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

Tue Apr 29 15:17:45 EDT 2014

I am with Achal on this and had strongly recommended his name during the
strategy meeting of CS on April 22 to speak on this issue (three working
groups  had highlighted the importance of this question). The next day 
I  heard for the first time in an email about some talks on Article 27,
conversations with Disney, the details of which were not clear but I had
expressed strong reservation about the language without "a  right to
share". I witnessed Anriette  resisting additions in the drafting
process without much assistance from any other civil society members on
actual wording. Robin Gross and I had tried to say a few things but we
weren't allowed to interfere from the floor. I am unsure myself as to
the stance of civil society on this and think it is deeply disturbing
that our views aren't clear on an agenda item and an Article that
received most interest from the business for obvious reasons.

On 04/29/2014 05:35 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen 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 protection an insufficient threat to global online freedom
>> and access to knowledge, despite the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA from
>> not that long ago.
>>
>> c) And lastly, whether (and how), despite the copyright issue having
>> been raised - and seemingly accepted - in the meetings running up to
>> the document, "civil society" believed there was "consensus" around
>> leaving the copyright issue out of its demands.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Achal
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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

-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org

Executive Director 
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126 
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140429/73db2ee9/attachment.htm>