Publicaties

@article{Yakovleva2020,
title = {Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy},
author = {Yakovleva, S.},
url = {https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol74/iss2/5/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-27},
journal = {University of Miami Law Review},
volume = {74},
number = {2},
pages = {416-519},
abstract = {Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Close

Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values.

Close

Behrens, C., Brouwer, E., van Eechoud, M., Witteman, J.

Toegang tot data uit apparaten: Praktijk, marktfalen en publieke belangen

2020, ISBN: 9789067339742, (SEO-rapport nr. 2019-29).

Abstract | BibTeX

Bogataj Jancic, M., Botero, C., Butler, B., Carroll, M., Craig, C., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Jaszi, P., Margoni, T., Ncube, C., Quintais, J., Rocha de Souza, A., Sag, M., Scaria, A.G., White, B.

Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

2020.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Frosio, G., Hugenholtz, P., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.

Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics

JIPITEC, vol. 10 (nr. 3 - 2019), 2020.

Links | BibTeX

Bouchè, G.

BGH: uploading a free-trial version of Microsoft Office is also making available to the public

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Links | BibTeX

Hugenholtz, P.

In Memoriam Jan Kabel

AMI, (1), pp. 1-2, 2020.

Links | BibTeX

van Gompel, S.

Artikelen 8 tot en met 11 DSM-richtlijn: Niet of niet meer in de handel zijnde werken en andere materialen

AMI, (1), pp. 3-10, 2020.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

McGonagle, T.

The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing

Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 227-253, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055.

Links | BibTeX

van Hoboken, J.

The Privacy Disconnect

Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 255-284, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055.

Links | BibTeX

Ducato, R., Hegladóttir, A., Mazgal, A., Quintais, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Panel discussion at CPDP 2020: We need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection.

06.02.2020.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

@misc{Quintais2020,
title = {Panel discussion at CPDP 2020: We need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection. },
author = {Quintais, J. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Mazgal, A. and Ducato, R. and Heglad\'{o}ttir, A. },
url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SstHA1ALZoI},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-06},
abstract = {The new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive was published in May 2019. Its most controversial provision is Article 17 (ex 13), which creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms, like YouTube and Facebook. The new regime makes these platforms directly liable for their users’ uploads, without the possibility of benefiting from the hosting safe-harbour. This forces platforms to either license all or most of the content uploaded by users (which is near impossible) or to adopt preventive measures like filters. The likely outcome is that covered platforms will engage in general monitoring of the content uploaded by their users. This panel will discuss the issues raised by Article 17 DSM Directive and the model of algorithmic enforcement it incentivizes, with a focus on the freedom of expression and data protection risks it entails.

• Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms.
• Does this provision introduce de facto the controversial upload filtering systems and, as a result, general monitoring of information in content-sharing platforms?
• Is Article 17 essentially in conflict with the GDPR and, in particular, the principle of minimisation and the right not to be subject to automated decision-making processes? What are the potential consequences of this provision on users’ freedom of expression?
• If Article 17 can negatively affect data protection and freedom of expression what are the possible legal and extra-legal responses to neutralise the risk?
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}

Close

McGonagle, T.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 oktober 2019 (Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek)

European Human Rights Cases Updates, 2020.

Links | BibTeX

McGonagle, T.

Szurovecz t. Hongarije (EHRM, nr. 15428/16) - Court underscores importance of direct news-gathering by journalists

European Human Rights Cases, 2020.

Links | BibTeX

Hugenholtz, P., Poort, J.

Film Financing in the Digital Single Market: Challenges to Territoriality

IIC, 51 (2), pp. 167-186, 2020.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

@article{Hugenholtz2020,
title = {Film Financing in the Digital Single Market: Challenges to Territoriality},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Poort, J.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40319-019-00900-2.pdf},
doi = {10.1007/s40319-019-00900-2},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-30},
journal = {IIC},
volume = {51},
number = {2},
pages = {167-186},
abstract = {This article discusses the role of territorial licences for feature films against the background of judicial and market developments in the EU. Currently, territorial licences are deemed a cornerstone of the exploitation and financing of films in Europe. However, current models of film financing are under increasing pressure both from market developments such as the turbulent growth of global online video platforms, and from developments in EU law aimed at removing national territorial barriers to the Single Market. Examples are the rule of Union-wide exhaustion of the distribution right, the EU Portability Regulation and the country of origin rules for satellite broadcasting and online simulcasting. EU competition law sets additional limits to grants of territorial exclusivity, and prohibits clauses in broadcasting and pay television licences that prevent or restrict “passive” sales to consumers/viewers in non-licensed territories. The freedom of right holders to preserve territorial exclusivity by way of contract is likely to become increasingly vulnerable to EU competition law, as underlying territorial rights no longer support territorial grants. For the film sector where territorial exclusivity remains indispensable, the European Commission could create specific competition law rules in the form of “block exemptions”. Language exclusivity \textendash i.e. exclusive grants of rights for distinct language versions of a film \textendash could provide a practical and legally more robust alternative to territorial licensing.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Close