============================================================
EDRI-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 4.12, 21 June 2006
============================================================
Contents
============================================================
1. The European Commission dribbles the Parliament again in the PNR deal
2. German Parliament rejects motion against data retention
3. Swedish torrent website Pirate Bay returns back home
4. Betting websites are blocked in Italy
5. EU proposes accessibility standards in public procurement
6. Court rules Dutch mp3 search engine unlawful
7. EC supports its online broadcasting proposal
8. Former German ruling on liability of forum operators reviewed
9. UK DNA database shared with other countries
10. iTunes service considered illegal in Norway
11. Open letter for supporting the private copy in Italy
12. Recommended action
13. Agenda
15. About
============================================================
1. The European Commission dribbles the Parliament again in the PNR deal
============================================================
The European Commission is moving ahead in its efforts to comply with the
annulment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of the agreement between
the European Community and the US Government on the transfer of passenger
name records (PNR).
The Commission adopted on 19 June 2006 two initiatives in order to comply
with the ECJ decision. The first initiative is to recommend to the Council
to terminate the Agreement with the US by the end of this month, since under
the international law, the agreement remains in force for a period of 90
days after it is denounced by either party.
The second initiative is to ask the Council to give an authorisation to open
negotiations for a new Agreement with the Unites States on the basis of
Article 38, Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. The Commission
considers that Title VI (3rd Pillar) is the correct legal basis for an
International Agreement for matters dealing with public security and
criminal law matters. It also emphasises that "the content of the current
Agreement has not been criticised by the Court and should therefore continue
to offer the same level of safeguards regarding the legal certainty for air
carriers, the respect of human rights and the purposes for which PNR data
may be used."
In practice, this will mean a defeat of the European Parliament, which
challenged before the ECJ the substance of the agreement as well. According
to a Commission spokesman regarding the new proposed agreement: "There is no
formal role for the Parliament to play."
Supporting the Parliament's position, Peter Hustinx, the European Data
Protection Supervisor considered that "the judgment seems to have created a
loophole in the protection of European citizens whereby their data are used
for law enforcement purposes."
The Commission hopes the member states will accept a new deal to be set
up by the beginning of July and that they will not conclude in separate
deals with the United States.
The Commission adopts two initiatives to comply with the Ruling of the
European Court of Justice on the transfer of PNR to the United States of
America (19.06.2006)
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/800&format=
HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
MEPs to be sidelined in revived airline data deal (19.06.2006)
http://euobserver.com/9/21904
PNR: EDPS first reaction to the Court of Justice judgment (30.05.2006)
http://www.edps.eu.int/Press/EDPS-2006-8-EN_PNR.pdf
EDRI-gram : EU-US agreement on passenger data transfer annulled (7.06.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.11/pnr
Letters sent by President Borrell of the European Parliament on the
consequences of the Court case of 30 May on passenger name records
(09.06.2006)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/jun/eu-usa-pnr-borrell-letter2.pdf
============================================================
2. German Parliament rejects motion against data retention
============================================================
On 20 June the German Parliament rejected a resolution that would have
requested the federal government to join the action for annulment of the
EU telecommunications data retention directive at the European Court of
Justice (ECJ). The text had been introduced by the opposition parties
Greens, Liberals and Left Party and was supported by 133 parliamentarians.
But the grand coalition of the governing parties voted against it, with
one abstention from the Conservatives. The authors of the resolution argued
that the data retention decision should have been made in the "Third Pillar"
of the European Union structure in the form of a framework directive, which
would have required an unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers.
The governments of Ireland and Slovakia who voted against the
Directive during the final decision in February have already started a case
at the ECJ. Their chances are good, as the court's recent decision
on the transfer of passenger data to the United States was taken on the
same grounds. The German opposition also asked to postpone
the transposition of the Directive into the federal law until this case is
decided, because even if the Directive is annulled, national laws would
still be valid. The EU Directive mandates the retention of all
telecommunications traffic data within the EU for 6 to 24 months for law
enforcement and national security purposes.
Parliamentarian Jerzy Montag from the Greens, who had drafted the
resolution, reminded his colleagues that the German Parliament and
Government had always asked for a framework decision, last time in a
February 2006 resolution. Therefore he criticized : "Commission and
Council have changed the horses during the action, while the cart stayed
the same". Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries claimed that the
government had "enforcedly accepted" the change of the legal grounds for
data retention in order not to endanger the substantial outcome.
The majority of the parliamentarians was unimpressed by several
last-minute attempts from non-governmental organizations to support the
opposition's motion. On 17 June, around 250 citizens followed the call
by a broad coalition of 15 civil liberties and other groups for a
demonstration "Freedom instead of Security Delusion" in Berlin. It was
mainly organized by the Working Party on Data Retention, an informal
network set up in December 2005 with the help of German EDRi members
Netzwerk Neue Medien (NNM) , FoeBuD, and Forum InformatikerInnen f|r
Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung (FIfF). The demonstration was
the first attempt in years to bring anti-surveillance protest to the streets
and, considering the short preparation time of less than three weeks, it was
seen by the organisers as a success to build on.
The Forum Human Rights, a coalition of 45 German human rights organizations,
also published a position paper on data retention on 16 June and
formally submitted it to the Parliament before the vote. The paper
criticizes data retention as "totally disproportionate and an attack on
the foundation of a free and democratic society".
The Forum Human Rights joined others in their analysis that any law on
mandatory data retention would be in violation of both the European
Convention on Human Rights and the German Constitution. If the Directive is
transposed into German law, several civil liberties groups are already
preparing to challenge it at the Constitutional Court. These legal and
political activities, seen together with the demonstration that sparked a
number of creative activities, are an indication that anti-surveillance
activities are getting more momentum in Germany.
German Parliament rejected the Resolution "Reviewing the Directive on Data
Retention by the European Court of Justice" (in German only, 20.06.2006)
http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/016/1601622.pdf
Working Party on Data Retention (in German only)
http://initiative.stoppt-die-vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
Protest march "Freedom rather than obsession with security" (17.06.2006)
In English
http://web125.nice-host.de/VDS/html/VDS/index.php/Announcement
In German, with after-action information
http://web125.nice-host.de/VDS/html/VDS/index.php/Aufruf
Pictures from the demonstration (17.06.2006)
http://su2.info/d/ak-vorrat/photos/stephan/
http://www.apkk.de/doku/Demo_Datenwahn/
Forum Human Rights Position Paper "Data retention violates fundamental
rights and undermines a free society" (in German only, 16.06.2006)
http://www.forum-menschenrechte.de/docs/FMR-2006-06-20_lang.pdf
(Contribution by Ralf Bendrath, German EDRi member Netzwerk Neue Medien)
============================================================
3. Swedish torrent website Pirate Bay returns back home
============================================================
At the end of May, the Swedish Police raided the location where the
PirateBay.org website was located and shut down the site seizing several
servers. However, after less than 1 month, the site, which is considered the
world's biggest BitTorrent tracker being visited by 10 million to 15 million
daily users, resumes its activity from Sweden.
The Motion Picture Association of America quickly reacted after the Police
raid considering that: "The actions today taken in Sweden serve as a
reminder to pirates all over the world that there are no safe harbours for
Internet copyright thieves."
After just a couple of days from the raid, PirateBay.org was back online,
hosted somewhere in Netherlands. The operators of the website fought back
considering that their actions were not illegal as The Pirate Bay only
provided links and not the actual downloads.
A recently formed party called the Pirate Party that is supporting more
open and consumer friendly copyright laws has been very active in
criticizing the police actions. The Pirate Party that will run in the 2006
elections has supported public meetings in Stockholm and Goteborg where some
hundreds of protestors with pirate flags asked for the return of the servers
to the Pirate Bay owners and the closing of the investigation. It is
estimated that in Sweden there are one million file-sharers out of the nine
million inhabitants.
There have been rumours that the action has been required by the United
States. According to Washington Post, in April 2006, officials from the US
Government met with the officials from the Swedish Ministry of Justice and
said that the Pirate Bay was one of the world's largest sources of pirated
films and music. At the end of May, the police acted against PirateBay, even
though, according to some sources, the Swedish prosecutors considered they
didn't have a strong case against it.
The Police has also other problems since ten Swedish companies are now
asking for damages for disruption of their businesses. During the raid on
the PirateBay website the Police confiscated 200 servers, some of them owned
by companies not affiliated with that website. The companies now request
damages from 1 000 EUR up to 20 000 EUR.
At the middle of June, the website was back home with an increased
popularity in Sweden but also worldwide. However, its operators considers
splitting the operations between several countries in order to avoid closing
it down.
Swedish police scupper Piratebay (31.05.2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/31/piratebay_raid/
File-sharing crackdown and backlash in Sweden (4.06.2006)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/04/business/pirate.php
Pirate Bay resurfaces, while protesters walk the street (5.06.2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/05/pirate_bay_reemerges/
Swedish IT companies demand damages after file-sharing crackdown
(15.06.2006)
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/editorial/14826812.htm
Piratebay sails back to Sweden (15.06.2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/piratebay_back_sweden/
US government pressured Sweden over Pirate Bay (19.06.2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/19/us_pushes_sweden/
============================================================
4. Betting websites are blocked in Italy
============================================================
Following a fierce battle between an authority of the Italian State and
private european online betting companies over their activity in Italy, a
big number of betting websites are officialy blocked for Italian Internet
users.
Everything began with the 2006 financial law (Law 266/2005) voted by the
Parliament under the outgoing Berlusconi government. The law included four
provisions - namely paragraph 535-58 of art.1 - which gave the
Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS or Autonomous
Administration of State Monopolies, a part of the Ministry of Economy and
Finances) the power to bring to the attention of:
(a) providers of Internet services, or
(b) providers of other data or telecommunication networks, or
(c) entities that offer networks or telecommunication services in
relationship to (a) or (b), all those instances in which someone offers
games or bets where money can be lost or won without having the proper
authorization that is usually granted by AAMS itself.
Upon receiving such communication from the AAMS, the subjects from (a)
to (c) have the legal obligation to inhibit usage of the networks that they
manage or for which they provide betting and gaming services "by adopting
appropriate technical measures to this end".
The AAMS proceeded on 13 February 2006 to compile and publish a first
list of websites that should not be accessed from Italian networks.
Compliant ISPs generally implemented the restriction by "hijacking" DNS
communication and redirecting it to the DNS server of the AAMS. The end
result is that users trying to access such websites are instead getting a
notice saying that "pursuant to the decree of the AAMS of 7 February 2006
the requested website is not accessible because it does not have the
necessary authorizations for collecting bets in Italy".
Of course, reactions flocked in by all sides. Several betting companies,
including UK-based William Hill (which is included on the list of blocked
websites) announced they would recur to the European Court of Justice for
what they claim is blatant violation of the basic principles of the
European internal market.
The Remote Gambling Association immediately started to negotiate a
compromise with the Italian government, but until now no agreement seems to
have been reached.
Moreover, several Italian commentators noticed how poor the employed
system is from a technical point of view. It is in fact sufficient in
most cases to remove the leading "www" prefix to access the blocked
websites. Other strategies, including the usage of web proxies, are
also possible.
The Italian chapter of ISOC (Internet Society) took a
firm technical position, considering that the proposed measures were
ineffective and in any case were far away from the "best practices" in the
sector - while at the same time noticing that the outcries of "censorship"
seemed misplaced because of the subject matter under discussion.
While ISOC explicitly chose to avoid the "censorship" argument, other
commentators argued that by blocking entire websites the proposed solution
ment in fact severely limiting the right of all Italian citizens to access
information, as granted by the Italian Constitution and several
international instruments. If the goal was to impede the act of gambling
then any measure should have been proportionate to this
specific goal. Impeding Italian citizens to access a website and the
information contained therein arguably is not.
One company, Malta-based Astrabet Bookmaker Ltd., went further and requested
the Second Section of the Civil Tribunal of Rome to declare the measure
illegitimate, insofar as it cut off Astrabet's website from the Italian
network.
On 10 April 2006 Judge Lorenzo Pontecorvo issued a writ by which it ordered
AAMS to immediately remove Astrabet from the "blacklist". In his reasoning,
Judge Pontecorvo touched on a number of interesting and potential
far-reaching issues, including how AAMS' right to grant licenses only
applies to the Italian territory, while Astrabet is established in and
operates from Malta and that the contract between users and Astrabet,
according to the facts and the law, is performed in Malta.
He also pointed out that according to the European jurisprudence, blocking
or limiting the activities of Astrabet constitutes a violation of the
"freedom to provide services" principle as enshrined in the EU Treaty and
that the claims by AAMS and others, according to which Astrabet was guilty
of "unfair competition" by "diverting customers" to its website, is
completely unfounded, since Astrabet is simply providing services through
the Net, "a reality which cannot be ignored anymore".
AAMS counter-attacked by appealing the decision and refusing - for technical
reasons - to remove Astrabet from the blacklist. In an official press
release of 12 May 2006, AAMS wrote that the Astrabet issue is "an isolated
case" and that the Maltese company had "engaged in non-ritual activities
with the sole goal to obtain undeserved privileges and behaviours which
would be discriminatory towards other subjects that are legally operating in
Italy".
Although technically avoidable, the blacklist is apparently still applied by
Italian ISPs.
Italian Financial Law 266/2005 (in Italian only, 23.12.2005)
http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/guri/attocompleto?dataGazzetta=2005-12-29&red
azione=005G0293&service=0&ConNote=2
AAMS list of websites to be blocked from 13 February 2006 (7.02.2006)
http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060213093814964&op=download
ISOC Italia position regarding the filtering of websites that offer online
gambling (in Italian only, 15.03.2006)
http://www.isoc.it/documenti/20060315_com_gambling.pdf
Civil Tribunal of Rome, Second Section, Ordinance (in Italian only,
10.04.2006)
http://www.ictlex.net/wp-content/TrRM060410.zip
Clarifications of AAMS on the AstraBet case (in Italian only, 12.05.2006)
http://www.aams.it/site.php?page=20060512175347713&op=download
(Contribution by Andrea Glorioso, consultant on digital policies - Italy)
============================================================
5. EU proposes accessibility standards in public procurement
============================================================
In a ministerial meeting that took place in Riga on 12 June 2006, ministers
from European countries have signed a declaration to diminish the gap in
Internet usage for groups at risk of exclusion, but also to increase
broadband coverage.
The Riga Ministerial Declaration was signed by ministers of 34 European
countries from EU Member States, accession and candidate countries, and
EFTA/EEA countries. The declaration shows the commitment of the countries to
an "Internet for all" action plan that should allow the disadvantaged
groups to access the Internet.
One of the conclusions of the meeting was the necessity to assess the need
for legislative measures in the field of e-Accessibility, and to take into
account accessibility requirements in the review of the electronic
communications regulatory framework beginning in June 2006. Another
suggestion was to make recommendations, by 2007, on accessibility standards
and common approaches, which could become mandatory in public procurement by
2010.
Data from the European Commission have shown that only about 3% of public
web sites fully comply with minimum web accessibility standards - a real
problem for the 15% of the EU population with disabilities. According to a
recent research by Disability Rights Commission (DRC), 81% of
web sites in the UK are inaccessible to disabled people.
Ministers in Riga also supported the European Commission's intention to
prepare for the European e-inclusion initiative announced for 2008 in the
"i2010" strategy, the digital economy component of the EU's renewed "Lisbon"
agenda for jobs and growth.
Internet for all: EU ministers commit to an inclusive and barrier-free
information society (12.06.2006)
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/769&format=
HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
EU may make accessibility a legal requirement (15.06.2006)
http://uk.builder.com/webdevelopment/design/0,39026630,39317017,00.htm
============================================================
6. Court rules Dutch mp3 search engine unlawful
============================================================
The Dutch Court of Appeals in Amsterdam has ruled that search engine
zoekmp3.nl is unlawful. This search engine provided links to
mp3-files on the World Wide Web. The court chose not to answer the
question whether linking itself to unauthorised mp3-files is an
infringement of copyright law. The lower court had found that this
was not the case. The Court of Appeals based the unlawfulness on
Dutch tort law, and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court
stated that in principal search engines are free to make money from
providing search results to mp3-files, even if these files are known
to be unauthorised. Only in particular circumstances will the search
engine be liable for damage to copyright holders.
The specific circumstances the court found relevant to conclude the
unlawfulness were that the search engine was specifically aimed at
providing links to unauthorised files (charts). The court also found
that the search engine knew that most of its visitors were looking
primarily for unauthorised copies. Therefore, according to the Dutch
court a warning on this matter to its visitors could not be an
excuse. Further more, it found relevant that the search engine had
advertisement and information that was linked to the unauthorised
content, such as ring-tones of the popular songs. In general, the
court came to the conclusion that the search engine was making its
money by structurally exploiting the availability of unauthorised
mp3-files on the World Wide Web, evidently without taking into
account the interests of copyright holders. Acting as such, the
search engine breached its general duty of care towards them.
Dutch copyright organisation Brein had appealed the verdict of the
lower court of 12 May 2004, that had concluded there was no liability
for the search engine, but a duty to react if it was notified of
links to unauthorised copies. Most importantly, the lower court had
ruled that a link to unauthorised mp3-files was not in breach of
Dutch copyright law, because a link couldn't be considered as an act
of making public a copyrighted work. In spite of this positive
verdict, the owner of the search engine, Techno Design, decided to
stop the search engine's activity. It also decided not to defend
itself at the Court of Appeals. This had considerable effect on the
verdict since some facts stated by Brein were proven mainly because
of the absence of a defence.
On 23 June 2006, the trial starts against four suspects in the case
of download sites Releases4u.com and Shareconnector.com. The
prosecution is charging them with professional infringement of Dutch
copyright law, in the context of a criminal organisation. The
download sites provided a selection of links to illegal software,
films, music and games on p2p-program eDonkey. As the first criminal
prosecution for this practice, the trial is a test case for Dutch
law. One of the defence lawyers already stated that the linking
itself is not a criminal offence, nor a copyright infringement, and
therefore his client should not be convicted. Civil law action
against the sites by Brein was unsuccesful.
Dutch site linking to MP3 files loses court case (19.06.2006)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19062006/80-91/dutch-site-linking-mp3-files-loses-c...
urt-case.html
(Contribution by Joris van Hoboken - EDRI-member Bits of Freedom -
Netherlands)
============================================================
7. EC supports its online broadcasting proposal
============================================================
In an Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) event held in Brussels on
14 June, Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media,
expressed again her position to support the EC proposal to revise the
Television Without Frontiers (TVWF) Directive.
"There will be no regulation of the Internet," Mrs. Reding told ZDNet UK
stating that the extension of the Directive is supposed to provide basic
rules to protect minors online, and to prevent incitement to hatred and
over-repeated advertising.
The Commissioner also said that the proposed provisions are only basic tier
rules and self-regulation can be supported better by a legal framework. The
Government would intervene only when self-regulation does not work.
While the Commissioner considers the Directive will be beneficial to the
Internet business, the industry and the Internet community expressed concern
that the Directive would lead to the regulation of the content on the
Internet.
The Confederation of British Industry thinks that the Directive will "stifle
economic growth, inhibit job creation and hamper the development of digital
content and services across the EU". Other representatives of the Industry
such as Microsoft, Google or Verizon expressed concerns regarding the scope
of the legislation and the problem of jurisdiction and enforcement. They
believe the already existing legislation is enough and efficient in
protecting children and consumers and that self-regulation is the right
solution.
Professor Michael Rotert, president of the European Internet Service
Providers Association (EuroISPA), considers the Directive as a regulation of
the Internet "through the backdoor" and thinks: "Regulated self-regulation
will be misused immediately, when it comes into practice".
Europe defends online broadcasting plans (15.06.2006)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39275180,00.htm
FAQ: EC Proposes to Modernise 'Television Without Frontiers' Directive
(22.05.2006)
http://uk.ihs.com/news-06Q2/eu-en-modern-tv.jsp
EDRI-gram Draft Audiovisual Media Services Directive under criticism
(24.05.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.10/audiovisual
============================================================
8. Former German ruling on liability of forum operators reviewed
============================================================
A previous ruling of the Hamburg court that made moderators of internet
forums liable for content posted on their sites is now contradicted by the
Intermediate Court of Appeals in Dusseldorf which has ruled that forum
operators are obligated to delete illegal comments made by their users only
in case they know about them.
The ruling of the German Supreme Court of 2004 obliged the forum operators
to prevent illegal content posted by their users but did not bind them to
review all comments before being placed online. However, in the Heise
Zeitschriften Verlag case, the Hamburg court ruled against Heise, asking
from the publisher to monitor the content before it appeared online.
The Hamburg court had required the operator to "either increase its funding
or limit [...] its operations" in order to review all postings before
publishing them online.
In the case of a person having been repeatedly insulted on a forum who filed
a temporary restraining order, the appeal court of Dusseldorf overruled the
decision of the first-instance court to issue the order, considered that
monitoring all postings would have required unreasonable efforts from the
forum operator from the financial as well as human resources point of view.
It is not expected from the operators to actively look for breaches of the
law or to monitor all postings. However, they have the obligation to delete
or block comments about which complaints have been made.
Also the Dusseldorf judges believed that the technical filtering solutions
were not effective in blocking illegal contents."While a search for certain
key words might be simple from the technical point of view and would even
help combat violations of trademark, in light of the almost infinite number
of ways that people can formulate insults such filters would not be very
practical in the prosecution of violations of personal rights."
First-instance district court of Hamburg says forum operators are liable for
comments (18.04.2006)
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/72085
German court rules moderators liable for forum comments (21.04.2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/21/moderator_liable_for_comments/
Court rules that prior review of forum comments is unreasonable (15.06.2006)
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/74320
EDRi-gram : Hamburg court rules against forum providers (26.04.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.8/forum
============================================================
9. UK DNA database shared with other countries
============================================================
The UK Home Office has admitted that DNA stored in the UK National DNA
Database has been shared with other countries.
UK has today one of the largest law enforcement DNA database with profiles
from 3.5 million people, including 500 000 children under 16 years old. The
database was established in 1995.
Privacy concerns regarding the database have been expressed, especially when
the database was revealed to contained more than 50 000 DNA profiles of
children who have never been charged with any offence.
Recently, the UK Home Office Minister Joan Ryan has answered a question from
the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone regarding
the access of foreign law enforcement authorities to the database content.
Ryan said that there have been 519 requests for details from the database
since 2004, but no records are available before that year.
Featherstone considered that "There are no real safeguards in place to
control this huge database which leaves it open for misuse - and now we find
out it's not only being misused in our country but also internationally."
She also supported the idea of an independent watchdog to monitor the access
of foreign law enforcement authorities to the UK DNA Database.
On the other hand, the representative of the Home Office declared that: "
The increasing ease of travel and communication between EU member-states has
also resulted in a higher risk of criminal activity crossing the borders of
EU member-states." He also added that the data were provided only when
serious crimes were investigated.
DNA database is shared overseas (7.06.2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5056450.stm
UK Home Office defends sharing DNA database (8.06.2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/08/ndnad_sharing/
News and updates on the UK DNA Database
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/orgwiki/index.php/DNA_database
============================================================
10. iTunes service considered illegal in Norway
============================================================
Following a complaint made by the Norwegian Consumer Council in January this
year, Bjorn Erik Thon, the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman has ruled that the
Apple iTunes service breaks section 9a of the Norwegian Marketing Control
Act.
The Consumer Ombudsman considers as unreasonable that the agreement the
consumer must accept is regulated by the foreign law and that iTunes
disclaims any liability for a possible damage the software may cause.
He also thinks that just like Apple requires an iPod for songs via iTunes,
other companies producing music, book or film could restrict their products
to specific players as well and believes that this could be an infringement
of rights.
"You will have a difficult situation for the consumer ... the consumer has
to have four or five gadgets to have the availability of the content that he
wants," stated Thon considering a consumer should have the right to use a
product on any device he chooses.
Senior advisor Torgeir Waterhouse of the Consumer Council stated that
contract terms, technical blocks or other types of legal protection show a
tendency to restrict the consumer rights as well as their access to cultural
material.
"The digital rights of consumers have been dictated by the industry for a
long time. This decision marks the start of a struggle to recover them,"
said Waterhouse.
The decision of the Ombudsman brings Norway closer to the position of other
countries in this matter such as France and the UK. It seems Denmark and
Sweden will follow this position in requiring iTunes to be modified in order
to do business in their countries.
Apple representatives expressed their hope that they would not have to pull
out of Norway and their wish to find a solution to this issue.
According to the experts, this will not be an easy matter as Apple, in case
it did not create its DRM system only to force the use of a certain device,
may be bound by license agreements with the music industry and thus is not
in the position to just cancel its DRM policies and open its content.
iTunes must change the terms and conditions of their agreements in order to
comply with the Norwegian law by 1 August, an extension from 21 June, or
face fines.
iTunes guilty of breaking Norwegian law (7.06.2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/07/norway_rules_itunes_unfair/
The Consumer Council of Norway is on track to win case against iTunes
(6.06.2006)
http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1149587055.44
Norwegian ombudsman says Apple's iTunes DRM is illegal (7.06.2006)
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07/norwegian_ombudsman_.html
Can Europe Force Apple To Rework iTunes? (16.06.2006)
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2085110
European officials cautious on iTunes antitrust (16.06.2006)
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6084688.html
============================================================
11. Open letter for supporting the private copy in Italy
============================================================
A new public campaign has been launched in Italy: its goal is to
change Italy's copyright law to ensure that end-users have a
full-fledged right to create a private copy of works they legally
acquired.
The campaign, promoted by Scarichiamoli!, an Italian informal group of
activists whose main goal is permitting the free circulation of
knowledge, is aimed at revising Italian Legislative Decree 68/2003,
that implements the European Directive 2001/29/CE on the harmonization
of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information
society.
In particular, the suggested revision would change art.9 of the Decree by
making sure that a private copy of a legally acquired work
can always be made, even bypassing technical protection measures
(TPMs), irrespective of whether such a copy is digital or analogue.
Currently, it is possible for a user to bypass TPMs in order to make a
private copy of a legally acquired work. Or rather, it is compulsory
for a copyright owner to make sure that the user can perform such an
act. However, the law states the copyright owners' obligation only extends
to analogue copies of a work. There is currently no obligation for them to
allow users to make a digital private copy of a legally acquired work.
Secondly, the suggested modifications aim at making sure that the
possibility to create a private copy cannot be contractually negotiated.
Scarichiamoli! published on 9 June an open letter to Italian MP Titti
De Simone (PRC) who had shown a special interest in this subject back
during the discussions on the Italian implementation of the EUCD. The
letter has already been signed by many Internet users, webmasters or
other experts.
On 14 June 2006, Titti de Simone replied by confirming her interest in
the subject and inviting the proponents of the campaign to an informal
hearing at the Culture Commission of the Italian Parliament.
An argument to the Italian campaign could be the position taken these
days in UK by the British Phonographic Industry stating that consumers would
be pursued only if they make copies for other people and not for their
personal use - although the Italian campaign aims at making sure that such
an activity is a legally-stipulated right and not a gentle concession by a
private party.
Private copy, the Italian campaign has begun (only in Italian, 9.06.2006)
http://punto-informatico.it/p.aspx?id=1517037&r=PI
Open Letter to Titti De Simone (only in Italian, 9.06.2006)
http://www.scarichiamoli.org/main.php?page=lettere/de_simone
UK fans can copy music for private use (7.06.2006)
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2157746/uk-fans-copy-music
Report on the Italian implementation of the EUCD
http://www.fipr.org/copyright/guide/italy.htm
============================================================
12. Recommended Action
============================================================
Hearing on future EU patent policy
The European Commission will hold a public hearing on future EU patent
policy on 12 July 2006. This is the second step of the public consultation
launched in January 2006 with the aim of collecting stakeholders' views on
the patent system in Europe and seeking views on what measures could be
taken in the near future to improve this system.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/796&type=HTML&a
ged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Commission consultation on copyright levies
The questionnaire on "Copyright levies in a converging world" is submitted
for public consultation to ensure that later Commission proposals are
technically viable, practically workable and based on a bottom-up approach.
Stakeholders and Member States already provided valuable input in the
process and this additional follow-up consultation serves the dual purpose
to help to further improve the quality of the policy outcome and at the same
time enhancing the involvement of interested parties and the public at
large. This additional follow-up consultation period will run from 6 June
through 14 July 2006.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.htm#06060...
============================================================
13. Agenda
============================================================
21 June 2006, Luxembourg
Safer Internet Forum 2006 Focus on two topics: "Children's use of new media"
and "Blocking access to illegal content: child sexual abuse images"
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/si_forum/forum_june_...
006/index_en.htm
22-23 June 2006, Barcelona, Spain
The 3rd International GPLv3 Conference
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/europe-gplv3-conference
23 June 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark
Book Launch - Human Rights in the Global Information Society.
Keynote on Privacy, terrorism and the new security agenda.
Organized by The Danish Human Rights Institute and The Danish WSIS network
Information about the book.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10872
Program and invitation:
http://www.humanrights.dk / http://www.una.dk/wsis
26-27 June 2006, Berlin, Germany
The Rising Power of Search-Engines on the Internet: Impacts on Users, Media
Policy, and Media Business
http://www.uni-leipzig.de/journalistik/suma/home_e.html
26-30 June 2006 Geneva, Switzerland
Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda
(PCDA/2)
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=9766
26-28 June 2006, Cambridge, UK
Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2006)
http://weis2006.econinfosec.org/
28-30 June 2006, Cambridge, UK
Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies
http://petworkshop.org/2006/
3-5 July, Cambridge, UK
Privacy Laws & Business, 19th Annual International Conference
"Privacy Crisis Ahead? Investing enough in data protection to strengthen
and defend your reputation"
http://www.privacylaws.com/conferences.annual.html
7 July 2006, Zurich, Switzerland
Free cultures - a Free Internet. Internet Governance and Switzerland
Who is supposed to govern the internet? A symposium on the "Internet
Governance Forum" will be looking for the answers.
http://www.igf-06.ch
16 - 28 July 2006, Oxford, UK
Annenberg/Oxford Summer Institute: Global Media Policy: Technology and New
Themes in Media Regulation
http://www.pgcs.asc.upenn.edu/events/ox06/index.php
2-4 August 2006, Bregenz, Austria
2nd International Workshop on Electronic Voting 2006 Students may apply for
funds to attend the workshop until 30 June 2006.
http://www.e-voting.cc/stories/1246056/
3 August 2006 , Prague, Czech Republic
Travelers privacy and EU
One day seminar organized by Iuridicum Remedium, providing a space for
privacy experts to meet Czech officials to discuss passports,
biometrics, RFID, PNR deal and other issues related to privacy risks
possibly encountered by travellers in the EU.
http://www.bigbrotherawards.cz/en/index.html
14-16 September 2006, Berlin, Germany
Wizards of OS 4 Information Freedom Rules
http://wizards-of-os.org/
===========================================================
15. About
===========================================================
EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRI has 21 members from 14 European countries and 5 observers
from 5 more countries (Italy, Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia).
European Digital Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU
accession countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the
EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or
agenda-tips are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and
visibly on the EDRI website.
Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea