Yes, here we go.
The European Parliament are deciding on what to do with orphan works. (wiki)
The copyrignt-industry wants to make money from it (as usual, even when they don't have the rights)

So please, write to your MEP and argue that Orphan Works must remain Orphan works.
Ask them, plead them, beg them if you have to, to go for Option 2.


As usual.
Copy and spread!

Niklas S.
The New Swedish Civil Rights Movement.
--------------

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5917232

"The creation of a legal framework to facilitate the cross-border digitisation and dissemination of orphan works in the single market is also one of the key actions identified in the Digital Agenda for Europe which is part of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment analyses six options:

 

• Option 1: do nothing,

• Option 2: a statutory exception to copyright, <------ THIS IS WHAT WE ARE WOO'ING FOR!!!

• Option 3: extended collective licensing,
• Option 4: an orphan-specific licence granted by collecting societies,
• Option 5: an orphan-specific licence granted by a public body, and
• Option 6: the mutual recognition of national solutions regarding orphan works.

---

CE, ORG, FOC, CW,

Pinged at Twingly, Intressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om orphan works, copyright, European parliament, member of parliament, civil rights, music, politics

DNMR's Niklas Starow writes on Second Opinion about the Data-retention directive and how it forces a new "surveillance-tax" on the citicens..


Here is a part of it.

-----------------


"Om man läser igenom lagrådets remissvar tas det bara upp att allmänna medel måste tillföras, men hur mycket kan vi bara spekulera om fram tills regeringen går ut med en faktisk summa. Vilket innebär att man antingen inte räknat på det eller att man inte vill berätta det. Oavsett vilket så kan man dra slutsatsen att:

Datalagringsdirektivets införande innebär att det måste införas något som närmast kan liknas vid en "övervakningsskatt"."

------------------

Rough Translation:

"If you read the legislation council's (?) consultation response you only see that public funds will be provided, but how much we can only speculate about until the government goes out with an actual sum.
Which means that they either have not calculated on it or they just don't want to say.
Either way, it can be concluded that:

Data Retention Directive's introduction implies the need to implement something that can only bel called a "surveillance tax". "

---

DN, Expr, PB, TV4, Oscar, Johannes, Scaber Nestor.

Pinged at Twingly, Intressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om datalagringsdirektivet, Beatrice Ask, regeringen, politik, övervakning, medborgarrätt

Copied from EFF.

---

Commentary by Katitza Rodriguez

In a landmark announcement issued today, the data protection officials across the European Union found that the way that EU Member States have implemented the data retention obligations in the 2006 EU Data Retention Directive is unlawful. The highly controversial 2006 EU Data Retention Directive compels all ISPs and telecommunications service providers operating in Europe to retain telecom and internet traffic data about all of their customers' communications for a period of at least 6 months and up to 2 years.

European privacy officials from the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party have been reviewing how the EU Member States have implemented these obligations in their national laws.

Among the most important findings of the Article 29 Working Party’s report are:

• "Service providers were found to retain and hand over data in ways contrary to the provisions of the [data retention] directive."
• "There are significant discrepancies regarding the retention periods, which vary from six months to up to ten years, which largely exceeds the allowed maximum of 24 months."
• "More data are being retained than is allowed. The data retention directive provides a limited list of data to be retained, all relating to traffic data. The retention of data relating to the content of communication is explicitly prohibited. However, it appears from the inquiry that some of these data are nevertheless retained."
• Regarding Internet traffic data: "Several service providers were found to retain URLs of websites, headers of e-mail messages as well as recipients of e-mail messages in "CC"- mode at the destination mail server.
• Regarding phone traffic data: "it was established that not only the location of the caller is retained at the start of the call, but that his location is being monitored continuously."
• "Member states have scarcely provided statistics on the use of data retained under the Directive, which limits the possibilities to verify the usefulness of data retention."
• "The provisions of the data retention directive are not respected and the lack of available sensible statistics hinders the assessment of whether the directive has achieved its objectives."
  
  

The timing of the Article 29 Working Party’s opinion is particularly sensitive because the European Commission is currently conducting an evaluation of the impact of the Data Retention Directive on economic operators and citizens in Europe. One of the possible outcomes of this evaluation is a recommendation that the Data Retention Directive should be amended or repealed in its entirety. The Article 29 Working Party has submitted its report to the European Commission to provide the Commission with vital empirical evidence for its evaluation of whether to recommend the amendment or repeal the Directive.

Once completed, the Commission’s evaluation will be sent to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Reflecting the far-reaching impact and sensitive policy issues involved in the Data Retention Directive, three Commissioners are likely to be engaged in its review. The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Commissioner Malmström leads the evaluation process, but it is expected that Vice President of the Commission and EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Commissoner Reding and the Commissioner for the Digital Agenda,Commissioner Kroes will also participate actively in the review process.

EFF, AK Vorrat and a coalition of over 100 organizations across Europe recently called for an end to mandatory data retention of telecom and Internet traffic data. In a joint letter sent last month to European Commissioners Malmström, Reding, and Kroes, the coalition urged the Commissioners to "propose the repeal of the EU requirements regarding data retention in favor of a system of expedited preservation and targeted collection of traffic data as agreed in the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime."

In her July 7 reply to the coalition letter, Commissioner Reding stated that, "the review of the EU Data Retention directive provides the European Commission, but also the 27 EU Member States and the European Parliament, with an opportunity to assess the effectiveness and proportionality of the measures included in the Directive. I will in this context ask for a particular focus on the considerable impact data retention may have on fundamental rights of all European citizens, especially with regard to their privacy."

With the recent adoption of the Lisbon Treaty and the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, privacy and data protection has been strengthened in the European Union, including in the sensitive areas of law enforcement and crime prevention.

We must now see whether the European Commission will be faithful to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and recommend the repeal of the overbroad 2006 Data Retention Directive.

---

Pinged at Twingly, Intressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om EFF, EU, Data retention directive, integrity, datalagringsdirektivet, politik, integritet,

This document has been leaked to wikileaks.
Its a long document, but i have highlighted the section i find most interesting.

---

http://88.80.16.63/leak/eu-can-draft-chapter-ipr-sep-2009.pdf




[...]

1. The Parties shall ensure that, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits of the case, the competent judicial authorities may, on application by an entity who has presented reasonably available evidence to support his claims that his intellectual property right has been infringed or is about to be infringed, order prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence in respect of the alleged infringement, subject to the protection of confidential information.

2. Each Party may provide that such measures include the detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or the physical seizure of the alleged infringing goods, and, in appropriate cases, the materials and implements used in the production and/or distribution of these goods and the documents relating thereto. Those measures shall be taken, if necessary without the other party being heard (my underline), in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holder or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.

1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Parties shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:

(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

---

More on ACTA:
Mynewsdesk, NBR, V3, V3:2, Doom4, New Zealand Labour, ZDNet:UK, Ben Buckman, Kevin King.

Pinged at Twingly, Intressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om acta, acta-agreement, IP, intellectual property, infringement, copyright

Well, that was a rough translation but you get my drift.

A few swedish bloggers (including me)  has started a christmas campain against the IPRED law, where we ask you to ask for, and give away live-events and experiences like live-concerts, theatre-tickets or why not take the family to the operas?

Much better than pieces of plastic like cd's and dvd's.

Those you shold get for free when going to a concert.




So, copy this into your own blogs, link to the others in the campain.

Olof B.

Scaber Nestor.

Grandma Gun.

Yami and the Pandas.



Remember:
Link-love is a digital hug.

---

Pinged at Twingly, Intressant
Read other bloggers opinions on: christmas, present, event, experience, CD, DvD, movie, plastic junk, giving, sharing, link love, IPRED

Fick en fråga om vilken lagstiftning vi ska luta oss mot för att få ut ACTA-avtalet.

Som svar ger jag er denna länken, för det behöver nödvändigtvis inte vara svensk lagstiftning som får ACTA på fall, tillräckligt hårt tryck på länders ombudspersoner kan vara tuvan som stjälper lasset....

EU Council deliberately obstructs access to ACTA documents

Brussels, 13 January 2009 -- The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) has filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the EU Council for deliberately obstructing access to Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents. As stated by an other participant in the negotiations, the EU has agreed to keep ACTA drafts secret. This way the EU hinders the proper application of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to documents. The FFII asks for immediate publication of the documents.

Public interest organisations are concerned ACTA may limit access to medicines, limit access to the internet, give patent trolls free reign and harm the most innovative sectors of the economy.

 

According to a New Zealand government website, participants in the ACTA negotiations "have agreed that the draft final text will be made public at the end of negotiations before governments consider signing."

FFII analyst Ante Wessels comments: "This implies that the EU has agreed to keep earlier draft texts secret. Regulation 1049/2001 for public access to documents does list some exceptions to transparency, but those exceptions must be interpreted and applied strictly. Making agreements to keep texts secret goes much further than allowed. The Council deliberately obstructs access to ACTA documents."

As a solution the FFII proposes that the documents have to be made accessible. The EU may also withdraw from the ACTA negotiations.

 

Background information: European Parliament resolution 18 December 2008

"28.  Takes the view that the public interest in disclosure of ACTA preparatory drafts, including progress reports, and of the Commission's negotiating mandate should not be overridden by Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(19) , and urges the Council to enforce Article 255 of the EC Treaty in such a way as to ensure the widest possible access to documents, provided that the necessary security measures are taken as required by data-protection law;"

 

European Parliament resolution 18 December 2008

 

Links

• FFII complaint to the Ombudsman

• Council decision on request for documents

• New Zealand government website mentioning agreement to keep draft secret

• Earlier PR: FFII opposes stealth legislation, demands ACTA documents

• Earlier PR: EU Council refuses to release secret ACTA documents

• FFII ACTA analysis

• Documents released by Canadian government

• Open letter by more than 100 public interest organizations (You will find more information here on concerns that ACTA may undermine access to low-cost generic medicines.)

• ACTA documents on the Council website

• Documents mentioning ACTA on the Council website

• Permanent link to this press release

 

Contact

Benjamin Henrion
President of the FFII
+32-2-414 84 03
+32-484-566109
[email protected]
(French/English)

Ante Wessels
+ 31-6-100 99 063
[email protected]
(Dutch/English)

 

---

Pinged at Twingly, Intressant

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om ACTA, avtal, offentlighetsprincipen, demokrati, sverige, näringsutskottet, rikets säkerhet, rättssäkerhet, mänskliga rättigheter, fildelning, upphovsrätt

Detta trillade in efter publiceringen av EuroISPA's vädjan till EU-parlamentet.

Så jag väljer att publicera även detta:

Open letter to the conciliation committee from beuc.

---

Dear member of the conciliation committee,

As member of the Conciliation Committee, you will decide on the fate of the Telecoms Package.
You will have to determine whether citizens’ fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair trial, protected by amendment 138, will be acknowledged in the Internet environment.

The European Parliament plenary, already voted twice in favour of amendment 138.
MEPs previously adopted the ‘Bono report’ which vigorously condemned the so-called ‘graduated response’ - according to which rights holders (e.g. music and film companies) could ask Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to suspend Internet access for the presumed infringers of intellectual property rights.
Amendment 138 was adopted twice in plenary to prevent this.

The French Constitutional Court has now set an important precedent.
It has judged the so-called ‘Loi Hadopi I’, which would implement the “graduated response” in France, to be unconstitutional.

If current amendment 138 does not remain in the Telecoms Package, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will be
asked to cut off the Internet connection of a person who is suspected of  having violated copyright. ISPs would not even need to wait for a judicial authority to judge whether copyright infringement has actually taken place.
This constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights to a fair trial and to presumption of innocence.

The fundamental right to privacy is also at stake.
In order to implement the ‘graduated response’, privacy intrusive technical means (e.g. deep packet inspection techniques) will have to be put into place to monitor users’ online behaviour. These techniques violate the consumer right to privacy and confidentiality of communication.

Furthermore, the fundamental right to information and freedom of expression will be curtailed.
Today, access to the Internet has become a fundamental need – if not a fundamental right. Cutting someone’s Internet connection, in the digital era, deprives them from access to essential services such as employment opportunities, social, health and government services.

The amended version of amendment 138 now proposed by the Council is not acceptable because infringement of copyright is considered a criminal offence in some Member States – thus leaving the door open to a “graduated response“.

The ‘graduated response’ is not an appropriate answer to the issue of illegal downloading.
Rather, it is an undemocratic and ill-founded response to an issue which must urgently be dealt with by the content industry through developing new systems of distribution adapted to the digital environment; certainly not by treating consumers like ‘pirates’ while violating their fundamental rights.


We call on the members of the conciliation committee to ensure consumers’ fundamental rights are safeguarded on the Internet by keeping the current amendment 138.


With best regards,

Willemien Bax,
Deputy Director General

To know more contact our experts [email protected] or 0032 2 749 10 95

BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organisation,
80 rue d’Arlon, 1040 Brussels
To know more www.beuc.eu

---

Pinged at Twingly, Intressant

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om amendment 138, EU, European Parliament, tillägg 138, net neutrality, EuroISPA, fundamental rights, internet, civil liberties, medborgarrätt, beuc

The European Association of Internet Service Providers (EuroISPA) urges
the European Parliament to continue to support citizens' Fundamental Rights.

Pinged at Twingly, Intressant

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om amendment 138, EU, European Parliament, tillägg 138, net neutrality, EuroISPA, fundamental rights, internet, civil liberties, medborgarrätt