Net neutrality and threats to fundamental rights in europe
CC Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 Germany:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this
Zimmermann, Jeremie
Yet, entertainment industries see the Net as a threat to their existing business models, mostly based on controlling distribution channels of information. Worse, telecom operators see new opportunities in monetizing restrictions to Internet access. The interests of both groups are now converging with the help of a portion of the political class wary of the way the Net upsets their objective of controlling the public sphere so as to retain power. Several legislative projects are contemplating different ways of restricting access to the Net: from the provisions on operators’ contracts in the “Telecoms Package” directives to website blocking in the name of child protection, from the ongoing war against file sharing lead by the entertainment industries in Europe to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement currently being negotiated at the global level… Restrictions to our access to the Net, from the most obvious (cutoff in the “HADOPI” law in France, censorship in China), to the most subtle (blocking of selected aplications or services, bandwidth prioritization or reduction, etc.) are as many restrictions to our fundamental freedoms, including the most essential freedom of expression. Are these different regulatory projects turning into a global war on the Internet, therefore a war on our freedoms? What is the state of the play? What can we do as citizens?
 So questions all pass over to Jeremy. Thank you very much, Monica, for this very precise state of the EU communication law. If there are some further questions afterwards, I think they can be directed to you as well. I will try to talk to you about the current state of the play and the upcoming fights in those issues. I'm Jeremy Zimmerman, I'm the co-founder and spokesperson for La Quadrature du Net. It doesn't work. La Quadrature du Net is a kind of citizen toolbox providing tools for everyone to understand the legislative process when it threatens our fundamental freedoms on the internet and tools for everybody to participate into the public debate. We've been active in France with the notorious ADOPI three-strike slow in the EU with the telecoms package and some other legislative and non-legislative projects. You will understand with this presentation that we are right now active with many issues you can all participate with. One thing I really, really want to show you is a trophy we earned in the French ADOPI battle, the three-strike legislation. We won this and put it on top of the fireplace next to the taxidermized head of former minister of culture, Cristine Albanel. It's a decision by the constitutional court, the highest jurisdiction in France. And it's supposed to say, yes, it says, article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen of 1789 proclaims, the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious rights of men. Every citizen may thus speak, write and publish freely, except when such freedom is misused in cases determined by law. This is freedom of speech. In the current state of the means of communication and given the generalized development of public online communication services, this is the internet. And the importance of the latter for the participation in democracy and the expression of ideas and opinions, this right implies freedom to access such services. So this is an answer to your question, sir. And it is literally the highest court of a small country named France that links freedom of expression and communication, which is essential for democratic participation, to the access to the internet. You and I, we all know this today. We blog, we tweet, we use the internet to do very interesting participatory stuff. But it is now up to the legislature, to people who write the law and rule our societies to understand it. So when I say this is a trophy, it literally means that we, the people, by campaigning really hard, we can get to reach up to the highest institutions and make them understand our points. So I do share the pessimism of Monica on some aspect of the telecoms package, but on the political side of these fights, I think that there is a lot to play and a lot to win. On the positive aspects of the telecoms package, I will show you in a very minute, there is this whole question. You see the sentence, this right freedom of expression implies freedom to access such services. The question we have to ask now is what is the freedom to access such services? What is the freedom to access to the internet? And what is this internet anyway? Well, part of that reply came in the telecoms package itself. It's article 8.4.g of the Framework Directive, and it says, this is the role of the national regulation authorities. It said national regulation authorities show promote the interests of the citizen of the European Union by interrelia, blah, blah, blah, blah. Promoting the ability of end users, this is us, to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. This is, you may argue this is kind of weak because promoting the ability is not that strong of a wording, but being able to access and distribute information or run applications and services of all choices is freedom to access to the internet. We can call this network neutrality. It's a very basic property of the network that makes it the least common denominator, very simple rules so everybody can interconnect and participate. This is the very rule that makes that there is only one internet for everyone, and that everyone can participate in this internet. This is what we cherish and love. This is the internet. So, come on. Knowing this, if you're in China and you don't have the freedom to access some information or distribute some information of your choice, then this is not the internet. This is the Chinternet, so to say. If you're on a mobile network, whatever, providing some so-called mobile internet, well, if your contract says, oh, you will not use voice over IP, Skype thing, you will not use peer-to-peer or whatever news group. Well, this is not the internet. This is OrangeNet, VodafoneNet, whatever net. Most of it may be interconnected to the internet, but this is not the internet. So, the question we have to face now is who has an interest into turning the internet into a whatever else net? And how are they doing it? And what can we do about it? So, we'll try to seek answers to those. So, you might have seen this image from Marvin Tocque before. I like it very much to explain what the operators themselves might be tempted to do with the internet. Oh, you see, it's very cheap and so convenient for people who don't have enough money and think of all the old people who don't want the torrents and so on. You got the basic packages, $29.99, and you got Disney, ABC, you got also MSN and so on. So, you can be happy about it. But if you're not happy about it, you pay the $39, which is a reasonable price, and you got the Wikipedia, ultra leftist, fundamentalist, birdie things, you know? The Google and the Yahoo. And if you pay some more, $49, you got the blogger, YouTube, and you can publish stuff. And you see the fine prints in the bottom, full internet access available on requests, please. Always have to read the fine prints, you know? So, this sounds a bit like science fiction, but as I told you on the mobile phone, internet access, a market today, such restrictions apply. Not as clear with this site is blocked. It's more subtle on some, most of the French subscriptions, I think. They say, oh, you got unlimited internet access, but only 10 megabyte of email. And afterwards, each megabyte of email, you know? So, one megabyte of email is not equal to one megabyte of YouTube. The funny thing is, if you access your email through Gmail, they will never know it's email. But that's another technique. So, an incentive for restricting internet access in order to create new business models. You may think it's just dumb. You would be right. You may think it's also dangerous. Then you would be right again. But if we think about it on a more global scale, it can have an impact on the very growth of this whole common infrastructure we call the internet. And I will explain why just after a sip of this. I'm very sorry. The business model and the investment model of internet operators so far has been to look at those very nice graphs. Some of you might know MRTG and such thing. So, you see what your users are doing on a statistical perspective. And you see that, oh, soon we will hit the floor of the tube. Therefore, we need bigger tubes. And so, the people from the technique go to the people from the money and say, we need a bigger tube. And so, for 20 years from bigger tubes to bigger tubes, from more usage to more usage, we built the internet. This is the organic growth of this common infrastructure with minimum rules where everybody can participate. Now, imagine that the technique guy go to the business people and say, we need bigger tube. But you know, the business guy is smarter than everybody. So, he thinks, hmm, what if we don't buy the bigger tube? People will be annoyed. Things will go slow. And then, we can sell them the magic option. The magic option is being sold right now by Vodafone in Spain on some mobile internet access. If you pay whatever amount of euros a month when the network is congested, you won't be subject to congestion. Yes, yes, they can. So, what does it mean? It means that for everybody else, it will be slower. Therefore, everybody else will have an incentive to buy that option. And when everybody will have voted the option, what they will have is exactly what they had before. So, in term of business, it might be clever. But it means that they have a clear incentive to stop investing in the infrastructure that we also built. We build what is inside. We also build the internet. Therefore, we have to reclaim this. If you don't invest in the infrastructure, we won't use your service again. And this is what we can do about it. As soon as you see such conditions applying to contracts, as soon as it stops smelling like the internet, blog about it, tweet about it, make a fuss about it, contact the press, do everything you can about it, we have this power still. Okay, so this is one very heavy trend right now to restrict fundamental freedom of expression on the internet by restricting access. Another one, Monica quickly talked about it, is the stupid war on sharing. You know, everybody knows that when you share files, you make the industry lose money. Ask a kid with 5,000 movies on his hard disk if he wouldn't have bought 5,000 DVDs. Isn't that obvious? Sure, therefore you can prove it. Well, I won't enter into this debate because it's very trollogen. But anyway, studies from the Ministry of Industry of Canada, studies from the government of Netherlands, studies from the OECD, studies from academics in Britain and in the US, a poll from Ipsos, Germany in eight European countries, a recent note from the US government, all come to the same conclusions. The figures of the industry about whether or not those evil pirates are harming the children are... We don't kill baby seals while sharing files. People who are sharing files are people who buy them more. They might not buy exactly the very same dump copy that they would have bought for 16 euros if they hadn't done it in one click. They would buy a collector edition, a concert, a cinema, tickets, whatever, t-shirt, and overall they buy more in culture. But this is not the debate. The war on sharing is a perfect pretext for those industries who don't want to change their business models, to try to pursue it with everybody else than the only way to make their business is first of all to control the copies, so nobody else than them can do the copies, and to control the means of distribution of the copies. Usually you did it by paying the DJs in the radio, so they put your song first, or you buy advertisement, an advertisement space, or you go to the distribution retail store and pay them to have your CDs in the front rows, or you go to the TV programs to have your stars be in the biggest shows, and so on, and therefore you control the distribution of your works, and everything goes fine in the 20th century. Well, this is over. You all know that. We can all be our own editor, producer, publisher, distributor, whatever. We can. We still can. Because of this very simple thing we were just talking about, that is our freedom to access to unrestricted internet, neutral internet. Well, this one sharing is going on and on. You know that copyright is used as the main Trojan horse for this, Gesundheit, for this strategy of controlling internet like they controlled the previous communication channels, literally to turn this communication tool, or communication tool, into yet another media. Well, will they succeed in turning internet into television 2.0? Well, here comes Europe. You might think I'm obsessed with Mickey Mouse at this stage. Well, I am. There was the telecom's package, but it's not the first time that those questions of content entered the European Parliament. I won't detail the previous IPRED directive. We weren't there at that time. The IPRED 2 directive, we weren't there at that time. That infamous IPRED 2 directive will come back someday in the European Parliament and we'll talk about it later on. For the fun fact about IPR enforcement directives, the IPRED 1 directive, which is about making very harsh civil sanction for anything related to IPR enforcement. Anyone here knows what was the name of the rapporteur of that directive in the European Parliament? Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock. Ding, nobody? Her name was Janély Furtout. She was a member of the European Parliament from the Alde Party and she's the spouse of Jean-René Furtout, who is the president of Vivendi Universal. I like this joke. At the same time, you had Pierre Célal, who was the first European Parliament member of the European Parliament, who was the French permanent representative towards the European institutions in the Council, who is incidentally the husband of Sylvie Forben, who is the head lobbyist for Vivendi Universal. Well, so these things are going on and on and on forever. They have almost unlimited credit for attacking our freedoms and for making their lobbying stuff. Therefore, they use every possible legislative channel they have. This is a massive flooding of legislation that we have to counter every day. But I am not an academic, academics like Monica and I do care a lot about what is in the text. It's very, it's like computer code, you know? If it's broken, it's broken, so we really have to care about it. But it is not the only thing we have to watch. We also have the whole political context that we build around these issues. And as I showed you in the beginning, what we earn with the Adobe P-Fighting Friends shows that we can do it. On a certain extent, if you look at the telecom's package, as it could have been voted in the first reading and what it is now, maybe Monica will agree that it is maybe 20% today of how dangerous it could have been. No? No. We'll debate this afterwards. No, no, all the local content. The part you showed, saying, no, no, saying cooperation with actors in the promotion of local content. In the first version, it was promotion and protection of local content. This makes a lot of difference. And this notion of local content was there 12 times in all the package. Now it's there only once. And some things like this. So we can have moderate victory or damage control losses on the text, but gain huge political victories. And this is what we can achieve altogether by talking about it, blogging about it, tweeting the internet and so on. Right now in the European Parliament is being debated the Gallo report. It's an initiative report, so it's not a legislation, but it's a political message from the European Parliament that will set the course for the future of copyright in Europe. It is reported by Marielle Gallo, who is a French sarcosis member of the European Parliament. She wasn't elected anywhere before. She's the spouse of a notorious writer, and she was the spouse of a minister before and so on. And she was parachuted on the ballots by Nicolas Sarkozy himself, so she's a good little soldier in commanding service right now. She presented this own initiative report. That is the entertainment industry wish list. I encourage you to, it's the letter to Santa Claus. Literally. Yeah. I encourage you to read the draft report. It's quite short. I think it's five or six pages to really see what is the current lingo of the entertainment industry is trying to use copyright to restrict off freedoms on the internet. This lingo included the cooperation of the internet service providers, like when you put a gun on the head of somebody and say, please do cooperate. The extrajudicial litigation and solving of IPR enforcement. This is the bypassing of the right to a fair judicial process. There also is a proportionate sanction, again, extrajudicial. And well, it's a very interesting read. I encourage you also to read the good amendments that were tabled on the Gallo report. We have nothing to do with it. Some MEPs, member of the European Parliament from all parties, table very good amendments that say exactly the opposite. Yeah. One major element in the lingo is counterfeiting. Counterfeiting, you know, those fake medicine, those fake toys from China that blow in the face of little children and so on. Counterfeiting and piracy harms the consumer and kills baby seals whatsoever. So to put counterfeiting, the Chinese factories, the Russian mafia and so on, in the same bag with piracy, what is that? File sharing between individuals with no commercial intent. Yeah, it kills baby seals. Trust us. Well, this is a very interesting fight that is going right now in the European Parliament. You'll see in the very few days if you look on www.laquadratio.net, we'll launch a call for every one of you to take your phone, take your email, contact your elected representatives from the jury commission of the European Parliament, the jury committee, sorry, and tell them there are the good amendments. So please go and vote the good amendments or else. You know, I'm an elector and so on. And so this is an ongoing fight. It will set the course for the next legislative action such as the revival of IPRED II and also very interestingly, it says in its original form, we encourage the ongoing negotiations of the ACTA agreement. Who among you have heard of the ACTA agreement? Wow. I'm impressed. That's a lot. And that's more and more each time. So that's very good news. Well. I'm sorry. That ACTA agreement is a smoking gun. It's a Shakespearean tragedy of the new commons. It's a perfect example of the intent of those industries and the very little consideration they make of us and of our fundamental rights and of that great tool we built together that is the internet. To make it short because most of you know about ACTA already, the official ACTA is anti-country feeding trade agreement. So it's a plurilateral trade agreement. It's not an international treaty. It's not an international agreement because it's not tied to any international institution there is. No WIPO, no WTO, no whatever. So it's the words of the US red representative who represent the US in the ACTA negotiations. The idea was to be between like-minded people. So you take a few friends, you take a nice table, you pick an exotic location, you all sit together and you come with all those nice papers that the industry wrote for you. And it's literally an entertainment industry wish list but in full extent. So we released some leaks. Some leaks were published on our beloved heroes of WikiLeaks and yeah, the agreement has been negotiated in secret for over two years. So all we have to know what is inside is leaks. And so we now have, how do you say, a Facebook preuve. We have quite a bunch of evidence that together show that the most violent criminal sanctions for inciting and aiding infringement. What is this advertisement on your website? What did you say in that comment? Isn't that inciting IPR infringement? No, I'm just expressing my political view that those entertainment industries are assholes so I won't buy their stuff anymore and go to the pirate bay. So very broadly interpreted, words that can be very broadly interpreted and that are voluntarily lived very vague in the text. Civil injunctions that make the industry being able to go to a judge and say, oh, make future infringement on this material to cease. How? Filtering of content on the internet? Automatic removal? We don't know. They don't care. They just want the H bomb against copyright infringement. All this is in ACTA. All this is in what we saw in ACTA. The negotiations are going on today, right today in Wellington in New Zealand. The next round will be in Geneva in June. So we Europeans might have something to play. And here again, it is about awareness. It is about who knows what is going on. And this is how we can really win and defeat the mother f- Defeat the beast. To give a bit of European context, because there was to be the word Europe in my presentation. For Europe, it's the European Commission that negotiate. And the European Commission was a very nice nectar. I tell you, we won't go beyond the EU hockey. The EU hockey is the technocratic name for the EU legislation. We won't go beyond the EU hockey. And which is supposed to be reassuring. But indeed, we will see if they're right or not. Or if their interpretation of the EU hockey matches with ours only when the whole will be signed, which is very, very, very, very, very little margin of maneuver. Well, what we learned recently is that they are negotiating for the EU, but for the criminal sanctions, the most violent and dangerous and broad part of ACTA is not negotiated by them. It's negotiated by the presidency of the Council of the EU. So Mr. Luc de Vigne may have been right when he said, we won't go beyond the EU hockey. Because he leaves this to the presidency. Our unelected representatives of all governments that do it besides here again with no accountability and so on. So my prescription for this is a very high dose of light and exposure. You know, it is called a vampire strategy. You know a vampire in the dark, when you point light on it. So consider that we all have a tiny LED light, a very small one. What we have to do is to light it up at the very same moment and point it towards the same direction. This is what we can do using the internet. This is what we try to help you, to help everyone willing to do so, to do. And I think that this is really what we have to do in order to protect the internet before it's not the internet anymore. Thank you very much. So there were so many trolls in my presentation that I assume there are questions. There are microphones. Just one small thing I didn't really get. You started with the highest court ruling from France that clearly said there is, the internet is part of the freedom of speech regulation. And access should not be limited. And how does this comply with the three strikes rule that you actually have? Sure that you don't want the full details or maybe we can discuss them afterwards. The whole ad-opis was some kind of legal Lego, a huge pile of very dirty Lego. This decision overturned the low ad-opis. So it's a major blow for the French government. And it literally says, as it is part of fundamental rights, you cannot use an administrative authority like the one you designed that will order restrictions of fundamental rights like this. So the government, no, actually Nicola Sarkozy went furious first and is reported to have shouted, this is my law and I will have it. He's also reported that Carla asked him the day of the ruling, but don't they have lawyers in the Ministry of Culture? And that this would have sealed the fate of Christine Albanel, God bless her soul. So he said, this is my law and I will have it. So he ordered the folks in the Ministry of Culture to circumvent that decision of the constitutional council. And so they invented a very light procedure that goes through the judge. The judge is the guardian of fundamental rights and freedom. So the judge can restrict your fundamental freedom. The judge can put you in jail, which is an obvious restriction to your freedom of movement because he's a judge. And so they invented a very express procedure where the judge will rob a stamp, the things. I'll give you the details about you're not guilty of IPR infringement, but guilty of not having secured your internet access against it being used for copyright infringement. Because copyright infringement is a criminal offense that you need evidence to demonstrate prejudice and so on. So this became an administrative offense. The funny thing is the Ministry of Culture now has to publish a list of tools that will allow you to secure your internet access against it being used for IPR infringement, which is very funny because it's not technically feasible. And until they do this, there will be no sanction at all. So for now, Adobe is a lame duck, a dead duck or whatever duck or just dead. So it will not practically be executable? No, it won't. Next question. Show me. I'd just like to come in on where I differed with you just earlier. The two provisions that I... Can you hear me for this one? Yeah, the provisions which I presented are having been through this and spent months and months peeling through the amendments that were presented in the telecoms package and what we ended up with. The ones that I presented were the important ones that the NPA and the IP lobbied for. They are in a very slightly different form from the original form that they lobbied for, but they are actually the important ones. The lawful content, although it would have made things worse arguably, it would have strengthened what they wanted, but the two important provisions were those two and they were in there right at the beginning and they're still there. So that's kind of why I meant I wasn't meaning to be contradictory. There were more than this. There was also the thing about the sending of messages and the type of sanctions and also the fact that the actors interested in the protection of lawful content might not be the same as the one in the promotion. Also the positive parts and overall the political context around it that will guide the interpretation in the member states is at least as important. The political context is very important, but how they will do it, they do it in two. It's so simple. It's amazing. They literally change your contract and they make this general obligation and that's actually all they need to do and that is what is actually quite scary. Are there other questions? Yeah, there is one here. And yeah, this is a very interesting point is that they will use restriction, there's a question, restriction through contract law with ACTA, they will make such a burden on the internet operators up to help them liable for the transmission or storage of copyrighted material that the operators themselves will be forced to implement policies restricting access or publication or so on. So this is a very interesting point is that now they intend to force operators to use contract laws and thank you for reminding me because I forgot to talk about it earlier. So we have to be very, very careful of those contracts and what the operators do and under which pressure. Oh, there would be so many things to talk about how, what can we do positively with the net, but after hearing you and my only question is what are we going to do against the vampires in Geneva in June life? I mean, is there any, I mean, we have to be there and we have to show out because I think that's that put more pressure on them and put so what are we doing against the vampires live in general in June? I can tell you about the state of my reflection on the topic, which is not definitive. And as usually it might be decided in the very few hours before maybe building a nice image of ourselves in front of those big buildings, opaque and close to us being chained to whatever laptop or Mickey Mouse head or looking like we're censored or restricted in any way or and just build images, bring journalists to say, look what we have to show about what they are doing or something like this. I don't believe in huge protests because you know in France we, we do huge protests with millions of people and we cannot achieve that. But building images and spreading them around is a way of giving or or interpretation of the facts. And therefore we write the story. And this is very important. This is what we did on the Adopillo. It was passed in a in a quasi dead form and everybody in France in the general public, you ask, oh, you know the Adopillo? Oh, yes, that dead thing that won't work. Oh, yeah, that thing that is obsolete already. There was an opinion poll asking a representative, indeed, panel, people what they thought about the overturn of the law and 66% of them said, oh, it's a good thing. Have you ever heard of opinion polls about what people think of a decision of the constitutional court of their country? So it really gives an idea on how strong the public debate was on this. So we are building the public debate. We are building the public opinion. We are the public and we are the voters in the end. So I think we should use this kind of tools. Yeah, we're going to Geneva. Yeah, sure. Let's go. Any question? Please. I got three stickers for people asking questions. Very cool stickers. Yeah, Mickey Mouse stickers, indeed. No question? There's one. Thank you. So first I want to thank you and congratulate you with your great work in France, which is really fantastic because France was kind of the cannery in the coal mine. I'm looking for what's going to happen all over the world now. And I think, I guess my question is, you guys have been successful in France because you're a number of talented people. You have all the different mechanisms needed to both do the stuff in the legislative level and also the PR, et cetera. But there seems to be no institution that can match the tenaciousness and the power in the people loving for ACTA, both in Europe but also worldwide. So I guess my question is, how can people unite to get a strength that is equal to that, which is behind ACTA? Thank you. It is a very good and tough question. It's indeed at the heart of our reflection on how to build our action. And on the telecoms package, we have been very successful at communicating what there was to do when there was, it was time to do it and who had to do it and so on. So we build those packaged actions and spread them. Sometimes people think, yeah, it is a good thing to do and just do it. One parameter, and we saw this over and over again and we have difference of interpretation with some people around this, is that I think it's no use to try to centralize the action. We don't want at all to become the center of all this because at some point I will need some vacation badly. The thing is to show people how to do it and at the image of the internet itself, try to parallelize, distribute and explore and exploit the variety. The yes, I'm over time. Yeah. Yeah. Just to finish. Explore the variety of opinions and actions and yeah, use the creativity. And we issued some logos, people remixed them, put them into movies, put them on top of the letters or mail, the sand and so on. So let's reuse collectively all we can produce about it and try to do our best and try to parallelize all tiny LEDs. Uh huh.
 So questions all pass over to Jeremy.  Thank you very much, Monica, for this very precise state of the EU communication law.  If there are some further questions afterwards, I think they can be directed to you as well.  I will try to talk to you about the current state of the play and the upcoming fights in those issues.  I'm Jeremy Zimmerman, I'm the co-founder and spokesperson for La Quadrature du Net.  It doesn't work.  La Quadrature du Net is a kind of citizen toolbox providing tools for everyone to understand  the legislative process when it threatens our fundamental freedoms on the internet and tools  for everybody to participate into the public debate.  We've been active in France with the notorious ADOPI three-strike slow in the EU with the telecoms package  and some other legislative and non-legislative projects.  You will understand with this presentation that we are right now active with many issues you can all participate with.  One thing I really, really want to show you is a trophy we earned in the French ADOPI battle,  the three-strike legislation.  We won this and put it on top of the fireplace next to the taxidermized head of former minister of culture, Cristine Albanel.  It's a decision by the constitutional court, the highest jurisdiction in France.  And it's supposed to say, yes, it says, article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen of 1789 proclaims,  the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious rights of men.  Every citizen may thus speak, write and publish freely, except when such freedom is misused in cases determined by law.  This is freedom of speech.  In the current state of the means of communication and given the generalized development of public online communication services,  this is the internet.  And the importance of the latter for the participation in democracy and the expression of ideas and opinions,  this right implies freedom to access such services.  So this is an answer to your question, sir.  And it is literally the highest court of a small country named France that links freedom of expression and communication,  which is essential for democratic participation, to the access to the internet.  You and I, we all know this today.  We blog, we tweet, we use the internet to do very interesting participatory stuff.  But it is now up to the legislature, to people who write the law and rule our societies to understand it.  So when I say this is a trophy, it literally means that we, the people, by campaigning really hard,  we can get to reach up to the highest institutions and make them understand our points.  So I do share the pessimism of Monica on some aspect of the telecoms package,  but on the political side of these fights, I think that there is a lot to play and a lot to win.  On the positive aspects of the telecoms package, I will show you in a very minute,  there is this whole question.  You see the sentence, this right freedom of expression implies freedom to access such services.  The question we have to ask now is what is the freedom to access such services?  What is the freedom to access to the internet?  And what is this internet anyway?  Well, part of that reply came in the telecoms package itself.  It's article 8.4.g of the Framework Directive, and it says, this is the role of the national regulation authorities.  It said national regulation authorities show promote the interests of the citizen of the European Union by interrelia, blah, blah, blah, blah.  Promoting the ability of end users, this is us, to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice.  This is, you may argue this is kind of weak because promoting the ability is not that strong of a wording,  but being able to access and distribute information or run applications and services of all choices  is freedom to access to the internet.  We can call this network neutrality.  It's a very basic property of the network that makes it the least common denominator,  very simple rules so everybody can interconnect and participate.  This is the very rule that makes that there is only one internet for everyone,  and that everyone can participate in this internet.  This is what we cherish and love.  This is the internet.  So, come on.  Knowing this, if you're in China and you don't have the freedom to access some information or distribute some information of your choice,  then this is not the internet.  This is the Chinternet, so to say.  If you're on a mobile network, whatever, providing some so-called mobile internet,  well, if your contract says, oh, you will not use voice over IP, Skype thing,  you will not use peer-to-peer or whatever news group.  Well, this is not the internet.  This is OrangeNet, VodafoneNet, whatever net.  Most of it may be interconnected to the internet, but this is not the internet.  So, the question we have to face now is who has an interest into turning the internet into a whatever else net?  And how are they doing it?  And what can we do about it?  So, we'll try to seek answers to those.  So, you might have seen this image from Marvin Tocque before.  I like it very much to explain what the operators themselves might be tempted to do with the internet.  Oh, you see, it's very cheap and so convenient for people who don't have enough money and think of all the old people who don't want the torrents and so on.  You got the basic packages, $29.99, and you got Disney, ABC, you got also MSN and so on.  So, you can be happy about it.  But if you're not happy about it, you pay the $39, which is a reasonable price, and you got the Wikipedia, ultra leftist, fundamentalist, birdie things, you know?  The Google and the Yahoo.  And if you pay some more, $49, you got the blogger, YouTube, and you can publish stuff.  And you see the fine prints in the bottom, full internet access available on requests, please.  Always have to read the fine prints, you know?  So, this sounds a bit like science fiction, but as I told you on the mobile phone, internet access, a market today, such restrictions apply.  Not as clear with this site is blocked.  It's more subtle on some, most of the French subscriptions, I think.  They say, oh, you got unlimited internet access, but only 10 megabyte of email.  And afterwards, each megabyte of email, you know?  So, one megabyte of email is not equal to one megabyte of YouTube.  The funny thing is, if you access your email through Gmail, they will never know it's email.  But that's another technique.  So, an incentive for restricting internet access in order to create new business models.  You may think it's just dumb.  You would be right.  You may think it's also dangerous.  Then you would be right again.  But if we think about it on a more global scale, it can have an impact on the very growth of this whole common infrastructure we call the internet.  And I will explain why just after a sip of this.  I'm very sorry.  The business model and the investment model of internet operators so far has been to look at those very nice graphs.  Some of you might know MRTG and such thing.  So, you see what your users are doing on a statistical perspective.  And you see that, oh, soon we will hit the floor of the tube.  Therefore, we need bigger tubes.  And so, the people from the technique go to the people from the money and say, we need a bigger tube.  And so, for 20 years from bigger tubes to bigger tubes, from more usage to more usage, we built the internet.  This is the organic growth of this common infrastructure with minimum rules where everybody can participate.  Now, imagine that the technique guy go to the business people and say, we need bigger tube.  But you know, the business guy is smarter than everybody.  So, he thinks, hmm, what if we don't buy the bigger tube?  People will be annoyed. Things will go slow.  And then, we can sell them the magic option.  The magic option is being sold right now by Vodafone in Spain on some mobile internet access.  If you pay whatever amount of euros a month when the network is congested, you won't be subject to congestion.  Yes, yes, they can.  So, what does it mean? It means that for everybody else, it will be slower.  Therefore, everybody else will have an incentive to buy that option.  And when everybody will have voted the option, what they will have is exactly what they had before.  So, in term of business, it might be clever.  But it means that they have a clear incentive to stop investing in the infrastructure that we also built.  We build what is inside. We also build the internet.  Therefore, we have to reclaim this.  If you don't invest in the infrastructure, we won't use your service again.  And this is what we can do about it.  As soon as you see such conditions applying to contracts, as soon as it stops smelling like the internet,  blog about it, tweet about it, make a fuss about it, contact the press, do everything you can about it,  we have this power still.  Okay, so this is one very heavy trend right now to restrict fundamental freedom of expression  on the internet by restricting access.  Another one, Monica quickly talked about it, is the stupid war on sharing.  You know, everybody knows that when you share files, you make the industry lose money.  Ask a kid with 5,000 movies on his hard disk if he wouldn't have bought 5,000 DVDs.  Isn't that obvious? Sure, therefore you can prove it.  Well, I won't enter into this debate because it's very trollogen.  But anyway, studies from the Ministry of Industry of Canada, studies from the government of Netherlands,  studies from the OECD, studies from academics in Britain and in the US,  a poll from Ipsos, Germany in eight European countries, a recent note from the US government,  all come to the same conclusions.  The figures of the industry about whether or not those evil pirates are harming the children are...  We don't kill baby seals while sharing files.  People who are sharing files are people who buy them more.  They might not buy exactly the very same dump copy that they would have bought for 16 euros  if they hadn't done it in one click.  They would buy a collector edition, a concert, a cinema, tickets, whatever, t-shirt,  and overall they buy more in culture.  But this is not the debate.  The war on sharing is a perfect pretext for those industries who don't want to change their business models,  to try to pursue it with everybody else than the only way to make their business is first of all  to control the copies, so nobody else than them can do the copies,  and to control the means of distribution of the copies.  Usually you did it by paying the DJs in the radio, so they put your song first,  or you buy advertisement, an advertisement space, or you go to the distribution retail store and pay them  to have your CDs in the front rows, or you go to the TV programs to have your stars be in the biggest shows,  and so on, and therefore you control the distribution of your works, and everything goes fine in the 20th century.  Well, this is over.  You all know that.  We can all be our own editor, producer, publisher, distributor, whatever.  We can.  We still can.  Because of this very simple thing we were just talking about,  that is our freedom to access to unrestricted internet, neutral internet.  Well, this one sharing is going on and on.  You know that copyright is used as the main Trojan horse for this,  Gesundheit, for this strategy of controlling internet like they controlled the previous  communication channels, literally to turn this communication tool,  or communication tool, into yet another media.  Well, will they succeed in turning internet into television 2.0?  Well, here comes Europe.  You might think I'm obsessed with Mickey Mouse at this stage.  Well, I am.  There was the telecom's package, but it's not the first time that those questions of content  entered the European Parliament.  I won't detail the previous IPRED directive.  We weren't there at that time.  The IPRED 2 directive, we weren't there at that time.  That infamous IPRED 2 directive will come back someday in the European Parliament  and we'll talk about it later on.  For the fun fact about IPR enforcement directives, the IPRED 1 directive,  which is about making very harsh civil sanction for anything related to IPR enforcement.  Anyone here knows what was the name of the rapporteur of that directive in the European  Parliament?  Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.  Ding, nobody?  Her name was Janély Furtout.  She was a member of the European Parliament from the Alde Party and she's the spouse of  Jean-René Furtout, who is the president of Vivendi Universal.  I like this joke.  At the same time, you had Pierre Célal, who was the first European Parliament member  of the European Parliament, who was the French permanent representative towards the European  institutions in the Council, who is incidentally the husband of Sylvie Forben, who is the head  lobbyist for Vivendi Universal.  Well, so these things are going on and on and on forever.  They have almost unlimited credit for attacking our freedoms and for making their lobbying  stuff.  Therefore, they use every possible legislative channel they have.  This is a massive flooding of legislation that we have to counter every day.  But I am not an academic, academics like Monica and I do care a lot about what is in the text.  It's very, it's like computer code, you know?  If it's broken, it's broken, so we really have to care about it.  But it is not the only thing we have to watch.  We also have the whole political context that we build around these issues.  And as I showed you in the beginning, what we earn with the Adobe P-Fighting Friends  shows that we can do it.  On a certain extent, if you look at the telecom's package, as it could have been voted in the  first reading and what it is now, maybe Monica will agree that it is maybe 20% today of how  dangerous it could have been.  No?  No.  We'll debate this afterwards.  No, no, all the local content.  The part you showed, saying, no, no, saying cooperation with actors in the promotion of  local content.  In the first version, it was promotion and protection of local content.  This makes a lot of difference.  And this notion of local content was there 12 times in all the package.  Now it's there only once.  And some things like this.  So we can have moderate victory or damage control losses on the text, but gain huge political  victories.  And this is what we can achieve altogether by talking about it, blogging about it, tweeting  the internet and so on.  Right now in the European Parliament is being debated the Gallo report.  It's an initiative report, so it's not a legislation, but it's a political message from the European  Parliament that will set the course for the future of copyright in Europe.  It is reported by Marielle Gallo, who is a French sarcosis member of the European Parliament.  She wasn't elected anywhere before.  She's the spouse of a notorious writer, and she was the spouse of a minister before and  so on.  And she was parachuted on the ballots by Nicolas Sarkozy himself, so she's a good little soldier  in commanding service right now.  She presented this own initiative report.  That is the entertainment industry wish list.  I encourage you to, it's the letter to Santa Claus.  Literally.  Yeah.  I encourage you to read the draft report.  It's quite short.  I think it's five or six pages to really see what is the current lingo of the entertainment  industry is trying to use copyright to restrict off freedoms on the internet.  This lingo included the cooperation of the internet service providers, like when you  put a gun on the head of somebody and say, please do cooperate.  The extrajudicial litigation and solving of IPR enforcement.  This is the bypassing of the right to a fair judicial process.  There also is a proportionate sanction, again, extrajudicial.  And well, it's a very interesting read.  I encourage you also to read the good amendments that were tabled on the Gallo report.  We have nothing to do with it.  Some MEPs, member of the European Parliament from all parties, table very good amendments  that say exactly the opposite.  Yeah.  One major element in the lingo is counterfeiting.  Counterfeiting, you know, those fake medicine, those fake toys from China that blow in the  face of little children and so on.  Counterfeiting and piracy harms the consumer and kills baby seals whatsoever.  So to put counterfeiting, the Chinese factories, the Russian mafia and so on, in the same bag  with piracy, what is that?  File sharing between individuals with no commercial intent.  Yeah, it kills baby seals.  Trust us.  Well, this is a very interesting fight that is going right now in the European Parliament.  You'll see in the very few days if you look on www.laquadratio.net, we'll launch a call  for every one of you to take your phone, take your email, contact your elected representatives  from the jury commission of the European Parliament, the jury committee, sorry, and tell them there  are the good amendments.  So please go and vote the good amendments or else.  You know, I'm an elector and so on.  And so this is an ongoing fight.  It will set the course for the next legislative action such as the revival of IPRED II and  also very interestingly, it says in its original form, we encourage the ongoing negotiations  of the ACTA agreement.  Who among you have heard of the ACTA agreement?  Wow.  I'm impressed.  That's a lot.  And that's more and more each time.  So that's very good news.  Well.  I'm sorry.  That ACTA agreement is a smoking gun.  It's a Shakespearean tragedy of the new commons.  It's a perfect example of the intent of those industries and the very little consideration  they make of us and of our fundamental rights and of that great tool we built together that  is the internet.  To make it short because most of you know about ACTA already, the official ACTA is anti-country  feeding trade agreement.  So it's a plurilateral trade agreement.  It's not an international treaty.  It's not an international agreement because it's not tied to any international institution  there is.  No WIPO, no WTO, no whatever.  So it's the words of the US red representative who represent the US in the ACTA negotiations.  The idea was to be between like-minded people.  So you take a few friends, you take a nice table, you pick an exotic location, you all  sit together and you come with all those nice papers that the industry wrote for you.  And it's literally an entertainment industry wish list but in full extent.  So we released some leaks.  Some leaks were published on our beloved heroes of WikiLeaks and yeah, the agreement has been  negotiated in secret for over two years.  So all we have to know what is inside is leaks.  And so we now have, how do you say, a Facebook preuve.  We have quite a bunch of evidence that together show that the most violent criminal sanctions  for inciting and aiding infringement.  What is this advertisement on your website?  What did you say in that comment?  Isn't that inciting IPR infringement?  No, I'm just expressing my political view that those entertainment industries are assholes  so I won't buy their stuff anymore and go to the pirate bay.  So very broadly interpreted, words that can be very broadly interpreted and that are voluntarily  lived very vague in the text.  Civil injunctions that make the industry being able to go to a judge and say, oh, make future  infringement on this material to cease.  How?  Filtering of content on the internet?  Automatic removal?  We don't know.  They don't care.  They just want the H bomb against copyright infringement.  All this is in ACTA.  All this is in what we saw in ACTA.  The negotiations are going on today, right today in Wellington in New Zealand.  The next round will be in Geneva in June.  So we Europeans might have something to play.  And here again, it is about awareness.  It is about who knows what is going on.  And this is how we can really win and defeat the mother f-  Defeat the beast.  To give a bit of European context, because there was to be the word Europe in my presentation.  For Europe, it's the European Commission that negotiate.  And the European Commission was a very nice nectar.  I tell you, we won't go beyond the EU hockey.  The EU hockey is the technocratic name for the EU legislation.  We won't go beyond the EU hockey.  And which is supposed to be reassuring.  But indeed, we will see if they're right or not.  Or if their interpretation of the EU hockey matches with ours only when the whole will  be signed, which is very, very, very, very, very little margin of maneuver.  Well, what we learned recently is that they are negotiating for the EU, but for the criminal  sanctions, the most violent and dangerous and broad part of ACTA is not negotiated by  them.  It's negotiated by the presidency of the Council of the EU.  So Mr. Luc de Vigne may have been right when he said, we won't go beyond the EU hockey.  Because he leaves this to the presidency.  Our unelected representatives of all governments that do it besides here again with no accountability  and so on.  So my prescription for this is a very high dose of light and exposure.  You know, it is called a vampire strategy.  You know a vampire in the dark, when you point light on it.  So consider that we all have a tiny LED light, a very small one.  What we have to do is to light it up at the very same moment and point it towards the  same direction.  This is what we can do using the internet.  This is what we try to help you, to help everyone willing to do so, to do.  And I think that this is really what we have to do in order to protect the internet before  it's not the internet anymore.  Thank you very much.  So there were so many trolls in my presentation that I assume there are questions.  There are microphones.  Just one small thing I didn't really get.  You started with the highest court ruling from France that clearly said there is, the  internet is part of the freedom of speech regulation.  And access should not be limited.  And how does this comply with the three strikes rule that you actually have?  Sure that you don't want the full details or maybe we can discuss them afterwards.  The whole ad-opis was some kind of legal Lego, a huge pile of very dirty Lego.  This decision overturned the low ad-opis.  So it's a major blow for the French government.  And it literally says, as it is part of fundamental rights, you cannot use an administrative authority  like the one you designed that will order restrictions of fundamental rights like this.  So the government, no, actually Nicola Sarkozy went furious first and is reported to have  shouted, this is my law and I will have it.  He's also reported that Carla asked him the day of the ruling, but don't they have lawyers  in the Ministry of Culture?  And that this would have sealed the fate of Christine Albanel, God bless her soul.  So he said, this is my law and I will have it.  So he ordered the folks in the Ministry of Culture to circumvent that decision of the  constitutional council.  And so they invented a very light procedure that goes through the judge.  The judge is the guardian of fundamental rights and freedom.  So the judge can restrict your fundamental freedom.  The judge can put you in jail, which is an obvious restriction to your freedom of movement  because he's a judge.  And so they invented a very express procedure where the judge will rob a stamp, the things.  I'll give you the details about you're not guilty of IPR infringement, but guilty of  not having secured your internet access against it being used for copyright infringement.  Because copyright infringement is a criminal offense that you need evidence to demonstrate  prejudice and so on.  So this became an administrative offense.  The funny thing is the Ministry of Culture now has to publish a list of tools that will  allow you to secure your internet access against it being used for IPR infringement, which  is very funny because it's not technically feasible.  And until they do this, there will be no sanction at all.  So for now, Adobe is a lame duck, a dead duck or whatever duck or just dead.  So it will not practically be executable?  No, it won't.  Next question.  Show me.  I'd just like to come in on where I differed with you just earlier.  The two provisions that I...  Can you hear me for this one?  Yeah, the provisions which I presented are having been through this and spent months  and months peeling through the amendments that were presented in the telecoms package  and what we ended up with.  The ones that I presented were the important ones that the NPA and the IP lobbied for.  They are in a very slightly different form from the original form that they lobbied  for, but they are actually the important ones.  The lawful content, although it would have made things worse arguably, it would have  strengthened what they wanted, but the two important provisions were those two and they  were in there right at the beginning and they're still there.  So that's kind of why I meant I wasn't meaning to be contradictory.  There were more than this.  There was also the thing about the sending of messages and the type of sanctions and  also the fact that the actors interested in the protection of lawful content might not  be the same as the one in the promotion.  Also the positive parts and overall the political context around it that will guide the interpretation  in the member states is at least as important.  The political context is very important, but how they will do it, they do it in two.  It's so simple.  It's amazing.  They literally change your contract and they make this general obligation and that's actually  all they need to do and that is what is actually quite scary.  Are there other questions?  Yeah, there is one here.  And yeah, this is a very interesting point is that they will use restriction, there's  a question, restriction through contract law with ACTA, they will make such a burden  on the internet operators up to help them liable for the transmission or storage of  copyrighted material that the operators themselves will be forced to implement policies restricting  access or publication or so on.  So this is a very interesting point is that now they intend to force operators to use contract  laws and thank you for reminding me because I forgot to talk about it earlier.  So we have to be very, very careful of those contracts and what the operators do and under  which pressure.  Oh, there would be so many things to talk about how, what can we do positively with  the net, but after hearing you and my only question is what are we going to do against  the vampires in Geneva in June life?  I mean, is there any, I mean, we have to be there and we have to show out because I think  that's that put more pressure on them and put so what are we doing against the vampires  live in general in June?  I can tell you about the state of my reflection on the topic, which is not definitive.  And as usually it might be decided in the very few hours before maybe building a nice  image of ourselves in front of those big buildings, opaque and close to us being chained to whatever  laptop or Mickey Mouse head or looking like we're censored or restricted in any way or  and just build images, bring journalists to say, look what we have to show about what  they are doing or something like this.  I don't believe in huge protests because you know in France we, we do huge protests with  millions of people and we cannot achieve that.  But building images and spreading them around is a way of giving or or interpretation of  the facts.  And therefore we write the story.  And this is very important.  This is what we did on the Adopillo.  It was passed in a in a quasi dead form and everybody in France in the general public,  you ask, oh, you know the Adopillo?  Oh, yes, that dead thing that won't work.  Oh, yeah, that thing that is obsolete already.  There was an opinion poll asking a representative, indeed, panel, people what they thought about  the overturn of the law and 66% of them said, oh, it's a good thing.  Have you ever heard of opinion polls about what people think of a decision of the constitutional  court of their country?  So it really gives an idea on how strong the public debate was on this.  So we are building the public debate.  We are building the public opinion.  We are the public and we are the voters in the end.  So I think we should use this kind of tools.  Yeah, we're going to Geneva.  Yeah, sure.  Let's go.  Any question?  Please.  I got three stickers for people asking questions.  Very cool stickers.  Yeah, Mickey Mouse stickers, indeed.  No question?  There's one.  Thank you.  So first I want to thank you and congratulate you with your great work in France, which is  really fantastic because France was kind of the cannery in the coal mine.  I'm looking for what's going to happen all over the world now.  And I think, I guess my question is, you guys have been successful in France because you're  a number of talented people.  You have all the different mechanisms needed to both do the stuff in the legislative level  and also the PR, et cetera.  But there seems to be no institution that can match the tenaciousness and the power  in the people loving for ACTA, both in Europe but also worldwide.  So I guess my question is, how can people unite to get a strength that is equal to that,  which is behind ACTA?  Thank you.  It is a very good and tough question.  It's indeed at the heart of our reflection on how to build our action.  And on the telecoms package, we have been very successful at communicating what there  was to do when there was, it was time to do it and who had to do it and so on.  So we build those packaged actions and spread them.  Sometimes people think, yeah, it is a good thing to do and just do it.  One parameter, and we saw this over and over again and we have difference of interpretation  with some people around this, is that I think it's no use to try to centralize the action.  We don't want at all to become the center of all this because at some point I will need  some vacation badly.  The thing is to show people how to do it and at the image of the internet itself, try  to parallelize, distribute and explore and exploit the variety.  The yes, I'm over time.  Yeah.  Yeah.  Just to finish.  Explore the variety of opinions and actions and yeah, use the creativity.  And we issued some logos, people remixed them, put them into movies, put them on top  of the letters or mail, the sand and so on.  So let's reuse collectively all we can produce about it and try to do our best and try to  parallelize all tiny LEDs.  Uh huh.
re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_0_755.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_756_1079.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_1080_13427.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_13428_13847.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_13848_14723.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_14724_14975.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_14976_16127.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_16128_16175.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_16176_16583.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_16584_19535.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_19536_19619.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_19620_21491.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_21492_23567.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_23568_27491.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_27492_27671.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_27672_27719.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_27720_27875.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_27876_27923.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_27924_31139.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_31140_35831.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_35832_38927.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_38928_41363.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_41364_44879.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_44880_46127.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_46128_47219.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_47220_47267.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_47268_53591.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_53592_55163.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_55164_56171.png re_publica_2010_-_Jeremie_Zimmermann_-_net_neutrality_and_threats_to_fundamental_rights_in_europa_2_56172_56172.png