[bestbits] Re: What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance?

[Achal Prabhala]

Many thanks for replying Anriette.

There was a man in a suit - I think from Art 19 - who recorded what I had
to say about IP and copyright. Perhaps he can explain why the text was
discarded and why he on behalf of civil society - which I absolutely stand
in opposition to and outside of in this instance - chose to strongly
endorse (indeed adopt) the industry perspective on copyright.

I cant imagine what the thinking here was. Were the drafters worried that
the numerous multi billion dollar content industries furiously lobbying the
meeting could not be trusted with protecting their own interests?

Achal.





On Tuesday, 29 April 2014, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> Dear Achal
>
> I was not involved in preparing the civil society inputs.
>
> I was co-chair of the drafting group for the 'principles' section of the
document, and I actually with great frustration tried to find the text you
had proposed during our pre-meeting. It was not on the Best Bits pad.
>
> When the 'Article 27' text was proposed during the drafting I did
vigorously oppose it. I did not actually realise it was proposed by civil
society as on the second day of the drafting my laptop had died, and I had
no access to the online document.
>
> My personal concerns with the text in Article 27 was shared by some of
the CS people who were observing. Business was strongly in favour of us
inserting that text and we almost had deadlock on it. It is always easy to
use existing language, and in most of the other rights, we did resort to
UDHR language.  On that one I held out.
>
> The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed
by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy
had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be
acceptable.
>
> Therefore "consistent with the rights of authors and creators" was added
to the original text (which was actually proposed by civil society very
early on: "
> Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute
information on the Internet".  The final phrase "as established in law" was
demanded by business, if I remember correctly.
>
> So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep
'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document.  The BAD news
is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only
finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text
which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be
included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth
and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for
enforcing copyright.  For me that was a huge, huge blow.
>
> I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not
involved in finalising the civil society inputs.
>
> My personal view however is that disproportionate enforcement of
intellectual property rights is one of the greatest threats to 'internet
freedom' we are facing, if not the greatest.  Unlike limitations on free
expression which is broadly considered to be inappropriate, there is
widespread support by powerful governments and by a large part of internet
industry (not all)  for stronger enforcement of these rights, and for
making intermediaries responsible doing so.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 29/04/2014 07:41, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
> I have been trying to understand what civil society's position on
copyright in Internet governance is, esp. in the aftermath of NETmundial.
>
> On April 22, I took part in a civil society meeting along with many of
you, when the following language was suggested to be included in civil
society feedback to the draft outcome document: "resisting the expansion of
a sovereign application of copyright on to the global online landscape."
>
> The language came from the recent, vivid and very real threats posed by
the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US.
>
> Then it seems civil society changed it's mind: this is the language used
in the final feedback document: (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/)
>
> "Right to participate in cultural life: everyone has the right freely to
participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to
share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and this right extends to
the Internet. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and
material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic
production of which he is the author. This protection must be balanced with
the larger public interest and human rights, including the rights to
education, freedom of expression and information and the right to privacy."
>
> This is the language from the final NETmundial outcome document: (
http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf
)
>
> "Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and distribute
information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and
creators as established in law."
> Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of intellectual property is
stronger in the civil society statement than in the NETmundial document.
>
> Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent language *against* a
restrictive, censorious and unilaterally decided global intellectual
property regime did not figure anywhere in the list of official civil
society complaints against the final NETmundial outcome document. (
http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/)
>
> I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil society document
as to:
>
> a) Whether you considered the copyright threat sufficiently addresses in
the language around freedom of expression and access to information, as
well as ISP liability (even though the legal scope in these three ideas, as
expressed in the statement from you, is fuzzy and does not use the word
'copyright') and therefore chose to explicitly leave it out of
consideration?
>
> b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral enforcement of
copyright prote
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140429/fdee78c0/attachment.htm>