Amelia Andersdotter - Fildelning

Screening TPB:AFK in the European parliament

Ulf Pettersson — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:23:12 +0000

Language English

This Monday, the 22:nd of April, we at Amelias office are organizing an awesome film screening of the fascinating documentary TPB:AFK – The Pirate Bay: Away From Keyboard – here in the European parliament. TPB:AFK is a documentary about three of the people behind the Pirate Bay, the worlds most resilient torrent tracker. The documentary thus follows Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm and gives many insights into their life as well as to the politically rigged trial where they were sentenced to outrageously unjust and unproportionate sentences on behalf of the media industry.

Following the movie there will be a discussion with Simon Klose, the director of the film, together with Anna Troberg, party leader of the Swedish Piratpartiet. Simon will discuss the movie and Anna will answer any questions about the party in relation to the trial and release of the movie. Amelia will moderate the discussion and we hope for lots of interaction with the audience. Possibly, there is also a chance we will have one of the stars of the film, Peter Sunde, with us via video. Some drinks will also be served after the discussion.

Date: Monday 22 April
Time: 19:00-21:00
Room: A1G3
Place: European parliament, Place Luxembourg, Brussels
We will meet you at the main entrance to the parliament and show you to the right room.

This unique screening and chance to meet the director in person, is definitely not something you will want to miss if you are in Brussels on Monday! The movie, which has been a huge hit, can of course also been seen online on youtube.

If you need accreditation to enter the parliament please send an email to ulf.pettersson - at - ep.europa.eu containing your first name, last name, date of birth, ID number and ID type.

Keynote på Open Source Days, Köpenhamn (9 mars)

Amelia Andersdotter — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:02:45 +0000

Language Swedish

Jag hade den stora äran att få närvara vid Open Source Days, en stor dansk konferens om öppen källkod och öppen mjukvara som anordnas varje år i Köpenhamn sedan 1998. Nedan följer det anförande jag gjorde under konferensen, och efteråt var det många som ställde frågor och förde diskussioner som jag också besvarade så gott jag kunde. Det var många intressanta presentationer utöver min egen som DNS-censur, privatlivsskyddande teknologier för din mobiltelefon (specifikt Android och orbot), samt en mycket intressant historia om hur man kan porta mjukvara från slutna plattformar till Linux, och vilka avväganden man som företag då behöver gå igenom. Jag träffade PROSA, KLID, Superusers och ett makerbot-team som tillverkade små bystar (alltså statyer). Också närvarande var Ung Pirat Malmö:s nya ordförande Janni! Stort tack för sällskapet och jag hoppas vi ses snart igen :-)

I'm very happy to see so many people here. Welcome.

Most of you have come here because you are developers, or implementers, of open source solutions. Am here in a slightly different role. Even if I have been known to use open source software, I'm here because I am a member of the European Parliament, a publically elected representative, and, as such, legislating and creating norms for interactions in society are some of the tasks for which I m responsible and accountable. I am, optimally, responsible and accountable both for choices that I make, and choices that I don't make.

We all make choices, on a daily basis. In the vast majority of cases they don't have a big impact on the people around us, nor do they impact our surrounding world a lot. Many of the choices I make, when I work in Brussels, by contrast impact the framework in which the 500 million citizens of the European Union find themselves.

So I would like to talk about responsibility and accountability.

Last year I was awarded the honour of being named the fifth most influential internet activist in the world by online internet social community magazine Daily Dot, because of my work in the European Parliament against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Now, ACTA is an interesting piece of work since, ultimately, the European Parliament rejected the agreement. The international federation of phonogram industries issues a press release on the day after the vote, July 6th 2012, urging the parliament to be more responsible ”next time”.

But the agreement was already from the outset an example of devastatingly bad allocation of responsibility and accountability.

One of my major concerns in the agreement was the proposition that businesses make their own agreements on how copyright law or trademark law should be enforced.

The reason I don't like this is because I recognise that business, ultimately, doesn't have the olbigation to make difficult and sometimes costly judgement of which particular society benefit should be given preference over another at some given time.

It is us, the legislators, who make that balance through the laws that we enact, and up to the courts to implement these balances.

We have to be able to trust our legislators and our courts to uphold our rights and freedoms. We, the people, everyone of us that interacts every day, need to feel safe that our legislators take responsibility for our common interaction spaces. In the case of ACTA they did, so that is good.

But returning to the issue of responsibility: earlier this week the European Economic and Social Committee had invited me to hold a keynote at one of their meetings. They are not a legislative institution, by the way, so they do not necessarily cause a lot of harm. I was invited to hold a keynote on the responsible use of the Internet. Their thematic conference concerned children, nasty comments on the internet and how we can ensure that the Internet become a friendlier and funner place.

I said at that meeting, and I will maintain, that we have a fundamental political problem in how we define interaction spaces in society when all responsiblity for friendlieness is hurled towards the individual rather than us assessing whether the interaction frameworks are in fact wrongly defined.

We know, for instance, that at the World Summit for Information Society in 2005, ”communciation” was left out from the list of expected benefits from public access to information benefits. An arbitrary exclusion, given how important communication is for society and group cohesion.

In the European Union similarly we are not reforming the opyright laws. They create only uncertainties and risks for those who try to express themselves through use of culture, or those who turn to culture to build commonalities with others. Being a user of cultural works is associated with nothing but risk – all rights and certainties are kept for rightsholders. But because we either do not value communication or because we, the legislators, are unwilling to acknowledge the huge impact our work or, as it were, non-work, has on the abilities for people to interact, the reforms aren't coming.

I will give you an example: in December of last year, the current European Commissioner in charge of copyright issues Michel Barnier said in front of a parliamentary meeting that he did not want to look closer at users' rights in the European legislation because he didn't want to make copyright weaker.

I would argue that a legal framework made in such a way that it creates fear, uncertainty and doubt for those who try to build social networks and communities with each, is a weak legal framework. Our legal system can never be stronger than its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of the current copyright framework with its few limitations is very low.

When teachers, librarians, e-book consumers, radio stations, organizations helping out the visually impaired or Djs find themselves in a situation where they cannot, at any other than severe cost in time, money or to themselves, comply with or respect the law, that is the definition of a weak legal framework.

Laws have no purpose if they don't minimize conflicts between different members of society, or make the conflict resolution between these members as painless as possible if a conflict nevertheless arises. Copyright does exactly the reverse: it generated a multitude of conflicts, and makes the resolution of those conflicts painful and traumatic.

To no reassess users in copyright is irresponsible. It is an avoidance of responisibility that users and citizens themselves can't remedy. It falls upon politicians and elected representatives to take this responsiblity, but the political fear of action in this field is harming our society and our communication places.

Many here will be private persons, entrepreneurs or business people who are deeply concerned with policy areas like competition, standards development or patent law, trademarks or worse: trade-secrets, one of my biggest problems in legal development today.

Also here, unarguably, we are suffering from a gret number of problems over which politicians largely do not exercise much responsibility. Because of the very unclear value-base which guides all policy around communication, be it innovation, group work, personal or economic endeavours or what, the very concept of ”responsible use of the internet” is naturally confusing.

Is it responsible to have built a market model entirely dependent on the removal of freedom, choice and privacy of your customers?

I would argue that it isn't, but politically we have huge difficulties acknowledging concepts like indutrial leadership or the consequences of showing, or refusing to show, such leadership. What we seem particularly unable to determine, politically, is how to discuss the frameworks for interaction that we are making.

Because politicians, publically elected officials, decide the frameworks within which all other actors in society operate, it is incredibly important that they have a vision and some values to impose on that framework.

So for instance, I believe that we need a much stronger policy against vertical integration. Competition policy, which today deals msotly with cartels, mergers and dominant actors need to have a shift of focus towards market entrance barriers. For each level of a different product chain we should not only ponder, but also enforce, functional separation. This will make market entrance on each level of the vertical chain much easier and more actors will be able to join in innovation and product development.

What we are seeing instead is a less conflictful application of competition law now than in the past. When Apple locked its platform sot hat developers only by locking in themselves could participate in the AppStore, the European Commission was happy to accept only a weak commitment from Apple to open partially the developer kit in 2010.

Clearly a more useful discussion or investigation to have been had could and should have been the exact control exercised by Apple over every step of their value chain, and whether anti-trust laws should actually be given a larger role in contravening such practises.

Similarly, when Apple and four publishers were doing price-fixing and locin-in for the e-book sectors, the Commission cautiously criticized the license market they were engaging in as potentially in violation of competition laws, but in the end the Commission decided to not go in and actually just ban the market that they though was not in any way competitive, but instead accept the voluntary commitment to discontinue these market practises for a period of two years.

Clearly more political evaluation over what type of market models we are actually willing to accept would have been useful here.

Even in the Commission's merger investigations, they will very rarely scrutinize the conglomerating effects of merging patent portfolios on a licensing market. But the market for licenses of certain types of patents can be very heavily influenced by large mergers.

The type of competition overhaul that I would like to see would of course demnd involvement not only of competition authorities, but politicians and sector-specific national regulatory authorities as well. It is possible, but it reuires consistent and responsible politicians that are willing to be accountable, and responsible, for the decisions and values they implement.

We as citizens should not be letting our publically elected officials get away with losely referring to industry self-regulation or how they do not want to stop some business development from happening.

Even if it is clear that vertical integration and centralization can have some benefits, freedom, choice and the liberty to make new things is to me more important, and comes only from a structural framework of functional separation.

This brings me over to a last point that i would like to propose on the topic of responsibility. I say that often we hear politicians avoiding responsibility by stressing their unwillingness to interfere with business development or the development of new business models. It is already quite clear that all businesses emerge inside a society context, and that politicians, parliamentarians, governments and commissioners have the responsibility for how that framework is set up.

We all exist inside this framework, which defines how and when we interact in which way with whom. It defines our social interactions, our interactions with businesses, public authorities or the way that businesses interact with each other or public institutions.

These frameworks are made to reduce th total amount of conflicts and bad blood. They are here to help us make bad blood that nevertheless appers go away in some process least traumatic to the parties involved.

So clearly, in order to preserve these conflict minimizing properties of our framework for interaction, we should not be scared of, or avoid, showing an appropriate amount of industrial leadership.

Privacy, data protection or security are good examples of where a larger degree of political responsibility is needed.

In one place I read, and I think this captures beautifully this point: one national data protection authority based in a member state of the European Union stated that it feels its mission is to mitigate the negotative consequences brought on to private persons and citizens in their interactions with business and public authorities by the large scale deployment of information and communication technologies.

Mitigating the negative consequences implies that all is lost, and you would wonder why we at all make public investments in data protection authorities if all is lost.

As we see, and as many of you know, we could simply politically decide not to accept some economic models which create the need for ex post crisis management and damage mitigation with respect to privacy concerns.

We need stronger leadership, responsibility and enforcement of the privacy and data protection measures that we want.

I'm not saying politicians must necessarily favour some technology over another, but I do believe strongly that we both can and should consider the properties which technologies that get deployed at large-scale have to possess.

As business models deal a lot with interaction and communication, we can and should also exercise responsibility in open, democratic debates about which business models we find ok, and which ones we don't.

Now finally, then, if one is a private person and one would like to interact with policy making institutions because one is concerned about the lack of responsibility or one wants to increase accountability? I would suggest writing e-mails, letters or give phonecalls to deputies, that are personal. One person writing a heartfelt, personal email to their deputy easily counts more than any lobbyist or any other interest. Keep in touch with your deputies, ask what they are doing, get in touch when you know that they are addressing issues relevant to you.

Tal till Ecosocmötet om internet och ansvar

Amelia Andersdotter — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 06:34:09 +0000

Language English

Det här är ett tal jag höll under Ekonomiska och sociala kommittéens (en EU-institution som inte främst verkar lagstiftande utan utredande) möte om internet och ansvar förra veckan i onsdags:

Delegates,

Honourable participants in this meeting of the Economic and Social Committee,

We are here to discuss political implications on society of information and comunications technologies. More specifically, the designers of this event have framed the discussion as ”responsible use of the internet”.

When I look at theinternet policy and ICT policy in general, responsibility is probably the last word that would come to my mind.

For one – communication. Would you believe last week I attended a United Nations event where someone explained that ”communication” had been left out from the list of over-arching benefits of public access to the internet?

Communication is, to me, the most defining aspect of myself, my friends, the groups that I belong to and society at large.

Disregarding communication as a buidling block for society and the greatest gift to us as individuals and societies is entirely irresponsible. Which brings me to copyright and related rights.

This badly damaged and ill-adapted legal framework is creating problems for important society institutions such as libraries, archives, teachers and those who would ensure that visually or otherwise impaired individuals cn efficiently and effectively communicate with others. The we neglect this legal behemoth which has quashed communities, entrepreneurs and individuals is to me the ultimate act of irresponsibility.

Think but once of the children before you doom all their future communication, all their friends and social networks and societies to the power and whims of corporate IP management.

I believe we are also in the position where we can make responsible, or irresponsible, choices for infrastructures and frameworks. It is increasingly clear that technology can be developed that allows perfect traceability of every person and everything they do at al times.

Because a society where everyone is always watched, tracked or nudged into some behaviour of other is one we do not want, we will have to actively – or proactively – choose technologies and laws that allow us to preserve individual autonomy, self-empowerment and our right to define ourselves and our communities without external interference.

It has been said that although technology may not be good nor bad, it is certainly not neutral.

The technologies that we allow ourselves to permit in society can hugely impact our societies and how we interact. The fantastic wonders of being able to communicate with anyone in the entire world at a mere 200 millisecond delay has shown us that.

But other technologies and associated market models based on tracking, mapping, tracing and predicting cause discomfort and uncertainty. It is irresponsible not to deal with that and not to establish norms for these practises.

One of the most honurable tasks of being a publically elected official is that one gets to help hammer ut those norms and set the ramework for interaction – and communication – between the different society actors taht everyone is most comfortable with.

If there is any responsibility that should be exerted with respect to the Internet, it is the responsibility for the current political inaction in crafting all those citizen-friendly norms.

I believe that is is possible for us to create a legal framework where the citizens have the autonomy and the right to communcate and develop in private or together. I hope that the Economic and Social Committee and its members will join me in such an endeavour.

Sondeo respectiva IPRED - guía de rellenación (para ciudadanos con derechos)

Amelia Andersdotter — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:13:07 +0000

Language Spanish

El 30 de noviembre, la Comisión ha lanzado un IPRED-sondeo Para que sea más sencillo responder a estas preguntas, desde mi oficina hemos preparado una guía para rellenarlo. Esperamos que haga más fácil entender cuándo y porqué debería responder a las preguntas. Sin embargo, es bastante general, ya que la Comisión rechaza casi siempre las respuestas que son exactamente iguales. Aquí: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/intellectual-property-rights_en.htm

Para participar en este sondeo, debe pedir que se le envíe un enlace a su e-mail. Esto puede hacerse dando su e-mail a la Comisión para que puedan entonces enviarle el enlace al sondeo manualmente. Esto significa que sólo se puede obtener un enlace de participación durante el horario de oficina. Durante la semana que viene, vamos a pedir varios enlaces para que sea más fácil obtenerlos durante las vacaciones de Navidad.

Para información general sobre los sondeos, puede leer el texto al final de este artículo.

Den här bloggposten finns också på svenska. This blogpost is also in English. Traducción hecho por Felipe.

Guía de respuesta:

Parte 1: Información de fondo

Aquí, la Comisión le preguntará sobre quién es usted, normalmente usted responderá que es un ciudadano o un ciudadano en propiedad de derechos de propiedad intelectual. Las respuestas a continuación son para ciudadanos que no quieren responder como si poseyesen derechos de propiedad intelectual. Esto significa que tendrá que responder menos preguntas, pero por lo demás los formularios son absolutamente idénticos. Muy pronto publicaremos también otra guía de respuestas para ciudadanos que posean derechos de propiedad intelectual.

Ya que los derechos de propiedad intelectual se generan cada vez que se escribe un texto o se tararea una melodía desconocida, es bastante improbable que usted no esté en posesión de ningún tipo de derechos de propiedad intelectual. Si alguna vez ha tarareado una canción conocida o le han grabado (de forma voluntaria o involuntaria). También será poseedor de los llamados “derechos relativos”, que es algo que le pertenece cuando actúa en cualquier situación. Como ciudadano en propiedad de derechos de propiedad intelectual tendrá que responder a más preguntas y con más detalle que ciudadanos sin derechos de propiedad intelectual. Recomendamos que responda como si estuviera en posesión de derechos de propiedad intelectual

Si ha registrado patentes o derechos de marca, también se le harán más preguntas. Éstas incluyen si otras empresas han utilizado alguna vez su propiedad intelectual de manera competitiva contra usted ¡también le preguntarán sobre el significado de “Derecho de monopolio”!

Parte 2: Sondeo, página 1

Respuesta sugerida: Quién es usted, dónde considera que realiza su actividad principal y de dónde viene. Probablemente será suficiente con un e-mail, código postal y ciudad. De todos modos, puede que sea difícil evitar poner su nombre, a no ser que se limite a su nombre, sino existirá el riesgo de que no le tomen en serio.

Pregunta 1-4: Todas estas Preguntas son comentarios. Aquí podría subrayar que la directive no es segura legalmente, ya que no respeta el derecho a la privacidad. También podría resaltar que la directiva ha fallado en crear un efecto homogéneo y armonizador en el mercado interno. También podría mencionar que estudios hechos sobre la infracción de los derechos de propiedad en internet demuestra que los usuarios que intercambian archivos en internet consumen más cultura que aquellos que no intercambian archivos[1]. También podría mencionar que la propiedad intelectual se está convirtiendo, cada vez más, en una barrera al comercio y que necesitamos más excepciones en las leyes de propiedad intelectual para que ninguna biblioteca[2], profesor, organización de ciegos[3] y otras organizaciones que benefician a la sociedad[4] o nuevas empresas se vean dañadas por los derechos de propiedad intelectual[5].

Pregunta 5: La respuesta debe ser "Crucial". Para nosotros, ciudadanos, es de gran importancia que nuestro sistema legal funcione de un modo que sea socialmente aceptable.

[1] El material que apoya estas afirmaciones es bastante extensor ya, pero hay una recopilación, un estudio sobre megaupload y una colección de 2010
[2] En referencia al partido pirata sueco revision de la situación de las bibliotecas y de la propia proposición de la Comisión sobre las obras anónimas.
[3] En referencia al trabajo de la Organización Europea de Ciegos con excepciones en la ley de propiedad intelectual.
[4] En referencia a este excelente informe de IViR en los Países Bajos o la sociología legal estudio del Instituto de Internet de la universidad de Lund.
[5] En referencia a la Comisión investigación propia sobre el papel de la propiedad intellectual bloqueando el mercado interno. O el informe de la Comisión que critica el papel de la protección legal de las bases de datos en el desarrollo del mercado interno.

Parte 2: Sondeo, página 2

Cabecera Eficiencia y eficacia de los procedimientos civiles en casos relativos a infracciones relativas a los derechos de propiedad intelectual :

NOTA: Si ha sido amenazado o intimidado por parte de la industria audiovisual, es muy importante que responda a esto:

Pregunta 1: Si a recibido algún tipo de carta amenazante de parte de la industria audiovisual diga sí. En caso contrario diga no.
Pregunta 2: No, en ambos casos.
Pregunta 3: Si alguien de la industria audiovisual le ha denunciado, diga sí. Si no ha sido denunciado diga no.
Pregunta 4: No. (la gente que comparte archivos debería tener el mismo derecho a la justicia que el resto, sin ser procesados a través de métodos más rápidos)
Pregunta 5: No (ver caso anterior)
Pregunta 6: No
Pregunta 8: No. (Queremos que la justicia tenga las mismas posibilidades en referencia a la propiedad intellectual que en el resto de áreas del derecho)
Pregunta 9: No.
Pregunta 10: No.
Pregunta 11: No

Pregunta 12: Pregunta abierta (con un máximo de 1000 caracteres). Aquí puede hablar de la necesidad de tener un verdadero análisis de las evidencias y de asegurar a todos los europeos el derecho a la privacidad. La justicia debe actuar. También podría hablar sobre el riesgo de los tribunales especializados [1], o del hecho de que las autoridades del estado asuman el papel de los tribunales de justicia (Hadopi en Francia [2]) o la sumisión de responsabilidades a intereses privados (Irlanda [3] y los Estados Unidos [4]).

Pregunta abierta (máximo 1000 caracteres). Aquí podría hablar sobre la necesidad de tener claras evidencias y de asegurar que se respeta el derecho a la privacidad de todos los europeos. También puede subrayar los riesgos de los tribunales especializados [1], que las autoridades del estado están tomando el papel de los tribunales (Hadopi en Francia [2]) O la sumisión de responsabilidades a actores privados (Irlanda [3] y los Estados Unidos [4]).

[1] Hay muchas críticas a los tribunales especializados en patentes .

[2] Se ha criticado en muchas ocasiones a la ley francesa HADOPI. Para ver las críticas en Suecia pinche aquí. Si quiere informarse de los últimos acontecimientos sobre este tema, puede visitar en este enlace.

Resumiendo, HADOPI permite que se desconecte la conexión a internet de los usuarios sin pasar por el tribunal de justicia. Los titulares de los derechos pueden acusar a cualquier ciudadano de intrusión en sus derechos ante una autoridad central. Una vez que reciba tres protestas sobre un ciudadano, la autoridad, llamada HADOPI, desconectará a ese ciudadano de internet.

[3] En Irlanda, el proveedor de internet más grande del país tiene un acuerdo con las 3 principales compañías discográficas para desconectar a los usuarios de internet, en caso de que se les acuso de compartir archivos tres veces seguidas. No existe en absoluto la posibilidad de juicio. Este caso se ha examinado por el defensor del pueblo irlandés, que desafortunadamente perdió el caso, por lo que ahora las leyes de protección de datos permiten este tipo de acciones sin pasar por los tribunales.

Heading Derecho a la información:

Pregunta 1: Pregunta abierta. Aquí podría hablar sobre la necesidad de una reforma de los derechos de autor para que la gente que se comporta según normas socialmente aceptadas deje de infringir los derecho de autor[1]. También puede enfatizar la importancia de preservar el secreto de la correspondencia[2] y no hacer responsables legales a las plataformas de internet por lo que hagan sus clientes (por ejemplo, que tengan que comenzar a filtrar, bloquear o controlar comunicaciones privadas)

Pregunta 2: No.
Pregunta 3: No aplicable.
Pregunta 4: No aplicable.

Pregunta 5: Si selecciona "No" como respuesta a esta pregunta pregunta, aparecerá un recuadro de texto. Aquí puede subrayar la importancia de, en la medida de lo possible, preservar Internet sin fronteras, porque al fin y al cabo, esta es una de las carácterísticas que más nos gusta sobre internet. Si selecciona “No aplicable” no aparecerá ningún recuadro.

[1] El corpus of material que apoya estas afirmaciones es enorme, pero aquí tiene una recopilación, un estudio de Megaupload, una colección desde 2010.

[2] En el artículo de Wikipedia sobre El secreto de correspondencia puede ver que este principio está protegido en la costitución de numerosos países, que tiene su origen en que el amplio control de las comunicaciones privadas tiene consecuencias para los ciudadanos que son víctimas de este trato.

Heading Mecanismos para informar sobre estas infracciones y para impeder el acceso a bienes y servicios que infringen presuntamente los derechos de propiedad intelectual

Pregunta 1: No. No queremos ningún tipo de justicia automática
Pregunta 2: No. (veáse encima)

Pregunta 3: Pregunta abierta. Aquí podría escribir una observación sobre que se ha demostrado que la notificación-y-desmontaje conduce a inseguridad legal en, por ejemplo, los Países Bajos y que también ha causado problemas debido a la poca especificación en otros estados miembros[2]. Esto también podría ser una buena oportunidad para resaltar la importancia del derecho ciudadano a la privacidad y de los derechos fundamentales, lo que significa que no debería transferirse información entre diferentes partes de esta manera[3].

Pregunta 4: No. (Mire las Preguntas 1 y 2)

Pregunta 5: Pregunta abierta. Aquí podría resaltar los errores fundamentales encontrados en modelos basados en asustar a los usuarios para que obedezcan, además de los problemas de privacidad e integridad que surgen cuando se implementan este tipo de modelos [4]. Debemos construír la sociedad que quieran nuestros ciudadanos.

Pregunta 6: No. (La escala comercial no es un término que esté definido legalmente, y además podría incluir a cualquier tipo de industria que crea que un individuo se convierte en un actor comercial debido a su incapacidad para comprar.
Pregunta 7: No. (No nos gustan las leyes de 3 golpes como las de Irlanda o Francia)

[1] Un estudio llevado a cabo por la organización “Bits of Freedom”: www.bof.nl/docs/researchpaperSANE.pdf
[2] Referencia a este estudio de la organización EDRi: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.2/self-regulation-study-edri
[3] Puede compararlo con el caso en Irlanda del apéndice 3 en la sección anterior.
Heading Medidas correctivas
Pregunta 1: No. (Esto debe tratarse en los estados miembros)
Pregunta 2: No. (Esto debe tratarse en los estados miembros)
Pregunta 3: No. (Esto debe tratarse en los estados miembros)
Pregunta 4: Pregunta abierta. La pregunta implica que quieren saber qué cantidad de bienes incautados piensa que deben destruirse. Si se trata de un producto físico, como un reloj de pulsera, podemos asumir que su destrucción se puede llevar a cabo en el estado miembro. Si se trata de algo en soporte digital, como un archivo mp3 o una película flash, la pregunta es probablemente irrelevante.
Pregunta 5: No. (Esto debe tratarse en los estados miembros)
Comentario: Se trata del principio de subsidiaridad, o si la cuestión debe decidirse en el nivel apropiado. No existen razones para creer que la Unión Europea pueda tomar decisiones más acertadas que sus estados miembros sobre las cuestiones mencionadas en esta sección.

Heading Daños

Pregunta 1: Pregunta abierta. Aquí puede resaltar de nuevo que todo el sistema de compensación es muy anticuado y no tiene en cuenta que se ha demostrado que piratear material con derechos de autor es de hecho positivo para el consumo de cultura y la cantidad general de producción cultural. (Esta pregunta puede no incluír otros tipos de licencias, ya que licencias diferentes a aquellas para la venta de productos finales, por supuesto, negociadas entre dos partes en lugar de establecidas tan sólo por una, como las patentes)

Pregunta 2: No
Pregunta 3: No

Una consulta, o en otras palabras un sondeo es una herramienta que la Comisión Europea usa cuando quieren saber lo que piensas diferentes actores en la sociedad sobre un tema en particular. Estas consultas se crean a través de un sistema de sondeo que fue desarrollado por IBM en los años 90’. Esto significa que el sondeo pueda parecer raro de utilizar para gente que esté acostumbrada a sistemas del estilo de surveymonekey u otro tipo de sondeos que están mucho más adaptados a los usuarios.
Normalmente, la Comisión desarrolla estadísticas basadas en las respuestas de los sondeos. Por ello es importante que responda sí o no a las preguntas con un número limitado de opciones. Si no está de acuerdo con la pregunta, debe responder de modo que muestre un distanciamiento real con el objetivo de la misma.

En algunas ocasiones tendrá la oportunidad de responder de manera abierta. Estas preguntas normalmente tienen un límite de caracteres. Éstas son las respuestas que serán rechazadas en caso de que sean idénticas.

Por desgracia, la Comisión solamente publica sus sondeos en inglés, por lo que puede que sea difícil participar en el sondeo para alguien que no hable inglés. El Parlamento Europeo, entre otros, ha criticado extensamente a la Comisión por esto, ya que uno de los objetivos es dar a la población una manera fácil de contribuir al desarrollo de políticas.

La Comisión debe tener en cuenta todas las respuestas que recibe de este tipo de sondeos. Normalmente la Comisión también publica las respuestas que recibe, pero los datos personales de los ciudadanos se tratan de acuerdo a la legislación de protección de datos de la Unión Europea. Tanto siendo un individuo como siendo un lobby puede requerir a la Comisión que mantenga sus respuestas de manera confidencial, parcialmente o en su totalidad. Sin embargo, como ciudadano debería contactar a sus representantes, usted mismo o a través de un grupo de interés, para asegurarse de que la posición que ha expresado se tenga realmente en cuenta cuando la Comisión presente su informe.

Sondeo respectiva IPRED - guía de rellenación

Amelia Andersdotter — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:04:46 +0000

Language Spanish

Para información general sobre los sondeos, puede leer el texto al final de este artículo.

Den här bloggposten finns också på svenska. This blogpost is also in English. Traducción hecho por Felipe.

Guía de respuesta:

Parte 1: Información de fondo

Parte 2: Sondeo, página 1

Parte 2: Sondeo, página 2

Cabecera Eficiencia y eficacia de los procedimientos civiles en casos relativos a infracciones relativas a los derechos de propiedad intelectual :

Pregunta 1: Si a recibido algún tipo de carta amenazante de parte de la industria audiovisual diga sí. En caso contrario diga no.
Pregunta 2: No, en ambos casos.
Pregunta 3: Si alguien de la industria audiovisual le ha denunciado, diga sí. Si no ha sido denunciado diga no.
Pregunta 4: No. (la gente que comparte archivos debería tener el mismo derecho a la justicia que el resto, sin ser procesados a través de métodos más rápidos)
Pregunta 5: No (ver caso anterior)
Pregunta 6: No
Pregunta 7: No
Pregunta 8: Pregunta abierta (máximo 1000 caracteres). Aquí podría hablar sobre la necesidad de tener claras evidencias y de asegurar que se respeta el derecho a la privacidad de todos los europeos. También puede subrayar los riesgos de los tribunales especializados [1], que las autoridades del estado están tomando el papel de los tribunales (Hadopi en Francia [2]) O la sumisión de responsabilidades a actores privados (Irlanda [3] y los Estados Unidos [4]).

[1] Hay muchas críticas a los tribunales especializados en patentes .

[4] Puede ver la legislación propuesta aquí.
Heading Mecanismos para informar sobre acerca de una presunta infracción y para impedir el acceso a bienes y servicios que supuestamente infringen derechos de propiedad intelectual
Pregunta 1: No. No queremos ningún tipo de justicia automática (Notificación y desmontaje)
Pregunta 2: No. Si responde no a esta pregunta, tundra la posibilidad de poner un comentario. Aquí podría escribir sobre que se ha demostrado que la notificación y desmontaje da lugar a inseguridad legal en, por ejemplo, Los Países Bajos[1] y también ha causado problemas debido al limitado conocimiento en otros estados miembros[2] También podría utilizar esta oportunidad para resaltar la importancia de proteger el derecho a la privacidad y el resto de derechos fundamentales, lo que debería significar que los datos no deberían transferirse entre diferentes partes de este modo[3].

Pregunta 3: No.
Pregunta 4: No.
Pregunta 5: No. (La escala comercial no es un término que esté definido legalmente, y además podría incluir a cualquier tipo de industria que crea que un individuo se convierte en un actor comercial debido a su incapacidad para comprar.
Pregunta 6: No. (No nos gustan las leyes de 3 golpes como las de Irlanda o Francia)

Heading Daños
Pregunta 1: No

Commission IPRED Consultation, answering guide (citizens w copyrights)

Amelia Andersdotter — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:46:25 +0000

Language English

Den här bloggposten finns också på svenska!

On the 30 of november the commission opened a IPRED-questionnaire. To make it easier for citizens to respond to this questions, we here at my office have prepared a preliminary response guide. It will make it easier to understand when and why you should leave a response to the questions. It's however pretty general in its nature, as the commission almost always dismisses answers that are exactly the same.

You can find the survey here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/intellectual-property-rights_en.htm

To participate in the survey, you must request a consultation link to be sent to you by email. This is done by providing your email to the Commission, they will then manually send the link to the survey to you. This means that you only can get a participation link during normal office hours. During the next week we will request many participation links, so it will be easier to get a link during the Christmas and New Years leave.

For general information about consultations refer to the text at the bottom of this article.

Answers guide:

Part 1: Background information

Here the Commission will ask you questions about who you are, normally you will answer that you are a citizen or a citizen holding intellectual property right(s). The answers given below are for citizens that do not want to respond as if they have intellectual property rights. This means that you will have to answer fewer questions, but otherwise the forms are virtually identical. We will soon publish a another preliminary response guide for citizens with intellectual property rights. Since intellectual property rights are generated each time you are writing a text or humming an unknown melody it is highly unlikely that you do not hold any form of intellectual property rights. If you ever have hummed on a known melody, or have been filmed (voluntarily or involuntarily), you will also hold a so-called related rights, that is something you get when you perform in any way. As a citizen with intellectual property rights you will get to answer both more questions, and in more detail than citizens without intellectual property rights. We recommend that citizens to respond as if they hold intellectual property rights.

If you have registered patents or trademark rights, you also get a few more questions. This includes if another companies ever have used their intellectual property in a competitive manner against you, and in addition they will ask you about the meaning of a monopoly right!

Part 2: Questionnaire, page 1

Suggested answer: Who you are, where you consider yourself to operate and where you come from. Probably it will be enough with a email, zip code and city. It can however be hard to avoid stating your name, unless you deliberately limit yourself to your first name, or else you will face the risk that they will not take you as seriously.

Question 1-4: All these questions are comments. Here you could make an observation that the directive is not legally secure, as it does not respect the right to privacy. You could also also point out that the directive have failed to create a homogeneous and harmonizing effect on the internal market. Should should also mention that studies made on infringement of intellectual property rights on the internet, shows that file-sharers on the internet consumes more culture than those who don't share any files[1]. Also you could mentation that intellectual property is increasingly becoming a barrier for trade, and that we need more exception in the intellectual property laws so that no library[2], teachers, organizations for the visually impaired[3] and other socially beneficial organisations[4] or new companies is damaged by intellectual property rights[5].

Question 5: The answer should be "Crucial". For us citizens it is of utmost importance that our legal system works in a way that is socially acceptable.

[1] The corpus of material that supports this statement is pretty big right now, but here is a compilation, a study of MegaUpload and a collection from 2010
[2] Refer to the Swedish Pirateparty review of the library issue and the proposal from the Commission itself about orphan works.
[3] Refer to the work from European Blind Unions work with exceptions in intellectual property law.
[4] Refer to this excellent report from IViR in the Netherlands or the legal sociology research at Lund University Internet Institute.
[5] Refer to the Commissions own investigation about the role of intellectual property blocking on the internal market. Or the report from the Commission that that is criticizing legal protection of databases role in the development of the inner market.

Part 2: Questionnaire, page 2

SectionEfficiency and Effectiveness of civil proceedings in Cases Concerning infringements of intellectual property rights

NOTE: If you have been subjected to intimidation or harassment of the recording industry or the movie industry, this is really important for you to answer:

Question 1: If you have received a threatening letter from the record or film industry, say yes. Otherwise, no.
Question 2: No, in both cases above.
Question 3: If you are being sued by the record or film industry, yes. If you have not been sued, no.
Question 4: No. (file-sharers should have the same right to justice as others, without being herded through the legal system extra fast)
Question 5: No. (see above)
Question 6: No.
Question 7: No.
Question 8: No. (We want to have the same opportunities for justice in intellectual property law, as in other areas of law)
Question 9: No.
Question 10: No.
Question 11: No

Question 12: Open Question (free text up to 1000 characters). Here you can discuss the need to have proper assessment of the evidence and to ensure all Europeans the right to privacy. Justice must take its course. One can also raise the risks of specialized courts [1], state authorities take over the role of the courts (Hadopi in France [2]) or the submission of responsibilities to private actors (Ireland [3] and the USA [4]).

[1] There is much criticism of e.g. specialized patent courts.
[2] HADOPI have been criticised on several occasions. For Swedish criticism look at the references here. For the latest developments look here. In brief, HADOPI will make it possible to disconnect users from the internet without justice in a court - right holders can accuse citizens of intrusion into their rights to a central authority. Upon receiving three complaints about a citizen the authority, called HADOPI, will disconnect the citizen from the internet.
[3] Irelands biggest internet service provider has an agreement with the three largest record companies to disconnect citizens from the internet, if they are accused of file-sharing three times in a row. There will not be any trial by court at all. The case have been examined by the irish data protection ombudsman that sadly lost the case, making the poor Irish data protection laws now allows three-strikes-laws without any trial by court.
[4] See proposed six-strikes-regime here.

SectionRight to information:

Question 1: Open question. Here you can discuss the need of a copyright reform so people that behaves within the accepted social norm stops to infringe copyright[1]. You can also emphasise the importance of preserving the Secrecy of correspondence[2] and not to make the platforms on the net or internet operators suddenly becomes legally responsible for what their customers do (so for example, they must begin to filter, block or monitor private communications).

Question 2: No.
Question 3: Not applicable.
Question 4: Not applicable.

Question 5: If you choose "No" as the answer to this question, you will get a text input box. In this box you can share information about the importance of, as far as possible, to preserve the Internet without any borders, because after all, this is one of the feature we like most about the internet. If you chose "not applicable" there will be no text input box.

[1] The corpus of material that supports this statement is pretty massive right now, but here is a compilation, a study of MegaUpload, a collection from 2010.
[2] In the wikipedia article about The secrecy of correspondence you can find information about that the principle is protected by constitution in many EU countries, which are rooted in the very extensive monitoring of private communications previously existed have undesirable consequences for citizens who are victims of such treatment.

SectionMechanisms to inform about the alleged infringement and to impede access to goods and services allegedly infringing IPRs

Question 1: No. We don't want any automated justice (notice-and-takedown)
Question 2: No. (Look above)

Question 3: Open question. Here you could write an observation about that notice-and-takedown have been proved to lead to legal uncertainty in e.g. Netherlands[1], and also caused problems with poor insight in other member-states[2]. This could also be a good opportunity to point out the importance of protecting citizens right to privacy and fundamental rights, which should mean that data should not be transferred between different parties in this way[3].

Question 4: No. (Look at question 1 and 2)

Question 5: Open Question. Here you can point out the fundamental errors found in models based on scaring users into obedience, and problems with privacy and integrity that arise when introducing this kind of models[4]. We must build a society that the citizens want.

Question 6: No. (Commercial scale is not a legally defined term, and may also include any industry that thinks that a individuals inability to make a purchase means that this individual have become a commercial player)
Question 7: No. (We don't like three-strikes-rules like those on Ireland or in France)

[1] Study conducted by the Organizations Bits of Freedom: www.bof.nl/docs/researchpaperSANE.pdf
[2] Refer to this study by the organisation EDRi: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.2/self-regulation-study-edri
[3] Compare the case with Ireland in footnote 3 in the section above.
[4] Refer to the Commission's very thorough safeguards for private companies in the proposed certificate regime for collective wailing in competition (§ 84-109). Also compare the corresponding argument on page 15, middle section, and page 20, Section 9 from the Commission's original IPRED proposal from 2003.

SectionCorrective measures

Question 1: No. (this should be handled on member state level)
Question 2: No. (this should be handled on member state level)
Question 3: No. (this should be handled on member state level)
Question 4: Open question.The question implies that they want to know how much of the goods sized you think should be destroyed. If it is a physical product, such as a wristwatch, we may assume that the destruction of the item can be arranged at Member State level. If it is about anything digital on the internet, such as a mp3-file or a flash-movie the question is probably irrelevant.
Question 5: No. (this should be handled on member state level)

Comment: This is about the subsidiarity principle, or that the question should be decided on the right level. There is no reason to believe that the EU is better able to make decisions about any of the things mention in the sections, other than the Member States themselves.

SectionDamages

Question 1: Open Question. You can once again make a point of the whole system of compensation is very outdated and does not take into account that piracy of copyrighted material in fact have been proved good for cultural consumption and overall breadth of cultural production. (This question may not apply to other types of licensees, since other types of licenses than those for the sale of finished products, of course, negotiated between two parties rather than unilaterally established by one party, cf patent licenses).
Question 2: No
Question 3: No

A consultation, or in other words a questionnaire survey is something the Commission uses when they want to find out how different actors in society thinks about a particular social issue. Consultations is created through a questionnaire system that was developed by IBM in the 1990s. This means that the consultations may seem awkward to handle for individuals that are used to systems like surveymonkey or other means of questionnaires that are much more user friendly.

The Commission usually likes to be able to produces statistics based on the responses to the consultation. Therefore it is important to answer yes or no to the questions with a limited number of possible choices. If you do not agree with the question it really should be answered in a way that shows distance from the goal with the question.

Sometimes you will be given the opportunity to provide your own answers, in free text. These question usually have character limit. It is these responses that will be rejected if they are identical.

Unfortunately the Commission only makes their consultations available in English. Therefore it can be difficult for non-English speakers to take part in these questionnaires. The European Parliament, among others, have directed heavy criticism to the Commission for this, as an explicit goal of many questionnaires is to provide the citizens with an easy way to contribute to the development of policies.

The Commission must also take all responses it have received from a consultation into account. Normally the commission also must publish the answers that is received, but private data of the citizens are handled in accordance with the EU regulatory framework for the protection of private data. Both as an individual or an interest group you can ask the Commission to keep your answers fully or partially confidential. However, as citizen you should contact your elected representatives either yourself, or through a interest group to ensure that your submitted position is actually take into account when the Commission presents its report.

Commission IPRED Consultation, answering guide (citizens w/o copyrights)

Amelia Andersdotter — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:45:52 +0000

Language English

Den här bloggposten finns också på svenska!

You can find the survey here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/intellectual-property-rights_en.htm

For general information about consultations refer to the text at the bottom of this article.

Answers guide:

Part 1: Background information?

Here the Commission will ask you questions about who you are, normally you will answer that you are a citizen or a citizen holding intellectual property right(s). The answers given below are for citizens that do not want to respond as if they have intellectual property rights. This means that you will have to answer fever questions, but otherwise the forms are virtually identical. We will soon publish a another preliminary response guide for citizens with intellectual property rights. Since intellectual property rights are generated each time you are writing a text or humming an unknown melody it is highly unlikely that you do not hold any form of intellectual property rights. If you ever have hummed on a known melody, or have been filmed (voluntarily or involuntarily), you will also hold a so-called related rights, that is something you get when you perform in any way. As a citizen with intellectual property rights you will get to answer both more questions, and in more detail than citizens without intellectual property rights. We recommend that citizens to respond as if they hold intellectual property rights. The guide for citizens with copyrights is found on this link.

Part 2: Questionnaire, page 1

Part 2: Questionnaire, page 2

SectionEfficiency and Effectiveness of civil proceedings in Cases Concerning infringements of intellectual property rights:

Question 8: Open Question (free text up to 1000 characters). Here you can discuss the need to have proper assessment of the evidence and to ensure all Europeans the right to privacy. Justice must take its course. One can also raise the risks of specialized courts [1], state authorities take over the role of the courts (Hadopi in France [2]) or the submission of responsibilities to private actors (Ireland [3] and the USA [4]).

SectionMechanisms to inform about the alleged infringement and to impede access to goods and services allegedly infringing IPRs

Question 1: No. We don't want any automated justice (notice-and-takedown)
Question 2: No. If you answer no to this question you will be given an opportunity to give a comment. Here you could write an observation about that notice-and-takedown have been proved to lead to legal uncertainty in e.g. Netherlands[1], and also caused problems with poor insight in other member-states[2]. This could also be a good opportunity to point out the importance of protecting citizens right to privacy and fundamental rights, which should mean that data should not be transferred between different parties in this way[3].
Question 3: No.
Question 4: No.
Question 5: No. (Commercial scale is not a legally defined term, and may also include any industry that thinks that a individual's inability to make a purchase means that this individual have become a commercial player)
Question 6: No. (We don't like three-strikes-rules like those on Ireland or in France)

[1] Study conducted by the organization Bits of Freedom: www.bof.nl/docs/researchpaperSANE.pdf
[2] Refer to this study by the organisation EDRi: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.2/self-regulation-study-edri
[3] Compare the case with Ireland in footnote 3 in the section above.

SectionCorrective measures

SectionDamages

Question 1: No

Sometimes you will be given the opportunity to provide your own answers, in free text. These question usually have character limit. It is these responses that will be rejected if they are identical.

Amelia Andersdotter and Marielle Gallo discusses ACTA

Mattias Bjärnemalm — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:03:28 +0000

Language Swedish

The excellent internal news agency within the European Parliament, EuroparlTV, just published this fotage where they interview Amelia Andersdotter and Marielle Gallo on their, somewhat conflicting, views of the much debated Anti Counterfeit Trade Agreement, ACTA.

Personlig betraktelse: ACTA

Amelia Andersdotter — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:59:48 +0000

Language Swedish

Ministerrådet har godkänt underskriften av ACTA-avtalet å ministerrådets vägnar. Det är förmodligen avslutet på den godkännandeprocess i unionens nationella parlament som pågått under hösten, och kvarstår gör nu endast Europaparlamentet, unionens enda demokratiskt valda institution. Avtalets godkändes i ministerrådet som så kallade ~~"B-punkt"~~ A-punkt, vilket betyder att ministrarna som ansvarar för ämnet, utrikesministrarna eller handelsministrarna, inte tyckte att frågan meriterade vidare överläggningar. För mig innebär det en tydlig trivialisering av den stora upprördhet som ACTA-avtalet har skapat hos unionens medborgare och informationspolitiska aktivister (men för den delen också telekommunikationsoperatörer - Telia har till exempel kritiserat både förhandlingsformer och avtalsinnehåll). Av någon anledning har många valt att fokusera på att trivialiseringen skedde via jordbruksministrarnas sammankomst i december. Jag förstår inte varför det skulle vara en extra dålig trivialisering bara för att den utförs av jordbruksministrar - problemet är att ministerrådet och handelsministrarna inte tar frågan med det allvar som de borde. Det hade varit ett lika stort problem om de godkänt denna ~~B-punkt~~ A-punkt på sitt eget handelsrådsmöte. För den demokratiska transparensens skull hade det till och med varit sämre: vi hade kanske inte ens begripit att det var en trivialisering som ägde rum.

Europaparlamentet kommer att anordna hearings och hålla en omröstning om godkännande av avtalet. Någon gång under året, eller kanske till och med förra året, hörde jag att sannolikheten för avslag egentligen är väldigt låg, eftersom Europakommissionen och ministerrådet kommer att påtala den prestigeförlust det innebör EU att kommissionen å våra vägnar förhandlat detta avtal för att sedan av den tredje europeiska institutionen, parlamentet, bli knäppta på näsan.

Och det är visserligen svårt. Europaparlamentets reaktion vid SWIFT-förhandlingarna (överförande av bankdata till USA) var till exempel att godkänna det knappt ens marginellt bättre omförhandlade förslaget kommissionen presenterade dem i augusti 2010. Å andra sidan har Europaparlamentet vid frihandelsförhandlingar med Sydkorea inte rädats att slå kommissionen på fingrarna vad gäller liberaliseringen av handel med personbilar. Europaparlamentet godkände avtalet först efter att ha skapat sig ett tillägg som ger unionen befogenheten att unilateralt införa strafftullar på Sydkoreanska exporter av personbilar. Det sticker måhända i ögonen på alla vänner av frihandelsavtal och tullavskaffningspolitik, men ses av mig snarare som ett exempel på att Europaparlamentet när det bränner till faktiskt prioriterar sina egna medborgare och företag (alternativt: "ägnar sig när det behövs åt protektionism", vilket har en mycket negativare klang i samhällsdebatten men betyder i stort sett samma sak). Jag kan lämna det osagt om just denna form av omtanke är den som vi som medborgare allra helst vill ha. Förmodligen beror det på vilken bakgrund man har, och vart man för närvarande har sin arbetsplats.

Annat bra om ACTA:
Svenska regeringen ansvarigt för den människorättsvidriga straffrättsliga delen av ACTA (15 november: om svenska regeringens inblandning i koordinationen av europeiska ståndpunkter om de straffrättsliga delarna av ACTA)
Dutch parliament refuses ACTA secrecy (23 november: om nederländska parlamentets försök att få tillgång till bakgrundsdokumenten för förhandlingarna innan godkännandet av avtalet i nationella parlamentet)
Domstolsbeslut kan sätta käppar i hjulet för ACTA-avtalet (24 november: om konsekvenserna av EG-domstolens dom i målet om SABAM vs Scarlet, eller internetoperatörernas rättighet att vägra blockering av tillgång till upphovsrättsskyddat material för sina användare)
ACTA: time for a democracy catch up? (25 november: om hur processen att granska ACTA-avtalet går till i brittiska parlamentet)
Dutch Minister says refusal to provide access to the EP legal service’s opinion on ACTA is “crazy” (16 december: om hur Europaparlamentets utskott för utrikesfrågor inte delgav allmänheten den utredning de begärt från parlamentets juridiska utredningsenhet)

Ännu ingen Krita

Amelia Andersdotter — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:57:58 +0000

Language Swedish

Dom lever! Dom lever!

Jag hittar inga bevis alls på att den upphovsrättsindustri vi i dagligtal brukar referera till som dinosaurier varken 1) håller på att dö, eller 2) inte uppdaterar sina affärsmodeller. Snarare kommer det forskning varje vecka som berättar hur välmående industrin är, och upphovsrättsindustrin har också legat i framkant med att sluta affärsavtal som faktiskt inte alls har med lagar att göra utan den privata kontraktsrätten. Deras nya uppgift på marknaden ska dock inte ses som upphovsrättsprodukter utan informationskontroll, varesej den uppstår via kontrakt med ISPar eller hårdvarutillverkare (jfr Apple). Kanske borde vi i den snabbt utvecklande informationsekonomin istället referera till dom som björkmätare.