Hi everyone,
The European Commission's consultation on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is due on 15 April. [1] The main goal for us here will be to avoid increasing a platform’s responsibility to monitor and remove UCG.
We are currently starting to work on our responses [2], which will be in line with the answers submitted to the related "Platforms Consultation".
One question is, however, which category Wikimedia fits in. The Commission wants everyone to chose one of the following roles applying to them: “citizens, consumers and civil society”, "rightsholder", "member of judiciary or lawyer", “intermediary” or "public authority". Depending on the hat you pick you get a slightly different set of questions. It seems apparent that we could fit into at least two or even three of the these.
We had a similar puzzle last time and solved it by having the FKAGEU submitting [3] as civil society and the WMF sending in a registered letter emphasising the importance of intermediary protection. Such an approach is also possible this time around, but I wanted to check back with the group on what your thoughts are. Having several movement entities playing different roles might actually be an advantage here.
NB: Not to confuse things, we're still waiting for the consultation that will include copyright exceptions. This is not it.
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_i... [2]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/IPRED_Consultation [3]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Answers_Consultation_FKAGEU.pdf [4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Comments_on_EU_Platforms_Consult...
Hi Dimi,
I didn’t see anyone else follow up on this one but here’s my 2c - we might want to go into the « rightsholder » category because 1) that’s what WP editors are, and 2) it would be a good way to thwart any attempt by anyone to say « rights holders unanimously support greater restrictions/protection ». Part of the message should be that the world is not all black vs. white (or IP thieves vs. Rights holders).
Stephane
Le 23 mars 2016 à 11:53, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi everyone,
The European Commission's consultation on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is due on 15 April. [1] The main goal for us here will be to avoid increasing a platform’s responsibility to monitor and remove UCG.
We are currently starting to work on our responses [2], which will be in line with the answers submitted to the related "Platforms Consultation".
One question is, however, which category Wikimedia fits in. The Commission wants everyone to chose one of the following roles applying to them: “citizens, consumers and civil society”, "rightsholder", "member of judiciary or lawyer", “intermediary” or "public authority". Depending on the hat you pick you get a slightly different set of questions. It seems apparent that we could fit into at least two or even three of the these.
We had a similar puzzle last time and solved it by having the FKAGEU submitting [3] as civil society and the WMF sending in a registered letter emphasising the importance of intermediary protection. Such an approach is also possible this time around, but I wanted to check back with the group on what your thoughts are. Having several movement entities playing different roles might actually be an advantage here.
NB: Not to confuse things, we're still waiting for the consultation that will include copyright exceptions. This is not it.
Cheers, Dimi
[1]http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_i... http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8580&lang=en [2]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/IPRED_Consultation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/IPRED_Consultation [3]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Answers_Consultation_FKAGEU.pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Answers_Consultation_FKAGEU.pdf [4]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Comments_on_EU_Platforms_Consult... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_Comments_on_EU_Platforms_Consultation%281%29.pdf
Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
Hi everyone,
The European Commission's consultation on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is due on 15 April. [1] The main goal for us here will be to avoid increasing a platform’s responsibility to monitor and remove UCG.
We are currently starting to work on our responses [2], which will be in line with the answers submitted to the related "Platforms Consultation".
One question is, however, which category Wikimedia fits in. The Commission wants everyone to chose one of the following roles applying to them: “citizens, consumers and civil society”, "rightsholder", "member of judiciary or lawyer", “intermediary” or "public authority". Depending on the hat you pick you get a slightly different set of questions. It seems apparent that we could fit into at least two or even three of the these.
We had a similar puzzle last time and solved it by having the FKAGEU submitting [3] as civil society and the WMF sending in a registered letter emphasising the importance of intermediary protection. Such an approach is also possible this time around, but I wanted to check back with the group on what your thoughts are. Having several movement entities playing different roles might actually be an advantage here.
One thing maybe somebody (us?) should complain, that this is a pretty strange process. I think we should split roles - chapters can join the consultation as well I believe. Except for "public authority" the chapters or the editors could actually submit in all the categories.
It would be also good to post all the questions online and compare them - to stop this kind of "divide et impera" approach.
Marcin Cieślak saper@plwiki
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org