Posts

Posted on

The Netflix-NeonGenesis Evangelion case – Moral Right of Author and limits to dialogues adaptation

The apparently marginal case of the removal from Netflix Italia of the poor adaptation of NeonGenesis Evangelion’s dialogue,s poses, in reality, a serious problem of moral Right of Author: that of the mutilation of the creative work.

Fact: Netflix commissions the rewriting of the dialogues of the Italian version of a very famous Japanese animation series: NeonGenesis Evangelion (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン). The dialogist – this is the professional figure who carries out this task – delivered such a poor result – in the audience’s perception – that Netflix decided to suspend the publication of the series waiting to repair the damage. Continue reading “The Netflix-NeonGenesis Evangelion case – Moral Right of Author and limits to dialogues adaptation”

Posted on

General Data Protection Regulation and the Italian Data Protection Law. A lecture in Tokyo’s Keio University

NEAR Project(Jean Monnet Networks)共催

<NEAR: A New Dimension in Asia-Europe Relations: Exploring EU’s Global Actorness and Strategic Partnership in Asia (China, India, Japan and South Korea)>

116th Keio Jean Monnet Workshop for EU Studies

第116回 慶應EU研究会のお知らせ 日頃よりお世話になっております。

各位

以下の通り第116回慶應EU研究会のご案内をお送り致しますので、よろしければ是非ご参加下さい。

日時: 2019年 7月19日(金)17:00~18:00
Date: 19 July 2019 17:00-18:00

 ?

研究報告 (EU研究ワークショップ・EU法セミナー):

場所: 慶應義塾大学三田キャンパス南館地下1階2B15教室

Venue: B1st Floor, Room 2B15, South Building, Mita campus, Keio University

「一般データ保護規則とイタリアデータ保護法」

(英語)

アンドレア・モンティ弁護士(イタリア)

(イタリア・キエーティ=ぺスカラ大学非常勤講師)

“General Data Protection Regulation and the Italian Data Protection Law”

(English)

Sig. Avvocato Andrea Monti
Adjunct Professor, Università di Chieti-Pescara

庄司克宏(Katsuhiro SHOJI)
慶應義塾大学大学院法務研究科(法科大学院)教授
Professor, Law School, Keio University
ジャン・モネ・チェア(Jean Monnet Chair ad personam)
ジャン・モネEU 研究センター(慶應義塾大学)所長
Director, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence for EU Studies at Keio University
問合せ(Queries):
fumifigo@keio.jp(事務局長:東史彦(Dr. AZUMA))
yhosoi@ner.takushoku-u.ac.jp(事務次長:細井優子(Dr. HOSOI) Continue reading “General Data Protection Regulation and the Italian Data Protection Law. A lecture in Tokyo’s Keio University”

Posted on

De (GDPR) Minimis Non Curat Praetor or:Not All GDPR Infringements Can Be Fined…

On the basis that minor damages are not covered by the Data Protection Legislation, the decision 4 U 760/19 issued by the Dresden Oberlandesgericht rejected a data-protection tort action filed against and individual against a content-sharing platform, charged by the plaintiff of having provoked “distress” by allowing the publication of a video .

This contemporary enforcement in the GDPR realm of the old Roman Law adage “de minimis non curat praetor” is very important, as it has a strong “stopping power” against the myriad of claims grounded on alleged “unbearable pain” and “reputation offenses” that actually resolve in naught damages.

Furthermore, this decision questions the possibility, for a Data Protection Authority, to fine a Data Controller if the infringement of the GDPR doesn’t cause any actual harm. Continue reading “De (GDPR) Minimis Non Curat Praetor or:Not All GDPR Infringements Can Be Fined…”

Posted on

Copyright on Information. A Dangerous Path

In its “Re-use of Public Sector information” website section, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner writes verbatim

All of the information featured on our website is the copyright of the Data Protection Commission unless otherwise indicated. You may re-use the information on this website free of charge in any format.

At first sight this statement might looks innocuous, but actually it carries a blatant mistake that will turns into a dangerous trend: imposing copyright on information.

In the EU, Copyright – better, the Right of Author – grants legal protection to the way an idea is creatively put in writing or in whatever way can be perceived by a human beings. In other words, this Shakespear’s quote from Hamlet’s Act II, Scene II

Though this be madness, yet there is method in ‘t.

is protected by the Right of Auhtor because of the “how” (creative form) rather than of the “what” (raw information). 1

Therefore, the statement of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner is a wrong enforcement of the Right of Author prerogatives.

But why is it dangerous too?

The talk I did at the 2004 Licensing Executive Society of Britain and Ireland Annual Conference, lately edited in a paper published by Ciberspazio e Diritto (English version available here) explains what is at stake:

The impossibility of securing patents did not stop the attempts to establish some sort of “ownership” on the genetic information, and alternative ways have been sought. As far back as 1987, Walter Gilbert, one of the pioneers in bioinformatics research, declared to the Washington Post: “I don’t believe in the patentability of the genome. What we are actually interested in is securing copyrights on the sequences. This means that if someone wishes to read the code, they will have to pay us to get access. Our goal is to make the information available to everyone. Provided they pay a price.

Imposing “copyright” over information, then, is not only wrong because there is no creativity on raw data. Is dangerous because it is a way to deprive people of their right to knowledge (right to science) and to be informed (free speech)

 ?

  1. Of course Hamlet is in the public domain regime, but the moral Right of Author still stands ↩
Posted on

Twitter to “mark” abusive political messages. The Last Bastion of “Intermediary Liability” has fallen

According to the New York Times, Twitter is going to “mark” abusive political messages. This is a very good news, as ISPs can be finally immune to the OTT and Platform “we’re just neutral” lie.

After about 20 years, like the proverbial Chinaman on the river’s bank, I’ve finally witnessed the end of an unsustainable claim that affected for very longtime ISPs: the OTTs and Platforms’ position about their “neutrality” in relationship to the behaviour of their users.

This has always be – at very least – grossly misleading a statement that let lawmakers into regulating ISPs as if they where OTT, while they are not. Facebook decided to actively close fake politically oriented account, and now with Twitter self-acknowledgement of its power/duty to actively interfere with users’ activity, the difference between ISPs and OTT should be finally clear.

Unfortunately, I fear that the very same notion of “OTT” has lost its meaning, therefore the regulatory game should start again from the very beginning. Hopefully, now, without waiting another 20 years or so…