Hi, I actually thought it is not wise to "overdo it" with the copy/pasted responses. I had the chance to chat briefly with Marco Giorello, who is deputy head of unit "Copyright" at DG MARKT and responsible for the consultation. He said that while it is good to see one set of responses is supported by more than one organisation, they are sceptical about mass submissions, as they want to include all viewpoints and not just reflect the most active groups. Still, if they present answers in a quantitative way, it could come in handy to have the most respondents on your side. About the data: so far the Commission has always released the full data sets. Going through past consultations it is even possible to see how each respondent answered. So the data will be published, we need to put the emphasis on a timely release when we ask for it. That will be crucial. In case they really go through with another attempt at a "notice and action" Directive, they might actually open a new consultation. But that's just guessing for now. Otherwise we don't need to wait for a call to give our opinion. We can comment and release statements about the copyright reform pretty much every step of the way. If the commission releases an actual white paper we should be prepared to write up a position paper (the more people follow the process actively, the higher our chances). The white paper is expected before summer. Dimi 2014-03-07 17:35 GMT+01:00 Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)wikimedia.de > 2014-03-07 17:25 GMT+01:00 Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org> > We could obviously have generated many more responses if we had wanted > to. > > Any thoughts on when/how we should do that, if ever? > > > > DG MARKT has not released any statements on the methodology of the > consulation analysis. According to Kerstin Jorna from the commission, > the methodology will be developed "on the fly" while they are reading > the responses. Most likely, similar/identical statements will be > considered as one statement. Multiplying the number of responses to > the commission will most likely not have a beneficial effect in this > case. > > There might be future opportunities with a different calculation. Or > we might come up with a plan of creating many many responses that will > not be considered identical in nature and counted as one. > > The next opportunity in my opinion, however, is a different one: > Analysis of the consultation raw data. Several people have urged DG > MARKT to release the raw data as soon as possible. If this happens > soon and if we manage to conduct analysis of the responses before the > commission, we can shape the perception of this consultation. This > would be a work item with high effort and potential high reward. > > Mathias > > _______________________________________________ > Advocacy_Advisors mailing list > Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors >

2014-03-07 22:36 GMT+01:00 James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: Such an effect depends on a system of constituency and some degree of personal responsibility. If, for example, a new InfoSoc directive moves to the European Parliament, such an intervention might be warranted (both for the plenary or the relevant committee sessions). In fact, some groups currently try to have people call their members in the EP in order to save net neutrality. Mathias -- Mathias Schindler Projektmanager Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: mathias.schindler(a)wikimedia.de Ceterum censeo opera officiales esse liberandam - http://urheberrecht.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.