EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 7.9, 6 May 2009

EDRI-gram newsletter edrigram at edri.org
Wed May 6 12:14:22 PDT 2009


============================================================

           EDRi-gram

biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe

    Number 7.9, 6 May 2009


============================================================
Contents
============================================================

1. European Parliament votes against the 3 strikes. Again
2. The Pirate Bay asks for retrial claiming conflict of interest
3. EP passes performers' copyright term extension directive in first reading
4. Three strikes law in France - Second attempt
5. UK: Google's Street View does not breach the Data Protection Act
6. Reclaim your DNA from the UK database
7. WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property: Third meeting
8. Recommended Action
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About

============================================================
1. European Parliament votes against the 3 strikes. Again
============================================================

Today, 6 May 2009, in the second reading of the Telecom Package, the
European Parliament (EP) voted again for the initial amendment 138, with an
overwhelming majority of 407 votes for and just 57 against the proposal.
However, on this same occasion, the EP rejected the amendments that
would make "network neutrality" principles mandatory.

Although initially MEP Catherine Trautmann's report included the original
amendment 138/46 as adopted in the first reading by the European Parliament,
after the opaque negotiations with the EU Council from the past 2 weeks
this amendment had been changed in a weaker version. The initial text
"without a prior ruling of the judicial authorities, notably in accordance
with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights" was replaced by "and
the right to a judgement by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by law and acting in respect of due process in accordance with
Article 6 of the ECHR."

Although the new French authority (called Hadopi) that could be established
by the three strikes French draft law can't be considered a "tribunal
established by art 6 of ECHR", the text left room to more fuzzy
interpretations by removing the wording "prior ruling". Thus the compromise
text could be interpreted that such an authority could take a decision of
cutting one's access to Internet, but one would be allowed to go to court to
challenge this decision.

But the EP decided that the initial amendment 138 needed to be supported
once again. The battle was not easy, though. MEP Rebecca Harms insisted in
the plenary for the change in the voting list and for having the original
amendment 138 first . Her position was supported by MEP Alexander Alvaro and
disagreed by the Rapporteur MEP Catherine Trautmann. The Chairwomen Diana
Wallis agreed to go on first with the vote on the Amendment 138. 407 votes
from MEPs supported the amendment, thus saying NO to 3 strikes in Europe.
Again.

Also the report of Malcolm Harbour (PPE/ED - UK) changed the initial
amendment 166 adopted in the first reading by the EP that established a
clear principle of the Internet neutrality. Now the main protection left is
customer information through contracts, but consumer and competition law
cannot regulate fundamental rights.

The new compromise with the Council that includes the text "limitations on
access to and/or use of services and applications" is far from the initial
amendment 166 that was clear: "Member States shall ensure that any
restrictions on the rights of users to access content, services and
applications, if such restrictions are necessary, are implemented by
appropriate measures, in accordance with the principles of proportionality,
effectiveness and dissuasiveness"

In fact, Mr. Harbour, in an interview published one day before the final
vote on the European Parliament website, described as "pure fantasy"  the
statement that new rules would allow conditional access. "There is
absolutely nothing in this proposal that says anything about that," he
claimed.

But Mr Harbour was contradicting himself just a couple of weeks earlier when
he declared publicly that there were service limitations in his own report:
"On the question of network neutrality, so called, which I think has been
vastly over-inflated in all of this debate, the Commission has quite rightly
identified the fact that there is a potential  - a potential - for operators
to use differing quality of service provision in a discriminatory way, for
example,  by giving a higher capacity or better service quality to their own
services as opposed to those of competitors. The commission made a proposal,
the council amended that and we agreed.

But the fact remains that any other service limitations which are
anti-competitive, and they could certainly include restrictions on access to
competitive services like voice over IP, have and can be dealt with by the
regulators under the existing framework of competition and access
regulation. And that is clear. But what is fundamental is that customer
needs to  know if there are service limitations and customers may wish to
buy a package with service limitations if it is cheaper...There is nothing
illegal about service limitations, provided they are not
anti-competitive..."

The initial amendments voted in the first reading by the EP, were back on
the European Parliament agenda under the name of Citizens Rights Amendments
proposed by Eva-Britt Svensson on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group together with
other support from other MEPs.

But besides the amendment that re-instated article 138, all the other
citizen rights amendments were rejected by the plenary of the EP. Thus, the
Harbour report was adopted and the Trautmann report was rejected.

The discussions with the Council will continue and should lead to a third
reading at least for the Trautmann Report. But at the same time, there are
little chances for something to be changed in relation with the articles on
"network neutrality", that would become part of the directive.

"Internet has to be free, but not regulation free" - Harbour on telecoms
package (5.05.2009)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/welcome/headlines.htm

Ask MEPs to adopt Citizens' Rights Amendments on 6 May (5.05.2009)
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

Citizens rights amendements
http://werebuild.eu/wiki/index.php/Citizens%27_Rights_Amendments

EDRi-gram: European Parliament ITRE committee votes against the 3 strikes
(22.04.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/amendment-138-adopted-itre

Telecoms Package: When rapporteurs betray EU citizens. (30.04.2009)
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/telecoms-package-when-rapporteurs-betray-eu-citizens

Agreement on a new version of amendment 46/138 in Brussels. The European
parliament accepted a weaker text. (29.04.2009)
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/new-version-of-amendment-138-46-agreed-weaker-version

Telecoms Package - a licence to chill (4.05.2009)
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Itemid=9

Amendment 138/46 adopted again. Internet is a fundamental right in Europe
(6.05.2009)
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-46-adopted-again

European Parliament rejects Telecoms Package (6.05.2009)
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=338&Itemid=9

============================================================
2. The Pirate Bay asks for retrial claiming conflict of interest
============================================================

According to Sweden's national radio station, Thomas Norstrvm, the judge in
The Pirate Bay trial was a member of pro-copyright groups just like several
of the main figures in The Pirate Bay case representing the entertaiment
industry or prosecution side.

Apparently, Norstrvm is a member of the Swedish Copyright Association
(Svenska fvreningen fvr upphovsrdtt), together with Henrik Pontin, Peter
Danowsky and Monique Wadsted, three representatives of the entertainment
industry in the case against The Pirate Bay. The judge also belongs to the
board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property
(Svenska fvreningen fvr industriellt rdttsskydd), which is lobbying for
tougher copyright laws. Peter Althin, Peter Sunde's lawyer, stated on 23
April that he intended to ask for a retrial. "I will point that out in my
appeal, then the court of appeal will decide if the district court decision
should be set aside and the case revisited."

Judge Norstrvm denied the fact that his involvement with the two
pro-copyright organisations constituted a "conflict of interest" in The
Pirate Bay trial as the verdict against the site was decided by both the
judge and jury.

Former Chief Prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem considers that the situation will be
harmful for the image of the Swedish courts internationally as well as at
the domestic level casting doubt over the judicial neutrality and safety of
the Swedish judicial system.

Rickard Falkvinge, Pirate Party chairman, has called for the annulment of
the verdict considering it is a case of "corruption and miscarriage of
justice" adding that "the copyright lobby has really managed to bring
corruption to Sweden."

On 18 April, the Pirate Party organized demonstrations against the decision
of the court in The Pirate Bay case, in several cities of Sweden, with more
than 1 000 supporters demonstrating in Stockholm for The Pirate Bay
defendants and file sharing. The decision of the court has also led to a
significant increase of the Pirate Party membership.

Pirate Bay judge and pro-copyright lobbyist accused of bias (23.04.2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/

Pirate Bay lawyer calls for retrial (23.04.2009)
http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/

Judge In Pirate Bay Trial Biased (23.04.2009)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1209143&cid=27686249

Swedes demonstrate in support of Pirate Bay (19.04.2009)
http://www.thelocal.se/18954/20090419/

Pirate Bay judge denies 'conflict of interest' (23.04.2009)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/23/pirate-bay-judge

EDRI-gram: The Pirate Bay founders considered guilty by the first Swedish
court (22.04.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/the-pirate-bay-court-decision

============================================================
3. EP passes performers' copyright term extension directive in first reading
============================================================

Although largely opposed by some EU Member States in the Council, criticized
by the consumers' organizations and strongly opposed by 4 out of the 7 main
political groups (ALDE, GREENS/EFA, NGL, IND/ DEM) in the European
Parliament (EP), the directive on performers copyright term extension was
passed by the MEPs in the first reading on 23 April 2009.

Besides the four groups, there were other national delegations and key MEPs
who joined the fight to reject the directive, but the final vote was 317 in
favour, 178 against, 37 abstentions.

The report by Irish MEP Brian Crowley proposed the extension of the term
from 50 to 70 years for performers and recording companies, while the
initial proposal of the European Commission was to extend the term up to 95
years. The extension by 20 years seems to be a compromise to acknowledge the
disapproval of some of the Member States.

"The current differences in term of protection, particularly between Europe
and the US, cause legal uncertainty and piracy, especially in the digital
environment, where there are no boundaries," said Brian Crowley who added:
"The extended term would also benefit the record producers. It would
generate additional revenue from the sale of records in shops and on the
Internet."

The new text provides a dedicated fund for session musicians having given up
their rights when signing contracts for their performances. The fund is to
be financed by contributions from producers who would be obliged to put
aside for this at least 20% of the revenues resulted from the extended term,
at least once a year. The collective societies are given the right to manage
the additional remuneration. A key amendment to ensure benefits accrued only
to performers was, unfortunately, rejected.

The initial text has also been modified so as to prevent previous contract
terms to deduct money from the additional revenues for performers. Also, an
approved amendment allows performers to renegotiate contracts concluded
before the entry into force of this legislation. "Use it or lose it" clause
says that in case the producers do not make the recording available to the
public within a year after the 50-year period has ended, their rights expire
and performers can be transferred the rights for the respective recording.

MEPs ask the Commission to launch by January 2010 an impact assessment of
the situation in the European audiovisual sector in order to decide
whether a similar copyright extension would be beneficial for that area as
well. Member States will have two years to transpose the new legislation.

Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Director of the University of Amsterdam's
Institute for Information Law (IViR) criticized the Commission for not
having taken into consideration the finding of the two commissioned studies
carried out by IViR on the extension of the copyright term. In an open
letter addressed in August 2008, he accused the Commission of "wilfully
ignoring scientific analysis and evidence".

Monique Goyens, director-general of European consumer organisation BEUC, has
also criticised the proposed legislation summarising the present situation
as follows: "The technology is of the 21st century, the legislation is of
the 19th century and the right holder organisations are of the Middle Age."

The directive is now being sent to the EU Council of Ministers for first
reading, where it is currently blocked by several member states.

Parliament buckles: copyright extension goes through to Council of Ministers
(23.04.2009)
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/04/23/parliament-buckles-copyright-extension-goes-through-to-council-of-ministers/

European Parliament backs 70-year copyright term for sound recordings
(27.04.2009)
http://www.out-law.com/page-9973

Music copyright still divisive, despite MEPs' backing (29.04.2009)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/music-copyright-divisive-despite-meps-backing/article-181703

Music copyright to be extended to 70 years for performers (23.04.2009)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/058-54192-111-04-17-909-20090422IPR54191-21-04-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm

IViR Open Letter to Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European
Commission (28.08.2008)
http://www.ivir.nl/news/Open_Letter_EC.pdf

EDRI-gram: Extended copyright term for sound recordings pushed back
(8.04.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.7/extended-copyright-no

============================================================
4. Three strikes law in France - Second attempt
============================================================

The Hadopi (or three strikes) law saga continues with the second reading of
the draft law in the French National Assembly having started on 29 April
2009.

After the unexpected rejection of the text in the lower chamber on 9 April
2009, the majority came this time decided to pass the law no matter what.
The pressure was mainly due to the present discussion in the European
Parliament for the adoption of the Telecom Package which would put the
French law in a critical position. The French Government has tried its best
to push the three strikes law to be voted by the National Assembly as fast
as possible.

"We will be careful so that you don't go to sleep as we are going to vote
this very evening" said deputy Jean-Frangois Copi on 29 April. The entire
fight around the draft law seems to have turned into a political debate.
This time, present in a large number, the majority members succeeded in
rejecting the opposition's proposal to send back the text to the mixed joint
commission (commission mixte paritaire).

Frank Riester, rapporteur of the text, asked for the rejection of "any
amendment that puts into question the compromise of the mixed joint
commission" that is the toughest form of the text, thus shown the intention
of the majority to pass the draft law as it was before its rejection on 9
April.

Fears appear to have existed that the government might make use of the
unique (or so called blocked) vote which would have given thepossibility of
voting the entire text as a single item instead of voting every single
amendment. However, this did not happen and the large number of
amendments, especially introduced by the opposition, made it impossible for
the Assembly to finalise the discussions and vote by the evening of 5 May.
That morning, there were still 160 amendments to examine out of the total of
214. The vote was therefore postponed till 12 Ma, a decision which is
definitely disappointing for Nicolas Sarkozy who wanted to get the vote on
the law before a final decision of the EP on the Telecom Package.

According to Jirimie Zimmermann, spokesman for La Quadrature du Net, "The
HADOPI law will be undoubtedly voted by a blocked majority, on order. But it
will remain a political failure for the government and a democratic as well
as technological aberration. HADOPI is a warning signal inviting everybody
to rise against the harmful consequences of a regulation sacrificing the
citizens and the Internet to the out-of-date interests of some".

In the mean time, the opposition movements continue. Sci-fi writer Roland
Wagnerhas has organised a "Sci-fi against HADOPI" group while an anti-Hadopi
march was organised on 1 May 2009 by several organisations at the initiative
of Libre Acchs and the French Data Network in Paris. Also, an important
initiative has been taken by consumers groups including La Quadrature du Net
and UFC Que Choisir who have launched the project Criation Public Internet
(Internet Public Creation), a project meant to find new business models and
solutions for important issues related to cultural creation and artists'
income.

After the vote in the National Assembly, the Hadopi text will go back to the
Senate for a new reading and in the unlikely case the text of the Senate
differs from the one voted by the Assembly, the last word will belong to the
deputies.

Hadopi: towards a unique vote? (only in French, 4.05.2009)
http://www.ecrans.fr/Hadopi-vers-un-vote-unique,7054.html

HADOPI: in the wall, honking (only in French, 30.04.2009)
http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/hadopi-dans-le-mur-en-klaxonnant

Hadopi (S2E02): politics first, Hadopi after (only in French, 30.04.2009)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12795-Hadopi-S2E02-la-politique-d-abord-l-Hadopi-apres.html

Hadopi (S2E01): the majority shows its muscles to the opposition (only in
French, 29.04.2009)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12794-Hadopi-S2E01-la-majorite-montre-ses-muscles-a-l-opposition.html

France reintroduces three-strikes law, clash with EU likely (29.04.2009)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/france-reintroduces-three-strikes-law-as-protests-mount.ars

FDN and Libres Acchs Appeal to manifest against Hadopi (only in French,
28.04.2009)
http://www.fdn.fr/

Hadopi: the vote of the draft law reported till Tuesday 12 May (only in
French, 5.05.2009)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12830-Hadopi-le-vote-du-projet-de-loi-reporte-au-mardi-12-mai.html

Hadopi: the vote reported by a week (only in French, 5.05.2009)
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/05/05/01002-20090505ARTFIG00423-hadopi-le-vote-reporte-d-une-semaine-.php

EDRIgram: Three strikes law rejected by the French deputies (22.04.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/3-strikes-france-rejects

============================================================
5. UK: Google's Street View does not breach the Data Protection Act
============================================================

In response to a complaint filed by Privacy International, the UK Data
Protection Authority, Information Commissioner's Office, found Google's
Street View service clear of any breach of the Data Protection Act, as
revealed in a public statement on 23 April 2009.

After the service was introduced in UK on 20 March 2009, Privacy
International filed a complaint against Google arguing that the company
needed the consent of the communities it was photographing, before setting
up Street View system. Also, on 3 April the residents of Broughton,
Buckinghamshire, made a barricade to prevent the Google car from entering
their village because they considered that images presented by Street View
could easily be used by burglers, thus facilitating their actions.

Privacy International complained by the fact that Google had not performed
safeguards to the technology to the extent promised and that the service had
created numerous instances of embarrassment and distress for citizens. "We
also believe that the technology has created substantial threat to a number
of individuals and that the extent of intrusion into the homes of some
complainants is unlawful. In such cases, Google should have acquired consent
from individuals before images were captured," said the complaint.

The ICO ruled against Privacy International's action. "It is important to
highlight that putting images of people on Google Street View is very
unlikely to formally breach the Data Protection Act," stated David Evans,
the Senior Data Protection Practice Manager of the ICO adding: "Watch the TV
news any day this week and you will see people walking past reporters in the
street. Some football fans' faces will be captured on Match of the Day and
local news programmes this weekend - without their consent, but perfectly
legally."

While acknowledging having received numerous complaints from people who have
found their image on Google Street View, ICO considers however that the
removal of an entire service would be "disproportionate to the relatively
small risk of privacy detriment".

The ICO has expressed satisfaction for Google having put in place adequate
safeguards to minimise the risks to the individuals' privacy and safety and
stated it would be watching closely so that Google should continue to
respond quickly to complaints and deletion requests. "As a regulator we take
a pragmatic and common sense approach. Any images of people's faces or
number plates should be blurred. We emphasised the importance of blurring
these images to protect people's privacy and limit privacy intrusion. Google
must respond quickly to deletion requests and complaints, as it is doing at
the moment. We will be watching closely to make sure this continues to be
achieved in practice," said Evans.

Privacy International had a very strong reaction to ICO's ruling. Its
director Simon Davies declared for The Times that ICO "has entirely
misrepresented Privacy
International's concerns and complaint. We never sought the shutdown of
Google Street View, as this ruling implies. We wanted to get Google to focus
on the technological solutions and to get the commissioner to uphold the
principles behind the law. Instead, he has sacrificed principles for
pragmatism, an approach we believe has already been responsible for many of
the privacy invasions in Britain."

Davis considers there are dysfunctions in the Commission's handling
complaints and technological advice would be necessary. Therefore, Privacy
International is "for the creation of a technological advice office, and for
greater rigour to be applied to the ICO's relations with companies and
government."

Davis also expects a different reaction from Christopher Graham, director
general of the Advertising Standards Authority, who is expected to become
the next UK Information Commissioner after Richard Thomas, the present ICO,
retires on 30 June. "We challenge the incoming commissioner to find the
courage to defend the legal principle of privacy and thus restore public
trust in his office," he said.

Street View ruling angers privacy campaigners (23.04.2009)
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6154092.ece

Google wins battle with British weather to launch Street View in UK
(20.03.2009)
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5938017.ece

PI files complaint about Google Street View (23.03.2009)
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-564039

Privacy International slams ICO ruling on Google Street View (24.04.2009)
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/04/24/235779/privacy-international-slams-ico-ruling-on-google-street.htm

PI calls for review of UK privacy regulator following series of failed
judgements (23.04.2009)
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-564402

EDRIgram: Privacy complaints related to Google's Street View (16.07.2008)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.14/privacy-street-view

============================================================
6. Reclaim your DNA from the UK database
============================================================

A coallition of Human rights groups in UK has launched "Reclaim your DNA"
website that helps innocent people contact the police to seek destruction of
their DNA and database records. Five months after the European Court of
Human Rights decision in the case Marper vs UK, no bill has been introduced
in the Parliament to deal with this situation. However, in a recent
statement, the UK home secretary Jacqui Smith said that the plans for
destruction of the DNA profiles of the innocent people stored by the Police
would be published soon.

The website "Reclaim your DNA" was launched on 27 April 2009 by several
human rights groups in UK: GeneWatch UK, NO2ID, Black Mental Health UK, ARCH
and EDRi-member Open Rights Group.

Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK, said: "If Scotland can remove
innocent people from the DNA database, why can't this happen everywhere?
It's time for people in the rest of Britain to demand their rights".
GeneWatch has already warned that the health and drug companies will want
access to the samples in order to create profiles to predict who is
genetically susceptible to different illnesses and diseases.

The website explains the procedure of deleting the DNA from the National DNA
Database in case you haven't been convicted. It is estimated that at least
800 000 people are in this situation. The coalition presents the arguments
for such an action: "Your computer record on the
National DNA database can be used to trace you or your relatives. A sample
of your DNA, containing your personal genetic information, will also be
stored by one of the commercial laboratories that do work for the police.
Your DNA sample contains some private information about your health."

"We have human rights: we need to exercise them if we want to successfully
defend them. The digital age means data is constantly easier to collect,
store, and analyse, so when government goes too far, it is vital citizens
act to defend their right to privacy" points Jim Killock, Executive Director
of Open Rights Group making reference also to the European Court of Human
Rights decision that considered it is illegal for the government to keep all
this personal information belonging to innocent people.

The UK government stalled for nearly 5 months and initial plans seamed to
try not to implement directly the judgement. But a statement from the UK
home secretary Jacqui Smith insisted on 3 May 2009 that the plans would be
presented this week and will also include the destruction of all physical
samples, such as mouth swabs, hair and blood. It is estimated that a
consultation paper would be released by the UK government to detail all the
actions to deal with the destruction of the DNA profiles of the innocent
people.

But the civil rights groups remain cautious on the decision. Simon Davies
from Privacy International: "The DNA database is already too big.We would
argue that the samples of anyone convicted of even minor offences should be
removed."

Reclaim your DNA !
http://reclaimyourdna.org/

The UK Police National DNA Database
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539478

GeneWatch PR: Innocent urged to reclaim their DNA (27.04.2009)
http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=563486&als[itemid]=564430

Step-by-step guide to reclaim your DNA (27.04.2009)
http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/reclaim_your_dna_launch.html

Jacqui Smith says DNA database profiles of 800,000 innocent people will be
axed (3.05.2009)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/03/police-dna-database-jacqui-smith

EDRi-gram:ECHR decided against the UK DNA Database (17.12.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number6.24/echr-marper-case-dna-uk

============================================================
7. WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property: Third meeting
============================================================

The central issues in the third meeting of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) Committee on Development and Intellectual Property
(CDIP) seemed to be the creation of centralized databases to collect
traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge, genetic material
and public domain material - and to close the digital divide between
(post-)industrialized nations and economies in transition, developing
countries (DCs) and the least developed countries (LDCs).

Because Public Domain (PD) is decidedly different in different countries, it
was proposed that a study on what does PD entail in different countries be
undertaken by WIPO. From this study, a database should be created for the
use of different actors that need to know what actually belongs to PD.
Another central concern expressed by DCs and LDCs during the meeting was
that PD should not only be mapped and preserved, but also enriched when
possible. On the other hand, DCs and LDCs were worried that traditional
cultural expressions, traditional knowledge and genetic material would be
presumed to automatically belong to PD. Although direct concerns were not
mentioned with all three areas, it was apparent that with the first, the
worry was the westernization of traditional music, texts, behavior patterns
etc. and with the second, that traditional knowledge about herbs and
medicines as well as treatments would be enclosed by western multinational
corporations without benefit to the local tribes and people who actually
found them (CDIP/3/3, Recommendation 20)

A clear tension between (post-) industrialized countries and DCs, LDCs and
economies in transition was appearant. The latter often promoted  to each
other innovative and situational suggestions taking multiple views into
account. The industrialized countries' representatives, more often than not,
attempted to preserve the status quo, although as exceptions to this rule
Japan and the Republic of South Korea  must be mentioned. Japan had
innovative ideas on E-SPEED database from which the member states, their
patent and registering officials and stakeholders could observe various
kinds of cases and how Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in different
countries are handled (CDIP/3/8). Republic of Korea suggested doing a study
in Fair Trade practices in different market areas - how to strengthen these
and make them more widely used and available (CDIP/3/7). Some industrialized
countries representatives expressed doubt on whether these proposals would
be feasible in this economical environment, but, of course, this was also
met with some skepticism by DCs and LDCs. After all, the kinds of economic
problems western countries suffer from are in no way comparable of the
normal situation DCs and LDCs face.

Most EU and Group B representatives seemed satisfied with the fairly few
comments made by the Czech Republic (in the name of EC and its 27 member
states) and Germany. These representatives mainly commented on certain
technical issues in the proposed projects execution, whereas the US
representative tended to be more vocal and a stronger proponent of the
status quo by more often than not referring to practices which would slow
and hinder the proposed changes to the projects. As an interesting side
topic, the one time the UK representative used an intervention, he mentioned
(freely quoting) that as he was representing the UK population as a whole,
also Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) constituency not just the
government and rights holders, therefore the need for NGO interventions was
not all that necessary. Let us hope that the UK delegate really does
represent all the stakeholders in UK, although it remains unclear when these
stakeholders have the opportunity to be heard by this representative in
relation to WIPO CDIP.

NGOs, DCs and LDCs were all worried specifically about the end of the
projects - would the projects carry on after the funding for them by WIPO
ended? If a project for setting up a center for certain IPR policy lasted 5
years, would it actually be run after this? What would happen to the
hardware bought? It would at that stage be old and in need of replacement,
at least some of the personnel trained would be offered work elsewhere both
during and after the project ended and the state would not necessarily have
the funds to keep the project going on their own.

Worries were also presented on the transparency and wider use of WIPO
prepared material. Even though a large part of it is available, either for
free or at a reasonable price, if there is no infrastructure in place to
facilitate the use, it doesn't mean much.

The meeting was a positive experience compared to previous CDIP meetings
from the point of view of NGOs. The representatives of NGOs were offered far
more possibilities to comment on the items at the agenda than in previous
meetings. Especially The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
did a lot of work for this to happen. The representative for CIEL talked
with various member states representatives, the chair and the secretariat -
with good results. NGOs had their traditional possibility to offer views and
point out specifically important topics during the opening session, but the
chair also attended the NGO meeting Wednesday morning.

After that meeting, he offered the NGOs a possibility to give short
statements both during Thursday and Friday. The first time this possibility
was offered, only Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) and Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) were able to use this to their advantage.

During Friday, the NGOs were more prepared for this possibility and more of
them, and in more depth towards the topics under handling, were able to use
the possibility and various short comments were heard.

During Monday's opening statements, Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) and
Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net) presented their concerns
about libraries using electronic materials in DCs and LDCs . There are
problems with this even in industrialized nations, thus they were concerned
that in states with less developed practices this would especially cause
lots of problems. As an example, the use of orphan works is troublesome even
in the industrialized countries: how to handle potential payments if the
rights holders are found, how to find out whether the rights holder is known
when concentrated databases of e.g. copyright holders do not exist, etc.
Licensing practices are also unclear in many DCs and LDCs, and often do not
offer any possibilities for libraries to offer electronic materials to be
loaned outside specific contracts (see especially CDIP/3/5 and
CDIP/3/INF/2).

During Thursday, FSFE brought to attention the advantages free software and
open standards would offer in many situations. The free software and open
standards advantages (e.g. possibility to translate software instead of
relying on the good will of the software producers) enable more democratic
innovation models than traditional propietary software, thus allowing
developing countries to reap considerable benefits from using free software
and relying on open standards.

CIEL was instrumental in getting the possibility for the NGOs to be active
during the Friday session. The CIEL representative saw it essential that the
databases containing technical information on IPRs (see e.g. CDIP/3/INF/2,
Annex II, Recommendation 5) should include model solutions. If possible,
they should also be updated in real time instead of in batches. All surveys
and studies ought to be based on empirical studies and statistical analysis
performed by independent researchers rather than on rights holder
associations' or purely theoretical ones, which often seems to be the case.
Finally, the results from these studies and surveys should be available to
all, not just WIPO member states.

On top of what was presented in the official meetings, the political play in
the corridors of power were interesting to follow. Who eats lunch with whom,
what was said, but especially what was not said, what kinds of
presuppositions were brought to discussions depending on the member state or
group of the representative. The decision making cannot be considered open,
transparent and democratic, even in good will, but progress towards more
open and enabling discussions can be, none the less, seen.

Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) : Third Session
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=17382

Center for International Environmental Law
http://www.ciel.org/

EFF
http://www.eff.org/

Library Copyright Alliance (LCA)
http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/

Electronic Information for Libraries
http://www.eifl.net/cps/sections/home

FSF Europe
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/wipo/

(contribution by Kai K. Kimppa - Lecturer, Information Systems, University
of Turku - Finland)

============================================================
8. Recommended Action
============================================================

The European Commission has launched a new online tool offering practical
advice on the digital rights consumers have under EU law
http://ec.europa.eu/eyouguide

============================================================
9. Recommended Reading
============================================================

European Parliament study: A Review of the increased use of CCTV and
video-surveillance for crime prevention purposes in Europe by Clive Norris
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/apr/ep-study-norris-cctv-video-surveillance.pdf

============================================================
10. Agenda
============================================================

11 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium
GigaNet is organizing the 2nd international academic workshop on Global
Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction.
http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/giganetcos/2009brusse

13-14 May 2009 Uppsala, Sweden
Mashing-up Culture: The Rise of User-generated Content
http://www.counter2010.org/workshop_call

19-20 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium
Personal data - more use, more protection?
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/events/news_events_en.htm#dp_conference_2009

22-23 May 2009, Florence, Italy
E-privacy: Towards total control
http://e-privacy.winstonsmith.info/

23 May 2009, Florence, Italy
Big Brother Award Italia 2009
http://bba.winstonsmith.info/

24-28 May 2009, Venice, Italy
ICIMP 2009, The Fourth International Conference on Internet Monitoring
and Protection
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/ICIMP09.html

1-4 June 2009, Washington, DC, USA
Computers Freedom and Privacy 2009
http://www.cfp2009.org/

5 June 2009, London, UK
The Second Multidisciplinary Workshop on Identity in the Information
Society (IDIS 09): "Identity and the Impact of Technology"
http://is2.lse.ac.uk/idis/2009/

28-30 June 2009, Torino, Italy
COMMUNIA Conference 2009: Global Science & Economics of Knowledge-Sharing
Institutions
http://www.communia-project.eu/conf2009

2-3 July 2009, Padova, Italy
3rd FLOSS International Workshop on Free/Libre Open Source Software
http://www.decon.unipd.it/personale/curri/manenti/floss/floss09.html

13-16 August 2009, Vierhouten, The Netherlands
Hacking at Random
http://www.har2009.org/

23-27 August 2009, Milan, Italy
World Library and Information Congress: 75th IFLA General Conference and
Council: "Libraries create futures: Building on cultural heritage"
http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla75/index.htm

10-12 September 2009, Potsdam, Germany
5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam
Section: Protest Politics
Panel: The Contentious Politics of Intellectual Property
http://www.ecpr.org.uk/potsdam/default.asp

16-18 September 2009, Crete, Greece
World Summit on the Knowledge Society WSKS 2009
http://www.open-knowledge-society.org/

17-18 September 2009, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Gikii, A Workshop on Law, Technology and Popular Culture
Institute for Information Law (IViR) - University of Amsterdam
Call for papers by 1 July 2009
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/gikii/2009.asp

21-23 October 2009, Istanbul, Turkey
eChallenges 2009
http://www.echallenges.org/e2009/default.asp

24-25 October 2009, Vienna, Austria
3rd European Privacy Open Space
http://www.privacyos.eu

25 October 2009, Vienna, Austria
Austrian Big Brother Awards
Deadline for nominations: 21 September 2009
http://www.bigbrotherawards.at/

16 October 2009, Bielefeld, Germany
10th German Big Brother Awards
Deadline for nominations: 15 July 2009
http://www.bigbrotherawards.de/

15-18 November 2009, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt
UN Internet Governance Forum
http://www.intgovforum.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