[Advocacy Advisors] EU Policy Monitoring Report July

Mon Aug 4 08:37:02 UTC 2014

In this case I can assure you (but don't quote me on that) that the
responsible DG was more than willing to go ahead with it. The political
will is there and Barnier wanted to give this dossier a final push before
he leaves.

A lot will depend on the new Commissioner, but seen Juncker's positioning
on the topic so far, I am carefully optimistic.

Dimi

2014-08-01 23:43 GMT+02:00 <aktron at centrum.cz>:

> Hey Dimi!
>
>
>
> Thanks for the report. Just a basic idea that I got some time ago, maybe a
> rumor as well - but isn't the Commission deliberately trying to kill the
> white paper by postponing it as much as possible? And then waiting for the
> new commission so they will throw it out from the table...?
>
>
>
> Or am I just too paranoic?
>
>
>
> Jan (Aktron)
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> > Od: Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com>
> > Komu: Advocacy Advisory Group for WMF LCA <
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Datum: 01.08.2014 18:07
> > Předmět: [Advocacy Advisors] EU Policy Monitoring Report July
> >
>
> Hi all,
>
> this is the pre-Wikimania round-up of Brussels politics, policy and,
> frankly, gossip. The articles a bit longer than usual, but its been an
> exciting month :)
>
> See you in a few short days!
>
> Dimi
>
>
>
> Wikimedia and the EU
>
> July Report
>
> tl;dr
>
> The copyright reform white paper and impact assessment were postponed,
> while at about the same time the new Commission President made reforming
> copyright his top priority. Meanwhile the EC proclaimed Creative Commons
> licenses as a de-facto standard for public sector information, albeit in
> non-binding guidelines.
>
> This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
>
>
> ToC
>
> 1. Copyright Consultation Review Released
>
> 2. EU Recommends Free Licenses for Public Sector Information
>
> 3. New Commission President Makes Copyright Reform Top Priority
>
> 4. Recommended Action: Advocacy at Wikimania
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
>
> #copyright
>
> 1. Copyright Consultation Review Released
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
>
>  A consultation along with a white book and an impact assessment are
> usually the three steps the European Commission takes before drafting a new
> legislation proposal. It means that this will flow into a copyright reform
> proposal, something we expect during the coming Commission’s term.
>
>
> What happened?
>
>
>  The Directorate-General for the Internal Market (DG MARKT) was supposed
> to release a white paper on copyright reform this July. As it turns out,
> two other DGs, namely DG Research and DG Connect, were not happy with the
> draft at the inter-service consultation, [1][2] forcing DG MARKT to
> withdraw it and start re-writing the document. For all we know, DG Connect
> and DG Research are in favour of harmonising limitations and exceptions and
> even would like to extend them, while DG MARKT prefers to have everything
> licensed. DG CULTURE tends to speak up for artists remuneration in a manner
> practically defending the status quo. In the course of exchanging arguments
> in public, DG Connect even picked up the F reedom of Panorama issue from
> us. [3][4]
>
> Trying to avoid a complete disaster, DG MARKT made sure to at least
> release its review of the copyright consultation.[5] A short summary can be
> found below (It is important to keep in mind that to get universal Freedom
> of Panorama in Europe, we’d need at least some harmonisation:
>
> Respondent group in favour of 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.)
> ->End Users
>
> (Consider that market-led solutions have not proven to be effective and
> that harmonisation measures are needed.)
> ->Institutional users
>
> (Generally support copyright harmonisation which implies making exceptions
> mandatory and harmonising their scope to a greater extent.)
> ->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.)
> -Academia, civil society or think-tanks
>
> (generally consider that the optional nature of the exceptions is
> problematic and that exceptions should be further harmonised.)
>
> Respondent group against further 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 doe not constitute a
> problem for right holders, businesses or consumers)
> ->Publishers & Software industry
> (Warn that further harmonisation could undermine the role of licences.)
>
> Split on further harmonisation:
> ->Academics
>
> (Depending on the specific question this groups seems divided)
> ->Member States
>
> (Some want more harmonisation, others want to keep options.)
>
> A very good overview of the main positions by stakeholder:
>
> https://i.imgur.com/lGqYDIt.png
>
>
> What comes next?
>
>
>  We’re expecting the white paper and the impact assessment to not be
> published until at least October this year.
>
> Meanwhile it will be interesting to see who the new Commissioners dealing
> with copyright reform will be and make sure they get asked some relevant
> questions during their hearings at the European Parliament in September.
>
> At the same time, we need to make ourselves heard and try to strengthen
> the “pro harmonisation” position within the institutions. To achieve this
> we’re planning a position paper (comments welcome!). [6]
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
>
> #PSI #digitalagenda
>
> 2. EU Recommends Free Licenses for Public Sector
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
>
>  While these are non-binding, they still represent the official opinion
> of the European Commission or at least DG Connect. It clearly states that
> public information and content should be free and re-usable without
> restriction, making it a useful argument in debates with other DGs and
> third-parties.
>
>
> What happened?
>
>
>  Back in November 2013, me and Mathias from WMDE attended [7] a public
> hearing on the latter of implementing the revised Public Sector Information
> Directive to include re-use permissions. It was organised by DG Connect in
> Luxembourg, as many public sector bodies had signalled having a hard time
> understanding what needs to be done. Together with LAPSI [8] and
> CreativeCommons we were pushing the following points:
>
> -> No NC restrictions (distributing our brochure [9])
> -> Free of charge access
> -> Using standard licenses that are really free (strongly proposing cc-0
> and cc-by)
> -> We raised the issue of copyfraud
>
> The Commission published the guidelines this month [10], where it
> recommended:
>
>
>  -> No licensing of material that is already in the public domain
> -> Using cc-0 as a default license
> -> Using cc-by where a public sector body doesn't feel comfortable with
> cc-0
> -> If a body really needs to create an own license, it should make sure
> its compatible
> -> Marginal charges are allowed can include return on investment not
> higher than 5% of fixed interest rate
> --> However: online access and distribution should be free of charge
>
> I had the chance to talk to Szymon Lewandowski, Policy Officer for DG
> Connect, at an event in Brussels. According to him, they didn't include a
> statement on NC clauses, because they believed that this would only
> increase the chances of institutions thinking of such a possibility and
> thus using it.
>
>
> What comes next?
>
>
>  Follow-up on the implementation in public bodies and see how many
> actually follow the guidelines. If the number is way low, this might be an
> argument to push for stronger measures (e.g. legislation) in a few years.
> However, these guidelines give us an immediate argument when negotiating
> the release of content with public bodies.
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
>
> #copyright #POTEC
>
> 3. New Commission President Makes Copyright Reform Top Priority
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
>
>  Any kind of reform, but especially in the sector of intellectual
> property rights, depends on political will, which in turn depends on our
> ability to keep it on the agenda long enough. Copyright isn’t normally a
> major political topic (yet), so this is big.
>
>
> What happened?
>
>
>  The newly elected President of the European Commission (due to the
> popularity of some TV shows the label #POTEC caught on) released his top 5
> priorities [11] while running his campaign to get elected. Surprisingly, at
> number one we can read “we will need to have the courage to break down
> national silos in telecoms regulation, *in copyright* and data protection
> legislation”. This moves copyright reform to the top of the political
> agenda in Brussels over the next 5 years. .
>
>
> What comes next?
>
>
>  We will need to see which Commissioner (i.e. with Directorate-General)
> will get the lead in copyright reform. Current holders are DG MARKT but
> theoretically it might go to DG Connect or even become a signature issue of
> Juncker himself. Julia Reda, MEP for the Pirate Party, asked a question
> regarding this during his hearing with the Greens/EFA group, [12] but there
> was no clear answer.
>
> Where this helps us immediately is that we can go up to any MEP of the two
> largest political groups in the European Parliament and say that the person
> they voted for supports copyright reform as his top priority. This makes
> them pay more attention.
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
> #Wikimania
>
> 4. Recommended Action
>
> Among other things we’re planning the following actions/campaigns in the
> next months:
>
> 1. Having Chapters mail the MEPs from their countries with our three
> issues [13]
>
> 2. Releasing a position paper on copyright reform [6]
>
> 3. Get volunteers to “adopt MEPs” from their own
> language/country/constituency [14]
>
> 4. Have clear strategy plans for FoP and PDGov (incl. argumentation) [15]
>
> You can join in and help with any of those, but you should also look out
> for us at Wikimania, where we can discuss everything at lengths :). Here’s
> the agenda:
>
> 1. Presentation Liquid Lobbying [16] - Saturday (9th) between 15:30-16:00
> @ Fountain Room
>
> 2. Panel Discussion Liquid Lobbying [17] Saturday (9th) between
> 16:30-18:00 @Fountain Room
>
> 3. Digital Rights Lunch [18] Sunday (10th) between 13:00-14:30 @ room TBD
>
> 4. Working on Strategy Monday (11th) between 12:00-14:00 @ Wikimedia UK
> Offices
>
> 4.2. Alternative: Dimi will be at the Barbican on Thu(7th) at 16:00 for
> those who can’t make Mon
>
> 5. Wendy's Weasel Whiteboard on Wheels - throughout the conference
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
>
> [1]https://twitter.com/AgencEurope/status/490050254713421824
>
> [2]
> http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/barnier-forced-to-delay-copyright-roadmap/
>
> [3]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-528_en.htm
>
> [4]https://storify.com/dimi_z/atomium-and-freedom-of-panorama/
>
> [5]
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/contributions/consultation-report_en.pdf
>
> [6]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright
>
> [7]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-December/129015.html
>
> [8]http://www.lapsi-project.eu/
>
> [9]http://www.wikimedia.de/images/1/15/CC-NC_Leitfaden_2013_engl.pdf
>
> [10]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-840_en.htm
>
> [11]http://juncker.epp.eu/my-priorities
>
> [12]http://senficon.eu/2014/07/frage-an-juncker-zum-urheberrecht/
>
> [13]https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/File:Letter_to_MEPs_with_images.pdf
>
> [14]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Engage/Adopt_a_MEP
>
> [15]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Strategy
>
> [16]
> https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Liquid_Lobbying_-_How_could_Wikimedia_change_EU_copyright%3F
>
> [17]
> https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Liquid_Lobbying_-_How_should_Wikimedia_advocate_for_free_knowledge%3F
>
> [18]
> https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Networking_Lunch
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140804/46f78952/attachment-0001.html>