What is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) really about? No, it is not about the exploited sex workers for politicians and coloured street sellers as the Member of the European Parliament implies. It is about U.S. interests. It is about the interests of the global elite.

It is about the Global Europe strategy, an approach to impose European laws on the least developed nations, and preserve the interests of the American West Coast. But of course the Austrian MEP prefers racist patterns of communication. It is the European Commission which nutures that kind of response. Chinese counterfeiters they say, steal our intellectual property from us. The Commission’s story is dear to our heart. A company was to lazy to apply for a patent in Belgium. So there was no way to stop an importer from China to obtain the good. What the Commission does not say is that this is NOT counterfeiting. Patent law is 100% territorial. When you don’t apply for a patent in Belgium, you don’t get protection on this market. Patents are for markets. Sure, the Chinese are free to grab and buy patents valid in European nations, and stifle commerce. Patents do not discriminate towards the origin of the person who applied them.

The MEP will probably continue to get paid by European tax payers for his cheap xenophobic talks just to endorse a hate crime bill the other day which restricts free speech of citizens…

But 21 Dec 2009 the European Council will hold an accession conference with Turkey. How arrogant is that?

EDRi-gram

biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe

Number 7.12, 17 June 2009

============================================================
Contents
============================================================

1. The French Constitutional Council censures the 3 strikes law
2. The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
3. Stockholm programme – the new EU dangerous surveillance system
4. The telecoms ministers rejected the telecom package as adopted by the EP
5. Finland: Complaints not allowed for the Police child-porn censorship list
6. Windows 7 is launched without IE, but the Commission is not pleased
7. More voices in the EP for digital rights
8. Report: OECD Conference on Sensor Based Networks
9. ENDitorial: Regulating online media in Azerbaijan?
10. Recommended Action
11. Recommended Reading
12. Agenda
13. About

============================================================
1. The French Constitutional Council censures the 3 strikes law
============================================================

As a result of the appeal of the Socialist Party, the French Constitutional
Council decided on 10 June 2009 that 3 strikes (known also as Hadopi)
draft law was infringing the Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights
of Man and of the Citizen from 1789 and rejected the most important parts of
the text. The graduate response was censured, the Council considering that
any sanction applied to Internet users could only be applied by a court.

In the Council’s opinion, the draft law infringes article 11 of the
Declaration which ensures the freedom of communication
and expression, that also applies to the online world, as the Internet is
nowadays a very important means of communication. The power to “limit the
exercise by any person of one’s right to express oneself and freely
communicate” cannot be given to an administrative authority. “These powers
can only be incumbent on a judge”, says the Council. This is the same
position expressed by several members of the European Parliament especially
by the introduction into the Telecom package of the well-known amendment
138.

The Council also believes the law is in breach of article 9 of the same
Declaration that stipulates the principle of the presumption of innocence.
This principle was entirely ignored by the draft law where the text says
that a sanction can be applied to an Internet user presumed guilty: “By
ignoring article 9 of the Declaration of 1789, the law thus setting up, by
operating an inversion of the proof charge, a presumption of guilt that
could lead to the application to the subscriber of sanctions depriving or
limiting his rights”.

The Council also ruled that the method of policing the web envisaged in the
law was in breach of a citizen’s right to privacy fact which might influence
future decisions on other means of restriction or limitation, such as
filtering projects.

While the socialists asked the law be “completely rewritten with the double
aim of ensuring the financing of culture and preserving the freedom of
Internet users”, Christine Albanel, France’s culture minister, continued to
defend the draft bill, stating she regretted that she could not finalise
“the logic of ‘decriminalisation of Internet users’ behaviour by bringing
all stages of the procedure to a non-judicial authority”.

The law was promulgated by Nicolas Sarkozy on 13 June 2009 in its censored
form. A new text, named Hadopi 2, is to be presented to the French Council
of Ministers before the end of June in order to give judges the power to
apply sanctions. The text will have to observe the Constitutional Council’s
opinion. In any case, the law will be deprived of its core and the graduate
response is crippled.

The government may be in the position of having to consider the fine system
that it had rejected previously. The method has the advantage of seeing
immediate results and of not being in breach of fundamental rights. However,
even for a fine, material evidence will have to be brought in court to prove
an Internet user’s copyright infringement, which will be rather difficult to
produce.

The ruling of the Constitutional Council is in line with the arguments the
European Parliament which has tried to outlaw the French bill by the
introduction of amendment 138 into the telecom package. On 11 June, the
package was however rejected at the EU telecoms ministers meeting in
Luxembourg which means that the law will go through a conciliation process
mediated by the European Commission. This will begin in the autumn and the
legislation is expected to be passed only next year.

French Constitutional Court – Decision n 2009-580 DC of 10 June 2009 (only
in French, 10.06.2009)

http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/2009/decisions-par-date/2009/2009-580-dc/decision-n-2009-580-dc-du-10-juin-2009.42666.html

The Constitutional Council censures the graduate response (only in French,
11.06.2009)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/06/10/01002-20090610ARTFIG00516-le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-la-riposte-graduee-.php

French anti-filesharing law overturned (10.06.2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/10/france-hadopi-law-filesharing

Press Release of the French Constitutional Council on Decision n° 2009-580
DC (only in French, 10.06.2009)

http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/2009/decisions-par-date/2009/2009-580-dc/communique-de-presse.42667.html

Hadopi : the Constitutional Council censures the graduate response (only in
French, 10.06.2009)

http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2009/06/10/hadopi-le-conseil-constitutionnel-censure-la-riposte-graduee_1205290_651865.html

Sarkozy tries to rescue internet law after court decision (12.06.2009)

http://euobserver.com/9/28294

French ruling raises hopes for EU telecoms deal (11.06.2009)

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/french-ruling-raises-hopes-eu-telecoms-deal/article-183124

Hadopi law is promulgated in its uncensored part (only in French,
13.06.2009)

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/13144-La-loi-Hadopi-est-promulguee-dans-sa-partie-non-censuree.html

Hadopi 2 will be presented to the Council of Ministers by the end of the
month (only in French, 12.06.2009)

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/13142-Hadopi-2-sera-presente-en-Conseil-des-ministres-a-la-fin-du-mois.html

EDRI-gram: French Government hurries to put HADOPI law into application
(3.06.2009)

http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.11/hadopi-application-hurry

============================================================
2. The dawning of Internet censorship in Germany
============================================================

Germany is on the verge of censoring its Internet: The government – a grand
coalition between the German social democrats and conservative party – seems
united in its decision: On 18 June 2009, the German Parliament is to vote on
the erection of an internet censorship architecture.

The Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen kicked off and led the
discussions within the German Federal Government to block Internet sites in
order to fight child pornography. The general idea is to build a censorship
architecture enabling the government to block content containing child
pornography. The Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) is to
administer the lists of sites to be blocked and the internet providers
obliged to erect the secret censorship architecture for the government.

A strong and still growing network opposing these ideas quickly formed
within the German internet community. The protest has not been limited to
hackers and digital activists but rather a mainstreamed effort widely
supported by bloggers and twitter-users. The HashTag used by the protesters
is #zensursula – a German mesh up of the Ministers name and the word
censorship equivalent to #censursula.

As part of the public’s protest an official e-Petition directed at the
German parliament was launched. Within three days 50,000 persons signed the
petition – the number required for the petition titled “No indexing and
blocking of Internet sites” to be heard by the parliament. The running time
of an e-Petition in Germany is 6 weeks, during this time over 130 000
people signed making this e-Petition the most signed and most successful
ever.

During the past weeks, protests became more and more creative – countless
blogs and twitter-users followed and commented the discussions within
governments and opposing arguments. Many mainstream media picked up on this
and reported about the protest taking place on-line. A working group on
censorship was founded and the protest coordinated with a wiki, mailing
lists, chats and of course employing twitter and blogs. One website
“Zeichnemit.de” created a landing page explaining the complicated
petitioning system and making signing the petition easier and more
accessible for non net-experts.

Over 500 people attended the Government official press conference on the
planed internet censorship, a number of whom used this occasion to
demonstrate and voice their concerns. In fact, demonstrators began attending
some of the Minister von der Leyens public appearances, carrying banners and
signs to raise attention to the stifling of information freedom in Germany.

The net community did not only oppose the governments plans, but also made
constructive suggestions on how to deal with the problem of child
pornography without introducing a censorship architecture and circumcising
constitutional freedoms. The working group on censorship demonstrated the
alternatives for instance by actually removing over 60 websites containing
child pornographic content in 12 hours, simply by emailing the international
providers who then removed this content from the net. The sites were
identified through the black lists of other countries documented on
Wikileaks. This demonstration underlines the protesters’ main arguments:
instead of effectively investing time and efforts to have illegal content
removed from the internet, the German government is choosing censorship and
blocking, an easy and dangerous way out. The greatest fear of the
protesters is that once in place, the infrastructure will be used to censor
other forms of unwanted content, not only child pornography. German
politicians already seem to be lining up with their wish-list of content to
be censored in future – the suggestions ranging form gambling sites,
islamist web pages, first person shooters, and the music industry cheering
up with the thought of finally banning Pirate Bay and p2p.

More information and linklist (only in German)

http://netzpolitik.org/2009/kommentierte-zensursula-linkliste/

Links, banners and more (16.06.2009)

http://netzpolitik.org/2009/the-dawning-of-internet-censorship-in-germany/

EDRi-gram: German Government forces ISPs to put web filters (22.04.2009)

http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/web-filters-isp-germany

Internet filtering type Loppsi creates polemics in Germany(only in French,
17.06.2009)

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/13167-Le-filtrage-du-net-facon-Loppsi-fait-polemique-en-Allemagne.html

(contribution by Markus Beckedahl, EDRi-member NNM- Germany, Thanks to
Geraldine de Bastion for the translation)

============================================================
3. Stockholm programme – the new EU dangerous surveillance system
============================================================

Civil rights groups are worried about a new EU proposal that would enhance a
“dangerously authoritarian” European surveillance and security system that
will include ID card register, Internet surveillance systems, satellite
surveillance, automated exit-entry border systems operated by machines
reading biometrics and risk profiling systems.

On 15 June 2009, EU justice ministers discussed on the so called
Stockholm programme trying to set up the first EU “domestic security
strategy for the EU”, by the end of this year. The ‘Stockholm Programme’ is
the Swedish EU Presidency’s proposed legislative agenda in the area of
justice and home affairs for the 2009-2014 period.

According to the Swedish Presidency, the Stockholm Programme aims to “define
the framework for EU police and customs cooperation, rescue services,
criminal and civil law cooperation, asylum, migration and visa policy”.

“National frontiers should no longer restrict our activities,” said Jacques
Barrot, the European justice and security commissioner on 9 June when he
presented the EU priorities in the justice area for the next five years. The
measures include increased security co-operation and improved immigration
management.

The paper presented by the commissioner calls for stricter border controls,
a better exchange of information on criminal and security issues between the
member states and an increased police co-operation.

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said that “in future, EU
action must aim above all at delivering the best possible service to the
citizen in an area of freedom, security and justice more tangible for the
citizens”.

“We want to promote citizens’ rights, make their daily lives easier and
provide protection, and this calls for effective and responsible European
action in these areas. In this context, I consider immigration policy
particularly important. This is the vision the Commission is presenting to
the Council and Parliament for debate, with a view to the adoption of the
new Stockholm Programme by the European Council in December 2009,” he added.

But civil liberties advocates commented in a different way the
proposal: “What stands out are the proposals related to the Future Group
report. A promise to balance better data protection and EU standards for
‘Privacy Enhancing Technology’ with the law enforcement agencies demands for
access to all information and communications. An ‘information system
architecture’ to bring about the sharing of all data across the EU. The use
of ‘security technologies’ to harness the ‘digital tsunami’ to gather
through mass surveillance personal data on peoples’ everyday activities
through public-private partnerships.
What is new is the clear aim of creating the surveillance society and the
database state. Future generations, for whom this will be a fully developed
reality, will look back at this era and rightly ask, why did you not act to
stop it.” said Tony Bunyan from Statewatch.

The paper reintroduces proposals related to immigration and asylum,
insisting on “burden-sharing and solidarity” between member states as
regards asylum seekers and stating legal migrants should have the same
status across the EU and that they should have easier access to the job
market. Frontex, the external borders agency should be given more powers in
preventing human traffic and irregular immigrations at the EU borders.

In the opinion of liberty advocates, these plans will only get us closer to
a surveillance type of society. “An increasingly sophisticated internal and
external security apparatus is developing under the auspices of the EU,”
commented Tony Bunyan.

One of the main concerns is the intention of standardising European police
surveillance techniques and of creating common data gathering systems
operated at the EU level. A particularly worrying statement of the proposal
is: “The SIS II and VIS information systems will have to enter their fully
operational phase. An electronic system for recording entry and exit and a
registered traveller programme must be established. The usefulness of a
system of prior travel authorisation must be examined.”

The plans have in view an extension of the sharing of the present DNA and
fingerprint databases stored for new digital ID cards to CCTV video footage
and material gathered from Internet surveillance.

The Daily Telegraph stated they had information from EU officials that the
new plans would need the coverage of the Lisbon Treaty presently stopped by
the Irish referendum in 2008 and waiting for a second Irish vote this
autumn. The Treaty stipulates the creation of a Standing Committee for
Internal Security to co-ordinate policy between national forces and EU
organisations such as Europol, the Frontex, the European Gendarmerie Force
and the Brussels intelligence.

The Stockholm programme will be discussed at the informal ministerial
meeting in Stockholm in July 2009, to be further on examined by the European
Parliament in November with the hope that it would be approved at the Summit
in December 2009, under the Swedish presidency.

EC proposals for the Stockholm Programme (COM(2009) 262/4)
English

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-com-stockholm-prog.pdf

German

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-com-stockholm-german.pdf

French

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-com-stockholm-french.pdf

EU security proposals are ‘dangerously authoritarian’ (10.06.2009)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5496912/EU-security-proposals-are-dangerously-authoritarian.html

Brussels outlines justice priorities for next 5 years (10.06.2009)

http://euobserver.com/9/28283

Sweden’s EU immigration plans facing headwinds (11.06.2009)

http://www.euractiv.com/en/opinion/sweden-eu-immigration-plans-facing-headwinds/article-183119

Justice and Home Affairs – Stockholm Programme

http://www.se2009.eu/en/the_presidency/about_the_eu/justice_and_home_affairs/1.1965

Closer cooperation between EU countries on the agenda for justice and home
affairs. – Freedom, justice, security: a balancing act (10.06.2009)

http://ec.europa.eu/news/justice/090610_en.htm

European Commission outlines its vision for the area of Freedom, Security
and Justice in the next five years (10.06.2009)

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/int

European Commission – Communication – An evaluation of the Hague Programme
and Action Plan (10.06.2009)

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/doc/com_2009_263_en.pdf

Statewatch Observatory
The “Stockholm Programme” – “The Shape of Things to Come”

http://www.statewatch.org/future-group.htm

European Civil Liberties Network – Oppose the “Stockholm Programme”
(04.2009)

http://www.ecln.org/ECLN-statement-on-Stockholm-Programme-April-2009-eng.pdf

============================================================
4. The telecoms ministers rejected the telecom package as adopted by the EP
============================================================

The European Commission continues to pressure the Council and the new
European Parliament to rapidly adopt the telecoms package without a proper
scrutiny of the law or any consideration of the implications of Amendment
138.

At the Luxembourg meeting on 11 June 2009, the telecoms ministers decided to
reject the telecom package in the form adopted by the European Parliament in
the second reading on 6 May 2009, thus proposing a new round of
negotiations.

The ministers consider the Parliament has breached the earlier compromise
reached with the Council on the telecoms package as a whole, obviously the
main issue under question being the controversial issue of copyright
protection and users’ rights. And with the new decision of the French
Constitutional Council against the French three strikes law, the European
Parliament will probably insist in its position.

On a press conference on 11 June, the position of the European Commission
was expressed by Viviane Reding’s spokesman Martin Selmayr who stated that
the issue of Amendment 138 had been dealt with at the national level (thus
referring to the French Constitutional Council decision) and therefore
should no longer be a European matter. Which, obviously, means that the
Commission wants the amendment dropped from the telecom package.

Reding, which has lately been supporting France’s position for the graduate
response, made an appeal to EU lawmakers urging them to finalise the
discussions on the package. “I call on all political players to do their
best in the next days and weeks to settle the last pending issue. Critics
often lament about Europe’s lack of competitiveness, because of the alleged
length of the EU’s decision-making processes. In the next days and weeks,
Council and Parliament have the unique opportunity to prove these critics
wrong.”

The deadline for the European Parliament to send its position to the Council
on the telecoms package is 19 June. After this, there are several options
for the telecoms ministers. One is to adopt the text as voted by the
Parliament but this is unlikely having in view their position on Amendment
138, especially the position of France in the matter.

Another option is to adopt a counter-proposal restating the Council’s
initial line which will formally start the negotiation procedure to take
place under the new Swedish presidency. In this case, the Parliament will
have to create a conciliation committee including 27 newly elected members
representing all the EU countries. A formal agreement could be reached by
the end of the year.

EU Council could also reopen the entire case asking for negotiations on the
core of the text which could lead to other debates with unpredictable
duration and results.

A technical possibility could be to split the package but this is unlikely
as the ministers have already stated they did not want to take that road.
As the text is interlinked, splitting it would mean bringing modifications
to a large part of the text.

The European Parliament’s schedule is to have a trialogue on 29 September
with a final vote on 15 December which would give time for discussion of the
issues raised by Amendment 138 and for the new MEPs to get familiarised with
these issues.

French ruling raises hopes for EU telecoms deal (11.06.2009)

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/french-ruling-raises-hopes-eu-telecoms-deal/article-183124

Commission steps up pressure on Telecoms Package (10.06.2009)

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=9

Reding: don’t involve EU in fundamental rights (12.06.2009)

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=9

Telecoms package remains hostage of political row (12.06.2009)

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/telecoms-package-remains-hostage-political-row/article-183137?Ref=RSS

Ministers braced for final round of telecoms talks (11.06.2009)

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/ministers-braced-final-round-telecoms-talks/article-183089

Presidency Press Statement on the state of play regarding the ‘telecoms
package’ (12.06.2009)

http://www.eu2009.cz/en/news-and-documents/news/presidency-press-statement-on-the-state-of-play-regarding-the-_telecoms-package_-25123/

EDRI-gram: European Parliament votes against the 3 strikes. Again
(6.05.2009)

http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.9/ep-plenary-votes-against-3-strikes

============================================================
5. Finland: Complaints not allowed for the Police child-porn censorship list
============================================================

The Helsinki Administrative court decided on 20 May 2009 that complaints
lodged in regards to the child-porn censorship list maintained by the
Finnish Police are not allowed.

The case originates from one Finnish activist’s “battle” against the
censorship list maintained by the Finnish police and originally the
censorship law passed by the Finnish Parliament in 2006, meant to combat
child pornography. The list works in the manner that in conjunction with the
ISPs the Finnish Police is able to bock access to certain sites deemed as
having child pornography content and thus illegal.

However what the activist Matti Nikki contests is that although the list is
maintained for a good cause, many sites including Mr. Nikki’s own site
lapsiporno.info (translated as childporn.info) meant to display parts of the
Police’s censorship list end up as being blocked in an arbitrary manner by
the Police. This is shown by the way in which the Finnish Police acted in
relation to Mr. Nikki, after he started a direct debate with the Finnish
Police; the Police stepped in and included Nikki’s site onto the censorship
list, after which Mr. Nikki was interrogated by the Police and the Finnish
Attorney General deliberated whether Mr. Nikki should be prosecuted for
distribution of child pornography. No action of prosecution followed, and
Mr. Nikki asked that his site be removed from the list of censored sites.
The Finnish Central Criminal Police decided not to release lapsiporno.info.
Mr. Nikki appealed to the Helsinki Administrative Court, which gave its
decision in May 2009.

The decision of the Helsinki Administrative Court states that Mr. Nikki’s
site is being censored, however the most worrying aspect is that while the
court admits that the case is in fact about censoring Mr. Nikki’s personal
site, it totally walks over the Finnish constitution and the rights
enshrined in it in relation to freedom of speech, without even giving any
reasoning why it has done so. This is a grave violation of Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr. Nikki, who is represented by the Helsinki – based law firm Turre Legal,
will appeal the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland
during June 2009.

Decision of the Helsinki Administrative Court (only in Finnish, 20.05.2009)

http://hack.fi/~muzzy/lapsiporno/files/hao-09-0704-3.pdf

(contribution by Markku Räsänen – Summer Associate, Turre Legal, Finland)

============================================================
6. Windows 7 is launched without IE, but the Commission is not pleased
============================================================

Although until recently Microsoft was claiming that Internet Explorer (IE)
browser was an integrant part of Windows operating system, on 11 June 2009
the company stated it would launch its new version of operating system for
the European market, Windows 7, without Internet Explorer. The decision
comes as a result of a Statement of Objections sent to Microsoft in January
2009 by the European Commission regarding competition concerns related to
the bundling of the browser to the operating system. However, the European
Commission has not welcomed the new decision.

A Statement of Objections is a formal step in Commission antitrust
investigations by means of which the parties concerned are informed in
writing of the objections raised against them. Microsoft replied to the this
step on 28 April 2009 and the Commission is presently considering
Microsoft’s reply and any additional evidence in the case.

According to the Commission, by bundling Internet Explorer to Windows,
Microsoft is using its dominant position in the operating system market to
block competition in the browser market. Microsoft was already fined in
EU in 2007 for bundling its media player to Windows.

Waiting for the decision of the Commission but wishing to observe its
launching targets for the new version of its operation system, Microsoft
decided to offer this European version without IE. “We’re committed to
making Windows 7 available in Europe at the same time that it launches in
the rest of the world, but we also must comply with European competition law
as we launch the product. Given the pending legal proceeding, we’ve decided
that instead of including Internet Explorer in Windows 7 in Europe, we will
offer it separately and on an easy-to-install basis to both computer
manufacturers and users. This means that computer manufacturers and users
will be free to install Internet Explorer on Windows 7, or not, as they
prefer. Of course, they will also be free, as they are today, to install
other Web browsers,” stated Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner in a blog
post on the company website.

In response to this statement, on 12 June, the European regulators showed
they were not pleased with Microsoft’s decision as they had suggested that
the company offer a selection of browsers on its operating system to open up
choice for consumers and not a complete lack of options.

“Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version
of Windows without a web browser at all. Rather than more choice, Microsoft
seems to have chosen to provide less,” said the Commission in its statement.

The reaction is explainable as after Microsoft had decided to sell a version
of Windows without its Media Player after the fine received in 2007, it
succeeded in going around the Commission’s restrictions by selling an
alternative version of Windows equipped for free with the Media Player,
which was obviously preferred by the consumers.

A potential solution considered in the Commission’ Statement of Objections
would be to allow consumers to choose from different web browsers presented
to them through a ‘ballot screen’ in Windows. Thus, the Commission might
force Microsoft to include other browsers with its operating system which
will probably help competitive browser companies such as Mozilla’s Firefox ,
Opera, Google’s Chrome and Apple’s Safari.

EU unconvinced by Microsoft Internet browser offer (12.06.2009)

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-unconvinced-microsoft-internet-browser-offer/article-183146?Ref=RSS

Antitrust: Commission statement on Microsoft Internet Explorer announcement
(12.06.2009)

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/272&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Working to Fulfill our Legal Obligations in Europe for Windows 7
(11.06.2009)

http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2009/06/11/working-to-fulfill-our-legal-obligations-in-europe-for-windows-7.aspx

Brussels threatens Microsoft with fresh fine (19.01.2009)

http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/brussels-threatens-microsoft-fresh-fine/article-178587

============================================================
7. More voices in the EP for digital rights
============================================================

The recent elections have brought more seats for parties supporting digital
rights in the European Parliament (EP), such as the Greens, UK Independence
Party or the Liberal Democrats. The Swedish Pirate Party has succeeded in
getting a seat as well.

The Pirate Party has succeeded in obtaining 7% of the votes in Sweden, thus
winning one representative in the EP. In case the Lisbon Treaty is adopted,
it might even get one more seat. The success of the party is due to two
recent events: the EU’s intellectual property enforcement directive which
asks that ISPs turn over traffic data to copyright holders who are trying to
track down filesharers and which was brought into force by the Swedish
Government in April 2009 and the result of the Pirate Bay trial. The party’s
success has proven that privacy rights and fair copyright systems matter to
Swedish people.

Ray Corrigan, senior lecturer in ­technology at the Open University,
explains: “A lot of IP laws are being driven through because they are off
most people’s cognitive agendas. If you start knocking people off the
internet for ­allegedly infringing copyright those numbers start to grow
into the thousands, or tens of thousands, very quickly. It has a direct
impact on their children’s education and some people may need the internet
for their job.”

The Pirate Party will join either the Green or the Liberal groupings in the
European Parliament. “There have been no formal discussions, but we have
been invited by a few groups for informal talks,” said Christian Engstroem,
a computer programmer and the candidate heading the party’s list who also
said that the party would join the one grouping that will be the closest to
the party’s positions on Internet freedoms.

The Pirate Party presence may bring new debates on the issues of patents and
copyright and privacy. Their position is for a five year copyright term, a
file sharing exception and the abolishment of patents.

EDRi-member Open Rights Group considers that the Pirate Party has some
positions that are a little extreme but the party’s cultural flat rate
proposal might be something similar to a payment made in exchange for a file
sharing exception. While the Pirate Party advocates for a 5-year term
copyright, many copyright academics feel the economically optimal term is
rather 15 years than the life plus 70 years that is now in force.

Sweden is not the only country where digital rights supporters have
succeeded in making their voice heard. The German pirate party,
Piratenpartei Deutschland, won close to 1% of the vote. And registered
“Pirate Parties” now exist in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Poland and Spain.
Similar groups are attempting to register as political parties in the UK and
the US as well.

“My view is that IP is a good and necessary thing. I’m not in favour of a
free-for-all but I do think that there are many important questions that
need to be addressed. I think it’s a good thing that you are getting
representatives in parliament who wish to challenge the established view,”
stated Andrew Dearing, secretary general of the European Industrial
Research ­Management Association.

A new and fresh breath of air will be beneficial for the atmosphere in the
European Parliament that relies more on the Internet as a source of
information, but also as a communication tool with its voters. A survey
carried out by Fleishman-Hillard during 1 April to 1 May 2009 shows that
although most MEPs largely use the Internet, it seems most of them still
believe traditional forms of communication, such as television or
newspapers, are more effective. About 75 percent of the MEPs use a web page
to communicate with their voters, 93% use search engines daily to understand
legislative
issues. Still, many of them have to open up to social online media as only
thirty-three percent of them use the social media networks “extensively”, 20
percent occasionally, but 29 percent “do not use them or do not plan to use
them.”

“Members of the European Parliament recognise that EU citizens go online and
that they therefore need a web presence. However, the majority of MEPs do
not currently take full advantage of social media tools as a means to engage
with voters and drive them to their websites,” the survey said.

Pirates to join Green or Liberal groups in EU parliament (3.06.2009)

http://euobserver.com/883/28237

Majority of MEPs do not ‘tweet’ (4.06.2009)

http://euobserver.com/883/28238

Sweden’s Pirate party sails to success in European elections (11.06.2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/11/pirate-party-sweden

What do the EU results and Pirate Party mean for digital rights? (9.06.2009)

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/06/what-do-the-eu-results-and-pirate-party-mean-for-digital-rights/

EDRIgram: The Pirate Bay asks for retrial claiming conflict of interest
(6.05.2009)

http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.9/pirate-bay-mistrial

============================================================
8. Report: OECD Conference on Sensor Based Networks
============================================================

“Using Sensor-based Networks to Address Global Issues: Policy Opportunities
and Challenges” was the title of an experts conference the OECD organised on
08 and 09 June 2009, hosted by Portugal, in Lisbon. Andreas Krisch
participated in the conference on behalf of EDRi and CSISAC.

The goal of the Conference was to help policy makers:
a. understand Sensor-Based Networks and their potential contribution to
economic and social welfare,
b. identify how to further stimulate innovation in this area and foster
the development of these technologies where they are needed the most and are
the most promising.

During the one and a half day event, the potentials of sensor based networks
in the areas of health and elderly care, protection of the environment and
transportation were discussed. Presentations on different research and
commercial projects illustrated current and potential future uses of sensor
networks. The presented applications ranged from humidity sensors used for
the reduction of water consumption in agriculture via sensor networks used
to support elderly care at home to traffic control systems for highways
based on information gathered from vehicle on-board computers.

In the last session privacy protection and information security dominated
the discussion on policy options. Panellists made quite clear that, in their
opinion, a widespread use of sensor networks and related technologies will
only be possible in future, when a sufficient level of trust can be
achieved. For this, privacy protection and information security are key.

For a more detailed report on the conference see

http://csisac.org/2009/06/csisac_oecd_rfid.php

CSISAC

http://csisac.org/

Conference website

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/sensors

Presentations, session summaries, conclusions

http://www.oecd.org/document/41/0,3343,en_2649_34223_42616233_1_1_1_1,00.html

(contribution by Andreas Krisch – EDRi)

============================================================
9. ENDitorial: Regulating online media in Azerbaijan?
============================================================

I was invited last week to a meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan by the Council of
Europe that organized together with the local National TV and Radio Council
in order to discuss some issues related to the regulation of online media.

The meeting took place on 4 June 2009 and the first part was dedicated to
the local authorities (Ministry of Communication and Information
Technologies or National TV and Radio Council) local Internet actors (The
online news agency lent.az, or APA news agency) and NGOs (such as Azerbaijan
Internet Forum or IREX Azerbaijan).

Although the authorities and private partners sat at the same table, there
was a huge difference in speeches. While the Deputy Minister of
Communications and Information Technologies Iltimas Mammadov talked about
2000 km optic cable already deployed and measures for using Internet in the
cars via WiMax, the private sector claimed that 95% of the population used
dial-up or similar connections and that the average cost of a 1Mb/s monthly
connection was between 60-120 manats (approx. 53-107 Euro), which is a huge
price for an average person in Azerbaijan.

While the authorities claimed that anyone can start an ISP, the private
sector insisted that, basically, the backbone connectivity could be bought
only from a “special” ISP – Delta Telecom. The high final prices and
allegation of some content being blocked by the authorities could thus be
explained.

Talking about regulating online media, the voices seem to converge in asking
for a definition of “electronic media”. Strangely in my opinion, the private
sector representatives asked for a clarification in this respect, seeming to
want such a registration for the electronic media (which is in fact more a
notification). But this could be explained by the fact that otherwise you
are not invited to press conferences or able to get an interview from an
official.

In a country where you need to register your off-line publication with the
Ministry of Justice or your TV or radio station with the National Television
and Radio Council, most of the speakers seem to claim that the regulation
should be the rule to protect others’ privacy or honour, to prevent
pro-aggressive war speech (this part may be a result of the war on
Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia) or hacking of websites (?!?).

Another interesting aspect is that the present mass-media law from 2009
lists the Internet as a mass-medium.

The European experience presented by Mr Marcel Betzel, a policy adviser from
the Dutch Media Authority and by myself was focused on whether any
regulation was needed in the new online environment and whether such a
regulation would be feasible.We also tried to emphasise with concrete
examples the importance of self-regulation and its results.

I have specifically explained why a registration of online media could be
seen as a potential infringement of the freedom of expression if we take
into consideration the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
Also why we need to consider whether a new legislation is feasible in terms
of its application and whether it will just send the unwanted content hosted
in another country.

Mr. Betzel also presented the difficulties of implementing the new European
Audiovisual Media Services Directive and identifying which site can be
considered web TV or Internet radio, according to the new rules.

Taking into consideration the traditional IT development skills of the
Azeri, the Internet has a lot of place to grow, but for now, it is hard to
estimate what the future actions of the Azeri authorities will be, if any,
for a “better regulation” of the online media.

Regulation of Online Media in Azerbaijan

http://www.coe.az/Latest-News/159.html

Conference on the theme “Regulation of Internet media in Azerbaijan” takes
place (4.06.2009)

http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=103237

Azerbaijan – OpenNet Initiative Profile

http://opennet.net/research/profiles/azerbaijan

(contribution by Bogdan Manolea – EDRi-member APTI – Romania)

============================================================
10. Recommended Action
============================================================

Cloud Privacy – An open letter to Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt
This six page letter (pdf) to Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, is signed by 38
researchers and academics in the fields of computer science, information
security and privacy law. Together, they ask Google to honor the important
privacy promises it has made to its customers and protect users’
communications from theft and snooping by enabling industry standard
transport encryption technology (HTTPS) for Google Mail, Docs, and Calendar.

http://www.cloudprivacy.net/letter/

============================================================
11. Recommended Reading
============================================================

Reykjavik conference maps out future Council of Europe work on media and the
Internet

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1452361

Political Declaration and resolutions

http://www.coe.int/t/dc/press/source/20090529_final_declaration_iceland_en.doc

============================================================
12. Agenda
============================================================

28-30 June 2009, Turin, Italy
COMMUNIA Conference 2009: Global Science & Economics of Knowledge-Sharing
Institutions

http://www.communia-project.eu/conf2009

2-3 July 2009, Padova, Italy
3rd FLOSS International Workshop on Free/Libre Open Source Software

http://www.decon.unipd.it/personale/curri/manenti/floss/floss09.html

6-7 July 2009, Barcelona, Spain
Fifth Internet Law & Politics Conference organized by the Law and Political
Science Department of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
The Pros and Cons of Social Networking Sites.

http://www.uoc.edu/symposia/idp2009/engl/index.html

13-16 August 2009, Vierhouten, The Netherlands
Hacking at Random

http://www.har2009.org/

23-27 August 2009, Milan, Italy
World Library and Information Congress: 75th IFLA General Conference and
Council: “Libraries create futures: Building on cultural heritage”

http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla75/index.htm

10-12 September 2009, Potsdam, Germany
5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam
Section: Protest Politics
Panel: The Contentious Politics of Intellectual Property

http://www.ecpr.org.uk/potsdam/default.asp

16-18 September 2009, Crete, Greece
World Summit on the Knowledge Society WSKS 2009

http://www.open-knowledge-society.org/

17-18 September 2009, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Gikii, A Workshop on Law, Technology and Popular Culture
Institute for Information Law (IViR) – University of Amsterdam
Call for papers by 1 July 2009

http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/gikii/2009.asp

21-23 October 2009, Istanbul, Turkey
eChallenges 2009

http://www.echallenges.org/e2009/default.asp

24-25 October 2009, Vienna, Austria
3rd European Privacy Open Space

http://www.privacyos.eu

25 October 2009, Vienna, Austria
Austrian Big Brother Awards
Deadline for nominations: 21 September 2009

http://www.bigbrotherawards.at/

16 October 2009, Bielefeld, Germany
10th German Big Brother Awards
Deadline for nominations: 15 July 2009

http://www.bigbrotherawards.de/

13-15 November 2009, Gothenburg, Sweden
Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit

http://www.fscons.org/

15-18 November 2009, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt
UN Internet Governance Forum

http://www.intgovforum.org/

WORKING GROUPS AND COMMITTEES
Friends of the Presidency on Criminal Law Aspects of ACTA

Negotiations are currently under way on a new Anti-Counterfeiting
Trade Agreement (ACTA) containing measures to combat piracy and
counterfeiting. This working party will discuss any criminal law
aspects of the agreement that may arise.

When
Not decided
Where
Brussels, Belgium
Council
Justice and Home Affairs
Ministry in charge
Ministry of Justice
Contacts
Stefan Johansson
Deputy Director
+46 8 405 46 92
+46 70 26 79 130
Access
Invited officials only

Kangeroo Group Working group on European Security and Defence
Minutes of the meeting of Tuesday, 18 March 2009 on
BRIDGING THE HELICOPTER GAP FOR EU MISSIONS
…
Introducing the topic, Mr von Wogau reported that one lesson learned from ESDP missions and operations such as for example EUFOR TCHAD/ RCA was that the member states of the European Union lack deployable helicopters.
…
In the discussion some people criticised the practice to upgrade old soviet helicopters. By doing this, the western countries would only help the Russian industry to modernize. It would therefore be better to buy new helicopters.

KANGAROO GROUP MEETING
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
22 APRIL, 2009

First of all, let me say thanks to invite me as guest speaker in this important meeting in the European Parliament.

The Kangaroo group is a famous members of Parliament institution who has created its own culture.
And this is very good excuse for me to start, because…

Culture is a fundamental good for the development of individuals.
Culture favours equality among individuals and guarantees our freedom.
Culture is fundamental for the cohesion and peaceful dwelling of a society founded on respect, tolerance and freedom.

Guaranteeing, promoting and developing culture is an essential obligation of every state and nation, of Governments and of all of us.

We are now here, among other reasons, to challenge the conscience of public powers and remind them that culture and creation cannot be treated only as a free good.

The rules of the market have to help to measure the importance of creation as a cultural good, an economic good and a social good that integrates communities.

At the same time, creation cannot turn its back on economic reality. The social value of culture is a fact, just as cultural diversity is an essential element to set our identity.

Over the years the gurus of economic policies have seen culture as a non productive work denying its importance and contribution to the welfare of communities.

Please allow me to cite an unfortunate article published in Financial Times on April 20th, 2009. Last Monday: Talking about the
“the chilling effect it can have on creativity”, the writer concludes;
“The cultural industries are over-protected. If cultural works were less greedily hoarded, consumers would enjoy more variety – and artists would create more freely.”

As an artist, in stead of many of them, I can tell you that we don’t feel over-protected.

This journalist does not know the reality of the situation of millions of artists – and not just a few rich, famous ones – who are asking politicians for justice, intelligence, understanding, and responsibility for the future.

All these artists promote, every day, creativity and cultural diversity in Europe and in over the world.
A great majority of them do not have great names; they do not enjoy generous sponsorships; and their future is based on and sustained by their intellectual property rights.

We artists are not asking for preferential treatment. We want just, efficient, and modern laws that protect freedom of expression, cultural diversity, trade, the industry and free competition.
Intellectual property is an inherent right of human beings, just like the rights to freedom and integrity.
I’m sorry for the journalist from Financial Times, for his old-fashioned view of the economics of culture.

Let me reproduce a few considerations of Sarkozy:

The protection of copyright, the preservation of the creation, the recognition of each artist’s right, of each performer’s, of each producer’s in order to duly remunerate their work, this must be an essential engagement for every politician.

We must give the priority to authors’ and performers’ legitimate right as well as to the right of whoever gives his contribution to the expression of such rights facing to the illusion and fallacy of the principle of getting everything for free. Internet is for sure, an enormous richness, an opportunity for the diffusion of the culture. Nevertheless, we have never been so close to a “black hole” capable to absorb and destroy this richness and creative profusion.

Nowadays the criteria and concepts that are the foundation of the Economy of Culture have acquired credence and are now considered valid and acceptable elements.

We are witnessing, some of us as audience and others as active participants, a technological revolution that is changing our social and consumption habits and creating new scenarios for Culture.

The terms “new economy”, “information society”, “knowledge society” introduce us to a new era that demands and requires a significant effort of adaptation from citizens, authorities, cultural industries, rights societies and mass media.

If we don’t learn to see and give value to these changes, we will not be able to diagnose what is happening currently or be able to design defences and survival mechanisms that are necessary to protect our work and the future of creation.

It had to be in the United States where the importance of arts in economic life was determined.
The contribution of culture to economy in the United States was valued in the 1990’s at 7% to 8% of GDP.

In that same decade, the United States enhanced the value of its creative assets by improving its copyright legislation, including the extension of copyright term to 95 years for sound recordings.

Music is at the heart of culture.

Music is the vehicle that transmits feelings and creativity to human beings and is present in almost all artistic expressions, sometimes as a main actor and others as a companion.
Without music, the airwaves would be silent and our new fast networks would be empty.

To guarantee the future of creation – the future of artists and authors – we must have an adequate balance of the protection of rights, their application and the effect of this on creativity and artists’ economy and their lives.

Intellectual property is at the centre of the new challenges and economic issues that technology and commerce are setting regarding the situation of artists and authors, economy, investment and cultural diversity.

The development of culture and creativity is linked to and depends directly upon the quality of protection of intellectual property.

Technology on its own is useless.

Without contents, the highways of communication and digital networks will have no success or meaning.
Music and audiovisual works, films and other creations provide technology and digital ways of transportation the fundamental essence or “soul”, which is necessary to reach the audience.

Currently, the culture sector is immersed in an intense process of change. Traditional business models are obsolete and a radical transformation of cultural industries and the companies that manage them is under way.

There is a worldwide risk of homogeneity as a result of globalization that has benefited mainly the quick evolution of new information technologies and communication.

Culture today is at the centre of all debates on the new world order. The perspective with which culture has been looked upon has created a permanent debate and confronted opinions, not only between economic liberalism and the defense of universal values, but also between the pragmatic approach to free competition and public service philosophy.

The real issue is the confrontation between the notion of culture as a service that is offered to the market and the idea of culture as a public good, which is the basis of democracy.

We can´t forget that when we talk about Culture, of its importance and increasing growth, represented by cultural industries that have revealed themselves as powerful engines that are able to generate wealth and economic development.

The leading role of “cultural industries” will be key to obtain economic growth, freedom of speech and to preserve cultural diversity.

Cultural diversity as such, has a decisive weight when increasing the potential of culture and its industries, even though it may not seem so at first sight.
Rich content, the variety and originality of cultural creations, their thematic abundance, both conceptual and formal, all make up an immensely valuable capital. We should all join forces and coordinate our actions to preserve them and contribute to their growth.
We have to act positively to ensure that creators are compensated, morally, socially and economically.
This is an obligation of society as a whole since a significant part of its evolution depends on them.
We are also seeing an important qualitative change: service providers and other operators are widening their area of activity, entering into content production and rights acquisition.
Today, more than ever, it’s important and necessary to guarantee the conditions to facilitate cultural creation by favouring the existence of a flexible environment. We should allow cultural industries to adapt their business models to the “new” consumption habits and maintain the value of their cultural goods.
We are here to encourage the Governments and, of course, the European Parliament, not to evade any of the responsibilities. You should adopt efficient solutions that avoid a “free for all” and abandon creators and the cultural industries – the producers, managers, organizations and promoters that provide the vital infrastructure for artists.

Modern and advanced societies should be defined as able to identify cultural products as consumer goods and for protecting, at the same time, cultural diversity.

Information technology’s boom and communication have boosted the opportunities of content distribution and this allows us to foresee a richer and more plural society if the importance of contents is not trivialized, since these are in reality creations.

Those creations are cultural goods. They are more than just economic goods since they hold symbols and values.

Creators are the ones who incorporate the symbolic value that makes cultural goods unique.
Therefore, it’s vital to guarantee, through the protection of individual rights of creators, the permanence of freedom of creation and expression of individuals in society.

We need to articulate measures that facilitate the balance among creation, offer, demand, legality and security.

Governments should create a proper environment for plural creation that protects the creator both economically and socially, that serves to stimulate the development of cultural industries, that could be legitimately used by all citizens and that manifests the cultural and economic value of creation.
To make this possible, it’s necessary to:

Make society understand the need to respect creators and cultural goods.

Only Governments and legislators can achieve the necessary support and social understanding that make laws and rules effective and could make all this process work.
A society that values objects more than ideas is sick. A community is worth what its ideas are worth, its talent and its creations.

Many leaders, politicians and ” opinion makers ” are in favour of ” free culture ” giving space, opportunities and media coverage to the theories of Creative Commons, Copyleft and others…

These trends are supported by crafty social strategists who, hidden in the so called Internet “communities”, preach a utopian vision where everything is free to the consumer, especially music and audiovisual content.
These false social agitators do not protest against abusive prices of electricity, of Internet access, of housing and of many domestic goods and services that are really expensive.

They have allied to protest against cultural products and intellectual rights.

Consumers and artists must share a common interest – that cultural goods are protected and continue to be produced.

The development of new communication and distribution systems along with the arrival of new forms of cultural consumption must not damage, under any circumstances, creators’ legitimate rights, who should be rewarded for their work.

There are matters that can be subject to debate, but this right to remuneration is consecrated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

The access to culture is a fact. Any person should have access to anything he or she wants to listen to or to watch in an immediate way at any moment and anywhere.
This is clearly an important advance for consumers and in order to make this happen, intellectual property protection must be a clear aim for political leaders and for the justice system. This should be demanded by society.

The protection of Intellectual Property guarantees the future of creation and must be an important State matter for Government representatives and an objective for legislators, no matter their race or political orientation.

It is not acceptable that the new forms of consumption and new means to spread and store contents, eliminate creator’s legitimate rights.

If we achieve this, we will improve society, we will gain security and we will reinforce the freedom of expression and the future of culture.

Only from harmony and balance among diverse interests will it be possible to build a more fair and sustainable society.

New technologies are changing drastically the concept of object and use in the field of the intellectual property.

Governments must assume their commitment and put in practice an adequate regulation that will guarantee the collective management of intellectual property rights, as a form of protection and application of the Law.
Over the past days, certain governments and countries there has been discussion on the sector’s self regulation. This refers to, in simple terms, the suppression of collective management and therefore leave individuals artists alone in the face of multinational corporations.

So, what is happening?

Why is this trend to pervert the interpretation of Intellectual Property, considering it to be free, while property rights on objects such as houses are being reinforced suddenly?

What is happening to the value of ideas, creation and talent?

What is it that makes progress in a society, in a civilization?

What is the inheritance of civilizations but their unique creations and ideas?

What are their cultures made up of?

How can the relationship between contractors and individuals be regulated if not for the existence of collective entities that can set prices, monitor and stimulate the legislative development of rights, start lawsuits and ask for a complete fulfillment of the law while collecting and distributing the rights among their real owners?

How could creators manage, individually, their rights litigating on their own against multinational corporations, networks and global communication highways?

This one would be a trap for creators who, without an adequate protection, would be at the entire mercy of multinational corporations, which are already offering artists contracts which pursue the entire transfer of all of their intellectual property rights to them.

Without collective management there won’t be intellectual property nor freedom of expression for creators.
In the so called globalization there must be no confusion between rights and taxes. The salary of artists, authors, and creators, regarding the communication of their works and performances, is and will increasingly be their rights. Without rights there wouldn’t be works nor performances.

We Artists, as creators, demand, for all of us, digital democracy and an adequate audiovisual regulation of the free market.

The rights of the creators must remain sacrosanct. Those rights must not be diluted by wide exceptions and other limitations. We must be free to exercise our rights as creators and the value of our work must be recognized wherever and however it is distributed.
You have an opportunity to help achieve this right now by supporting the Term of Protection Directive. This small piece of legislation will be a significant signal from politicians to artists throughout Europe that our work is valued and that we can be rewarded for the enjoyment and fulfillment that our recordings bring to consumers everywhere.

I thank you all for your attention and for having invited me to share with you this space, this democratic and open encounter where we try to clarify and improve the conditions of artistic, cultural and commercial exchange, with freedom of expression as the element that guarantees opinion.

I leave you these thoughts so they can be used as an inspiration for action. I speak as an artist, from my heart, and in the name hundreds of thousands of my fellow musicians. We are always generous in our art. We trust you to reciprocate with the laws that allow us to continue to inspire and transform our society. As Shakespeare almost said,

Shakespeare said: “Music is the food of life”

Without music, silence. And we would all be the poorer.

Thank you.
Luis Cobos
President of Giart
Orchestra conductor and composer
President of FILAIE and AIE
LUIS

Víctor Domingo (president of the Association) started by explaining the motives to be there on a Sunday morning and acted as Master of Ceremonies, introducing each of the participants.

First one was Carlos Sánchez-Almeida, a lawyer specialized in civil matters who stressed the fact that “though we are just a few today, tomorrow we will be millions taking the streets to defend freedom in the Net and the inviolability of the electronic communications”, also reminding that only judges must be able to close websites.

Next, Ph.D. Enrique Dans, professor of the IE Business School, Internet guru and most influential blogger in Spain, insisted on the need that outdated business models (based in the economy of shortage) cannot be artificially maintained, like the distribution of low-cost copies. He also insisted on the fact that the state-of-the-art Internet allows the development of new business models that are in keeping with the 21st. century, and stressing that these new models, which work well, are the ones that must be given incentives.

Javier Sanz from ADSLZone.net and specially as representative of the initiative ADSLmasbarato.com (for a cheaper ADSL) explained the reasons to demand a better and cheaper broadband since, as all european studies show (included the one we did) we have one of the most expensive and slowest Internet access in all the E.U., which is making many families to have no other option than leaving the Internet since they are unable to pay for it, specially in times of economic crisis, like the current ones.

Next one was Luis Cobo “Manglis” (SGAE affiliate) who, because of the long dispute with this copyright holders association, centered his speech in the unfair share out of the money this entity manages and showed how himself, a prestigious artist with a long professional career and more than 200 registered works, was in fact paying more to SGAE in concept of digital tax than he received from them in concept of copyright, thus dismantleling the fallacy that the money collected from the digital tax is justified to help artists and creators. On the contrary, this money is in advantage of a very few number of artists, and their public accounting is kept top secret, despite the fact that they are obligued by law to be subjected to periodical audits.

Miguel Pérez Subías, president of the sister Asociación de Usuarios de Internet, emphasized that information in the 21st. century must be a shared one, pointing out that this primary goal was the one that allowed the creation of the first public libraries.

Next one to speak was Ana María Méndez, representing the sector of CD/DVDs stores, as the president of APEMIT, the Association that join the small and medium computer stores entrepreneurs. Her hair-raising testimony about the persecution she suffered by SGAE (which obligued to close her store) touched the presents and clearly showed which kind of louse people are we fighting against, as well as the many jobs destroyed in this sector, by means of the systematic harassment from the copyright holders, with a set of laws that look directly written by this copyright holders. She also explained how ISPs are being pushed by this lobby to facilitate them their subscribers’ personal data, thus infringing the secrecy and inviolability of the electronic communications.

Finally, Enrique de Diego, journalist and president of the Platform “The Middle Classes” inflamed the mood of the demonstrators by attacking the main copyright holder association in Spain (SGAE). He denounced the very obscure accounting relative to the share out of this rights, which uses to end up in property speculation like the recent case of the Boadilla del Monte Palace, also asking people to sign to avoid SGAE getting the palace for their own interest. In fact, his most clapped sentence was “Hear us, Teddy! Hear us well! The ‘pay and shut up’ is over!” The people then sung in unison showing the palm of their hands “Hands up! This is a robbery!” He also insisted on the need to defend freedom in the Net since , he stated, “Internet is the modern printing, it’s ours and it’s our liberty!”. He also pointed his finger towards the Ministry of Culture building shouting that this building should be sold to expel the current Minister, whom he directly called “corrupt” He ended his intervention demanding to all european politicians to “take their dirty hands off the Internet!”, in a clear reference to Zapatero and Sarkozy.
Note: Teddy is the artistic name of Eduardo Bautista, SGAE president.

As projected, speeches ended with the public reading of the Manifest for Civil Rights, and the Universality and Neutrality of the Net by Ofelia Tejerina, lawyer and head of the Office of the Internet Ombudsman, from the Asociación de Internautas. Finally the musician Luis Cobo “Manglis” spoke as he better knows to, that is, with his guitar and delighted the assistants with an impromptu, ironically explaining that this way the piece would be free of copyright and the SGAE could not scratch any single euro from his public performance.

Soon after that, the assistants pacifically left the place. As it could also be verified, the interested manipulations trying to deincentivate the meeting by saying it was a politically shifted one were totally dismantled. No one flag of any political party was seen, thus showing that civil society, no matter their individuals’ ideology, can make a joint demonstration against the abuses of any government, no matter its political sign.

Among the distinguished participants (though they did not talk) were the journalist and deputy manager of Libertad Digital, Daniel Rodríguez Herrera, the catalan blogger Xavier Cuchí -firm defender of free software- and the Greens Spanish MEP David Hammerstein, the only spanish MEP who has a long track record of constant fights for the digital civil rights in Strasbourg from the very beginning. Josh from BandaAncha and Álvaro from ElOtroLado were also there.

Media hits (press, radio & TV) were also important as it can be seen in the following links (in Spanish)

LaSexta Noticias: Internet demands reconsidering the foundations http://www.lasextanoticias.com/noticia/internet/exige/replantear/bases/454893

El Economista: Hundreds of Internet users gathered in Madrid for a “universal and neutral” network http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/sociedad/noticias/1272203/05/09/Cientos-de-internautas-se-concentran-en-madrid-por-una-red-universal-y-neutral.html

ABC: Internet users demand a free and ouf-of-the-reach of the politicians Net http://www.abc.es/20090524/nacional-sociedad/internautas-manifiestan-defensa-neutralidad-200905241201.html

Libertad Digital: Internet users take the streets for “Net Neutrality” and against the digital tax http://www.abc.es/20090524/nacional-sociedad/internautas-manifiestan-defensa-neutralidad-200905241201.html

El País: The Asociación de Internautas asks universality of the broad band http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Asociacion/Internautas/pide/universalidad/banda/ancha/elpepusoc/20090524elpepusoc_3/Tes

La Vanguardia: Internet users take the streets to defend “Net neutrality” and brand González-Sinde an unfit http://www.lavanguardia.es/internet-y-tecnologia/noticias/20090524/53709380331/internautas-salen-a-la-calle-para-defender-la-neutralidad-en-la-red-y-tildan-de-incapacitada-a-gonza.html

Público: Internet users brand González-Sinde a “legally unfit” http://www.publico.es/ciencias/tecnologia/227670/internautas/tildan/gonzalezsinde/incapacitada/legalmente

El Mundo: The Internet users, against the digital tax and in defense of the civil rights http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/05/24/navegante/1243170170.html

Photo Album http://s355.photobucket.com/albums/r444/Atreides6/C-s%20Internautas%20240509

I have always said that Europe would not regulate itself out of this crisis. Indeed, one of the main dangers I see for policymakers is the risk of swinging the pendulum too far and falling pray to populist tendencies. There are strong indications that this is already happening and that some demands are politically driven and not an actual response to the shortcomings laid bare by the crisis. In Europe we have been taking a series of measures to correct and address such shortcomings. Most of the measures respond to commitments made at the level of the G20 with our main international partners. We have been quite diligent in implementing such commitments. But we have to make sure others do too. I shall be very vigilant in the months ahead to make sure our main partners also implement the G20 agreements. We do not want to impose disproportionate burden on our industry and make them less able to compete globally while others just pay lip-service to such agreements. I also sense a tendency to risk aversion in our society. This is echoed by some politicians. As a consequence, we have very strong undercurrents wanting to regulate risk out of the system. While it is unquestionable that small depositors and retail investors and their savings should be protected, I do not think the same goes for those whose business model is to take risks to a greater or lesser extent. Our society badly needs them to continue to take risks. Otherwise how are we going to emerge from this crisis? If we do not have a culture that supports entrepreneurs then we will not be able to create the growth and jobs necessary to move out of this recession. Markets may have bottomed out but our economies have still some way to go. If we end up making life difficult for doing business then we are condemning our economies to lack lustre growth and high levels of unemployment. Now some will call me again the “free market Taliban” for this, but there is no such thing as a risk-free society. Free market liberalism is under attack. But it is not dead, not least because no one has found a better alternative.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/09/242&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The Danish Government was also given a special award for its role in helping establish the World Business Summit on Climate Change – which is expected to attract some of the world?s most polluting companies; for providing business lobbyists with direct, privileged access to negotiators ahead of crucial UN Climate Change talks in December; and for withdrawing support for Danish wind energy and failing to meet its Kyoto targets

Vattenfall, which won with 39% of the vote, was nominated for ?its mastery of spin on climate change, portraying itself as a climate champion while lobbying to continue business as usual, using coal, nuclear power, and pseudo-solutions such as agrofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS).?

The energy company also played a key role in setting up the World Business Summit on Climate Change through the Combat Climate Change – a lobby group established by Vattenfall to promote the ?climate-friendly technologies? such as carbon capture and storage and nuclear power, which are the company?s preferred options for tackling climate change.

The Climate Greenwash Awards were organised to highlight the way in which big business is increasingly turning to green spin to hide its polluting agenda. Energy companies, many of which once denied that climate change was happening, are now keen to portray themselves as green heroes in the fight against climate change. The awards organisers warn that many of the so-called solutions being put forward by business will not help reduce emissions. Companies are advocating unproven technologies such as carbon capture and storage and failed mechanisms such as carbon trading, to justify their continuing pollution.

The Climate Greenwash Awards were organised by Corporate Europe Observatory, Attac Denmark, The Climate Movement, ClimaX and Friends of the Earth Denmark.

Close to 2000 votes were cast; after winner Vattenfall (39%), the runners-up were Shell (19.3%) and DONG (14.4%). Full results will be available online at www.climategreenwash.org

For more information about the World Business Summit on Climate Change, see the new CEO report “Climate Summit Inc.”:

http://www.corporateeurope.org/climate-and-energy/content/2009/05/climate-summit-inc

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
Rue d’Edimbourg 26
Brussels, Belgium
Phone +32 (0)2 893 0930
e-mail: ceo@corporateeurope.org

http://www.corporateeurope.org

http://www.eulobbytours.org

http://www.waterjustice.org