A Dance With The Cobra Confronting Grand Corruption in Uzbekistan Professor Kristian Lasslett, Fatima Kanji and Dire McGill. Defending rights and freedoms online. This time their compromise is even more extreme than the previous one. For example, Article 1. Estonians 1. 3. 1, 1. Member States shall provide that an information society service provider whose main or one of the main purposes 1 sic is to store and give access to the public to copyright protected works 2or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users is performing an act of communication to the public or an act making available to the public within the meaning of Article 31 and 2 3 of Directive 2. EC when it intervenes in full knowledge of the consequences 4 of its action to give the public access to those copyright protected works or other protected subject matter by organising these works 5 or other subject matter with the aim of obtaining profit from their use. 1 How many main purposes can a service have2 Virtually all content that is uploaded to the internet can be copyright protected. 3 This means that the provider is directly using the content from the perspective of copyright law even when it has no knowledge of it, which means that providers would have significantly more liability for copyright protected works than for terrorist or child abuse content. 4 What might intervene mean Full knowledge of what consequences and for whom None of the 1. 15 words of this sentence mentions copyright infringements or copyright infringing work. 5 What does organising these works meanZizernakaberd anhren i armenisch bersetzt etwa Schwalbenfestung ist ein Denkmalkomplex in Jerewan zum Gedenken der Opfer. The explanatory recital says that making information easily findable would be covered. Bearing in mind we are talking about the internet, what might easily or findable mean for any of the 2. To understand how the Estonian compromise on Article 1. European businesses, we divide it into three issues service provider liability 1, upload filtering 2 and possible redress 3. Service provider liability responsibility. In essence, building on the strategy of the European Commission, the Estonian text undermines the legal certainty of internet companies, practically forcing them to filter, block and delete any content that might create a risk. According to the Estonian text, a company provides a communication to the public if it is hosting copyrighted works i. The compromise would leave all legislation on service provider non liability in force, but reinterprets it in a way that makes it virtually impossible to apply it in practice, as a whole industry would be subjected to contradictory primary Copyright Directive and secondary E Commerce Directive responsibility regimes. For instance, the compromise invents the notion of hosting providers that build services based on the copyright status of the content that is uploaded whose main or one of the main purposes is to provide access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users are engaging into acts of communication to the public and making available to the public. This can only mean that the proposal covers either a very small minority of hosting providers those designed around the copyright status of the uploaded content or almost all companies that provide a hosting service online those that allow copyrightable content to be uploaded. Furthermore, the Estonians add another criterion to establish if a service is communicating to the public, namely, if it intervenes in the full knowledge of unspecified consequences for unspecified third parties. As an example, this would cover companies that either index content, present it in a certain manner, categorise content or make it findable. Fundamental rights Forget them Having created huge incentives to block, delete and filter content, the text says that the defensive measures to be implemented by service providers should respect the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and information. The only minor problem is that this obligation is purely hypothetical companies have the right to manage their platforms how they wish. The EU Charter and national constitutions are binding on states, not on companies. Worried that this might give citizens too many rights, the proposal is clear that it only covers companies described in Article 1. Companies covered by the all encompassing Article 1. In an effort to create some form of balance, at least, licensing arrangements paid for by the service providers would cover uploads by users assuming that it was possible for European companies to survive after investing in multiple filters and paying multiple licence fees to multiple rightsholder groups. However, this part of the text would not for no obvious reason cover uploads done by individuals in their professional capacity. So, uploading a copyrighted picture on Sunday evening as a private individual might be okay, but uploading the same picture on a professional blog would not be okay even though the hosting provider would have paid for it to be communicated to the public. How would the hosting provider know the difference between two identical uploads The text does not say what wouldcouldshould happen in cases like this. In addition, an effort at seeming balanced, the Estonian suggests that services in which content is mainly uploaded by the rightsholders themselves would not be covered by these obligations. Author Title No Date Hartley Dean Discursive Repertoires and the Negotiation of Wellbeing Reflections on the WeD Frameworks. pdf. You may have had the opportunity to view the One LP Project exhibition by William Ellis at the conference, consisting large portraits in the atrium area and a series. Vous trouverez dans cette rubrique, en cours dlaboration, les dfinitions par ordre alphabtique des concepts les plus utiliss cliquez sur la flche pour. This is the fourth blogpost of a series, originally published by EDRi member Bits of Freedom, that explains how the activists of a Berlinbased privacy movement. The only small problem is that the service provider has no way of knowing if this is the case, or of knowing what mainly might mean even with every corporate surveillance mechanism currently available. Or if it was covered by this description yesterday and if this is still the case today. Upload filtering. Having destroyed legal certainty for even the smallest provider in article 1. Estonian proposal then moves on to demand service providers to filter uploads in 1. Companies would need to put in place a censorship machine if they give access to a significant amount of copyrighted protected content. They fall outside the all encompassing definitions described in article 1. It would come as a surprise to many that there is a single online content services market, rather than numerous audio, image, graphic, audiovisual and text based markets. However, to be fair to the Estonians, they have, in rectial 3. The Estonian Presidency proposes that service providers outside the EU, even if they are covered by liability protections, should invest in upload filtering. Services like github, imgur and 9gag would have three options a laugh energetically, b pay for multiple upload filters because the EU said so, but has no way of enforcing this outside its jurisdiction or 3 ban access to people connecting from the EU. In keeping with the clarity of the rest of the text, it is not clear what is meant by EU citizens using such services in particular whether this covers browsing the services or just uploading to them. The fact that this provision was included presumably to avoid the legitimate criticism that this is an extraordinary act of self harm against legitimate European businesses says a lot. The fact that this totally legally unenforceable provision was included shows just how totally divorced from reality this debate has become. It is glaringly obvious that no foreign service provider would dream of respecting such an absurd foreign obligation, an obligation that is in breach of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU. One imagines that, in line with the Commissions recent Communication on Illegal Content Online, the 2.