- Kristina Irion will give a legal analysis of the EU’s proposed Free Flow of Data Regulation at the European Parliament in Brussels
- VMC bijeenkomst over de AIVD-hack in Rusland
- New IViR research project on media regulators’ independence receives funding from Foundation for Democracy and Media
- European academics file Amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in US Warrant case
- Research Alliance for Data Governance and Cyber Security
- Vacancies at IViR
Online political microtargeting involves monitoring people’s online behaviour, and using the collected data, sometimes enriched with other data, to show people-targeted political advertisements. Online political microtargeting is widely used in the US; Europe may not be far behind. This paper maps microtargeting’s promises and threats to democracy. For example, microtargeting promises to optimise the match between the electorate’s concerns and political campaigns, and to boost campaign engagement and political participation. But online microtargeting could also threaten democracy. For instance, a political party could, misleadingly, present itself as a different one-issue party to different individuals. And data collection for microtargeting raises privacy concerns. We sketch possibilities for policymakers if they seek to regulate online political microtargeting. We discuss which measures would be possible, while complying with the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The exceptions for reporting of current events and quotation facilitate the functioning of the media. On 27 July 2017, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) submitted several questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) on the balance between copyright exceptions and the fundamental freedoms of information and the media, as well as the exceptions for quotation and reporting of current events. In answering these questions, the CJEU may well shed light on the open-ended drafting of these exceptions.
Kamercommissie voor Economische Zaken en Klimaat, 31 januari 2018
Kluwer Copyright Blog
This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion. The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public.
Political micro-targeting (PMT) has become a popular topic both in academia and in the public discussions after the surprise results of the 2016 US presidential election, the UK vote on leaving the European Union, and a number of general elections in Europe in 2017. Yet, we still know little about whether PMT is a tool with such destructive potential that it requires close societal control, or if it’s “just” a new phenomenon with currently unknown capacities, but which can ultimately be incorporated into our political processes. In this article we identify the points where we think we need to further develop our analytical capacities around PMT. We argue that we need to decouple research from the US context, and through more non-US and comparative research we need to develop a better understanding of the macro, meso, and micro level factors that affect the adoption and success of PMTs across different countries. One of the most under-researched macro-level factors is law. We argue that PMT research must develop a better understanding of law, especially in Europe, where the regulatory frameworks around platforms, personal data, political and commercial speech do shape the use and effectiveness of PMT. We point out that the incorporation of such new factors calls for the sophistication of research designs, which currently rely too much on qualitative methods, and use too little of the data that exists on PMT. And finally, we call for distancing PMT research from the hype surrounding the new PMT capabilities, and the moral panics that quickly develop around its uses.
Political campaigns increasingly use data to (micro)target voters with tailored messages. In doing so, campaigns raise concerns about privacy and the quality of the public discourse. Extending existing research to a European context, we propose and test a model for understanding how different contextual factors hinder or facilitate data-driven capabilities of campaigns. We applied the model during the 2017 national election campaign in the Netherlands. The results show how data-driven targeting techniques are not only useful in a first-past-the-post system, but also in a proportional representation system, which at first sight seems to be less suitable for such techniques.
Online platforms, from Facebook to Twitter, and from Coursera to Uber, have become deeply involved in a wide range of public activities, including journalism, civic engagement, education, and transport. As such, they have started to play a vital role in the realization of important public values and policy objectives associated with these activities. Based on insights from theories about risk sharing and the problem of many hands, this article develops a conceptual framework for the governance of the public role of platforms, and elaborates on the concept of cooperative responsibility for the realization of critical public policy objectives in Europe. It argues that the realization of public values in platform-based public activities cannot be adequately achieved by allocating responsibility to one central actor (as is currently common practice), but should be the result of dynamic interaction between platforms, users, and public institutions.
The adoption of limitations to copyright is regulated at international and EU level by the three-step test. The major obstacle to new limitations for online use is a strict interpretation of the test, namely its second step, according to which a limitation shall not conflict with the normal exploitation of works. This article examines the test with a focus on the second step and its application to the digital and crossborder environment. It argues for a flexible and policy-oriented reading of the concept of normal exploitation. Following this approach could enable the introduction of new online limitations in EU law. In particular, within the context of current EU copyright reform, a flexible interpretation could support the introduction of a mandatory and unwaivable limitation for user-generated content.
Uitlatingen van een Turkse politicus over de Armeense genocide (waarvan hij het bestaan ontkende) ten onrechte in Zwitserland veroordeeld.
Copyright lawmaking is conventionally embedded in a doctrinal tradition that gives much consideration to coherence and formal consistency with legal-theoretical foundations. This contrasts discernibly with the recent trend to base copyright policies and their elaboration into effective legal norms on empirical evidence. Recognizing that both approaches have their relative strengths and weaknesses, this paper explores how evidence-based policy can be reconciled with the traditional doctrinal approach to copyright lawmaking. It suggests that unproven doctrinal constellations that unnecessarily focus the legislative intention unequally on protecting copyright holders should be removed, but that lawmakers at the same time should also not stare blindly on economic evidence if legitimate claims based on fairness rationales are put forward, which also have to be weighed in as evidence.
Het EHRM erkent onder voorwaarden dat er een recht op openbaarheid van bestuur uit artikel 10 is af te leiden.
‘‘Fake news’’ has become a much-used and much-hyped term in the so-called ‘‘post-truth’’ era that we now live in. It is also much-maligned: it is often blamed for having a disruptive impact on the outcomes of elections and referenda and for skewing democratic public debate, with the 2016 US Presidential elections and Brexit referendum often cited as examples. ‘‘Fake news’’ has also been flagged for fuelling propaganda and ‘‘hate speech’’ and even violence. ‘‘Pizzagate’’ is an infamous example of exceptional circumstances in which a false news story had a central role in a shooting incident. In December 2016, a man in Washington D.C. took it upon himself to ‘‘self-investigate’’ a story (a completely unfounded conspiracy theory) that the Hillary Clinton campaign team was running a paedophile ring from the premises of a pizzeria. Shots were fired and he was arrested and charged with assault and related offences. Given all this bad press, it is perhaps little wonder that ‘‘fake news’’ has become a major preoccupation for international organisations, national law- and policy-makers, the media and media actors, civil society and academia. But what exactly is ‘‘fake news’’ and what is all the fuss about? In addressing these questions, this column will also consider historical and contemporary perspectives on the term and its relationship with human rights.
De geschiedenis van de harmonisatie van het auteursrecht valt samen met die van dit tijdschrift. Dit artikel is opgedragen aan J.H. (Jaap) Spoor, die als AMI-redactielid van het eerste uur veertig jaar harmonisatie onverschrokken aan zich voorbij zag gaan. Veertig jaar geleden, in de rubriek ‘internationaal nieuws’ van het allereerste nummer van Auteursrecht, werd bericht dat de Europese Commissie onderzoek had laten doen naar de verschillen tussen de nationale auteurswetten in de Europese Gemeenschap. Het door dr. A. Dietz van het Max Planck Instituut in München in het Duits geschreven rapport was sinds kort ‘als xerografische, in twee delen geniete uitgave verkrijgbaar bij de Europese Commissie’. Dit was het begin van de harmonisatie van het auteursrecht in Europa, die in de decennia daarna diepe sporen zou trekken door het Nederlandse recht – sporen die slechts ten dele zichtbaar zijn in de huidige bewoordingen van de Nederlandse Auteurswet.
Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests. Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.
In: Verandering van Koers, H.A. Groen c.s. red., Uitgeverij Datawyse 2017, ISBN 9789462957404, p. 13-20.
Is een 'dynamisch' IP adres een persoonsgegeven? Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing ingediend door het Bundesgerichtshof (hoogste federale rechter in burgerlijke en strafzaken, Duitsland) bij beslissing van 28 oktober 2014. Verwerking van persoonsgegevens. Begrip, persoonsgegevens’. Internetprotocoladressen. Bewaring door een aanbieder van onlinemediadiensten. Nationale regeling volgens welke geen rekening kan worden gehouden met het gerechtvaardigde belang van de voor de verwerking verantwoordelijke persoon.