Co-authored-by: max.mehl <max.mehl@fsfe.org> Reviewed-on: #1531
This commit is contained in:
parent
56adc96207
commit
0953fd2e13
|
|
@ -148,7 +148,9 @@ RewriteRule ^activities/os(.*) /freesoftware/standards$1 [R=301,L]
|
|||
RewriteRule ^activities/procurement(.*) /freesoftware/procurement$1 [R=301,L]
|
||||
# deleted activities
|
||||
RewriteRule ^(activities/)?nocloud(/.*)? /activities/activities.html [R=301,L]
|
||||
RewriteRule ^(activities/)?theydontwantyouto(/.*)? /activities/activities.html [R=301,L]
|
||||
RewriteRule ^activities/policy/.* /activities/policy.html [R=301,L]
|
||||
RewriteRule ^activities/theydontwantyouto(/.*)? /activities/activities.html [R=301,L]
|
||||
RewriteRule ^activities/un(/.*)? /activities/policy.html [R=301,L]
|
||||
|
||||
# Norwegian language: Bokmal language code
|
||||
RewriteRule ^(.*)\.no.html /$1.nb.html [R=301,L]
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ to 2015.
|
|||
|
||||
<li>Input
|
||||
to the European Commission: <a
|
||||
href="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy.en.html"> Considerations on Updating the
|
||||
European Commission's Open Source Strategy</a>. [<a href="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">pdf</a>]</li>
|
||||
href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf"> Considerations on Updating the
|
||||
European Commission's Open Source Strategy</a>. [<a href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">pdf</a>]</li>
|
||||
|
||||
<li>Public Procurement: Free Software's Wild Frontier. In: Shane Coughlan
|
||||
(ed.): Thoughts on Open Innovation. Essays on Open Innovation from
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ tot 2015.
|
|||
href="http://irights.info/artikel/neu-und-doch-nur-mittelmass-die-open-source-strategie-der-eu-kommission/25302">Nieuw en toch slechts middelmatig: De 'open bron'-strategie van de Europese Commissie</a>. irights.info, 4 mei 2015.</li>
|
||||
|
||||
<li>Input voor de Europese Commissie: <a
|
||||
href="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy.en.html">Overwegingen aangaande het bijwerken van de open bron-strategie van de Europese Commissie</a>. [<a href="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">pdf</a>]</li>
|
||||
href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">Overwegingen aangaande het bijwerken van de open bron-strategie van de Europese Commissie</a>. [<a href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">pdf</a>]</li>
|
||||
|
||||
<li>Publieke inkoop: De wilde grens van Vrije Software. In: Shane Coughlan
|
||||
(ed.): Gedachten over open innovatie. Essays over open innovatie van leidende denkers in het veld. OpenForumAcademy, 2013. Beschikbaar als
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
|
|||
Ο Hugo δραστηριοποιείται με το FSFE από τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2009
|
||||
όταν ήταν βοηθός του Προέδρου
|
||||
<a href="/about/people/gerloff/">Karsten Gerloff</a> σε ζητήματα πολιτικής
|
||||
σε <a href="/activities/policy/eu/">Ευρωπαϊκό</a>επίπεδο και σε επίπεδο
|
||||
<a href="/activities/un/">Ηνωμένων Εθνών</a>. Τώρα ασχολείται
|
||||
σε <a href="/activities/policy.html">Ευρωπαϊκό</a>επίπεδο και σε επίπεδο
|
||||
<a href="/activities/policy.html">Ηνωμένων Εθνών</a>. Τώρα ασχολείται
|
||||
με την <a href="/activities/ftf/ftf.html">Ομάδα Εργασίας Ελευθερίας</a>
|
||||
και συντονίζει την εργασία του FSFE στη Γαλλία. Σπουδάζει
|
||||
<a href="http://master.sciences-po.fr/droit/en/content/master-economic-law">Νομικά για την Οικονομία</a>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -26,8 +26,8 @@
|
|||
“I have been working towards computing freedoms within FSFE since 2009.
|
||||
First as an <a href="/contribute/internship.html">intern</a> when I worked
|
||||
with <a href="/about/people/gerloff">Karsten Gerloff</a> on policy
|
||||
issues at the <a href="/activities/policy/eu/">European</a> and <a
|
||||
href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> level.</p>
|
||||
issues at the <a href="/activities/policy.html">European</a> and <a
|
||||
href="/activities/policy.html">United Nations</a> level.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
By joining <a href="/activities/ftf/ftf.html">FSFE's legal task force</a>,
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -26,8 +26,8 @@
|
|||
« Depuis 2009, j'œuvre pour les libertés informatiques au sein de la FSFE.
|
||||
Comme <a href="/contribute/internship.html">stagiaire</a> d'abord, j'ai
|
||||
travaillé avec <a href="/about/people/gerloff/">Karsten Gerloff</a>, sur les
|
||||
sujets politiques au <a href="/activities/policy/eu/">niveau européen</a>
|
||||
et des <a href="/activities/un/">nations unies</a>.
|
||||
sujets politiques au <a href="/activities/policy.html">niveau européen</a>
|
||||
et des <a href="/activities/policy.html">nations unies</a>.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -24,8 +24,8 @@
|
|||
|
||||
<p style="text-indent: -0.35em">
|
||||
“Ik heb sinds 2009 binnen FSFE voor computervrijheden gewerkt.
|
||||
Eerst als <a href="/contribute/internship.html">stagiair</a>, toen ik met <a href="/about/people/gerloff">Karsten Gerloff</a> werkte aan beleidsonderwerpen op <a href="/activities/policy/eu/">Europees</a> en <a
|
||||
href="/activities/un/">Verenigde Naties</a>-niveau.</p>
|
||||
Eerst als <a href="/contribute/internship.html">stagiair</a>, toen ik met <a href="/about/people/gerloff">Karsten Gerloff</a> werkte aan beleidsonderwerpen op <a href="/activities/policy.html">Europees</a> en <a
|
||||
href="/activities/policy.html">Verenigde Naties</a>-niveau.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Door mee te doen met <a href="/activities/ftf/ftf.html">FSFE's juridische taakgroep</a> draag ik bij aan het overbrengen van expertise naar de Vrije Software-gemeenschap.</p>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Binary file not shown.
|
|
@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
||||
|
||||
<documentset>
|
||||
<version>1</version>
|
||||
|
||||
<document type="ec" date="2007-12-19">
|
||||
<title>Letter to European Competition Commission Neelie Kroes</title>
|
||||
<description>
|
||||
Letter by <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a> to European Competition Commissioner
|
||||
Neelie Kroes in support of the Opera Software antitrust complaint, offering
|
||||
</description>
|
||||
<link>/documents/20071219-opera-antitrust.pdf</link>
|
||||
</document>
|
||||
</documentset>
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
|
|
@ -1,183 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||||
|
||||
<html>
|
||||
<version>1</version>
|
||||
<author id="gerloff"/>
|
||||
<author>Natalia Evdokimova</author>
|
||||
<date>
|
||||
<original content="2011-04-19"/>
|
||||
</date>
|
||||
<download type="PDF" content="/activities/policy/eu/20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf"/>
|
||||
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<title>Contribution to the EC public consultation on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy</title>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
|
||||
<body>
|
||||
|
||||
<h1>Contribution to the EC public consultation on the modernisation of
|
||||
EU public procurement policy</h1>
|
||||
|
||||
<p class="interview-question">Introduction</p>
|
||||
<p>We appreciate the initiative taken by the European Commission to consult with the public on the
|
||||
modernisation of European public procurement policy. Free Software Foundation Europe is an
|
||||
independent, nonprofit nongovernmental organisation dedicated to the furthering of Free Software
|
||||
and working for freedom in the digital society. </p>
|
||||
<p>We are limiting our response to a selected number of questions which bear on the areas of Free
|
||||
Software and Open Standards.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p class="interview-question">19. Would you be in favour of allowing more negotiation in public procurement
|
||||
procedures and/or generalizing the use of the negotiated procedure with prior
|
||||
publication?</p>
|
||||
<p>The Green Paper on new EU public procurement policy ("the GP") proposes that
|
||||
contracting authorities <em>"should be allowed to negotiate the terms of the contract with
|
||||
potential bidders. ... This could give contracting authorities more flexibility to obtain
|
||||
procurement outcomes that really fit their needs"</em>. We want the EC be very careful when
|
||||
allowing wider use of negotiated procedures.</p>
|
||||
<p>We note that according to the Directive 2004/18/EC, negotiated procedures are to be used
|
||||
only in exceptional circumstances. Articles 30 and 31 of the Directive 2004/18/EC provide
|
||||
closed lists of exceptional cases when contracting authorities may use the negotiated
|
||||
procedure with or without prior publication of contract notice, respectively. In any case,
|
||||
usage of the negotiated procedure should be justified by special situation and should not be
|
||||
used in a discriminatory manner. </p>
|
||||
<p>According to the Recital 2 of the Directive 2004/18/EC, public procurement is subject to
|
||||
the respect, among other principles, of the principle of equal treatment and the principle
|
||||
of transparency. The awards of public contracts should guarantee the openingup of public
|
||||
procurement to competition. </p>
|
||||
<p>We believe that the Member States and EU institutions should strictly follow the
|
||||
fundamental principles of public procurement set in the currently effective Directive and
|
||||
the Treaty of Lisbon in order to safeguard competition. In no case should negotiated
|
||||
procedures enable the contracting authority to predetermine the outcome of the process.
|
||||
So, while simplifying the procurement process for small and mediumsize enterprises
|
||||
(SMEs), the EC should establish additional safeguards to guarantee the openness of public
|
||||
procurement procedures to the broadest possible set of competent bidders.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<p class="interview-question">39. Should the public procurement Directives regulate the issue of substantial
|
||||
modifications of a contract while it is still in force? If so, what elements of
|
||||
clarification would you propose?</p>
|
||||
<p>A lack of clarity exists as to how software upgrades should be handled in the procurement
|
||||
process. EC procurement regulations should clarify that major software upgrades (e.g.
|
||||
upgrades requiring reinstallation of the program in question) should be treated in the
|
||||
same way as new purchases, and should be retendered. It should be made clear that
|
||||
contracting authorities are obliged to treat software in a similar manner as physical goods,
|
||||
where there is no doubt that purchases of a new version of the original product have to be
|
||||
retendered.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p class="interview-question">60. In your view, can the attribution of exclusive rights jeopardise fair competition in
|
||||
procurement markets?<br/>
|
||||
61. If so, what instruments would you suggest in order to mitigate such risks / ensure fair
|
||||
competition? Do you think that the EU procurement rules should allow the award of
|
||||
contracts without procurement procedure on the basis of exclusive rights only on the
|
||||
condition that the exclusive right in question has itself been awarded in a transparent,
|
||||
competitive procedure?</p>
|
||||
<p>The GP suggests to set up in new Directive a principle that <em>"it would be allowed to award
|
||||
contracts without a competitive procedure on the basis of exclusive rights, only if these
|
||||
exclusive rights have been subject to a competitive procedure"</em>.</p>
|
||||
<p>In the area of software, an overwhelming share of public authorities remains locked into
|
||||
proprietary systems and file formats. This lockin endangeres fair competition in public
|
||||
procurement: currently a significant number of tenders for computer software use
|
||||
trademarks or specific brands to formulate technical and functional requirements. To avoid
|
||||
such bad practices, the technical specifications drawn up by public purchasers need to
|
||||
allow different bidders to participate with different products. The current Directive
|
||||
directly prohibits technical specifications to create obstacles to the <em>“opening up of public
|
||||
procurement to competition”</em> (Article 23).</p>
|
||||
<p>We want the EC to clarify in the new Directive that calls for tenders should be based on
|
||||
functional requirements, not on specific products or vendors. Public agencies should
|
||||
always procure software only through a transparent, open procedure to foster competition
|
||||
in software market and a diversity of tender participants.</p>
|
||||
<p>Lockin also plays a significant role in calculating the total cost of ownership (TCO) of a
|
||||
software solution. Yet these costs are all too often not reflected in current procurement
|
||||
practices and decisions. The new Directive should specify that when deciding on the
|
||||
economic merits of a bid, the contracting authority must figure in the full costs of
|
||||
transitioning out of the solution to be acquired to a new solution by a different vendor in
|
||||
the future. These "exit costs" are composed of requirements like translating existing data
|
||||
from proprietary file formats into formats based on Open Standards, and replacing or re
|
||||
developing helper applications. This is the only way to ensure that the bid which gets
|
||||
selected is indeed the most economically advantageous over the lifetime of the purchased
|
||||
product or service.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p class="interview-question">70. The criterion of the most economically advantageous tender seems to be best suited
|
||||
for pursuing other policy objectives. Do you think that, in order to take best account
|
||||
of such policy objectives, it would be useful to change the existing rules (for certain
|
||||
types of contracts/ some specific sectors/ in certain circumstances):<br/>
|
||||
70.1.1. to eliminate the criterion of the lowest price only;<br/>
|
||||
70.1.2. to limit the use of the price criterion or the weight which contracting authorities
|
||||
can give to the price;<br/>
|
||||
70.1.3. to introduce a third possibility of award criteria in addition to the lowest price and
|
||||
the economically most advantageous offer? If so, which alternative criterion would you
|
||||
propose that would make it possible to both pursue other policy objectives more
|
||||
effectively and guarantee a level playing field and fair competition between
|
||||
European undertakings?</p>
|
||||
<p>The GP encourages the use of public procurement in support of certain policy-related
|
||||
objectives, such as the environmental,social and innovation considerations.
|
||||
Article 53 of the Directive states that the criteria on which the contracting authorities shall
|
||||
base the award of public contracts shall be <em>"criteria linked to the subjectmatter of the
|
||||
public contract in question, for example, quality, price, technical merit, aesthetic and
|
||||
functional characteristics, environmental characteristics"</em>, etc. Thus, contracting
|
||||
authorities already are able to include environmental or social award criteria in the call for
|
||||
tenders.</p>
|
||||
<p>As innovation and technological development are also listed among considerations to be
|
||||
prioritised, we propose to include in this list such criterion as <em>"the openness of technical
|
||||
standards"</em>. The revised European Interoperability Framework defines as open
|
||||
<em>"specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration
|
||||
and the results of which can freely be accessed, reused and shared"</em>. It states that <em>"the
|
||||
principle of openness is applied in full if (1) all stakeholders can contribute to the
|
||||
elaboration of the specification and public review is organised; (2) the specification
|
||||
document is freely available for everybody to study and to share with others; (3) the
|
||||
specification can be implemented under the different software development approaches."</em></p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>With a list of criteria arrived at through a dialog involving various key players in industry,
|
||||
politics and community, FSFE has arrived at a <a href="/freesoftware/standards/def.en.html">definition of an Open Standard</a> as a format
|
||||
or protocol that is
|
||||
<ul><li>subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally
|
||||
available to all parties;</li>
|
||||
<li>without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or
|
||||
protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;</li>
|
||||
<li>free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any
|
||||
business model;</li>
|
||||
<li>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process
|
||||
open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;</li>
|
||||
<li>available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a
|
||||
complete implementation equally available to all parties.</li></ul></p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>In Lisbon 2007, Ministers of EU Member States agree that <em>"continuous attention
|
||||
shall be given to the definition and openness of technical standards and publicly
|
||||
available specifcations"</em> (Lisbon Ministerial Declaration, 19 September, 2007). The
|
||||
Digital Agenda for Europe declares that the EU will support development of open
|
||||
standards and platforms. The European Interoperability Framework v.2
|
||||
recommends public administrations to favour "open specifications" while
|
||||
establishing European Public Services. Moreover, existing judicial practice in EU
|
||||
Member States allows the insertion of Open Standards requirements or preferences
|
||||
in tender requirements. As the Italian Constitutional Court <a href="http://softwarelibero.it/Corte_Costituzionale_favorisce_softwarelibero_en">ruled</a>, <em>"the concepts of
|
||||
Free Software and software whose code can be inspected do not refer to a
|
||||
particular technology, brand or product, but they rather express a legal feature".</em></p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>We believe that inclusion of <em>"the openness of technical standards"</em>, along with
|
||||
environmental and social criteria, in the list of recommended award criteria would
|
||||
allow public agencies to procure software based on open specifications more freely
|
||||
and extensively. This would be an important and substantial step towards promoting
|
||||
competition and technological development in the European software market.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>We would further like to suggest that in the case where public bodies are contracting
|
||||
software development services, there should be a standard policy of making the resulting
|
||||
work available as Free Software. This could be formulated as follows: </p>
|
||||
<p> <em>“The provider grants the contracting authority the right to use, study, share and
|
||||
improve the resulting work(s) under the terms of a license that is either <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenselist.html">classified as
|
||||
a Free Software license by the Free Software Foundation</a>, <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical">approved by the Open
|
||||
Source Initiative</a>, or both.”</em></p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Such software development is paid for out of public funds. Hence the resulting work
|
||||
should be made available to the public for use and improvement. There is also a significant
|
||||
potential for reuse of software within the European public sector, which is currently not
|
||||
being exploited.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
<!--
|
||||
Local Variables: ***
|
||||
mode: xml ***
|
||||
End: ***
|
||||
-->
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
|
|
@ -1,144 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
||||
|
||||
<html>
|
||||
<version>1</version>
|
||||
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<title>FSFE’s submission to the European Commission Public Consultation on Copyright</title>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
<body class="article letter" microformats="h-entry">
|
||||
|
||||
<p id="category" class="p-category">
|
||||
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/">European Union</a>
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
<h1 class="p-name">FSFE’s submission to the European Commission Public Consultation on Copyright</h1>
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="e-content">
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
To:<br />Internal Market and Services DG,<br />
|
||||
Unit D1 ‑ Copyright
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Dear Sir, Madam,</p>
|
||||
<p>we are grateful for the opportunity afforded by this consultation to provide input on the future of Europe's copyright rules. FSFE is a charitable non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting freedom in the information society.</p>
|
||||
<p>We are concentrating our input mainly on questions related to matters concerning software. We remain available to support the Commission's work on copyright reform in the future.</p>
|
||||
<p>With kind regards,</p>
|
||||
<p>Hugo Roy<br />Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.</p>
|
||||
<hr />
|
||||
<p><strong>Register ID:</strong> <code>33882407107-76</code></p>
|
||||
<p><strong>Organisation:</strong> Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.</p>
|
||||
<p><strong>Type of respondent:</strong> <strong>End user/consumer</strong> (e.g. internet user, reader, subscriber to music or audiovisual service, researcher, student) <strong>OR Representative of end users/consumers</strong></p>
|
||||
<hr />
|
||||
<ol start="11" style="list-style-type: decimal">
|
||||
<li><p><strong>Should the provision of a hyperlink leading to a work or other subject matter protected under copyright, either in general or under specific circumstances, be subject to the authorisation of the rightholder?</strong></p>
|
||||
<p><strong>No</strong></p></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
<p>Hyperlinks are core to the web. If hyperlinking were made subject to the authorisation of any rightholder, then basically any kind of web publishing would be potentially withheld to the authorisation of many rightholders.</p>
|
||||
<p>In practice, it would mean that:</p>
|
||||
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal">
|
||||
<li><p>web publishers would have to identify which hyperlinks merely point to works that are copyrightable subject matter;</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>web publishers would have to identify the rightholder and how to contact them; which is nothing trivial for online pages;</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>and finally web publishers would have to wait for the rightholder’s authorisation.</p></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
<p>Such a provision would constitute a great burden on freedom of speech to which the Web has been instrumental. The reasonably foreseeable outcomes of such a provision would be either:</p>
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><p>massive inability to apply the provision for web publishers, resulting in massive presumably infringing content; or</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>massive avoidance of hyperlinking, resulting in less usable web pages and a lost opportunity to point the public to relevant works.</p></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
<p>The prerogatives of the copyright holder over their work <strong>should not</strong> extend to comprise making a hyperlink. Regular hyperlinks should never be considered direct use of a copyrighted work. Indeed, a regular hyperlink does not reproduce, transmit, nor make available in any way a work. Rather, hyperlinks only point to already identifiable resources.</p>
|
||||
<p>In that regard, the EUCJ ruling “Svensson” C-466/12 is worrisome and the right of making available should be clarified to exclude the use of regular hyperlinks from its scope. Making some hyperlinking practices subject to the authorisation of rightholders only complicates their use, causes chilling effects on freedom of expression, sets up the unenforceable rules and leads to further alienation of copyright law for the general public. Links to illegally communicated works should be rather solved under theories of accessory liability or wrongful omission as they account for flexible circumstances that might occur.</p>
|
||||
<ol start="13" style="list-style-type: decimal">
|
||||
<li><p><strong>[In particular if you are an end user/consumer:] Have you faced restrictions when trying to resell digital files that you have purchased (e.g. mp3 file, e-book)?</strong></p>
|
||||
<p><strong>Yes</strong></p></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
<p>Digital restrictions management (DRM) prevents the consumer to truly own the digital files they have purchased. Not only are consumers often unable to resell digital files, DRM often prevents them from being able to simply use the files they have purchased for legitimate and lawful purposes. Incidentally, consumers who have bought digital files cannot choose which software or device to use, causing issues regarding interoperability and competition.</p>
|
||||
<p>In practice, digital restrictions management enables publishers, software and hardware vendors to impose on the consumer any kind of restrictions they see fit. Thus, DRM equates to giving publishers <strong>more power to restrict use of a work than they are legally entitled to</strong> under copyright law, over how the digital version of their works are used by the public.</p>
|
||||
<p>In addition to technical restrictions, consumers are often bound by the terms of use and licensing that govern the acquisition of digital files. These terms deceive consumers who believe they have <em>bought</em> the files and illustrate that consumers <em>do not own</em> the digital content they acquire in the same way they would own equivalent physical goods. For example, James Joseph O'Donnell, a classical scholar and University Professor at Georgetown University, has lost access to e-books he had acquire from Google Books because of the digital restrictions management and region-control that Google exercise on their platform.<a href="#fn1" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref1"><sup>1</sup></a></p>
|
||||
<p>People with disabilities are often barred from media use because DRM prevents them from converting content to media formats that help them in spite of their disabilities. For example, book publishers protested against the possibility that some e-book reader might electronically convert text into speech. Without such text-to-speech features, blind people will simply not be able to read books they have purchased.</p>
|
||||
<dl>
|
||||
<dt><strong>Recommendations</strong></dt>
|
||||
<dd>
|
||||
<p>Digital works covered by copyright should, when sold to consumers, be clearly labelled if they are covered by DRM mechanisms</p>
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
</dl>
|
||||
<br />
|
||||
<ol start="80" style="list-style-type: decimal">
|
||||
<li><strong>Are there any other important matters related to the EU legal framework for copyright? Please explain and indicate how such matters should be addressed.</strong></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
<p>Digital restrictions management (DRM) is an illegitimate form of control exercised by content providers and device manufacturers over personal computing.</p>
|
||||
<p>The Directive 2001/29/EC introduced anti-circumvention provisions that prevent users of personal computers to take back control of their computing. These anti-circumvention provisions should be simply abrogated.</p>
|
||||
<p>Copyright subject matter covers original works of expression. Technical restrictions such as DRM should not therefore be granted special protection through copyright law because such protection is ill-fitted and disproportionate.</p>
|
||||
<p>In practice, anti-circumvention provisions also create issues in terms of software interoperability and competition. Digital restrictions management enable illegitimate vendor lock-in that prevents competition. For instance, the French association Videolan who publish the VLC free software media player has been facing important legal uncertainty regarding the ability to play “Blu-Ray media” on which Sony has a DRM.<a href="#fn2" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref2"><sup>2</sup></a> This situation illustrates the illegitimate barrier to Free Software that DRM constitutes: in this case, copyright law is misused by software vendors in order to prevent competition and create lock-in for customers.</p>
|
||||
<dl>
|
||||
<dt><strong>Recommendations</strong></dt>
|
||||
<dd>
|
||||
<p>Anti-circumvention provisions should be abrogated.</p>
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
</dl>
|
||||
<hr />
|
||||
<ol start="22" style="list-style-type: decimal">
|
||||
<li><p><strong>Should some/all of the exceptions be made mandatory and, if so, is there a need for a higher level of harmonisation of such exceptions?</strong></p>
|
||||
<p><strong>Yes</strong></p></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
<p>Exceptions to software copyright for reverse-engineering and decompilation purposes should not be weakened, but strengthened.</p>
|
||||
<p>Circumvention of digital restrictions management (DRM) should be considered outside the scope of protection provided by copyright law, or alternatively an exception for circumvention of DRM for legitimate purposes should be made mandatory in all EU member States. Moreover, circumvention of DRM should not bear compensation to the protected content rightholder, nor to the DRM mechanism owner.</p>
|
||||
<ol start="24" style="list-style-type: decimal">
|
||||
<li><p><strong>Independently from the questions above, is there a need to provide for a greater degree of flexibility in the EU regulatory framework for limitations and exceptions?</strong></p>
|
||||
<p><strong>Yes</strong></p></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
<p>Exceptions and limitations to copyright should benefit from greater legal certainty.</p>
|
||||
<p>In this regard, the Three-step test should be reasonably interpreted as an obligation <strong>for the legislator</strong> rather than as a means towards weakening exceptions to copyright that the law provides for as seen in some court cases in Europe<a href="#fn3" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref3"><sup>3</sup></a>.</p>
|
||||
<dl>
|
||||
<dt><strong>Recommendations</strong></dt>
|
||||
<dd>
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><p>Exceptions to software copyright for reverse-engineering and decompilation purposes should be strengthened to benefit interoperability and innovation.</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Exceptions to anti-DRM circumvention provisions should be strengthened for interoperability and other legitimate purposes.</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p>Existing exceptions and limitations to copyright should benefit from greater legal certainty by making explicit that the Three-Step test is an obligation to the legislator, not a a legal reasoning to be used in courts in order to weaken established exceptions and limitations.</p></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
</dl>
|
||||
<hr />
|
||||
<ol start="4" style="list-style-type: lower-alpha">
|
||||
<li><strong>How to improve the use and interoperability of identifiers</strong></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>There is no shortage of databases of rights and works information, but they largely lack interoperability - even between databases carrying information about the same type of works. We believe that the true benefit of such databases can only be realised with open standards and public APIs for registering, requesting and modifying information in such databases. We further believe that such interoperability would enable works information to be carried not only in a single database but distributed across multiple databases operated independently of one another: some might be maintained by rights holders themselves, other databases by non-profit organisations or business entities. This would create a network of interoperable databases that support the creator and user of creative works with the flexibility they need to maintain information about works. As we go about our lives online, we create works that are potentially covered by copyright many times every day - hundreds of times, if counting every email we send, picture we take, story we share. Registering this in a single database becomes highly impractical. We believe the role of the EU to ensure and enforce interoperability between such databases and ensuring that the public has equal access to information within them using open standards.</p>
|
||||
<p>Persistent identifiers are a requirement for ensuring the full benefits of a network of databases are realised. As has been shown in studies by the International Press and Telecommunications Council (IPTC) though, a more pressing issue than the adoption of identifiers is to enable the retention of such identifiers. Such identifiers already exist today, but they are routinely stripped from works as they are shared online. We therefore believe that the role of the EU is not so much in the promoting adoption of identifiers but working with industry and the community to ensure that such identifiers are retained through all stages of creating, curating and using a work.</p>
|
||||
<dl>
|
||||
<dt><strong>Recommendations</strong></dt>
|
||||
<dd>
|
||||
<p>The role of the EU should be to work with industry and with the commmunity to ensure that identifiers are retained through all stages of publishing, curating and using a work.</p>
|
||||
</dd>
|
||||
</dl>
|
||||
<div class="footnotes">
|
||||
<h2 id="fn">Footnotes</h2>
|
||||
<ol>
|
||||
<li id="fn1"><p><em>Cross a border, loose your ebooks</em>, Aug 17, 2013, BoingBoing, <a href="http://boingboing.net/2013/08/17/cross-a-border-lose-your-eboo.html">http://boingboing.net/2013/08/17/cross-a-border-lose-your-eboo.html</a><a href="#fnref1">↩</a></p></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn2"><p><em>VLC : la Hadopi n'a pas la clef pour ouvrir la porte du Blu-ray</em>, PC Inpact, 08/04/2013, <a href="https://www.pcinpact.com/news/78893-vlc-hadopi-na-pas-clef-pour-ouvrir-porte-blu-ray.htm">https://www.pcinpact.com/news/78893-vlc-hadopi-na-pas-clef-pour-ouvrir-porte-blu-ray.htm</a><a href="#fnref2">↩</a></p></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn3"><p>In <em>arrêt Mulholland Drive</em> the French Cour de cassation followed a misguided interpretation of the Three-step test that reduced the exception for private copy to a trickle. (Chambre de cassation, civ. 1<sup>re</sup>, Arrêt n° 549 du 28 février 2006, 05-15.824, 05-16.002)<a href="#fnref3">↩</a></p></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
</div><!--/e-content-->
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
<sidebar promo="about-fsfe">
|
||||
<div id="related-content">
|
||||
<h3>Related</h3>
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index_en.htm">Public Consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/drm/drm.html">FSFE on DRM</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
</sidebar>
|
||||
<date>
|
||||
<original content="2014-03-05" />
|
||||
</date>
|
||||
<author id="roy" />
|
||||
<legal type="cc-license">
|
||||
<license>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en</license>
|
||||
<notice>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</notice>
|
||||
</legal>
|
||||
<download type="pdf" content="20140305-copyright-rules.en.pdf" />
|
||||
<sidebar/>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
|
|
@ -1,338 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||||
<html>
|
||||
<version>1</version>
|
||||
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<title>Valutazione del rapporto sull'implementazione della direttiva InfoSoc</title>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
|
||||
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
|
||||
|
||||
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Il nostro lavoro</a></p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h1 id="assessment-of-the-report-on-the-implementation-of-the-InfoSoc-directive">Valutazione
|
||||
del rapporto sull'implementazione della direttiva InfoSoc</h1>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="introduction">Introduzione</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Il 6 giugno di quest'anno abbiamo proposto
|
||||
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/20150605-Comments-On-Reda-Report.en.html">la
|
||||
nostra valutazione</a> della bozza sul rapporto sull'implementazione della Direttiva
|
||||
2001/29/EC. In seguito, alcuni emendamenti sono stati approvati e il rapporto
|
||||
è stato votato presso il Parlamento Europeo il 9 luglio. Come ci si aspettava,
|
||||
ci sono stati molti cambiamenti; oggi vi presentiamo la nostra valutazione della versione
|
||||
finale del rapporto.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Come abbiamo affermato in precedenza, il dinamico ecosistema del Software Libero e
|
||||
i suoi notevoli successi hanno le proprie fondamenta nella legge sul diritto d'autore.
|
||||
Per questa ragione, noi, alla FSFE, siamo ben disposti a sostenere una riforma
|
||||
sulla legislazione del diritto d'autore in Europa. Desideriamo e abbiamo bisogno che esso
|
||||
sia a prova delle sfide future, sostenibile e realistico.
|
||||
I cittadini europei hanno bisogno che i propri legislatori guardino al
|
||||
diritto d'autore come uno dei molti strumenti a disposizione delle politiche per l'innovazione.
|
||||
Questo implica prendere sul serio gli interessi degli utenti, e plasmare le nuove leggi sul
|
||||
diritto d'autore basandosi sui fatti. Concretamente, abbiamo bisogno di eccezioni uniformi,
|
||||
che non siano definite dall'uso di una specifica tecnologia e che non siano
|
||||
ingiustamente limitate da misure tecnologiche di protezione. Chiediamo anche
|
||||
che l'Unione Europea riconosca la necessità di un pubblico dominio più forte,
|
||||
non solo per i lavori artistici e letterari, ma anche per il software. Tutti questi
|
||||
punti sono stati affrontati nella versione finale del rapporto, anche se
|
||||
non sempre tanto quanto avremmo voluto.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="general-considerations">Considerazioni generali</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="definition-of-copyright">Definizione del diritto d'autore</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>La FSFE crede che ci sia una distinzione importante da fare
|
||||
tra la proprietà privata e la così detta “proprietà intellettuale”.
|
||||
Quest'ultima, essendo composta da beni non-rivali, può essere condivisa all'infinito
|
||||
senza diminuire il benessere intellettuale del creatore originario.
|
||||
Come tale, la possibilità di ampliare la distribuzione non solo beneficia i creatori
|
||||
ma genera anche un più alto livello di innovazione. Questa distinzione,
|
||||
ancora presente nella maggior parte dei trattati internazionali, è rappresentata solo parzialmente
|
||||
dalla versione finale del rapporto <a class="fn" id="fnref1" href="#fn1">1</a>.
|
||||
Questa confusione è una delle ragioni per cui crediamo che l'espressione
|
||||
“proprietà intellettuale” dovrebbe essere evitata e possibilmente eliminata
|
||||
del tutto dal linguaggio giuridico.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Diversi articoli<a href="#fn2" class="fn" id="fnref2">2</a>hanno adottano a loro volta
|
||||
un approccio preoccupante, implicando che la protezione del diritto d'autore sia il solo modo
|
||||
per generare reddito e quindi incoraggiare la creatività. È
|
||||
importante riconoscere un'appropriata remunerazione agli autori, ma crediamo che
|
||||
il diritto d'autore conduca ad un maggior grado di creatività solo quando
|
||||
le limitazioni alla riproduzione sono bilanciate da un'adeguata quantità di usi
|
||||
consentiti. Questo equilibrio si trova permettendo un grado decente di
|
||||
riutilizzo, cosicché i creatori possano costruire continuando il lavoro dei loro predecessori.
|
||||
Mentre questo è sempre possibile grazie alle licenze di Software Libero, l'intera
|
||||
comunità trarrebbe beneficio da un più alto grado di riutilizzabilità di tutti i sorgenti
|
||||
esistenti, indipendentemente dalla licenza sotto la quale sono stati distribuiti.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="technological-neutrality">Neutralità tecnologica</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Il rapporto sembra incorporare il principio di neutralità tecnologica.
|
||||
Questo dovrebbe assicurare che tutti i diritti saranno disponibili,
|
||||
per gli autori, gli editori e gli utenti, indipendentemente dalla tecnologia impiegata.
|
||||
L'articolo 64 invoca espressamente l'impiego di una struttura legislativa tecnologicamente
|
||||
neutrale, promuovendo l'equivalenza tra l'uso analogico e quello digitale.
|
||||
Questo principio potrebbe avere un impatto positivo sulle
|
||||
<a href="#technological-neutrality-and-the-open-norm">eccezioni al diritto d'autore</a>
|
||||
e sulla <a href="#digital-rights-management">gestione digitale dei diritti</a>
|
||||
(Digital Rights Management - DRM), ma dipenderà da come sarà concretamente implementato nella legislazione.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="copyright-and-borders">Diritto d'autore e frontiere</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Mentre la Commissione sembra spingere verso un'armonizzazione più profonda
|
||||
del mercato digitale che includa una riforma di almeno alcuni aspetti
|
||||
del diritto d'autore e dei diritti vicini, il Parlamento Europeo potrebbe non adottare
|
||||
una posizione definitiva, con articoli differenti che puntino in direzioni differenti.
|
||||
Non è chiaro se questo impatterà direttamente sul software, ma
|
||||
l'attuale legislazione frammentaria sul diritto d'autore sicuramente non aiuta
|
||||
a fornire un ambiente tra i più chiari e uniformi per quelle licenze
|
||||
che sono interpretate secondo le giurisdizioni Europee.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="exceptions">Eccezioni</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>La FSFE ha sostenuto anche la riforma per le eccezioni al diritto d'autore. Il rapporto
|
||||
redige alcuni punti interessanti a riguardo.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="uniformity-of-exceptions">Uniformità delle eccezioni</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>La bozza del rapporto chiedeva leggi uniformi, all'interno dell'UE,
|
||||
per l'interpretazione delle eccezioni e delle limitazioni. Abbiamo sostenuto questa
|
||||
visione perché, al momento, una decisa divergenza nell'implementazione tra gli
|
||||
stati membri crea un considerevole attrito nel mercato interno all'UE. Questo
|
||||
attrito coinvolge in maniera sproporzionata individui, progetti e
|
||||
piccole e medie imprese, i quali spesso mancano delle risorse giuridiche necessarie
|
||||
per assicurare che le proprie azioni rimangano all'interno dell'area
|
||||
coperta dalle limitazioni ed eccezioni al diritto d'autore.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Il rapporto, come approvato dal Parlamento, assume una posizione molto più debole
|
||||
chiedendo armonizzazione e standard minimi solo per <em>alcune</em>
|
||||
eccezioni<a href="#fn3" class="fn" id="fnref3">3</a>. Questa miglioria parziale
|
||||
non è soddisfacente, perché non risolverà il problema principale
|
||||
della direttiva “InfoSoc”, la quale ha fallito nel fornire un sistema di diritto d'autore
|
||||
adeguatamente armonizzato. Mantenere differenti classi di eccezioni (completamente
|
||||
armonizzate, armonizzate secondo uno standard minimo, opzionali, a discrezione
|
||||
dello Stato) renderà il sistema del diritto d'autore solamente più
|
||||
complicato per tutte le parti coinvolte.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="waivability-of-exceptions">Rinuncia alle eccezioni</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Un'aggiunta interessante al rapporto finale rende le eccezioni
|
||||
irrinunciabili tramite clausole contrattuali<a href="#fn4" class="fn" id="fnref4">4</a>.
|
||||
Questo renderà più semplice sapere quali diritti abbia un utente, indipendentemente
|
||||
dal contenuto specifico della licenza (libera o proprietaria). Inoltre, il rapporto finale
|
||||
richiede che sia reso impossibile limitare in via contrattuale l’accesso ad informazioni
|
||||
che non siano coperte da diritto d'autore o da un diritto analogo.
|
||||
Questo dovrebbe risultare in una maggiore disponibilità dell'informazione che sarebbe
|
||||
stata altrimenti ingiustamente tenuta segreta. Come tale, questa è una miglioria ben accolta.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="technological-neutrality-and-the-open-norm">Neutralità tecnologica e la norma aperta</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Il principio di neutralità tecnologica, come già menzionato, è
|
||||
applicato più chiaramente per quanto riguarda le eccezioni. Sosteniamo una riforma
|
||||
della Direttiva sul diritto d'autore che assicuri un'equa applicazione delle eccezioni
|
||||
sia nel campo digitale che analogico. Il
|
||||
rapporto attuale<a href="#fn5" class="fn" id="fnref5">5</a> chiede alla Commissione di
|
||||
rivedere le eccezioni al diritto d'autore per adattarle meglio all'attuale ambiente
|
||||
tecnologico e per raggiungere sia la neutralità tecnologica
|
||||
che una migliore compatibilità attraverso l'interpretazione delle attuali eccezioni.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Il rapporto finale<a href="#fn6" class="fn" id="fnref6">6</a> propone
|
||||
di raggiungere la neutralità tecnologica attraverso una più larga interpretazione
|
||||
delle attuali eccezioni, mantenendo il "three-step-test" introdotto dalla Convenzione di Berna come guida
|
||||
per prevenire un'eccessiva espansione. Questa opzione è stata presentata nella bozza
|
||||
del rapporto e introdurrebbe un elemento importante di adattabilità nelle legislazioni
|
||||
riformate, fornendo una guida chiara per le corti su come
|
||||
interpretare le eccezioni e le limitazioni. In vista di un ambiente tecnologico
|
||||
in rapida evoluzione, una norma aperta assicurerebbe che la legge sul diritto d'autore
|
||||
dell'UE rimanga rilevante e attuabile nel lungo termine. In precedenza abbiamo sostenuto
|
||||
questo proposito ed ora diamo il benvenuto ai risultati raggiunti dal
|
||||
Parlamento Europeo.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="text-and-data-mining">Estrazione di testo e dati</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Alcuni detentori di diritti d'autore sostengono che gli utenti necessitino
|
||||
di una licenza ulteriore per estrarre informazioni da un'opera coperta da
|
||||
diritto d'autore con l'aiuto di strumenti software. La FSFE considererebbe qualsiasi
|
||||
simile imposizione come altamente dannosa per la creatività.
|
||||
Il solo fatto che i documenti digitali siano più facilmente soggetti ad
|
||||
analisi automatizzate non rappresenta certamente una ragione sufficiente a
|
||||
trattarli in modo differente da quelli analogici.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Le analisi automatizzate di testi e dataset sono basilari per molti
|
||||
servizi web a cui si affidano ogni giorno molti cittadini europei. La necessità di
|
||||
licenze aggiuntive per l'estrazione di testo e dati incrementerebbe enormemente
|
||||
i costi per la creazione di nuovi lavori basati su quelli esistenti. Questo
|
||||
introdurrebbe anche un ulteriore livello di attrito. La cosa più dannosa sarebbero
|
||||
i costi, in termini di lavoro non creato, di tale requisito.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>La bozza del rapporto chiedeva una struttura più semplice, che includesse
|
||||
esplicitamente il diritto di estrarre dati come parte del diritto di accesso
|
||||
ad un lavoro protetto. Il Parlamento non fa abbastanza su questo punto,
|
||||
chiedendo alla Commissione solamente di considerare questo problema
|
||||
<a href="#fn7" class="fn" id="fnref7">7</a>, lasciandolo pertanto irrisolto.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="digital-rights-management">Gestione digitale dei diritti</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Attualmente, alcuni proprietari usano la Restrizione digitale dei diritti
|
||||
(o Gestione digitale dei diritti; DRM in sigla) per limitare tecnicamente
|
||||
ciò che gli utenti possono fare con i lavori che hanno legalmente acquisito.
|
||||
Molto di frequente, queste misure ostacolano le persone nell’utilizzare, in modi
|
||||
completamente coperti da eccezioni e limitazioni, le opere in questione.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>In aggiunta, queste misure tecnologiche
|
||||
spesso trasmettono dati ai proprietari dei diritti o a terze parti
|
||||
senza la consapevolezza o il consenso attivo dell'utente, cosa che
|
||||
rappresenta un grave rischio per la privacy e autonomia di quest'ultimo.
|
||||
Quando si applica ai dispositivi, il DRM in effetti impone costrizioni
|
||||
al proprietario che sono così gravi da far sorgere significative preoccupazioni
|
||||
riguardo ai diritti del consumatore<a href="#fn8" class="fn" id="fnref8">8</a>.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>La bozza del rapporto mirava a risolvere questi problemi imponendo
|
||||
la pubblicazione del codice sorgente delle protezioni tecnologiche.
|
||||
Il rapporto finale, in questo, lascia a desiderare, anche se ottiene alcuni
|
||||
miglioramenti. Il requisito esplicito per il codice sorgente è stato
|
||||
irragionevolmente eliminato, sostituito dalla pubblicazione di “tutte
|
||||
le informazioni disponibili riguardo le misure tecnologiche necessarie ad
|
||||
assicurare l'interoperabilità”<a href="#fn9" class="fn" id="fnref9">9</a>,
|
||||
e dalla menzione di una migliore interoperabilità nel software e nei terminali
|
||||
<a href="#fn10" class="fn" id="fnref10">10</a>. Queste condizioni
|
||||
aiuteranno i progettisti del Software Libero a creare programmi che
|
||||
possano accedere a contenuti protetti, ma i miglioramenti per la privacy degli utenti
|
||||
e la loro sicurezza saranno solamente indiretti e condizionati dallo sviluppo di
|
||||
alternative nel Software Libero, poiché la versione proprietaria delle
|
||||
tecnologie di controllo degli accessi non sarà soggetta allo scrutinio pubblico.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Il rapporto compie un altro passo in contrasto con il DRM<a href="#fn11" class="fn"
|
||||
id="fnref11">11</a> affermando che l'eccezione per copia privata non
|
||||
può essere limitata da misure tecnologiche (se è garantito il compenso
|
||||
all'autore). Diamo il benvenuto a questa esplicita protezione dell'eccezione
|
||||
per copia privata, ma dobbiamo puntualizzare che il DRM impedisce tutte
|
||||
le eccezioni. Mentre è possibile sostenere che non tutte le eccezioni
|
||||
meritino lo stesso grado di protezione, bisognerebbe tenere a mente
|
||||
che alcune meritano almeno lo stesso grado garantito alla copia privata
|
||||
(es. eccezioni per le librerie) e che, in ogni caso, ulteriori
|
||||
frammentazioni nelle eccezioni causeranno confusione su quali siano i diritti
|
||||
a disposizione degli utenti.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Uno spiraglio di speranza può essere trovato nel principio di
|
||||
neutralità tecnologica: se gli stessi atti che gli utenti possono legalmente
|
||||
intraprendere in ambiente analogico dovessero essere considerati legali
|
||||
in quello digitale, allora alla tecnologia DRM non dovrebbe essere consentito di
|
||||
ostacolare qualsivoglia eccezione. Il Parlamento non è stato molto esplicito, ma tale
|
||||
lettura del testo sembra giustificata e speriamo che la proposta
|
||||
da parte della Commissione sosterrà attivamente questa interpretazione.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="public-domain">Pubblico dominio</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Come abbiamo già affermato, il dominio pubblico è una importante risorsa per
|
||||
chiunque crei lavori originali. La creatività non viene dal nulla,
|
||||
ma attinge da una moltitudine di input e influenze. Il
|
||||
pubblico dominio - lavori che non sono coperti dal diritto d'autore e che possono essere
|
||||
usati liberamente - è una riserva particolarmente ricca di tali input. Salvaguardare
|
||||
e possibilmente estendere il pubblico dominio è essenziale per rendere possibile
|
||||
la creatività futura. Gli autori dovrebbero avere l'opzione di pubblicare i propri
|
||||
lavori direttamente nel pubblico dominio, qualora lo desiderino.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Qui il rapporto va nella direzione giusta, dato che l'articolo 31
|
||||
si appella ad una protezione migliore del pubblico dominio e richiede che la Commissione
|
||||
consideri di fornire agli autori la possibilità di contribuirvi direttamente.
|
||||
Inoltre afferma esplicitamente che le opere, una volta divenute di pubblico dominio,
|
||||
non possono essere riappropriate nuovamente tramite digitalizzazione.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h3 id="works-created-with-public-funds-should-be-available-to-the-public">Le opere
|
||||
create con fondi pubblici dovrebbero essere a disposizione del pubblico</h3>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Il punto 5 della bozza del rapporto chiedeva che ogni lavoro prodotto
|
||||
da enti pubblici (appartenenti al potere legislativo, amministrativo o giudiziario) dovesse essere
|
||||
messo a disposizione del pubblico per l'uso e la modifica.
|
||||
Abbiamo suggerito di includere esplicitamente alla lista i software prodotti con
|
||||
fondi pubblici e che questo obbiettivo sarebbe raggiunto al meglio tramite l'uso
|
||||
delle licenze di Software Libero. Ciononostante, l'attuale articolo 30
|
||||
presenta delle richieste molto più deboli; anche se la sua formulazione non ha
|
||||
effetti negativi sul Software Libero, non impone al software sviluppato
|
||||
per le pubbliche amministrazioni di essere distribuito sotto una licenza libera.
|
||||
In questo modo il Parlamento ha perso
|
||||
un'occasione per fermare un incredibile spreco di risorse pubbliche.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="linking">Link</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Nella bozza del rapporto c'era la proposta di affermare chiaramente
|
||||
che i link ipertestuali non potessero essere considerati “comunicazioni ad
|
||||
un nuovo pubblico” ai fini della legge sul diritto d'autore. Siamo stati fortemente
|
||||
d'accordo con questa proposta, perché tale qualificazione giuridica limiterebbe pesantemente
|
||||
la libertà di espressione senza fornire alcun vantaggio agli autori.
|
||||
Inoltre, un World Wide Web appesantito da tale rischio sarebbe
|
||||
molto meno dinamico e quindi soffocato nella sua forza innovativa.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Affrontando vari emendamenti che hanno provato ad assoggettare i link
|
||||
alla protezione del diritto d'autore, l'intero argomento è stato escluso dalla
|
||||
versione finale, evitando così il rischio di un rapporto finale che richiedesse
|
||||
una struttura legislativa anche meno adatta alle tecnologie attuali.
|
||||
Non possiamo comprendere come un problema così semplice, fondamentale
|
||||
per l'esistenza di Internet così come lo conosciamo, possa generare
|
||||
una tale quantità di controversie e rimanere ancora ignorato. Questo comportamento
|
||||
comporta rimandare la decisione, o (più probabile)
|
||||
delegarla implicitamente alla Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="conclusion">Conclusione</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>Anche se il rapporto propone alcuni miglioramenti all'attuale struttura
|
||||
legislativa, lo stesso presenta varie battute d'arresto rispetto alle bozze originali
|
||||
e non riesce a risolvere completamente i problemi maggiori con l'attuale
|
||||
legislazione sul diritto d'autore. Il prossimo passo per la Commissione è di pubblicare
|
||||
le proprie proposte per la riforma del diritto d'autore (attesa per la fine del 2015).
|
||||
Vorremmo che la Commissione avanzasse lungo il percorso aperto dal Parlamento,
|
||||
e lo portasse anche oltre, apportando delle migliorie sui punti più critici.
|
||||
Chiediamo che rendano chiaro che nessuna eccezione al diritto d'autore dovrebbe
|
||||
mai essere limitata dal DRM, che forniscano una serie di eccezioni completamente
|
||||
armonizzata, che rinforzino il principio di neutralità tecnologica
|
||||
e che rendano tutti i lavori finanziati pubblicamente parte del pubblico dominio.
|
||||
Infine, chiediamo di mantenere e rafforzare la distinzione
|
||||
tra proprietà fisica e la così detta “proprietà intellettuale”,
|
||||
essendo essenziale per una diffusione equa della conoscenza.</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2 id="fn">Note</h2>
|
||||
<ol>
|
||||
<li id="fn1">Vedi Preambolo K e articolo 50<a href="#fnref1">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn2">Articoli 1, 4, 5, 7, 19<a href="#fnref2">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn3">Articoli 37 e 38<a href="#fnref3">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn4">Articolo 61<a href="#fnref4">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn5">Articoli 35 e 43<a href="#fnref5">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn6">Articoli 43 e 44<a href="#fnref6">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn7">Articolo 48<a href="#fnref7">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn8">Puoi trovare ulteriori informazioni su come il DRM impone restrizioni
|
||||
ai diritti degli utenti su <a href="http://www.defectivebydesign.org/">defective by design</a>, su <a href="http://drm.info">drm.info</a>, in
|
||||
<a href="https://blogs.fsfe.org/eal/2013/05/03/digital-and-physical-restrictions-on-your-own-device/">questo
|
||||
post</a> dalla nostra fellowship o controllando
|
||||
<a href="/tags/tagged.en.html#nDRM">i nostri articoli</a>
|
||||
al riguardo.<a href="#fnref8">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn9">Articolo 62<a href="#fnref9">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn10">Articolo 63<a href="#fnref10">↩</a></li>
|
||||
<li id="fn11">Articolo 57<a href="#fnref11">↩</a></li>
|
||||
</ol>
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
|
||||
<sidebar promo="our-work">
|
||||
<h2>Indice</h2>
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="#intro">Introduzione</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#general-considerations">Considerazioni generali</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#exceptions">Eccezioni</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#public-domain">Pubblico dominio</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#linking">Link</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="#conclusion">Conclusione</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
<h2>Link correlati</h2>
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/20150605-Comments-On-Reda-Report.en.html">La
|
||||
nostra valutazione della prima bozza del rapporto</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2015-0273&language=EN">Il rapporto</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/reda-report-adopted-a-turning-point-in-the-copyright-debate/">Valutazioni di Julia Reda</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="http://copywrongs.eu/">Copywrongs.eu</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
</sidebar>
|
||||
|
||||
<translator>Emanuele Croce, 17/09/2015</translator>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
Binary file not shown.
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
|
|
@ -1,141 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||||
<html>
|
||||
<version>1</version>
|
||||
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<title>FSFE - Unsere Arbeit bei der Europäischen Union</title>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
|
||||
<body>
|
||||
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Unsere Arbeit</a></p>
|
||||
<h1>Europäische Union</h1>
|
||||
<div id="introduction">
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Seit 2001 beschäftigen wir uns mit der Politik der Europäischen Union,
|
||||
als die FSFE als sachverständige dritte Partei im
|
||||
Kartellrechtsverfahren der Kommission gegen Microsoft auftrat. Seitdem
|
||||
fördern wir Freie Software und achten besonders darauf, dass
|
||||
grundlegende Prinzipien wie fairer Wettbewerb berücksichtigt werden.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>EU Browser Fall</h2>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Die Free Software Foundation Europe unterstützte das
|
||||
Kartellrechtsverfahren der Europäischen Kommission gegen Microsoft als
|
||||
interessierter Sachverständiger. Die Untersuchung begann am 16. Januar
|
||||
als die GD Wettbewerb der Europäische Kommission ihren Bericht zu
|
||||
Einwänden einreichte, die sich auf Microsofts Missbrauch der
|
||||
Web-Standards und der Bündelung des Internet Explores (IE) an die
|
||||
Produktgruppen der Windows Betriebssysteme bezogen. Es basierte auf
|
||||
einer Beschwerde von Opera, einem europäischen Unternehmen, das Web
|
||||
Browser entwickelt und von der FSFE 2007 öffentlich unterstützt wurde.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Europäische Interoperabilität</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Die Europäische Kommission untersucht die Praxis, mit der Microsoft
|
||||
Wettbewerber daran hindert, Schnittstellen zu einer Vielzahl seiner
|
||||
Desktop-Programme für Gewerbetreibende aufzubauen. Der FSFE-Präsident
|
||||
Karten Gerloff betont:" Wir begrüßen die Entscheidung der Kommission,
|
||||
die Untersuchung zur Interoperabilität nicht abzuschließen während sie
|
||||
weiterhin beobachtet, ob die Versprechen von Microsoft ausreichen, um
|
||||
den Wettbewerb zu fördern."
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Die FSFE setzt sich ebenso für <a href="/freesoftware/standards/">Offene
|
||||
Standards</a> ein, die eine Schlüsselrolle für Interoperabilität
|
||||
einnehmen. Daher wirbt die FSFE für ihre Anwendung, vor allem
|
||||
durch die <a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.de.html">Revision des
|
||||
Europäischen Rahmenwerks zu Interoperabilität</a>.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Weitere laufende Aktivitäten</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.de.html">Siebtes EU Rahmenprogramm</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.de.html">IPRED 2 - Kriminalisierung
|
||||
des Urheberrechts- und der Warenzeichenverletzung</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.de.html">SELF (Science, Education and Learning in Freedom)</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Was wir erreicht haben</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.de.html">Die FSFE und die
|
||||
Kartellklage gegen Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.de.html">Sechstes Rahmenprogramm der
|
||||
EU</a> (2002)</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Verwandte Neuigkeiten</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: Die FSFE
|
||||
begrüßt größere Auswahlmöglichkeiten für Nutzer bei Browsers, warnt
|
||||
davor, dass Freie Software von Interoperabilität ausgeschlossen
|
||||
wird</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: EU gibt
|
||||
proprietären Lobbyisten bei Interoperabilität nach</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: FSFE im Kampf
|
||||
für Europäische Interoperabilität</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: Microsoft-
|
||||
Abkommen lässt Freie Software im Regen stehen</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06: Microsoft-
|
||||
Kartellrechtsklage: FSFE bietet der Europäische Kommission Analyse
|
||||
an</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: EU
|
||||
Browserfall: FSFE sagt, die Details des Abkommens werden
|
||||
entscheiden</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: FSFE beteiligt
|
||||
sich an EU Browserfall</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Dokumente und Veröffentlichungen</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.de.html">Eine Untersuchung über die
|
||||
Ausgewogenheit von Standardisierung und Patenten</a></b>
|
||||
(2008-12-02)<br /> Im Anschluss an den
|
||||
"<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR
|
||||
in ICT Standardisation</a>" Workshop vor zwei Wochen, analysierte der
|
||||
FSFE-Präsident <a href="/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a> die Konflikte
|
||||
zwischen Patenten und Standards. Der Ergebnisbericht zeigt die
|
||||
schädlichsten Effekte von Patenten auf Standards auf und untersucht die
|
||||
Effektivität der gängigen Strategien dagegen, sowie möglicher zukünftiger
|
||||
Lösungsversuche.
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.de.html">Freie Software in Europa -
|
||||
Europäische Perspektiven und die Arbeit der FSFE</a></b>
|
||||
(2003-05-20)<br /> In diesem Artikel werden die langfristig Vorteile
|
||||
Freier Software in verschiedenen Bereichen erklärt und gezeigt, wie
|
||||
europäische Staaten von Freier Software profitieren können.
|
||||
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Veröffentlicht</a>
|
||||
in der
|
||||
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">Frühling
|
||||
2003</a> Ausgabe der
|
||||
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - European Union</a>
|
||||
mit einem Vorwort von Romano Prodi)
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.de.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - LAying the Foundations for the Information
|
||||
Society</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.de.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
|
||||
Liberty</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.de.html">Empfehlung der FSFE und unterstützender Parteien</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br />
|
||||
for the <a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.de.html">Sechstes Rahmenprogramm</a>
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
|
||||
<translator>Andreas Aubele</translator>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
<!--
|
||||
Local Variables: ***
|
||||
mode: xml ***
|
||||
End: ***
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,170 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||||
<html>
|
||||
<version>1</version>
|
||||
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<title>Η Εργασία μας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση - FSFE</title>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
|
||||
<body>
|
||||
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Η Εργασία μας</a></p>
|
||||
<h1>Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση</h1>
|
||||
<div id="introduction">
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Η ανάμειξή μας με την πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης πάει πίσω
|
||||
στο 2001, όταν το FSFE έγινε ενδιαφερόμενο τρίτο μέρος στην υπόθεση
|
||||
αντιμονοπωλιακής νομοθεσίας της Επιτροπής εναντίον της Microsoft.
|
||||
Από τότε, συνεχίζουμε να διαφημίζουμε το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό εστιάζοντας
|
||||
στο σεβασμό σε θεμελιώδεις αρχές όπως ο δίκαιος ανταγωνισμός.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- h2>Links</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<alllinks/-->
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Επισκόπηση των πολιτικών της ΕΕ: Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό και Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα
|
||||
</h2>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Πολλές χώρες στην Ευρώπη έχουν πολιτικές, νόμους ή συστάσεις
|
||||
που αφορούν το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό και τα Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα.
|
||||
Σε συνεργασία με την κοινότητα του Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού,
|
||||
προετοιμάζουμε μια αναλυτική επισκόπηση αυτών των πολιτικών.
|
||||
Θέλουμε να δώσουμε σε ακτιβιστές και διαμορφωτές πολιτικής
|
||||
ένα εργαλείο συγκριτικής ανάλυσης προσεγγίσεων που υπάρχουν
|
||||
στις διάφορες χώρες και να μάθουμε και από τις καλές και από
|
||||
τις λιγότερο καλές πρακτικές. Η εργασία αυτή βρίσκεται σε εξέλιξη.
|
||||
Παρακαλώ στείλτε οτιδήποτε μπορείτε να προσθέσετε στο
|
||||
<policies AT fsfeurope DOT org>, μαζί με σχόλια που πιθανόν
|
||||
να έχετε.<br/>
|
||||
Μπορείτε να διαβάσετε περισσότερα
|
||||
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.html"> εδώ</a>.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Η υπόθεση της ΕΕ για τους περιηγητές Ιστού</h2>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Το Ευρωπαϊκό Ίδρυμα Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού υποστήριξε την Ευρωπαϊκή
|
||||
Επιτροπή στη διερευνητική διαδικασία περί αντιμονοπωλιακής νομοθεσίας
|
||||
εναντίον της Microsoft ως ενδιαφερόμενο τρίτο μέρος.
|
||||
Η διερεύνηση ξεκίνησε στις 16 Ιανουαρίου όταν η Γενική Διεύθυνση
|
||||
Ανταγωνισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής ανακοίνωσε ότι είχε εκδώσει μια
|
||||
δήλωση ενστάσεων σχετικά με την κατάχρηση από τη Microsoft των προτύπων
|
||||
στον παγκόσμιο ιστό και την πρόσδεση του Internet Explorer (IE) στην
|
||||
οικογένεια προϊόντων του Λειτουργικού Συστήματος Windows. Η δήλωση
|
||||
έγινε με βάση μια καταγγελία η οποία υποβλήθηκε από την Opera, μια
|
||||
Ευρωπαϊκή εταιρία που ασχολείται με την ανάπτυξη περιηγητών ιστού
|
||||
και η οποία υποστηρίχθηκε δημόσια από το FSFE το 2007.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Η Διαλειτουργικότητα στην Ευρώπη</h2>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή διερευνά τον τρόπο με τον οποίο η Microsoft
|
||||
αποτρέπει τους ανταγωνιστές από τη διεπαφή με πολλά από τα προγράμματά
|
||||
της εφαρμογών γραφείου. Ο Πρόεδρος του FSFE's Karsten Gerloff λέει:
|
||||
"Καλωσορίζουμε την απόφαση της Επιτροπής να κρατήσει ανοικτή την έρευνα
|
||||
για τη διαλειτουργικότητα ενώ παρακολουθεί αν οι υποσχέσεις της Microsoft
|
||||
βοηθούν στην προώθηση του ανταγωνισμού".
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Το FSFE επίσης ασκεί πίεση για τα
|
||||
<a href="/freesoftware/standards/">Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα</a>, τα οποία
|
||||
είναι κλειδί για τη διαλειτουργικότητα και ως τέτοια το FSFE προβάλλει
|
||||
την υιοθέτησή τους, ιδιαίτερα μέσα από την
|
||||
<a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.el.html">αναθεώρηση του Ευρωπαϊκού
|
||||
Πλαισίου Διαλειτουργικότητας</a>.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Άλλες τρέχουσες δραστηριότητες</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2011/news-20111128-02.html">Horizon 2020</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.html">7ο Πρόγραμμα Πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.html">IPRED 2 - Η ποινικοποίηση της παραβίασης πνευματικών
|
||||
δικαιωμάτων και εμπορικών σημάτων</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.html">SELF (Science, Education and Learning in Freedom)</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Τι επιτύχαμε</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.html">Το FSFE και η αντιμονοπωλιακή υπόθεση εναντίον της Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.html">6ο Πρόγραμμα Πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής</a> (2002)</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Σχετικές ειδήσεις</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: Το FSFE καλωσορίζει τη διεύρυνση των επιλογών
|
||||
του χρήστη στους περιηγητές, προειδοποιεί ότι το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό εξαιρείται από τη διαλειτουργικότητα</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή καταρρέει υπό την πίεση
|
||||
ομάδων ιδιοκτησιακών λύσεων σχετικά με τη διαλειτουργικότητα</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: Το FSFE στη μάχη για τη διαλειτουργικότητα στην Ευρώπη
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: Ο διακανονισμός της Microsoft βάζει το
|
||||
Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό στον πάγο</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06:Υπόθεση της Microsoft περί αντιμονοπωλιακής νομοθεσίας:
|
||||
το FSFE προσφέρει αναλυτική έκθεση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: Η Υπόθεση της ΕΕ για τους περιηγητές ιστού:
|
||||
Το FSFE λέει ότι οι λεπτομέρειες του διακανονισμού θα είναι κρίσιμες
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: Το FSFE παίρνει μέρος στην υπόθεση της ΕΕ
|
||||
για τους περιηγητές ιστού
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Έγγραφα και Δημοσιεύσεις</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><p><strong><a href="20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf">Η
|
||||
συμβολή του FSFE στη συλλογική έννομη προστασία (2011-04-30)</a></strong><br/>
|
||||
στη <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/index_en.html">δημόσια διαβούλευση</a> της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής «Προς μία
|
||||
συνεκτική Ευρωπαϊκή προσέγγιση στη συλλογική έννομη προστασία».
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><strong><a href="20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf">Η
|
||||
συμβολή του FSFE στις δημόσιες προμήθειες Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού (2011-04-18)</a>
|
||||
</strong><br/> στη <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm">δημόσια διαβούλευση</a>
|
||||
της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σχετικά με τον «εκσυγχρονισμό της πολιτικής δημόσιων
|
||||
προμηθειών της ΕΕ».
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><strong><a href="20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf">Η έκθεση
|
||||
του FSFE σχετικά με τη Δικτυακή Ουδετερότητα (2010-09-30)</a></strong><br/> στη
|
||||
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult//net_neutrality/index_en.htm">δημόσια διαβούλευση</a> της Ευρωπαϊκής
|
||||
Επιτροπής σχετικά με το «ανοιχτό διαδίκτυο και τη δικτυακή ουδετερότητα».
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.el.html">Ανάλυση της ισορροπίας: Προτυποποίηση και Διπλώματα Ευρεσιτεχνίας</a></b>
|
||||
(2008-12-02)<br />
|
||||
Με αφορμή την ημερίδα "<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR in ICT
|
||||
Standardisation</a>" πριν δύο εβδομάδες στις Βρυξέλλες, ο πρόεδρος του FSFE <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a>
|
||||
ανέλυσε τις συγκρούσεις ανάμεσα στις πατέντες και τα πρότυπα. Το αποτέλεσμα είναι μια δημοσίευση για τις πιο επιζήμιες
|
||||
επιπτώσεις των πατεντών στα πρότυπα, την αποτελεσματικότητα των υφιστάμενων μέτρων αποκατάστασης και για πιθανά
|
||||
επανορθωτικά μέτρα στο μέλλον
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.el.html">Το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό στην Ευρώπη - Η Ευρωπαϊκή προοπτική
|
||||
και η εργασία του FSFE</a></b> (2003-05-20)<br />
|
||||
Ένα άρθρο που αναλύει τα οφέλη σε μεγάλη κλίμακα από το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό σε πολλές περιοχές και πώς η Ευρώπη
|
||||
και οι Ευρωπαϊκές χώρες μπορούν να επωφεληθούν από το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό.
|
||||
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Δημοσιεύτηκε</a>
|
||||
στο <a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">Spring 2003</a>
|
||||
τεύχος του
|
||||
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - European Union</a>
|
||||
με πρόλογο του Romano Prodi)
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - LAying the Foundations for the Information
|
||||
Society</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
|
||||
Liberty</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.html">Recommendation by the FSFE and supporting parties</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br />
|
||||
for the <a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.html">6th framework programme</a>
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
<!--
|
||||
Local Variables: ***
|
||||
mode: xml ***
|
||||
End: ***
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,146 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||||
|
||||
<html>
|
||||
<version>1</version>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<title>Our Work at the European Union - FSFE</title>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||
|
||||
<body>
|
||||
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Our Work</a></p>
|
||||
<h1>European Union</h1>
|
||||
|
||||
<div id="introduction">
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Our involvement in the European Union policy goes back to 2001,
|
||||
when FSFE became an interested third-party in the Commission's
|
||||
antitrust case against Microsoft. Since then, we have kept
|
||||
on promoting Free Software by focusing on fundamental principles that must be respected, such as fair competition.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<alllinks/> -->
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>EU Policies overview: Free Software and Open Standards</h2>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Many countries in Europe have policies, laws or
|
||||
recommendations concerning Free Software and Open
|
||||
Standards. In collaboration with the Free Software
|
||||
community, we are preparing a comprehensive overview of
|
||||
these policies. We want to provide both activists and
|
||||
policy makers with a tool to compare the approaches that
|
||||
exist in different countries, and to learn from both good
|
||||
and less good practices. This is a work in progress.
|
||||
Please email anything you can add to <policies AT
|
||||
fsfeurope DOT org>, along with any comments you may have.<br/>
|
||||
You can read more <a href="/activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.html"> here</a>.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>EU Browser case</h2>
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
Free Software Foundation Europe supported the European Commission's
|
||||
antitrust investigation against Microsoft as an interested third party.
|
||||
The investigation began on the 16th of January when the European
|
||||
Commission DG Competition reported that it had issued a statement of
|
||||
objections regarding Microsoft's abuse of web standards and the tying of
|
||||
Internet Explorer (IE) to the Windows Operating System product family.
|
||||
It is based on a complaint submitted by Opera, a European company
|
||||
involved in web browser development, which FSFE publicly supported in
|
||||
2007.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>European Interoperability</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
The European Commission is investigating the way Microsoft prevents
|
||||
competitors from interfacing with many of its desktop productivity
|
||||
programs. FSFE's President Karsten Gerloff says: "We welcome the
|
||||
Commission's decision to keep the interoperability investigation open
|
||||
while it monitors whether Microsoft's promises help to promote
|
||||
competition."
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<p>
|
||||
FSFE is also pushing for <a href="/freesoftware/standards/">Open Standards</a>, which
|
||||
are key to interoperability and as such FSFE promotes their adoption, especially through the <a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.en.html">revision of the European Interoperability Framework</a>.
|
||||
</p>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Other ongoing activities</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2011/news-20111128-02.html">Horizon 2020</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.en.html">7th EC Framework Programme</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.en.html">IPRED 2 - Criminalisation of copyright and trademark infringement</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.en.html">SELF (Science, Education and Learning in Freedom)</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>What we achieved</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.en.html">FSFE and the antitrust case against Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">6th EC Framework Programme</a> (2002)</li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Related news</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: FSFE welcomes greater user choice in browsers, warns that Free Software is excluded from interoperability</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: EC caves in to proprietary lobbyists on interoperability</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: FSFE in battle for European interoperability
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: Microsoft settlement leaves Free Software in the cold
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06: Microsoft antitrust case: FSFE offers analysis to European Commission
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: EU browser case: FSFE says details of settlement will be crucial
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: FSFE engages in the EU browser case
|
||||
</a></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
<h2>Documents and Publications</h2>
|
||||
|
||||
<ul>
|
||||
<li><p><strong><a href="20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf">FSFE's contribution on collective redress (2011-04-30)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/index_en.html">public consultation</a> "Towards a coherent European approach to collective redress".
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><strong><a href="20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf">FSFE's contribution on public procurement of Free Software (2011-04-18)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm">public consultation</a> on "modernisation of EU public procurement policy".
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><strong><a href="20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf">FSFE's submission on Net Neutrality (2010-09-30)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult//net_neutrality/index_en.htm">public consultation</a> on "open internet and net neutrality".
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.en.html">Analysis on balance: Standardisation and Patents</a></b> (2008-12-02)<br />
|
||||
Following up on the "<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR in ICT Standardisation</a>" Workshop two weeks ago in Brussels, FSFE president <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a> analysed the conflicts between patents and standards. The resulting paper is about the most harmful effects of patents on standards, the effectiveness of current remedies, and potential future remedies.
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.en.html">Free Software in Europe - European perspectives and work of the FSF
|
||||
Europe</a></b> (2003-05-20)<br />
|
||||
An article explaining the large-scale beneficial aspects of Free Software
|
||||
in multiple areas and how Europe and the European countries can benefit
|
||||
from Free Software.
|
||||
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Published</a>
|
||||
in the
|
||||
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">Spring 2003</a>
|
||||
issue of the
|
||||
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - European Union</a>
|
||||
with a foreword by Romano Prodi)
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.en.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - LAying the Foundations for the Information
|
||||
Society</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.en.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
|
||||
Liberty</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
|
||||
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.en.html">Recommendation by the FSFE and supporting parties</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br />
|
||||
for the <a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">6th framework programme</a>
|
||||
</p></li>
|
||||
</ul>
|
||||
|
||||
</body>
|
||||
</html>
|
||||
<!--
|
||||
Local Variables: ***
|
||||
mode: xml ***
|
||||
End: ***
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
|
@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
|
|||
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||||
<html>
|
||||
<version>1</version>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
<head>
|
||||
<title>Notre action au sein de l'Union Européenne - FSFE</title>
|
||||
</head>
|
||||