Six states raise concerns about legality of Copyright Directive

Published originally at: https://edri.org/six-states-raise-concerns-about-legality-of-copyright-directive/

According to a new leak, a number of EU Member States share our serious concerns about the proposal for mass surveillance and censorship of uploads to the internet in Europe, included in the European Commission’s proposal for a new copyright Directive. Those Member States seem unwilling to build a censorship machine forcing EU countries to adopt Google’s current practices. They highlight that such practices should not be implemented without making sure of the consequences for fundamental rights and for the rule of law.

The leaked document contains a list of questions posed to the internal legal service of the Council of the EU, signed by six EU Member States: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Ireland and the Netherlands. From the questions, it appears that those Member States feel that the proposals for the upload filter are so grave that their legality is in serious doubt. They have asked the Council legal service to evaluate if the proposal is legal, in light of the proactive monitoring of content being demanded. Following the rulings (Scarlet/Sabam, Netlog/Sabam) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that such proactive filtering are a disproportionate breach of freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct a business and to the protection of personal data, the Member States want a neutral evaluation.

They also ask if these measures are “justified and proportionate”, in order to verify if they would be in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. These Member States also ask if the fact that one article of the proposed copyright Directive could fundamentally change the scope of the liability principles for internet providers in the e-commerce Directive. Those principles are crucial for freedom of expression in Europe, because they prevent internet companies from being excessively incentivised to restrict users’ communications.

The six Member States also raised crucial questions about the argument that searching for specific files (within all internet traffic) is a “general” monitoring obligation (see Question 3). This doubt appears very valid, bearing in mind that the e-Commerce Directive (recital 47) explicitly states that exceptions to the prohibition of general monitoring obligations would only be possible when searching for data in “a specific case”. Are millions of searches “a specific case”?

Finally, they also ask whether the wording “communication to the public” is being mixed up with the expression “providing access” when, as these Member States recall, “(t)he CJEU has never considered that is (sic) was sufficient for a service to be ‘providing access’ in order to establish that it is communicating to the public.”

The Council legal service will have to analyse thoroughly these questions before it can take a position on the subject, but right now it seems they will only deliberate orally during the next working group on 11-12 September. It is clear that the European Commission should have, but apparently did not, carry out a neutral assessment of these questions before launching its proposal for the copyright Directive. Therefore, it is welcome that the six EU Member States have invested time and resources in diligently raising fundamental questions on illegality, legal uncertainty and outright chaos that the upload filters suggested in Article 13 of the proposed Directive would bring. It is crucial to clarify what they would mean for human rights in the online environment, for European innovation and for Europe’s credibility in defending online freedoms in its foreign policy. The EU Presidency, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) supporting the censorship machine, and some Member States (such as France, Spain, and Germany) should take note of the serious questions posed to the Council and re-think their positions on this debate.

More info:

Leaked document: Questions from Member States to the Council legal services on the Censorship Machine
http://statewatch.org/news/2017/sep/eu-copyright-ms-questions.htm

EU countries question legality & attack on fundamental rights
http://copybuzz.com/analysis/eu-countries-question-legality-attack-fundamental-rights/

No, you can’t enjoy the music you paid for, says EU Parliament Committee (05.07.2017)
https://edri.org/no-you-cant-enjoy-the-music-you-paid-for-says-eu-parliament/

Proposed Copyright Directive – Commissioner confirms it is illegal (28.06.2017)
https://edri.org/proposed-copyright-directive-commissioner-confirms-it-is-illegal/

EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of free speech (10.11.2016)
https://edri.org/eu-copyright-directive-privatised-censorship-and-filtering-of-free-speech/

Copyright reform: Document pool
https://edri.org/copyright-reform-document-pool/

(Contribution by Diego Naranjo, EDRi)

Advertisements

Taller de Activismo Digital – Sevilla, 1 de Junio 2017

(Publicado en: http://madafrica.es/ataya/2017/06/06/derechos-digitales/ )

Diego Naranjo , miembro de Derechos Digitales Europeos (European Digital Rights, EDRi) dirigió el talller sobre Derechos Digitales organizado por MadAfrica en el Nuevo Ateneo Tierra y Libertad. El taller se dividió en dos partes: una general para centrar la atención en los asuntos generales resultados con los derechos digitales, y una segunda parte práctica con consejos de autodefensa en internet.

Durante la primera parte, Diego presentó cómo la defensa de los derechos digitales no es más que la defensa de los derechos humano en internet. En un mundo donde los colectivos sociales se organizan y se comunican cada vez más usando la mediación de la tecnología, es necesario saber cómo funciona la tecnología y cómo usarla adecuadamente. Diego comenzó la charla con un vídeo de una asociación danesa de protección de los consumidores en el que, bajo el método de cámara oculta, se muestra cómo reaccionarías si en tu panadería te pidieran tanta información íntima como una app cualquiera. Luego contó la influencia de redes sociales en la creación de perfiles (con 300 “me gusta” Facebook te conoce mejor que nadie) y cómo se utilizan los ataques terroristas para lanzar políticas de vigilancia sobre todos los ciudadanos.

Durante la segunda parte, Diego compartió con nosotros una serie de consejos generales y específicos para todos, que puedes ver en esta presentación online. Diego insistió en que la cuestión no era volverse paranoico y coger miedo a la tecnología, sino empoderarse y dar pequeños pasos para alcanzar una mejor protección de nuestra privacidad. Así, recomendó el uso de la app de mensajería Signal frente a Whatsapp o Telegram, recomendó el uso de redes virtuales privadas (VPNs), uso de Firefox como navegador seguro (añadiéndole extensiones como https everywhere, privady badger o ublock) y  uso de TOR para una navegación totalmente anónima. Diego comentó la importancia de usar un gestor de claves como KeePassX para poder tener claves fuertes y diferentes en todas las plataformas y servicos online pero a la vez sólo tener que recordar una clave nada más. Finalmente, Diego recomendó el cifrado de teléfonos y ordenadores y mantener los equipos actualizados.

Las preguntas del público se refirieron a cómo afrontar demandas de claves en puestos fronterizos y posibilidades legales para negarse, cómo reaccionar frente a abusos con nuestros datos y preguntas generales sobre aspectos prácticos comentados durante la charla. La presentación completa se puede descargar aquí.

Para acabar, Diego se mostró dispuesto a responder por email (diego [punto] naranjo [arroba] edri [punto] org) a cualquier pregunta relativa a la charla, propuso algunas películas sobre derechos digitales (Citizen Four (Laura Poitras), Snowden (Oliver Stone)….) y agradeció la invitación al evento por la importancia de los derechos digitales en nuestras vidas.

Puedes seguir a Diego en Twitter en @DNBSevilla y ver sus presentaciones aquí: www.diegonaranjo.eu.

Public intervention at “Copyright Reform Unlocking copyright for users”

In Copyright Reform: Unlocking copyright for users COMMUNIA asks several civil society groups, EDRi among them, for their view on the current copyright reform: what are the biggest hopes, the biggest fears and the concrete plans to #FixCopyright.
Listen to what Diego Naranjo, EDRi’s advocacy manager has to say and join the discussion now.

communia-association.org/

All contents in this video have been released into the Public Domain via a CC0 dedication.

Music (in order of appearance):
– freepd.com/Rock%20Pop/Warfare%20Confederation
– freepd.com/Rock%20Pop/Pulse
– freepd.com/Cinematic/Connect%20the%20Dots
– freepd.com/Electronic/Overt%20Intimidation%20Loop

Font:
– font.ubuntu.com/ / font.ubuntu.com/licence/

Intervention at Mydata 2016 Helsinki on data protection, privacy and encryption

 

After the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation – what next? Join DR.  MALTE BEYER-KATZENBERGER (Policy officer, European Commission, DG CONNECT), KASPAR KALA (Advisor at Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications), TARU RASTAS (Senior Adviser in the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications), PHILIPPE DE BACKER (Belgian State Secretary for the Fight against Social Fraud, Privacy and North Sea), DIEGO NARANJO (Advocacy Manager of EDRi), JARNO LIMNÉLL (Professor of Cyber Security, Aalto University) in a Panel Discussion on policy making for personal data at the mydata2016 conference.

MyData 2016 was an international conference that focuses on human centric personal information management.
MyData is an initiative to help people gain more control over their personal data.

Towards a corporate copyright reform in the EU?

(originally published at https://edri.org/towards-corporate-copyright-reform-eu/)

On 24 August, Statewatch leaked the draft Impact Assessment (IA) of the European Commission (EC) on the copyright reform.

Impact Assessments are an essential part in the decision making process. They are where the EC analyses the different options available when considering a policy initiative. Ahead of the official presentation of the final IA in September 2016, the leak hints the range of proposals that could be adopted in the European Union (EU) on copyright matters.

During our copyfails blogpost series we described how badly the EU copyright regime is broken, and how these failures could be fixed if the political will existed. However, after reading the draft IA, our conclusion is that EU policy-makers do not seem to think it is worth the effort to bring copyright to the XXI century. Ignoring the results of the copyright consultation of 2014, and despite not having published the analysis on the results on the public consultation on ancillary copyright and freedom of panorama, the Commission has a plan: Let’s ignore all facts (even those previously identified) and avoid a real reform at all costs.

Copyright_blogpost_20160831

The draft text shows:

First, the long-awaited copyright reform is likely to become a patchwork of concessions to lobbyists’ demands. If a ban on geo-blocking was something that had any chance to be discussed, the film industry fought that idea, and has prevailed in its demands to maintain the borders in Europe’s “digital single market”. If news publishers wanted an EU wide version of the failed ancillary copyright initiatives to “tax” Google in Spain and Germany, they they will be delighted with the even more extravagant and dangerous position being adopted by the Commission. While the national-level initiatives have been very controversial and have lead to serious consequences, the Commission is going much further. “Ancillary copyright on steroids” seem to the Commission to be the best option, despite publishers themselves admitting that this measure, in their most optimistic possible scenario, would only lead to a ten-percent increase in revenues. Finally, when the music industry giants started complaining about how little money they get from YouTube (despite the billions they do receive), they were given a proposal to fix the so-called “value gap” extending the same system to other online platforms.

Second, once the corporate wish list was diligently followed, the Commission felt creative and thought that extending the automatic identification of works, Google’s Content ID, and making it the new standard would be a good idea. And why not adopt a Google product as a standard? Why not adopt a Google product that is regularly used to delete perfectly legal content? Why not give rights-holder the power to de facto overturn legislators’ decisions on copyright flexibilities? Why not create another barrier for Europe’s online entrepreneurs?

Content ID tools cannot deal with the nuances of copyright law. This will inevitably lead into restrictions on uses of cultural content which are permitted under legally safeguarded copyright flexibilities (“exceptions and limitations”), for example, copyrighted works in teaching environments. Furthermore, the huge costs of creating such a system would impede small and medium enterprises from competing in the market with giants like Google and seriously undermine the possibilities to create new businesses in Europe.

Despite the bad news that this draft IA brings, not everything is lost yet. The European Commission has time and the duty to fix the draft Impact Assessment and prepare the copyright reform that the EU needs. At this stage a solid alliance of diverse stakeholders is needed in order to subvert the corporate copyright reform that could be announced this month.

European Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment on the modernisation of copyright rules
http://statewatch.org/news/2016/aug/eu-com-copyright-draft.pdf

European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/european-copyright-leak-exposes-plans-force-internet-subsidize-publishers

Google snippet tax, geoblocking, other copyright reform shunned in EU plan
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/08/geoblocking-google-tax-copyright-reform-shunned-eu-plan/

Commissioner Oettinger is about to turn EU copyright reform into another ACTA
https://juliareda.eu/2016/08/copyright-reform-another-acta/

Copyfails: Time to #fixcopyright!
https://edri.org/copyfails/

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner