Christian Engström, Pirate MEP

28 april 2011

Jag lämnar Piratpartiets styrelse

Postat i: informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 11:36

Anna Troberg, partiledare för Piratpartiet, skriver om partiets organisation på sin blogg

Piratpartiets partiledare Anna Troberg skriver på sin blogg att hon vill se en gradvis separering mellan partiets ledning och styrelse, och att hon därför själv drar tillbaka sin kandidatur till styrelsen, för att fokusera helt på att vara enbart partiledare.

Att inte har partiledaren med i styrelsen är ett mycket ovanligt sätt att organisera ett politiskt parti, men det kan vi prova.

På årsmötet 2010 blev jag vald med 75% majoritet att sitta i styrelsen i tre år, men ska vi organisera om partiet så gör vi det. Det är sant att vi måste förändra den inre organisationen, och det här kanske är en väg.

Därför avgår jag från min plats i styrelsen i samband med att den nya styrelsen ersätter den nuvarande efter vårmötet som pågår nu.

Jag önskar den tillträdande styrelsen lycka till i sitt arbete.

/Christian Engström

…………

Tags: , ,

26 april 2011

Liberal EU-kritik onsdag 18.30 i Stockholm

Postat i: demokrati i eu — Christian Engström @ 12:36

Välkommen till Restaurang Bysis, Hornsgatan 82 i Stockholm, onsdagen den 27 april 18.30

Hur ser en vettig liberal EU-kritik ut? Idag är EU ett byråkratiskt och ogenomträngligt härke som ligger långt ifrån medborgarna, och som dag för dag kapar åt sig mer makt. Men vad ska vi göra åt det?

Välkommen till en förutsättningslös diskussionskväll med liberala och EU-kritiska förtecken.

Tid: Onsdagen den 27 april 2011 klockan 18.30
Plats: Restaurang Bysis på Hornsgatan 82 i Stockholm.

Panelen består av:

  • Nils Lundgren, Junilistan
  • Camilla Lindberg, liberal samhällsdebattör
  • Christian Engström, Piratpartiet
  • Henrik Alexandersson, liberal samhällsdebattör

Som jag uppfattar det är vi alla fyra panelister ganska överens i en EU-kritisk grundsyn, så jag förväntar mig ingen högröstad sluggermatch om ja eller nej till EU. Tanken är istället en konstruktiv diskussion som förhoppningsvis kan peka ut en tänkbar riktning för en vettig och verklighetsförankrad EU-kritik.

Att konstatera att det finns stora problem med demokratin i EU är en sak, och ett nödvändigt första steg. Men hur ska vi gå vidare därifrån? Vad finns det för alternativ, och i vilken mån är de realistiska i den politiska verkligheten i Sverige och Europa?

Jag har bloggat om ämnet under kategorin Demokrati i EU här på bloggen, och jag kan lyfta fram några inlägg där jag redogör för min syn och skissar på ett förslag till lösning:

Det här är den grundsyn som jag står för. Men jag vet inte om jag har rätt, och om det jag föreslår är genomförbart i den politiska verkligheten. Därför ser jag mycket fram emot den här diskussionen.

Välkommen onsdag den 27 april klockan 18.30 på Bysis i Stockholm, och förklara för mig varför jag har helt fel, och hur det finns en mycket bättre idé om hur vi ska formulera ett konstruktivt och realistiskt EU-motstånd!

…………

Uppdatering: Hela diskussionen filmad på Bambuser

Tags: , ,

21 april 2011

Names of the 40+ MEPs supporting review of the copyright term extension

Postat i: Copyright Term Extension,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 10:57

Yesterday I tabled a request for a renewed referral of the copyright term extension dossier, together with 40 fellow Members of the European Parliament. The purpose is to give the European Parliament a chance to reconsider its decision from April 2009 to extend the copyright term for musical recordings from 50 to 70 years.

The MEPs who signed the request were:

Christian ENGSTRÖM (Greens, SE)
Christofer FJELLNER (Christian Democrats, SE)
Françoise CASTEX (Social Democrats, FR)
Marietje SCHAAKE (Liberals, NL)
Eva-Britt SVENSSON (Left, SE)
Carl SCHLYTER (Greens, SE)
Claude TURMES (Greens, LU)
Oriol JUNQUERAS VIES (Greens, ES)
Eva LICHTENBERGER (Greens, AT)
Olle SCHMIDT (Liberals, SE)
Marie-Christine VERGIAT (Left, FR)
Keith TAYLOR (Greens, UK)
Lena EK (Liberals, SE)
Marit PAULSEN (Liberals, SE)
Lidia Joanna GERINGER de OEDENBERG (Social Democrats, PL)
Heide RÜHLE (Greens, DE)
Bas EICKHOUT (Greens, NL)
Pascal CANFIN (Greens, FR)
Michail TREMOPOULOS (Greens, GR)
Judith SARGENTINI (Greens, NL)
Marije CORNELISSEN (Greens, NL)
Jean-Paul BESSET (Greens, FR)
Malika BENARAB-ATTOU (Greens, FR)
Heidi HAUTALA (Greens, FI)
Jan Philipp ALBRECHT (Greens, DE)
Åsa WESTLUND (Social Democrats, SE)
Isabelle DURANT (Greens, BE)
Zuzana ROITHOVÁ (Christian Democrats, CZ)
Ulrike LUNACEK (Greens, AT)
Karima DELLI (Greens, FR)
Michèle RIVASI (Greens, FR)
José BOVÉ (Greens, FR)
Barbara LOCHBIHLER (Greens, DE)
Gerald HÄFNER (Greens, DE)
Raül ROMEVA i RUEDA (Greens, ES)
Gunnar HÖKMARK (Christian Democrats, SE)
Indrek TARAND (Greens, EE)
Anna IBRISAGIC (Christian Democrats, SE)
Ivo VAJGL (Liberals, SI)
Sylvie GUILLAUME (Social Democrats, FR)
Margrete AUKEN (Greens, DK)

In addition, there were other MEPs who contacted us and told us they wanted to sign, but whom we failed to meet up with for practical reasons before we had the 40 signatures necessary, and tabled the request. These included:

Rebecca HARMS (Greens, DE)
Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT (Christian Democrats, SE)
Christel SCHALDEMOSE (Social Democrats, DK)

There are of course a number of other MEPs who would have wanted to sign as well, so please feel free to contact them and ask. You can find a summary of the arguments against the term extension here.

…………

Tags: , , ,

20 april 2011

40+ MEPs request review of copyright extension

Postat i: Copyright Term Extension,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 16:30

A request to review the copyright term extension signed by 41 MEPs

I have just tabled a request signed by 41 Members of the European Parliament to review the Parliament’s previous decision to extend the copyright term for music recordings from 50 to 70 years. The MEPs who signed represented most of the different political groups in the Parliament.

It was the previous Parliament that decided it wanted such an extension in April 2009, but since we now have a new Parliament in place after the June 2009 EU elections, I and my co-signatories think it would make sense for the Parliament to take a new look at the issue, to see if this is really such a good idea.

You can read more about the issue and the arguments against term extension here, and more about the EU procedure in my earlier post A game plan against copyright extension.

Now we’ll see what happens. There are indications that the request may be opposed on various legalistic grounds depending on how you interpret the Rules of Procedure, but if that happens, we’ll see how to proceed.

Collecting the signatures was just the first hurdle in a rather long and complicated process, but at least we cleared that one.

The sun is shining in Brussels today, and I’m looking forward to the Easter holiday. :)

…………

Update: Names of the MEPs who signed

Andra som skriver (på svenska): Henrik Alexandersson,

Tags: , , ,

18 april 2011

Data Retention Directive evaluation published

Postat i: datalagringen,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 14:58

Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström glosses over the fact the that the evaluation of the Data Retention Directive is highly critical of it

The European Commission has published its long awaited evaluation of the Data Retention Directive today.

In a press release from the Green Group in the European Parliament, fellow MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht said:

This evaluation makes clear that the EU data retention directive is completely disproportionate, allowing for the far-reaching retention of telecommunications data with no real justification. Under the directive, EU member states and telecommunications authorities can store masses of data based on unclear and ill-defined criteria, with no requirement to prove the retention is necessary for combating terrorism or organised crime. This far-reaching and groundless data retention is a clear infringement of the basic rights of EU citizens. The only proportionate response to these damning findings is to scrap the directive and we call on the Commission to take immediate steps to this end.

”The data retention directive was and remains an excessive knee-jerk response to terrorist attacks in Europe. There is no evidence that the far-reaching retention of data has led to any concrete results beyond compromising civil liberties. Following on from clear rulings by constitutional courts in Germany, Romania and the Czech Republic, it is now high time that the directive is revoked.”

The responsible Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, issued a press release, published a FAQ, and held a press conference earlier today.

In the press conference she presented anecdotal evidence that there have been at least some cases where the police have found Data Retention data useful, but in response to a direct question from a journalist she admitted that there is no systematic data on in how many cases the data has been used, or if the costs for implementing the directive in member states have been justified.

She also glossed over the fact that the Directive has been found unconstitutional by the courts in Germany, Romania, and the Czech Republic, and that Data Supervision Authorities and citizen’s rights groups are very critical.

It appears that Commissioner Malmström cares neither about protecting the fundamental rights of European citizens, nor even about making efficient use of the money that is spent on law enforcement activities.

All she wants is to push ahead with the Directive, to prove that it is the Commission that is the real centre of power in Europe, and that it has the capacity to punish Member States (such as Sweden) that do not do its bidding. This is a very disappointing attitude.

…………

Andra som skriver (på svenska): Piratpartiet, Anna Troberg (PP), Henrik Alexandersson, Mark Klamberg, SvD, Sveriges Radio, DN, Nyheter24, Motpol, Mina Moderata Karameller, Sebastian Hallén

Tags: , , ,

16 april 2011

Kopimismen är ingen skämtreligion

Postat i: övrigt — Christian Engström @ 1:07

Kopimism - en ny religion

Det Missionerande Kopimistsamfundet har ansökt om att bli erkänt som religiöst samfund av Kammarkollegiet, men fått avslag. Antagligen avfärdade Kammarkollegiet den nya religionen som ett skämt. Det behöver den inte alls vara.

Insikten att kopieringen är en av grundvalarna för själva livets uppkomst är inte alls ointressant. Den skulle mycket väl kunna ligga till grund för en filosofisk/religiös syn på livet, universum och allting. Kopimismen kanske inom sig bär fröet till en ny religion för en ny tidsålder.

Härom veckan såg jag ett program på Kunskapskanalen, där mästerfotografen Lennart Nilsson visade bilder på ribosomer. En ribosom är en stor komplicerad samling proteinmolekyler som kan tillverka kopior av proteinmolekyler utifrån en given förlaga. En kopieringsfabrik, helt enkelt.

Det här tycker jag är en utmärkt startpunkt för en skapelseberättelse för en ny, modern religion. Utkast 0.1 till början av Kopimismens skapelseberättelse lyder således:

I begynnelsen var jorden en illaluktande soppa av ammoniak, metangas, och otäcka giftiga kemikalier. Atmosfären sprakade av blixtar fyllda av ren energi. Någonting ville födas.

På sätt och av skäl som ännu inte är utredda uppstod ribosomerna, som kunde kopiera. Detta var början till livet. Vi ser därför Kopieringen som den första manifestationen av den gudomliga själen.

När ribosomerna fanns, och kunde kopiera dels sig själva, dels de proteiner som behövs för att bygga en cell, då ledde det till att det faktiskt uppstod celler. Exakt varför proteinerna valde att självmant organisera sig till någonting mer komplicerat är som sagt inte riktigt utrett, så det får vi anledning att återkomma till i skapelseberättelsen, men det struntar vi i nu.

Det viktiga är att cellerna uppstod. Celler har två egenskaper. För det första kan de kopiera sig själva, precis som ribosomerna före dem. För det andra vill de gärna samarbeta med andra för att bygga saker som är mer magnifika än någon av de enskilda beståndsdelarna.

Ur dessa två egenskaper uppstod hela den levande värld som vi ser omkring oss. Giraffen och persiljan, skogen och fiskstimmet, allt annat levande som någonsin filmats av BBC.

Vi Kopimister ser därför Kopieringen som den Första av de Grundläggande Principerna för skapelsen.

Vi ser Viljan att tillsammans bygga något magnifikt som den Andra av de Grundläggande Principerna.

Utifrån denna grund vill vi lära oss förstå den gudomliga själen och världen vi lever i. Och vi vill göra det tillsammans med andra.

Amen.

Sug på den ni, Nämnden-för-att-bestämma-vad-som-är-religiöst-eller-inte, eller vad ni nu hette. ;)

…………

Andra som skriver om Kopimism: Isak Gerson, Humanistbloggen, Farmor Gun, Gustav Nipe, Kulturbloggen, Opassande, Design Taxi, Anna Troberg (PP),

14 april 2011

Explanation of the ECJ opinion on internet blocking

Postat i: English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 22:58

The Advocate General at the European Court of Justice has given an opinion on internet blocking

The Advocate General at the European Court of Justice today said that no ISP can be required to filter the Internet, and particularly not to enforce the copyright monopoly, Rick Falkvinge writes. It is not a final verdict, but the Advocate General’s position. The Court generally follows this.

The Court has issued a detailed press release about the opinion, but it is rather complicated to understand for a layman.

On Slashdot, who reported about the opinion, I found a comment that I think explains the opinion in a very clear way. I take the liberty of copying it here.

Slashdot user CrystalFalcon writes:

What this [opinion] does is say that:

One, no court may impose an ISP with an order to filter, in particular not because of enforcement of copyright monopolies;

Two, such filtering is a reduction of fundamental rights, so

Three, if laws are written requiring an ISP filter or block the internet, such laws must conform to very strict criteria that are applied to laws limiting fundamental rights. They must be effective, they must be proportionate, and they must be defensible in a democratic society. While this sounds like political wishywashing, it has some very specific meanings. It is useful to compare to what laws have been written to prevent terrorism: these laws are held to that standard, which the copyright industry wants badly to supersede. The Attorney General also goes into detail how such laws must be transparent and predictable.

What this does not say is that:

Four, no censorship must ever take place.

Five, no ISP may choose to limit what they present as ”The Internet”.

In conclusion:

Six, it has been the modus operandi of the copyright industry to threaten ISPs with ”block to our wishes or we’ll take you to court”. This has been their standard operating procedure for the past couple of years, in order to establish enough precendents to get them written into law. Today’s verdict, or potential verdict, gives those ISPs the power to say ”go play on the highway, parasites, we have an order from the highest possible court saying no court can force us to do that. We care more about our customers than about obsolete irrelevants”.

Seven, this is the highest court in Europe, referring to the (equivalent of) Constitution of Europe. Thus, there are no courts and no laws that can supersede this. No EU Directive can change this (potential) verdict. The way forward for the copyright industry appears permanently blocked; I hold it as absolutely improbable that they’ll get paragraphs in the referred European Charter of Human Rights that put the copyright monopoly before the sanctity of correspondence, of personal data, and freedom of information.

…………

Andra som skriver (på svenska): Henrik Alexandersson, Fredriks Blogg, Anna Troberg,

Tags: , , ,

12 april 2011

A game plan against copyright extension

Postat i: Copyright Term Extension,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 13:06

We need to get a renewed referral of the copyright extension directive, so that the European Parliament can discuss it properly

We now have a game plan for how to try to stop the extension of the copyright term for neighbouring rights from 50 to 70 years. You can read about the background in yesterday’s blog post. What we want to achieve is to overturn a decision to extend the protection time that was taken by the European Parliament in April 2009, after heavy lobbying by the record companies.

This morning we lost the vote on the small technical correction in the 2009 directive in the legal affairs committee JURI in the European Parliament. This was expected, and does not matter.

The encouraging thing about this morning’s session in JURI was that there was quite a lively debate on the subject, which would otherwise have been expected to just get rubber stamped by the committee without anybody taking any particular interest. This was no doubt due to the fact that Slashdot readers and others have been sending mails to their Members of the European Parliament yesterday. Thank you, everybody who did!

But now to the game plan.

According to Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, the parliament can reopen a dossier that is still in first reading if a new parliament has been elected since the first reading position was adopted. Since a new European Parliament was elected in June 2009, this is the case.

If 40 or more MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) ask for it, the proposal for a renewed referral will be put to the vote in plenary.

If we get a majority there, the President (speaker) of the Parliament shall ask the Commission to refer its proposal again to the parliament. This means that the dossier is open again, and we can have a full discussion about the subject matter.

This would be the sensible thing to do. The previous Parliament’s decision to extend the time for the neighbouring rights was ill considered, and has been heavily criticised by legal and economic scholars. There is no reason for the present Parliament to be bound by it.

We will now start the process of collecting at least 40 MEP signatures on the following text:

Request for
RENEWED REFERRAL
to Parliament

pursuant to Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure

of  the proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the term of protection of copyright and related rights (COM(2008)0464 – C6-0281/2008 – 2008/0157(COD)).

If we can collect 40+ signatures, we should be able to get the item on the agenda for the parliamentary session in May. Then we will need citizens to email their MEPs to explain the issue and urge them to vote in the right way. But more about that when the time comes.

Now I’m off collecting signatures. :)

…………

Andra som skriver (på svenska): Henrik Alexandersson, Opassande, Anders S Lindbäck,

Tags: , , ,

10 april 2011

Copyright term extension will be voted this week

Postat i: Copyright Term Extension,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 13:17

This video from the Open Rights Group explains the background to the copyright term extension issue

Monday or Tuesday this upcoming week there will be another round in the fight against prolonging the copyright protection term for recorded music in the EU. Now is an opportunity to contact MEPs, Members of the European Parliament, and persuade them to vote against the term extension.

Background: In 2009, the EU discussed the issue of a term extension for the ”neighbouring rights” that record companies have to recorded music. These neighbouring rights are now 50 years from the recording of a song. The proposal was to extend them to 95 years. After a lively debate in the European Parliament, it was decided to extend them to 70 years. Then the issue got stuck in the Council of Ministers, where several countries (including Sweden and Denmark) felt that no extension was necessary. Now it appears that the Danish government has folded, which means that there is no longer a blocking minority in the Council.

Right now:
On the agenda for the meeting of the European Parliament’s legal affairs committee JURI this Monday and Tuesday, there has appeared a point about making certain formal corrections to the text that the European Parliament adopted (such as the date when the new rules should enter into force). It appears that they have been trying to give the issue a low profile. The documents were not sent out to members of the JURI committee until last Friday, after we had explicitly asked for them.

Now we need to raise some attention about this. It would also be useful if Members of the European Parliament (and in particular the ones in the JURI committee) start getting emails from citizens asking them to oppose the term extension.

We are now trying to find out whether it is enough if the changes to the parliament’s position are passed in the JURI committee, or if it will be voted in plenary as well. We will not know for certain until Monday morning.

There are several possibilities here. If the issue is still formally in ”first reading” in the Parliament (after the delay in the Council), there is a chance that we can get either the Green Group of 40 MEPs to demand that the issue is brought up for a renewed proper discussion. Since the European Parliament adopted its position, a new Parliament has been elected. It would be reasonable if we get a chance to have a say on the issue.

There are many questions, loose ends, rules, and possibilities. We who represent the Pirate Party in the European Parliament will be doing what we can. But the issue needs general attention. It would be very good if MEPs start getting mail about the issue. We also need blogs and media to take an interest.

This post is a translation of a blog post in Swedish by Henrik Alexandersson, who is my political assistant in the European Parliament.

This site will help you if you want to send mail to your MEPs, or you can use the official EU page to find the mail addresses.

Professor Bernt Hugenholtz at the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR) writes more about the background, and provides links to the many arguments against copyright extension that are well rehearsed and almost universally endorsed by copyright scholars and economists across Europe.

Links from 2009:
The Commission’s proposal [PDF]
The European Parliament’s Legistative Observatory, with track changes.
Sound Copyright

Update: For subsequent developments, see the category Copyright Term Extension

…………

Tags: , , ,

8 april 2011

The IFPI lobbyist and the Digital Single Market

Postat i: Copyright Reform,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 14:20

EU Commissioner Michel Barnier will fail to deliver the Digital Single Market, as special interest stakeholders take control of copyright legislation

The European Commission has appointed a former lobbyist from the record industry organisation IFPI to be in charge of copyright reform in Europe. In doing so, the Commissioner responsible, Mr. Michel Barnier, has effectively doomed his flagship project ”The Digital Single Market” to failure. But this is symptomatic of how the EU works in practice.

The Digital Single Market is one of the Commission’s flagship projects for this term, and rightly so. The idea is to create a single market for digital products sold over the net, such as music or films. Today there are many legal obstacles that prevent this from being a reality.

The European Union is the world’s largest economy, if it is seen as one entity. The 27 member states together have 21% of the world’s GDP, whereas the US only has 20%.

If the EU was truly a single market for digital products, this would be a great advantage for European innovators and entrepreneurs. A big home market is always an advantage for a company that wants to launch a new service. This is an area where the EU could be number one in the world.

But in reality, we aren’t. The US may be (slightly) smaller than we are, but it is a lot more integrated. A US entrepreneur who wants to sell digital content on the US market only needs one licence, or one set of licences, to cover the entire market. A European entrepreneur who wants to do the same in Europe is forced to get separate licences for each of the member states, in order to be able to sell to the entire European market.

In the US, there are several competing services for people who want to buy music online. In Europe, there are none that cover the entire market and treat it as one.

A 2009 report by the Commission takes Apple’s iTunes service as an example, and writes:

Apple observes that its iTunes store is not available in every EU country because many countries do not offer a large enough marketplace to justify the expense and effort required to sell in that country. Since it cannot obtain the rights in the sound recordings and the global repertoire of musical works on a pan-EU basis, iTunes has to examine the situation in each country individually to determine whether the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs of distributing content into that country.

The much-hyped Spotify service is seen by many as the answer to the phonographic industry’s problems, and a great European innovation. But in reality, Spotify is only available in 7 of the 27 member states.

This is not because Spotify would not want to be pan-European, or because the people who work at Spotify are lazy. They are not. In fact, they have had to work very hard to clear the rights to sell music in the 7 countries where they are allowed to do so.

In each country, they have had to negotiate with about half a dozen different collecting societies and rights holders’ organisations to clear the rights to the music they want to sell. Each single piece of music is covered by many different overlapping rights, so unless they can get an agreement with all of the organisations holding different pieces of the rights jigsaw puzzle, they are normally barred from entering that market at all.

To get the rights needed for just 7 countries, Spotify has had to spend years of negotiations. Covering all 27 member states will take a very long time, if it ever happens at all. The current copyright legislation of Europe is preventing the Digital Single Market from becoming a reality.

The digitization of books is another area where today’s copyright legislation needs to be updated, if we are to take advantage of the exciting possibilities that the new technology has brought. Both Google books and the EU project Europeana would want to make our common cultural heritage available in digital form.

If we could solve this, it would be a great thing. Books would become more accessible. Libraries, schools, researchers, and disadvantaged populations would gain access to far more books. Digitization would facilitate the conversion of books to Braille and audio formats, increasing access for individuals with disabilities. Authors and publishers would benefit as well, as new audiences would be generated and new sources of income created. Older books — particularly out-of-print books, many of which are falling apart buried in library stacks — would be preserved and given new life.

But to cut a long story short, under today’s European copyright legislation, that just ain’t gonna happen. Clearing the rights for millions of out-of-print books on an individual basis is simply not feasible. New legislation would be needed to untie this Gordian knot.

The previous head of copyright at the Commission did in fact present a proposal on legislative changes to facilitate mass digitization of books in Europe. It would not have solved all problems, but it was an attempt at constructive reform to promote a Digital Agenda for Europe. But before the proposal could even be debated in public, the Commission withdrew it.

With the appointment of a former IFPI lobbyist as the new head of copyright, we can guess why. IFPI does not want comprehensive copyright reform in any way, shape, or form. They are interested in two things only: an extension of the protection times for the rights that record companies have to recorded music, and stricter enforcement. In those two areas, we can expect to see proposals from the Commission in the coming years.

But legislation on orphan works, or a reform of the copyright system to enable the Digital Single Market, are not on the lobbyist’s agenda. They prefer for things to remain as they are, with themselves at the top of the hill. This is their position as ”stakeholders”. And in the EU, at the end of the day, it is the stakeholders that are calling the shots.

You may wonder why Commissioner Michel Barnier, who is officially responsible for the Digital Single Market, would deliberately appoint a head of copyright who will almost certainly not deliver the reforms that would be necessary to make that project a reality.

The answer is that he probably does not even realise this is what he is doing. The culture of doing nothing unless it has the approval of the big business stakeholders is so embedded in the fabric of the Commission, that he is unlikely to even have noticed it.

In the closed rooms at the Commission, the tradition is very firm. You can ignore citizens at will, but when big business talks, big business gets what it asks for. This is called ”stakeholder dialogues”. In the European Union, it is what we have instead of democracy.

The resulting bad legislation and missed opportunities can be seen in a country near you.

…………

Tags: , , ,

Nästa sida »

Tema: Rubric. Blogga med WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers