EU policy/Platforms Consultation

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Home Icon by Lakas.svg Home   About icon (The Noun Project).svg About   Statement icon (The Noun Project).svg Statement   Monitor icon (The Noun Project).svg Monitoring   Documents icon - noun project 5020.svg Documentation   Take Action icon (The Noun Project).svg Handouts   Team icon - noun project 20586.svg Team   Tranparency icon (The Noun Project).png Transparency
Logo of the European Commission (el).svg
Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU

Platforms Consultation

 


The European Commission has launched its Public consultation on the regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud computing and the collaborative economy. This is the Wikimedia working page to draft answers to be submitted by the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU.

Submitted Answers[edit]

The "Public consultation on the regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud computing and the collaborative economy" closed on 6 January 2016. The answers submitted by Wikimedia are:

The remaining information on this page is mostly made up of the draft answers to the consultation and is kept for archiving and traceability purposes.

Organisational details[edit]

Idea behind consultation[edit]

In its Communication on a Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe (DSM) of 6 May 2015, the Commission committed to assess the role of platforms. The Commission seeks the views to better understand the social and economic role of platforms, market trends, the dynamics of platform-development and the various business models underpinning platforms.

Important deadlines[edit]

We have 12 weeks after the consultation is published in all official EU languages. Expected: Second week of October +12 weeks.

Previous EU positioning by Wikimedia[edit]

Who should edit this page?[edit]

Everyone! Please just leave a draft answer/comment underneath the questions followed by your signature. We will then try to unify the replies.

Who should submit answers to the Commission?[edit]

Chapters and the WMF are welcome to submit own sets of answers, but are kindly asked to assure non-contradictory replies across the movement. Last time during the "Copyright Consultation" numerous Wikimedia chapters and the WMF submitted parallel answers. This did not lead to any meaningful impact (except for very minor statistical benefits), so it shouldn't have a high priority. Individuals are very weolcome to submit own sets of answers, as they are categorized as "internet users" and their replies counted seperately.

Consultation[edit]

Online platforms[edit]

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ROLE OF ONLINE PLATFORMS[edit]

Do you agree with the definition of "Online platform" as provided below?[edit]

"Online platform" refers to an undertaking operating in two (or multi)-sided markets, which uses the Internet to enable interactions between two or more distinct but interdependent groups of users so as to generate value for at least one of the groups. Certain platforms also qualify as Intermediary service providers. Typical examples include general internet search engines (e.g. Google, Bing), specialised search tools (e.g. Google Shopping, Kelkoo, Twenga, Google Local, TripAdvisor, Yelp,), location-based business directories or some maps (e.g. Google or Bing Maps), news aggregators (e.g. Google News), online market places (e.g. Amazon, eBay, Allegro, Booking.com), audio-visual and music platforms (e.g. Deezer, Spotify, Netflix, Canal play, Apple TV), video sharing platforms (e.g. YouTube, Dailymotion), payment systems (e.g. PayPal, Apple Pay), social networks (e.g. Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Tuenti), app stores (e.g. Apple App Store, Google Play) or collaborative economy platforms (e.g. AirBnB, Uber, Taskrabbit, Bla-bla car). Internet access providers fall outside the scope of this definition.

-->YES, NO, Explain how you would change defiition<--
FKAGEU: NO, for the purpose of law we would like to see a more differentiated approach in defining the term "online platform". Pooling search engines, retailers, knowledge resources, forums, private blogs and social platforms together does not seem to correspond with the Commission's own intention to "follow the money". Instead we should differentiate "online platforms" depending on the flow of money and data. In this case we would have three groups - "businesses/organisational users/other platforms", "individual internet users", "advertisers". There should be different categories of platforms based on their relationship with these groups.

What do you consider to be the key advantages of using online platforms?[edit]

  • make information more accessible
  • make communication and interaction easier
  • increase choice of products and services
  • create more transparent prices and the possibility to compare offers
  • increase trust between peers by providing trust mechanisms (i.e. ratings, reviews, etc.)
  • lower prices for products and services
  • lower the cost of reaching customers for suppliers
  • help with matching supply and demand
  • create new markets or business opportunities
  • help in complying with obligations in cross-border sales
  • help to share resources and improve resource-allocation
  • others:

-->Check which ones you agree with or specify others<--
FKAGEU:

  • make information more accessible
  • make communication and interaction easier
  • help to share resources and improve resource-allocation
  • other: (cross-border) collaboration of users

Have you encountered, or are you aware of problems faced by consumers or suppliers when dealing with online platforms?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<-- -->Please list problems and explain if yes<--
YES, it is almost impossible for users, partners and platform maintainers to apply fragmented national laws to situations where both the the creation and the use are transnational. Different copyright, data protection and liability rules create legally incoherent systems that have a chilling effect and limit creation and competition.

How could these problems be best addressed?[edit]

  • market dynamics
  • regulatory measures
  • self-regulatory measures
  • a combination of the above

-->Which ones do you agree with?<--
*regulatory measures

TRANSPARENCY OF ONLINE PLATFORMS[edit]

Do you think that online platforms should ensure, as regards their own activities and those of the traders that use them, more transparency in relation to:[edit]

a) information required by consumer law (e.g. the contact details of the supplier, the main characteristics of products, the total price including delivery charges, and consumers' rights, such as the right of withdrawal)?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
YES

b) information in response to a search query by the user, in particular if the displayed results are sponsored or not?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
DON'T KNOW

c) information on who the actual supplier is, offering products or services on the platform?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
DON'T KNOW

d) information to discourage misleading marketing by professional suppliers (traders), including fake reviews?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
DON'T KNOW

e) is there any additional information that, in your opinion, online platforms should be obliged to display?[edit]

-->500 characters maximum<--
Anything required by law.

Have you experienced that information displayed by the platform (e.g. advertising) has been adapted to the interest or recognisable characteristics of the user?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
DON'T KNOW


Do you find the information provided by online platforms on their terms of use sufficient and easy-to-understand?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
NO, just like "click-through" agreements information is often intentionally presented in a manner that is unfriendly to users. We recommend the Commission to consult both Prof. Robert Bartlett and Creative Commons on how to make legal information "human readable". examples
Standardised icons and short texts that quickly help users know what the "do's and don'ts" are. Again, the Creative Commons system or the laundry symbols are a great examples of how this can be done.

What type of additional information and in what format would you find useful? Please briefly explain your response and share any best practice you are aware of.[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
Standardised icons and short texts that quickly help users know what the "do's and don'ts" are. Again, the Creative Commons system or the laundry symbols are a great examples of how this can be done.

Do you find reputation systems (e.g. ratings, reviews, certifications, trustmarks) and other trust mechanisms operated by online platforms are generally reliable?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
DON'T KNOW


Please xplain how the transparency of reputation systems and other trust mechanisms could be improved?[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
DON'T KNOW

What are the main benefits and drawbacks of reputation systems and other trust mechanisms operated by online platforms? Please describe their main benefits and drawbacks.[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
DON'T KNOW

USE OF INFORMATION BY ONLINE PLATFORMS[edit]

In your view, do online platforms provide sufficient and accessible information with regard to:[edit]

a) the personal and non-personal data they collect?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
NO

b) what use is made of the personal and non-personal data collected, including trading of the data to other platforms and actors in the Internet economy?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
NO

c) adapting prices, for instance dynamic pricing and conditions in function of data gathered on the buyer (both consumer and trader)?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
DON'T KNOW

Please explain your choice and share any best practices that you are aware of.=[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
See general comments below.

Please share your general comments or ideas regarding the use of information by online platforms[edit]

-->3000 characters maximum<--
As a basic rule, only the data necessary to provide the service and as little as possible personal data should be collected. The user should have full rights to know what is collected, to requests its deletion and to port the gathered information to another platform.

RELATIONS BETWEEN PLATFORMS AND SUPPLIERS/TRADERS/APPLICATION DEVELOPERS OR HOLDERS OF RIGHTS IN DIGITAL CONTENT[edit]

Please provide the list of online platforms with which you are in regular business relations.[edit]

Indicate to what extent your business depends on them (on a scale of 0 to 3). Please describe the position of your business or the business you represent and provide recent examples from your business experience.
-->List of 5 maximum<--

How often do you experience the following business practices in your business relations with platforms?[edit]

  • requests me to use exclusively its services
  • applies “parity clauses" *
  • applies non-transparent fees
  • applies fees without corresponding
  • counter-performance
  • applies terms and conditions, which I find
  • unbalanced and do not have the possibility to negotiate
  • unilaterally modifies the contractual terms without giving you proper notification or allowing you to terminate the contract
  • limits access to data or provides it in a non-usable format
  • puts significant constraints to presenting your offer
  • presents suppliers/services in a biased way
  • refuses access to its services unless specific restrictions are accepted
  • promotes its own services to the disadvantage of services provided by suppliers

-->For each: NEVER< SOMETIMES, ALWAYS<--

If you do experience them, what is their impact on your business activity (on a scale from 0 to 3)[edit]

  • requests me to use exclusively its services
  • applies “parity clauses" *
  • applies non-transparent fees
  • applies fees without corresponding
  • counter-performance
  • applies terms and conditions, which I find
  • unbalanced and do not have the possibility to negotiate
  • unilaterally modifies the contractual terms without giving you proper notification or allowing you to terminate the contract
  • limits access to data or provides it in a non-usable format
  • puts significant constraints to presenting your offer
  • presents suppliers/services in a biased way
  • refuses access to its services unless specific restrictions are accepted
  • promotes its own services to the disadvantage of services provided by suppliers

-->For each: 0 (no impact,1,2,3 (heavy impact)<--

If you are aware of other contractual clauses or experience other potentially problematic practices, please mention them here[edit]

-->1000 characters maximum<--

Please briefly describe the situation[edit]

-->3000 characters maximum<--

Are you a holder of rights in digital content protected by copyright, which is used on an online platform?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
YES

As a holder of rights in digital content protected by copyright have you faced any of the following circumstances:[edit]

An online platform such as a video sharing website or an online content aggregator uses my protected works online without having asked for my authorisation.[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
Yes

An online platform such as a video sharing website or a content aggregator refuses to enter into or negotiate licensing agreements with me.[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
NO

An online platform such as a video sharing website or a content aggregator is willing to enter into a licensing agreement on terms that I consider unfair.[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
NO

An online platform uses my protected works but claims it is a hosting provider under Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive in order to refuse to negotiate a licence or to do so under their own terms.[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
NO

As you answered YES to some of the above questions, please explain your situation in more detail.[edit]

-->3000 characters maximum<--
Our content is freely licensed or public domain and can thus be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use, without asking for permission. The main issue we have is that often re-users don't respect the free license or public domain status of our content and falsely claim copyright (e.g. "All rights reserved"). This in our mind constitutes copyfraud, risks having content illegaly "locked up" and should be addressed by the Commission by safeguarding the functional public domain.

If you own/develop an online platform, what are the main constrains that negatively affect the development of your online platform and prevent you from extending your activities to new markets in the EU?[edit]

-->3000 characters maximum<--
The unharmonised licenses and exceptions in the 2001 Information Society Directive.

How do you ensure that suppliers of your platform are treated fairly?[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
Identical rules apply to all.

Can a supplier personalize its offer of products / services on the platform you represent?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--

How?[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--

Is there a room for improvement in the relation between platforms and suppliers using the services of platforms?[edit]

-->No, the present situation is satisfactory.
-->Yes, through market dynamics.
-->Yes, through self-regulatory measures (codes of conducts / promotion of best practices).
-->Yes, through regulatory measures.
-->Yes, through the combination of the above.
YES, through the combination of the above. Due to the centralisation of the internet, certain platforms have become almost unavoidable. As a result, bargaining power and alternatives have very little chances to negotiate.

Are you aware of any dispute resolution mechanisms operated by online platforms, or independent third parties on the business-to-business level mediating between platforms and their suppliers?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
NO

Please share your experiences on the key elements of a well-functioning dispute resolution mechanism on platforms[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--

CONSTRAINTS ON THE ABILITY OF CONSUMERS AND TRADERS TO MOVE FROM ONE PLATFORM TO ANOTHER[edit]

Do you see a need to strengthen the technical capacity of online platforms and address possible other constraints on switching freely and easily from one platform to another and move user data (e.g. emails, messages, search and order history, or customer reviews)?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
YES

If you can, please provide the description of some best practices (max. 5)[edit]

-->Name of Platform, Description of practice<--

  • Google's option to "download your data"
  • "Accessing your account data" option
  • Facebook's no longer available option to copy all your information from your account.

Should there be a mandatory requirement allowing non-personal data to be easily extracted and moved between comparable online services?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
YES

Please explain your choice and share any best practices that you are aware of.[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
The best practice is to collect only the data necessary to render the service and to allow the user to view, delete or download all data that is collected.


Please share your general comments or ideas regarding the ability of consumers and traders to move from one platform to another.[edit]

-->3000 characters maximum<--
Assuring interoperability and the possibility to port or delete one's data is a fundamental step toward assuring a competitive environment in the Digital Single Market and guaranteeing citizens are in control of their privacy vis-à-vis online projects.

ACCESS TO DATA[edit]

As a trader or a consumer using the services of online platforms did you experience any of the following problems related to the access of data?[edit]

a) unexpectedly changing conditions of accessing the services of the platforms[edit]

-->YES, NO<--

b) unexpectedly changing conditions of accessing the Application Programming Interface of the platform[edit]

-->YES, NO<--


c) unexpectedly changing conditions of accessing the data you shared with or stored on the platform[edit]

-->YES, NO<--

d) discriminatory treatment in accessing data on the platform[edit]

-->YES, NO<--

Would a rating scheme, issued by an independent agency on certain aspects of the platforms' activities, improve the situation?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--


Please explain your answer[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--

Please share your general comments or ideas regarding access to data on online platforms.[edit]

-->3000 characters maximum<--

Tackling illegal content online and the liability of online intermediaries[edit]

Please indicate your role in the context of this set of questions[edit]

-->individual user
-->content provider
-->notice provider
-->intermediary
-->none of the above
content provider

Please explain[edit]

-->500 characters maximum<--
Wikimedia hosts projects that allow users to upload and edit educational materials. In Europe, Wikimedia has a network of chapters that are member based NGO's in the Member States. A large number of the chapters' members are users and rightsholders that are being represented by them.

Have you encountered situations suggesting that the liability regime introduced in Section IV of the E-commerce Directive (art. 12-15) has proven not fit for purpose or has negatively affected market level playing field?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
NO

Please describe the situation.[edit]

-->3000 characters maximum<--
There are many cases in which the mere notification of claimed illegal content has led to its removal. Even if the content was actually legal.

Do you think that the concept of a "mere technical, automatic and passive nature" of information transmission by information society service providers provided under recital 42 of the ECD is sufficiently clear to be interpreted and applied in a homogeneous way, having in mind the growing involvement in content distribution by some online intermediaries, e.g.: video sharing websites?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<-
Don't know.

Please explain your answer.[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
This is a biased question. A Directive does not aim at applying homogenous rules but wants to provide clear guidance. The ECD does this. Having neutral online platforms and content transmitters with protection from intermediary liability is fundamental to the creation, growth and existence of free knowledge projects like Wikipedia. Wikimedia projects receive hundreds of edits per minute, totaling billions of edits since the projects were founded. This rapidly changing mass of knowledge contributed by volunteers can only be hosted thanks to intermediary protection.

Mere conduit/caching/hosting describe the activities that are undertaken by a service provider. However, new business models and services have appeared since the adopting of the E-commerce Directive. For instance, some cloud service providers might also be covered under hosting services e.g. pure data storage. Other cloud-based services, as processing, might fall under a different category or not fit correctly into any of the existing ones. The same can apply to linking services and search engines, where there has been some diverging case-law at national level. Do you think that further categories of intermediary services should be established, besides mere conduit/caching/hosting and/or should the existing categories be clarified?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<-
YES

Please provide examples.[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
Online platforms like Wikipedia need the same protection ISPs currently enjoy under the E-commerce Directive.

On the "notice"[edit]

Do you consider that different categories of illegal content require different policy approaches as regards notice-and-action procedures, and in particular different requirements as regards the content of the notice?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
YES. In all cases an a-priori counter-notice procedure must be required, except in grave cases threatening human life, where the take-down can be immediate.

Do you think that any of the following categories of illegal content requires a specific approach:[edit]

-->Illegal offer of goods and services (e.g. illegal arms, fake medicines, dangerous products, unauthorised gambling services etc.)
-->Illegal promotion of goods and services
-->Content facilitating phishing, pharming or hacking
-->Infringements of intellectual property rights (e.g. copyright and related rights, trademarks)
-->Infringement of consumer protection rules, such as fraudulent or misleading offers
-->Infringement of safety and security requirements
-->Racist and xenophobic speech
-->Homophobic and other kinds of hate speech
-->Child abuse content
-->Terrorism-related content (e.g. content inciting the commitment of terrorist offences and training material)
-->Defamation
-->Other:

  • Infringements of intellectual property rights (e.g. copyright and related rights, trademarks)

Please specify.[edit]

-->500 characters maximum<--
Some of the categories stated above might require specific approach, but not within IP law.

Please explain what approach you would see fit for the relevant category.[edit]

-->1000 characters maximum<--
There is a difference between infringing IP rights and illegal content. While terrorist and child-abuse related content are often outright illegal, they might not infringe IP law. On the other hand, a song might be perfectly legal, but communicating it to the public via an online platform constitutes an infringement of copyright. Applying a one-size-fits all system would be problematic. Especially when keeping in mind, that copyright enforcement measures have in the past lead to disproportionate consequences for fundamental rights (e.g.: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/copyright-law-tool-state-internet-censorship).

On the "action"[edit]

Should the content providers be given the opportunity to give their views to the hosting service provider on the alleged illegality of the content?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
YES

Please explain your answer.[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
Yes, this would to some extent minimise the problem of only allegedly illegal (but actually legal) content being taken down. The only way to legally establish the legality or illegality of content is by court ruling. Therefore the views should be heard before a judicial authority.

If you consider that this should only apply for some kinds of illegal content, please indicate which one(s)[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--

Please explain[edit]

-->500 characters maximum<--

On duties of care for online intermediaries:[edit]

(For online intermediaries): Have you put in place voluntary or proactive measures to remove certain categories of illegal content from your system?[edit]

-->YES, NO<--
YES

Please describe them[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
A community of volunteers looks at newly uploaded content has the right to delete copyright violations and other illegal content.

Could you estimate the financial costs to your undertaking of putting in place and running this system?[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--
We are a volunteer driven community so every minute spent by editors on arguing about IP laws instead of creating and editing free knowledge results in less knowledge being freely available to every single human being.

Could you outline the considerations that have prevented you from putting in place voluntary measures?[edit]

-->1500 characters maximum<--

Do you see a need to impose specific duties of care for certain categories of illegal content?[edit]

-->YES, NO, DON'T KNOW<--
NO

Please specify for which categories of content you would establish such an obligation.[edit]

1500 character(s) maximum
NONE

Please specify for which categories of intermediary you would establish such an obligation[edit]

1500 character(s) maximum
NONE

Please specify what types of actions could be covered by such an obligation[edit]

1500 character(s) maximum
NONE

Do you see a need for more transparency on the intermediaries' content restriction policies and practices (including the number of notices received as well as their main content and the results of the actions taken following the notices)?[edit]

Yes No
Yes.

Should this obligation be limited to those hosting service providers, which receive a sizeable amount of notices per year (e.g. more than 1000)?[edit]

Yes No
NO

Do you think that online intermediaries should have a specific service to facilitate contact with national authorities for the fastest possible notice and removal of illegal contents that constitute a threat for e.g. public security or fight against terrorism?[edit]

Yes No
Question biased - are we talking about IP or terrorism here? Are there examples that the current system in place in many Member States (publishing responsible editors) is not working?

Do you think a minimum size threshold would be appropriate if there was such an obligation?[edit]

Yes No

Please share your general comments or ideas regarding the liability of online intermediaries and the topics addressed in this section of the questionnaire.[edit]

5000 character(s) maximum
All requests, as well as granted and refused take-downs should be freely visible to anyone. We do this in regular transparency reports
The "duty of care" mentioned in Recital 47 is not an additional duty but a codification of the rules in Articles 12-15. Hence, a general duty to monitor cannot and should not be derived from it. Such a duty would impose a heavy burden on volunteer driven projects that are likely to force them to limit their activities. Notice and action rules (that must in all circumstances allow counter-noticing) should be sufficient tool for removing infringing content.

Data and cloud in digital ecosystems[edit]

FREE FLOW OF DATA[edit]

ON DATA LOCATION RESTRICTIONS[edit]

In the context of the free flow of data in the Union, do you in practice take measures to make a clear distinction between personal and non-personal data?[edit]

Yes No Not applicable
Not applicable

Please explain why not[edit]

Have restrictions on the location of data affected your strategy in doing business (e.g. limiting your choice regarding the use of certain digital technologies and ervices?)[edit]

Yes No

Do you think that there are particular reasons in relation to which data location restrictions are or should be justifiable?[edit]

Yes No

What kind(s) of ground(s) do you think are justifiable?[edit]

>National security >Public security >Other reasons:

Please explain[edit]

ON DATA ACCESS AND TRANSFER[edit]

Do you think that the existing contract law framework and current contractual practices are fit for purpose to facilitate a free flow of data including sufficient and fair access to and use of data in the EU, while safeguarding fundamental interests of parties involved?[edit]

Yes No

Please explain your position[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum

In order to ensure the free flow of data within the European Union, in your opinion, regulating access to, transfer and the use of non-personal data at European level is:[edit]

Necessary Not necessary

When non-personal data is generated by a device in an automated manner, do you think that it should be subject to specific measures (binding or non-binding) at EU level?[edit]

Yes No

Which of the following aspects would merit measures?[edit]

between 1 and 4 choices >Obligation to inform the user or operator of the device that generates the data >Attribution of the exploitation rights of the generated data to an entity (for example the person/organisation that is owner of that device) >In case the device is embedded in a larger system or product, the obligation to share the generated data with providers of other parts of that system or with the owner/user/holder of the entire system >Other aspects:

Please specify[edit]

Please share your general comments or ideas regarding data access, ownership and use[edit]

5000 character(s) maximum
The General Data Protection Regulation is not implemented yet. As a general method we should analyse how it works in practice first and answer the above stated questions later. We do believe that individuals must have the possibility of knowing what data is collected about them, how the data is used and request its deletion.

ON DATA MARKETS[edit]

What regulatory constraints hold back the development of data markets in Europe and how could the EU encourage the development of such markets?[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum

ON ACCESS TO OPEN DATA[edit]

Do you think more could be done to open up public sector data for re-use in addition to the recently revised EU legislation (Directive 2013/37/EU)?[edit]

Open by default means: Establish an expectation that all government data be published and made openly re-usable by default, while recognising that there are legitimate reasons why some data cannot be released. >Introducing the principle of 'open by default'[1]
>Licensing of 'Open Data': help persons/ organisations wishing to re-use public sector information (e.g., Standard European License)
>Further expanding the scope of the Directive (e.g. to include public service broadcasters, public undertakings);
>Improving interoperability (e.g., common data formats);
>Further limiting the possibility to charge for re-use of public sector information
>Remedies available to potential re-users against unfavourable decisions
>Other aspects?

FKAGEU:
>Introducing the principle of 'open by default'[1]
>Further expanding the scope of the Directive (e.g. to include public service broadcasters, public undertakings);
>Further limiting the possibility to charge for re-use of public sector information

Please specify[edit]

We would support the European Commission in following-up on its "Guidelines on recommended standard licences, datasets and charging for the reuse of documents (2014/C 240/01)" by making them binding.

Do you think that there is a case for the opening up of data held by private entities to promote its re-use by public and/or private sector, while respecting the existing provisions on data protection?[edit]

Yes No

Under what conditions?[edit]

>in case it is in the public interest >for non-commercial purposes (e.g. research) >other conditions

Please explain[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum

ON ACCESS AND REUSE OF (NON-PERSONAL) SCIENTIFIC DATA[edit]

Do you think that data generated by research is sufficiently, findable, accessible identifiable, and re-usable enough?[edit]

Yes No
NO

Why not? What do you think could be done to make data generated by research more effectively re-usable?[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum
There are four major threats to the re-use of data: 1.Embargoes on newly published research (currently 6-12 months). 2.Non-free licensing of data claimed to be "open access". We believe the Open Definition [1] should be applied. 3."Locking-in" of data on platforms or APIs that are not interoperable. 4.The attempt of the European Commission to make it seem like a Text and Data Mining exception is required (while we believe that the the right to read is enough for "mining").

Do you agree with a default policy which would make data generated by publicly funded research available through open access?[edit]

Yes No
YES

Why not?[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum

ON LIABILITY IN RELATION TO THE FREE FLOW OF DATA AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS[edit]

As a provider/user of Internet of Things (IoT) and/or data driven services and connected tangible devices, have you ever encountered or do you anticipate problems stemming from either an unclear liability regime/non –existence of a clear-cut liability regime?[edit]

Yes No I don't know

If you did not find the legal framework satisfactory, does this affect in any way your use of these services and tangible goods or your trust in them?[edit]

Yes No I don't know

Do you think that the existing legal framework (laws, or guidelines or contractual practices) is fit for purpose in addressing liability issues of IoT or / and Data driven ervices and connected tangible goods?[edit]

Yes No I don't know

Is the legal framework future proof? Please explain, using examples.[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum

Please explain what, in your view, should be the liability regime for these services and connected tangible goods to increase your trust and confidence in them?[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum

As a user of IoT and/or data driven services and connected tangible devices, does the present legal framework for liability of providers impact your confidence and trust in those services and connected tangible goods?[edit]

Yes No I don't know

In order to ensure the roll-out of IoT and the free flow of data, should liability issues of these services and connected tangible goods be addressed at EU level?[edit]

Yes No I don't know

ON OPEN SERVICE PLATFORMS[edit]

What are in your opinion the socio-economic and innovation advantages of open versus closed service platforms and what regulatory or other policy initiatives do you propose to accelerate the emergence and take-up of open service platforms?[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum
The internet is a decentralised space that has the natural tendency to centralise. In the process of this centralisation a few actors will become very important in the way the network operates. With other words network effects that lead to powerful positions of platforms and players that sit "on top" of the internet. Having open platforms can help us avoid a complete monopolisation of the Digital Single Market. It is thus beneficial to have open platforms in this position, as they generally allow all market players to access them and the use of multiple/universal/non-proprietary standards. Any policy or initiative that aims at promoting open standards and open source and their use is welcome.

PERSONAL DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS[edit]

The following questions address the issue whether technical innovations should be promoted and further developed in order to improve transparency and implement efficiently the requirements for lawful processing of personal data, in compliance with the current and future EU data protection legal framework. Such innovations can take the form of 'personal data cloud spaces' or trusted frameworks and are often referred to as 'personal data banks/stores/vaults'.

Do you think that technical innovations, such as personal data spaces, should be promoted to improve transparency in compliance with the current and future EU data protection legal framework? Such innovations can take the form of 'personal data cloud spaces' or trusted frameworks and are often referred to as 'personal data banks/stores/vaults'?[edit]

Yes No I don't know

Would you be in favour of supporting an initiative considering and promoting the development of personal data management systems at EU Level?[edit]

Yes No

EUROPEAN CLOUD INITIATIVE[edit]

What are the key elements for ensuring trust in the use of cloud computing services by European businesses and citizens[edit]

"Cloud computing" is a paradigm for enabling network access to a scalable and elastic pool of shareable physical or virtual resources with self-service provisioning and dministration on-demand. Examples of such resources include: servers, operating systems, networks, software, applications, and storage equipment. >Reducing regulatory differences between Member States >Standards, certification schemes, quality labels or seals >Use of the cloud by public institutions >Investment by the European private sector in secure, reliable and high-quality cloud infrastructures

As a (potential) user of cloud computing services, do you think cloud service providers are sufficiently transparent on the security and protection of users' data regarding the services they provide?[edit]

Yes No Not applicable

What information relevant to the security and protection of users' data do you think cloud service providers should provide?[edit]

As a (potential) user of cloud computing services, do you think cloud service providers are sufficiently transparent on the security and protection of users' data regarding the services they provide?[edit]

Yes No Not applicable

As a (potential) user of cloud computing services, do you agree that existing contractual practices ensure a fair and balanced allocation of legal and technical risks between cloud users and cloud service providers?[edit]

Yes No

Please explain[edit]

What would be the benefit of cloud computing services interacting with each other (ensuring interoperability)[edit]

>Economic benefits >Improved trust >Others:

Please specify[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum

What would be the benefit of guaranteeing the portability of data, including at European level, between different providers of cloud services[edit]

>Economic benefits >Improved trust >Others:

Please specify[edit]

3000 character(s) maximum

Cllaborative economy[edit]

The following questions focus on certain issues raised by the collaborative economy and seek to improve the Commission's understanding by collecting the views of stakeholders on the regulatory environment, the effects of collaborative economy platforms on existing suppliers, innovation, and consumer choice. More broadly, they aim also at assessing the impact of the development of the collaborative economy on the rest of the economy and of the opportunities as well as the challenges it raises. They should help devising a European agenda for the collaborative economy to be considered in the context of the forthcoming Internal Market Strategy. The main question is whether EU law is fit to support this new phenomenon and whether existing policy is sufficient to let it develop and grow further, while addressing potential issues that may arise, including public policy objectives that may have already been identified.

Terms used for the purposes of this consultation:

"Collaborative economy" For the purposes of this consultation the collaborative economy links individuals and/or legal persons through online platforms (collaborative economy platforms) allowing them to provide services and/or exchange assets, resources, time, skills, or capital, sometimes for a temporary period and without transferring ownership rights. Typical examples are transport services including the use of domestic vehicles for passenger transport and ride-sharing, accommodation or professional services.

"Traditional provider" Individuals or legal persons who provide their services mainly through other channels, without an extensive involvement of online platforms.

"Provider in the collaborative economy" Individuals or legal persons who provide the service by offering assets, resources, time, skills or capital through an online platform.

"User in the collaborative economy" Individuals or legal persons who access and use the transacted assets, resources, time, skills and capital.

Please indicate your role in the collaborative economy[edit]

  • Provider or association representing providers
  • Traditional provider or association representing traditional providers
  • Platform or association representing platforms
  • Public authority
  • User or consumer association

FKAGEU: 1st, 3rd, 5th options (Multiple possible)

Which are the main risks and challenges associated with the growth of the collaborative economy and what are the obstacles which could hamper its growth and accessibility? Please rate from 1 to 5 according to their importance (1 – not important; 5 – very important).[edit]

  • Not sufficiently adapted regulatory framework
  • Uncertainty for providers on their rights and obligations
  • Uncertainty for users about their rights and obligations
  • Weakening of employment and social rights for employees/workers
  • Non-compliance with health and safety standards and regulations
  • Rise in undeclared work and the black economy
  • Opposition from traditional providers
  • Uncertainty related to the protection of personal data
  • Insufficient funding for start-ups
  • Other, please explain

FKAGEU: 5, 5, 5, no answer, no answer, no answer, 5, 3, no answer, other: In the case of collaborative content production, differences in key exceptions and limitations to copyright across Member States make it difficult to estimate which content is legally safe to use and re-use. A substantial part of collaborative online initiatives nowadays are cross-border collaborations.

How do you consider the surge of the collaborative economy will impact on the different forms of employment (self-employment, free lancers, shared workers, economically dependent workers, tele-workers etc) and the creation of jobs?[edit]

  • Positively across sectors
  • Varies depending on the sector
  • Varies depending on each case
  • Varies according to the national employment laws
  • Negatively across sectors
  • Other

FKAGEU: Varies depending on the sector

Do you see any obstacle to the development and scaling-up of collaborative economy across borders in Europe and/or to the emergence of European market leaders?[edit]

FKAGEU: Yes, partially incompatible legal regimes due to the lack of harmonisation, especially regarding limitations and exceptions to copyright.

Do you see a need for action at European Union level specifically to promote the collaborative economy, and to foster innovation and entrepreneurship in its context?[edit]

FKAGEU: Yes, harmonisation of limitations and exceptions to copyright in the EU. Especially the exceptions which are directly made used of an a daily basis, such as Freedom of Panorama, citation, quotation and illustration. Furthermore, the commons is fundamental to allowing collaborative initiatives to thrive. A safeguarding of public domain works would assure legal certainty and protection against copyfraud.
Furthermore, ancillary copyright poses risks to the free distribution of knowledge online. Experiences in Member States have at the same time shown, that there are no positive economic effects. We therefore would welcome if the Commission protects the internet by safeguarding information sharing from such hasty initiatives.

What action is necessary regarding the current regulatory environment at the level of the EU, including the Services Directive, the E-commerce Directive and the EU legislation on consumer protection law?[edit]

  • No change is required
  • New rules for the collaborative economy are required
  • More guidance and better information on the application of the existing rules is required
  • I don't know what is the current regulatory environment

No change is required

How many people work for you?[edit]

More Please specify: We have between 100-200 employees and of between 15-20 thousand members and above hundred thousand volunteer contributors across the EU.

What percentage of your revenues/turnover is earned via collaborative platforms in the last twelve months?[edit]

81-100%

What has been your revenue/turnover growth in the last twelve months earned via collaborative platforms?[edit]

More than 50

What sector of the economy do you operate in?[edit]

Other Please specify: Free Knowledge production and distribution

As a provider active in the collaborative economy, are you aware if the following requirements have to be fulfilled in order to offer/share your assets, resources, time, skills, and/or capital on a platform?[edit]

  • Specific authorisation or licence
  • Registration in a business registry
  • Specific qualifications
  • Insurance coverage
  • Membership in a professional chamber
  • Compliance with health and safety requirements
  • Compliance with planning permission or fire safety requirements
  • Compliance with fixed-tariffs
  • Compliance with consumer protection requirements
  • Other, please specify

In case you need to comply with at least one of the above requirements, does this represent a burden for the exercise of your services via collaborative business models?[edit]

  • A significant burden
  • A minor burden
  • No burden
  • N/A (no requirements apply to my activities)

Do you think that lighter rules should be applied to smaller providers?[edit]

Is the online platform imposing specific requirements on providers?[edit]

Are providers using platforms able to find the right insurance to protect themselves against risks when providing services and assets in the collaborative economy?[edit]

What sector of the economy do you operate in?[edit]

  • Transport
  • Tourism
  • Accommodation
  • Professional services
  • Other

How many people work for your company?[edit]

What has been your revenue/turnover growth over the last twelve months?[edit]

Do you offer services and products in countries other than your own?[edit]

YES

What type of transactions does your platform provide?[edit]

Are there any specific prior authorisation requirements in place in your country of establishment for collaborative economy platforms? Are there specific authorisation requirements for your sector of activity and with which you, as a platform, have to comply?[edit]

Do you face any specific authorisation requirements in those EU countries where you provide cross border services temporarily without being established?[edit]

As a platform, are you involved in tax collection from the providers in the collaborative economy?[edit]

Are you providing insurance or other types of guarantees for consumers and providers active on your platform?[edit]

Do you inform providers regarding their legal obligations and do you ensure compliance of providers with specific legislation applying to them (for example, possession of authorisations, licences, consumer information requirements etc.)?[edit]

Have you used a service or asset via a collaborative platform?[edit]

====Have you exchanged your assets or services against other persons' assets or services or did you pay for them?

Do you receive, on the collaborative economy platform, sufficient information on the provider in the collaborative economy (including whether the provider is an individual or a legal person), your consumer rights, the characteristics and modalities of the offer and your statutory rights (such as withdrawal/cancellation right when applicable)?[edit]

How important are reputation/rating systems in facilitating transactions on collaborative economy platforms?[edit]