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