Navigation

TTIP might kill EU copyright reform

By on October 5, 2014 in EU, Intellectual Property, US

There is an obvious need for copyright reform. It is necessary in order to keep culture alive, dynamic and vigorous. And it is necessary if we want to keep the Internet free and open. (Read more about these specific issues here. »)

The EU is trying to get to grips with copyright in order to have a single, up to date set of rules for the entire European market. At the same time copyright holders, like the music- and film industry, would like to hold on to present rules–created to protect an old, pre-digital business model.

At the moment, the copyright industry puts its hope to the EU-US trade agreement (TTIP), being negotiated right now. The negotiations are secret. But we know that TTIP will contain a chapter on “intellectual property”. This might be yet another attempt to curb the freedom of the internet, in order to clamp down on illegal file sharing and other digital IP infringements. But if it is, chances are that TTIP will meet the same fate as the fallen ACTA agreement.

But it doesn’t have to be that obvious.

TTIP can also build on present copyright legislation in such a way that it will be more or less impossible to change these laws in the future, without breaking this binding trade agreement.

In fact, there is a highly controversial instrument in TTIP that might be used to kill all attempts to reform copyright legislation in the future. This is the article on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).

The idea behind ISDS is that a company in the US can take the EU or e.g. Denmark to court–if there are to be any new laws that might reduce that companys present (or future) profits. Well not take to court, actually. It’s more like a semi-private settlement institute, that can fine countries for billions of dollars in damages.

Now, imagine if the EU would like to reform copyright. European politicians might want to shorten the absurdly long protection time to, let’s say, 50 years. (If they could extend it, they should also be able to shorten it. Especially as copyright is an “asset” not found in nature, but a brainchild of politicians.) They might want to make exceptions for non-commercial sampling. They might want to make out of print classical literature or orphan works available to the public in digital form. They might want to step down the hunt for non-commercial file sharing. Or they might require that to receive copyright protection, the works in question must be registered.

This is the kind of things that ISDS is designed to stop. Either the EU would have to drop the reforms–or pay billions in damage.

(To add to the absurdity of this: In the example above only American companies would receive damage, not domestic European ones.)

So, yes: The TTIP might be used to kill an EU copyright reform. And Europe urgently need such a reform.

I might repeat myself, but I suggest that if the EU and the US would like to have this trade agreement approved–they should drop the IP chapter and ISDS. It might also be a good idea to open up the negotiations to democratic oversight, as these agreements have more or less the same effect as law.

/ HAX

Also read: EFF–EU-US Trade Negotiations Continue Shutting out the Public—When Will They Learn? »

1

The “right to be forgotten” is the lesser problem

By on October 2, 2014 in Censorship, Intellectual Property

Google has received tens of thousands of requests to remove links, after the European Court of Justices ruling on “the right to be forgotten”.

This is rightfully a much debated problem, as it is used to censor information and rewrite history.

But we should remember that Google also has been asked to remove half a billion links due to copyright claims.

This also ought to give rise to public debate–as it is a much more wide-ranging form of censorship. (And in some cases copyright claims are used to suppress free speech in the same way as the right to be forgotten.)

/ HAX

0

EU to beef up IPRED?

By on September 30, 2014 in Uncategorized

Lately, the Italian EU Presidency has demonstrated that policy making is something rather random. A policy can easily be decided on even if it is contrary to experience, judicial realities and common sense.

In this case the Presidency suggest that the EU beefs up the much criticized Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive, IPRED.

In plain English: To significantly step up the fight against illegal file sharing.

That would be in conflict with EU consultations, damaging implementation reports, the ECJ ruling against data retention–and it would kill our (fairly) free and open Internet.

EDRi sums it up…

“However, having established that the current legislative framework is not fit for purpose, the best thing that the Presidency can think of proposing is to expand and deepen the failed, not fit for purpose enforcement measures that are currently in force. The Italians apparently hope that, if they do the same thing over and over again, different results will be produced.”

So far this is just policy making, not law making. But it might be a signal from the Council to the Commission to remove the dust cover from IPRED 2.

Read more and find links to documents at EDRi: Italian position on IP Enforcement – the essence of insanity? »

/ HAX

0

EU Commissioner Malmström – on our side?

By on September 28, 2014 in Uncategorized

Finally there seems to be real evidence that some fractions of the EU Commission has been acting behind the scenes–with the US–to water down EU data protection laws.

According to the human rights organisation Access, recently released documents show that outgoing EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström fed Americans information they needed to undermine privacy issues in the EU data protection package.

For many who have been following the E.U. privacy reform debate closely, this trans-Atlantic cooperation was an open secret. However, until now, it has not been possible to demonstrate DG Home’s maneuvers. Beyond the implications for the Data Protection Reform, the contents of the acquired document give cause for concern about Ms. Malmström’s suitability for leading EU negotiations with the USA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), given that she has recently been chosen E.U. Commissioner-designate for Trade.

When considering this information one should also keep in mind that Commissioner Malmström has pushed back on the European Parliaments request to suspend the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP), giving the US intelligence bureaucracy access to bulk data on European bank transactions.

Also Malmström took a quite distant attitude, when information came to light that the US spy organisation NSA had broken into the EU based SWIFT database (handling much of the worlds bank transactions).

There is a rather telling hearing on mass surveillance in the European Parliament, from September 24th last year–with Commissioner Malmström, Europol Director Rob Wainwright and Blanche Petre from the General Council of SWIFT. Commissioner Malmströms unwillingness to protect European interests or to do anything that might upset the Americans is obvious. (Link/video»)

I would like to think that Commissioner Malmström and her staff was just a bit to naive and friendly with the US when it comes to EU data protection. But Malmströms paper trail is consistent. For example she was a member of the Swedish cabinet that made Sweden the closest NSA partner outside the Five Eyes-group. And as Commissioner she has been a strong proponent of Passenger Name Records (PNR), giving the US access to personal data about air passengers.

So, no. I’m not convinced that Cecilia Malmström is on the same side as the European people.

Links:
EU home affairs chief secretly worked with US to undermine new privacy laws, campaigners claim »
Big brother’s little helper inside the European Commission »

/ HAX

Update: This actually lead to a decision to vote on Malmströms candidacy in the EP Trade Committee, tomorrow, Tuesday.

Update 2: After todays letter from Malmström, she was approved by the EP Trade Committee.

Update 3: This is not over yet… »

2

Finally, someone is barking under the right tree

By on September 24, 2014 in Data Protection

When the Swedish Tax Authority (Skatteverket) was hacked a few years ago–all attention was focused on the court case that followed against the alleged hacker, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg (a.k.a. anakata).

There was little or no notice taken to the fact that the IT system in question was poorly protected.

During the entire process, Skatteverket as well as its system contractor Logica tried to keep that aspect of the case under the radar.

But finally someone has picked up on this. Today the Swedish Pirate Party former member of European Parliament Amelia Andersdotter has submitted a complaint to the Swedish Data Protection Agency (Datainspektionen).

The point of the complaint is that Skatteverket doesn’t care enough about security in IT system procurement.

This will be interesting to follow, as EU public procurement rules in many cases don’t really give that much room for other considerations than price.

(In addition to traditional IT security issues, it might also be a good idea to look into contractors relations with other countries intelligence and surveillance networks–so that they won’t provide backdoors for NSA, GCHQ or others.)

Amelias blog post (in Swedish) »

/ HAX

0

“The Letter”

By on September 22, 2014 in Uncategorized

Over at Torrentfreak, Rick Falkvinge explains the right to private communication in the simplest possible way–with the old-fashioned letter: anonymous, secret in transit, under mere conduit and untracked. So obvious in the physical world, yet so disputed when it comes to electronic communications.

“All of these characteristics, which all embed vital civil liberties, have been lost in the transition to digital at the insistence of the copyright industry – so that they, as a third-party, can prevent people from sending letters with a content they just don’t like to see sent, for business reasons of theirs.”

Read the article here »

0