Thanks as always for these, Dimi. They're informative and interesting for me, even though (especially because?) I have very little time to follow the issues these days!
Luis On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 12:08 AM Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < [email protected]> wrote: > tl;dr > > The crucial committee vote on copyright has been postponed giving us > several extra months to prepare. The Member States are discussing a common > position in the Council and some of them are worrying about fundamental > rights. > > This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor > > === > > EU Copyright Reform > > --- > > New timeline: The lead Legal Affairs committee (JURI) will not be able to > keep its original timeline on copyright reform. The crucial vote on > copyright is now most likely to happen end of November or even December. > Also, the last opinion giving committee, Civil Liberties (LIBE), is not > likely to be ready to vote its copyright report this week in Strasbourg. [1] > > --- > > Our negative agenda: We are looking at a dynamic that makes it seem less > likely that we will see a full-blown ancillary copyright approved in the > Parliament. Still, this so-called press publishers right has been coming > back from the death so many times that I wouldn’t write it off completely. > On the other hand, we still have an Article 13 that will be part of the > final text for sure. Our efforts on this must concentrate around the top > goal of not to letting upload filtering for UGC sites become an obligation. > We are also trying to keep the liability protections laid out by the > E-Commerce Directive intact, although a majority seems set on cutting them > down. > > --- > > Our positive agenda: We are trying to give Freedom of Panorama a new spin > by bringing in the Augmented Reality industry on board. [2] Th next big > step would be to convince a car maker that already invests in AR technology > to make a few phone calls. The education exception is still to be discussed > and we are hoping to broaden its scope. There has been some considerable > support piling up in favour of a broad text and data mining exception, > including academia and start-ups. [3][4] The preservation & public domain > article is so far flying under the radar and still needs to be discussed by > the rapporteur and shadows. > > --- > > The Council: The discussions between the Member States have been very > much centred around ancillary copyright (Article 11) and upload > filtering/intermediary liability (Article 13). As of today, we can confirm > that 16 Member States voiced opposition to a new press publishers right, > preferring some sort of legal “presumption for publishers” (Option B on > Article 11 in Estonian Presidency compromises [5]). The more worrying news > is that many countries seem to be giving up support on Article 11 in order > to get what they want out of Article 13. Hence, the discussion on Article > 13 seems much more tedious. Both options presented by the Estonian > Presidency are shrinking the E-Commerce Directive’s liability protections. > It is furthermore completely unclear how user-generated platforms are to > keep any infringing content from appearing on their sites without general > monitoring. Such general monitoring obligations, however, have been > declared illegal by the Court of Justice of the EU. [6] This has lead six > Member States (Belgium, Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland and the > Netherlands) to ask the legal services of the Council whether the Article > is compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. [7] Later > it also became clear that Germany has asked its own questions [8] and that > Poland has voiced criticism along the same lines. > > === > > AVMSD: Long form: Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The European > Union has decided that it wants at least some of the rules that apply to > traditional broadcasters (advertising, cultural quotas, age > classifications) to also apply to online video platforms like YouTube, > iTunes and Netflix. There is currently a big discussion on whether > video-sharing platforms should be included. The issue for us is that > Commons could very well fall under this definition. We are now in a very > intransparent phase of the process called a trialogue. This is when > Commission, Parliament and Council meet to hammer out wordings and > compromises in all-night sessions that are not open to the public. Our best > chance of getting something moving in our direction is the Council, where > “blocking minority” could carve out some limitations. Further reading: [9] > > === > > Digital Contracts: We are currently discussing some rules regarding > “digital contracts” in the EU. [10] The EU legislator declared itself > worried about the so-called “click-through" agreements that we all click > through online. These are supposed to become safer and more understandable > for citizens by means of a Directive. We are now in the stage where the > compromises are being discussed in the European Parliament committees. What > would be a win for us is if a safeguard that makes sure exceptions and > limitations cannot be overridden by licensing agreements is included. > > === > > Data Driven Economy: We have been participating in a number of > consultations regarding the “data driven economy” recently. Our goal is to > push the Commission away from its idea of establishing a new “data > producers right” and towards the idea of scrapping the sui generis database > right. A synopsis of the responses to the first consultation came out. [11] > The good news is that “most respondents do not support regulatory > intervention, be it by creating ownership-type rights or by licensing > obligations. 68% of 284 respondents to the question clearly support the > increased use of APIs, and around a half state that, in some cases, > providing non-binding guidance and sharing best practices could help.” > > === > > PSI Directive: As a last and final (tbc) consultation before the “data > economy” package is propose, the Commission is asking us for our opinion on > the Public Sector Information Directive. [12] We, among other > organisations, have already given the Commission our thoughts on this a few > years back, which were mostly welcomed and included in non-binding > implementation guidelines. [13] We will now basically take the position > that we want these guidelines to become mandatory. > > === > > [1] > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2016/0280(COD)&l=en > > [2]https://twitter.com/SCSsoftware/status/912974257415770112 > > [3]http://sparceurope.org/copyrightreform/ > > [4]https://twitter.com/Ansip_EU/status/788436558651219968 > > [5] > http://www.statewatch.org/news/2017/aug/eu-council-copyright-directive-estonian-compromises-11783-17.pdf > > [6] > http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/internet-trials/720-sabam-v-scarlet-court-rules-that-isps-cant-be-asked-to-filter > > [7]http://statewatch.org/news/2017/sep/eu-copyright-ms-questions.htm > > [8] > http://statewatch.org/news/2017/sep/eu-council-copyright-directive-german-questions-cls-12291-17.pdf > > [9]https://edri.org/avmsd-reform-document-pool/ > > [10] > http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2015/0287(COD)&l=en > > [11] > https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/synopsis-report-public-consultation-building-european-data-economy > > [12] > https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-review-directive-re-use-public-sector-information-psi-directive_en > > [13] > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2014.240.01.0001.01.ENG > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
