Luis _______________________________________________ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org