Re: Fwd: [FSFE PR][EN] Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute
Hi Christian, Am Donnerstag 28 März 2019 18:14:38 schrieb Christian Imhorst: > This means that on this limited subject the FSFE > is taken seriously as someone to talk to. > > I can not judge your last sentence, Bernhard, but I hope that's the > case. the indicators known to me: * Our representatives got appointments with people in Brussels when asking for the topic * There was one draft were there was an exception for non-commercial towards Free Software, we pointed this out, and it got changed. * Some other friendly NGOs did not get appointments for their broader topics. (We'd wished they would.) Of course we probably were not the only ones that people talked to, but this is also part of successful explanations to say something that is confirmed by other groups as well. Well in one meaning it is lobbying, as we try to speak to politicians, on the other hand it is edcuation because we give them the same arguments that we give everybody, we help them to understand how software and society is connected. Best Regards, Bernhard -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Fwd: [FSFE PR][EN] Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute
Hello, Am 28.03.19 um 15:28 schrieb Paul Boddie: On Thursday 28. March 2019 09.47.34 Christian Imhorst wrote: How do we come to this conclusion? We can probably give thanks to Microsoft for their good lobby work, that they could get an exception for GitHub I must say that I feel uncomfortable about emphasising companies like GitHub in any advocacy campaign. Me too. I meant that ironically, because on their blog GitHub claims success for the exception of open source platforms. It sounds plausible, but good that it's not: Am 28.03.19 um 17:41 schrieb Bernhard E. Reiter: > Is a sign that the people who were shaping the current EU directive > understood our arguments that Free Software development is important for > Europe. They even understood that "non-commercial" is not enough to exclude > platforms that help to collaborately develop and share code under Free > Software licenses. This means that on this limited subject the FSFE is taken > seriously as someone to talk to. I can not judge your last sentence, Bernhard, but I hope that's the case. :-) Regards, Christian ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Fwd: [FSFE PR][EN] Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute
Hello, Am Donnerstag 28 März 2019 09:47:34 schrieb Christian Imhorst: > in our last press release on the EU Copyright Directive meanwhile we have updated the press release, because some passages were not clear enough: https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190326-01.en.html Press releases often have to be done under time pressure. As we all know this increased the chance of making mistakes and get oneselves missunderstood. > "The exclusion of Free Software code hosting and sharing providers from > this directive Is a sign that the people who were shaping the current EU directive understood our arguments that Free Software development is important for Europe. They even understood that "non-commercial" is not enough to exclude platforms that help to collaborately develop and share code under Free Software licenses. This means that on this limited subject the FSFE is taken seriously as someone to talk to. However we were not heard about the more general aspects about the directive, especially not about the dangers of articles 11, 12 and 13 (old numbering). :/ > Other open source platforms, such as Mastodon instances, > have to install upload filters The directive always was about what is "shared" on the platforms, not how it is implemented. From what I've read it is unclear how this will be handled in legal practice. There maybe clear ways to construct something useful for peer-to-peer social networks, in any case it is getting harder not easier to compete with the major "sharing" platforms from the US, so it is a clear advantage to them. > I urge the FSFE to argue *against* uploadfilters We always did, though if the legislation keeps standing as it is, - there is a tiny chance that it will be abolished in the Council of the EU - I consider it valid to think how the bad effects of bad upload filters can be reduced by less dangerous updates "filters". This debate may actually proof that it is not possible, however. Regards, Bernhard -- FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software: blogs.fsfe.org/bernhard https://fsfe.org/donate | contribute signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Fwd: [FSFE PR][EN] Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute
On Thursday 28. March 2019 09.47.34 Christian Imhorst wrote: > > in our last press release on the EU Copyright Directive, Alexander > Sander says: > > "The exclusion of Free Software code hosting and sharing providers from > this directive is crucial to keep Free Software development in Europe > healthy, solid and alive" > > How do we come to this conclusion? We can probably give thanks to > Microsoft for their good lobby work, that they could get an exception > for GitHub (maybe the purchase of GitHub had finally probably something > good): > > "Open source software developing and sharing platforms like GitHub > should remain out of scope." [1] I must say that I feel uncomfortable about emphasising companies like GitHub in any advocacy campaign. GitHub and their corporate parent are quite able to look after their own interests, and while there may be common cause with the FSFE on this particular matter, I find it difficult to take such entities seriously on matters of "defending the Internet" (and all the other familiar rhetoric) when those entities have pursued a predatory strategy of consolidating collaborative activities and works on their own proprietary platforms. > Finally, I don't think this will help us. Other open source platforms, > such as Mastodon instances, have to install upload filters if they don't > want to end up in court. I am not a lawyer and I can't find a section in > the directive that contains the opposite or can dispel my concerns about > this. Can our legal team tell us what does > > "Providers of services such as open source software development and > sharing platforms,[...] are also excluded from this definition" [2] > > in the "EU Copyright Directive" exactly mean for free and open source > software projects that are not "software development and sharing > platforms"? I would need to spend a lot longer looking at the text, which looks in many ways like the usual "fudge" when conflicting interests need to be accommodated in a hastily conceived way. So there are things like revenue and customer thresholds before companies are affected by various obligations, which just seems like bad law to me. Presumably, everyone must neatly fit themselves into commercial and non- commercial categories, which as we know from actual experience can be genuinely challenging. For example, can content licensed under CC-BY-NC be used on a site with adverts generating revenue? And so on. Still, I guess the usual established multinational (but ostensibly European) media interests were able to see their wishes attended to, with all the costs and repercussions once again handed over to everyone else to bear. > Next, Alexander says in our names: > > "We call on the European Commission to promote the dissemination of Free > Software filter technologies, including financial support, for instance" > > No, I won't do that and I completely disagree! I urge the FSFE to argue > *against* uploadfilters and censorship. Because it doesn't matter if the > censorship machine has an open or a closed license, At the end of the > day uploadfilters serve censorship and censorship has to be abolished. > There's already enough free software being abused for purposes of > oppression and to spy on privacy in the surveillance capitalism, we > don't need another one. Here I agree with you. It seems the attitude is that there may be business opportunities for Free Software and so these should be happily pursued. Although I strongly believe that Free Software should be properly funded, this should never take place at the expense of basic rights and freedoms. The FSFE enters dubious territory if it starts acting as an agent for business interests. Indeed, in some places there are different kinds of incorporation for organisations acting in this way, and crossing the line between these two kinds of entity could have legal (as well as ethical) consequences. But what I miss from much of what is said is how this affects me as someone who wants to share my code via my own channels, rather than as a participant in some kind of data-farming megaupload site for code. I almost couldn't care less what GitHub would have to do to comply with legislation, but I care very much what I would be required to do. And as I wrote in an article recently, it is no longer enough to think that since Free Software is in some way protected, there is no need to uphold other causes, rights and freedoms and that they can be ignored or neglected. Free Software is a consequence of having those other things, not a singular goal in its own right. > I hope that we will reconsider our goals we shared in this press > release. > > Christian Imhorst Agreed, and I notice that for me, at least, your name and badge appeared first in the list of supporters on the "Save Code Share!" site, which seemed like an appropriate sign that I should respond! Paul ___ Discussion mailing
Fwd: [FSFE PR][EN] Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute
Hello, in our last press release on the EU Copyright Directive, Alexander Sander says: "The exclusion of Free Software code hosting and sharing providers from this directive is crucial to keep Free Software development in Europe healthy, solid and alive" How do we come to this conclusion? We can probably give thanks to Microsoft for their good lobby work, that they could get an exception for GitHub (maybe the purchase of GitHub had finally probably something good): "Open source software developing and sharing platforms like GitHub should remain out of scope." [1] Finally, I don't think this will help us. Other open source platforms, such as Mastodon instances, have to install upload filters if they don't want to end up in court. I am not a lawyer and I can't find a section in the directive that contains the opposite or can dispel my concerns about this. Can our legal team tell us what does "Providers of services such as open source software development and sharing platforms,[...] are also excluded from this definition" [2] in the "EU Copyright Directive" exactly mean for free and open source software projects that are not "software development and sharing platforms"? Next, Alexander says in our names: "We call on the European Commission to promote the dissemination of Free Software filter technologies, including financial support, for instance" No, I won't do that and I completely disagree! I urge the FSFE to argue *against* uploadfilters and censorship. Because it doesn't matter if the censorship machine has an open or a closed license, At the end of the day uploadfilters serve censorship and censorship has to be abolished. There's already enough free software being abused for purposes of oppression and to spy on privacy in the surveillance capitalism, we don't need another one. I hope that we will reconsider our goals we shared in this press release. Christian Imhorst [1] https://github.blog/2019-02-13-the-eu-copyright-directive-what-happens-from-here/ [2] https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Copyright_Final_compromise.pdf Originalnachricht Betreff: [FSFE PR][EN] Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute Datum: 26.03.2019 12:59 Von: pr...@fsfe.org An: press-rele...@lists.fsfe.org = Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute = [ Read online: https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190326-01.en.html ] The European Parliament adopted the controversial Copyright Directive by 348 votes in favour, 274 votes against and 36 abstentions. Today's vote marks the end of years of debate in the European Union. Heated discussions about the introduction of upload filters ended up in protests of tens of thousands people in the streets all across Europe. In a last minute action back in September 2018, the European Parliament adopted an amendment and pushed it through the trilogue to at least protect Free and Open Source Software. “We are glad we were able to raise awareness and understanding of what drives software development in Europe nowadays among many policy makers. The exclusion of Free Software code hosting and sharing providers from this directive is crucial to keep Free Software development in Europe healthy, solid and alive. we are dismayed that the EU missed the opportunity to renew copyright to a reasonable extent. As upload filters are now introduced, we urge the European Commission to avoid filtering monopolies by companies this directive actually intended to regulate. We call on the European Commission to promote the dissemination of Free Software filter technologies, including financial support, for instance within the framework of research programmes Horizon2020 and Horizon Europe.” says Alexander Sander, Policy Manager of the Free Software Foundation Europe. The Free Software Foundation Europe and Open Forum Europe started a campaign to “ Save Code Share [1] ” in 2017. More than 14.000 people supported our call with an open letter which requests EU legislators to preserve the ability to collaboratively build software online in current EU Copyright Directive proposal. 1: https://savecodeshare.eu/ == About the Free Software Foundation Europe == Free Software Foundation Europe is a charity that empowers users to control technology. Software is deeply involved in all aspects of our lives; and it is important that this technology empowers rather than restricts us. Free Software gives everybody the rights to use, understand, adapt and share software. These rights help support other fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech, press and privacy. The FSFE helps individuals and organisations to understand how Free Software contributes to freedom, transparency, and self-determination. It enhances users' rights by abolishing barriers to Free Software adoption, encourage people to use and develop F
