Open source en open standaarden

Geloof jij net als wij dat overheden transparant en voor iedereen toegankelijk moeten zijn? En ben je het met ons eens dat open data daarvoor een belangrijk middel is? Wil je bovendien graag meewerken aan betere democratische controle en inclusieve participatie? Dan zijn we op zoek naar jou! Open State Foundation zoekt namelijk een nieuwe projectmedewerker (x/v/m) met een hart voor politiek, bestuur en transparantie (0,8 fte).

Over de functie:
Als projectmedewerker van Open State Foundation werk je nauw samen met een gepassioneerd team van projectleiders, medewerkers en developers. Je blijft op de hoogte van de ontwikkelingen rondom transparantie in het algemeen en open data in het bijzonder bij overheidsorganen. Je werkt samen met stakeholders, doet waar nodig aan belangenbehartiging, werkt mee aan onderzoeks- en adviseringsprojecten en voert ze uit.

Dit zijn je belangrijkste verantwoordelijkheden:

• Uitvoering van projecten: onderzoek, advies, bedenken van creatieve oplossingen, pleitbezorging, samenwerking met diverse partijen binnen en buiten de overheid, organiseren van bijeenkomsten, inhoudelijk en financieel projectmanagement;
• Het leiden van een aantal inhoudelijke dossiers, waarbij samenwerken, het onderhouden van een netwerk en gevoel voor politieke verhoudingen van belang zijn;
• Het onderhouden van ons netwerk binnen overheden, hergebruikers van data, en andere organisaties;
• Het actief uitdragen van het belang van een open overheid en democratische controle, middels opiniestukken, praatjes, ed.;
• Acquisitie van nieuwe projecten die passen binnen de missie, en leiden tot meer of betere (digitale) transparantie bij de overheid;
• Het volgen van de politieke agenda en de actualiteit rondom digitale transparantie.

Dit heb je in huis:

• Bachelor/Master of werkervaring op vergelijkbaar niveau;
• Ervaring met of aantoonbare kennis van het werken met overheden en politieke organisaties;
• Affiniteit met en een visie op een open overheid, vrij verkeer van informatie en open data;
• De ‘drive’ en vaardigheden om binnen onze missie projecten uit te voeren;
• Een brede interesse in overheden en de diverse beleidsterreinen.

Bij voorkeur breng je hier ook iets van mee:

• Ervaring met pleitbezorging en/of beleidsbeïnvloeding op zowel Rijksniveau als decentraal;
• Ervaring met acquisitie en/of fondsenwerving;
• Kennis van open data, digitale overheid, transparantie, accountability en publieksparticipatie;
• Ervaring met het werken met of bij een ngo/ideële organisatie;
• Affiniteit met verschillende groepen ‘hergebruikers’, zoals de journalistiek, creatieve industrie, ngo’s of volksvertegenwoordiging, en met de ‘community’ van developers;
• Basisbegrip van web-applicaties en toepassing en ontsluiten van open data (zoals databases, visualisatie, web-applicaties, API’s).

Dit bieden we:

• Een salaris van maximaal 3000 euro bruto (afhankelijk van werkervaring en profiel) per maand bij een fulltime werkweek, plus 8% vakantiegeld (jaarlijks uitgekeerd);
• Een goede pensioenregeling;
• Om te beginnen een jaarcontract met de intentie tot verlenging bij wederzijdse tevredenheid en voldoende budgettaire ruimte;
• De mogelijkheid in een klein team en met veel zelfstandigheid te werken aan een open overheid;
• Ruimte voor eigen initiatief, creativiteit en ontwikkeling;
• Een breed netwerk in de werelden van politiek, bestuur, media en technologie;
• Een fijne werkplek op het Marineterrein in hartje Amsterdam.

Interesse?

Stuur een e-mail met CV en motivatie (of met een vraag) naar Serv Wiemers, serv@openstate.eu

COMMUNIA and Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte are pleased to announce the detailed programme of the Filtered Futures conference.

Taking place on Monday, September 19th, in Berlin at Robert Bosch Stiftung, Filtered Futures will discuss the consequences of the CJEU ruling on Article 17 of the Copyright Directive for fundamental rights. 

Registrations for attending the conference in person are free of charge and include a light lunch. Please consider that participation is limited: registrations will be considered on a first come, first serve basis.

After the closing of the conference, COMMUNIA will be hosting a networking reception from 17:00 to 19:00.

08:45-09:15 Door Opening

09:15-09:45 Welcome and Opening Remarks by Susanne Zels (Robert Bosch Stiftung) and Felix Reda (GFF – Society for Civil Rights)

10:00-12:00 Session 1: Fragmentation or Harmonization? The impact of the Judgment on National Implementations – While the CJEU has rejected the Polish challenge to Article 17, the Court has formulated a number of requirements for ensuring that national implementations are fundamental rights compliant. In this light, the opening session of the conference will examine the consequences of the judgment for Member States’ implementations of Article 17. What are the requirements established by the judgment for national legislators? How do the existing national implementations measure up to these requirements? Which implementation strategies are available to those member states that still have to implement the directive? And have platforms already reacted to the existing national implementations?

• Bernd Justin Jütte (​​University College Dublin): Imperatives for implementing Article 17: the importance of national implementations.
• Finn Hümmer (Stockholm University): Implications from C-401/19 for national transpositions under the light of freedom of expression.
• Jasmin Brieske (Goethe University Frankfurt am Main): The impact of the enactment of the German OCSSP Act on selected online platforms.
• Christina Angelopoulos (University of Cambridge): The national implementations of Article 17 of the EU’s CDSM Directive.
• Moderator: Paul Keller (COMMUNIA)

12:00-13:30 Lunch Break

13:30-15:00 Session 2: Balancing Enforcement & Usage Rights in Practice – Protecting legal forms of expression from automated blocking decisions by online platforms is not just a task for the national legislators when transposing Article 17, but also a question of implementation of those provisions by regulators and courts. Who is going to ensure that filtering systems will leave legal uses of copyright-protected works unaffected in practice? How can the balance of competing rights be enforced in cross-border situations? How does the ban on general monitoring obligations as interpreted by the CJEU constrain the content moderation obligations of platforms – in the context of Article 17, but also when applied to other types of illegal content? Will the Digital Services Act improve users’ access to effective remedies against over-blocking?

• Natasha Mangal (University of Strasbourg): Regulating Creativity Online: Proposal for an EU Copyright Institution.
• Daniel Holznagel (academia): Don’t touch the ceiling – Why we should not narrow the EU no-monitoring-obligation-rules.
• Martin Husovec (London School of Economics): Mandatory Filtering Does Not Always Violate Freedom of Expression: Lessons from Poland v Council and European Parliament.
• Moderator: Felix Reda (GFF – Society for Civil Rights)

15:00-15:30 Coffee Break

15:30-17:00 Session 3: Beyond the Judgment: The Future of Freedom of Expression – In its ruling, the CJEU was of the view that the procedural safeguards present in Article 17 protect the ‘essence’ of the right to freedom of expression of the users of online sharing platforms. But many argue that filtering mechanisms can still pose real risks to fundamental freedoms and to the flourishing of parodies, caricatures and pastiche. Is the CJEU classical approach to proportionality balancing apt in a filtered online environment? Do we need a new conceptualisation of the ‘essence’ of fundamental rights? Can the case law from the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression offer avenues to better the future of parodic uses? Finally, are we moving towards a European Right to Remix?

• Kevin O’Sullivan (Dublin City University): A new conceptualisation of the ‘essence’ of fundamental rights.
• Sabine Jacques (University of East Anglia, Law School): A two-tier system for freedom of expression.
• Till Kreutzer (iRights.Law): Towards a European Right to Remix (?) – On the new Pastiche exception in the German Copyright Act.
• Moderator: Teresa Nobre (COMMUNIA)

17:00-19:00 Reception hosted by COMMUNIA

*All times are indicated in CEST.

The post The Filtered Futures conference programme is now live appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

On September 19th, 2022, we are organising — together with Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte — the Filtered Futures conference on fundamental rights constraints of upload filters after the CJEU ruling on Article 17 of the copyright directive.

The CJEU decision on Article 17 of the copyright directive has defined a framework for the use of automated content moderation. The Court considers filtering obligations compatible with the right to freedom of expression and information as long as they are limited to use cases that allow for a robust automated distinction between legal and illegal content. In the context of Article 17, upload filters may therefore only be used by online platforms to block manifest infringements of copyright law. The Court leaves it up to the Member States to ensure that legal uses remain unaffected by their national transpositions of Article 17.

The judgment raises a host of important questions for the enforcement of copyright law as well as for the compatibility of upload filters with fundamental rights even beyond copyright law. To discuss these consequences, COMMUNIA and Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte are jointly hosting the Filtered Futures conference on Monday, September 19th, at Robert-Bosch-Stiftung in Berlin. Please see below for the preliminary conference programme. A more detailed version of the programme with session descriptions will follow in early September.

Registrations for attending the conference in person are now open. Please consider that participation is limited. Registrations will be considered on a first come, first serve basis.

08:45-09:15 Registration

09:15-09:45 Opening remarks (Felix Reda, GFF)

09:45-10:00 Coffee break

10:00-12:00 Session 1: Fragmentation or Harmonization? Impact of the Judgment on National Implementations (Christina Angelopoulous, Jasmin Brieske, Finn Hümmer, Bernd Justin Jütte. Chair: Paul Keller, COMMUNIA)

12:00-13:30 Lunch break

13:30-15:00 Session 2: Balancing Copyright & Usage Rights in Practice (Daniel Holznagel, Martin Husovec, Natasha Mangal. Chair: Felix Reda, GFF)

15:00-15:30 Coffee break

15:30-17:00 Session 3: Beyond filters: Impacts of the Judgment on Freedom of Expression (Sabine Jacques, Till Kreutzer, Kevin O’Sullivan. Chair: Teresa Nobre, COMMUNIA)

17:00-19:00 COMMUNIA Reception

Participation is free of charge and a light lunch will be served.

The post Join us for the Filtered Futures conference on 19 September 2022 appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

The disappearance of the Secret Service’s text messages from January 6, 2021 is a data preservation issue, so I’m briefly reviving this blog from its long sleep to analyze it the best I can.

What we know

“Text messages” sent between Secret Service phones on January 6, 2021, during the unrest in Washington, DC, became unavailable within the bureau. News reporting has gotten so bad that it’s hard to find out just what this means; this CNN article contains more detail than most of the reports I’ve found.

The DHS Inspector General requested text records from the phones of 24 individuals in the Secret Service. These people included the heads of the details for the president and vice president. Only one record was given in response, and the bureau said no additional records were available. Ten phones had metadata indicating the transfer of text messages but didn’t have the messages’ content. On July 20, 2022, the Inspector General announced a criminal investigation into the lost messages.

Secret Service has stated that it lost messages as the result of a “system migration,” which occurred sometime between January 6 and February 26. It further claims that “none of the texts it [the Office of Inspector General] was seeking had been lost in the migration.” In other words, it’s saying there were no lost messages within the investigation’s scope.

Messaging and data retention

That’s not a lot to go on. Depending on whom you believe, we could be looking at anything from inconsequential sloppiness to a deliberate cover-up. But let’s see what we can get out of it.

“Text messages” usually means SMS messaging, but I haven’t found anything that explicitly says so. SMS messages are encrypted, but not end-to-end; they’re vulnerable to man-in-the-middle and spoofing attacks. If Secret Service values the “secret” in its name and it’s guarding against tech-savvy terrorists, I’d think it should use something more secure. But in the absence of other information, I’ll assume SMS. (But see below; iMessage may also have been used.)

A government agency dealing with sensitive data needs a data retention policy. It needs to make sure information doesn’t get lost and doesn’t get into unauthorized hands. The Federal Records Act requires such policies in many cases. SMS messages are normally retained only on the sender’s and recipient’s devices, so a data retention policy needs to focus there. If both the sender’s and recipient’s phones were destroyed and their text messages were never backed up, the data could be gone for good. However, it appears this isn’t what happened.

Data backup prior to migration was left up to individual Secret Service agents. This amounts to no retention policy. Even if everyone made a good-faith effort to do a backup, the saved messages would be all over the place, some of them stored on insecure servers, some irrecoverably lost.

A Washington Post article comments: “Cybersecurity professionals said that policy was ‘highly unusual,’ ‘ludicrous,’ a ‘failure of management’ and ‘not something any other organization would ever do.'” The article suggests some agents may have used iMessage on iPhones rather than SMS. It includes this extremely interesting bit:

In a letter to the House select committee investigating the insurrection, Secret Service officials said they began planning in the fall of 2020 to move all devices onto Microsoft Intune, a “mobile device management” service, known as an MDM, that companies and other organizations can use to centrally manage their computers and phones.

That sounds as if it wasn’t a matter of tossing old phones on the fire but merely installing some new software. A software installation isn’t supposed to wipe out existing data by default. It certainly shouldn’t delete it so thoroughly that forensic software can’t find at least some of the lost data.

The situation invites comparison to Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server for her office as Secretary of State in 2016. Some people overreacted to it, even calling for her execution, but the situations are similar in their failure to handle sensitive government records properly. The present situation is much more likely to involve the actual and possibly deliberate loss of vital information.

There’s a saying: “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.” Is the Secret Service message black hole the result of a cover-up or gross negligence? Hopefully we’ll find out soon.

In just five years, the amount of e-waste has increased by 21 percent. Only a fraction is recycled. Europe is at the top of this sad statistic, according to the Global E-Waste Monitor 2020. One of the most common reasons for devices to end up in the trash is broken batteries. More and more often, they are hidden in shrink-wrapped or glued housings. Electric toothbrushes let us choose: sawing apart or trash can?

The EU Commission has been working to change that since 2019 and wants to make products placed on the market in the EU more sustainable. With the so-called “Sustainable Product Initiative”, it seeks to revise the Ecodesign Directive and, if necessary, propose additional measures. To this end, the Commission has now presented an initial draft regulation, which was open for public comment.

The initiative is intended to affect all products placed on the market in the EU as well as their individual components. The aim is to make them more durable, easier to reuse, more repairable, more recyclable and more energy-efficient. To this end, the Commission wants to standardize performance and information requirements and develop a EU-wide product passport.

This would aim to promote sustainable products and circular processes in all member states, “creating a larger and more efficient market and thus stronger incentives for industry to develop these products.

This means that in the future, anyone who wants to buy an electric toothbrush, for instance, should be able to see at a glance whether the battery is replaceable or how the device compares with particularly durable toothbrushes. The underlying assumption is that if consumers then buy sustainable products more often, the overall longevity of products will improve.

The draft is limited to general performance specifications such as minimum or maximum values for product parameters and information requirements for such parameters. These are general statements intended to provide information about product performance, such as indicators of “ease of repair and maintenance.” These would be “characteristics, availability and delivery time of spare parts, modularity, compatibility with commonly available spare parts” and others. There are no plans to make it mandatory for products to be modular and compatible. That should be regulated by the market, as the Commission seems to think.

Comparability of products in terms of sustainability is overdue, but it is not enough. Whether products are designed to be repairable, whether relevant information is available for their repair, and how spare parts are actually provided should not depend on how high the demand for them is and how manufacturers react to it.

For example, whether products are accompanied by repair instructions says nothing about their quality and reparability. In addition to general information on products, there is a need for design criteria and specifications on how manufacturers must provide repair-relevant information. But these are lacking from the draft.

The draft regulation mentions that sustainable products should be reusable, upgradable, repairable and recyclable. All of this becomes much more low-threshold – and thus more likely – when a design is open. This is shown, for example, by Jérémy Bonvoisin in his publication “Limits of Ecodesign: The Case for Open Source Product Development“.

Here, the product developer analyzes 18 examples ranging from musical instruments to clothing to tractors and elaborates on how open source and sustainable product development are interrelated. The German Ministry of Research, in its report “Resource-Efficient Circular Economy”, also emphasizes that open design as well as open source are important conditions for the circular economy.

Open product development is therefore important for sustainable production. Products made of universally available parts and materials with an easy-to-follow, modular design are usually easier to creatively reuse, adapt, repair and recycle.

The idea behind open design and open hardware is to make products and their production more accessible. This is achieved, for example, through simple and easily understandable design, the use of generally known and accessible materials and components, and the use of production techniques and processes that are open to many. It is also important to have available documentation that makes it easier for manufacturers and consumers to work with a product.

Open source hardware also attaches importance to the fact that the openly designed products and their documentation are not protected by property rights such as patents or design rights. Everyone may and should be able to work with it – even commercially.

These are the aspects that a forward-looking EU initiative should consider. It should specify concrete criteria for the open, modular design of products, as well as for opening up technology, for example by requiring CAD drawings of wear parts or circuit diagrams to be made available for troubleshooting.

But these specifications are missing, and that may not be a coincidence. Both widespread perceptions of what business models should look like and communications by the Commission, such as the report on the “New Industrial Strategy for Europe” published in 2020, stand in the way of a more open approach. This “Intellectual Property Action Plan” provides for “improving the fight against intellectual property theft.” So instead of making products more open, the EU is developing mechanisms to do the opposite.

The result is a picture of a policy that acts in the interests of an established economy instead of introducing innovative measures for sustainable products and production.

“Do you have a patent?” This is often one of the first questions a startup is asked after a pitch. Instead of the mantra “No property rights, no business”, we need an intelligent, open discussion and design of property rights. And the development of new business models based on them. There are concrete examples of this, such as the MNT Reform laptop developed in Berlin. This laptop is designed so that users can repair it themselves. Every part of the device can be replaced. To this end, the company publishes all the construction instructions and the complete design files, so that, for example, individual spare parts can also be reprinted in a 3-D printer. “After all, it’s not just about the material I sell. After all, it includes a brand, an ecosystem and services,” the founder says of the business model.

But the Commission has failed to map out such paths. Falling back on monopoly rights by default stands in the way of a transformation of our product worlds toward sustainability. A product passport, as provided for in the draft regulation, is not sufficient to initiate this change.

Maximilian Voigt works with the Open Knowledge Foundation Deutschland on the topics of open Education and open Hardware. In 2022, he launched the Prototype Fund Hardware. This article has been first published in German on netzpolitik.org (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

The post Sustainable products: We need to talk about intellectual property appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

On July 13th, 2022, a coalition of over fifty civil society organizations representing educators, researchers, libraries, archives and digital rights advocates sent a letter to the delegates representing the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at its 2022 General Assembly to support the application of seven Wikimedia chapters as observers. On July 15th, Wikimedia chapters were blocked over concerns by one member state as was the case earlier this year at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights and in 2020 and 2021 when the Wikimedia Foundation had applied for accreditation. The support letter is published here as a sign of solidarity for the Wikimedia movement that deserves a seat at the table in this important forum.

Esteemed delegates,

We, the undersigned civil society organizations, are deeply concerned with the exclusion of the Wikimedia Foundation, the global nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia, and seven independent Wikimedia chapters from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

WIPO is an important United Nations specialized agency where key rules for access to knowledge are made. WIPO’s work has an immediate impact on the ability of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters, and countless Wikimedia volunteers around the globe to maintain Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects.

Many signatories of this letter have enriched discussions and contributed to the debates at WIPO over many years. The Wikimedia Foundation and its independent affiliates are active and respected stakeholders around the world, specifically on copyright policy. Their participation would bring a unique and underrepresented angle to WIPO debates. Not admitting the Foundation and its independent affiliates as observers is unacceptable.

Yet the Wikimedia Foundation’s applications for permanent observer status at WIPO have been rejected twice at the 2020 and 2021 General Assemblies. In addition, this year, six independent Wikimedia chapters were rejected as ad hoc observers to WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at its 42nd session.

We call on Delegations to do everything in their power to facilitate admission of the Wikimedia Chapters of Argentina, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa, Sweden, and Switzerland at the 2022 WIPO General Assembly. We also ask you to admit the Wikimedia Foundation once it reapplies for admission as an observer organization to WIPO.

Yours faithfully,

AfroLeadership
Access Now
Alternatif Bilisim (Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey)
American Library Association
Association of College and Research Libraries
Association of Research Libraries
Australian Libraries & Archives Copyright Coalition
Australian Digital Alliance
Biblioteca y Ruralidad (Colombia)
Centro de Estudios en Tecnología y Sociedad (CETyS), Universidad de San Andrés (Argentina)
comun.al, Digital Resilience Lab (Mexico)
COMMUNIA
Creative Commons
Creative Commons Italy
Creative Commons Kenya
Creative Commons México
Creative Commons Slovenia
Creative Commons Uruguay
D3 – Defesa dos Direitos Digitais (Portugal)
Datysoc (Uruguay)
Derechos Digitales (Latin America)
Digitalcourage (Germany)
Education International
EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries)
Elektronisk Forpost Norge (Norway)
Fight for the Future
Fundación Conector (Colombia)
Fundación Karisma (Colombia)
Fundación Vía Libre (Argentina)
Fundacja Centrum Cyfrowe (Poland)
Grupo Bibliotecario sobre Acceso a la Información y Propiedad Intelectual – G-BAIPI (Argentina)
Homo Digitalis (Greece)
Intellectual Property Institute (Slovenia)
International Council on Archives
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
Internet Archive
IP Justice (USA)
IPQuail (Kenya)
ISUR (Colombia)
IT-Pol Denmark
Knowledge Ecology International
Knowledge Rights 21
Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance (UK)
Library Copyright Alliance
Library Futures Institute
Open Access India
Open Future Foundation
TEDIC (Paraguay)
R3D: Red en defensa de los derechos digitales (México)
Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Derechos de Autor y Acceso a la Información – REDLACDA
Vereniging Open Nederland (Netherlands)

On July 13th, 2022, a coalition of over fifty civil society organizations representing educators, researchers, libraries, archives and digital rights advocates sent a letter to the delegates representing the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at its 2022 General Assembly to support the application of seven Wikimedia chapters as observers. On July 15th, Wikimedia chapters were blocked over concerns by one member state as was the case earlier this year at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights and in 2020 and 2021 when the Wikimedia Foundation had applied for accreditation. The support letter is published here as a sign of solidarity for the Wikimedia movement that deserves a seat at the table in this important forum.

Esteemed delegates,

We, the undersigned civil society organizations, are deeply concerned with the exclusion of the Wikimedia Foundation, the global nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia, and seven independent Wikimedia chapters from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

WIPO is an important United Nations specialized agency where key rules for access to knowledge are made. WIPO’s work has an immediate impact on the ability of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters, and countless Wikimedia volunteers around the globe to maintain Wikipedia and other free knowledge projects.

Many signatories of this letter have enriched discussions and contributed to the debates at WIPO over many years. The Wikimedia Foundation and its independent affiliates are active and respected stakeholders around the world, specifically on copyright policy. Their participation would bring a unique and underrepresented angle to WIPO debates. Not admitting the Foundation and its independent affiliates as observers is unacceptable.

Yet the Wikimedia Foundation’s applications for permanent observer status at WIPO have been rejected twice at the 2020 and 2021 General Assemblies. In addition, this year, six independent Wikimedia chapters were rejected as ad hoc observers to WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at its 42nd session.

We call on Delegations to do everything in their power to facilitate admission of the Wikimedia Chapters of Argentina, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa, Sweden, and Switzerland at the 2022 WIPO General Assembly. We also ask you to admit the Wikimedia Foundation once it reapplies for admission as an observer organization to WIPO.

Yours faithfully,

AfroLeadership
Access Now
Alternatif Bilisim (Alternative Informatics Association, Turkey)
American Library Association
Association of College and Research Libraries
Association of Research Libraries
Australian Libraries & Archives Copyright Coalition
Australian Digital Alliance
Biblioteca y Ruralidad (Colombia)
Centro de Estudios en Tecnología y Sociedad (CETyS), Universidad de San Andrés (Argentina)
comun.al, Digital Resilience Lab (Mexico)
COMMUNIA
Creative Commons
Creative Commons Italy
Creative Commons Kenya
Creative Commons México
Creative Commons Slovenia
Creative Commons Uruguay
D3 – Defesa dos Direitos Digitais (Portugal)
Datysoc (Uruguay)
Derechos Digitales (Latin America)
Digitalcourage (Germany)
Education International
EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries)
Elektronisk Forpost Norge (Norway)
Fight for the Future
Fundación Conector (Colombia)
Fundación Karisma (Colombia)
Fundación Vía Libre (Argentina)
Fundacja Centrum Cyfrowe (Poland)
Grupo Bibliotecario sobre Acceso a la Información y Propiedad Intelectual – G-BAIPI (Argentina)
Homo Digitalis (Greece)
Intellectual Property Institute (Slovenia)
International Council on Archives
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
Internet Archive
IP Justice (USA)
IPQuail (Kenya)
ISUR (Colombia)
IT-Pol Denmark
Knowledge Ecology International
Knowledge Rights 21
Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance (UK)
Library Copyright Alliance
Library Futures Institute
Open Access India
Open Future Foundation
TEDIC (Paraguay)
R3D: Red en defensa de los derechos digitales (México)
Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Derechos de Autor y Acceso a la Información – REDLACDA
Vereniging Open Nederland (Netherlands)

The post A Letter in Support of the Admission of the Wikimedia Foundation and its Affiliates as Observers to the World Intellectual Property Organization appeared first on International Communia Association.

In Noorwegen worden alle informatieverzoeken binnen drie dagen beantwoord, op straffe van een klacht bij de koning. In Taiwan hebben ze een Digitale Minister, die een radicaal opheidsbeleid voert. New Yorkers kunnen bijna real-time zien hoeveel hun politie spendeert aan donuts en kogels. En na de aardbevingen in Haïti werden met data mensenlevens gered. 

Maar ook in Nederland groeit de overheidstransparantie: open weerdata houdt ons droog, we hebben een nationaal open dataportaal, Amsterdam was wereldwijd de eerste met een algoritmeregister, open stikstofdata informeert overheidsbeleid, en de nieuwe Wet open overheid is eindelijk gearriveerd. Ook maken journalisten gretig gebruik van open data: bijvoorbeeld om het woontekort te analyseren, om het verlies van duizenden briefstemmen te onthullen en om de veiligheid van alle fietsroutes naar scholen in Nederland in kaart te brengen. 

Al die verhalen en meer,  vertellen we in het Witboek Open Overheid. Dat doen we met interviews, case studies, tijdlijnen, infographics, foto’s, en ga zo maar door. Het witboek laat niet alleen zien wat er goed gaat op open data-gebied; het biedt ook inspiratie voor de lange weg die we nog moeten afleggen tot een écht open overheid. Daarom bevat het ook open data-gerelateerde adviezen en aanbevelingen, tips en tricks, wensen en dromen – van ons en iedereen die aan het woord komt. 

We overhandigden de allereerste editie aan de minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Hanke Bruins Slot. Nu presenteren we hier de digitale versie. Voor wie wat wil opsteken over openheid en overheid… Veel leesplezier! 

Open State Foundation is een ngo die zich inzet voor een digitaal transparante overheid en daarmee een controleerbare en vitale democratie. Wij ontsluiten overheidsinformatie als open data: toegankelijk, machineleesbaar en vrij van rechten. Daarnaast stimuleren we het hergebruik van die data door burgers, journalisten, politici, ngo’s, bedrijven en wetenschappers. Dit doen we door zowel rebel als partner van de overheid te zijn: we adviseren overheden, scrapen zelf data, bouwen handige open data tools, maar bepleiten ook dat er nog veel moet gebeuren om een open overheid te bewerkstelligen. 

Dit laatste doen we onder andere door op te komen voor een transparante lobby in Nederland. Lobbyen is een groot onderdeel van het politieke besluitvormingsproces en het is belangrijk dat dit transparant en evenwichtig gebeurt. Wie praat met wie? En hoe wordt beleid gemaakt? Het project Open Lobby is erop gericht om de agenda’s van ministers inzichtelijk te maken, de politieke draaideur in kaart te brengen en mee te denken met Kamerleden over het beleid rondom lobbyen. Wil jij je in het najaar van 2022 hiervoor inzetten? Wij zijn per 1 september (datum in overleg) op zoek naar een enthousiaste politieke stagiair! 

• Je hebt hart voor de Nederlandse politiek. Ook ben je op de hoogte van het laatste nieuws.
• Je bent momenteel in de eindfase van je studie bij een HBO- of WO-onderwijsinstelling.
• Je volgt een relevante studie: politicologie, bestuurskunde, journalistiek, sociologie, rechten of vergelijkbaar. 
• Je beschikt over een goede kennis van de Nederlandse taal. 
• Behalve dat je interesse hebt in de politiek, vind je het ook leuk om meer te weten te komen over open data en hoe we dit inzetten om de democratie te versterken.
• Je hebt enige ervaring met het doen van onderzoek, kennis van kwalitatieve en kwantitatieve onderzoeksmethodes is een pré. 
• Je kan goed zelfstandig werken maar toont ook initiatief binnen het team. Daarnaast heb je een flexibele instelling als dingen nét even iets anders lopen dan gepland.

• Je komt ons diverse en hechte team versterken; bestaande uit projectleiders, projectmedewerkers, onderzoekers en developers. 

• Je werkt mee op ons Open Lobby project. Dit houdt in: het monitoren van politieke ontwikkelingen, zowel kwalitatief als kwantitatief onderzoek uitvoeren, en contact leggen met zowel media als maatschappelijke en politieke organisaties.

• Je draait mee met de dagelijkse activiteiten van ons team; neemt deel aan wekelijkse vergaderingen en brainstormsessies, en draagt bij aan content voor onze communicatiekanalen en blogs. Hierbij is er genoeg ruimte voor je eigen ambities en ideeën!

• De stage duurt een minimum van drie maanden, maar langer is ook zeker mogelijk. 

• De stage is voor 24-40 uur per week.

• De stagevergoeding bedraagt €500,- bij een voltijd werkweek.

• Ons kantoor bevindt zich op het Marineterrein in Amsterdam. We werken vaak in een hybride-werkvorm; in ieder geval twee dagen op kantoor. We zien jou natuurlijk ook graag op kantoor, dus houd hier rekening mee qua reisafstand en tijd. 

Geïnteresseerd? Graag ontvangen we je CV en motivatie! Mail deze naar Rosa Juffer: rosa@openstate.eu. Bij haar kun je ook terecht als je nog vragen hebt. 

Vorige week heeft de Tweede Kamer 10 jaar na toezegging publieke toegang tot de Open Data Portaal gerealiseerd. Via deze portaal kan iedereen direct en gemakkelijk toegang krijgen tot gegevens die worden gegenereerd door de Tweede Kamer. Een broodnodige ontwikkeling waar wij hard voor hebben gestreden. Nu kunnen journalisten, wetenschappers, belangenpartijen zonder onnodige obstakels deze gegevens gebruiken binnen hun werk en kunnen er mooie nieuwe applicaties en websites worden gebouwd.

In 2012 nam de Tweede Kamer het initiatief om parlementaire stukken en informatie over commissie- en plenaire vergaderingen van de Tweede Kamer als open data te publiceren. Een uitstekend initiatief aangezien open data essentieel is voor een transparante overheid en democratische legitimiteit.

De (betaversie) van de Open Data Portaal van de Tweede Kamer, werd pas 4 jaar daarna gelanceerd in 2016 en was tot vorige week alleen toegankelijk voor een beperkte groep gebruikers. Maar zelfs deze partijen konden op dat moment geen gebruik maken van de open data zoals herhaaldelijk en door verschillende verantwoordelijken binnen de Tweede Kamer werd toegezegd. Het grootste hekelpunt was het slecht functioneren van de API, het koppelvlak waardoor data eenvoudig en op maat opgehaald kunnen worden, onbetrouwbaar en daardoor onbruikbaar.

Hierdoor waren hergebruikers van Kamerdata nog steeds afhankelijk zijn van het ‘scrapen’ van tweedekamer.nl en andere websites. Dit is een foutgevoelige manier van dataverzameling die bovendien zorgt voor een overbelasting van servers van overheidswebsites.

In 2018 en 2021 hebben 1848.nl, Argu.co en de Open State Foundation middels een publieke brief de toenmalige en huidige Tweede Kamervoorzitters Khadija Arib en Vera Bergkamp opgeroepen een speerpunt te maken van een openbare, structurele en gebruiksvriendelijke ontsluiting van Kamerdata. En met succes; (ondanks flinke vertraging) is de Open Data Portaal vanaf nu toegankelijk voor iedereen en bestaat deze uit goed functionerende APIs.

De Open Data Portaal biedt op dit moment via een OData API en SyncFeedAPI toegang tot documenten uit het Gegevensmagazijn van de Tweede Kamer. Voor deze publicatie wordt een gestructureerd informatiemodel gebruikt dat inzicht biedt in de informatiehuishouding van de Tweede Kamer.

Wij gaan nu aan de slag met deze gegevens en roepen jullie op om hetzelfde te doen! Heb je een mooi idee voor hergebruik van deze gegevens? Neem vooral contact met ons op!

Sinds het toeslagenschandaal klinkt in heel Nederland de roep om het vertrouwen hersteld moet worden. Transparantie is het sleutelwoord daarbij, want wie open is kan goed gecontroleerd worden en dat wekt vertrouwen. Als het woord openheid klinkt dan kijk je naar de Wet open overheid (Woo); Voorheen Wet openbaarheid van bestuur (Wob). De Woo is gebaseerd op vertrouwen in de overheid, namelijk dat zij de procedures uit die wet zorgvuldig volgt om tot goede besluitvorming te komen.

De Wob is ruim 4 decennia het middel geweest voor burgers en journalisten om de overheid informatie te vragen die nog niet openbaar was. Als men vroeg om documenten vertrouwden we dat daadwerkelijk gezocht werd en besluiten werden genomen over alles wat gevonden was. Dat informatie echt gegeven wordt aan de burger werd zelfs zó belangrijk gevonden dat het recht op publieke informatie is vastgelegd in het eerste artikel van de Woo.

Natuurlijk waren er in al die jaren twistpunten over wat openbaar werd of niet. De rechter heeft bestuursorganen vele malen op de vingers getikt omdat er teveel werd gelakt of omdat een document wel openbaar zou moeten worden terwijl het gesloten werd gehouden. Nederland heeft over het algemeen vertrouwen dat de controle van de rechterlijke macht voldoende is om eventuele schendingen te repareren (hoewel dit vertrouwen niet altijd gerechtvaardigd is bleek bij het toeslagenschandaal).

Het vertrouwen is geschonden door de overheid zo blijkt uit het interview in de NRC met voormalig politietopman Ben van Hoek die voorbeelden noemt die een beeld laten zien van uitholling van de rechtsstaat. Het meest schokkende voorbeeld dat van Van Hoek noemt is de uitspraak ‘Je hóéft toch niet te zeggen dat jullie dat document hebben?’ Dit druist dwars in tegen de geest van onze transparantie wetten en voldoet niet aan de eisen van behoorlijk bestuur. 

Het doen alsof documenten niet bestaan om ze buiten de procedure te houden betekent dat het Wob-besluit onzorgvuldig wordt voorbereid en dat is een schending van alle afspraken die aan de grondslag liggen van het openbaar bestuur. In dit geval het vertrouwensbeginsel (een van de algemene beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur). Het voorkomt dat een rechter zich erover kan uitspreken.

Zelfs het Kabinet hanteert de methode van het “doen alsof de informatie niet bestaat”. Het ‘realtime archiveren’ (een verzonnen term) van sms’jes van de Minister-President en het vervolgens weigeren door de andere Ministers om de communicatie uit hun archief te halen is daar een recent voorbeeld van. De Tweede Kamer heeft dit om politieke redenen zonder consequenties gelaten. Maar om vertrouwen in de overheid te versterken kan deze praktijk niet langer voortduren en zullen er consequenties gesteld moeten worden door de Kamer. 

De Kamer kan als wetgever nog een extra zetje geven door expliciet in de wet op te nemen dat een bestuursorgaan geen documenten mag achterhouden om ze zo buiten de Woo-procedure te houden en daar ook nog toezicht en handhaving op zetten.

Open State roept heel politiek en bestuurlijk Nederland op om zich uit te spreken en deze handelswijze af te keuren en de uitholling van onze rechtsstaat met deze praktijken te stoppen. Wij roepen alle ambtenaren op om de procedures na te leven (zoals ze beloven in hun eed of belofte) en alle documenten die zijn achtergehouden alsnog over te dragen aan de Woo-afdeling van hun bestuursorgaan zodat de geraakte Wob-besluiten gerepareerd kunnen worden.

Er moet nu echt werk gemaakt worden van het herstel van vertrouwen.

P.S. Artikel 10 van de Wob gaf en artikel 5.1 van de Woo geeft een limitatieve lijst met de uitzonderingsgronden

Leerpunt voor (de geciteerde) ambtenaren: De redenen “omdat het belastend is voor de burgemeester” en “omdat het slecht uitkomt voor de verkiezingen” staan niet in de wet en ze passen ook niet binnen een van de uitzonderingsgronden.

The recent CJEU decision on Article 17 of the copyright directive has defined a framework for the use of automated content moderation. The Court considers filtering obligations compatible with the right to freedom of expression and information as long as they are limited to use cases that allow for a robust automated distinction between legal and illegal content. In the context of Article 17, upload filters may therefore only be used by online platforms to block manifest infringements of copyright law. The Court leaves it up to the Member States to ensure that legal uses remain unaffected by their national transpositions of Article 17.

The judgment raises a host of important questions for the enforcement of copyright law as well as for the compatibility of upload filters with fundamental rights even beyond copyright law. To discuss these consequences, together with Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte we are jointly organizing the “Filtered Futures” conference on Monday, September 19th 2022, in Berlin. 

We are inviting papers from all disciplines contributing to the conference theme. To present your work at Filtered Futures, please complete the submission form by July 10th, 2022. The form asks for a short abstract of your talk. All applicants will be notified by July 22th, 2022.

In addition, we will offer an opportunity to present your work to a broader audience through the COMMUNIA website or a dedicated publication.

It will be possible for a limited number of people to attend the conference without presenting their work. Please request participation with: uploadfilter@freiheitsrechte.org

Participation will be free of charge. A light lunch will be served. A limited budget to support travel and accommodation expenses for presenters is available.

Possible topics for conference contributions include:

1. The impact of the ruling on existing national implementations of Article 17:
   1. How are verbatim implementations to be interpreted?
   2. Does the Court mandate or enable a harmonized EU-wide technical implementation of Article 17 by platforms?
   3. Do any national implementations violate the standards set by the ruling?
   4. What role will the Commission guidance play in application of Article 17?
2. Rights and obligations of rights holders and users:
   1. standards for “information provided by rightsholders”
   2. enforcement of user rights
   3. measures against misuse of copyright enforcement tools
   4. sanctions for non-compliance beyond platform liability?
3. Minimum fundamental rights safeguards for the use of upload filters:
   1. different standards for voluntary (based on terms and conditions) and mandatory filtering by platforms?
   2. Do filters sufficiently distinguish between legal and illegal uses?
   3. ex-ante safeguards for use of upload filters
4. Impacts on the relationship of Article 17 to other norms:
   1. intermediary liability for platforms that don’t qualify as OCSSPs
   2. Digital Services Act
   3. other sector-specific content regulation (TERREG, protection of minors)
5. Implications of the ruling on CJEU freedom of expression case-law:
   1. prior restraint and its necessary safeguards
   2. scope of ban on general monitoring obligations

The recent CJEU decision on Article 17 of the copyright directive has defined a framework for the use of automated content moderation. The Court considers filtering obligations compatible with the right to freedom of expression and information as long as they are limited to use cases that allow for a robust automated distinction between legal and illegal content. In the context of Article 17, upload filters may therefore only be used by online platforms to block manifest infringements of copyright law. The Court leaves it up to the Member States to ensure that legal uses remain unaffected by their national transpositions of Article 17.

The judgment raises a host of important questions for the enforcement of copyright law as well as for the compatibility of upload filters with fundamental rights even beyond copyright law. To discuss these consequences, together with Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte we are jointly organizing the “Filtered Futures” conference on Monday, September 19th 2022, in Berlin.

We are inviting papers from all disciplines contributing to the conference theme. To present your work at Filtered Futures, please complete the submission form by July 10th, 2022. The form asks for a short abstract of your talk. All applicants will be notified by July 22th, 2022.

In addition, we will offer an opportunity to present your work to a broader audience through the COMMUNIA website or a dedicated publication.

It will be possible for a limited number of people to attend the conference without presenting their work. Please request participation with: uploadfilter@freiheitsrechte.org

Participation will be free of charge. A light lunch will be served. A limited budget to support travel and accommodation expenses for presenters is available.

1. The impact of the ruling on existing national implementations of Article 17:
   1. How are verbatim implementations to be interpreted?
   2. Does the Court mandate or enable a harmonized EU-wide technical implementation of Article 17 by platforms?
   3. Do any national implementations violate the standards set by the ruling?
   4. What role will the Commission guidance play in application of Article 17?
2. Rights and obligations of rights holders and users:
   1. standards for “information provided by rightsholders”
   2. enforcement of user rights
   3. measures against misuse of copyright enforcement tools
   4. sanctions for non-compliance beyond platform liability?
3. Minimum fundamental rights safeguards for the use of upload filters:
   1. different standards for voluntary (based on terms and conditions) and mandatory filtering by platforms?
   2. Do filters sufficiently distinguish between legal and illegal uses?
   3. ex-ante safeguards for use of upload filters
4. Impacts on the relationship of Article 17 to other norms:
   1. intermediary liability for platforms that don’t qualify as OCSSPs
   2. Digital Services Act
   3. other sector-specific content regulation (TERREG, protection of minors)
5. Implications of the ruling on CJEU freedom of expression case-law:
   1. prior restraint and its necessary safeguards
   2. scope of ban on general monitoring obligations

The post Filtered Futures: a Conference to examine upload filters after the CJEU ruling on Art. 17 appeared first on International Communia Association.

On Tuesday, the 31st of May 2022, COMMUNIA presented twenty new policy recommendations that will guide our association’s work for the next decade. We brought together fellow activists, academics, policy makers and other stakeholders from across the copyright policy spectrum in Brussels to celebrate the occasion. Our new policy recommendations build on the principles of the Public Domain Manifesto and replace the previous policy recommendations that have guided our work in the past decade (and which we have evaluated here).

The event was kicked-off by COMMUNIA president Paul Keller, who in his opening remarks (reproduced in full at the end of this post) argued for the need to put discussion about copyright policy back on the agenda of the EU legislator: three years after the adoption of the DSM directive, it is clear that the EU copyright framework remains a fragmented mess that does not adequately address the needs of users and creators in an increasingly complex digital environment. Paul Keller stressed that COMMUNIA hopes that the new set of policy recommendations will contribute to an open and respectful debate with policy makers and stakeholders from across the copyright policy spectrum about how we can work towards a more just and open EU copyright system that embraces the opportunities offered by digital transformation for users and creators alike.

In a first reaction, MEP Tiemo Wölken (S&D) welcomed COMMUNIA’s ambition and highlighted the importance of improving the EU copyright framework in the context of ambitions to strengthen the digital public sphere in Europe. See here for a recording of his intervention.

His intervention was followed by the presentation of the new policy recommendations by Paul Keller and Teresa Nobre. In her remarks, Teresa highlighted the evolution of the recommendations to more explicitly address the concerns of both users and creators (instead of users’ rights, the new recommendations focus on usage rights) and the increasing importance of (procedural) safeguards against copyright abuse. Paul and Teresa then walked the audience through the 20 individual recommendations:

The presentation of the recommendations was followed by a reaction from Prof. Séverine Dusollier, who echoed the overall need to reform the EU copyright framework and welcomed the level of ambition contained in the new recommendations. See here for a recording of her reaction.

So why are we assembled here today and why are we launching a set of 20 policy recommendations for improving the EU copyright framework? Isn’t copyright policy a discussion that was wrapped up during the last Commission’s mandate? With the adoption of the DSM directive that followed almost three years of debate of almost unrivalled intensity?

We would argue otherwise. Yes, in the end the EU legislator managed to adopt a compromise. And yes, even the most controversial provisions of the DSM directive have been upheld by the Court of Justice. But that does not mean that the EU copyright framework is perfect or that it is fit for purpose. Looking back from a distance, the DSM directive has made the EU copyright landscape even more messy than before.

So far only 14 of the 27 EU member states have fully implemented the directive. And after last month’s decision by the CJEU it is very questionable if most of these implementations meet the Court’s requirements for fundamental rights compliance.

And while the DSM directive has harmonised (to some degree) some important aspects of the EU copyright framework — the protection of the public domain status of reproductions of public domain works, the new mandatory exceptions for education, text and data mining, and preservation of works held by cultural heritage institutions come to mind, the rules for access to out of commerce works and the rules strengthening the contractual position of authors and creator come to mind, important parts of the EU copyright framework are still very much fragmented.

While the implementation of the DSM directive would have been an opportunity for the Member States to update other parts of their copyright systems as well, national lawmakers have largely shied away from this opportunity. Only in very few cases have national legislators decided to reform national legislation in order to better align it with the objective of increasing access to knowledge and culture or to further harmonise rules across member states.

Exceptions and limitations that protect fundamental rights exist in some member states but not in others. Procedural safeguards to enforce usage rights are missing in action in most member states and the copyright framework still constrains too many activities that it should enable — for example e-lending.

—

This all takes place against a background of a substantial strengthening of usage rights, both through recent CJEU case law but also through the language of the final article 17 compromise that helped the DSM directive across the finish line. As we have discovered over the last three years, Article 17 does contain in itself a number of elements that substantially strengthen the rights of platform users.

After the amount of opposition against Article 17 from us and many others this feels somewhat counter-intuitive, but who would have thought that what was proposed by the Commission in 2016 as an attempt to curtail the liability privileges of large online platforms would become a vehicle for enshrining the concept of exceptions and limitations to copyright as users rights into the EU framework and at the same time harmonise the so far optional exceptions covering citation, caricature, pastiche and parody through the back door?

But as last month’s CJEU ruling also makes it clear, these conceptual changes will only become meaningful if the legislators implement accessible procedural safeguards for all types of platform users, be they consumers or creators.

—

So with all of this in mind we think that it is high time to put copyright policy back on the agenda. The work is far from done and with important work on the big digital projects of this legislative period almost completed we think that it is time to start thinking about the future evolution of the EU copyright framework and the role of Europe in global discussions about copyright, so that the challenges and opportunities can be reflected in the agenda of the next European Commission.

By presenting our recommendations today we want to open the debate and give it direction. These recommendations will guide our work over the next decade and if our previous set of recommendations — which guided our work over the past 10 years is any indication — then we should see at least some of them becoming legislative reality by the end of Europe’s digital decade.

By launching the recommendations here today we hope to open a dialogue with policy makers and stakeholders from across the copyright policy spectrum and we hope that these policy recommendations can contribute to an open and respectful debate about how we can work towards a more just and open EU copyright system that embraces the opportunities offered by the digital transformation for users and creators alike.

We are really looking forward to working with all of you on making these recommendations happen over the next couple of years!

The post Twenty copyright policy recommendations for the next decade appeared first on International Communia Association.

On Tuesday, the 31st of May 2022, COMMUNIA presented twenty new policy recommendations that will guide our association’s work for the next decade. We brought together fellow activists, academics, policy makers and other stakeholders from across the copyright policy spectrum in Brussels to celebrate the occasion. Our new policy recommendations build on the principles of the Public Domain Manifesto and replace the previous policy recommendations that have guided our work in the past decade (and which we have evaluated here). 

The event was kicked-off by COMMUNIA president Paul Keller, who in his opening remarks (reproduced in full at the end of this post) argued for the need to put discussion about copyright policy back on the agenda of the EU legislator: three years after the adoption of the DSM directive, it is clear that the EU copyright framework remains a fragmented mess that does not adequately address the needs of users and creators in an increasingly complex digital environment. Paul Keller stressed that COMMUNIA hopes that the new set of policy recommendations will contribute to an open and respectful debate with policy makers and stakeholders from across the copyright policy spectrum about how we can work towards a more just and open EU copyright system that embraces the opportunities offered by digital transformation for users and creators alike. 

In a first reaction, MEP Tiemo Wölken (S&D) welcomed COMMUNIA’s ambition and highlighted the importance of improving the EU copyright framework in the context of ambitions to strengthen the digital public sphere in Europe. See here for a recording of his intervention.

His intervention was followed by the presentation of the new policy recommendations by Paul Keller and Teresa Nobre. In her remarks, Teresa highlighted the evolution of the recommendations to more explicitly address the concerns of both users and creators (instead of users’ rights, the new recommendations focus on usage rights) and the increasing importance of (procedural) safeguards against copyright abuse. Paul and Teresa then walked the audience through the 20 individual recommendations:

The presentation of the recommendations was followed by a reaction from Prof. Séverine Dusollier, who echoed the overall need to reform the EU copyright framework and welcomed the level of ambition contained in the new recommendations. See here for a recording of her reaction.

So why are we assembled here today and why are we launching a set of 20 policy recommendations for improving the EU copyright framework? Isn’t copyright policy a discussion that was wrapped up during the last Commission’s mandate? With the adoption of the DSM directive that followed almost three years of debate of almost unrivalled intensity? 

We would argue otherwise. Yes, in the end the EU legislator managed to adopt a compromise. And yes, even the most controversial provisions of the DSM directive have been upheld by the Court of Justice. But that does not mean that the EU copyright framework is perfect or that it is fit for purpose. Looking back from a distance, the DSM directive has made the EU copyright landscape even more messy than before. 

So far only 14 of the 27 EU member states have fully implemented the directive. And after last month’s decision by the CJEU it is very questionable if most of these implementations meet the Court’s requirements for fundamental rights compliance. 

And while the DSM directive has harmonised (to some degree) some important aspects of the EU copyright framework — the protection of the public domain status of reproductions of public domain works, the new mandatory exceptions for education, text and data mining, and preservation of works held by cultural heritage institutions come to mind, the rules for access to out of commerce works and the rules strengthening the contractual position of authors and creator come to mind, important parts of the EU copyright framework are still very much fragmented. 

While the implementation of the DSM directive would have been an opportunity for the Member States to update other parts of their copyright systems as well, national lawmakers have largely shied away from this opportunity. Only in very few cases have national legislators decided to reform national legislation in order to better align it with the objective of increasing access to knowledge and culture or to further harmonise rules across member states.

Exceptions and limitations that protect fundamental rights exist in some member states but not in others. Procedural safeguards to enforce usage rights are missing in action in most member states and the copyright framework still constrains too many activities that it should enable — for example e-lending. 

—

This all takes place against a background of a substantial strengthening of usage rights, both through recent CJEU case law but also through the language of the final article 17 compromise that helped the DSM directive across the finish line. As we have discovered over the last three years, Article 17 does contain in itself a number of elements that substantially strengthen the rights of platform users. 

After the amount of opposition against Article 17 from us and many others this feels somewhat counter-intuitive, but who would have thought that what was proposed by the Commission in 2016 as an attempt to curtail the liability privileges of large online platforms would become a vehicle for enshrining the concept of exceptions and limitations to copyright as users rights into the EU framework and at the same time harmonise the so far optional exceptions covering citation, caricature, pastiche and parody through the back door? 

But as last month’s CJEU ruling also makes it clear, these conceptual changes will only become meaningful if the legislators implement accessible procedural safeguards for all types of platform users, be they consumers or creators.

–-

So with all of this in mind we think that it is high time to put copyright policy back on the agenda. The work is far from done and with important work on the big digital projects of this legislative period almost completed we think that it is time to start thinking about the future evolution of the EU copyright framework and the role of Europe in global discussions about copyright, so that the challenges and opportunities can be reflected in the agenda of the next European Commission. 

By presenting our recommendations today we want to open the debate and give it direction. These recommendations will guide our work over the next decade and if our previous set of recommendations — which guided our work over the past 10 years is any indication — then we should see at least some of them becoming legislative reality by the end of Europe’s digital decade. 

By launching the recommendations here today we hope to open a dialogue with policy makers and stakeholders from across the copyright policy spectrum and we hope that these policy recommendations can contribute to an open and respectful debate about how we can work towards a more just and open EU copyright system that embraces the opportunities offered by the digital transformation for users and creators alike.

We are really looking forward to working with all of you on making these recommendations happen over the next couple of years!

Datum: 1 juli 2022 10.00 – 16.00 uur
Locatie: Het Nutshuis, Riviervismarkt 5, Den Haag
Aanmelden: Stuur een mailtje naar jesse@openstate.eu

Sind 27 maart zijn de eigenaren van ondernemingen, de Ultimate Beneficial Owners, verplicht zich in te schrijven in het UBO-register. Dit register heeft het doel om misbruik van de financiële systemen te voorkomen. De grote moeite die Nederland de afgelopen periode had om Russisch kapitaal te vinden, legde de vinger op de zere plek. De Nederlandse overheid bleek last te hebben van het ontransparante systeem dat het zelf heeft gecreëerd, waardoor eigendom makkelijk kan worden verhuld en niet genoeg kan worden gedaan witwassen, misdaadfinanciering en belastingonwijking aan te pakken. Nederland staat niet voor niets op de 12 de plaats in de Financial Secrecy Index, de ranglijst van minst transparante landen ter wereld.

Dat er toch veel naar boven is gehaald is vooral te danken aan slimme onderzoeksjournalistiek. Op 1 juli organiseren wij samen met Tax Justice NL en Transparency International NL het evenement ‘De zoektocht naar het verborgen kapitaal’. Waar lopen onderzoekers tegenaan en hoe gaan ze ondanks de beperkt beschikbare informatie te werk? Hoe kan Nederland transparanter worden. En is transparantie genoeg of moet er meer gedaan worden om dit aan te pakken? Daar gaan we het over hebben met:

• Maira Martini (Transparency International)
• Henk Willem Smits (Follow the Money, auteur ‘Het belastingparadijs’),
• Tymon Kiepe (Open Ownership)
• Stefan Vermeulen (NRC, auteur ‘Sywerts Miljoenen’)
• Linda van der Pol en Romy van der Burgh (platform Investico)
• Paul Tang (Europees Parlement).

Het geheel wordt afgesloten met een borrel.

Achtergrond

We pleiten al jaren voor transparantie van het eigendom van bedrijven in de EU. Het was daarom in 2019 erg positief om te zien dat “Bedrijfs- en bedrijfseigendom” werd beschouwd als een ‘High Value Dataset’ in de Open Data Richtlijn van 2019. Dit betekende dat de EU vereist dat Handels- en UBO-register in alle lidstaten openbaar zouden worden gemaakt als open data.

We maken ons nu grote zorgen dat de Europese Commissie, na een vertraging van 1,5 jaar, een voorstel heeft gepubliceerd, die het aantal gegevens over bedrijven en bedrijfseigendom zal worden gemaakt aanzienlijk beperkt. Dit ondermijnt de transparantieverplichting van de EU-lidstaten en het Europees Parlement. Bijzonder zorgwekkend is dat de voorgestelde uitvoeringsverordening vereist dat een absoluut minimum aan bedrijfsgegevens en -documenten wordt gepubliceerd, maar dat de namen van bedrijfseigenaren worden uitgesloten.

Als deze verordening ongewijzigd wordt aangenomen hoeven de lidstaten Handelsregistergegevens als open data te publiceren. Interessant is dat degenen die het zich kunnen veroorloven om te betalen – met prijzen die oplopen tot €15 per uitreksel – nu al toegang hebben tot deze gegevens. Dit toont aan dat het probleem niet de bescherming van persoonsgegevens is.

Volgende stappen: overleg & actie!
De Commissie heeft een openbare raadpleging over deze uitvoeringsverordening geopend en iedereen heeft tot 21 juni 2022 de tijd om feedback te geven. Om advies te geven over het geven van feedback, zal een groep vooraanstaande transparantie- en open data-activisten een openbare briefing houden om te bespreken hoe het beste op deze raadpleging kan worden gereageerd om de Commissie op te roepen de eigendom van EU-bedrijven echt transparant te maken.

Het World Economic Forum dat vorige week in Davos plaatsvond, geldt als het ultieme lobby-evenement waar politiek, bedrijfsleven en belangenorganisaties elkaar treffen. Ons Kabinet stuurde ook een zware delegatie, maar ondanks beloften van openheid is er geen volledige transparantie over met wie en waarover de ministers daar spraken. Het World Economic Forum ontbreekt zelfs geheel in de agenda’s van de ministers Ollongren en Van Gennip, terwijl zij de Tweede Kamer onlangs nog beloofden hun openbare agenda goed bij te zullen houden.

Openbare agenda’s bewindspersonen

Sinds 2017 zijn Nederlandse ministers verplicht hun afspraken te vermelden in openbare agenda’s om daarmee lobby beter inzichtelijk te maken. In diverse andere Europese landen is het gebruikelijk dat de afspraken van bewindslieden openbaar zijn. Eerder tikte de anti-corruptie waakhond van de Raad van Europa GRECO Nederland op de vingers voor gebrek aan openheid en regelgeving rondom lobby. Onderzoek van Open State Foundation in 2021 wees uit dat de agenda’s slecht worden bijgehouden en dat de toegang tot bewindspersonen niet evenwichtig is. Ook ontwikkelden we de online-tool OpenLobby.nl die iedereen in staat stelt de externe contacten van bewindspersonen te analyseren.

Naar aanleiding van ons onderzoek dienden de Kamerleden Sneller en Bromet een motie in en beloofde het Kabinet beterschap. De Voorlichtingsraad introduceerde met input van Open State Foundation de notitie ‘Openbare agenda’s bewindspersonen’ die in het constituerend beraad van het nieuwe Kabinet Rutte IV afgelopen januari is besproken. Vervolgonderzoek van Open State Foundation eind februari wees uit dat slechts 14% van de gemelde afspraken voldeed aan de notitie en veel afspraken niet eens werden opgenomen in de openbare agenda. Op Kamervragen van Sneller en Bromet beloofden alle bewindspersonen beterschap.

World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos

Voor zover bekend namen aan het World Economic Forum in het Zwitserse Davos (22 – 26 mei) de volgende Nederlandse bewindspersonen deel: minister-president Rutte, minister Kaag van Financiën, minister Ollongren van Defensie, minister Van Gennip van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, minister Schreinemacher voor Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking en staatssecretaris Heijnen van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat.

De openbare agenda’s van de bewindspersonen geven echter een ander, niet compleet beeld: alleen Rutte, Kaag, Schreinemacher en Heijnen worden genoemd; in de openbare agenda’s van Ollongren en Van Gennip is niets te vinden over het WEF.

Bilateraaltjes

Tijdens het World Economic Forum vinden veel bilaterale gesprekken plaats – deels in de wandelgangen en deels gepland. Van deze gesprekken is helemaal niets terug te vinden. Het valt te begrijpen dat niet iedere korte ongeplande ontmoeting of praatje de weg naar de agenda’s vindt. Maar de geplande of georganiseerde bilaterale gesprekken zouden wel openbaar en transparant moeten zijn, net als gesprekken die in Nederland plaatsvinden. Iedere burger moet kunnen weten welke CEO zijn of haar belangen bij onze bewindspersonen inbrengt. Dit is onderdeel van de beloofde nieuwe bestuurscultuur en draagt bij aan het terugwinnen van het vertrouwen in de politiek.

Het goed bijhouden van lobbygesprekken zou ook volledig in lijn zijn met de initiatiefnota van de Kamerleden Dassen en Omtzigt, die zij onlangs aan de Kamer stuurden.

Oproep

Open State Foundation roept het Kabinet op van (lobby)transparantie een prioriteit te maken, de eigen beloftes op dit gebied na te komen en de notitie ‘Openbare agenda’s bewindspersonen’ te volgen. Het openbaar maken van de geplande bilaterale gesprekken tijdens het afgelopen WEF zou een mooie concrete stap zijn. Ook ondersteunen wij de initiatiefnota Dassen/Omtzigt.

I’ve got a new project which I ought to blog about somewhere, and it’s related to file formats, so it’s going here.

There have been projects to archive information about filk songs. They’ve tended toward wikis such as the Filk Discography Wiki, which contains information about filk recordings. Many filk albums have gone out of publication and might otherwise be forgotten, and the wiki keeps them in the cultural memory. Wikis are fine, and they’re easy to participate in with little technical knowledge. They’re also fragile; if the hosting for a wiki goes away, it might find a new home, but it might disappear if no one takes prompt action.

Structured information has advantages. It’s easy for anyone with a little file storage to keep a copy and give it to others. People can create their own repositories, perhaps of songs which they have published. It’s easy to search them and extract information, e.g., all the songs by an author. This isn’t to say that we should abandon wikis, but having structured information as well strengthens the effort. With a little work, it can be fed to wikis.

This is why I’ve created the Argoknot project. It’s a Python-based project to process song data in JSON format. As of this post, it can do one thing: convert CSV files to JSON. I’m planning to add the ability to convert XML files that use the MODS schema. There is a pile of such files in the MASSFILC Filk Book Index.

One of the project’s aims is to create a JSON nomenclature for the filk community. That will let other projects work with the same JSON files to create websites, import into wikis, or do lots of other things.

What I’m doing here is just a start, and it won’t get far without the participation of others. I encourage others in the filk community to join the effort, whether working directly on Argoknot, offering suggestions on how to organize the data, or creating other coding projects.

Join us on Tuesday the 31st of May at 1700h at Townhall Europe in Brussels for the launch of the new COMMUNIA policy recommendations followed by a networking reception. We will present the 20 policy recommendations which we have developed with input from leading academics and access to knowledge advocates over the past months and which will guide our work on a more open and just copyright framework for the decade to come.

Our new policy recommendations address key policy opportunities for EU lawmakers to expand the Public Domain, increase access to and re-use of culture and knowledge and leverage the power of the digital transformation for society.

The policy recommendations will supersede the 14 existing policy recommendations that have guided our work in the past decade and have made a real contribution to the evolution of the EU copyright framework. On the 31st we will discuss the new policy recommendations with lawmakers, activists and academics. For this, we will be joined by MEP Tiemo Wölken and Professor Severine Dusollier (SciencePo).

After the launch of the recommendations (and of our new website), there will be a networking reception with the ability to exchange views with the COMMUNIA core team.

The event is open to everyone subject to registration here. We kindly ask you to confirm your attendance by Friday, May 27th. In case the max. number of registrations is reached, participants will be confirmed on a first-registered, first-served basis.

We are looking forward to toasting to the next decade with you!

The post Join us for the launch of our new policy recommendations on 31st May in Brussels appeared first on International Communia Association.