Industry Coalition for Data Protection, here.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Bundesgerichtshof erkennt Schadensersatz für den Ausfall eines Internetanschlusses
Bundesgerichtshof III ZR 98/12, Pressemitteilung hier.
Volltext hier.
Aus der Pressemitteilung:
"...Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs muss der Ersatz für den Ausfall der Nutzungsmöglichkeit eines Wirtschaftsguts grundsätzlich Fällen vorbehalten bleiben, in denen sich die Funktionsstörung typischerweise als solche auf die materiale Grundlage der Lebenshaltung signifikant auswirkt"...."Demgegenüber hat der Senat dem Kläger dem Grunde nach Schadensersatz für den Fortfall der Möglichkeit zuerkannt, seinen Internetzugang für weitere Zwecke als für den Telefon- und Telefaxverkehr zu nutzen. Die Nutzbarkeit des Internets ist ein Wirtschaftsgut, dessen ständige Verfügbarkeit seit längerer Zeit auch im privaten Bereich für die eigenwirtschaftliche Lebenshaltung typischerweise von zentraler Bedeutung ist. Das Internet stellt weltweit umfassende Informationen in Form von Text-, Bild-, Video- und Audiodateien zur Verfügung. Dabei werden thematisch nahezu alle Bereiche abgedeckt und verschiedenste qualitative Ansprüche befriedigt. So sind etwa Dateien mit leichter Unterhaltung ebenso abrufbar wie Informationen zu Alltagsfragen bis hin zu hochwissenschaftlichen Themen. Dabei ersetzt das Internet wegen der leichten Verfügbarkeit der Informationen immer mehr andere Medien, wie zum Beispiel Lexika, Zeitschriften oder Fernsehen. Darüber hinaus ermöglicht es den weltweiten Austausch zwischen seinen Nutzern, etwa über E-Mails, Foren, Blogs und soziale Netzwerke. Zudem wird es zunehmend zur Anbahnung und zum Abschluss von Verträgen, zur Abwicklung von Rechtsgeschäften und zur Erfüllung öffentlich-rechtlicher Pflichten genutzt. Der überwiegende Teil der Einwohner Deutschlands bedient sich täglich des Internets. Damit hat es sich zu einem die Lebensgestaltung eines Großteils der Bevölkerung entscheidend mitprägenden Medium entwickelt, dessen Ausfall sich signifikant im Alltag bemerkbar macht."Volltext hier.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Albrecht Draft Report on the Right to Data Portability: Blurring the Legal Contours?
A much debated element of the EU Personal Data Protection reform package is the proposal to introduce a right to data portability, as put forth in Article 18 of the draft Regulation.
Art. 8(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that” everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.” Pursuant to Article 12 of the currently applicable Data Protection Directive, individuals already have the right to access their personal data, and in particular to obtain from the data controller communication “in an intelligible form of the data undergoing processing,” but the form of the communication is not specified, and the way in which that right can be exercised varies considerably from country to country within the EU, and access has become particularly challenging especially in connection with the online environment.
Pursuant to the proposed Art.18 of the Regulation, data subjects could, first, obtain a copy of their personal data “processed by electronic means and in a structured and commonly used format.” The copy itself must be “an electronic and structured format which is commonly used and allows for further use by the data subject.” Further, individuals would be granted the explicit right to transfer “personal data and any other information provided by the data subject and retained by an automated processing system” into another automated processing system “where the data subject has provided the personal data and the processing is based on consent or on a contract.” The transfer should be “without hindrance by the controller”, and data should be “in an electronic format which is commonly used.”Article 18(3) gives the Commission the power to specify the electronic format and the "technical standards, modalities and procedures for the transmission of personal data.”
Art. 18 should be read against the background of Article 15 of the draft Regulation, that provides for the “general” right of access for the data subject. Article 15 states that the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller communication of the personal data undergoing processing, but the main difference is that Article 18 specifically deals with the condition for reuse of the data, by the data subject herself and/or by another automated processing system.
As seen above, Art. 18(2) introduces the right to export personal data and other information provided by data subject to another service “without hindrance” by the controller. It is not clear, however, if this would involve an affirmative obligation on the controller to transfer data directly to another service, i.e. to provide for some degree of interoperability between electronic processing systems. The data that the individual has the right to trasfer should be in electronic form. As mentioned before, the Regulation would give the Commission the power to specify the electronic format and the further technical requirements for allowing the transmission of personal data.
The contours of the data portability right as foreseen by Article 18 of the draft Regulation are not totally clear, though, in particular because most of the critical “technicalities” (i.e. electronic format and the technical standards, modalities and procedures for the transmission of personal data) are left to later clarifications by the Commission. In this highly sensitive area, however, negative implications on innovation processes should be carefully avoided by abstaining from imposing microregulation on technological solutions to ensure data portability. Moreover, in the rather remote event that the language of Article 18 remains largely unaffected by the various negotiation phases the reform package is currently going through, the effectiveness of the new right will critically depend on the interpretation of rather vague legal concepts like “without hindrance.”
Pursuant to the proposed Art.18 of the Regulation, data subjects could, first, obtain a copy of their personal data “processed by electronic means and in a structured and commonly used format.” The copy itself must be “an electronic and structured format which is commonly used and allows for further use by the data subject.” Further, individuals would be granted the explicit right to transfer “personal data and any other information provided by the data subject and retained by an automated processing system” into another automated processing system “where the data subject has provided the personal data and the processing is based on consent or on a contract.” The transfer should be “without hindrance by the controller”, and data should be “in an electronic format which is commonly used.”Article 18(3) gives the Commission the power to specify the electronic format and the "technical standards, modalities and procedures for the transmission of personal data.”
Art. 18 should be read against the background of Article 15 of the draft Regulation, that provides for the “general” right of access for the data subject. Article 15 states that the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller communication of the personal data undergoing processing, but the main difference is that Article 18 specifically deals with the condition for reuse of the data, by the data subject herself and/or by another automated processing system.
As seen above, Art. 18(2) introduces the right to export personal data and other information provided by data subject to another service “without hindrance” by the controller. It is not clear, however, if this would involve an affirmative obligation on the controller to transfer data directly to another service, i.e. to provide for some degree of interoperability between electronic processing systems. The data that the individual has the right to trasfer should be in electronic form. As mentioned before, the Regulation would give the Commission the power to specify the electronic format and the further technical requirements for allowing the transmission of personal data.
The contours of the data portability right as foreseen by Article 18 of the draft Regulation are not totally clear, though, in particular because most of the critical “technicalities” (i.e. electronic format and the technical standards, modalities and procedures for the transmission of personal data) are left to later clarifications by the Commission. In this highly sensitive area, however, negative implications on innovation processes should be carefully avoided by abstaining from imposing microregulation on technological solutions to ensure data portability. Moreover, in the rather remote event that the language of Article 18 remains largely unaffected by the various negotiation phases the reform package is currently going through, the effectiveness of the new right will critically depend on the interpretation of rather vague legal concepts like “without hindrance.”
Even more uncertainty could be the result of the negotiations surrounding the reform package, though. A good example of this is the amendment proposal put forth by the rapporteur for the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (“Albrecht Draft Report"). According to the proposal, Article 18 should be merged with Article 15. The Albrecht draft, however, blurrs the legal contours of the right to export personal data and other information to another service even further, in so far as it foresees that the right should be exercised “where technically feasible and appropriate”. The critical change in the text would appear to be at least partially in line with the amendments suggested by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and already contained in the Draft Opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
US position paper regarding the proposed EU protection framework.
Made available by EDRI.org, here (pdf file).
Five Reasons Why U.S. Consumer NGOs Support a Strong EU Privacy Law
Center for Digital Democracy and Consumer Federation of America, here (Word file).
Monday, January 21, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
Economic Research into Regulatory Restrictions in the Legal Profession
A Report for the Office of Fair Trading by Europe Economics, here.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Informe para promover la competencia en el sector del transporte público interurbano regular permanente de viajeros de uso general por carretera en Andalucía.
Consejo de Defensa de la Competencia de Andalucía, aquì.
Happy Birthday AAI: No ECI (European Competition Institute) in sight yet?
On AAI celebrations read commentary from AAI President Bert Foer, here.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
The Impact of the Internet on Advertising Markets for News Media
S. Athey, E. Calvano, J. Gans, here.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Technology of Privacy
Silicon Flatirons Center, University of Colorado Law School, Friday, January 11, 2013; 9:15 AM - 6:00 PM (17:15 - 02:00 Trento time), live stream url here.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Albrecht Report on Personal Data Protection
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individual with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, here.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Friday, January 04, 2013
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Diritto d'autore e ricerca scientifica: prove di dialogo per la crescita
S. Vezzoso (autrice di questo blog), qui.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
DRAFT TEXT OF AN INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT/TREATY ON LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERSONS/PERSONS WITH PRINT DISABILITIES
WIPO General Assembly - Forty-Second (22nd Extraordinary) Session, Geneva, December 17 to 18, 2012, here.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Report on a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy
European Parliament, Rapporteur: M. Schaake, here.
Page 7: "Recognises the role of artistic freedom, and the freedom to imitate and reuse, as cornerstones for creativity and freedom of expression and ideas; is aware of the significant presence of exceptions and limitations in the copyright ecosystem, especially in the areas of journalism, quotation, satire, archives, libraries and ensuring access to and usability of the cultural heritage"
Page 7: "Recognises the role of artistic freedom, and the freedom to imitate and reuse, as cornerstones for creativity and freedom of expression and ideas; is aware of the significant presence of exceptions and limitations in the copyright ecosystem, especially in the areas of journalism, quotation, satire, archives, libraries and ensuring access to and usability of the cultural heritage"
GODZILLA vs MECHAGODZILLA - Antitrust and Intellectual Property Rights−the Ultimate Counterweapon?
F. Juckniess and S. Larimore Wahl, here.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Anwendungshinweise zur Erhebung, Verarbeitung und Nutzung von personenbezogenen Daten für werbliche Zwecke
Gremium der Datenschutzaufsichtsbehörden, hier.
From war to peace: a European tale (off-topic)
H. Van Rompuy, J. Barroso, Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize Award to the European Union/Oslo, here.
Sunday, December 09, 2012
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Friday, December 07, 2012
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Standard Setting Organizations and Antitrust: Balancing IPRs and Competition
Giovanni Napolitano (World Intellectual Property Organization), December 13, 2012, 9.30 am, Economics and Management Department, Trento University (Room 3C).
EU Directive on Public Sector Information: a Quick Look at the Proposed Amendments
Copyright4education.blogspot.co.uk, here.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
BEUC on EU Data Protection Reform Proposal
Analysis of consumer benefits versus administrative burden of key provisions, here.
Resolución de 29 de Noviembre de 2012, sobre uvas denominación origen Valdepeñas
Cncompetencia.es, aquì (fichero pdf).
Monday, December 03, 2012
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Saturday, December 01, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
Telekomunikacja Polska Decision: competition law enforcement in regulated markets
D. Kamiński, A. Rogozińska, B. Sasinowska, here (p.3 ff.).
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Stellungnahme zum Gesetzesentwurf für eine Ergänzung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes durch ein Leistungsschutzrecht für Verleger
Max-Planck-Institut für Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, hier.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Study on Economic Assessment for Improving eAccessibility Services and Products
Digital Agenda for Europe, here (pdf file).
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Friday, November 23, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Data protection in a cloud computing environment
Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Commission's Communication on "Unleashing the potential of Cloud Computing in Europe", here.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
EU at SCCR/25 on VIP Issues
"Mr. Chairman, the EU and its Member States are now also in
the position to negotiate the conclusion of an instrument
including a binding treaty," here.
the position to negotiate the conclusion of an instrument
including a binding treaty," here.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Au sujet de l'accord intervenu entre le Syndicat national de l'édition et Google
Assemblée nationale, Question N° : 2232 au ministère de la culture et de la communication, réponse ici.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
New briefs complicate Supreme Court pay-for-delay conundrum
Newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com, here.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Four More Years: What Obama’s Reelection Means for United States Antitrust Policies
Competitionpolicyinternational.com, here.
L'exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles du XXe siècle - Point d'étape
Syndicat national de l'édition, Présentation ici.
Der Wandel des deutschen Buchmarktes in Zeiten von Digitalisierung und Mobilisierung. Eine institutionenökonomische Analyse
S. Putzig, Abstract zur Dissertation, hier (pdf File).
The Role of the Efficiency Claims In Antitrust Proceedings
OECD, Background Note by the Secretariat (Fiorenzo Bovenzi and Anna Pisarkiewicz), here.
Limitations and constraints to International Co-operation
OECD, Issues Paper by the Secretariat (A. Capobianco), here.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
KICKFLIP, INC., v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
Complaint for Antitrust Violations and Tortious Interference, here.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Monday, November 05, 2012
Use of Dominance, Unlawful Conduct, and Causation Under Section 36 of the New Zealand Commerce Act: A U.S. Perspective
J. Cross, J. Richards, M. Stucke, S. Weber Waller, here.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The state of e-legal deposit in France: Looking back and envisioning the future at five years of putting new legislation into practice
P. Stirling, G. Illien, P. Sanz and S. Sepetjan, here.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Towards an EU Doctrine of Anticompetitive IP-Related Litigation
S. Vezzoso, (this blog's author), here.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Saturday, October 20, 2012
The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, here.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Off-Topic: European Council on EU's Nobel Prize for Peace
"The European Council is grateful that the European Union was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. The Prize is an honour for all European citizens and for all EU Member States and institutions. The Nobel Committee rightly reminds how "the Union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in
Europe". At a time of uncertainty, this tribute to past achievements is a strong appeal to safeguard and strengthen Europe for the next generation. Aware that advancing this community of peaceful interests requires constant care and an unwavering will, the members of the European Council regard it as their personal responsibility to ensure Europe remains a continent of progress and prosperity", here.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Unilateral Disclosure of Information with Anticompetitive Effects
OECD Competition Policy Roundtable, here.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Copyright, Interfaces, and a Possible Atlantic Divide
S. Vezzoso (this blog's author), here.
Abstract: "Recent copyright cases on both sides of the Atlantic focused on important interoperability issues. While the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. assessed data formats under the EU Software Directive, the ruling by the Northern District of California Court in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. dealt with application programming interfaces. The European decision is rightly celebrated as a further important step in the promotion of interoperability in the EU. This article argues that, despite appreciable signs of convergence across the Atlantic, the assessment of application programming interfaces under EU law could still turn out to be quite different, and arguably much less pro-interoperability, than under U.S. law."
Abstract: "Recent copyright cases on both sides of the Atlantic focused on important interoperability issues. While the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd. assessed data formats under the EU Software Directive, the ruling by the Northern District of California Court in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. dealt with application programming interfaces. The European decision is rightly celebrated as a further important step in the promotion of interoperability in the EU. This article argues that, despite appreciable signs of convergence across the Atlantic, the assessment of application programming interfaces under EU law could still turn out to be quite different, and arguably much less pro-interoperability, than under U.S. law."
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Centre for a Digital Society , Video here . These are my very rough talking points on pay or okay in full length (more than I actually had...
-
LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-06 O 172/09 (verkündet am 13.05.2009). Lesenswertes aus der Begründung (meine Hervorhebungen): "Vorstellbare ...
-
Stratechery, here .
-
Here (thanks to Netzpolitik).
-
G. Kallfass, presentation here .
-
Public Knowledge, here .