Utente:Mattruffoni/Sandbox/20200914BozzaConvocazioneDirettivo: differenze tra le versioni

Da Wikimedia Italia.
Vai alla navigazione Vai alla ricerca
Nessun oggetto della modifica
(Pagina sostituita con '* Approvazione verbale seduta precedente * Finanziamento piano comunicazione sui social (10000 euro Erica Pedone) * Assemblea del 29 settembre preparazione * Situazione si...')
Riga 8: Riga 8:
* Varie ed eventuali
* Varie ed eventuali
**Pc per biblioteche
**Pc per biblioteche
**Adesione alla lettera commissario Breton
**Adesione alla lettera commissario Breton (mail di Federico Leva)
 
 
==Lettera commisssario Breton==
Dear Commissioner Breton,
Dear Ms. Agnieszka Skonieczna,
On behalf of the undersigned civil society and users' organisations
which are participating in or closely following the Commission’s
Stakeholder Dialogue on the implementation of Article 17 of the
Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, we are writing you
to summarise the key concerns that we have expressed in our responses to
the targeted consultation that closed on the 12th of September.
We sincerely value the opportunity to provide our feedback to the
proposed content of the Article 17 guidance that is being drawn up by
the Commission based on the input gathered during the stakeholder
dialogue to which we have contributed. In our view the consultation
document illustrates a clear commitment of the Commission to maintain
the delicate legislative balance of Article 17, and we are pleased to
see that it reflects many of the constructive contributions that have
been made by stakeholders across the spectrum during the dialogues in
light of the grave fundamental rights concerns raised by Article 17.
However, we remain deeply concerned that the guidance endorses the use
of automated content blocking by online services even though it is clear
that this will lead to the violation of fundamental rights. Given this
endorsement, the proposed guidance does not take away our concerns that
implementations of Article 17 based on the proposed guidance would
violate established principles of EU law.
That being said, we very much welcome the clarification that Member
States should not mandate the use of technology or impose any specific
technological solutions on service providers to comply with their
obligations under Article 17.
Safeguards for legitimate uses of content and redress mechanism for users
In light of the fact that the proposed guidance explicitly acknowledges
that service providers will rely (or continue to rely) on technological
tools in order to comply with their obligation under Article 17, we
would like to highlight the following elements from our responses:
We support the explicit recognition that the complaint and redress
mechanism established by Article 17(9) is not a sufficient safeguard for
user rights and that both 17(7) and 17(9) must be implemented into
national laws to ensure that legitimate uses of content will be
protected from deletion at the time of upload.
We are concerned that the "likely infringing" standard for uploads that
would not require an ex-ante review is too permissive. Article 17
requires that all legal uses remain online, not only those that are
“likely legitimate” according to a superficial screening that is
unlikely to reflect the complexity of copyright law. At minimum, the
standard for the deletion of content should be "manifestly infringing".
In this context, it is essential that uploads that are not manifestly
infringing remain available until the human review has been concluded.
From our perspective this element is of central importance for
protecting users' freedom of speech and freedom to impart and receive
information and without this protection the threshold-based approach
outlined in the consultation would be entirely meaningless.
In addition, it is unacceptable that the criteria for determining if the
standard is met would be agreed between rightholders and service
providers, without representation of users, whose fundamental rights are
at stake. We recall that article 17(10) explicitly mentions users'
organisations as stakeholders in the context of the collaboration
between service providers and rightholders.
The guidance appears to focus on the development of criteria to try to
identify legal uses of protected content under exceptions and
limitations to copyright, but fails to propose safeguards to prevent the
removal of legal uses of content for which the uploader has a license or
which is in the public domain. This issue should be addressed through a
combination of pre-flagging and public databases of public domain and
openly licensed content.
We welcome the proposal that the guidance should include transparency
requirements. Transparency of technical parameters and outcomes as well
as the public availability of ownership claims will be essential for
understanding the impact of Article 17 on users' rights.
Finally, the guidance must include more emphasis on the measures against
abuse of the mechanisms introduced by Article 17 by bad-faith actors or
parties that are structurally negligent. Without such measures,
implementations of Article 17 will open the door for structural abuses
of user rights.
Other aspects
We strongly support the clarification that Article 17 constitutes a "lex
specialis" to the provisions of the InfoSoc Directive and that Member
States should include the notion of ‘authorisation’ for the lex
specialis ‘act of communication to the public’ in Article 17(1). This
approach provides Member States with maximum flexibility to adapt their
national legislation to the specificities of their national legal systems.
We further support the fact that the guidance should recall that the
objective of Article 17 is authorization. Given this objective, the
guidance should explicitly endorse forms of authorization other than
licenses, including remunerated exceptions.
Please refer to our respective submissions to the consultation for more
details on the issues highlighted above. We hope that our feedback will
contribute to arriving at a final version of the guidance that maintains
the legislative balance including substantial safeguards for users'
fundamental rights. We see the proposals outlined in the consultation
document as an important step into this direction and we remain at your
disposal should you require additional input from us.
 
 
Signatories:
 
COMMUNIA
Liberties
Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V
Digitale Gesellschaft
Young Pirates of Europe
Epicenter.works - for digital rights
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
D3 - Defesa dos Direitos Digitais
Intellectual Property Institute, IPI
Creative Commons
Wikimedia
Electronic Frontier Foundation

Versione delle 06:12, 12 set 2020

  • Approvazione verbale seduta precedente
  • Finanziamento piano comunicazione sui social (10000 euro Erica Pedone)
  • Assemblea del 29 settembre preparazione
  • Situazione siti aggiornamento
  • Approvazione pianificazione semestrale staff
  • WLM per le scuole nel 2021
  • Situazione Giovanna Ranci* (i siti vanno aggiornati)
  • Varie ed eventuali
    • Pc per biblioteche
    • Adesione alla lettera commissario Breton (mail di Federico Leva)
Estratto da "https://wiki.wikimedia.nanoalias.it/index.php?title=Utente:Mattruffoni/Sandbox/20200914BozzaConvocazioneDirettivo&oldid=869551"