[Wikimedia-l] Hacking Brussels: 1st EU Policy Monitoring Report (May)
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Hacking Brussels: 1st EU Policy Monitoring Report (May)
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.dimit...@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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Hacking Brussels: 1st EU Policy Monitoring Report (May)
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 jane...@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.dimit...@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
