Blog de Philippe Aigrain's blog

Not available in English, please read the French version/a>.

Tout commence par la voix, qu’il s’agisse de la musique ou de la danse. C’est particulièrement vrai dans la musique carnatique (la musique traditionnelle du Sud de l’Inde) et dans l’une des danses qu’elle accompagne, le Bharatanathyam, où même le rythme est d’abord donné par des pulsations vocales, des sons comme frappés. C’est parfois la danseuse qui émet elle-même ces takatakatak, parfois, comme hier soir, un des percussionistes. Les percussions reposent sur des sons particulièrement secs, notamment ceux du Mridangam, un tambour à deux faces (une aigue et une grave). Les battements de pied (dans le cas d’une autre danse, cette fois masculine, le Kathak, originaire du Nord de l’Inde) et les clochettes des bandes de chevilles et des bracelets leur font concurrence. La voix, hier soir, c’était celle de Kaushik Bhattacharya, et elle vous emporte. A peine une note tenue et modulée et l’on est une feuille portée par le vent. Quand le rythme s’installe, on devient infirme de ne savoir danser. Le Bharatanathyam est une danse adressée à des divinités ou des rois qui se parent de leurs attributs, mais depuis longtemps, les êtres humains ordinaires se sont invités à la fête. Souraja Tagore en est une grande maîtresse, mêlant une expression narrative souvent pleine d’humour à la perfection des mouvements des mains ou du corps et à de véritables transes aux rythmes complexes. Anuj Mishra (danseur de Kathak) ne lui cède en rien, particulièrement gracieux dans les tours et espiègle dans les mouvements sur place.
(more…)

This post is not available in English. You can read the French version.

and when you have done it, the hardest part will come. To help with it, we will do our best to produce a sensible Europe, proposing human-development oriented policies to the world, and listening to what it has to tell us all.

(ANSA) - ROMA, 29 OTT - La Siae chiede che venga stabilito per legge un contributo da parte di tutti quei provider che forniscono a pagamento la linea Adsl veloce. Secondo la societa’ che rappresenta autori ed editori, l’Adsl ‘consente a milioni di utenti di scaricare dal web, nella maggior parte dei casi evadendo il Diritto d’Autore, ogni tipo di contenuto creativo: musica, film, libri, immagini e qualsiasi genere di opera dell’ingegno messa a disposizione gratuitamente da ben noti e numerosi peer to peer’.

This small extract of a press release from the official Italian press agency may be the start of the great upheaval: the introduction of the creative contribution that I proposed to put in place in “Internet & Creation”. SIAE, the Italian collective rights management society (a state-granted monopoly in contrast to collective management societies in many other countries) asks for a law to install a tax paid by Internet Service Providers for the Internet access to contents in all media. Just a little additional effort so that the law will also recognize the rights of Internet users to freely exchange without profit the digital representatons of works that have been made public in digital form. While we are at it, one will also waive the fiction of a tax paid by ISPs and recognize that it is a contribution of Internet users. And then, we will be there: the free non-market Internet exchanges and the funding of creation and culture will develop in synergy.

A static page is dedicated on this blog to my book Internet & Creation : how to recognize internet exchanges while funding creation. An English version adapted for global readership is planned for the first quarter of 2009.

The day before yesterday, The French Senate wanted to replace the final phase of our local threee-strike approach by a compulsory filtering of the Internet user connection. Since yesterday it is by fines that the the Senate wants to replace the banning from the Internet. The Minister for Culture, Ms. Albanel regrets that the Senators wish to replace her pedagogy by their repression. I am not sure it is worth discussing which is worse, because all these procrastinations are only the symptom of a much more radical absurdity. I have been stressing it since one year ago: the aspect of the three-strike approach which is most offensive to fundamental rights is the initial stage, the automatic sending of serious accusations on the basis of allegations by private parties without the possibility for the accused to challenge these accusations immediately. To accuse without the accused being in a position to respond is the core definition of an arbitrary power, the negation of most sacred right, the right to defend one-self. This institution of an arbitrary power without counter-power aims at brainwashing millions of persons, at preventing them from considering the act of sharing digital works for what it is, the foundation for culture itself. The aim of the three-strike approach is to prevent thinking about alternative solutions to the funding and remuneration of culture in the internet era. On these, see my next post.

This post is not available in English, you can read the French version.

Mon livre “Internet & Création : comment reconnaître les échanges sur internet en finançant la création ?” sera publié le 29 Octobre 2008 aux Editions InLibroVeritas. Sa version électronique sera simultanément diffusée sur internet sous une licence Creative Commons Pas d’utilisation commerciale Pas de modifications. Voir ci-dessous le sommaire de l’ouvrage.

Les lecteurs de ce blog sont tous invités à participer à l’événement de lancement qui aura lieu le mardi 28 octobre 2008 de 19 à 22h à La Cantine. Différents acteurs culturels et politiques réagiront à la lecture de l’ouvrage lors de cet événement (pour commander l’ouvrage, voir le site de l’éditeur).

(more…)

The stir triggered by the strange request of the French presidency asking Mr. Barroso for the Commission to reject the Bono/Cohn-Bendit/Roithova amendment is slowly fading away. Some French media such as Le Monde seem to have ignored the outcome of this request, while other treat it in depth (in French). Behind the hot newslines, the permanent drive towards perfection of the defenders and relatives of IPR stock holders did not stop. The tireless Ms. Fourtou is again rapporteur in the European Parliament, this time for an opinion on the report by the Commission on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (EUCD for privies). Read carefully her proposed amendments to the report being prepared in the legal affairs committee.

Update : see comments.

Nicolas Sarkozy announced yesterday that he faxed on Friday evening to the President of the Commission (news piece in French), Jose-Manuel Barroso, and asked him to reject the Bono/Cohn-Bendit/Roithova amendment recently adopted by 88% of the voting Members of the European Parliament. Such an initiative from Mr. Sarkozy is testimony to his deep concern: the College (the Commission as a whole) does not seem to be ready to reject the amendment. As I already analyzed, this amendment did not modify the orientation of the Commission proposal, it only provided a needed reminder of some fundamental rights and needs of due process in face of tentatives from a few interest groups and the French presidency to weaken them.

It seems that in the midst of this concern, with his attention being caught by other burning subjects, Mr. Sarkozy and the advisers of the Ministry of Culture have somehow overlooked that the European Commissionners have some rules to respect. In particular, article 11 of the statute of the European civil servants (thet applies to them) instructs them to neither seek nor take instructions from any government, authority, organization or person outside his institution.. Of course this amendment, does not prevent the Commision from negotiating with Member States and specially the Presidency. In these negotiations, the Member States inform the Commission of what they are ready to accept in Council, as to help the Commission to take wise decisions in its future actions in procedures, and to save it from seeing on its proposal rejected in Council. But sending public instructions to the Commission on a matter which is of its own and sole competence! Let’s advise urgently Mr. Barroso to abstain from following them.

By the way, during the recent (around 2000) reform of the European civil service, a consultation was opened among the staff. I motioned that the article 11 of the Statute then referred only to National authorities should be completed with a clause saying that civil servants also do not sollicit or accept instruction from private interests. I received only an informal answer, telling me that it was so obvious that it did not need to be stated. Added later: however the article 11 was indeed extended by mentioning “any organization or person exterior outside its institution”.

Cet article a été modifié quelques heures après sa rédaction initiale, pour éviter ce qui pouvait être perçu comme un procès d’intention.

La conjonction du fondamentalisme marchand et de celui de la propriété semblent avoir temporairement aveuglé certains responsables du Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances. Il faut les sauver d’urgence de ce risque, ce que je propose de faire dans un esprit constructif.

Une révision est en cours des Cahiers des Clauses Administratives Générales. Il s’agit des documents de base qui définissent les règles administratives s’appliquant par défaut aux marchés publics. Ces documents peuvent être complétés par des CCAP (définissant des clauses particulières), ce dont les administrations s’abstiennent assez souvent. Il existe des CCAG pour différents types de prestations et notamment pour les marchés de technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC).
(more…)

Il y a 5 mois le Parlement européen adoptait l’amendement Bono-Rocard-Fjellner, une déclaration claire affirmant que l’internet est une ressource commune essentielle et appelant les Etats-membres et la commission à s’abstenir de mesures attentatoires aux libertés civiles et droits de l’homme comme la suspension de l’accès à internet. Il s’agissait d’un message clair, ayant le poids d’une autorité politique et morale, mais sans effet contraignant puisqu’il n’était consigné que dans rapport du parlement à sa propre initiative. Peu de temps après, les groupes d’intérêt qui demandent que l’on sculpte un internet sur mesure pour les besoins de l’exécution de leurs droits patrimoniaux annoncèrent que l’on ne les reprendrait pas deux fois par surprise. Les auteurs de l’amendement “allaient entendre parler d’eux”.
(more…)

My post in only available in French

The three-step is a legal constuction that defines the fundamental framework applying to exceptions and limitations to copyright. It authorises States to define such exceptions and limitations provided that they apply to certain special cases, they do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. Exceptions and limitations are important as such, for instance because they are necessary to certain essential activities in our societies: criticism, education, research, etc. The efficient organisation of the funding and remuneration of creative activities also calls for putting in place mechanisms that are potentially submitted to the three-step test. The three-step test was introduced in the Stockholm revision (1967) to the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, where it became article 9.2. It applied at the time only to the right of reproduction. It was later introduced in the TRIPS agreement whose article 13 extends its applications to all exclusive rights associated to copyright. It was reproduced in the 1996 WIPO copyright treaties (article 10 for the WCT) and reproduced verbatim in the European directive on copyright and related rights in the information society (EUCD, article 5.5), which had the effect to yet again extends its scope. Some European countries, such as France, choose to also reproduce (sometimes repeatedly) its text in their transposition of this directive.

Various interest groups have promoted more and more maximalist interpretations of the three-step test. Accepting these interpretations would in practice make more and more difficult to create or confirm limitations and exceptions, and would summit their benefit to a permanent review that would install a total legal insecurity for their exercise. Unfortunately, some legal decision such as Mulholland Drive decision of the French Cour de cassation seem to have followed these maximalist interpretations.

One must thus welcome as a major milestone the adoption by a group bringing together many of the best copyright legal specialists in Europe of a Declaration calling for a balanced interpreation of the “three-step test” in copyright law. This declaration is remarkable in its argumentation as well as in its substantive content. Read it, support it, make it known. Here is a small extract:

The Three-Step Test’s restriction of limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases does not prevent (a) legislatures from introducing open ended limitations and exceptions, so long as the scope of such limitations and exceptions is reasonably foreseeable;