*So refreshing to read something with nothing to do with the US Senate or the NSA.
======================================================================
EDRi-gram
fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
EDRi-gram 13.11, 3 June 2015
Read online: https://edri.org/edri-gram/13-11/
Contents
1. Danish Ministry of Culture: Danes should be regulated by Google
2. EU Commission set to re-brand the failed CleanIT project
3. Data retention: German government tries again
4. General Data Protection Regulation: Moving forward, slowly
5. Turkey blocks political websites
6. Startups for Net Neutrality
7. ENDitorial: From copywrong to copyright?
8. Recommended Action
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About
1. Danish Ministry of Culture: Danes should be regulated by Google
In 2012, ACTA was rejected by the European Parliament with an
overwhelming majority, not least due to its proposals to allow private
law enforcement by foreign internet companies. Despite this, on 8 May
2015, the Danish Ministry of Culture presented a "Code of Conduct"
agreement with a number of internet intermediaries, which in many
respects is similar to the objective to "promote cooperative efforts
within the business community to effectively address trademark and
copyright or related rights infringement" in Article 27(3) of the ACTA
Treaty.
The participants of the agreement, officially called "Code of Conduct to
promote lawful behaviour on the Internet", are the Ministry of Culture,
the Rights Alliance and other rightsholders, Internet Service Providers
(ISPs), payment processors (Diners, MasterCard and Nets), advertising
companies, web hosting companies, domain registrars, Google and Microsoft.
The new agreement builds on an earlier more limited code-of-conduct
agreement from October 2014 between the Rights Alliance and the Danish
ISPs. Under that agreement, when a Danish court order one ISP to block a
specific website, the other ISPs in the Danish Telecom Industry
Association will voluntarily block that website within seven working
days (even if, due to the size or technologies used, this might not be
necessary or proportionate and might not have been approved by a court).
Moreover, if a blocked website appears on a new domain with the same
content, the ISPs will, upon request from rightsholders, block that
domain without a court order.
The participants of the new Code of Conduct will work together to ensure
that consumers prioritise the Internet's autorised services and options,
while at the same time actively seeking to disrupt and stop illegal
activities. The Code of Conduct agreement mentions that it complements
activities taken on an international level.
Under the new Code of Conduct, an injunction against a specific ISP to
block a specific domain name could be extended with voluntary blocking
in other areas than Internet access services, for example advertising
networks and payment processors. At a copyright enforcement seminar in
Copenhagen on 28 May 2015, Maria Fredenslund of the Rights Alliance
described the intention as "maximising the effect of an injunction".
A working document (only available in Danish) describes the various
projects of the Code of Conduct in greater detail. Three projects are
referred to as "follow the money", covering advertising, payment
processors, as well as web hosting companies and domain registrars. The
focus is on voluntary blocking of content and online advertising and on
stopping payment flows.
Advertising networks will take “reasonable” steps to avoid supporting
services and products based on copyright infringement when selling
advertising space online. They will add terms to their contracts which
can limit the flow of money to allegedly/suspected illegal services.
Furthermore, advertising networks will aim at working solely with
partners and subcontractors that commit to following the Code of
Conduct. The working group for advertising will consider extending the
restrictions to websites where no judge has ruled about its illegality,
but the website can be considered to be “obviously” illegal.
Payment processors will investigate the possibility of blocking payments
to allegedly illegal services. Web hosting companies and domain
registrars will take “reasonable” steps to remove unauthorised services
from their servers and refrain from doing business with such services.
It is specifically mentioned that these voluntary steps are in addition
to their legal obligations to remove content under the E-commerce Directive.
A second group of projects under the Code of Conduct agreement is
supposed to guide the consumers towards legal services on the Internet.
The measures aim for it to be the rule, not the exception, that the
consumer is presented with and motivated to use authorised services. In
order to meet this goal, there are plans to remove or lower the priority
of allegedly anauthorised services in search results (links) from search
engines and online popularity rankings. Google and Microsoft Bing will
participate in this project. Of course, Google already does this, based
on US law – if certain domains are the subject of a significant number
of complaints under the US DMCA, they are demoted in Google search
worldwide.
Internet Service Providers will continue their current practice of
voluntary blocking once an injunction has been issued against a single
ISP. The blocked websites (with DNS-blocking) will display a notice
which encourages the consumer to search for legal alternative at a
website called Share With Care (www.sharewithcare.dk).
Safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights is mentioned nowhere in the
documents published by the Danish Ministry of Culture. No civil society
organisation has participated in the discussions about the Code of
Conduct. The "broad support", referred to by the Ministry of Culture
when presenting the Code of Conduct agreement, is only within the
established internet companies and intermediaries. Fundamental rights,
jurisdiction, applicable law, rule of law, effectiveness,
counterproductive effects, anti-competitive effects, etc have, as is
usual in such circumstances, not been assessed, nor will they be.
Broad support for a common fight for a legal and safe internet in the
copyright area (only in Danish, 08.05.2015)
http://kum.dk/nyheder-og-presse/pressemeddelelser/nyheder/bred-opbakning-til-faelles-kamp-for-et-lovligt-og-trygt-internet-paa-ophavsretsomraadet/1/1/
Code of Conduct to promote lawful behaviour on the Internet, Danish
Ministry of Culture (08.05.2015)
http://kum.dk/fileadmin/KUM/Documents/Nyheder%20og%20Presse/Pressemeddelelser/2015/Code_of_Conduct_-_Engelsk_version.pdf
Denmark: Code of Conduct on website blocking, Kluwer Copyright Blog
(24.10.2015)
http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2014/10/24/denmark-code-of-conduct-on-website-blocking/
EDRi-gram: Ex parte domain name seizures in Denmark (08.10.2014)
https://edri.org/ex-parte-domain-name-seizures-denmark/
re:publica 2015 - States think we're stupid: Internet censorship around
Europe since ACTA
(Contribution by Jesper Lund, EDRi member IT-Pol, Denmark)
2. EU Commission set to re-brand the failed CleanIT project
Every once in a while, the European Commission launches talks with the
Internet industry to encourage companies to take voluntary actions in
response to a very diverse range of possibly illegal or unwanted online
activity.
Past initiatives have not been hugely successful, and they have
frequently raised concerns regarding their vagueness, their lack of
transparency and their potential to limit the user’s fundamental rights.
Failures include the CleanIT project and the “safer social networking
principles for the EU”. The fact that the EU institutions have a legal
obligation not to implement “self-regulatory” measures when fundamental
rights are at stake appears to be of no concern.
In 2015, the Commission is set to launch yet another initiative,
“voluntarily” imposed by internet companies – this time to “tackle
terrorism and prevent radicalisation”. In April 2015, the Commission
published its “European Agenda on Security” in which it re-stated its
intention to launch “an EU Forum with IT companies to help counter
terrorist propaganda and addressing concerns about new encryption
technologies”. It is important to note that, in such initiatives, the
Commission sees itself as a catalyst – it is in the process, it causes
the process to happen, but it is not actually part of the process,
thereby avoiding any legal obligations or accountability.
One would imagine that the Commission officially announces the launch of
a particular activity with a clear idea about what this activity is
supposed to achieve, who shall be invited, and by when this activity
should be concluded. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case.
At the end of April, EDRi submitted an access to documents request in
order to receive information about:
- participating businesses in this "Forum with the Internet service
providers community"
- objectives and tasks of the Forum
- minutes of meetings of the Forum
- a list of upcoming meetings of the Forum
- a timeline of the work of the Forum
Fifteen days later we received the following message: “We regret to
inform you that no documents exist for the time being that would
correspond to the description given in your application.” As it is
simply the catalyst, it is causing all of this to happen, but producing
the information itself would imply political and legal accountability,
which is to be avoided at all costs.
In its letter, the Commission goes on to explain that the goals of this
Forum have been laid out in a Communication on “Preventing
Radicalisation to Terrorism and Violent Extremism” (point 2.6). In this
document, dated 15 January 2014, it also announced the planned set up of
that Forum. The private sector should do “more than just prohibiting or
removing illegal content” and that additionally a “positive and
carefully focused message needs to be spread”. Now, one and a half years
later, the Commission still has neither a clear view on what the private
sector should accomplish, nor by when this unspecified activity should
happen. We have therefore submitted another application to request
confirmation that there are no further documents or communications
between the private sector and the Commission following the announcement
to "set up a forum with key players in the industry".
It is worrying that the Commission continues to propose initiatives that
could have a negative impact on the freedom of communication, and that
these initiatives are not based on law as prescribed by the Charter of
Fundamental Rights. It is even more worrying that the Commission is
either keeping the relevant documents from the public or that, once
again, it has no idea what it wants to achieve.
On the other hand, this approach gives the Commission power (to pressure
industry into launching such initiatives) without any accountability for
the outcome. What political institution would not want power without
responsibility? One which has a “better regulation” agenda, possibly.
EDRi's access to documents request
http://www.asktheeu.org/request/forum_with_the_internet_service
EU Commission response
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/1929/response/6868/attach/2/GestDem%202015%202271%20Ares%202015%201987059.pdf
EDRi's confirmatory application and request for an internal review
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/forum_with_the_internet_service#outgoing-4224
EU Commission Communication: The European Agenda on Security (28.04.2015)
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/basic-documents/docs/eu_agenda_on_security_en.pdf
EU Commission Communication: Preventing Radicalisation to Terrorism and
Violent Extremism: Strengthening the EU's Response (15.01.2014)
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/crisis-and-terrorism/radicalisation/docs/communication_on_preventing_radicalisation_and_violence_promoting_extremism_201301_en.pdf
(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler, EDRi)
3. Data retention: German government tries again
Even before the parliamentary summer recess starting on 4 July, the
German government wants to push a national law on data retention through
the German Bundestag. After the Ministry of Justice presented so-called
guidelines in mid-April, and a complete draft law only a month later,
the Parliament is now supposed to debate and pass this legal instrument
within only a month.
The retention of metadata from electronic communications has been on the
political agenda throughout Europe for many years now. After the EU had
passed a Directive on data retention, Germany first introduced a
national law that forced telecommunication providers to store metadata
from electronic communications in 2008. Two years later, the German
Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) came to the conclusion that this law
violated fundamental rights, and therefore declared it null and void. A
decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) followed
in 2014, rescinding the EU Directive entirely. While the European
Commission, for the time being, has refrained from making another
attempt at introducing a Directive, the German government is still
hell-bent on bringing a national law on data retention into effect.
The Ministry of Justice is trying to sell its draft law as a
“well-balanced compromise between freedom and security“ which meets all
the requirements set by both the FCC and the CJEU. In the draft, storage
periods have been reduced to ten weeks for traffic data and four weeks
for location data. Metadata on e-mails will not be collected at all and
government authorities will always need a court order allowing them to
access the data. Civil rights groups, academia and even parts of the
Social Democrats (who form the governing “great coalition“ together with
the Conservatives) beg to differ, though.
Until today neither the European Commission nor any government of an EU
Member State has been able to present evidence or even indications for
the effectiveness of data retention in combating terrorism or serious
crime. In fact, all of the studies examining the effects of data
retention on the prevention and prosecution of such offences have found
that it does not lead to higher clearance rates. This is an important
aspect, because every infringement of a fundamental right must be
necessary and proportionate in order to be legal under international law
– and a measure that does not even have a measurable effect towards the
goal of the legislation can never be necessary.
The undifferentiated character of the planned data retention is the
draft's next fundamental flaw. According to the CJEU, one of the main
faults of the EU Directive on data retention was the fact that it
demanded storing the metadata of everyone, in the absence of a concrete
suspicion of any wrongdoing or any other criterion that would limit the
scope of the data collection. Even though e-mails have now been excluded
from the German draft law, it still orders telecommunications providers
to stockpile traffic and location data without any specific preconditions.
Another problem with the proposal is the planned protection of people
with a duty for professional secrecy. While clerical and social
institutions as well as government authorities in these fields are
entirely exempt from the collection of metadata, traffic and location
data of other professionals who equally depend upon confidentiality
(like lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, psychotherapists, tax consultants
and journalists) will be stored. The draft law nonetheless forbids
government authorities to access this data. Apart from the fact that it
defies logic to store data for the purpose of not using it later, this
approach puts highly sensitive personal data at the risk of being stolen
and abused by criminals and intelligence agencies. The fact that this
already happened in the UK shows that this is not a just a hypothetical
risk.
More importantly, this approach also violates the principles of equal
treatment and legal certainty laid down in the German Constitution.
There is no objective reason to consider the communications of clerical
and social institutions worthier of protection than those of lawyers and
doctors, rendering this differentiation entirely arbitrary. Also, it
remains unclear how the protection is supposed to work in practice.
There is no obvious non-intrusive way to manage this unpredictable
distinction .
The list of defects in the draft law goes on and on, from the easily
bypassed requirement of a judicial order to access the data, to a new
offence of “data-fencing“ which threatens the work of journalists and
whistleblowers. Still, with an 80 percent majority in the Parliament,
the German government is simply ignoring all the protest and criticism,
recklessly pushing the law into existence. This also means that the
European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society, Günther
Oettinger, will soon have a chance to back up his words with deeds. In
the hearing before the European Parliament on the occasion of his
inauguration as a Commissioner, Oettinger announced that he will launch
an infringement procedure against any Member State that attempts to
introduce a law on data retention after the CJEU ruling.
Lack of protection due to the end of data retention?
https://www.mpg.de/5000721/vorratsdatenspeicherung.pdf
UK admits unlawfully monitoring legally privileged communications
(18.02.2015)
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/18/uk-admits-unlawfully-monitoring-legally-privileged-communications
(Contribution by Volker Tripp, EDRi member Digitale Gesellschaft, Germany)
4. General Data Protection Regulation: Moving forward, slowly
The discussions in the EU on the proposal for a General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) are slowly advancing, but the final destination is
still unknown. Commissioner Věra Jourová , who is responsible for
Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality and has the task of ensuring the
“swift adoption of the EU data protection reform”, has stated that EU
Data Protection reform “is a win-win for consumers and businesses”, and
that the red lines of the 1995 Data Protection Directive will remain
untouched. However, latest developments in the Working Party on
Information Exchange and Data Protection (DAPIX) have brought to the
GDPR text new changes that may erode Jourová's optimism.
In March 2015, EDRi published a set of leaked documents with the (then)
latest texts from the EU Council. At the same time we published an
analysis of the five main topics we thought were going below the
safeguards that were set in the 1995 Data Protection Directive. Our
analysis remains valid, unfortunately, for majority of the points we
analysed, with some exceptions.
For example, Article 6 and recital 40 on lawfulness of processing of
personal data have been touched in different ways. The list of
requirements defining whether or not a further processing is compatible
with the purpose the data was collected in Article 6 (3a) has become an
open list with the insertion of the words "inter alia". This makes it a
broader definition which could add additional safeguards for the data
subject. Going a bit further, Article 6.4 is likely to be deleted, since
there seems to be a significant number of Member States that are pushing
against it. This Article allows for “(f)urther processing by the same
controller for incompatible purposes on grounds of legitimate interests
of that controller or a third party shall be lawful if these interests
override the interests of the data subject”.
The “one stop shop” mechanism is also a matter of concern. The original
idea was to simplify complaints, creating a single point of contact for
citizens and businesses bringing a transnational complaint. It would
also ensure consistent application of the Regulation through the
European Data Protection Board (EDPB), eliminating the current common
practice of “forum shopping”. Based on the leaked documents, the current
proposed text from the Council on the “one stop shop” mechanism would
add several levels of bureaucracy. In the case of a transnational
complaint, at least two data protection authorities would have to be
involved and reach consensus to solve the case. This could lead to a
fragmented implementation of the Regulation as the oversight role of the
Board would be greatly reduced. Both citizens and businesses would then
be left without the benefits of a swift, predictable and harmonised “one
stop shop” mechanism. Finally, data Protection seals (certifications)
and binding corporate rules should all be subject to the one-stop
mechanism, at least in transnational cases. Otherwise they will offer
the possibility to bypass the Regulation.
In the lead-up to the start of the trialogue meetings on this topic, we
can only mention a few of the major issues here. In a meeting of the
European Data Protection Supervisor with civil society actors (including
EDRi, EDRi members Access and Bits of Freedom, as well as BEUC, Code
Red, and Privacy International, see video below) on 27 May, we addressed
also problems with the definitions contained in the GDPR, the
seriousness of having profiling back in the exceptions of Art. 21 after
it was taken out by the Parliament, the need for citizens to be able to
have access to effective collective redress mechanisms, and problems
with the transfer of data to third countries, including the Safe Harbour
agreement.
Data protection reform timetable (01.06.2015)
http://www.eppgroup.eu/fr/news/Data-protection-reform-timetable
Latest consolidated text of the GDPR
https://edri.org/files/DPR2015feb/GDPR_consolidated1-June-2015.pdf
Statewatch: LIMITE document from the Council on Article 6 and recital 40
(26.05.2015)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/may/eu-council-dp-reg-Art-6-ChapII-III-9082-15.pdf
Other documents obtained by Statewatch are available at
http://statewatch.org/news/2015/may/eu-dp-reg-may-2015.htm
EDPS meeting with civil society (EDRi, Access, BEUC, Bits of Freedom,
Code Red, Privacy International)
https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/site/mySite/GDPR_civil_soc
Badly broken campaign: European data protection reform is badly broken
(03.03.15)
https://edri.org/broken_badly/
(Contribution by Diego Naranjo, EDRi)
5. Turkey blocks political websites
Engelli Web is an independent monitoring website that lists websites
blocked by the Turkish government. Currently it lists over 80 000
domains and the number keeps rising. The real figure is probably much
higher, because the government does not disclose the exact list of
banned sites.
Although the majority of the sites are blocked on the basis of
containing illegal contents or services, websites with contents related
to for example politics and Kurdish insurgency are also blocked. While
Turkish Internet users are very much interested in the political
corruption in the highest echelons of politics, relevant websites do not
exist. This scarcity could be seen as a result of the perception that
they will be banned anyway. Instead, the news and ideas in these
categories are usually disseminated in global social media platforms
such as Twitter where they get more international visibility if they get
banned. In recent years, blocking of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube in
the country has frequently raised international concerns.
There is a notable exception of government blocking of political
websites whose political direction appears to be more in tune with that
of the government.
Engelli Web
http://engelliweb.com/
Islamist websites in Turkey manage to evade strict Internet censorship
(13.03.2015)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/world/europe/islamist-websites-in-turkey-manage-to-evade-strict-internet-censorship.html?_r=0
Turkey court issues arrest warrants in MIT truck probe (07.05.2015)
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/185101/turkey-court-issues-arrest-warrants-in-mit-truck-probe.html
What Erdogan said “food supply” turned out to be guns (29.05.2015)
http://en.firatajans.com/news/what-erdogan-said-food-supply-turned-out-to-be-guns
Video purports to show Turkish intelligence shipping arms to Syria
(29.05.2015)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/29/us-mideast-crisis-turkey-arms-idUSKBN0OE28T20150529
The world has seen the main culprit (only in Turkish, 31.05.2015)
http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/koseyazisi/288463/Dunya_asil_sucluyu_gordu.html
6. Startups for Net Neutrality
The future of our open Internet is at risk. Current EU developments
creating the risk of allowing large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to
make the internet less open and less free.
“Startups for Net Neutrality” believes that the beauty of the Internet
is that everybody with a laptop and an Internet connection can change
the world. All great ideas get an equal chance at success because
everyone can communicate with everyone on a broadly equal basis. This is
guaranteed by the principle of net neutrality, because it ensures that
all data are treated equally. Failing to protect this principle will
hurt the Internet ecosystem and hinder the success of current and future
startups. This will hinder innovation and the creation of new businesses
and new jobs.
We thought net neutrality was saved in 2014 by the European Parliament,
only to see now that this decision is under attack behind closed doors
in the Council. The time to act is now. This is why we urgently ask the
members of the European Parliament to defend their position, repeated in
no fewer than five votes, that Europe needs legal protection for the
open and free internet.
We welcome every member of the international startup community to join
us in our fight for openness and competition. It is in all our interests
to join this campaign, because if weak legislation is adopted, the new
EU law will allow ISPs to create borders in the open Internet. Ziggo one
of the largest telecoms providers in the Netherlands, already launched a
product which offers content providers a premium network in addition to
the ”normal internet” - something that would be explicitly permitted by
the last EU Council Presidency proposal. Last year Deutsche Telekom,
which accounts for 60 percent of Germans broadband connections, proposed
to impose download limits for its customers, while exempting traffic
generated by its own video on-demand service. No startup can break into
a market that is abused in this way.
These examples show that ISPs no longer want to treat all digital
information as equal. If we allow this, the level playing field for
competing Internet companies and new services will be destroyed. Big
companies like Facebook and Google, can afford to pay for access to the
”fast lane” or “premium internet”, and investment in this part of the
infrastructure will rise. Startups and other small companies will have
to do with the “slow lane” Internet, which will be kept slow in order to
push online companies to pay for “premium” access to the telecoms
companies' customers.
This is bad news for end users that want to explore new services. It
will harm innovation in general and startups in particular. That is why
the European Parliament must turn down the proposal by the Council and
vote for a truly open and free internet, in line with its vote in April
2014.
Startups for Net Neutrality
http://www.startupsfornetneutrality.org/
(Contribution by Wienke Giezeman, Startups for Net Neutrality, Netherlands)
7. ENDitorial: From copywrong to copyright?
“I've got two 12-year-old criminals in my kitchen and that can't be
right" (Jonathan Worth, professional photographer)
The first round of debates surrounding the copyright reform in the
European Parliament are reaching their last stages. Pavel Svoboda's
report on Intellectual Property Right (IPR) enforcement was published on
19 May. The report contains a mixture of negative and positive elements
which need to be taken into consideration.
Among the negative aspects, we find simplistic statements, for example
that IPR infringements discourage growth (Recital D). In reality, the
situation is far more nuanced. For example, while the slow adaptation of
the music industry to the digital environment has driven a lot of
infringements, the market has adapted. Income from concerts is, in fact,
growing in the last years. The omnipresent mantras of "follow the money"
and "commercial scale" are now happily together in the same paragraph
(paragraph 3), still without a clear definition of what these concepts
imply. Nobody has sought to define “follow the money” while even the
European Commission has said that its 9-year-old definition of
“commercial scale” is probably inadequate.
Then, all sprinkled through the Report, there is positive commentary to
the generally lamentable work of the Observatory on IPR infringements.
Taking into consideration the numerous flaws of much of the output of
the Observatory, the gratuitous fawning and, even worse, the calls to
use its work to build upon it a new “Intellectual Property” legal
framework, seems misplaced and ill-informed to say the least. There is
also a mention of the “lack of awareness" of the young generation of the
importance of IPR infringements, referring to a study which does not
actually say that. It also seems to ignore the results of the copyright
consultation where thousands of users called for a Intellectual Property
(IP) framework adapted to the 21st century. Finally, the call for
"cooperation" of the main Internet stakeholders, which sounds too much
like the same old call to privatised law enforcement and the undefined
call to “follow the money”.
Among the positive elements, the Report presents calls for balances
between fundamental rights and privatised law enforcement (paragraph
10), although it is not clear what this call actually means. There is
also the support for attractive licit offers to combat unauthorised use
of content (paragraph 37) and for a "comprehensive legal framework to
combat IPR infringement adapted to the online environment, with full
regard for fundamental rights and freedoms, fair trials, proportionality
and data protection" (paragraph 57). Finally, the Report asks for
measures “guaranteeing a balanced approach representing the interests of
all stakeholders involved, and, in particular, of consumers and their
right of access to content" (paragraph 58).
The Plenary of the European Parliament will vote on the Report in the
week beginning 7 June.
Julia Reda's Report on the implementation of the so-called InfoSoc
Directive (one of the foundations of EU Copyright law), on the other
hand, has been delayed and is now going to be voted in the European
Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) on 16 June. The recently
launched copywrongs.eu website contains a good summary of concrete
proposals on the harmonisation of exceptions and limitations and for a
modernised EU Copyright framework. This new framework should be one
where the vast majority of citizens are not considered as offenders of
intellectual property rights for doing things that seem (and are)
perfectly normal, such as private copying or re-using copyrighted
material for parody purposes. The copywrongs site also offers a free
user-friendly tool developed by EDRi observer La Quadrature du Net to
call Members of European Parliament (MEPs) to let them know your
position on the debate.
Given the immense disproportion between rightsholders' lobbyists and
civil society advocates, this tool will help to amplify citizens' voice.
Since there are only a few days before the vote, the time is to get
informed via our handbook on copyright and via copywrongs.eu and to take
action now for a modernised EU copyright framework!
Copywrongs.eu
https://copywrongs.eu/
EDRi's document pool on the copyright reform
https://edri.org/copyright-reform-docpool/
Summary report of the responses to the copyright public consultation
(30.06.2014)
https://edri.org/summary-report-responses-copyright-consultation/
Economists say P2P file-sharing fuels art (18.06.2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/18/harvard_working_paper_weak_copyright_protections_benefit_society/
Copyright in the age of the internet (EP video)
http://europarltv.europa.eu/en/player.aspx?pid=97a32df5-0d5f-435b-b573-a49f00a8f175
EDRi paper: Copyright - challenges of the digital era
https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/paper07_web_20130202.pdf
C4C Copyright Manifesto
http://copyright4creativity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/C4C-Copyright-Manifesto-20150119.pdf
(Contribution by Diego Naranjo, EDRi)
8. Recommended Action
Save copyright reform!
Call your Members of the European Parliament now to tell you want them
to fix copyright. Vote in the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will take
place on 16 June.
http://copywrongs.eu/
9. Recommended Reading
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the
right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye
www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session29/Documents/A.HRC.29.32_AEV.doc
INTA Committee TTIP Report
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bREPORT%2bA8-2015-0175%2b0%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
JURI Committee IPR Enforcement Report (18.05.2015)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A8-2015-0169+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
EDRi's letter to Kosovo Assembly on data retention
https://ndalpergjimitrks.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/lajm-i-fundit-edri-i-shkruan-leter-kryetarit-te-parlamentit-te-kosoves-foto/
LIBE study: The US legal system on data protection in the field of law
enforcement. Safeguards, rights and remedies for EU citizens
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/519215/IPOL_STU%282015%29519215_EN.pdf
10. Agenda
05.06.2015, Leuven, Belgium
IPEN Workshop 2015
https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/EDPS/IPEN/IPEN_Workshop_2015
13.08.2015, Zehdenick, Germany
Chaos Communication Camp
https://events.ccc.de
15.10.2015, Brussels, Belgium
Big Brother Awards Belgium
https://bigbrotherawards.be
16.10.2015, Brussels, Belgium
Freedom not Fear
https://www.freedomnotfear.org/
06.11.2015, Erlangen, Germany
FIfF-Conference 2015: Commercialisation of the Soci(et)al – Markets and
Power in the Age of Total Datafication
http://www.fiff.de/
27.12.2015, Hamburg, Germany
32C3
https://events.ccc.de
12. About
EDRi-gram is a fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in
Europe. Currently EDRi has 33 members based or with offices in 19
different countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active
interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to
share knowledge and awareness through the EDRi-gram.
All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips
are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are
visible on the EDRi website.
Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Newsletter editor: Heini Jarvinen edrigram@edri.org
Information about EDRi and its members: http://www.edri.org/
European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in
the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider
making a private donation.
https://edri.org/donate/
- EDRI-gram subscription information
subscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request@mailman.edri.org
Subject: subscribe
You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
Unsubscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request@mailman.edri.org
Subject: unsubscribe
- EDRI-gram in Macedonian
EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay.
Translations are provided by Metamorphosis
http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/mk/vesti/edri
- EDRI-gram in German
EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are
provided by Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian
Association for Internet Users
http://www.unwatched.org/
- Newsletter archive
Back issues are available at:
http://www.edri.org/newsletters/
- Help
Please ask edrigram@edri.org if you have any problems with subscribing
or unsubscribing.
