EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 6.22, 19 November 2008
EDRI-gram newsletter
edrigram at edri.org
Wed Nov 19 13:21:16 PST 2008
============================================================
EDRi-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 6.22, 19 November 2008
============================================================
Contents
============================================================
1. Data breach notification - different opinions in EU bodies ?
2. The EDPS' opinion on the US-EU data exchange agreement
3. Foreign P2P software producers might be liable under the French law
4. Romania adopts data retention law
5. Big Brother Awards Czech Republic 2008
6. Google executives facing trial on video posted on YouTube
7. ENDitorial: An Overheated Debate on the Rights of the Visually Impaired
8. Recommended Action
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About
============================================================
1. Data breach notification - different opinions in EU bodies ?
============================================================
The amendments adopted on 24 September 2008 by the European Parliament (EP)
on the ePrivacy Directive includ the obligation of information society
services providers to notify personal date related security breaches to the
national authorities. However, a recent proposal of the European Commission
seems to put the amendment back on the discussion list, reffering only to
telecom operators for such an obligation.
Following the European Data Protection Supervisor's opinion on the ePrivacy
directive in April 2008 that suggested a mandatory security breach
notification from "providers of public electronic communication services in
public networks" but also from other actors, such as "providers of
information society services which process sensitive personal data
(e.g.online banks and insurers, on-line providers on health services,
etc.)", the MEP Alexander Alvaro included amend ments on these aspects in
the report from the Standing Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home
Affairs, backing up a procedure to inform users in case of security breaches
at service providers.
The amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 24 September 2008
include these additions to the text initially proposed by the Commission.
Amendements 187/rev and 184 now ask for an obligatory notification to the
national regulatory authority or the competent authority according to the
individual law of the respective Member State, of any personal data related
security breaches from any "provider of publicly available electronic
communications services, as well as any undertaking operating on the
internet and providing services to consumers, which is the data controller
and the provider of information society services."
Other amendments adopted by the EP (124 and 125) explain the procedure
following such notifications. Thus the competent authority will consider
and determine the seriousness of the breach and, if the breach is serious,
the provider will be obliged to send a notification to all persons that were
affected.
Even though it appears that the next Council of Telecoms Ministers will
agree to the EP position, the European Commission has change the legislative
texts, as a compromise between the opinions of the European Parliament and
the European Council.
The new statements of the European Commission on data security are
intriguing, as they discuss about security breaches only in case of telecom
operators:
"The Commission reaffirms the need of telecoms operators to notify
regulators and the public about security breaches. The Commission reaffirms
that notifications must, as a matter of principle, be sent to the
individuals affected by them and that the notification procedure must remain
swift, simple and effective. In order to clarify, in an objective manner,
the cases where such notifications will be required, the Commission will,
under the new legislative text, give more detailed guidance as to the
circumstances of a breach that would trigger a notification."
Since there are yet no official documents provided on the European Council
website regarding the next Council of Telecoms Ministers meeting on 27
November 2008, it is unclear whether the European Parliament's opinion will
try to be disregarded in this respect or not. In any case, the EP will have
a second reading on the telecom package which is scheduled for April 2009.
Telecoms Reform: Commission presents new legislative texts to pave the way
for compromise between Parliament and Council (7.11.2008)
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1661&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
European Parliament legislative resolution on ePrivacy directive
(24.09.2008)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0452+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
Documents for the Council of Telecoms Minister on 27 November 2008
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=15106%2F08&ff_COTE_DOSSIER_INST=&ff_TITRE=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DATE_DOCUMENT=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&dd_FT_DATE=&fc=REGAISEN&srm=25&md=100&ssf=&rc=1&nr=1&page=Detail
EDRi-gram: ePrivacy Directive debated in the EP's Civil Liberties Committee
(2.07.2008)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.13/e-privacy-review-ep
EDRi-gram: EDPS endorses data breach notification provision in ePrivacy
Directive (23.04.2008)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.8/edps-data-breach-notification
============================================================
2. The EDPS' opinion on the US-EU data exchange agreement
============================================================
On 11 November 2008, Peter Hustinx, the European Union's Data Protection
Supervisor, gave some comments to the report published on 26 June 2008 by
EU-US High Level Contact Group (HLCG) on information sharing between US-EU
on privacy and personal data protection.
According to Hustinx, a greater sharing of personal data between the
European Union and the US should be accompanied by guarantees that the
individuals whose data are exchanged may examine the exchange process and
correct eventual mistakes. He believes that US and EU should be allowed to
share individual personal data in criminal cases, only if people can take
the authorities to court when they are wronged. "Strong redress mechanisms,
including administrative and judicial remedies, should be available to all
individuals, irrespective of their nationality," says the EDPS.
With this position, he agrees with the EU request for the right to take the
authorities to court regardless of nationality of the person whose data is
processed, something that the US did not agree with. Currently, the US
Privacy Act says that only US citizens and legal permanent residents can sue
the authorities and only after having exhausted all direct actions with the
government agencies before going to court.
The EDPS thinks that in the context in which the transatlantic exchange of
information will continue to grow and include other additional sectors where
personal data are being processed, "a dialogue on 'transatlantic law
enforcement' is at the same time welcome and sensitive. It is welcome in the
sense that it could give a clearer framework to the exchanges of data that
are or will be taking place. It is also sensitive since such a framework
could legitimise massive data transfers in a field - law enforcement - where
the impact on individuals is particularly serious, and where strict and
reliable safeguards and guarantees are all the more needed."
Hustinx also wants more interest groups to be involved in the discussion
between the interested parties as well as a greater involvement of the
European Parliament. He believes transparency is necessary during the future
debates as until now HLCG has been working behind closed doors.
He expressed his concern related to the increasing demands for international
transfers of data from private companies and third parties. "It appears from
this context that the request of enforcement authorities of third countries
for personal information is constantly widening, and that it also extends
from traditional government data bases to other types of files, in
particular files of data collected by the private sector.
As an important background element, the EDPS also recalls that the issue of
transfer of personal data to third countries in the framework of police and
judicial cooperation in criminal matters is addressed in the Council
Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the
framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters4 that is
likely to be adopted before the end of 2008."
Hustinx's office said the report should lay at the basis of a road map
towards a legally binding agreement, in a process that should not be hasty.
Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Final Report by
the EU-US High Level Contact Group on information sharing and privacy and
personal data protection (11.11.2008)
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2008/08-11-11_High_Level_Contact_Group_EN.pdf
EU Data Protection Supervisor seeks a roadmap for transatlantic data
protection (14.11.2008)
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/118902
EU privacy regulator says US must agree to data swap court action
(13.11.2008)
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9593
============================================================
3. Foreign P2P software producers might be liable under the French law
============================================================
At the beginning of November 2008, a French court ruled that the US
companies that created p2p software can be sued in France according to
French laws.
The ruling refers to a case brought to court by the French music producers
association - SPPF (Societe de producteurs de phonogrammes francaises) in
June 2007, against open source software hub SourceForge with its hosted
project Shareaza and two other p2p software Vuze and Morpheus, to which
Limewire was added at the end of 2007.
On the basis of evidence provided by the French company Advestigo, the SPPF
accused the four plaintiffs of copyright infringement, for files having
being exchanged illegally via the Internet by means of their software. The
SPPF supports its case on the so-called Vivendi amendment to the French
DADVSI law which stipulates that "editing, making publicly available or
announcing to the public, knowingly or in any other way, software manifestly
meant to make available to unauthorised public protected works" could be
fined up to 300 000 Euro or sent to prison for 3 years. Until recently, the
case had been blocked, pending the court decision on jurisdiction but now,
with the decision of the French court, the case can be pursued. Filing the
case, the SPFF was asking "the immediate interruption of the distribution
and operation of the respective software" and 3.7 millions euro from
Morpheus, and 16.6 millions euro from Vuze.
One of the companies sued by SPFF is actively working in obtaining licensing
agreements from content providers and has recently won a decision from the
US Federal Communications Commission which ordered the ISP Comcast to cease
hindering peer-to-peer activity.
The story of Sourceforge is even more concerning as the hub for open source
software is the place from where many small businesses that cannot afford to
buy software get open source software. This is a vital part of the software
industry, and even the software industry's own anti-piracy organisation, the
BSA accepts it. The music industry has a long history in fighting
Sourceforge's Shareaza, a project for the open source development of
software for end-users, which is managed by volunteer project leaders and
developers in Europe, Australia and the US.
P2P: the French offensive against the software (only in French, 7.11.2008)
http://www.ecrans.fr/P2P-L-offensive-francaise-contre,5616.html
Music producers get green light to sue Sourceforge, Vuze (12.11.2008)
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200&Itemid=9
Record Labels to Sue Vuze, Limewire and SourceForge(10.05.2008)
http://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-to-sue-vuze-limewire-and-sourceforge-081114/
============================================================
4. Romania adopts data retention law
============================================================
Following the adoption of the draft law on data retention by the Chamber of
Deputies on 4 November 2008, the Romanian President made the final step
in adopting the law on 17 November.
>From now on, it is just a matter of time until the law will be published in
the Official Journal and until its entry into force (60 days from its
publication date). The Internet-related data will be kept only starting with
15 March 2009.
The lack of any relevant debates from both chambers of the Parliament or
its commissions was not surprising. It seems that all the parties involved
in adopting the law did it only because it was based on an EU directive and
the politicians didn't see any solution to avoid it.
The Commission on Human Rights of the Chamber of Deputies gave a negative
vote to the law, but since its opinion was just consultative on this law, it
really didn't matter in the end. Also, its report contains just the negative
vote without any explanation on the matter.
The president of the IT Committee in the Chamber of Deputies, Mr. Pambuccian
has presented the draft law to the Chamber plenum as the implementation of
an "excessive directive", but obligatory according to the European law.
But there weren't too many changes after the Parliamentary debates in the
text submitted by the Government in February this year. The major change is
the reduction of the retention time from one year to 6 months. The retained
data can be accessed by prosecutors, with a proper judge-approved access
authorization, only in penal cases related to organized crime and terrorism
crimes, that are limited by the express list provided by the definition of
serious crime.
The law does not provide the reimbursement of the expenses incured by the
law enforcement, but a new provision makes it specific that any expense for
electronic communication providers related to this law application is
fiscally deductible.
Article 20 still raises concerns giving the "state institutions with
attributions in the area of national security" access to the retained data
under the conditions established by the "national legislation" in this
domain. Since no express legislation is foreseen, this leaves an open door
for further regulation in "national security" cases.
The final draft still stipulates that an intentional access to the retained
data or its transfer without a proper authorization is a crime punished with
prison from one to 5 years.
Law 298/2008 on data retention (only in Romanian, 18.11.2008)
http://www.cdep.ro/proiecte/2008/400/30/9/pr439_08.pdf
Draft data retention law file at the Chamber of Deputies (only in Romanian)
http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.proiect?cam=2&idp=9455
6 months for traffic data retention (only in Romanian, 17.11.2008)
http://legi-internet.ro/blogs/index.php?title=6_luni_de_pastrare_a_datelor_de_trafic&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
EDRi-gram: Romanian Govt adopts Data retention law, but calls it inefficient
(27.02.2008)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.4/romania-data-retention
============================================================
5. Big Brother Awards Czech Republic 2008
============================================================
The fourth edition of Big Brother Awards was announced in the Czech Republic
in Prague on 14 November 2008. Under the direction of Czech EDRi-member
Iuridicum Remedium, seven worst perpetrators of the right to privacy were
awarded. The positive prize was granted to German Working Group on Data
Retention AK Vorrat.
The prizes were chosen by an expert jury from more than seventy nominations
submitted by the public. The jury members were Petr Krcmar (editor-in-chief,
Root.cz), Lenka Nejezchlebova (journalist, MF Dnes), Karel Neuwirth (Council
of Europe Data Protection Commissioner), Miroslav Ouzk} (member of the
European Parliament), Radek Smolmk (regional director, Symantec), Helena
Svatosova (Iuridicum Remedium) and Vaclav Vlk (lawyer).
The Municipal-Council of the city of Prague received the prize for the Worst
Public Agency for the multifunctional chip card it introduced for public
transport earlier this year. Although the card is designed to replace all
currently available season tickets, it is available only after presentation
of an ID and the signed agreement for the processing of personal data. Along
with the plans to reintroduce electronic gates in Prague underground, the
possibility to use public transport anonymously slowly diminishes.
The award in the category of the Greatest Corporate Invader was granted to
the AQUER.CZ for its products specifically aimed at devaluation of personal
privacy in terms of providing full software for complete monitoring of one's
computer activity.
Deutsche Telekom AG got the Lifetime Menace prize for the massive data loss
it incurred two years ago and willingly ignored until Der Spiegel proved the
data concerned were available for sale on the Internet. Until then, Deutsche
Telekom AG had not taken any steps to inform its customers about potential
threats that could have resulted from its failure to protect the customer's
data.
The USA government has again kept its position of the world leader in the
category of the Worst Snooper among Nations for setting bilateral agreements
on personal data transfers that were concluded between the governments of
USA and several EU member states in exchange of visa waiver. The agreement
with the Czech government is kept under secret regime and will not be
subjected to democratic vote of the Parliament. It raises fears concerning
the quality, quantity, as well as protection of the data to be transferred.
The Electronic road-toll system provided by Kapsch AG for monitoring and
regulating the traffic on the country's highways won the prize in the
category of Dangerous New Technology. The original intention to use this
system to charge extra fees from transportation entrepreneurs will soon be
extended to include every car on the road. Although the Ministry of
Transportation claims that anonymity of transport is its priority, it has
provided neither guarantees nor any information how the anonymity will be
achieved.
In the category Big Brother4s Precept of Law the award was given to the
European Commission for its proposal to introduce virtual strip search
cameras in European airports. The virtual strip search provides the airport
controllers with detailed picture of the traveler's body construction which
is in breach not only with the right to privacy but also the fundamental
principles of human dignity.
Mr Rudolf Marek was awarded in the category Boot in the Mouth for the
statement in his article in the EURO magazine on spying called "Hon na
skodnou nebo paranoia?" (Chasing the Vermints or Paranoia?), which presents
the possibility of hidden spying on employees as normal and usual, although
it is strictly prohibited by law.
At the end, the organizers were pleased to award the group of privacy
advocates AK Vorrat the Positive Winston Smith prize for its unceasing
endeavor to remedy the critical situation in the field of personal data
protection and defense of the fundamentals right to privacy not only within
the country of its origin, Germany, but within the entire Europe. The recent
successes of AK Vorrat have proven that its strong mission can mobilize tens
of thousands of people who do not hesitate to take part in process of
achieving the vision of the world we all share - world where the Big Brother
does not exist.
Big Brother Awards Czech Republic Official Web Site (only in Czech)
http://www.bigbrotherawards.cz/
Big Brother Awards Czech Republic 2007 (in English)
http://www.slidilove.cz/en/czech_big_brother_awards_2007
Root.cz (only in Czech)
http://www.root.cz/clanky/ceny-velkeho-bratra-nejvetsi-narusitele-soukromi/
Hospodarski noviny (only in Czech)
http://domaci.ihned.cz/c1-30334250-slidilem-roku-je-prazsky-magistrat-za-opencard
Czech TV (only in Czech)
http://www.ct24.cz/domaci/35915-anticeny-za-slideni-patri-opencard-nebo-americke-vlade/video/1/
(Contribution by EDRi-member Iuridicum Remedium - Czech Republic)
============================================================
6. Google executives facing trial on video posted on YouTube
============================================================
Four former and present Google executives, including Senior Vice President
David Drummond are waiting for the confirmation of the order issued by an
Italian prosecutor to stand trial for a video on a young man with Down
syndrome posted on YouTube in November 2006.
The case caused a lot of rumours in public media in 2006 and it was already
estimated that the prosecutors action would take a lot of time before
presenting the case in front of a judge. The Google executives are to appear
in a Milan court on 3 February 2009 facing charges of defamation and failure
to exercise control over personal data. The action is the result of the
investigation initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by Vividown, an
Italian advocacy group for people with Down syndrome, and the boy's father.
The video posted on the site in 2006, filmed with a mobile phone, was
showing an Italian youth with Down syndrome humiliated by four high school
students. Google removed the video immediately after having received a
complaint from the Italian Interior Ministry. The case was reported in 2006
in EDRi-gram, which underlined the fact that some important comments were
not taken into consideration such as "the responsibility of parents and
educators, the widespread deterioration of human and social values, the
warping of culture and behavior", as explained by EDRi-member ALCEI. As in
other cases, some people are using this opportunity to control free speech.
Google stated that the case could become a worrying precedent considering
the trial against its employees is not justified. Google had already said in
July 2008, when the case became public, that it would cooperate with the
prosecutors "to show that all Googlers under investigation have no
involvement in the Vividown case." A Google spokesman also stated: "We
believe that this proceeding is not about Google Video and what happened,
but about the internet as we know it - an open and free environment."
According to the EU legislation which is implemented into the Italian law,
hosting sites don't have to monitor third-party content, but are only
required to remove any content deemed offensive when notified about it. In
this case, however, Google was treated as an Internet content provider.
Google executives to face trial in Italy: sources (5.11.2008)
http://www.reuters.com/article/americasDealsNews/idUSTRE4A48VG20081105
Four Google Officials Likely to Stand Trial in Italy (6.11.2008)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/153411/
Google Sued Over Offensive Down Syndrome Video Clip | YouTube to Moderate
All Videos Uploaded? (26.07.2008)
http://www.webtvwire.com/google-sued-over-offensive-video-italian-executives-in-court-over-downs-syndrome-clip/
EDRi-gram: Google accused in Italy over shock video (6.12.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.23/italy_google
The "Google case" in Italy: one more excuse for censorship and repression
(26.11.2006)
http://www.alcei.org/?p=25
============================================================
7. ENDitorial: An overheated debate on the rights of the visually impaired
============================================================
The agenda of the 17th Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights,
that took place between 3-7 November 2008 at the WIPO headquarters in
Geneva, included the following topics: the limitations and exceptions, the
protection of audiovisual performances and the protection of broadcasting
organizations. In particular, the rights of visually impaired persons were
in focus.
This article shortly presents the events of the last day, during which the
conclusions of the meeting were agreed among the Member States, based on
proposals prepared by the chairman Mr. Jukka Liedes. This article
concentrated specifically on Limitations and exceptions and the rights of
the visually impaired.
The title "Wrangling Over the Rights of the Blind" formulated by Sherwin Siy
of Public Knowledge, sums up well the discussions of the last day. The
discussions concerning the rights of the visually impaired during the
morning session were based on the following draft conclusion:
"The Committee acknowledged the special needs of visually impaired persons
and stressed the importance of dealing with without undue delay, those needs
of the blind, visually impaired, and other disabled persons. This should
include both analysis of limitations and exceptions and the possible
establishment of a stakeholders' platform at WIPO, through which
technological, contractual and other arrangements could be facilitated to
secure access for the disabled persons to protected works."
The formulation was close to the proposal given by IFRRO, the International
Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations. The draft conclusion had no
reference to the proposal of World Blind Union (WBU). Both the limitations
and exceptions and the contractual arrangements (voluntary licensing)
between rights holders and visually impaired were mentioned. However, due to
the debate in the morning session, the chair prepared a new draft conclusion
during the lunch break. The new formulation was the following:
"The Committee acknowledged the special needs of visually impaired persons
and stressed the importance of dealing, expeditiously and with appropriate
deliberation, with those needs of the blind, visually impaired, and other
reading-disabled persons, including discussions at the national level on
possible ways and means facilitating and enhancing access to protected
works. This should include analysis of limitations and exceptions, including
their application to the international exchange of materials in accessible
formats. This should also include the possible establishment of a
stakeholders' platform at WIPO, in order to facilitate arrangements to
secure access for disabled persons to protected works. The SCCR took note of
the paper presented by the WBU and many delegations expressed interest in
further analyzing it."
Most importantly, the paper presented by WBU was mentioned and the following
two sentences were added:
".., including discussions at the national level on possible ways and means
facilitating and enhancing access to protected works."
and
".., including their application to the international exchange of materials
in accessible formats."
During the afternoon session, France, acting on behalf of the EU Member
States, suggested the word "platform" to be changed to the word "mechanism".
Nevertheless, the word platform remained in the final conclusions. Instead,
the word "expeditiously" was changed to the phrase "without delay" and
the phrase "to secure access" to "facilitate access". Those were still minor
things.
Then started the real debate. During the afternoon session, France required
the reference to the WBU proposal and sentences ".., including discussions
at the national level on possible ways and means facilitating and enhancing
access to protected works" and ".., including their application to the
international exchange of materials in accessible formats" to be taken off.
Nevertheless, Pakistan (on behalf of Asian Member States), and Algeria (on
behalf of African Member States), and other countries such as Brazil, pushed
the European Member states to accept many of the proposals. After chop and
change, finally the reference to international exchange was left out and the
reference to WBU proposal was slightly modified.
The final conclusions on the rights of the visually impaired were the
following:
"The Committee acknowledged the special needs of visually impaired persons
and stressed the importance of dealing, without delay and with appropriate
deliberation, with those needs of the blind, visually impaired, and other
reading disabled persons, including discussions at the national and
international level on possible ways and means facilitating and enhancing
access to protected works. This should include analysis of limitations and
exceptions. This should also include the possible establishment of a
stakeholders platform at WIPO, in order to facilitate arrangements to secure
access for disabled persons to protected works. A number of delegations
referred to a paper presented by the World Blind Union (WBU) and expressed
interest in further analyzing it."
As a European citizen I was mostly confused about what happened during the
afternoon session. It is not clear to me why France (on behalf of the
European Member) opposed so aggressively the rights of the visually
impaired. James Love of KEI (James Love, 7 November 2008) wrote a
felicitous remark on the issue on the A2K-list:
"I will close with the comments from one delegation at the end of the
evening. The delegate, from a high income country, had been silent the
entire meeting, but is a country one expects to provide some moral
leadership. I said, 'why didn't you speak up? - this is a human rights
issue. She said, 'this isn't the human rights commission, - this is WIPO.'
She wasn't being ironic or critical of WIPO. She thought it was natural that
the collection society would come first on this issue. That pretty much
summed things up."
On the WIPO-websites one can find the following description with the
headline "What is WIPO"?:
"The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is a specialized agency
of the United Nations. It is dedicated to developing a balanced and
accessible international intellectual property (IP) system, which rewards
creativity, stimulates innovation and contributes to economic development
while safeguarding the public interest."
One could think that the rights of the visually impaired could easily fit in
"a balanced and accessible (IP) system, which safeguards the public
interest". In some discussions with more experienced SCCR attendees I was
told that the starting point is always that the economic interests of rights
holders have to be safeguarded. It is worth considering whether there really
is a profitable market for works of visually impaired? According to WBU only
5 % of written works are accessible for visually impaired. That could also
be seen an indication that the market is not profitable enough. So, if the
answer to the aforementioned question is negative, there has to be some
other reason for the resistance of EU Member States for the rights of the
visually impaired.
There is currently a Green paper from European Commission on exceptions
available for comments (deadline: 30 November 2008). The rights of
disabled people are also covered by the Directive 2001/29/EC on the
harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
information society contains an exhaustive list of exceptions to copyright
protection.
The delegations debated on what was really said during the 17 SCCR Session.
It is good that the SCCR reached at least a consensus on what was discussed
during the meeting. That is a starting point for further work. It is also
good that the reference to the WBU treaty proposal remained, as it is a
truthful fact that "A number of delegations referred to a paper presented by
the World Blind Union (WBU) and expressed interest in further analyzing it."
Leaving the reference away could have been considered as modification of
facts. It remains to be seen if consensus on the factual content can also be
reached at some point.
After all, the conclusions of SCCR 17 can be seen both from a positive and a
negative point of view. The interpretation finally relies on the Member
States. In a world of limited resources choices have to be made. The
broadcasting treaty will be maintained on the Agenda of the next session of
the SCCR. Let's hope that the work on limitations and exceptions will,
however, continue without (undue) delay or even expeditiously.
World Intellectual Property Organization, SCCR Seventeenth Session, Geneva
(5-7.11.2008)
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_17/sccr_17_www_112533.pdf
Member States Review Key Copyright Issues (10.11 2008)
http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2008/article_0059.html
Unpacking the WIPO SCCR Limitations and Exceptions (to copyright) agenda
http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2008/11/11/unpacking-lne/
Wrangling Over the Rights of the Blind
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1874
GREEN PAPER - Copyright in the Knowledge Economy COM(2008) 466/3
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/copyright-infso/greenpaper_en.pdf
What is WIPO ?
http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/what/
(Contribution by Anniina Huttunen - doctoral student - Helsinki University
of Technology, EDRi representative at the WIPO SCCR meeting)
============================================================
8. Recommended Action
============================================================
Alternative Consultation on EU Justice and Home Affairs Policy
The European Commission has launched a public consultation on the future
priorities in the field of Justice and Home Affairs policy. The European
Civil Liberties Network has produced an alternative questionnaire to provoke
a more wide ranging debate about EU policy and practice.
http://www.ecln.org/index.html
============================================================
9. Recommended Reading
============================================================
Monica Horten - The French law on Creation and Internet - contracting for
surveillance
http://www.iptegrity.com/pdf/Monica.Horten.creation.internet.law.2.11.2008.pdf
Monica Horten - Packaging up copyright enforcement - how the Telecoms
Package slots in the framework for a European policy to restrict Internet
content
http://www.iptegrity.com/pdf/monica.horten.telecom.package.copyright.enforcement.091108.pdf
Economic damage of 3 strikes
http://www.lgi.com/pdf/080904Booz_english.pdf
Analysis of recent amendments to the Telecoms Package with particular
reference to warnings and sanctions related to alleges unlawful use or
communications network
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/tele_pkg_analysis_v41.pdf
============================================================
10. Agenda
============================================================
25-26 November 2008, Brussels, Belgium
World e-Parliament Conference 2008
http://www.ictparliament.org/worldeparliamentconference2008/
2 December 2008, Hyderabad, India
Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet)
Third Annual International Symposium
http://tinyurl.com/ynsuuf/
3-6 December 2008, Hyderabad, India
Third Internet Governance Forum
http://www.intgovforum.org
9-10 December 2008, Madrid, Spain
Future Internet Assembly
http://www.future-internet.eu/home/future-internet-assembly/madrid-dec-2008.html
http://www.fi-madrid.eu/
10 December 2008, Skopje, Macedonia
Fourth International Conference e-Society.Mk.
http://www.e-society.mk/
10-11 December 2008: Tilburg, Netherlands
Tilting perspectives on regulating technologies, Tilburg Institute for Law
and Technology and Society, Tilburg University
http://www.tilburguniversity.nl/tilt/conference
27-30 December 2008 Berlin, Germany
25C3: Nothing to hide
The 25th Chaos Communication Congress
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/
18-20 March 2009, Athens, Greece
WebSci'09: Society On-Line
http://www.websci09.org/
1-4 June 2009, Washington, DC, USA
Computers Freedom and Privacy 2009
http://www.cfp2009.org/
============================================================
11. About
============================================================
EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRI has 29 members based or with offices in 18 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-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 3.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram at 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.
http://www.edri.org/about/sponsoring
- EDRI-gram subscription information
subscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request at edri.org
Subject: subscribe
You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
unsubscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request at 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/edrigram-mk.php
- EDRI-gram in German
EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are provided
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/edrigram
- Help
Please ask <edrigram at edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or
unsubscribing.
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list