Hello all,
Yesterday the commission published the long expected press release (attached) announcing the launch of stakeholder dialogue to reform copyright legislation.
The plan is to have discussions and positions reviewed and exchanged in 2013 and adopt new legislation in 2014. There will be three commissioners working jointly on this project:
Michel Barnier (Internal Market) Neelie Kroes (Digital) Androulla Vassiliou (Culture)
I am today invited to a discussion with Michael Barnier and some MEPs from the European People's Party (I am currently training in interest representation in Brussels, but I am also a member of Wikimedia Austria since I studied in Vienna). I will try to keep an eye on everything that is going on in Brussels regarding these reform plans as I believe we (Wikimedia) should be part of the dialogue. I am also proposing to WMAT to register in the EU Transparency Register so we can get easier access to first hand information and invitation to join discussions and meet with decision makers. WMDE and WMI are already registered, but have nobody in Brussels.
A report on today's discussion to come. A more interesting year to follow.
Regards,
Dimi
I can think of a few cases and issues to consider here:
- It's worth re-reading an email on this list from 11 November. I've pasted this below (end of this email) and attached the PDF report from the original. Very interesting because of its source. - The link in that page: "Infringement Nation" (Tehranian 2007) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151
*These two are very good background to have in mind.*
- The Hargreaves Report in the UK (2010): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hargreaves_Review_of_Intellectual_Property_and_... and report page: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm
- A recent article on "torrentfreak" (a file sharing news site) linked on the ComCom mailing list on 4 Dec, looking at takedown requests that have gone on: http://torrentfreak.com/movie-studios-ask-google-to-censor-their-own-films-f...
- The prior abuse of process in the ACS Law case (UK): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law - The logic behind the "ruling" in Flava Works v Gunter (US): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flava_Works_Inc._v._Gunter
Hope these help with some ideas. None (except Hargreaves) are especially long.
FT2.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Yesterday the commission published the long expected press release (attached) announcing the launch of stakeholder dialogue to reform copyright legislation.
(SNIP)
*COPY OF LIST EMAIL FROM 11 NOV 2012 FOR INFO*
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Hello all,
On Friday, the Republican Study Committee released a policy brief on "Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it". The paper discusses four potential policy solutions: (1) reform statutory damages; (2) expand fair use; (3) punish false copyright claims; and, (4) limit copyright terms and have heavy disincentives for renewal.
A copy of the report is attached, and "Infringement Nation" (Tehranian 2007) is available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029151
On Saturday, the executive director of the RSC sent out a letter withdrawing the brief:
From: Teller, Paul Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 04:11 PM Subject: RSC Copyright PB
We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday....
Paul S. Teller Executive Director U.S. House Republican Study Committee Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov http://republicanstudycommittee.com
More coverage:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/16/republicans-repudiate-40-years-of-tougher-c...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121116/16481921080/house-republicans-copy...
Best, Stephen
--
*For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hey,
Thanks for the ideas and material. I am trying to build up a must-read database focused on copyright and policy, so these things will naturally fit right in. Will write a report on today's meeting a bit later and post it on the list for information.
Dimi
2012/12/6 FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com
I can think of a few cases and issues to consider here:
Hello again,
since this is a mailing list and no one really wants to read long stories I will try to recap the day and the positions in a nutshell. It was basically a meeting with a long speech by the Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Michel Barnier and a short speech by conservative MEP Marielle Gallo.
Barnier naturally started how this was this beginning of the process of legsilative process, how they are open to discuss everything and work with everyone. Of course he didn't miss to stress how important the creative industry is to the economy, and while the internet has brought a lot of positives (like giving more people access to quality content) but also a lot of problems (it doesn't cover the investments that authors, editors and production companies have to make to create the content)
About the *legislation strategy*:
- Let the industry and stakeholders find solutions themselves. - Be prepared to legislate wherever necessary. Review the "society and information" directive from 2011 if needed.
His *vision* of copyright has three major points:
1. Make it easier for Europeans to access their *cultural heritage*. Here the project Europeana and the Orphan Works Directive (which doesn't allow commercial use, thus Wikimedia can't profit from it) are mentioned as positive projects. 2. Make it possible for Europeans to access content across the single market. *Remove geographically limited licenses* within the EU, since the EU is a single market and such geographical limitation are illegal for other products. 3. Reform copyright in a way to *allow* *authors to earn an** income *and attracts investment in the creation of quality content.
Worth mentioning is that he stressed several times that he is not ideologically burdened and open to any exceptions and propositions, *even exceptions in copyright*.
Here the position of MEP Gallo was the absolute opposite as she stressed that she is not talking of adapting the copyright itself, but the way it works.
Back to the Commission, they have started an initiative they call "Licensing Europe", which should start a dialogue that lasts until the end of 2013 to come up with very specific solution to cope with the legitimate frustrations of consumers, companies and citizens. The Commission has identified six questions around which the debates should be structured:
1. Cross-border portability of content services. 2. Online access to audiovisual works. 3. Digitalisation and access to European films. 4. The judicial insecurity regarding the reuse of content online. Consideration of one-click policies. 5. Questions raised by new search technologies and data mining. 6. The private copying levies. To wait for the mediation process by Antonio Vitorino.http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/barnier/headlines/speeches/2011/11/20111123_en.htm
Until New Year the Commission will draw up all the modalities for the "Lincensing Europe" initiative so the process can start in 2013.
In the Q&A there were quite some interesting questions (some from the Pirate Party) which didn't really lead to interesting answers. The Commissioner is clearly hoping for some technological solutions for the copyright problems, but is open to other proposals. The question about law enforcement when it comes to copyright was ducked by referring to the broader picture and that any enforcement need to demonstrate values that are felt as legitimate.
Sorry for boring you, but reading this is your choice :). For those who are still awake some gossip from the corridors: Apparently the three Commissioners (Internal Market, Digital and Culture/Education) are a bit competitive about who should have the leading role. It is not clear yet who will dominate. For us it would naturally be best to have the latter two, as Barnier is more market oriented, while Vassilakou focuses on culture and education.
I will until January try to come up with a set of ideas/proposals/demands, that can hopefully be discussed in the Wikimedia movement (especially the European chapters) and lead to a united and strong position early on in the legislative process. Let's make sure this time we are involved throughout and have real chance of input. I believe after ACTA blew up the Commission will be much more willing to listen and cooperate.
Best, Dimi
Was there any discussion of free-licensing government-created works? This seems like a worthy objective that doesn't adversely affect any commercial interests (which is the main roadblock to most copyright reform).
Ryan Kaldari Wikimedia Foundation
On 12/6/12 2:49 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
Hello again,
since this is a mailing list and no one really wants to read long stories I will try to recap the day and the positions in a nutshell. It was basically a meeting with a long speech by the Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Michel Barnier and a short speech by conservative MEP Marielle Gallo.
Barnier naturally started how this was this beginning of the process of legsilative process, how they are open to discuss everything and work with everyone. Of course he didn't miss to stress how important the creative industry is to the economy, and while the internet has brought a lot of positives (like giving more people access to quality content) but also a lot of problems (it doesn't cover the investments that authors, editors and production companies have to make to create the content)
About the *legislation strategy*:
- Let the industry and stakeholders find solutions themselves.
- Be prepared to legislate wherever necessary. Review the "society and information" directive from 2011 if needed.
His *vision* of copyright has three major points:
- Make it easier for Europeans to access their *cultural heritage*. Here the project Europeana and the Orphan Works Directive (which doesn't allow commercial use, thus Wikimedia can't profit from it) are mentioned as positive projects.
- Make it possible for Europeans to access content across the single market. *Remove geographically limited licenses* within the EU, since the EU is a single market and such geographical limitation are illegal for other products.
- Reform copyright in a way to *allow* *authors to earn an**income *and attracts investment in the creation of quality content.
Worth mentioning is that he stressed several times that he is not ideologically burdened and open to any exceptions and propositions, *even exceptions in copyright*.
Here the position of MEP Gallo was the absolute opposite as she stressed that she is not talking of adapting the copyright itself, but the way it works.
Back to the Commission, they have started an initiative they call "Licensing Europe", which should start a dialogue that lasts until the end of 2013 to come up with very specific solution to cope with the legitimate frustrations of consumers, companies and citizens. The Commission has identified six questions around which the debates should be structured:
- Cross-border portability of content services.
- Online access to audiovisual works.
- Digitalisation and access to European films.
- The judicial insecurity regarding the reuse of content online. Consideration of one-click policies.
- Questions raised by new search technologies and data mining.
- The private copying levies. To wait for themediation process by Antonio Vitorino. http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/barnier/headlines/speeches/2011/11/20111123_en.htm
Until New Year the Commission will draw up all the modalities for the "Lincensing Europe" initiative so the process can start in 2013.
In the Q&A there were quite some interesting questions (some from the Pirate Party) which didn't really lead to interesting answers. The Commissioner is clearly hoping for some technological solutions for the copyright problems, but is open to other proposals. The question about law enforcement when it comes to copyright was ducked by referring to the broader picture and that any enforcement need to demonstrate values that are felt as legitimate.
Sorry for boring you, but reading this is your choice :). For those who are still awake some gossip from the corridors: Apparently the three Commissioners (Internal Market, Digital and Culture/Education) are a bit competitive about who should have the leading role. It is not clear yet who will dominate. For us it would naturally be best to have the latter two, as Barnier is more market oriented, while Vassilakou focuses on culture and education.
I will until January try to come up with a set of ideas/proposals/demands, that can hopefully be discussed in the Wikimedia movement (especially the European chapters) and lead to a united and strong position early on in the legislative process. Let's make sure this time we are involved throughout and have real chance of input. I believe after ACTA blew up the Commission will be much more willing to listen and cooperate.
Best, Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hey Ryan,
no there was no talk about that, but it's top on my proposals list. I believe that such a thing simply has the chance to be accepted. The EU right now allows reuse with citations as a general rule, but there might be exceptions in each agency and since they don't use a specific license it can be very confusing to read through the copyright statements.
I am just not sure whether it would be better to propose PD or CC-by or just say "free-license".
Dimi
2012/12/7 Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org
Was there any discussion of free-licensing government-created works? This seems like a worthy objective that doesn't adversely affect any commercial interests (which is the main roadblock to most copyright reform).
Ryan Kaldari Wikimedia Foundation
My hunch is that public domain would be the easiest to convey, i.e. "government works should be exempt from copyright". It also has the advantage that you can point to U.S. law as an example. Wikimedia Israel pursued the free-license route, but of course someone threw in the non-commercial clause at the last minute, effectively undercutting the entire effort.
Ryan Kaldari Wikimedia Foundation
On 12/6/12 6:02 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
Hey Ryan,
no there was no talk about that, but it's top on my proposals list. I believe that such a thing simply has the chance to be accepted. The EU right now allows reuse with citations as a general rule, but there might be exceptions in each agency and since they don't use a specific license it can be very confusing to read through the copyright statements.
I am just not sure whether it would be better to propose PD or CC-by or just say "free-license".
Dimi
2012/12/7 Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org mailto:rkaldari@wikimedia.org>
Was there any discussion of free-licensing government-created works? This seems like a worthy objective that doesn't adversely affect any commercial interests (which is the main roadblock to most copyright reform). Ryan Kaldari Wikimedia Foundation
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On 6 December 2012 18:49, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
My hunch is that public domain would be the easiest to convey, i.e. "government works should be exempt from copyright". It also has the advantage that you can point to U.S. law as an example. Wikimedia Israel pursued the free-license route, but of course someone threw in the non-commercial clause at the last minute, effectively undercutting the entire effort.
The primary governing EU law in this area is Directive 2003/98/EC "on the re-use of public sector information"[*], which (strongly) encourages EU member states to provide government information (implicitly including data) for free/marginal cost for use and re-use, including commercial re-use; there are strong exception classes for public-sector information that is commercially sold. It doesn't go anything like as far as I imagine many of this list would like, but it does provide a common framework so that EU citizens can understand and make direct comparisons of the differences between member states' rules.
When I was still involved in this stuff for the UK Government (albeit tangentially, and not since this time last year) I understand that there was extensive discussion in the Commission and with member states about replacing the PSI Directive with one that was a great deal stronger (it was discussed alongside more widespread copyright reforms, which I suppose is the above material), but I don't know what the status is of that part of their work. Note also the INSPIRE directive (2007/2/EC) makes rather more extensive and specific rules about releasing *geo-spatially referenced* data held by EU member states' governmental entities, though again, not necessarily for free and open re-use. If people / organisations in the Wikimedia orbit want to apply pressure, that would be the right direction - i.e., via the InfoSoc DG of the EC.
[*] - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:345:0090:009..., English version)
Hi Dimitar, thanks for your great effort!
I am pretty sure that many people on the list feel the urgency of joining forces in order to prevent new EU-directives which aim towards new protecting rights (like in the case of musical recordings) or hamper the incentives for free re-usage of cultural goods (like in the case of orphan workshttp://www.wikimedia.de/images/4/43/120810_WMDE_Statement_On_Orphan_Works.pdf). It's necessary to professionalize the way how we address our concerns, if we want to make a difference in Bruxelles.
I will until January try to come up with a set of ideas/proposals/demands, that can hopefully be discussed in the Wikimedia movement (especially the European chapters)
I'll be glad to contribute. Maybe we should also think about a RL meeting for all Wikipedians/Wikimedians who like to be part of the process.
I believe after ACTA blew up the Commission will be much more willing to
listen and cooperate.
This optimistic stance ist also shared by EDRI http://www.edri.org/. On the other hand, these folks (together with "La Quadrature Du Net") are curently the only "progressive" voices getting heard. Therefore we should also think about the best way to have a real impact against the armada of professional lobbyists paid by the copyright industries.
Best, Jan
Hello Jan,
Thank you for your great words and encouragement. I really believe that the more chapters take part, the more chances we will have. Since I am a member I am currently convincing WMAT to join the Transparency Register, since they could put me on the list to get access to the Parliament (daily passes and the like). Since I am currently involved in the founding of WMBE, people here are quite enthusiastic to help. They have contacted WMNL.
I was lucky enough to attend a Creative Commons Belgium Relaunch event in Brussels this weekend. The CC people (a law professor from Namur specialising in copyright and a law student from Leuven) are really interested to join and perhaps even have a common position. I also got in touch with some authors' rights representative organisations, but there are a lot of them in Belgium, so it's hard to map them yet.
I am thinking now how to pool people's brain power. Mailing list, wiki page and the like. I will set up a ad-hoc wiki page on the WMBE wiki tonight. For now I am sharing a document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fbpy6ijkYS3QJpn9biRjBqjPWy_zCPHkC3O_CLW8764/edit(personal) where I just throw in the positions of people, parties and groups I have reserached. My goal is to make it into a comprehensive doucment. I will also continue to track and write reports about meetingsa and going-ons here.
. It's necessary to professionalize the way how we address our concerns,
if we want to make a difference in Bruxelles.
I completely agree. I am training in a lobbying office now and they are happy to give me some free time to attend events I am interested in, so at least till the end of March I will have it covered. But in the long run it'd be problem. Also, my employer doesn't get me into all the events, since I am not alone, so more Transperency Register registrations would be welcome.
Maybe we should also think about a RL meeting for all
Wikipedians/Wikimedians who like to be part of the process.
This sounds like a great idea. If we go for it I and the local volunteers I met here would be more than happy to organise something (If we opt for Burssels). The benefit of doing it here would be that we could invite people from the institutions.
Anwyay, I will keep this thread/mailing list posted about the developments for now. Any feedback or help is always welcome.
Cheers, Dimi
Hi @all,
thanks for bringing up these topics, I am really looking forward to seeing our chapters collaborate to be thoroughly informed and to make our voices heard in Bruxelles.
One small thing I'd like to add: May I suggest to better set up a wiki page on Meta than on the WMBE wiki? I think Meta is the right place for getting all interested people involved.
Thanks, Nicole
On 10 December 2012 14:01, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jan,
Thank you for your great words and encouragement. I really believe that the more chapters take part, the more chances we will have. Since I am a member I am currently convincing WMAT to join the Transparency Register, since they could put me on the list to get access to the Parliament (daily passes and the like). Since I am currently involved in the founding of WMBE, people here are quite enthusiastic to help. They have contacted WMNL.
I was lucky enough to attend a Creative Commons Belgium Relaunch event in Brussels this weekend. The CC people (a law professor from Namur specialising in copyright and a law student from Leuven) are really interested to join and perhaps even have a common position. I also got in touch with some authors' rights representative organisations, but there are a lot of them in Belgium, so it's hard to map them yet.
I am thinking now how to pool people's brain power. Mailing list, wiki page and the like. I will set up a ad-hoc wiki page on the WMBE wiki tonight. For now I am sharing a document (personal) where I just throw in the positions of people, parties and groups I have reserached. My goal is to make it into a comprehensive doucment. I will also continue to track and write reports about meetingsa and going-ons here.
. It's necessary to professionalize the way how we address our concerns, if we want to make a difference in Bruxelles.
I completely agree. I am training in a lobbying office now and they are happy to give me some free time to attend events I am interested in, so at least till the end of March I will have it covered. But in the long run it'd be problem. Also, my employer doesn't get me into all the events, since I am not alone, so more Transperency Register registrations would be welcome.
Maybe we should also think about a RL meeting for all Wikipedians/Wikimedians who like to be part of the process.
This sounds like a great idea. If we go for it I and the local volunteers I met here would be more than happy to organise something (If we opt for Burssels). The benefit of doing it here would be that we could invite people from the institutions.
Anwyay, I will keep this thread/mailing list posted about the developments for now. Any feedback or help is always welcome.
Cheers, Dimi
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi Nicole,
great idea actually. I will do it on meta, it makes a lot more sense. I will set something up tonight and share it.
One small thing I'd like to add: May I suggest to better set up a wiki
page on Meta than on the WMBE wiki? I think Meta is the right place for getting all interested people involved.
Dimi
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org