European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

from the the-eu-edition dept

This week’s favorites post comes from Marietje Schaake, a Member of the EU Parliament, who has been called “Europe’s most wired politician.”

When Mike asked me to write a post about my favorite Techdirt posts of the past week, I was honored. Techdirt is one of the main blogs I read everyday to keep me informed about information law and policy developments. The Techdirt contributors focus on a number of areas of my work. That was the same this week.

I met Mike about a month ago, when I hosted a hearing about ACTA in the European Parliament (EP). Mike was one of 12 speakers who explained the dangers of ACTA, which I consider a misguided agreement, and presented his research ‘The Sky is Rising’. Although several commentators have already declared ACTA to be dead, I still see a lot of lobby efforts trying to get approval. The article, “Time To Realize That The Obama Administration Doesn’t Even Have The Authority To Commit The US To ACTA Or TPP”, also shows the way in which lobbying continues, if not for ACTA, then now for TPP. This post highlights how the ACTA negotiators tried everything possible to circumvent the democratic process. If ACTA doesn’t bind the US, then why would Europe ratify a binding agreement and bend over backwards to get to that point?

There were a few posts about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Although this agreement does not concern Europe directly, it will have global ramifications. The lack of transparency sets an undesirable precedent that treaties which are mostly enforcement treaties are increasingly classified as international trade agreements, thereby allowing negotiators to discuss the enforcement measures in secret, without democratic oversight. Rep. Darrell Issa was able to give some insight into the negotiations by posting a leaked version of the agreement online.

Copyright reform
One of the reasons I enjoy reading Techdirt is the realistic outlook on intellectual property rights. We should be critical of industry statistics and figures, which aim to strengthen copyrights further. I am a supporter of rewarding and incentivizing creators of cultural, artistic or literary content. Arts and culture are essential in open societies. A strong culture develops when we can all build on these works and use them for enjoyment, study or invention. The internet offers a great platform for cultural diversity, because it democratizes the cultural process, instead of leaving some gatekeepers in charge to decide which works are mass-marketable. It is also possible to bring content to users at a lower price, as long as there are no disrupting measures in the way.

Artists and inventors are realizing you don’t necessarily need copyright to create works. Crowdfunding through services like Kickstarter (see “Biggest Kickstarter Project Ever Surpasses $10 Million; Cuts Off Funding”) or Sellaband is becoming increasingly popular and leading to many success stories where the production of creative works is pre-funded by fans.

Of course, copyright is a useful tool to monetize created works, but it is not the reason works are made in the first place. However, copyright as it is currently enacted can threaten the open internet. As economist Dean Barker suggests, copyright is an antiquated relic that has no place in the digital age. Bear in mind the principles of the law were developed at the time of the printing press. We live in a different world today, and if we do not reform copyright, it risks losing legitimacy all together.

Copyright has benefited certain monopoly stakeholders since its inception, and those who benefitted are now lobbying fiercely to keep the old laws in place as they protect their business models. The downside is that this is to the detriment of society and the development of the internet. Online enforcement will most likely infringe on internet users’ fundamental rights, as demonstrated by the Pirate Pay Bittorrent disruptor.

What politicians do not hear enough is that there is little relationship between stricter IP laws and innovation or economic growth. European politicians should also take note that spending on entertainment products and services is increasing, such as demonstrated by the record income of European cinemas and the record production of European films. In the end, even the American copyright office will circumvent rules that do not make sense in the real world.

The Pirate Party is quickly gaining popularity with this message. The party is currently being rewarded by voters in Germany for campaigning for copyright reform, transparency and many other necessary and important political changes, which have been enabled by the internet. My party in the Netherlands (D66) covers these issues well on both the national and the EU levels.

Currently there are many cases relating to copyright and the internet under way in European courts, and almost all raise a significant amount of controversy. Some have even called the judge, who deals with many of the anti-piracy issues in The Netherlands, corrupt. It appears that he and one of the main lawyers of the entertainment industry offer classes together teaching IP enforcement. Although calling this corrupt is a little unfair, I do agree with Mike that there is a conflict of interests here. No wonder this lawyer and his colleagues usually take their anti-piracy cases to the The Hague court.

On the other hand, a Finnish court displayed common sense and understanding of the open internet when it ruled that the owner of a WiFi network is not liable for copyright infringements by other users. It does send a signal however, that this case has been brought to court at all. Was it intended to set a precedent, whereby all European WiFi operators would feel the need to filter traffic?

Domain name seizures and blocking
The Finnish case is an exception to the general trend. For example, the US government seized two Spanish domains. In the current proceedings, the government claims it can “forfeit a domain without showing any crime actually happened. Instead, all they need to do is vaguely assert that someone, somewhere may have possibly violated a law somehow using the domain in the process — but they never have to actually prove anyone violated the specific law.” Mike rightly points out that this reasoning means that any website, including search engines, could be seized, since almost all information exchange online infringes copyright in one way or another.

Blocking and seizing domain names is supported by the movie industry, as shown in this article. According to the MPAA, blocking websites is good for consumers. I disagree strongly with the MPAA on this point and would like to point out that some great online services have been developed which compete very well with websites such as The Pirate Bay. Rights holders (whether artists or corporations) need to figure out how to monetize their works in the new digital environment. Computer nerds at IT companies are currently leading the way. Blocking has great collateral damage, which needs to be taken into consideration as well.

In the European Parliament I serve on the committee for Foreign Affairs. I’m currently drafting the report on Digital Freedom in the EU’s Foreign Policy. The post titled, “If You Meet A Censor, Ask Why They Haven’t Become Moral Degenerates Themselves”, makes a valid point with respect to blocking information which is deemed bad for society. If blocking becomes a mainstream method in the US or EU, it undermines our credibility in speaking to other countries about the way in which they block websites where an undesired (political) message is shared. We risk a slippery slope!

Cyber Security
Are we being attacked and spied upon via ICT networks, and should we increase public finances and resources to combat this threat? I have been trying to find good, independent and verifiable information or research to answer this question. Unfortunately, I have not found it. Most of the numbers and statistics about a security threat are compiled by companies who sell security software. As the post “Fearmongering About Cyberwar And Cybersecurity Is Working: American Public Very, Very Afraid” says, these tactics seem to be working for those companies.

It is great news that Harvard and MIT will be offering courses virtually through EdX. In the committee for Culture & Education of the EP, I have been advocating to extend the European Open Data Strategy to include educational and research institutions. The initiative by the Boston-based American universities is a great step in opening up education for all.

Finally, the piece titled, “Something Is Wrong When A Judge Needs 350 Pages To Decide If A College’s Digital Archives Are Fair Use”, was interesting from several perspectives. First, I consider the fair use doctrine to be better for the digital age than the current, rigid, European system. In this case the judge gives a favorable ruling for uses of works in education, which in my view is right. However, I find it most interesting that the judge rejects the self-regulatory “Classroom Guidelines.” In my work in the EP I have also warned that these types of regulations are often not desirable and can be used to circumvent the democratic process and infringe on fundamental rights.

You can get in touch with me via Twitter (@marietjed66) or via my website:

Filed Under:

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “European Parliament Member Marietje Schaake's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
RD says:

Color me impressed

I gotta admit, I am impressed. Not only an actual member of parliment, but one who isn’t a clueless luddite toolbag on technological and copyright issues. If only there were more like Marietje in government positions, the prospect of the world marching straight off the cliff wouldn’t seem quite so imminent. Salut!

Anonymous Coward says:

good article but a few points to comment on

a)If ACTA doesn’t bind the US, then why would Europe ratify a binding agreement and bend over backwards to get to that point? because the USA wants to be able to use which part it wants, when it wants

b)What politicians do not hear enough is that there is little relationship between stricter IP laws and innovation or economic growth. they hear this plenty of times but choose to ignore it because it doesn’t pay them anything.

c)No wonder this lawyer and his colleagues usually take their anti-piracy cases to the The Hague court. obvious what is happening here and why. if it were some ordinary person, and results were usually against the entertainment industries, they would fight like hell to stop the case going to The Hague

d)a Finnish court displayed common sense and understanding of the open internet when it ruled that the owner of a WiFi network is not liable for copyright infringements by other users. this has been stated so many times but ignored. it was started by the entertainment industries and backed up by internet technology ignorant judges.

e)the US government seized two Spanish domains. sorry, but the US government thinks it has jurisdiction over the whole world. it needs to be educated to the fact that it hasn’t! what would the US say if another country were to do what it is doing/trying to do to others?

f)If blocking becomes a mainstream method in the US or EU, it undermines our credibility in speaking to other countries. neither the USA nor the EU seem to be in the least bit bothered about this, wanting to condemn others for what they then start doing themselves. total hypocrisy!

g)Fearmongering About Cyberwar And Cybersecurity Is Working. of course it is, more than anything because politicians with interests in companies that could provide security are lobbying for them!

h)please tell why EU rules are implemented only in countries that want to implement them and when they want to. eg if website blocking is billed as ‘not the EU option’, why are member states doing it anyway? seems like the EU is full of hot air. all mouth and no do!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“if website blocking is billed as ‘not the EU option’, why are member states doing it anyway?”

Because the EU doesn’t work that way.
When EU level regulations are agreed, it is up to the member states to pass legislation to meet them, but the regulations are generally not prescriptive and more often set a minimum standards for somethings or a maximum level of others.
A member state can choose to legislate further than a minimum standard or at a level below a maximum set out in regulations.

Anonymous Coward says:

Cyber Security article was the most important article of the week.

That issue will directly effect us all.
It really needs more coverage as being the made up threat it is. Who in their right mind keeps critical infrastructure online ?

False flag operation in 3….2…..
(during Olympics if you believe the interwebz)
The people will be crying out for cyber security then.

hfbs (profile) says:

The thing that I don’t get about these ‘favourite articles of the week’ posts is that they aren’t so much ‘favourites’, more like ‘every article posted this week, summarised by a guest’.

While I do enjoy other people posting here (especially someone as esteemed as Schaakes), the title is somewhat confusing. Something like ‘Marietje Schaakes reviews this weeks Techdirt posts’ would possibly be better, I think.

Don’t get me wrong, I do like them, it’s just the title that niggles me :/

Anonymous Coward says:

Some very reasonable politicians from Netherlands in ALDE. If only we had a danish counterpart. The danish ALDE-members are responsible for some horrible big-brother legislation at home and even though they got voted out, the alternative is ironically even worse (S&D + greens + “Radicals” the true danish ALDE-counterpart). Only possibility to vote for a party with even the slightest wish of not strenghtening or lowering one of the worlds toughest IPR-protections are the Green & red alliance-party and honestly they are mostly still too far on the extreme left though they are having a movement a little towards pragmatism.
The “Radicals” are a lot more in line with ALDE in europe and Netherlands, than the current members. However it just doesn’t sell tickets to want expanding EU budgets and further standardisation of consumer-products, while not critizising traveling circus and the corruption in EU. At the same time they are moving towards a small strenghtening of IPR-laws to compensate the industries if ACTA should fall.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Travelling circus? If you mean the two-seat Parliament, then you’ll find that the MEPs have voted overwhelmingly (across all party groups) to end this nonsense and have a single seat in Brussels. The reason it hasn’t happened is France holding it up in the European Council. It is ever thus, the national governments in the Council blocking EU reform which MEPs strongly support.

Josef Anvil (profile) says:


This is the real problem…

“Although several commentators have already declared ACTA to be dead, I still see a lot of lobby efforts trying to get approval.”

When politicians openly admit to noticing blatant bribery of their colleagues, it just amazes me. Of course the counter to that is, but…but… it’s not bribery, it’s lobbying. The reality is that lobbying is A LOT closer to bribery in definition and action than infringing is to stealing.

It would be nice if politicians would be as aggressive in an effort to eliminate lobbying.

Shane Roach (profile) says:


People need to understand that the difficulty of funding large scale projects stems from the way our monetary system works. Money must be lent out to exist in our current economy, and it is much, much more difficult to collect money that is, in the end, already owed back to some bank than it is for a large corporate entity to borrow newly created cash to fund a project that is anticipated to do well.

There are three important pillars that support the current economic system. They are I.P., limited liability, and the banking system. These three working together limit the ability of individuals to form their own groups and direct their own lives. They, by their very design, tend towards the collection of resources in the hands of a very few, leaving these few in charge of our lives.

I love TechDirt for its coverage of one of these three pillars, but I do believe it is time for folks to start connecting the dots between the interlocking pieces of this puzzle.

Erich Friesen, AIA says:

Architects, Designers, Creators need their inputs protected more than their outputs

The focus on copyright includes an implicit focus on the protection of a creator’s output. But much more important to a creative individual is, I believe, the protection of the inputs. The standing on the shoulders of giants quote is an example of this but very far from the most important one. The most important input for meis my greedom to createwith as few restricyions as possible. Copyright and Patents threaten this freedom and are just impediments, from my perspective.

Thanks for a Great post,

Erich Friesen, AIA

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...