On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The European Commission's consultation on the enforcement of intellectual > property rights is due on 15 April. [1] The main goal for us here will be > to avoid increasing a platform’s responsibility to monitor and remove UCG. > > We are currently starting to work on our responses [2], which will be in > line with the answers submitted to the related "Platforms Consultation". > > One question is, however, which category Wikimedia fits in. The Commission > wants everyone to chose one of the following roles applying to them: > “citizens, consumers and civil society”, "rightsholder", "member of > judiciary or lawyer", “intermediary” or "public authority". Depending on > the hat you pick you get a slightly different set of questions. It seems > apparent that we could fit into at least two or even three of the these. > > We had a similar puzzle last time and solved it by having the FKAGEU > submitting [3] as civil society and the WMF sending in a registered letter > emphasising the importance of intermediary protection. Such an approach is > also possible this time around, but I wanted to check back with the group > on what your thoughts are. Having several movement entities playing > different roles might actually be an advantage here.
One thing maybe somebody (us?) should complain, that this is a pretty strange process. I think we should split roles - chapters can join the consultation as well I believe. Except for "public authority" the chapters or the editors could actually submit in all the categories. It would be also good to post all the questions online and compare them - to stop this kind of "divide et impera" approach. Marcin Cieślak saper@plwiki _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
