Comments-On-Reda-Report: tackling ISO circumvention btw?

Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645 at
Thu Jul 9 23:06:12 UTC 2015

Pardon unintentionally hit the send button, sorry. Once again.

just reading this:

> Works created with public funds to be made available to the public

>Point 5 of the report requires that any work produced by_ public bodies (legislative, administrative and judicial) is made available to the public for use and modification.

> In FSFE's view, non-rival or intangible assets (such as documents, data and software) created with public funds should be made available for use to the public. We suggest

and I ask if somebody wants to help me for instance commenting on that.
-So even if ones (mine) picture of the legislation system of the EU is not that detailed, one understands that
they are updating the copy-right law once again on a original request of MEP Julia Reda, who is supposed to be from our own people, to say from german pirates-party. Right?

>By adopting the report with 23 votes in favour and 2 against, the committee asks the European Commission to consider a number of important updates to copyright as it works towards a revision of the EU Copyright Directive.

So there they set a committee work out a proposal and this committee adopted an interim report. Right?

Question: Where is this report to be read? In the article they speak of each point of it but I can reach the text itself. Is that intended somehow, I ask. ?

Question 2: Referring to the quote above what was said about Point 5. Could not one complete the word "by"" for the word "for"? Because in case of ISO or DIN or the like such cases imho are circumvented by mandating the process to not very transparent third parties. So the need of an ascertainment of terms would be obvious, would not it? (compare in question my critique on ISO on

Question 3: So what could one do in the end to push it forward?

More information about the Discussion mailing list