Talk:European Commission copyright consultation

C4C coordination

I found [1]. Is someone of the EU lobby group in contact with them? Maybe we could/should focus on the areas not covered by them already, or those on which we have a direct experiences as Wikimedia (think of all the copyright nightmares and deletion discussions Commons users deal with daily, just to mention one measurable thing). --Nemo 14:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of these organisations are based in Brussels or come often here for events, so I meet them quite regularly and we update each other on what we're doing and are always looking out for possiblities to help each other and coordinate our efforts. Oftentimes this happens in a very inter-personal, informal way, though. One situation where we officially cooperate with EDRi, for instance, is the EU IPR Infringements Observatory. We're asking them for reports on the contribution of PD and Open Licensing to the European economy. News about this should come out within a month. --Dimi z (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm on their mailing list and talk with them from time to time. Haven't had much time to do anything concrete, but I think they'd be a decent way to help get out our message about some of the Wikimedian concerns we have (most of which aren't really specific to us - we just have the best stories to tell about them, which should make us a valuable lobbying partner). —LVilla (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how EU/EC values "+1 votes", but it may also be nice/useful for Wikimedia organisations to submit dummy replies to the consultations which just state "we agree with everything Wikimedia X and COMMUNIA/whatever said" (or to the specific points if they don't agree to/care about all of them)? It should be easy to get several chapters to do this, it will take only half a hour for each (considering the time for entering some data in the transparency register). The one-line "vote" can be in their language and it's better that just duplicating a common English text or not answering at all, I suppose. --Nemo 08:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but I think Dimi z was already talking to the various chapters about that. Maybe that was something different, though? (As you can see from the comments I am posting now, I'm suggesting that we use a mix of material from our own comments, C4C, and the EU Free Knowledge Group - not really +1, but obviously we're all on the same page, more or less.) —LVilla (WMF) (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I am basically asking all the chapters/thorgs on this list to submit either own or dummy responses. I believe this is a good idea. I have talked to some Commission people and warned them about it (I have explained it is a social experiment and even they got excited about it :D). You never know how they will react in their report, though. Sometimes they get annoyed at "dummy" responses, sometimes they just make a pie chart and say "so-and-so-many-percent-said-yes". In the latter case our impact grows considerably. --Dimi z (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In the team list, so far only WMSE popped up with a registration number, so I don't understand who else is actually going to submit a reply. Anyway, in the WMIT draft linked below we've so far avoided copy and paste, going for votes + "supports" of specific answers we like + in answer 80 a list of friend organisations we know well and of which we support everything, including all the chapters in the team list even though the may actually reply or not. :) If you reply you already have one official ally! --Nemo 11:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on mailing lists

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/70049

Formatting of final response

FYI: Someone asked about formatting of the final response; in re-reading the proposal, I'm reminded that for formatting, they just want us to dump our answers directly back into the original document, so there is no opportunity for making it fancy/formal. Shame we can't make our work stand out, but less work to do, I suppose. —LVilla (WMF) (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Goals and next steps

I spent today reading responses to the first 31 questions, including:

• the comments here on meta;
• the C4C proposed answers Nemo noted above; and
• the proposed Wikimedian responses, also in that tool.

All the comments I've seen so far essentially agree, with only some small variations. Since we don't have any serious splits of opinion, I think the idea of a combined answer, that is represented as the opinion of the Foundation, makes sense. It isn't clear to me to what extent we should also represent this as the opinion of Wikimedians more broadly - opinions welcome on that.

With that goal in mind, I've drafted proposed answers to each question, which incorporate comments from (among others) Seb35, Deryck C., Sapfan, NaBUru38, Aktron, and Kaldari. I'll start uploading those shortly for discussion/commentary. —LVilla (WMF) (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd think you can just replace the text of the comments (not of the votes) when the topic is dealt with: the rest stays in history and in this way we can have a nice document for the future. --Nemo 08:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought leaving the comments in would be useful context for readers. But I don't feel strongly, so if you want to, please go ahead and remove them. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful if all comments could be left, at least for the moment, as they may be useful for others (such as me) who are working on responses at the moment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a luck that the deadline was extended because this month I have way more time. WMIT is drafting its response at wmit:Consultazione europea sul diritto d'autore. We're reviewing/supporting answers from Meta comments and friend organisations' responses and adding our own experiences we can directly represent as association. We're also soliciting comments and contributions from Italian chapter members, editors and friends: for some it's easier to contribute in Italian, I hope to get some more participation that way. --Nemo 11:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedian Denmark

In Wikimedia Denmark we have considered a response for the European Commission copyright consultation. Our current draft is available here:

https://dk.wikimedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B8ring/Review_of_the_EU_copyright_rules

Any comments are appreciated. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently published responses

From [2]:

$ unzip -l registered_en.zip | grep -i Wikimedia
   329030  2014-03-18 13:24 registered/others/wikimedia-deutschland_en.pdf
   819682  2014-03-21 11:04 registered/service-providers/wikimedia-italia_en.pdf
   347635  2014-03-25 11:32   registered/users/wikimedia-foundation_en.pdf
$ unzip -l users_en.zip | grep -i Wikimedia
   320541  2014-03-19 10:07   users/wikimedia_sverige_en.pdf 
$ unzip -l other-stakeholders_en.zip | grep -i wikimedia
    63481  2014-01-27 13:46   authors/wikimedia-?sterreich_en.odt
    72336  2014-03-25 12:23   others/wikimedia-denmark_en.pdf

Rather funny the directories (WMF a user and WMIT a service provider!), but 6 only? :( Maybe some chapters checked the anonymity box by mistake, or something. WMSE should probably write the commission to be listed among registered orgs? We'll see the final lists. --Nemo 20:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is also a submission in the name of the "Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU", which I am not sure shows up as Wikimedia, although I've stated the connection in the form. --Dimi z (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Public hearings

Some public hearings have started today: [3]. Weirdly enough (or not... business as usual), no consumerist or end-users representative was present; however Leonhard Dobusch knows Wikimedia very well and he did a very good job for an introductory hearing.[4] --Nemo 17:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I was in the Parliament and met with Dornbusch ahead of this. He did a great job. There were some civil society in the room, but just as spectators. As it is the Legal Committee it is okay for them to do a law experts panel, but then they shouldn't invite a SACEM representative. It will give us an argument to demand more inclusion in the future. --Dimi z (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)