July 2018 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

In Germania: incompetenza informatica della polizia.. o cosa?
by Giacomo Tesio July 4, 2018

July 4, 2018

In Augusta sono stati sequestrati i PC di diversi membri del CCC sulla base della promozione che questo fa dei servizi di riseup.net The mere presence of an e-mail address at a large free provider on a > website has caused law enforcement authorities to deduce that a German > association that helps raise funds for this provider must be connected to > this website somehow. Although Zwiebelfreunde clearly has nothing to do > with the operation of this provider, they were suspected anyway. That these > searches and seizures were ordered by the Bavarian police shows either > forensic incompetence at a very advanced stage, malicious intent or both. > Nel OpenLab hanno fermato 3 persone sulla base di un disegno alla lavagna After interpreting the contents of a whiteboard as a bomb making manual, > the officers then went on to accuse random people present at the > hackerspace of plotting a bombing attack. Three people were arrested on the > spot and the hackerspace was subsequently searched without a court order > and without any witnesses. [...] > If the mere possession of basic chemical knowledge is a cause for > suspicion then pretty soon teenagers will have to hide their chemistry > books from nosy cops. > https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2018/hausdurchsuchungen-bei-vereinsvorstanden… Giacomo

1 0

Request for help: Please take a couple of minutes to Save Your Internet (and mine): Act now
by Deborah De Angelis July 4, 2018

July 4, 2018

Hi! I just helped to stop censorship machines that would filter all of our online content. The European Parliament and EU countries are currently discussing the idea to impose dumb filtering mechanisms on online services. The European Parliament lead is set to vote on 5 July on this so-called ‘Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market’. You too can help to save your internet! Follow my example and call, email or tweet to your Members of the European Parliament before 4 July, and help spread the word amongst colleagues, friends and family. https://www.saveyourinternet.eu?sp_ref=424460406.392.188254.e.0.2 ——————————————— Deborah De Angelis Avvocato patrocinate in Cassazione Studio Legale DDA 00195 Roma, Via Giuseppe Ferrari, 2 Tel. 06-39745622 Fax 06-39038833 Skype: deb.dda

1 0

Libro "Utopia del software libero"
by Antonio Casilli July 2, 2018

July 2, 2018

Car* nexian*, Segnalo l'uscita, per i tipi della Mimesis, del libro "Utopia del Software Libero. Dal Bricolage Informatico alla Reinvenzione Sociale" del collega Sébastien Broca. Sébastien Broca è professore all'Università Paris 8 e membro dello European Network on Digital Labour (ENDL). L'edizione italiana di questo testo, inizialmente pubblicato in Francia nel 2013, è stata curata da Giorgio Griziotti. Buona lettura e vi invito a condividere l'annuncio con ogni persona potenzialmente interessata a queste tematiche. Cheers, Antonio -- Antonio A. Casilli Associate Professor, Telecom ParisTech Member, Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3 UMR 9217 CNRS) Associate Member, LACI-IIAC (EHESS) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & Society

1 0

Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società annuncia la comunità Nexa 2018-2019
by Nexa Media July 2, 2018

July 2, 2018

Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <https://nexa.polito.it/2018-2019-comunita> NEXA https://nexa.polito.it/2018-2019-comunita Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società annuncia la comunità Nexa 2018-2019 [english version] <https://nexa.polito.it/2017-2018-community>English Version <https://nexa.polito.it/2018-2019-community> /Torino, 2 luglio 2018/. Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (DAUIN) annuncia oggi la composizione della comunità Nexa per l'anno accademico 2018-2019. Board18Quest'anno i nuovi membri sono: una Fellow, *Lara Merla*, dottoranda di ricerca in Diritti e Istituzioni presso l'Università degli Studi di Torino, e un Faculty Associate, *Simone Arcagni*, professore associato di Cinema e Media presso l'Università di Palermo. Entrambi collaborano da diverso tempo con il Centro Nexa su temi quali computer vision, big data, privacy e protezione dei dati degli utenti. *I nuovi membri:* Lara Merla*Lara Merla <http://nexa.polito.it/people/lmerla> - Fellow* Lara Merla è attualmente dottoranda in Diritti e Istituzioni presso l'Università di Torino. Si è laureata nel 2015 e ha conseguito il Master in Comparative Law, Economics and Finance presso l'International University College di Torino nel 2017. Le sue pubblicazioni includono l'articolo /Droni, privacy e tutela dei dati personali/ edito da "Informatica e Diritto" nel 2016. È anche peer reviewer per la rivista internazionale "Global Jurist". Dal 2014 frequenta regolarmente seminari e conferenze presso il Nexa Center for Internet & Society. Simone Arcagni*Simone Arcagni <https://nexa.polito.it/people/sarcagni> - Faculty Associate* Simone Arcagni è Professore Associato presso l’Università di Palermo. Studioso di cinema, media, nuovi media e nuove tecnologie. Insegna inoltre allo IULM di Milano e alla Scuola Holden di Torino. È curatore di "Digita!", mercato dei contenuti digitali e dirige il gruppo di ricerca EmergingSeries oltre a essere direttore di "EmergingSeries Journal”. Collabora con "Nòva-Il Sole 24Ore", "Film TV", “Oxygen”, “Segnocinema”, "Agorà" e altre riviste di divulgazione scientifica. Tiene un suo blog (/Postcinema/) sul sito "Nòva100" de "Il Sole 24Ore". È consulente e collaboratore di festival, enti, conferenze, collane editoriali, riviste e fa parte di diversi comitati scientifici nazionali e internazionali. La sua ultima pubblicazione è /Visioni digitali. Video, web e nuove tecnologie/ (Einaudi 2016). A onorare l'ethos del “fare rete” fondamentale per un centro di ricerca come Nexa (parola che oltretutto significa “le cose connesse”), contribuiscono anche altri tre Faculty Associates <https://nexa.polito.it/faculty-associates>. Come per gli anni precedenti i Faculty Associates collaboreranno attivamente con la comunità Nexa tramite diversi canali di interazione. Queste relazioni, così come il coinvolgimento di ex collaboratori, partner, studenti, stagisti, ed altri colleghi sono fondamentali per il lavoro e l'identità del Centro Nexa, nonché per aumentare le sua capacità e le sue competenze. Il Centro Nexa è orgoglioso e grato ai membri della comunità che manterranno le proprie affiliazioni presso il Centro per l'anno a venire. *Ritornano come Faculty Fellows*: Antonio Casilli, Alessandro Cogo, Enrico Donaggio, Massimo Durante, Marco Torchiano. *Ritornano come Fellows*: Davide Allavena, Mauro Alovisio, Claudio Artusio, Eleonora Bassi, Simone Basso, Lorenzo Benussi, Enrico Bertacchini, Carlo Blengino, Nicola Bottero, Lorenzo Canova, Fabio Chiusi, Marco Ciurcina, Deborah De Angelis, Giulio De Petra, Arturo Filastò, Giovanni B. Gallus, Raimondo Iemma, Antonio Langiu, Stefano Leucci, Alessio Melandri, Federico Morando, Fabio Nascimbeni, Guido Noto La Diega, Monica A. Senor, Massimo Travostino, Giuseppe Vaciago. *Ritornano come Faculty Associates*: Giancarlo Frosio, Daniele Trinchero, Giorgio Ventre. Contribuisce a formare la comunità Nexa anche il Comitato dei Garanti <http://nexa.polito.it/trustees>. Che cosa è il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (DAUIN) Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società (http://nexa.polito.it) nasce nel Novembre 2006 a partire dalle attività di un gruppo di lavoro interdisciplinare – tecnico, giuridico ed economico – formatosi a Torino nel 2003 e che da allora ha concepito, progettato e realizzato diverse iniziative in ambito Internet: Creative Commons Italia (2003-presente), CyberLaw Torino (2004), Harvard Internet Law Program Torino (2005), SeLiLi il servizio licenze libere per creatori e programmatori (2006-presente), COMMUNIA, la rete tematica europea sul pubblico dominio digitale finanziata dall'Unione Europea (2007-2011), Neubot, progetto di ricerca sulla neutralità della rete (2008-presente), e LAPSI, la rete tematica europea sulle informazioni del settore pubblico, anch'essa finanziata dall'Unione Europea (2010-2012). Il Centro Nexa è tra gli otto membri fondatori e attuale coordinatore del Network of Interdisciplinary Internet & Society Research Centers (NoC); lanciato dal Berkman Center for Internet & Society della Harvard University, il Network favorisce la cooperazione tra i più importanti centri Internet & Società a livello globale. Dal 2013 il Centro Nexa è membro di Global Network Initiative (GNI), gruppo multi-stakeholder internazionale che ha l'obiettivo di tutelare e far progredire i diritti alla privacy e alla libertà di espressione in ambito ICT. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Maggiori informazioni sulle attività del Centro Nexa su Internet & Società sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved>.

1 0

Forced Labor Is the Backbone of the World’s Electronics Industry
by Giacomo Tesio July 2, 2018

July 2, 2018

E' geniale: "Forced Labor" è molto più carino di "schiavitù"! > This was the case for Novita Marbun, a worker from Medan, Indonesia, whom > I spoke with. When Marbun originally came to Malaysia at the age of 19, she > paid 1,500 ringgit—the equivalent of about $375 —to get her job, much more > than she makes in a month. Her parents took out a 15-year loan on their > house to help pay the fee and other costs of her trip. The money she makes > now only covers daily expenses and feeding her son, who is still in > Indonesia, but she cannot get enough hours to make enough to help her > parents. “I can’t save more money,” she said. As MacDonald puts it, “The > system is designed to make the most poor pay the costs of recruitment.” > https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/06/malaysia-forced-labor-… Giacomo

1 0

"How the EU copyright proposal will hurt the web and Wikipedia"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 2, 2018

July 2, 2018

*How the EU copyright proposal will hurt the web and Wikipedia* By Eileen Hershenov, Wikimedia Foundation June 29th, 2018 / //A proposed new copyright package in the European Union is a threat to our fundamental right to freely share information. The time to speak out is now./ This article is available in: English Français Deutsch Italiano Español Wikimedia is an integral part of a large movement of civil society stakeholders <https://www.liberties.eu/en/news/delete-article-thirteen-open-letter/13194>, technologists <https://changecopyright.org/en-US/>, creators <https://createrefresh.eu/#who-we-are>, and human rights defenders <https://edri.org/press-release-meps-ignore-expert-advice-and-vote-for-mass-…>, who all recognize the importance of a free and open web for culture, progress, and democracy. Our movement is working to promote freedom online for the benefit of all. Our efforts in this public policy realm are all the more important in an era of increasing restrictions on free speech and free access to knowledge across the globe, which directly threaten the mission and vision of Wikimedia and its projects, such as Wikipedia. This is why we strongly oppose the proposed EU Copyright Directives and urge the Members of the European Parliament to reconsider proceeding with the version recently adopted by the Legal Affairs Committee. We are concerned because these flawed proposals hurt everyone’s rights to freedom of expression <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Legislation/OL-OTH-41-2018.p…> and Europe’s ability to improve the welfare of its citizens online. Next week, we expect the European Parliament to vote in plenary on whether to proceed with the version adopted by the Committee. If the Members of the European Parliament reject it, there will be another opportunity to fix much of the current proposal’s broken requirements. Now may be the last opportunity to improve the directive. We oppose this EU copyright package because of its detrimental effects on internet freedom, access to knowledge, and collaboration online. We believe that: * The requirement for platforms to implement upload filters is a serious threat for freedom of expression and privacy <https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/censorship-machines/>. Our foundational vision depends on the free exchange of knowledge across the entirety of the web, and beyond the boundaries of the Wikimedia projects. * A new exclusive right allowing press publishers to restrict the use of news snippets will make it more difficult to access and share information about current events in the world, making it harder for Wikipedia contributors to find citations for articles online. * The proposal does not support user rights, is missing strong safeguards for the public domain <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/30/time-to-protect-pd/>, and does not create exceptions that would truly empower people to participate in research and culture. We believe that enactment of this copyright package will significantly decrease in the amount of content that will be freely accessible to all across the globe. The costs involved in preemptively filtering content that may violate broad conceptions of copyright are likely also to lead to concentration of content determinations in a small number of large platforms. The Wikimedia movement has opposed the flawed proposal for copyright reform since the first disappointing draft was first presented almost two years ago, after initially encouraging preparatory steps. Early on, we warned about the implications of imposing upload filters <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/06/european-copyright-directive-proposal/> and called for urgently needed safeguards for the public domain. More recently, we wrote about the negative effects <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/06/14/dont-force-platforms-to-replace-commu…> of mandatory automatic content detection on collaboration and freedom of expression. Wikimedia communities around the world have been actively opposing the EU copyright package. In May, German and Bulgarian Wikipedia communities ran banners opposing Article 13 of the copyright proposal. Several European Wikimedia user organizations, including Wikimedia chapters in France <https://www.wikimedia.fr/2018/06/11/reforme-europeenne-droit-dauteur/>, Estonia <https://wikimediaeesti.wordpress.com/2018/06/12/interneti-luigelaul/>, Germany <https://blog.wikimedia.de/2018/06/01/die-ignoranz-der-macht-leistungsschutz…>, Denmark <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/WMDK_Letter_to_the_Mini…>, and Spain <https://blog.wikimedia.es/2018/06/la-reforma-del-copyright-en-europa-supone…>, took part in a Day of Action against the the copyright package on June 12, writing blog posts and tweeting under the hashtag #SaveYourInternet. The German chapter has even organized an event in the streets of Berlin <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stra%C3%9Fenaktion_gegen_Leistu…> and more language communities are currently debating how to engage. The proposal is a serious threat to our mission as it fails to truly modernize copyright and ensure the law keeps up with reality. Wikimedia can only achieve its mission when everyone is able to share information freely and contribute to the collection of knowledge on Wikipedia and its sister projects, and when we support such freedom and openness. The copyright proposal conflicts with that mission. Although Wikimedia operates non-commercial websites, which may benefit from exemptions in certain parts of the EU copyright package, our overarching mission is heavily dependent on a free and open internet ecosystem. We strongly urge the European Parliament to reject this bad copyright package in the vote next week and reconsider the opportunity to create a balanced and forward-looking law. It’s not too late: you can help stop this bad proposal. Take action by contacting your Member of European Parliament at changecopyright.org <https://changecopyright.org/>, and spread the word in your circles and on social media! /Eileen B. Hershenov, General Counsel/ /Wikimedia Foundation/

1 0

Academics Against Press Publishers’ Right: 169 European Academics Warn Against It
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 2, 2018

July 2, 2018

Tutti pagati da Google, naturalmente. juan carlos -------------- https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/ *Statement from EU Academics on Proposed Press Publishers’ Right* We, the undersigned <https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/#signatories> 169 scholars [of whom 100 are full professors] working in the fields of intellectual property, internet law, human rights law and journalism studies at universities all over Europe write to oppose the proposed press publishers’ right. Article 11 of the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, as it currently stands <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&referen…> following negotiations in the EU Council and Parliament, is a bad piece of legislation. ***Why?* * The proposal would likely impede the free flow of information that is of vital importance to democracy. This is because it would create*very broad rights of ownership in news* and other information. These rights would be territorial – there would be one for each Member State. The rights would be owned by established institutional producers of news. And in each Member State, the new right would sit on top of all the other property rights that such publishers of news already enjoy: copyrights, database rights, broadcast rights and other related rights. * This proliferation of different rights for established players would make it more expensive for other people to use news content. *Transaction costs* would be greatly increased, as permissions would need to be sought for virtually any use. Even using the smallest part of a press publication (except perhaps for strictly private use) would mean payment would be due to an institutional news publisher. * That means, the proposal would be *likely to harm journalists*, photographers, citizen journalists and many other non-institutional creators and producers of news, especially the growing number of freelancers. * The people most likely to benefit would be the big established news institutions. If they should benefit, this is likely to *exacerbate existing power asymmetries in media markets* that already suffer from worrying levels of concentration in many Member States. That said, it is not clear that even these big news institutions would benefit. Similar rights introduced in Germany and Spain were not effective. * The proposed right would provide no protection *against ‘fake news’*. * There is *no sound economic case* for the introduction of such a right. An additional intellectual property right would not change the fundamental problems that news institutions face. They would still have to compete with many other actors for consumer attention, advertisers and hence revenue. *Problems with the Initial EC Proposal* The academic community is virtually unanimous in its opposition to the European Commission’s proposal for a press publishers right. We commend to you the previous critical interventions from Bently /et al/, Danbury, the European Copyright Society, Geiger /et al/, the Max Planck Institute, Peukert, van Eechoud, and the Study conducted by Bently, Kretschmer /et al/ for the JURI Committee in September 2017. We agree with the supporters of this right about one thing: *journalism matters, and quality journalism matters even more.* As public watchdog and forum for public debate, the traditional print press plays a vital role in democratic societies, but so do newer online media. All actors in the media ecosystem enjoy freedom of expression, as guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. This proposal will do nothing to help journalism, but seriously risks doing disproportionate harm to media creators, to smaller publishers, to SMEs seeking to innovate with online media services, to citizens and to society at large. Inventing new rights is not the solution. In order to appreciate why the balance is so clearly against this proposal, it is important to understand that *press publishers already have very significant rights in their publications*. They own enforceable rights in much of the material in a publication by virtue of assigned copyright (or exclusive licences), through national rules on employer ownership or collective works, and through the EU wide /sui generis/ right in databases (a term broad enough to cover all newspapers). This is already a formidable arsenal. Even without the introduction of the proposed right, it is unlawful (and when done knowingly and with a view to profit, often criminal) for third parties without licence (or a defence) to reproduce or make available copyright-protected material. The reproduction or making available of small parts of such material may also be unlawful, where those parts are themselves creative. The EU’s /sui generis/ right in databases not only gives investors in collections of material the right to prevent wholesale copying, but also to prevent the systematic extraction of insubstantial parts. While press publishers are very well protected already, the Commission did identify particular problems for German press publishers in relying upon authors’ rights in articles and photographs. As a result of German rules and procedure, it is administratively cumbersome and time-consuming for press publishers to rely on such rights. Documentation is required from authors in respect of the rights in each and every item in a publication. However, a German procedural problem deserves a German solution, not one at a European Union level. That is exactly what has occurred with the one year /Leistungsschutzrecht/ introduced in Germany. There is no need for the other 27 Member States to swallow the German medicine, the efficacy of which is so far wholly unproven. The proposed right would not improve the economic position of press publishers elsewhere. There is no basis for the suggestion that an “EU wide right” (in fact, separate rights for each MS) would improve the bargaining position of press publishers vis- á-vis platforms: they already have authors’ rights and the EU’s /sui generis/ right in databases. If it has any effect, the recognition of a press publishers right would strengthen their bargaining position with respect to authors and creators, a relationship which is hardly one of economic equivalence as it stands. However, such a right may well exacerbate existing media concentration problems, not least because media outlets would themselves have to seek permission from one another for the use of publications (and parts of publications), thus placing SMEs at a bargaining disadvantage. There is also no basis for thinking this proposal will tackle “fake news”: indeed, the opposite seems likely. If certain users of platforms such as Twitter are prohibited from circulating the links posted by subscribers to online, publicly accessible, quality news, the chances are that such users will circulate information derived from other sources. The creation of rights so as to restrict further the circulation of quality news would simply play into the hands of producers of “fake news”. This will not, as Mr Voss’s amendment to recital 32 implies “guarantee the availability of [re]liable information” so much as guarantee the dominance of fake news. In contrast, one thing is clear: the proposed right will be harmful. Adding yet another layer of protection will create uncertainty, both as to coverage and as to scope. The proposed right is not subject to a requirement of investment (by contrast with the existing protection or databases) or an originality threshold (as applies to copyright). As a consequence, the proposed protection would extend to virtually any use, even of the smallest part of a news item or other content. It has been suggested that the right will prevent the re-use of snippets from, and hyperlinks[1] <https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/#_ftn1> to, publicly available websites. If these claims turn out to be true, the new right will also harm freedom of expression and freedom of art, and impede innovation. Even if they turn out to be unfounded, the duplication of protection will create congestion and make clearances more complicated. These harms are further exacerbated by the prospect that the new right would last for a full twenty years, that is, long after the publication has any value as ‘news.’ *Rapporteur Voss’s Proposed Amendments Will Make Matters Even Worse* As the legislative process reaches a crucial stage, various amendments have been tabled that make the proposed right even more harmful. In particular, the proposals of the JURI rapporteur, Axel Voss, are positively dangerous. These would: * Extend the right to “news agencies”; * Extend the rights conferred beyond reproduction and making available to encompass rental, lending and other forms of distribution to the public (Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2006/115/EEC); * Create an unwaivable right for the benefit of press publishers to fair and equitable remuneration as a result of all uses of their publications – even licensed ones. If it had not come from such an influential source, we would not take these three suggestions seriously. The first proposal is fundamentally misconceived, because press agencies do not produce press publications (the subject of the rights recognised in Article 11(1)). If the effect of the proposal is to give rights in any item included within a press publication to both press publishers and news agencies, the result will be yet another layer of licensing. For example, even if a press publisher were to permit re-use of a publication, any content within the publication deriving from a news agency would need a distinct licence. The second proposed change, which extends the press publishers’ rights to cover public lending, rental and distribution to the public, would seem to be designed to capture for press publishers a share of funds available for ‘e-lending’ by public libraries (following the /VOB/ decision of the CJEU). This extension would either require the allocated funds to be increased to remunerate press publishers, or would inevitably leave authors and book publishers with a smaller slice of the cake. The third Voss amendment would give press publishers unwaivable rights that European Union law does not even recognise for individual authors, photographers or journalists (Indeed, Article 15 of the proposed Directive would not create anything close to this, only allowing authors to claim “appropriate” remuneration where their contractually-agreed remuneration was “disproportionately low”). It is absurd to suppose that press institutions are less able to look after their own bargaining interests than individual authors. If press publishers license their rights cheaply, it is not the legislature’s task to save them from their own bargains. Indeed, it may well be in press publishers’ best interests to license their rights for nothing, relying on other business models to profit from their investments. It is not for the EU legislature to dictate particular business models to economic entities. Indeed, the Spanish precursor of Mr Voss’s initiative attracted widespread criticism on this basis. However, Mr Voss does propose two useful amendments. First, the suggestion that the right “shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users” is welcome because it is the first recognition that, *if there is to be a new EU right, there is no reason why exceptions to that right should not also be mandatory*. That said, like his other amendments, the proposal is flawed. In particular, the addition of the term “legitimate” to “private and non-commercial” leaves users with no certainty as to where they stand. Moreover, there is no sense as to how this “exception” relates to the optional private copying exceptions in Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/29. Second, Mr Voss’s proposal *that journalists should receive a share of any remuneration raised* is consistent with the goals of article 15 of the proposed Directive, though it will be virtually impossible in practice to identify (i) whether remuneration results from rights in the content (for which the author has already received contractual remuneration) or from the rights in the press publication itself, and (ii) the “appropriate share” of any additional revenue. *Conclusion* We call on all MEPs to oppose the Commission proposal, and with yet more determination, Mr Voss’s amendments. It is time to reject, once and for all, this misguided legislative reform. /[1] <https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/#_ftnref1> Of note, the usefulness of a ‘naked’ link (mere URL) on the web, or in other applications like ftp, is very limited as it offers the reader little useful information on the resource to which the link directs. Hence, it is customary to use link descriptors, snippets or thumbnails to assist the user in determining whether the resource linked to is worth consulting. For example, without some additional information a user will not know that <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593> directs to the EC proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, COM/2016/0593 final./ *Professor Marco Ricolfi *Chair of Intellectual Property, Turin Law School, Italy* * *Professor Raquel Xalabarder *Chair on Intellectual Property, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.* * *Professor Mireille van Eechoud *Professor of Information Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

1 1