This document analyzes Article 13(1) of the EU Copyright Directive, which requires online platforms to implement content recognition technologies to detect copyrighted content. The article argues that content recognition technologies are technically flawed, impose high costs, and do not properly balance copyrights with other rights like privacy and freedom of expression. Additionally, the article notes that the EU Court of Justice has previously found member states must balance copyright with other fundamental rights when implementing EU directives. The article concludes that Article 13(1) risks upsetting this balance and treating online platforms as private copyright enforcers.
The European Commission issued two new communications related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs). The first communication focused on IPR protection between the EU and non-EU countries while the other aimed at building a “[…] renewed consensus on the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights” through a 10 point action plan which lists actions to be developed in the next future.
ALLVOICES: Music Industry and Piracy Law – Black Hawk Mineslancethinly
The music industry has given a judicious endorsement to European Union moves intended at limiting Internet piracy.
The copyright directive was "a workable proposal", said the industry's umbrella group, the International Federation of Phonographic Industries.
IFPI, representing around 1400 major and independent record companies worldwide, said the newly-adopted UK legislation, requiring measures from ISPs to curb piracy on their networks, sets a powerful example to other countries.
IFPI chairman John Kennedy said: "The passing of the Digital Economy Act in the UK recognizes that if a country is to have world-class creative industries, then it also needs laws that will effectively protect their rights from the crippling problem of digital piracy.
"The new UK legislation is a decisive step towards dealing with P2P and other forms of illegal distribution in a way that can substantially reduce the problem. Most importantly, it recognizes that effectively addressing piracy needs active cooperation from internet service providers, in helping curb infringements on their networks.
E Law Developments: Copyright Law
Southern Law Association event, Cork, September 2019
Darius Whelan, School of Law, UCC
IT Law Clinic
https://www.ucc.ie/en/law/courses/
The European Commission issued two new communications related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs). The first communication focused on IPR protection between the EU and non-EU countries while the other aimed at building a “[…] renewed consensus on the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights” through a 10 point action plan which lists actions to be developed in the next future.
ALLVOICES: Music Industry and Piracy Law – Black Hawk Mineslancethinly
The music industry has given a judicious endorsement to European Union moves intended at limiting Internet piracy.
The copyright directive was "a workable proposal", said the industry's umbrella group, the International Federation of Phonographic Industries.
IFPI, representing around 1400 major and independent record companies worldwide, said the newly-adopted UK legislation, requiring measures from ISPs to curb piracy on their networks, sets a powerful example to other countries.
IFPI chairman John Kennedy said: "The passing of the Digital Economy Act in the UK recognizes that if a country is to have world-class creative industries, then it also needs laws that will effectively protect their rights from the crippling problem of digital piracy.
"The new UK legislation is a decisive step towards dealing with P2P and other forms of illegal distribution in a way that can substantially reduce the problem. Most importantly, it recognizes that effectively addressing piracy needs active cooperation from internet service providers, in helping curb infringements on their networks.
E Law Developments: Copyright Law
Southern Law Association event, Cork, September 2019
Darius Whelan, School of Law, UCC
IT Law Clinic
https://www.ucc.ie/en/law/courses/
lecture on the politics of net neutrality, to be delivered in Noriko Hara's graduate seminar at Indiana University, School of Library and Information Science, on November 12, 2013
Rage against the Censorship Machine (aka copyright directive)Kirsten Fiedler
tl;dr: It's high time to get active and rage against the censorship machine!
Short presentation on the EU copyright directive and its potential implications for human rights - and the internet as we know it.
October 27, 2008 - BurrellesLuce Executive Vice President, Steve Shannon presented on "Copyright Compliance: What Every PR Professional Needs to Know," at the 2008 PRSA International Conference.
Talk at 31st Chaos Communication Congress at Hamburg 2014.
see: https://events.ccc.de/congress/2014/Fahrplan/events/6170.html
Our talk will highlight the current debates surrounding net neutrality in Europe, the United States and other parts of the world. We will look at the results of the SaveTheInternet.eu campaign which was lunched a year ago on 30c3. We will discuss various legal protections for net neutrality, look closer at the experience of the Netherlands and we will give an overview of all important open ends of the debate.
Since two years net neutrality is on the agenda of politicians world wide. These are important debates, as net neutrality became one of the central questions about our freedom on the internet. With different faces around the globe we see a trend towards more violations of the neutrality principle which the internet was founded upon. The efforts of telecommunication companies to find new ways to monetize their networks and us users within them are countered in some countries with legislation preventing this new business models.
In 2010, after two years of preparation and a fierce battle, the Dutch
parliament accepted a change to the Telecommunications Act which made net neutrality a principle that was protected by law. In this talk we will take stock after two years of legal protection of net neutrality in The Netherlands. Did it work and do the Dutch now have undiscriminated access to all services on the internet? Has the doomsday scenario of the providers, that subscriptions would become outrageously expensive, become reality? In which cases was the Dutch law enforced?
Are there any loopholes in the Dutch implementation? If others are to
fight for net neutrality, what are the pitfalls to avoid? And, on a more
meta-level, is it enough? Will net neutrality protect your freedom to
access websites and services, or do we need a broader type neutrality?
Now its our turn to implement Net Neutrality In India ... Join the fight for Net Neutrality
Hope You Like It .... So Please subscribe and like the Power Point Presentation ...
Also Visit My Youtube Channel For Some Exiting Videos :-
https://www.youtube.com/c/divyanshutyagi8
Regulating Data: The Implications of Informatics on International LawJon Garon
Description: Because of the increasing ease of digitization, all information has the potential to be digitized and as such, all information is becoming part of a single, incomprehensibly large, multinational, multicultural data system. The resulting data ecosystem is subject to local regulation by state and national laws which have often been drafted to address a conflicting set of jurisdictional rules and normative expectations regarding the creation, ownership, collection, storage and dissemination of information. The laws vary from country to country, resisting efforts at bringing international harmony because of deeply rooted historical differences. The presentation is an overview of the steps necessary for developing a comprehensive informatics regulatory system that protects privacy, telecom policy and copyright.
lecture on the politics of net neutrality, to be delivered in Noriko Hara's graduate seminar at Indiana University, School of Library and Information Science, on November 12, 2013
Rage against the Censorship Machine (aka copyright directive)Kirsten Fiedler
tl;dr: It's high time to get active and rage against the censorship machine!
Short presentation on the EU copyright directive and its potential implications for human rights - and the internet as we know it.
October 27, 2008 - BurrellesLuce Executive Vice President, Steve Shannon presented on "Copyright Compliance: What Every PR Professional Needs to Know," at the 2008 PRSA International Conference.
Talk at 31st Chaos Communication Congress at Hamburg 2014.
see: https://events.ccc.de/congress/2014/Fahrplan/events/6170.html
Our talk will highlight the current debates surrounding net neutrality in Europe, the United States and other parts of the world. We will look at the results of the SaveTheInternet.eu campaign which was lunched a year ago on 30c3. We will discuss various legal protections for net neutrality, look closer at the experience of the Netherlands and we will give an overview of all important open ends of the debate.
Since two years net neutrality is on the agenda of politicians world wide. These are important debates, as net neutrality became one of the central questions about our freedom on the internet. With different faces around the globe we see a trend towards more violations of the neutrality principle which the internet was founded upon. The efforts of telecommunication companies to find new ways to monetize their networks and us users within them are countered in some countries with legislation preventing this new business models.
In 2010, after two years of preparation and a fierce battle, the Dutch
parliament accepted a change to the Telecommunications Act which made net neutrality a principle that was protected by law. In this talk we will take stock after two years of legal protection of net neutrality in The Netherlands. Did it work and do the Dutch now have undiscriminated access to all services on the internet? Has the doomsday scenario of the providers, that subscriptions would become outrageously expensive, become reality? In which cases was the Dutch law enforced?
Are there any loopholes in the Dutch implementation? If others are to
fight for net neutrality, what are the pitfalls to avoid? And, on a more
meta-level, is it enough? Will net neutrality protect your freedom to
access websites and services, or do we need a broader type neutrality?
Now its our turn to implement Net Neutrality In India ... Join the fight for Net Neutrality
Hope You Like It .... So Please subscribe and like the Power Point Presentation ...
Also Visit My Youtube Channel For Some Exiting Videos :-
https://www.youtube.com/c/divyanshutyagi8
Regulating Data: The Implications of Informatics on International LawJon Garon
Description: Because of the increasing ease of digitization, all information has the potential to be digitized and as such, all information is becoming part of a single, incomprehensibly large, multinational, multicultural data system. The resulting data ecosystem is subject to local regulation by state and national laws which have often been drafted to address a conflicting set of jurisdictional rules and normative expectations regarding the creation, ownership, collection, storage and dissemination of information. The laws vary from country to country, resisting efforts at bringing international harmony because of deeply rooted historical differences. The presentation is an overview of the steps necessary for developing a comprehensive informatics regulatory system that protects privacy, telecom policy and copyright.
SOPA, OPEN, ACTA and parallel copyright reforms in Europe, The right way to t...beamatinet
Conference Jan. 23 2012, Stanford Law School on SOPA, OPEN, ACTA and parallel copyright reforms in Europe, The right way to tackle online infringement?
(by @beamartinet)
El Acta de derechos de autor digitales del milenio (en inglés Digital Millennium Copyright Act o DMCA) es una ley de copyright (derechos de reproducción) de Estados Unidos que implementa dos tratados del año 1996 de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI). Esta ley sanciona, no sólo la infracción de los derechos de reproducción en sí, sino también la producción y distribución de tecnología que permita sortear las medidas de protección del copyright (comúnmente conocidas como DRM); además incrementa las penas para las infracciones al derecho de autor en Internet.
Por su parte, la Directiva 2001/29/CE del Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo del 22 de mayo de 2001 sobre la armonización de ciertos aspectos del derecho de autor y derechos relacionados en la sociedad de la información de la Unión Europea, conocida comúnmente como Directiva de la Unión Europea sobre derecho de autor (o EUCD, del inglés European Union Copyright Directive) es una directiva europea que se transpone en el Tratado de la OMPI sobre Derecho de Autor de 1996.
Copyright on academic and scientific publications (papers, articles, essays, books etc.) is the
result of the interaction between formal rules (copyright law), social norms (norms of
science) and technology (printing press, digital technologies).
Prior to the digital age, academic copyright has had two main functions.
a) Priority. The acknowledgment of a paternity (or attribution) right on the scientific
publication has facilitated the certification of priority of the scientific discovery described in
the text.
b) Dissemination. The protection of economic rights (reproduction, distribution etc.) has
enabled the alliance between scientific authors and publishers finalized to distribute scientific
publications to the public. Usually, scientific authors transfer their economic rights to the
publisher because the latter has the economic and technological power to disseminate
scientific publications. Nevertheless, scientific authors are mostly interested in reputation and
not in the economic return derived from the commercialization of copyright.
According to Robert Merton's theory, the norms of science are Communism, Universalism,
Disinterestedness, and Organized Skepticism (CUDOS).
Scientists compete for priority but they put their ideas and information in the public domain.
The ultimate scope is to share ideas and information because the progress of science depends
on "communism" and "organized skepticism". In other terms, scientific publications are part
of the public and critical dialogue. In this perspective, formal law and social norms, normally
stating that the original ownership of copyright belongs to the authors and not to their
academic or scientific institutions, mirror freedom of speech and academic liberty.
The current scenario however seems completely different. In theory, Internet represents an
extraordinary opportunity to strengthen the scientific debate. But reality tells a very different
story. In the digital age, scientific publications are only "products". The changing nature of
scientific publications is the effect of the commodification of academic research. While the
interaction between commodification of academic research and university patents has been
deeply investigated and discussed, scholars have paid relatively little attention to the
commodification of academic copyright.
In the market of scientific publications, bibliometrics and digitization distort the two
functions (priority and dissemination) of academic copyright.
Copyright on academic and scientific publications (papers, articles, essays, books etc.) is the
result of the interaction between formal rules (copyright law), social norms (norms of
science) and technology (printing press, digital technologies).
Prior to the digital age, academic copyright has had two main functions.
a) Priority. The acknowledgment of a paternity (or attribution) right on the scientific
publication has facilitated the certification of priority of the scientific discovery described in
the text.
b) Dissemination. The protection of economic rights (reproduction, distribution etc.) has
enabled the alliance between scientific authors and publishers finalized to distribute scientific
publications to the public. Usually, scientific authors transfer their economic rights to the
publisher because the latter has the economic and technological power to disseminate
scientific publications. Nevertheless, scientific authors are mostly interested in reputation and
not in the economic return derived from the commercialization of copyright.
According to Robert Merton's theory, the norms of science are Communism, Universalism,
Disinterestedness, and Organized Skepticism (CUDOS).
Scientists compete for priority but they put their ideas and information in the public domain.
The ultimate scope is to share ideas and information because the progress of science depends
on "communism" and "organized skepticism". In other terms, scientific publications are part
of the public and critical dialogue. In this perspective, formal law and social norms, normally
stating that the original ownership of copyright belongs to the authors and not to their
academic or scientific institutions, mirror freedom of speech and academic liberty.
The current scenario however seems completely different. In theory, Internet represents an
extraordinary opportunity to strengthen the scientific debate. But reality tells a very different
story. In the digital age, scientific publications are only "products". The changing nature of
scientific publications is the effect of the commodification of academic research. While the
interaction between commodification of academic research and university patents has been
deeply investigated and discussed, scholars have paid relatively little attention to the
commodification of academic copyright.
In the market of scientific publications, bibliometrics and digitization distort the two
functions (priority and dissemination) of academic copyright.
Strong Copyright vs Open Source, Open Access, Open Data: the role of Free Tra...Roberto Caso
Strong Copyright vs Open Source, Open Access, Open Data: the role of Free Trade Agreements
Roberto Caso and Paolo Guarda
University of Trento – Faculty of Law – LawTech Group - Italy
This presentation aims to map the impact of copyrigt law on the circulation of information and technological development within some selected examples of free trade agreements in force or under negotiation.
Excessively restrictive rules – the Western “high livel of protection” approach”- in this context may threaten policies to foster innovation and technological development.
Open models (as Open Source software, Open Access to scientific publications, Open Research Data etc.), indeed, foster trade in high tech products and services, by stimualting free flow of ideas and knowledge across borders, progress of knowledge, innovation and business development around the several countries involved. The open logic promote virtuous circles of production of new knowledge and business models more profiled on new technological scenarios.
Assuming that intellectual property policy should play a pivotal role in trade agreements, then the open logic rules should be a natural fit for inclusion amongst this kind of international regulation.
So we argue in favour of a more balanced approach to copyright law in FTAs context.
Veleno nella scienza: il lato oscuro del diritto d’autore accademicoRoberto Caso
Il diritto d’autore sulle pubblicazioni scientifiche è parte integrante, in questo momento storico, di un profondo mutamento della natura dell’università che è stato etichettato con varie espressioni: commercializzazione o mercificazione della ricerca, capitalismo accademico, aziendalizzazione o imprenditorializzazione. La gestione del diritto d’autore sulle pubblicazioni è un aspetto della mercificazione della ricerca accademica poco studiato. La maggior parte dell’attenzione degli studiosi si è concentrata negli ultimi decenni su altri aspetti della proprietà intellettuale in ambito accademico: in particolare, sui brevetti per invenzione. Eppure il diritto d’autore sulle pubblicazioni riguarda, a differenza dei brevetti universitari, tutte le aree scientifiche.
Roberto Caso, Una valutazione (della ricerca) dal volto umano: la missione impossibile di Andrea Bonaccorsi
In un libro recente – La valutazione possibile – Teoria e pratica nel mondo della ricerca, Il Mulino, 2015 – Andrea Bonaccorsi sostiene, con toni riflessivi e pacati, una tesi che si può condensare nella seguente proposizione: la valutazione è espressione delle norme mertoniane. “Per quanto mi riguarda – scrive Bonaccorsi (p.19) -, non ho difficoltà a partire dal principale modello normativo della scienza moderna dovuto a Robert K. Merton. Nella formulazione più nota, gli scienziati sono universalisti, comunitari, disinteressati e scettici”. Tuttavia, sebbene Bonaccorsi si impegni in una faticosa (e pur interessante) analisi interdisciplinare nel tentativo di elaborare originali argomenti a favore della propria tesi, offre una lettura distorta e parziale dell’opera mertoniana, tradendone clamorosamente il significato più profondo. L’opera, inoltre, trascura la dimensione giuridica del rapporto tra norme formali poste dallo stato nel processo valutativo e le norme informali della scienza. L’elaborazione di Bonaccorsi è certamente uno dei pochi tentativi della letteratura italiana di porre un articolato fondamento teorico alla valutazione, come ricorda lo stesso autore senza però interrogarsi a fondo sulla ragione di questa mancanza: essa, però, lascia occultati i reali problemi con i quali si confronta drammaticamente la ricerca italiana: il progressivo disinvestimento statale nella scienza, la produzione di un quadro normativo ipertrofico, contraddittorio e mutevole, la compressione dell’autonomia scientifico-accademica, la burocratizzazione della professione del docente e dello scienziato, e in definitiva l’annientamento dell’etica e delle norme mertoniane della scienza.
Community Networks: le regole della libertàRoberto Caso
Se si vuole incentivare lo sviluppo delle reti comunitarie occorre garantire un quadro normativo certo, stabile e rispettoso delle libertà dei cittadini
Le regole della responsabilità civile e del diritto d’autore hanno un peso fondamentale nello sviluppo delle reti comunitarie
L’enforcement a tutti i costi del diritto d’autore ha un impatto devastante sullo sviluppo della Rete e delle reti alternative (piuttosto andrebbe ripensato profondamente il diritto d’autore)
I risultati della ricerca scientifica tra divulgazione e diritti privativa: l...Roberto Caso
La relazione intende illustrare come alcune recenti politiche volte a favorire l’accesso aperto (Open Access) alla letteratura scientifica incrocino la normativa del diritto d’autore.
Dall’università-azienda all’università aperta: missione impossibile?Roberto Caso
Negli Stati Uniti dove è nata ed è stata messa in pratica l’idea di trasformare le università in aziende si è anche per tempo sviluppata un’ampia letteratura che denuncia i mali ingenerati dall’imprenditorializzazione dell’accademia e della ricerca scientifica. In Italia solo di recente sta emergendo una coscienza critica verso la “commodification” dell’università e della scienza.
La tendenza a concepire il sapere come merce da chiudere nelle maglie della proprietà intellettuale, lo svilimento della didattica, l’ansia della valutazione, l’ipertrofica burocratizzazione, la tensione competitiva per raggiungere la chimera dell’eccellenza hanno instillato goccia a goccia un veleno che corrompe diffusamente e profondamente lo spirito nobile dell’università da identificarsi nell’insegnamento dello spirito critico, nel progresso della conoscenza e nello sviluppo della società tutta. I sintomi dell’avvelenamento sono evidenti: il sistema delle pubblicazioni consegnato a un oligopolio di imprese che hanno come unica stella polare il profitto, la moltiplicazione delle frodi scientifiche (dalla falsificazione dei dati al plagio), lo sfruttamento dei precari della ricerca, l’indebolimento della ricerca fondamentale a favore della ricerca applicata. Può l’apertura dei risultati della ricerca scientifica e della didattica restituire all’università il suo spirito nobile? La risposta può essere positiva solo se il termine “apertura” viene concepito in senso ampio cioè non limitato al suo nucleo primigenio: la messa a disposizione gratuita e con diritti di riuso su Internet dei risultati della ricerca e dei materiali didattici. Apertura in senso ampio significa non solo condivisione e trasparenza, ma un radicale cambio di mentalità dei protagonisti del mondo universitario e una nuova strategia degli enti che finanziano e governano l’università. Il senso etico dell’apertura sta nella vocazione alla cooperazione, nella prevalenza dell’intelligenza collettiva su quella individuale, nel contrasto agli oligopoli del sapere, nel saper cogliere e sviluppare le potenzialità di una nuova forma di dialogo basata sulla Rete. Senza una visione ampia e coraggiosa anche l’apertura è destinata – come dimostrano inequivoci segnali - ad essere risucchiata dai potenti (e inesorabili) ingranaggi del mercato e degli oligopoli del sapere.
Per approfondimenti si rinvia a R. Caso, La scienza aperta contro la mercificazione della ricerca accademica?, The Trento Law and Technology Research Group. Research Papers Series; nr. 28. Trento: Università degli Studi di Trento. 2016:
https://iris.unitn.it/retrieve/handle/11572/142760/76403/Caso__LTRP_28_def.pdf
Roberto Caso oa_rivoluzione_incompiuta_novembre_2014Roberto Caso
L’Open Access rappresenta una rivoluzione incompiuta. Sebbene cresca il ricorso alla pubblicazione (c.d. gold road) e ripubblicazione (c.d. green road) in accesso aperto della letteratura scientifica, il sistema dell’OA rimane solo un complemento dell’editoria tradizionale. La pratica della condivisione dei dati della ricerca è ancora a uno stadio iniziale. Si rafforzano gli oligopoli commerciali della comunicazione scientifica. Senza interventi organici sulla normativa internazionale e nazionale del copyright, senza una reale innovazione sul piano delle prassi di valutazione della scienza, senza investimenti infrastrutturali, organizzativi e formativi, senza una visione d’insieme della scienza aperta, l’OA è destinato, nella migliore delle ipotesi, al ruolo di comprimario sulla scena della comunicazione scientifica. In Italia occorre dare nuovo vigore alla promozione dell’Open Access, in particolare occorre riportare al centro della missione universitaria l’apertura della scienza
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Precedent, or stare decisis, is a cornerstone of common law systems where past judicial decisions guide future cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the legal system. Binding precedents from higher courts must be followed by lower courts, while persuasive precedents may influence but are not obligatory. This principle promotes fairness and efficiency, allowing for the evolution of the law as higher courts can overrule outdated decisions. Despite criticisms of rigidity and complexity, precedent ensures similar cases are treated alike, balancing stability with flexibility in judicial decision-making.
RIGHTS OF VICTIM EDITED PRESENTATION(SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Victims of crime have a range of rights designed to ensure their protection, support, and participation in the justice system. These rights include the right to be treated with dignity and respect, the right to be informed about the progress of their case, and the right to be heard during legal proceedings. Victims are entitled to protection from intimidation and harm, access to support services such as counseling and medical care, and the right to restitution from the offender. Additionally, many jurisdictions provide victims with the right to participate in parole hearings and the right to privacy to protect their personal information from public disclosure. These rights aim to acknowledge the impact of crime on victims and to provide them with the necessary resources and involvement in the judicial process.
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdfAHRP Law Firm
For nearly two decades, Government Regulation Number 15 of 2005 on Toll Roads ("GR No. 15/2005") has served as the cornerstone of toll road legislation. However, with the emergence of various new developments and legal requirements, the Government has enacted Government Regulation Number 23 of 2024 on Toll Roads to replace GR No. 15/2005. This new regulation introduces several provisions impacting toll business entities and toll road users. Find out more out insights about this topic in our Legal Brief publication.
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v/s Union of India.pptxshweeta209
transfer of the P.I.L filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in Delhi High Court to Supreme Court.
on the issue of UNIFORM MARRIAGE AGE of men and women.
4. Art. 13(1): an enigmatic norm
Caso - Giovanella - EUI - 2017 4
5. Tons of criticisms
E.g.
•Christina Angelopoulos report
•Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon et al.
•MPI position statement
•Communia position statement
Caso - Giovanella - EUI - 2017 5
6. One of the worst pieces of EU
copyright legislation
• Technically confused and vague
• Against the acquis communautaire
• Wrong in terms of policy
Caso - Giovanella - EUI - 2017 6
7. A policy perspective
• From ex post enforcement to ex ante
enforcement
•Shaping technologies according to
rightholders’ interests
Caso - Giovanella - EUI - 2017 7
9. Back to the future?
DMCA in the making
“It would be impossible for any carrier to review all
of the material; and we cannot create a legal
obligation that is technologically impossible to
satisfy. Clearly, the potential for copyright
infringement is real—as real as the impossibility of
requiring a service provider to monitor every
communication, including e-mail, homepages, and
chat rooms [for infringing activity]”
144 Cong. Rec. S8729 (daily ed. Sept. 3, 1997) (statement of Sen. Ashcroft)
10. “We must begin a process internationally that is
structured to balance the rights of copyright
owners with the needs and technological
limitations of those who enable the distribution of
the electronic information, and with the rights and
needs of individual end users”.
“[O]ne of the many important values held in this
country is the freedom of expression. The United
States must continue to be a leader in the
preservation of freedom of expression around the
world”
144 Cong. Rec. S8729 (daily ed. Sept. 3, 1997) (statement of Sen. Ashcroft)
Back to the future?
DMCA in the making
11. “We must begin a process internationally that is
structured to balance the rights of copyright
owners with the needs and technological
limitations of those who enable the distribution of
the electronic information, and with the rights and
needs of individual end users”.
“[O]ne of the many important values held in this
country is the freedom of expression. The United
States must continue to be a leader in the
preservation of freedom of expression around the
world”
144 Cong. Rec. S8729 (daily ed. Sept. 3, 1997) (statement of Sen. Ashcroft)
Back to the future?
DMCA in the making
Right to
intellectual
property
Right to
intellectual
property
Freedom to
conduct a
business
Freedom to
conduct a
business
Freedom of
expression
Freedom of
expression
12. DMCA §512
No legal obligations on intermediaries to implement content
recognition technologies.
However, §512(i) requires that each intermediary “accommodates
and does not interfere with standard technical measures [that]
have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright
owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-
industry standards process [that] do not impose substantial costs
on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or
networks”.
512(m) Protection of Privacy.-Nothing in this section shall be
construed to condition the applicability [of OCILLA safe harbors] on-
(1) a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking
facts indicating infringing activity, except to the extent consistent
with a standard technical measure complying with the provisions of
subsection.
13. UGC Services Principles
No «broad consensus of copyright owners and
service providers» has been reached however
UGC Services Principles were adopted:
“3. UGC Services should use effective content
identification technology […] with the goal of
eliminating from their services all infringing
user-uploaded audio and video content for
which Copyright Owners have provided
Reference Material” fingerprinting
14. New law (art. 13(1)), old problems
Content recognition technologies
-have false positives
-imposes high costs on intermediaries
-require traffic filtering
-all the same do not protect IP properly
15. Content recognition technologies
-have false positives
-impose high costs on intermediaries
-require traffic filtering
-all the same do not protect IP properly
Art. 11 CharterArt. 11 Charter
Art. 16 Charter
Art. 16 Charter
Art. 8 CharterArt. 8 Charter
Art. 17(2) CharterArt. 17(2) Charter
New law (art. 13(1)), old problems
16. Weird enough…
Art. 13(1) requires the measures to be adopted
to be «appropriate and proportionate»
This recalls the idea of rights balancing
How can technology encoding a rule
allow rights balancing
Caso - Giovanella - EUI - 2017 16
18. Would everything be lost?
“Community law requires that, when transposing those
directives, the Member States take care to rely on an
interpretation of them which allows a fair balance to be
struck between the various fundamental rights protected by
the Community legal order. Further, when implementing the
measures transposing those directives, the authorities and
courts of the Member States must not only interpret their
national law in a manner consistent with those directives
but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation
of them which would be in conflict with those fundamental
rights or with the other general principles of Community
law, such as the principle of proportionality”
Case C-275/06 Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v
Telefónica de España SAU, judgment of 29 January 2008
20. The evolution of balancing of rights
From Promusicae to Mc Fadden: i.e. from
generic to (too) specific
-Providers are increasingly treated as private
enforcers (of private rights)
-Decisions are more detailed and leave little
leeway to national judges
-Copyright becomes the driver of Internet law
Caso - Giovanella - EUI - 2017 20
22. References
C. Angelopoulos (2017).
On Online Platforms and the Commission's New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the D
Communia (2017).
Position paper: Use of Protected Content by Information Society Service Providers
E. Engstrom, N. Feamster (2017)
The Limits of Filtering: A Look at the Fucntionality & Shortcomings of Content Detection Tools
MPI (2017).
Position Statement on the Proposed Modernisation of European Copyright Rules
F. Giovanella (forthcoming), Copyright and Information Privacy: Conflicting rights in
balance (Edward Elgar)
IViR (2016) Study of fundamental rights limitations for online enforcement through self-
regulation
S. Stalla-Bourdillon, E. Rosati, K. Turk, C. Angelopoulos, A. Kuczerawy, M. Peguera, M.
Husovec (2016). A Brief Exegesis of the Proposed Copyright Directive
L. G. Gallo (2011). The (Im)possibility of “Standard Technical Measures” for UGC
Websites, 34(2) Columbia J. of Law & the Arts
Caso - Giovanella - EUI - 2017 22
25. Copyright
Copyright by Roberto Caso and Federica Giovanella
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License
Caso - Giovanella - EUI - 2017 25
Editor's Notes
The same issues we are facing today with the DSM proposal were faced by the DMCA drafters back i 1997. They were upset that creating an obligation to review all the material would have not been possible (technology was perhaps not so advanced)
They were also concerned to find a correct balancing among different rights: namely copyright owners rights; the needs of the intermediaries and last but not least also freedom of expression, which is – as you know – one the most important values for USA society/legal system.
So they avoided introducing a legal obligation on intermediaries, however they introduced §512(i) that requires
+ it introduces a specific provision with regard to privacy. Providers are not obliged to monitor or actively seek for infringing content, EXCEPT to the extent consistent wjuth the standard technical measures complying with DMCA
A real broad consensus has never been reached but some big RH together with UGC services have agreed upon some UGC services principles that require providers to implement effective content identification technology to eliminate ALL infringing user-uploaded video and audio contents.
Basically – the way the principles are written – refers to fingerprinting
UGC have lead platfrom to introduce content recognition technologies- youtube has its own one, altough it was not part of this agreement.
It is however demosntrated that they have a number of false positives, as they cannot understand if there is a parody, a fair use and so on. They impose high costs on intemediaries, and therefore impair the creation of new platforms or the development of small existing ones, and it therefore threatens pluralism. They require traffic filtering and so they are also dangerous in terms of personal data protection
UGC have lead platfrom to introduce content recognition technologies- youtube has its own one, altough it was not part of this agreement.
It is however demosntrated that they have a number of false positives, as they cannot understand if there is a parody, a fair use and so on. They impose high costs on intemediaries, and therefore impair the creation of new platforms or the development of small existing ones, and it therefore threatens pluralism. They require traffic filtering and so they are also dangerous in terms of personal data protection
In case of enactment of the current text, such measures could violate some of the most important fundamental rights online, there would be the need to strike a fair balance as Promusicae and other more recent cases require.
So should we trust the CJEU? It might our last chance, our superhero. In the worst case scenario we could still rely on the CJEU that might declare a specific measure as not balanced or a specific interpretation of the Directive as not adequate.
So perhaps we could trust the CJEU