[Wikimedia-l] Hacking Brussels: 1st EU Policy Monitoring Report (May)

Wed May 29 09:08:01 UTC 2013

Why does this thread start with "Hacking Brussels" instead of "Keep
Wikipedia free to read and re-use for all IPs in EU countries"?
Also you might want to link out to a page explaining "zero access",
because that sounds like "no access"

2013/5/29, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com>:
>  Hello, everybody!
>
> Sorry for crossposting if you are on advocacy-advisors (if you aren't, join
> the party!), but we'd like to encourage comments or questions on this on a
> wider scale, so I believe it makes good sense if we also post it here the
> first few times.
>
> Dimi
>
> The portal for this group is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy
>
> *
> *
>
> *tl;dr*
>
> The first monitoring report on EU Policy strives to give a brief overview
> over current legislative debates in Brussels that might be of interest to
> the Wikimedia movement. We have five topics:
>
>
>
> 1. Collective Rights Management and Online Use
>
> 2. EU-US Trade Agreement
>
> 3. Stakeholder Dialogue on Copyright
>
> 4. EU Data Protection
>
> 5. Network Neutrality
>
>
>
> *#CRM*
>
> *Collective Rights Management and Online Use of Music Works *
>
>
>
> *What’s going on?*
>
> The European Commission’s directive proposal *on collective management of
> copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in
> musical works for online uses in the internal market *[1]* *has entered the
> next stage of the legislative process by being submitted to the European
> Parliament and the Council of the European Union.
>
> The reform aims to tweak the current legislation by making collecting
> societies more transparent and ensuring cross-border compatibility of
> licenses on the internal market, especially when it comes to online use of
> works.
>
>
>
> *Why should we care?*
>
> The directive intends, although vaguely, to introduce non-commercial uses
> (read: Creative Commons licenses) as an option for creators in the
> collective management system.
>
> As the Commission proposal is anything but clear on this, there is
> currently a push and pull within the Parliament as to how far this should
> go. Industry proponents argue for a “minimum harmonisation approach”, which
> means that no exact measures will be specified. At the same time, the
> Parliament’s Culture Committee says that authors should be given the right
> to remove some of their works from the collective management system and
> publish them under a free license. Currently collecting societies in the EU
> don’t allow their clients to make parts of their work generally available
> (e.g. One song of an album to be released under a CC license). In Germany,
> there is simultaneously a strong effort to build up a non-exclusive
> collecting society.[2]
>
>
>
> *Game plan?*
>
> The first reading in the Parliament is forecasted for the 19.11.2013. The
> four non-leading committees have already published their draft opinions.
> Until then the lead committee (Legal Affairs - Rapporteur Marielle Gallo,
> EPP) will publish its report and amendment proposals can still be tabled.
> There is also a mandatory consultation with the Economic and Social
> Committee.
>
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
> *#IPRTTIP*
>
> *Intellectual Property Regulation in EU-US Trade Agreement*
>
>
>
> *What’s going on?*
>
> Both the EU and the US have expressed their intent to include an IPR
> chapter in TTIP, though its final scope will be subject of negotiations.
>
>
>
> *Why should we care?*
>
> Remember ACTA? We cannot be generally for or against this motion yet, since
> the content is not even discussed yet. We do however, as many other
> stakeholders, have an interest that the negotiations are public and
> transparent so that “surprise packages” (such as a more rigorous liability
> regime for providers) can be avoided.
>
>
>
> *Game plan?*
>
> Some MEPs are currently organising dialogues and meetings to hear about the
> fears and hopes of the stakeholders. Generally speaking, an involvement of
> the Parliament in the negotiations would make the process more predictable.
> Currently a group of digital rights organisations are trying to motivate DG
> Trade to release the texts, an effort not met warmly within the Commission
> (and the Parliament Committee on Trade for that matter). A vote on this
> treaty could happen well before the EP elections in 2014.
>
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
> *#Licenses4Europe*
>
> *Stakeholder Dialogue on Copyright Reform*
>
>
>
> *What’s going on?*
>
> The European Commission has launched a stakeholder dialogue in four working
> groups with the intention to discuss current licensing issues and come up
> with a reform proposal.
>
>
>
> *Why should we care?*
>
>    - Although this does not seem to be turning out as the major copyright
>    reform originally claimed, its general intention to address
> “user-generated
>    content” should make us alert and calls for keeping an eye on the whole
>    process.
>    - After some early signals from the Commission that new Fair Use
>    exceptions be introduced, there has been silence on this issue as none of
>    the current participants want or can bring it up.
>    - Another possibility is that cross-border compatibility of licenses is
>    addressed, which could improve or worsen some of the issues with our
>    content across Europe.
>    - Simultaneously there might be a move towards stronger copyright
>    enforcement and more restrictive use of content online
>
>
>
> *Game plan?*
>
> The working groups will conduct regular meeting until the end of this year.
> The Commission plans to table a legislative proposal early 2014.
>
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
> *#EUdataP*
>
> *EU Data Protection*
>
>
>
> *What’s going on?*
>
> The European Commission originally wanted to guarantee a high level of data
> protection to all of its citizens online. This has turned into real trench
> warfare of several accounts. The topics discussed include:
>
>    - The “right to be forgotten”
>    - Definition of "personal data"
>    - Should pseudonymous data be exempt from regulation
>    - Should there be a “justifiable interest” exception allowing companies
>    to not ask for consent
>    - Who is going to control it and will there be fines
>
>
>
> *Why should we care?*
>
> While we are currently complying with even the stricter proposals, as
> website operators, administrators and editors we need to be aware of what
> is legal and what is coming.
>
> There was some fear that the “right to be forgotten” might force us to
> delete information from our websites, but it currently looks like this risk
> is off the table.
>
> There are currently no inherent or apparent risks for us in this although
> we do care deeply about the topic.
>
>
>
> *Game plan?*
>
> The Lead Comittee’s (LIBE) vote is expected before the summer break 2013.
> After that the dossier will move to the 1st plenary hearing and a vote in
> the Council, where significant changes are highly unlikely.
>
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
> *#netneutrality*
>
> *Network Neutrality*
>
>
>
> *What’s going on?*
>
> The European Commission originally expressed support for an “open” and
> “neutral” internet, yet has never acted to inscribe this into law. In the
> past months telecoms in Germany and internet service providers in France
> have stopped or limited access to services from competitors in their
> networks. This has lead to considerable outrage among digital rights
> groups. Neelie Kroes (Commissioner for Competition), who was originally in
> favour of the idea decided not to act upon the restrictions in France,
> saying that packaging or throttling access is a product labelling issue,
> rather than worrisome.[3]* *
>
>
>
> *Why should we care?*
>
> We are interested in a open and free internet guaranteeing each user the
> right to access all the websites. Otherwise clients might be charged extra
> money to access servers from outside their country (i.e. in Virginia) or
> have different packages for different types of websites
> (sports/news/multimedia) which would not be advantageous to us.
>
> On the other hand, such a legislation would disallow zero access projects,
> which might hinder free access to educational and other content, even in
> cases with non-commercial intentions.
>
>
>
> *Game plan?*
>
> The Commission is currently planning to release non-binding
> recommendations. There is a considerable debate going on whether there
> should be binding legislation on the matter and whether the EU shouldn’t
> leave this issue to the member states. Slovenia and the Netherlands have
> already codified net neutrality as part of their national legislations.
>
>
>
> -----------------
>
> -----------------
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201303/20130306ATT62198/20130306ATT62198EN.pdf
>
> [2]http://c3s.cc/index_en.html
> [3]http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/netneutrality/
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>