Category Domestic Policy

The European Commission’s New Proposal for Re-Use of Public Sector Information: Improving But Some Fixes Still Required

[Katarzyna Strycharz] Today, Communia submitted feedback to the European Commission on its proposal to amend the Directive on the re-use of public sector information. This is the second time the Commission has proposed to update the legal framework for access to and re-use of Public Sector Information (PSI) since the Directive was adopted in 2003. The most important changes from the previous amendment (2013) was the introduction of a genuine right to re-use by making  all content that can be accessed under national access to documents laws reusable, and expanding the scope of the Directive to cover libraries, museums, and archives. This time, the European Commission has proposed to make more research data available, extends the scope to public undertakings (including transportation data), and further limits the scenarios in which public entities may charge for data. This proposal was preceded by public consultations (see COMMUNIA’s response). We support the proposal to amend Directive, but at the same time we want to draw attention to some issues where the proposal should be improved.

What Can the Copyright Directive Vote Tell Us About the State of Digital Rights?

[Reposted from TechnoLlama.co,uk] As we have been covering in the last couple of articles, a controversial EU Copyright Directive has been under discussion at the European Parliament, and in a surprising turn of events, it voted to reject fast-tracking the tabled proposal by the JURI Committee which contained controversial proposals, particularly in Art 11 and Art 13. ... For years we’ve had a familiar pattern in the passing of copyright legislation: a proposal has been made to enhance protection and/or restrict liberties, a small group of ageing millionaire musicians would be paraded supporting the changes in the interest of creators. Only copyright nerds and a few NGOs and digital rights advocates would complain, their opinions would be ignored and the legislation would pass unopposed. Rinse and repeat. But something has changed, and a wide coalition has managed to defeat powerful media lobbies for the first time in Europe, at least for now. How was this possible?

Fair and Flexible: What We Can Learn from Canadian Copyright Law

[Savannah van Dongen]  With the EU and other states looking to modernise copyright law for the digital era, education exceptions in copyright law are a hot topic. Particularly, the second paragraph of Article 4 of the proposed directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that gives room to educational licenses is being contested by educators, learners, and educational organisations. Canadian copyright law includes the doctrine of “fair dealing” — a unique version of a common exception.

The Copyright Directive: Misinformation and Independent Enquiry

[Martin Krechmer] A new academic statement has been released today in anticipation of the plenary vote in the European Parliament on the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, scheduled for 5 July, 12:00. More than 200 academics from over 25 research centres, including the leading European institutes, have signed open letters opposing Article 11 (new exclusive right for press publishers) and Article 13 (new obligation on platforms to obtain licences for content uploaded by users, or prevent the availability of such content by filtering).

Australian Digital Alliance: Extension of Safe Harbour Welcomed as an Incremental Step

[ADA] Important changes to Australian copyright law passed today will protect Australia’s education, cultural and disability organisations and help them provide better services to our communities. Under the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Act 2018 Australian disability organisations, education providers and cultural institutions will now be covered by the copyright safe harbour scheme, which will protect them from being held liable when their online services – from public access computers to digital hubs – are used by others to infringe copyright.

JURI Vote Results: A Better Educational Exception with a Poisoned Pill Within

[Lisette Kalshoven] This morning the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI) voted on the report on the proposed Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive... We are happy that the Commission’s flawed proposal for an exception that secures digital uses for education purposes has been fixed. Educators are given clarity about uses in digital environments, and the scope of the exception has been increased beyond educational establishments and their premises. There is also improved text that makes a contractual override of the exception impossible. Yet, the poison pill remains: the Commission’s proposal in article 4(2) to give priority to licenses over the exception was adopted.

Internet Shutdown Stories

[CIS-India] Aside from the waves of innovation that the digital revolution brought with it, the ever increasing pervasiveness of the internet has had a tremendous impact on empowerment and freedoms in society. We are seeing unprecedented levels of access to information, along with ademocratization of the means of creation, production and dissemination of information to anyone with an internet connection. ... Simultaneously, however, we are seeing Indian states discover and experiment with their power to clamp down on these new modes of communication for a variety of reasons, ranging from the ill-intentioned to the ill-informed. ...This book seeks to give a glimpse into the lives of those directly affected by these internet shutdown experiments. From Jammu and Kashmir to Telangana, from Gujarat to Nagaland, we have collected 30 stories from across the country for an up-close look at how the everyday lives of common citizens have been impacted by internet shutdowns and website blocks.

“This Video is Unavailable”: Analyzing Copyright Takedown of User-Generated Content on YouTube

[Kristofer Erickson and Martin Kretschmer] Abstract: What factors lead a copyright owner to request removal of potentially infringing user-generated content? So-called “notice-and-takedown” measures are provided in the United States under Section 512 of the U.S. Copyright Act (as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998) and enabled in the European Union under the Directive on Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC). While the combination of limiting liability (“safe harbor”) and notice-and-takedown procedures was originally conceived as a means of balancing innovation with the interests of rightholders, there has been limited empirical study regarding their effects. This research investigates, for the first time, the factors that motivate takedown of user-generated content by copyright owners.

104 Members of Parliament Agree: It’s Time to Dump the #LinkTax

In an incredible show of political support for a more reasonable copyright law, today 104 members of the European Parliament sent a letter to Rapporteur Voss asking him to delete the harmful press publishers right—Article 11. The signatories include MEPs from across the political spectrum. Signatories of the letter state that "... we believe that the introduction of a new European neighbouring right will have a nocent and injurious effect on citizens’ access to quality news and information."

South African Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry Debates a General Copyright Exception

The South African Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry has released its report on its most recent copyright reform debate. The summary notes: "An area of major contention was whether the Copyright Act should be based on the ‘fair use’ or the ‘fair dealing’ principle. The Committee strongly favoured ‘the fair use’ principle but with exceptions to manage the openness of the system... "

Letter from 147 Organisations EU Member State Ambassadors Asking Council to Stop a Rushed EU Copyright Reform

We, the undersigned, are writing to you ahead of your COREPER discussion on the proposed Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market. We are deeply concerned that the text proposed by the Bulgarian Presidency in no way reflects a balanced compromise, whether on substance or from the perspective of the many legitimate concerns that have been raised. Instead, it represents a major threat to the freedoms of European citizens and businesses and promises to severely harm Europe’s openness, competitiveness, innovation, science, research and education.