[Advocacy Advisors] Copyright Consultation - answers published

Thu Jul 24 13:33:34 UTC 2014

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 at 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 at 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 at 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_en.htm
> >>
> >> [2]
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/contributions/consultation-report_en.pdf
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> >> Advocacy_Advisors at 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 at 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 at 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 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/20140724/d6053e80/attachment.html>