Trädtopp: Mi grupo sueco en Bélgica

Como ya dije en un post anterior, una de las cosas que primero hago al llegar a un nuevo país es buscar un grupo. Trädtopp ha sido mi primera y de momento más estable formación en Bruselas.

El origen del nombre del grupo (trädtopp = copa de árbol) viene de un dicho sueco que viene a decir algo así como que cuando intentas coger las estrellas, al menos conseguirás tocar la copa de los árboles. Un mensaje lleno de energía positiva como también tiene el grupo en sí. La pareja fundadora del grupo, Thomas al saxo y flauta travesera y Johanna a las voces, conocieron a Carlo (bajo), Gunnar (piano) y a mí mismo a través de redes de contactos suecas y expatriados.

Abajo os dejo las primeras canciones de nuestro primer directo en Bruselas. Espero que os guste el resultado.

¡Un abrazo y que no pare la música!

Time After Time 5/4

Emigrant Visa

Lullaby of Birdland

This Masquerade

Advertisements

Imagine Fela Kuti

felaKuti

“Imagine Che Guevara and Bob Marley rolled into one person and you get a sense of Nigerian musician and activist Fela Kuti.”, Herald Sun, February 2011

After watching yesterday the movie “Music is a weapon”, the documentary on the life and music of activist/musician Fela Kuti, I can just recommend watching it. The intensity of the life of Fela Kuti, his commitment to human rights causes at all costs and its radical musical revolution is a source of inspiration.

Watch, listen and take action.

General Data Protection Regulation: Moving forward, slowly

(Originally published at EDRi-gram 13.11, 3 June 2015: https://edri.org/general-data-protection-regulation-moving-forward-slowly/)

youtubeprivacy

Options are: Be tracked or be tracked

 

The discussions in the EU on the proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are slowly advancing, but the final destination is still unknown. Commissioner Věra Jourová , who is responsible for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality and has the task of ensuring the “swift adoption of the EU data protection reform”, has stated that EU Data Protection reform “is a win-win for consumers and businesses”, and that the red lines of the 1995 Data Protection Directive will remain untouched. However, latest developments in the Working Party on Information Exchange and Data Protection (DAPIX) have brought to the GDPR text new changes that may erode Jourová’s optimism.

In March 2015, EDRi published a set of leaked documents with the (then) latest texts from the EU Council. At the same time we published an analysis of the five main topics we thought were going below the safeguards that were set in the 1995 Data Protection Directive. Our analysis remains valid, unfortunately, for majority of the points we analysed, with some exceptions.

For example, Article 6 and recital 40 on lawfulness of processing of personal data have been touched in different ways. The list of requirements defining whether or not a further processing is compatible with the purpose the data was collected in Article 6 (3a) has become an open list with the insertion of the words “inter alia”. This makes it a broader definition which could add additional safeguards for the data subject. Going a bit further, Article 6.4 is likely to be deleted, since there seems to be a significant number of Member States that are pushing against it. This Article allows for “(f)urther processing by the same controller for incompatible purposes on grounds of legitimate interests of that controller or a third party shall be lawful if these interests override the interests of the data subject”.

The “one stop shop” mechanism is also a matter of concern. The original idea was to simplify complaints, creating a single point of contact for citizens and businesses bringing a transnational complaint. It would also ensure consistent application of the Regulation through the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), eliminating the current common practice of “forum shopping”. Based on the leaked documents, the current proposed text from the Council on the “one stop shop” mechanism would add several levels of bureaucracy. In the case of a transnational complaint, at least two data protection authorities would have to be involved and reach consensus to solve the case. This could lead to a fragmented implementation of the Regulation as the oversight role of the Board would be greatly reduced. Both citizens and businesses would then be left without the benefits of a swift, predictable and harmonised “one stop shop” mechanism. Finally, data Protection seals (certifications) and binding corporate rules should all be subject to the one-stop mechanism, at least in transnational cases. Otherwise they will offer the possibility to bypass the Regulation.

In the lead-up to the start of the trialogue meetings on this topic, we can only mention a few of the major issues here. In a meeting of the European Data Protection Supervisor with civil society actors (including EDRi, EDRi members Access and Bits of Freedom, as well as BEUC, Code Red, and Privacy International, see video below) on 27 May, we addressed also problems with the definitions contained in the GDPR, the seriousness of having profiling back in the exceptions of Art. 21 after it was taken out by the Parliament, the need for citizens to be able to have access to effective collective redress mechanisms, and problems with the transfer of data to third countries, including the Safe Harbour agreement.

Data protection reform timetable (01.06.2015)
http://www.eppgroup.eu/fr/news/Data-protection-reform-timetable

Latest consolidated text of the GDPR
https://edri.org/files/DPR2015feb/GDPR_consolidated1-June-2015.pdf

Statewatch: LIMITE document from the Council on Article 6 and recital 40 (26.05.2015)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/may/eu-council-dp-reg-Art-6-ChapII-III-9082-15.pdf
Other documents obtained by Statewatch are available at
http://statewatch.org/news/2015/may/eu-dp-reg-may-2015.htm

EDPS meeting with civil society (EDRi, Access, BEUC, Bits of Freedom, Code Red, Privacy International)
https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/site/mySite/GDPR_civil_soc

Badly broken campaign: European data protection reform is badly broken (03.03.15)
https://edri.org/broken_badly/

(Contribution by Diego Naranjo, EDRi)

From copywrong to copyright?

(Originally published as an ENDitorial at EDRi gram 13.11, 3 June 2015: https://edri.org/enditorial-copywrong-copyright/)

Picture by Stacey: https://www.flickr.com/photos/geekgirlunveiled/4818412527/ CC license CC BY-ND 2.0

Picture by Stacey: https://www.flickr.com/photos/geekgirlunveiled/4818412527/
CC license CC BY-ND 2.0

“I’ve got two 12-year-old criminals in my kitchen and that can’t be right”

(Jonathan Worth, professional photographer)

The first round of debates surrounding the copyright reform in the European Parliament are reaching their last stages. Pavel Svoboda’s report on Intellectual Property Right (IPR) enforcement was published on 19 May. The report contains a mixture of negative and positive elements which need to be taken into consideration.

Among the negative aspects, we find simplistic statements, for example that IPR infringements discourage growth (Recital D). In reality, the situation is far more nuanced. For example, while the slow adaptation of the music industry to the digital environment has driven a lot of infringements, the market has adapted. Income from concerts is, in fact, growing in the last years. The omnipresent mantras of “follow the money” and “commercial scale” are now happily together in the same paragraph (paragraph 3), still without a clear definition of what these concepts imply. Nobody has sought to define “follow the money” while even the European Commission has said that its 9-year-old definition of “commercial scale” is probably inadequate.

Then, all sprinkled through the Report, there is positive commentary to the generally lamentable work of the Observatory on IPR infringements. Taking into consideration the numerous flaws of much of the output of the Observatory, the gratuitous fawning and, even worse, the calls to use its work to build upon it a new “Intellectual Property” legal framework, seems misplaced and ill-informed to say the least. There is also a mention of the “lack of awareness” of the young generation of the importance of IPR infringements, referring to a study which does not actually say that. It also seems to ignore the results of the copyright consultation where thousands of users called for a Intellectual Property (IP) framework adapted to the 21st century. Finally, the call for “cooperation” of the main Internet stakeholders, which sounds too much like the same old call to privatised law enforcement and the undefined call to “follow the money”.

Among the positive elements, the Report presents calls for balances between fundamental rights and privatised law enforcement (paragraph 10), although it is not clear what this call actually means. There is also the support for attractive licit offers to combat unauthorised use of content (paragraph 37) and for a “comprehensive legal framework to combat IPR infringement adapted to the online environment, with full regard for fundamental rights and freedoms, fair trials, proportionality and data protection” (paragraph 57). Finally, the Report asks for measures “guaranteeing a balanced approach representing the interests of all stakeholders involved, and, in particular, of consumers and their right of access to content” (paragraph 58).

The Plenary of the European Parliament will vote on the Report in the week beginning 7 June.

Julia Reda’s Report on the implementation of the so-called InfoSoc Directive (one of the foundations of EU Copyright law), on the other hand, has been delayed and is now going to be voted in the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) on 16 June. The recently launched copywrongs.eu website contains a good summary of concrete proposals on the harmonisation of exceptions and limitations and for a modernised EU Copyright framework. This new framework should be one where the vast majority of citizens are not considered as offenders of intellectual property rights for doing things that seem (and are) perfectly normal, such as private copying or re-using copyrighted material for parody purposes. The copywrongs site also offers a free user-friendly tool developed by EDRi observer La Quadrature du Net to call Members of European Parliament (MEPs) to let them know your position on the debate.

Given the immense disproportion between rightsholders’ lobbyists and civil society advocates, this tool will help to amplify citizens’ voice. Since there are only a few days before the vote, the time is to get informed via our handbook on copyright and via copywrongs.eu and to take action now for a modernised EU copyright framework!

Copywrongs.eu
https://copywrongs.eu/

EDRi’s document pool on the copyright reform
https://edri.org/copyright-reform-docpool/

Summary report of the responses to the copyright public consultation (30.06.2014)
https://edri.org/summary-report-responses-copyright-consultation/

Economists say P2P file-sharing fuels art (18.06.2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/18/harvard_working_paper_weak_copyright_protections_benefit_society/

Copyright in the age of the internet (EP video)
http://europarltv.europa.eu/en/player.aspx?pid=97a32df5-0d5f-435b-b573-a49f00a8f175

EDRi paper: Copyright – challenges of the digital era
https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/paper07_web_20130202.pdf

C4C Copyright Manifesto
http://copyright4creativity.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/C4C-Copyright-Manifesto-20150119.pdf

(Contribution by Diego Naranjo, EDRi)