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