Hello everybody,
The Commission (DG MARKT) published their report on the "Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules" yesterday [1][2].
I haven't had time to read through the 100 pages in detail, but since the major struggle is whether the Commission should legislate on more harmonisation or not and having a universal FoP exception would be an act of harmonisation, I mined the document for just that.
Pro harmonisation:
- *Institutional users* generally consider that territoriality of copyright creates problems in particular in the area of exceptions, where a higher level of harmonisation is needed. - *Many respondents* consider that *market-led solutions have not proven to be effective* and that harmonisation measures - [on collective management] *Many respondents* also point out that there are already national systems of identifiers, and that some degree of harmonisation, standardisation and interoperability could be desirable here. - *Institutional users* generally support copyright harmonisation which implies making exceptions mandatory and harmonising their scope to a greater extent. - *A minority of authors and performers* would seek a harmonisation or clarification of the existing exceptions - [*Intermediaries/service providers*] Many respondents from this group argue for more harmonisation and legal certainty in the area of exceptions. - Representatives of *academia, civil society or think-tanks* generally consider that the optional nature of the exceptions is problematic and that exceptions should be further harmonised.
Contra harmonisation:
- *Film producers* generally consider that the current EU copyright rules should not be changed - [*Authors/performers*] Most respondents in these stakeholder groups are against any further harmonisation, which they consider would risk a weakening of copyright protection in Europe at the expense of creators. - *Collective Management Organisations* consider that the territoriality of exceptions does not constitute a problem for right holders, businesses or consumers - Educational *publishers* and representatives of the *software industry* warn that a further harmonisation [...] could undermine the role of licences
Neutral or split on harmonisation:
- *Academics* (depending on the specific question this groups seems divided) - *Member States* (some want more harmonisation, others want to keep options)
Reminder: The White Paper (as an answer to which were/are preparing a position paper) was supposed to be published alongside this document, but was postponed due to negative opinions by other units of the Commission (namely DG CONNECT and DG RESEARCH).
The question now is whether we should react to the consultation answers in some way or wait for the actual white paper or do something in-between (e.g. publish a position paper before the white paper is published)? Any thoughts?
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index... [2] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/...
Hi Dimi,
Thanks for sharing this. Looks to me like there aren't any surprises in there. I'd also be interested to know what others think in terms of responding.
See you all soon,
Stevie
On 24 July 2014 09:08, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everybody,
The Commission (DG MARKT) published their report on the "Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules" yesterday [1][2].
I haven't had time to read through the 100 pages in detail, but since the major struggle is whether the Commission should legislate on more harmonisation or not and having a universal FoP exception would be an act of harmonisation, I mined the document for just that.
Pro harmonisation:
- *Institutional users* generally consider that territoriality of
copyright creates problems in particular in the area of exceptions, where a higher level of harmonisation is needed.
- *Many respondents* consider that *market-led solutions have not
proven to be effective* and that harmonisation measures
- [on collective management] *Many respondents* also point out that
there are already national systems of identifiers, and that some degree of harmonisation, standardisation and interoperability could be desirable here.
- *Institutional users* generally support copyright harmonisation
which implies making exceptions mandatory and harmonising their scope to a greater extent.
- *A minority of authors and performers* would seek a harmonisation or
clarification of the existing exceptions
- [*Intermediaries/service providers*] Many respondents from this
group argue for more harmonisation and legal certainty in the area of exceptions.
- Representatives of *academia, civil society or think-tanks*
generally consider that the optional nature of the exceptions is problematic and that exceptions should be further harmonised.
Contra harmonisation:
- *Film producers* generally consider that the current EU copyright
rules should not be changed
- [*Authors/performers*] Most respondents in these stakeholder groups
are against any further harmonisation, which they consider would risk a weakening of copyright protection in Europe at the expense of creators.
- *Collective Management Organisations* consider that the
territoriality of exceptions does not constitute a problem for right holders, businesses or consumers
- Educational *publishers* and representatives of the *software
industry* warn that a further harmonisation [...] could undermine the role of licences
Neutral or split on harmonisation:
- *Academics* (depending on the specific question this groups seems
divided)
- *Member States* (some want more harmonisation, others want to keep
options)
Reminder: The White Paper (as an answer to which were/are preparing a position paper) was supposed to be published alongside this document, but was postponed due to negative opinions by other units of the Commission (namely DG CONNECT and DG RESEARCH).
The question now is whether we should react to the consultation answers in some way or wait for the actual white paper or do something in-between (e.g. publish a position paper before the white paper is published)? Any thoughts?
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index... [2] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/...
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi there,
from what I can see, we now have a window of opportunity to get heard.
The analysis is out, which is good. Lots of stuff to quote from. However, the final white paper will take a while, we should not wait for this. On the contrary, we hear from the commission that they are still actively negotiating about the whitepaper, both wording and content.
My advise is to make ourselves heard soon.
Mathias
2014-07-24 10:24 GMT+02:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Hi Dimi,
Thanks for sharing this. Looks to me like there aren't any surprises in there. I'd also be interested to know what others think in terms of responding.
See you all soon,
Stevie
On 24 July 2014 09:08, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
The Commission (DG MARKT) published their report on the "Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules" yesterday [1][2].
I haven't had time to read through the 100 pages in detail, but since the major struggle is whether the Commission should legislate on more harmonisation or not and having a universal FoP exception would be an act of harmonisation, I mined the document for just that.
Pro harmonisation:
Institutional users generally consider that territoriality of copyright creates problems in particular in the area of exceptions, where a higher level of harmonisation is needed. Many respondents consider that market-led solutions have not proven to be effective and that harmonisation measures [on collective management] Many respondents also point out that there are already national systems of identifiers, and that some degree of harmonisation, standardisation and interoperability could be desirable here. Institutional users generally support copyright harmonisation which implies making exceptions mandatory and harmonising their scope to a greater extent. A minority of authors and performers would seek a harmonisation or clarification of the existing exceptions [Intermediaries/service providers] Many respondents from this group argue for more harmonisation and legal certainty in the area of exceptions. Representatives of academia, civil society or think-tanks generally consider that the optional nature of the exceptions is problematic and that exceptions should be further harmonised.
Contra harmonisation:
Film producers generally consider that the current EU copyright rules should not be changed [Authors/performers] Most respondents in these stakeholder groups are against any further harmonisation, which they consider would risk a weakening of copyright protection in Europe at the expense of creators. Collective Management Organisations consider that the territoriality of exceptions does not constitute a problem for right holders, businesses or consumers Educational publishers and representatives of the software industry warn that a further harmonisation [...] could undermine the role of licences
Neutral or split on harmonisation:
Academics (depending on the specific question this groups seems divided) Member States (some want more harmonisation, others want to keep options)
Reminder: The White Paper (as an answer to which were/are preparing a position paper) was supposed to be published alongside this document, but was postponed due to negative opinions by other units of the Commission (namely DG CONNECT and DG RESEARCH).
The question now is whether we should react to the consultation answers in some way or wait for the actual white paper or do something in-between (e.g. publish a position paper before the white paper is published)? Any thoughts?
Cheers, Dimi
[1]http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index...
[2]http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/...
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi all,
I guess I should publish a draft position paper on this list and on Meta and give everyone a chance to comment and edit the content.
Then we can ask chapters/partner/individuals to sign it after that.
Will do this in a bit.
Dimi
2014-07-24 13:03 GMT+02:00 Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de
:
Hi there,
from what I can see, we now have a window of opportunity to get heard.
The analysis is out, which is good. Lots of stuff to quote from. However, the final white paper will take a while, we should not wait for this. On the contrary, we hear from the commission that they are still actively negotiating about the whitepaper, both wording and content.
My advise is to make ourselves heard soon.
Mathias
2014-07-24 10:24 GMT+02:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Hi Dimi,
Thanks for sharing this. Looks to me like there aren't any surprises in there. I'd also be interested to know what others think in terms of responding.
See you all soon,
Stevie
On 24 July 2014 09:08, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
The Commission (DG MARKT) published their report on the "Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules" yesterday [1][2].
I haven't had time to read through the 100 pages in detail, but since
the
major struggle is whether the Commission should legislate on more harmonisation or not and having a universal FoP exception would be an
act of
harmonisation, I mined the document for just that.
Pro harmonisation:
Institutional users generally consider that territoriality of copyright creates problems in particular in the area of exceptions, where a higher level of harmonisation is needed. Many respondents consider that market-led solutions have not proven to
be
effective and that harmonisation measures [on collective management] Many respondents also point out that there
are
already national systems of identifiers, and that some degree of harmonisation, standardisation and interoperability could be desirable
here.
Institutional users generally support copyright harmonisation which implies making exceptions mandatory and harmonising their scope to a
greater
extent. A minority of authors and performers would seek a harmonisation or clarification of the existing exceptions [Intermediaries/service providers] Many respondents from this group
argue
for more harmonisation and legal certainty in the area of exceptions. Representatives of academia, civil society or think-tanks generally consider that the optional nature of the exceptions is problematic and
that
exceptions should be further harmonised.
Contra harmonisation:
Film producers generally consider that the current EU copyright rules should not be changed [Authors/performers] Most respondents in these stakeholder groups are against any further harmonisation, which they consider would risk a weakening of copyright protection in Europe at the expense of creators. Collective Management Organisations consider that the territoriality of exceptions does not constitute a problem for right holders, businesses
or
consumers Educational publishers and representatives of the software industry warn that a further harmonisation [...] could undermine the role of licences
Neutral or split on harmonisation:
Academics (depending on the specific question this groups seems divided) Member States (some want more harmonisation, others want to keep
options)
Reminder: The White Paper (as an answer to which were/are preparing a position paper) was supposed to be published alongside this document, but was postponed due to negative opinions by other units of the Commission
(namely
DG CONNECT and DG RESEARCH).
The question now is whether we should react to the consultation answers
in
some way or wait for the actual white paper or do something in-between
(e.g.
publish a position paper before the white paper is published)? Any
thoughts?
Cheers, Dimi
[1]
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index...
[2]
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/...
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over
Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Mathias Schindler Projektmanager Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: mathias.schindler@wikimedia.de
Ceterum censeo opera officiales esse liberandam - http://urheberrecht.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
2014-07-24 15:33 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com:
I guess I should publish a draft position paper on this list and on Meta and give everyone a chance to comment and edit the content.
Then we can ask chapters/partner/individuals to sign it after that.
+1
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org