Dimanche25
mercredi 9 septembre 2015
vendredi 20 février 2015
jeudi 12 février 2015
Copyright: où en est le rapport Reda?
Voici un article très utile publié dans la dernière newsletter de l'organisation EDRi (European Digital Rights) - à laquelle on vous conseille vivement de vous abonner si vous êtes féru de politiques européennes dans le secteur numérique - qui dresse un état des lieux sur le projet de rapport de Julia Reda.
On appréciera au passage le petit clin d'oeil, en fin d'article, à Fleur Pellerin, qui s'était offusquée en novembre dernier qu'un tel rapport soit confié à un membre du Parti Pirate.
Si vous voulez en savoir plus sur Julia Reda, c'est ici.
The
draft European Parliament report on the InfoSoc Directive, sometimes also
called the Copyright Directive, has generated an enormous wave of responses. It
was presented by the Member of the Parliament (MEP) responsible for leading the
file, Julia Reda, to the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) on 20 January, and
three weeks later she lists over one hundred newspaper articles on her blog.
The
variety of those comments is at least as astonishing as their sheer number:
Julia Reda is called a "fringe lobbyist", praised for her approach,
described as proposing an "almost Copernican revolution" and
criticised
for proposals that are just "more of the same". Last week has also
seen the publication of two out of three draft opinions in which other parliamentary
Committees present their views on the draft report. This is therefore a good
moment to reflect on some of the ideas included in the report and the reactions
they have elicited
One
matter for confusion is the very nature of the report - what it is and what it
is for. The report is for example both criticised for fail[ing] to deliver true
copyright reform and "represent[ing] the pirate party programme, not an
assessment of the implementation of the Directive". Should the report aim to
evaluate the InfoSoc Directive or advance ideas for a future copyright reform?
An Own
Initiative (INI) Report is a report initiated by one of the Committees of the
European Parliament in this case by the Committee on Legal Affairs. The goal of
this report is indeed to evaluate the InfoSoc Directive, however in doing so it
should also advance proposals on how to overcome the difficulties. Of course,
the evaluation must ultimately reflect the opinion of the majority of the
Parliament and thus be more than simply the Pirate Party programme (or a
Conservative, Socialist, Liberal or other programme).
What are
the next steps and what is the report's ultimate significance?
After
all of the relevant Committees have transmitted their opinions, JURI will vote
on the report and transmit it to the Plenary. If it is adopted there, it
becomes a non-legislative and non-binding resolution in which the Parliament
states its current position on certain matters of copyright reform. The Parliament
hereby communicates to the Commission what it expects of future copyright
legislation. This in turn can shape the Commission's proposal for copyright
reform, which is expected within this year. The Parliament has a notoriously
short memory, especially of its own positions, so it will not consider itself bound
by anything it decides upon now.
While
the varied nature of the responses could make one doubt if they are all
discussing the same text, there is one point on which almost all agree: the
reform envisioned by the draft report is significant. Some of the more dramatic
responses also show that much of the debate is driven by ideology and panic,
rather than the facts. If this continues, the whole debate will be undermined
by fear, uncertainty and doubt.
While
there are many changes envisaged, we will mention here only the principal part:
the exceptions and limitations to copyright which are covered in 17 out of 25
paragraphs in the draft report's. The ideas included in the report aim at harmonising
these exceptions and limitations to ensure that users are accorded certain
rights.
The
recommendations include making all of the exceptions enumerated in the original
Directive mandatory, clarifying them in light of today's practices and
introducing an "open norm". The open norm (like all exceptions) would
allow users to use copyrighted works when this use does not impact on rights
holders' ability to exploit their works.
Julia
Reda underlines on multiple occasions the importance of the three-step test of
the Berne Convention, the foremost international agreement on copyright.
However, this has not stopped some commentators from alleging that she is
trying to undermine that very principle. This is reminiscent of the apocalyptic
forecasts of lobbyists campaigning against the one mandatory exception in the
Copyright Directive in 2001. Looking back, we can see that these fears proved
to be entirely misplaced.
While
the press has called the draft report everything from naive to brave, from
conservative to fringe, the draft opinions by the other committees seem to show
that Julia Reda's report is not quite as extreme.
The
draft opinion by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
(IMCO) agrees with most of the general points raised in Reda's report but
focuses on specific elements thereof. It stresses - as the draft report does - the
importance of an appropriate remuneration of all categories of rights holders and
notes the dangers of market fragmentation, legal costs and legal uncertainty.
The opinion also shows some support for the idea of an open norm, asking for a
"flexible and balanced framework for exceptions and limitations". It
notes the importance of exceptions for education and teaching and wants to see "e-books
as part of public lending".
The
Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) does not seem to hold any major
reservations about the draft report either. Their opinion stresses that
embedding and linking should not be considered infringing on rights holders
exclusive rights. They favour the implementation of mandatory exceptions,
"at least with regard to the most important exceptions, such as those in
the field of education, research and libraries". They also call for a
general exception "to offer a broader interpretation of current
exceptions".
It seems
that many Members of Parliament agree with those voices that deem the approach
sketched in the draft report sensible and more than merely the Pirate Party
programme. However, we must not forget that we are still in an early phase of
the formulation of the final INI Report.
And what
is more, this INI Report only represents a very first step on the long way to a
reform of European copyright law.
We have
to devote a last word to the French Culture Minister, who attacked the
Parliament's decision to appoint a Pirate Party MEP to guide the work on a
non-binding Resolution on copyright. While she is entitled to her view, it is
worth noting that there is no similar objection to a former music industry lobbyist
being the current Head of the Copyright Unit of the European Commission, nor
was there any particular objection to the wife of the head of Vivendi Universal
being the MEP in charge of pushing the IP Enforcement Directive through the European
Parliament in 2004.
(Contribution
by Julian Hauser, EDRi intern)
mardi 13 janvier 2015
#JeSuisCharlie: on recherche une maire, une chancelière...et un gant
On ne se réjouira jamais assez du succès historique des nombreux rassemblements de ce dimanche. On est venu, on a vu, on a essayé d'aller à Répu...
Jamais la France ne s'était retrouvée aussi nombreuse dans la rue, digne, avec une telle ferveur. Une belle mosaïque: des vieux, des petits, des bobos, des aristos, des prolos, des blancs, des blacks, des reubeus, des noiches, des cathos, des musulmans, des juifs, des agnostiques, des épicuriens, des lacanistes, des hommes,...
...mais pas de femmes.
C'est en tout cas ce qu'essaie de nous faire croire,dans son édition de lundi, le quotidien israëlien Hamevasser (à ne pas confondre avec l'hebdomadaire constantinopolitain sioniste de 1910). Vous pensiez avoir vu Angela Merkel et Anne Hidalgo en tête du cortège? Que nenni! Disparues!
Après l'attentat contre la liberté d'expression et les deux prises d'otages qui ont suivi, on s'indigne de cette vision bien particulière et mal dissimulée du droit à l'information. Seul indice de la supercherie, le Président de la Commission se retrouve avec un gant à la main droite, mais rien à la main gauche. Sylvain Mirouf est encore passé par là...
Si vous retrouvez le gant de Juncker, enfin de Hidalgo, pourquoi ne pas l'envoyer à Hamevasser?
Jamais la France ne s'était retrouvée aussi nombreuse dans la rue, digne, avec une telle ferveur. Une belle mosaïque: des vieux, des petits, des bobos, des aristos, des prolos, des blancs, des blacks, des reubeus, des noiches, des cathos, des musulmans, des juifs, des agnostiques, des épicuriens, des lacanistes, des hommes,...
...mais pas de femmes.
C'est en tout cas ce qu'essaie de nous faire croire,dans son édition de lundi, le quotidien israëlien Hamevasser (à ne pas confondre avec l'hebdomadaire constantinopolitain sioniste de 1910). Vous pensiez avoir vu Angela Merkel et Anne Hidalgo en tête du cortège? Que nenni! Disparues!
Après l'attentat contre la liberté d'expression et les deux prises d'otages qui ont suivi, on s'indigne de cette vision bien particulière et mal dissimulée du droit à l'information. Seul indice de la supercherie, le Président de la Commission se retrouve avec un gant à la main droite, mais rien à la main gauche. Sylvain Mirouf est encore passé par là...
Si vous retrouvez le gant de Juncker, enfin de Hidalgo, pourquoi ne pas l'envoyer à Hamevasser?
mardi 6 janvier 2015
Quand Taz se tape Schauble, argh!
Le petit quotidien écolo allemand Die Tageszeitung donne, avec un brillant sarcasme, quelques relancs autoritaires à certains propos prêtés aux responsables allemands sur un éventuel Grexit (comprenez Greece+Exit). On adore!
Source: @Eric_Vetter
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)