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

Wed May 29 11:21:38 UTC 2013

Hi Jane,

Fair points!

It says Hacking Brussels, because that will be the title of the
presentation in Hong Kong [1] and I wanted to brand it a little already. I
realise now that it is out-of-context and misleading and I should have just
left it at the Monitoring Report part as to not confuse people.

I assumed zero access is already a well known term with products like
"Wikipedia Zero" and "0.facebook.com" being available on many markets for
years now. But I realise that some people might find it unclear. I will
make sure to insert more links in the future to avoid such situations. As
for zero access, the definition is "free of charge" to people who have no
internet subscription.

Dimi

EU Policy portal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy

[1]
https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/A_Roadmap_to_Brussels:_How_to_monitor_legislative_procedures_the_wiki_way

2013/5/29 Jane Darnell <jane023 at gmail.com>

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>