Jason Deans, (London) Guardian; Peers 'set to offer digital economy bill concessions':
"Peers will reportedly offer concessions over controversial anti-piracy legislation that would lead to websites being blocked without due judicial process, following criticism from internet companies including Google, Facebook and Yahoo.
The Liberal Democrats are planning to publish changes to an earlier amendment to the digital economy bill, 120A, that seek to address concerns about the anti-piracy proposals raised by internet service providers and leading web companies, according to today's Financial Times.
Last week Lib Dem and Conservatives peers added amendment 120A to the bill giving a high court judge the right to issue an injunction against a website accused of hosting a "substantial" amount of copyright infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline. The amendment was passed in the House of Lords by 165 votes to 140.
Under three changes proposed by the Lib Dems, of which the FT reports the Conservatives are broadly supportive, a judge could order copyright owners to pay legal costs and other compensation for asking a service provider to block a site. Content owners must also inform owners of sites they accuse of infringing their copyright before asking that it be blocked, and list the works illegally hosted.
Website owners or "any person aggrieved" would be able to appeal against a block under the latest amendments.
The Lib Dems are expected to publish the amendment today and they will be voted on in the Lords on Monday as part of the third reading of the digital economy bill, according to the FT.
Earlier this week a group of internet and technology companies, along with consumer groups, co-signed a letter published in the FT criticising amendment 120A. They said it raised "myriad legal, technical and practical issues" that needed to be reconciled before it could be "considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option".
The letter was co-signed by the heads of the four largest UK internet service providers – BT, Orange, Virgin Media and TalkTalk – as well as Google, Facebook, eBay and Yahoo, along with consumer groups, academics and the technophile television host Stephen Fry."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/12/piracy-internet
Showing posts with label digital economy bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital economy bill. Show all posts
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
British Online Copyright Laws Draw Debates; New York Times, 3/4/10
Nick Bilton, New York Times; British Online Copyright Laws Draw Debates:
"An article published on Thursday in, The Guardian, discusses a debate taking place in the British Parliament around a new “digital economy bill.”
One amendment in particular is stirring a lot of discussion about its impact on content online. The Guardian writes:
The new proposal – which was passed in the House of Lords by 165 votes to 140 – gives a high court judge the right to issue an injunction against a Web site accused of hosting a “substantial” amount of copyright infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline.
Critics say the major problem with this amendment is that a judge could shut down a Web site because of copyright infringement, even if the site’s manager didn’t put the content online.
What is left unanswered is how a company can be held accountable for every piece of content placed on its site. Many critics of this bill and others in Europe say it is most likely to result in the stifling of creativity, innovation and free speech. In the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act offers some protection against liability to Internet service providers and Web sites that host copyrighted material uploaded by third parties.
There are similar tensions over Internet content and privacy elsewhere in Europe. Last week the Italian court held three of Google’s top executives accountable for a defamatory video placed on YouTube by teenagers. And the French parliament approved a recent bill that will crack down on Internet piracy by banning people from the Web if they are caught downloading copyrighted content more than three times.
When it comes to the Italian ruling in the YouTube case, Google has argued that it can’t possibly police every piece of content entering its Web site. Every minute on YouTube there are over 20 hours of video uploaded to the site, which ads up to nearly 30,000 hours of video a day. Google, it can be argued, might have the resources to hire thousands of people needed to view every video. But every other video, image, music and storage Web site would also have to monitor its content.
Monitoring that content is financially, and probably physically, impossible.
Some also argue that strict legal cases, including the latest British laws, would deter some companies from operating within these countries for fear that the potential legal costs could outweigh the returns."
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/british-online-copyright-laws-draw-debates/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
"An article published on Thursday in, The Guardian, discusses a debate taking place in the British Parliament around a new “digital economy bill.”
One amendment in particular is stirring a lot of discussion about its impact on content online. The Guardian writes:
The new proposal – which was passed in the House of Lords by 165 votes to 140 – gives a high court judge the right to issue an injunction against a Web site accused of hosting a “substantial” amount of copyright infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline.
Critics say the major problem with this amendment is that a judge could shut down a Web site because of copyright infringement, even if the site’s manager didn’t put the content online.
What is left unanswered is how a company can be held accountable for every piece of content placed on its site. Many critics of this bill and others in Europe say it is most likely to result in the stifling of creativity, innovation and free speech. In the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act offers some protection against liability to Internet service providers and Web sites that host copyrighted material uploaded by third parties.
There are similar tensions over Internet content and privacy elsewhere in Europe. Last week the Italian court held three of Google’s top executives accountable for a defamatory video placed on YouTube by teenagers. And the French parliament approved a recent bill that will crack down on Internet piracy by banning people from the Web if they are caught downloading copyrighted content more than three times.
When it comes to the Italian ruling in the YouTube case, Google has argued that it can’t possibly police every piece of content entering its Web site. Every minute on YouTube there are over 20 hours of video uploaded to the site, which ads up to nearly 30,000 hours of video a day. Google, it can be argued, might have the resources to hire thousands of people needed to view every video. But every other video, image, music and storage Web site would also have to monitor its content.
Monitoring that content is financially, and probably physically, impossible.
Some also argue that strict legal cases, including the latest British laws, would deter some companies from operating within these countries for fear that the potential legal costs could outweigh the returns."
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/british-online-copyright-laws-draw-debates/?scp=1&sq=copyright&st=cse
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Internet companies urge Mandelson to delete clause from digital economy bill; Guardian, 12/
Katie Allen, Guardian; Internet companies urge Mandelson to delete clause from digital economy bill:
Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay call on business secretary not to grant wide powers to ministers to alter copyright law
"Leading internet companies including Google have written to business secretary Peter Mandelson urging him to change the new digital economy bill to throw out a controversial clause that could give future ministers sweeping powers to change copyright law.
Their letter, sent to coincide with today's second reading of the recently announced bill in the Lords, voices support for parts of the bill and a "shared respect" for copyright. But Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay also express "grave concerns" over proposed measures "which risk stifling innovation and damaging the government's vision for a digital Britain."
They highlight elements of Mandelson's bill introduced at the 11th hour: "In particular, we believe the bill's clause 17 – which gives any future secretary of state unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – opens the way for arbitrary measures. This power could be used, for example, to introduce additional technical measures or increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place," the letter said.
The internet companies warn that such an unclear copyright backdrop could run counter to former communications minister Stephen Carter's Digital Britain report, which examined ways to ensure the UK remained at the leading edge of the global digital economy.
"This would discourage innovation, impose unnecessary costs, potentially unsettling the careful balance of responsibilities for enabling market change which Lord Carter outlined in the Digital Britain report," the letter said. "This clause is so wide that it could put at risk legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments ... The industry as a whole had hoped that the outcome of Digital Britain would be a clear, workable set of principles by which the industry could operate. On the contrary, clause 17 creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses and puts at risk the UK's leading position in a digital Europe. We urge you to remove clause 17 from the bill."
A spokesman for Mandelson's department sought to reassure the internet companies the government would not abuse any future powers.
"The law must keep pace with technology, so that the government can act if new ways of seriously infringing copyright develop in the future. However, business will not wake up one morning to a world in which government has taken extensive digital powers," he said.
While the digital economy bill was welcomed by many media companies, which feel their copyright on music, film and other content need better protection online, it has also faced a large amount of opposition from internet service providers and consumer groups.
Carphone Warehouse boss Charles Dunstone recently condemned as "crazy" plans to combat online piracy by severing people's broadband connections. The group's broadband arm, TalkTalk, has threatened to take legal action if proposals to cut off persistent unlawful online file sharers make it into law.
An e-petition on the No 10 website against the law has already garnered more than 28,000 signatories and the support of such technophiles as Stephen Fry."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/digital-economy-bill-google-facebook
Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay call on business secretary not to grant wide powers to ministers to alter copyright law
"Leading internet companies including Google have written to business secretary Peter Mandelson urging him to change the new digital economy bill to throw out a controversial clause that could give future ministers sweeping powers to change copyright law.
Their letter, sent to coincide with today's second reading of the recently announced bill in the Lords, voices support for parts of the bill and a "shared respect" for copyright. But Google, Facebook, Yahoo and eBay also express "grave concerns" over proposed measures "which risk stifling innovation and damaging the government's vision for a digital Britain."
They highlight elements of Mandelson's bill introduced at the 11th hour: "In particular, we believe the bill's clause 17 – which gives any future secretary of state unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – opens the way for arbitrary measures. This power could be used, for example, to introduce additional technical measures or increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place," the letter said.
The internet companies warn that such an unclear copyright backdrop could run counter to former communications minister Stephen Carter's Digital Britain report, which examined ways to ensure the UK remained at the leading edge of the global digital economy.
"This would discourage innovation, impose unnecessary costs, potentially unsettling the careful balance of responsibilities for enabling market change which Lord Carter outlined in the Digital Britain report," the letter said. "This clause is so wide that it could put at risk legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments ... The industry as a whole had hoped that the outcome of Digital Britain would be a clear, workable set of principles by which the industry could operate. On the contrary, clause 17 creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses and puts at risk the UK's leading position in a digital Europe. We urge you to remove clause 17 from the bill."
A spokesman for Mandelson's department sought to reassure the internet companies the government would not abuse any future powers.
"The law must keep pace with technology, so that the government can act if new ways of seriously infringing copyright develop in the future. However, business will not wake up one morning to a world in which government has taken extensive digital powers," he said.
While the digital economy bill was welcomed by many media companies, which feel their copyright on music, film and other content need better protection online, it has also faced a large amount of opposition from internet service providers and consumer groups.
Carphone Warehouse boss Charles Dunstone recently condemned as "crazy" plans to combat online piracy by severing people's broadband connections. The group's broadband arm, TalkTalk, has threatened to take legal action if proposals to cut off persistent unlawful online file sharers make it into law.
An e-petition on the No 10 website against the law has already garnered more than 28,000 signatories and the support of such technophiles as Stephen Fry."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/02/digital-economy-bill-google-facebook
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Pub fined £8,000 for customer's illicit downloads, ZDNet reports; Guardian, 11/27/09
Charles Arthur, Guardian; Pub fined £8,000 for customer's illicit downloads, ZDNet reports:
A pub owner has had to pay £8,000 after someone used its open wireless hotspot to download copyrighted material unlawfully, says the managing director of the hotspot provider The Cloud
"A pub owner has had to pay £8,000 after someone used its open wireless hotspot to download copyrighted material unlawfully, says the managing director of the hotspot provider The Cloud.
Graham Cove, MD of The Cloud, told ZDNet UK that the case, brought in the civil courts, is believed to be the first of its kind in the UK.
A legal expert told ZDNet UK that if the Digital Economy bill, proposed by the government last week, passes in its present form then the problem for hotspot providers could get worse, because under its rules the owner of the copyrighted material would simply target the internet address of the hotspot and look no further. In this case, that would be the pub.
Cove declined to name the pub involved in the case because the pub chain that owns is it is a client of The Cloud's, has not given its permission. Its clients include Fullers, Greene King, Marsdens, Scottish & Newcastle, Mitchell & Butlers and Punch Taverns.
Although copyright owners have brought infringement cases against individuals before in the UK, this case is believed to be the first where the operator of a hotspot - where people can buy or get free access to a high-speed wireless internet connection - has been successfully sued.
Professor Lilian Edwards, of the school of law at the University of Sheffield, told ZDNet UK that businesses operating a hotspot for customers or visitors would be "not responsible in theory" for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright law".
However the business would not be at risk of being cut off under the "three strikes" rule in the Digital Economy bill: it would have an exemption on the basis that it is not a "subscriber"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/27/pub-file-sharing-cloud-fine
A pub owner has had to pay £8,000 after someone used its open wireless hotspot to download copyrighted material unlawfully, says the managing director of the hotspot provider The Cloud
"A pub owner has had to pay £8,000 after someone used its open wireless hotspot to download copyrighted material unlawfully, says the managing director of the hotspot provider The Cloud.
Graham Cove, MD of The Cloud, told ZDNet UK that the case, brought in the civil courts, is believed to be the first of its kind in the UK.
A legal expert told ZDNet UK that if the Digital Economy bill, proposed by the government last week, passes in its present form then the problem for hotspot providers could get worse, because under its rules the owner of the copyrighted material would simply target the internet address of the hotspot and look no further. In this case, that would be the pub.
Cove declined to name the pub involved in the case because the pub chain that owns is it is a client of The Cloud's, has not given its permission. Its clients include Fullers, Greene King, Marsdens, Scottish & Newcastle, Mitchell & Butlers and Punch Taverns.
Although copyright owners have brought infringement cases against individuals before in the UK, this case is believed to be the first where the operator of a hotspot - where people can buy or get free access to a high-speed wireless internet connection - has been successfully sued.
Professor Lilian Edwards, of the school of law at the University of Sheffield, told ZDNet UK that businesses operating a hotspot for customers or visitors would be "not responsible in theory" for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright law".
However the business would not be at risk of being cut off under the "three strikes" rule in the Digital Economy bill: it would have an exemption on the basis that it is not a "subscriber"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/nov/27/pub-file-sharing-cloud-fine
Friday, November 27, 2009
Why does Mandelson favour the Analogue Economy over the Digital?; Guardian, 11/26/09
Cory Doctorow, Guardian; Why does Mandelson favour the Analogue Economy over the Digital?:
Britons' love for filesharing is here to stay – and Peter Mandelson had better get used to it
"There's a lot to hate about Peter Mandelson's controversial Digital Economy Bill, but there's one provision that perfectly captures the absolute, reality-denying absurdity of the whole enterprise. That titbit is the provision that holds the Bill's most drastic measures in reserve, only to be used if Britain's illegal filesharing doesn't drop off by 70% within a year of the main part of the Bill coming into force.
The idea that, at some time in the future, the volume of unauthorised copying will somehow drop off at all (let alone by an astounding 70%), is, frankly, barking. For that to happen, Britain's general capacity for copying would have to decline faster than the increase in the British desire to make unauthorised copies.
Where does Britain's capacity to copy spring from?
First, from the increase in the speed of computers: faster computers can copy faster and better."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/digital-economy-file-sharing-mandelson
Britons' love for filesharing is here to stay – and Peter Mandelson had better get used to it
"There's a lot to hate about Peter Mandelson's controversial Digital Economy Bill, but there's one provision that perfectly captures the absolute, reality-denying absurdity of the whole enterprise. That titbit is the provision that holds the Bill's most drastic measures in reserve, only to be used if Britain's illegal filesharing doesn't drop off by 70% within a year of the main part of the Bill coming into force.
The idea that, at some time in the future, the volume of unauthorised copying will somehow drop off at all (let alone by an astounding 70%), is, frankly, barking. For that to happen, Britain's general capacity for copying would have to decline faster than the increase in the British desire to make unauthorised copies.
Where does Britain's capacity to copy spring from?
First, from the increase in the speed of computers: faster computers can copy faster and better."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/digital-economy-file-sharing-mandelson
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.; Boing Boing, 11/20/09
Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing; Britain's new Internet law -- as bad as everyone's been saying, and worse. Much, much worse.:
"The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).
But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.
What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
"The British government has brought down its long-awaited Digital Economy Bill, and it's perfectly useless and terrible. It consists almost entirely of penalties for people who do things that upset the entertainment industry (including the "three-strikes" rule that allows your entire family to be cut off from the net if anyone who lives in your house is accused of copyright infringement, without proof or evidence or trial), as well as a plan to beat the hell out of the video-game industry with a new, even dumber rating system (why is it acceptable for the government to declare that some forms of artwork have to be mandatorily labelled as to their suitability for kids? And why is it only some media? Why not paintings? Why not novels? Why not modern dance or ballet or opera?).
So it's bad. £50,000 fines if someone in your house is accused of filesharing. A duty on ISPs to spy on all their customers in case they find something that would help the record or film industry sue them (ISPs who refuse to cooperate can be fined £250,000).
But that's just for starters. The real meat is in the story we broke yesterday: Peter Mandelson, the unelected Business Secretary, would have to power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes. And he says he's planning to appoint private militias financed by rightsholder groups who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files or the blocking of websites, and Mandelson will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any transgression he deems you are guilty of. And of course, Mandelson's successor in the next government would also have this power.
What isn't in there? Anything about stimulating the actual digital economy. Nothing about ensuring that broadband is cheap, fast and neutral. Nothing about getting Britain's poorest connected to the net. Nothing about ensuring that copyright rules get out of the way of entrepreneurship and the freedom to create new things. Nothing to ensure that schoolkids get the best tools in the world to create with, and can freely use the publicly funded media -- BBC, Channel 4, BFI, Arts Council grantees -- to make new media and so grow up to turn Britain into a powerhouse of tech-savvy creators."
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html
UK "Pirate Finder General" law innocuous now, could get ugly; Ars Technica, 11/22/09
Nate Anderson, Ars Technica; UK "Pirate Finder General" law innocuous now, could get ugly:
Just two days after the Queen announced that an online copyright enforcement bill was coming, it landed in the House of Lords. It has no sanctions, no "three-strikes" rules, and no fines—but it gives one official the power to levy them at any time in the future.
"The Queen announced on Wednesday that her government would deliver Internet piracy legislation; today it arrived in the form of the massive Digital Economy bill meant to modernize the UK's approach to everything from copyrights to broadband to video game ratings to domain names. The bill contains no sanctions against suspected P2P file-swappers, but it introduces a "reserve power" that can be deployed whenever the Secretary of State feels that it's time to bust out the switch and administer some beatings.
The bill implements the Digital Britain report, which was completed earlier this year and attempted to chart a course forward for Britain in a high-tech world. It initially imposes two obligations on ISPs: they must forward warning letters from copyright holders to their subscribers, and they must maintain an anonymized list of the number of such warnings received by each subscriber. If a copyright holder asks, they must be shown the list, at which point the rightsholder can go to court and seek to uncover the names of the top offenders, and then sue them.
There are no sanctions, but such sanctions could be coming. The government has written "reserve powers" into the law that can be deployed at a later date without needing Parliamentary approval. What powers are those? Here's how the bill describes them:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend Part 1 or this Part for the purpose of preventing or reducing the infringement of copyright by means of the Internet, if it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so having regard to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur."
In other words, whenever the Secretary of State decides that speed throttling or Internet disconnections are a good idea, he can implement them with a simple order. The government insists that such power will be introduced only against the "most serious infringers" and only "in the event the initial obligations do not prove as effective as expected."
Public outrage
But the prospect is clearly on the table in this bill. That has kicked up furious opposition since the idea was floated back in April; public opinion was so against the idea—which came weeks after current Secretary of State Peter Mandelson vacationed with media mogul David Geffen—that the government had to publish a response called "Filesharing: some accusations and some answers."
Clearly sensitive to public outrage, the drafters of the Digital Economy bill go out of their way to explain that "introducing account suspension is by no means a given. If the initial obligations prove as effective as we expect, we will not need to introduce technical measures… We recognize that there is some concern over the proportionality of this measure [disconnection], and so we will ensure that the interests of consumers are properly recognized."
This is very much a "take our word for it" approach, since the bill does not appear to contain such safeguards. Indeed, the Secretary of State is given broad powers to give or remove rights and even to impose fines of his or her own choosing.
But there are two safeguards; the idea that the bill suddenly creates a totally autonomous Pirate Finder General who can go on a crazed seek-and-destroy mission and implement any rules he or she chooses has both a political and a Parliamentary limit. The political limit is that the bill requires any new order drafted by the Secretary of State to first be put up for public comment."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/uk-pirate-finder-general-law-innocuous-now-could-get-ugly.ars
Just two days after the Queen announced that an online copyright enforcement bill was coming, it landed in the House of Lords. It has no sanctions, no "three-strikes" rules, and no fines—but it gives one official the power to levy them at any time in the future.
"The Queen announced on Wednesday that her government would deliver Internet piracy legislation; today it arrived in the form of the massive Digital Economy bill meant to modernize the UK's approach to everything from copyrights to broadband to video game ratings to domain names. The bill contains no sanctions against suspected P2P file-swappers, but it introduces a "reserve power" that can be deployed whenever the Secretary of State feels that it's time to bust out the switch and administer some beatings.
The bill implements the Digital Britain report, which was completed earlier this year and attempted to chart a course forward for Britain in a high-tech world. It initially imposes two obligations on ISPs: they must forward warning letters from copyright holders to their subscribers, and they must maintain an anonymized list of the number of such warnings received by each subscriber. If a copyright holder asks, they must be shown the list, at which point the rightsholder can go to court and seek to uncover the names of the top offenders, and then sue them.
There are no sanctions, but such sanctions could be coming. The government has written "reserve powers" into the law that can be deployed at a later date without needing Parliamentary approval. What powers are those? Here's how the bill describes them:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend Part 1 or this Part for the purpose of preventing or reducing the infringement of copyright by means of the Internet, if it appears to the Secretary of State appropriate to do so having regard to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur."
In other words, whenever the Secretary of State decides that speed throttling or Internet disconnections are a good idea, he can implement them with a simple order. The government insists that such power will be introduced only against the "most serious infringers" and only "in the event the initial obligations do not prove as effective as expected."
Public outrage
But the prospect is clearly on the table in this bill. That has kicked up furious opposition since the idea was floated back in April; public opinion was so against the idea—which came weeks after current Secretary of State Peter Mandelson vacationed with media mogul David Geffen—that the government had to publish a response called "Filesharing: some accusations and some answers."
Clearly sensitive to public outrage, the drafters of the Digital Economy bill go out of their way to explain that "introducing account suspension is by no means a given. If the initial obligations prove as effective as we expect, we will not need to introduce technical measures… We recognize that there is some concern over the proportionality of this measure [disconnection], and so we will ensure that the interests of consumers are properly recognized."
This is very much a "take our word for it" approach, since the bill does not appear to contain such safeguards. Indeed, the Secretary of State is given broad powers to give or remove rights and even to impose fines of his or her own choosing.
But there are two safeguards; the idea that the bill suddenly creates a totally autonomous Pirate Finder General who can go on a crazed seek-and-destroy mission and implement any rules he or she chooses has both a political and a Parliamentary limit. The political limit is that the bill requires any new order drafted by the Secretary of State to first be put up for public comment."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/uk-pirate-finder-general-law-innocuous-now-could-get-ugly.ars
Bradshaw takes the gloves off; Guardian, 11/23/09
James Robinson, Guardian; Bradshaw takes the gloves off:
"On the eve of the bill determining Britain's digital future, Ben Bradshaw attacks the Tory leader's 'pact' with the Murdochs and defends the BBC, if not its Trust, from its 'circling enemies'. He speaks to James Robinson"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/23/ben-bradshaw-digital-economy-bill
"On the eve of the bill determining Britain's digital future, Ben Bradshaw attacks the Tory leader's 'pact' with the Murdochs and defends the BBC, if not its Trust, from its 'circling enemies'. He speaks to James Robinson"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/23/ben-bradshaw-digital-economy-bill
Call it by its name – this is theft; Guardian, 11/23/09
Richard Scudamore, Guardian; Call it by its name – this is theft:
The Digital Economy bill must pass safely or the creative industries will start to die
"Part of the strength of the British economy recently has been its ability to adapt as the world, and what consumers expect, have changed. Its flexibility, resilience and mixed nature should stand us in good stead as we, and the rest of the world, exit recession.
Nowhere should this be more so than in the UK's creative economy. We are leaders in film, music, publishing, TV production and sports rights – British popular culture, sport and production values are viewed as among the best in the world. This creative sector now accounts for more than 8% of our GDP and puts us in a good position to take advantage of the ever-increasing "new economy" – and of emerging markets as the takeup of technology advances.
There are threats as well as opportunities, not least the challenges presented by online copyright infringement, more commonly known as piracy. I prefer to call it by its real name – digital theft.
The reality is that unauthorised peer-to-peer filesharing, among other forms of illegal streaming, presents a very real threat. These burgeoning industries are based on a high-investment model, driving consumer demand – or in the Premier League's case, fan demand – by providing what the public want: a quality product. In football, this entails acquiring, or developing, the best possible talent and playing the matches in arguably the finest club stadiums in the world. The whole industry benefits.
It's the same with film or music – the investment model only works if you are giving consumers what they want. The very fact we are providing great content is the main reason people want to try to take it for nothing – if it wasn't very good, I doubt it would be of interest. There is not much of a market for the live streaming of the matches played on Sundays on Hackney Marshes.
There is much debate about how the creative industries should be reacting to digital theft – developing business models, educating their consumers, seeking regulatory intervention and legislative protection. That is why we have come together to form the Creative Coalition; we recognise that inevitably the answer is a mixture of all of these.
The digital economy bill demonstrates that the government is aware of the importance of these industries. It also sets out how the different areas of the creative economy can work together to tackle digital theft. The graduated response to repeat offenders, sharing the cost of enforcement and setting out responsibilities will be just as useful to the ISPs as the content providers.
The bill is a start, but it needs to stay in good shape as it progresses because digital theft is reaching epidemic proportions and shows no signs of abating. Currently, it is estimated that more than 6 million people illegally fileshare regularly, and the UK leads the world in illegal downloads of TV programmes, with up to 25% of all online TV piracy taking place here. This is a statistic that should fill us with little pride.
Without the safe passage of the bill – requiring ISPs to take firm measures against unauthorised filesharers who are currently streaming and downloading with virtual impunity – the marker that this is theft isn't even set down, educating consumers cannot begin in earnest, businesses cannot begin to develop new models because the market won't be functioning properly and, most importantly of all, the current levels of investment that create jobs as well as talent will be lost. And that is when the real cost of digital theft would become apparent.
• Richard Scudamore is the chief executive of the Premier League and a member of the Creative Coalition"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/nov/23/creativ-coaltion-digital-bill
The Digital Economy bill must pass safely or the creative industries will start to die
"Part of the strength of the British economy recently has been its ability to adapt as the world, and what consumers expect, have changed. Its flexibility, resilience and mixed nature should stand us in good stead as we, and the rest of the world, exit recession.
Nowhere should this be more so than in the UK's creative economy. We are leaders in film, music, publishing, TV production and sports rights – British popular culture, sport and production values are viewed as among the best in the world. This creative sector now accounts for more than 8% of our GDP and puts us in a good position to take advantage of the ever-increasing "new economy" – and of emerging markets as the takeup of technology advances.
There are threats as well as opportunities, not least the challenges presented by online copyright infringement, more commonly known as piracy. I prefer to call it by its real name – digital theft.
The reality is that unauthorised peer-to-peer filesharing, among other forms of illegal streaming, presents a very real threat. These burgeoning industries are based on a high-investment model, driving consumer demand – or in the Premier League's case, fan demand – by providing what the public want: a quality product. In football, this entails acquiring, or developing, the best possible talent and playing the matches in arguably the finest club stadiums in the world. The whole industry benefits.
It's the same with film or music – the investment model only works if you are giving consumers what they want. The very fact we are providing great content is the main reason people want to try to take it for nothing – if it wasn't very good, I doubt it would be of interest. There is not much of a market for the live streaming of the matches played on Sundays on Hackney Marshes.
There is much debate about how the creative industries should be reacting to digital theft – developing business models, educating their consumers, seeking regulatory intervention and legislative protection. That is why we have come together to form the Creative Coalition; we recognise that inevitably the answer is a mixture of all of these.
The digital economy bill demonstrates that the government is aware of the importance of these industries. It also sets out how the different areas of the creative economy can work together to tackle digital theft. The graduated response to repeat offenders, sharing the cost of enforcement and setting out responsibilities will be just as useful to the ISPs as the content providers.
The bill is a start, but it needs to stay in good shape as it progresses because digital theft is reaching epidemic proportions and shows no signs of abating. Currently, it is estimated that more than 6 million people illegally fileshare regularly, and the UK leads the world in illegal downloads of TV programmes, with up to 25% of all online TV piracy taking place here. This is a statistic that should fill us with little pride.
Without the safe passage of the bill – requiring ISPs to take firm measures against unauthorised filesharers who are currently streaming and downloading with virtual impunity – the marker that this is theft isn't even set down, educating consumers cannot begin in earnest, businesses cannot begin to develop new models because the market won't be functioning properly and, most importantly of all, the current levels of investment that create jobs as well as talent will be lost. And that is when the real cost of digital theft would become apparent.
• Richard Scudamore is the chief executive of the Premier League and a member of the Creative Coalition"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/nov/23/creativ-coaltion-digital-bill
OpEd: Digital economy bill: A punishing future; Guardian, 11/23/09
OpEd, Guardian; Digital economy bill: A punishing future:
"The digital economy bill is misnamed. A more honest title for the legislation, recently introduced in the Lords, would be the copyright protection and punishment bill. It is less about creating the digital businesses of the 21st century than protecting the particular 20th century business models used in music and film.
The bill is narrow in vision but dangerously broad in creating sweeping ministerial powers to punish digital pirates. It boils Digital Britain down to three Ms – media, music and movies – myopically ignoring the pioneers of new technology, and showing a blind spot for all creativity outside the so-called creative industries. Digital Britain is much more than digital media – there are the start-ups of London's Silicon Roundabout, the great success story of Cambridge chip designer ARM and the small businesses all over the land using the net to open up opportunities. Instead of empowering digital Britons, the bill follows the lead of music and movie corporations, who already apply a presumption of guilt to their customers. Instead of treating the web as a platform of possibilities, it recasts it as a tool for mass theft.
The only digital thing about this bill is the cut-and-paste facility it grants the secretary of state to redefine the copyright laws and increase maximum penalties. The government may argue, with some force, that it needs flexibility to ensure the rules keep pace with technology. But granting this administration – or any future one – such latitude to rewrite crucial laws on the fly, with only the merest figleaf of parliamentary oversight, is a dangerous precedent, and one sure to inspire future abuses – of democratic as well as digital rights.
Vague laws create opportunities for unintended consequences and offer an open invitation for aggressive lobbying. If it is understood that the secretary of state has it within his gift to change the rules on a whim, then Rupert Murdoch, for instance, could soon be advancing his war against Google in Whitehall.
While Finland enshrines web access as a human right, this bill legislates plans to deprive users of access. It will force internet service providers to become copyright police, obliging them to provide lists of violations to copyright owners. After warnings, violators will have their service crippled, or even cut off. All this will drive up the costs of web access, by piling duties on providers. Add the more defensible surcharges to pay for next generation services, and Digital Britain risks becoming a land beset by an even deeper digital divide. Instead of building on a positive vision of Digital Britain, the government has capitulated to the fears of music and movie moguls struggling to defend their multimillion-pound businesses."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/23/editorial-digital-economy-bill
"The digital economy bill is misnamed. A more honest title for the legislation, recently introduced in the Lords, would be the copyright protection and punishment bill. It is less about creating the digital businesses of the 21st century than protecting the particular 20th century business models used in music and film.
The bill is narrow in vision but dangerously broad in creating sweeping ministerial powers to punish digital pirates. It boils Digital Britain down to three Ms – media, music and movies – myopically ignoring the pioneers of new technology, and showing a blind spot for all creativity outside the so-called creative industries. Digital Britain is much more than digital media – there are the start-ups of London's Silicon Roundabout, the great success story of Cambridge chip designer ARM and the small businesses all over the land using the net to open up opportunities. Instead of empowering digital Britons, the bill follows the lead of music and movie corporations, who already apply a presumption of guilt to their customers. Instead of treating the web as a platform of possibilities, it recasts it as a tool for mass theft.
The only digital thing about this bill is the cut-and-paste facility it grants the secretary of state to redefine the copyright laws and increase maximum penalties. The government may argue, with some force, that it needs flexibility to ensure the rules keep pace with technology. But granting this administration – or any future one – such latitude to rewrite crucial laws on the fly, with only the merest figleaf of parliamentary oversight, is a dangerous precedent, and one sure to inspire future abuses – of democratic as well as digital rights.
Vague laws create opportunities for unintended consequences and offer an open invitation for aggressive lobbying. If it is understood that the secretary of state has it within his gift to change the rules on a whim, then Rupert Murdoch, for instance, could soon be advancing his war against Google in Whitehall.
While Finland enshrines web access as a human right, this bill legislates plans to deprive users of access. It will force internet service providers to become copyright police, obliging them to provide lists of violations to copyright owners. After warnings, violators will have their service crippled, or even cut off. All this will drive up the costs of web access, by piling duties on providers. Add the more defensible surcharges to pay for next generation services, and Digital Britain risks becoming a land beset by an even deeper digital divide. Instead of building on a positive vision of Digital Britain, the government has capitulated to the fears of music and movie moguls struggling to defend their multimillion-pound businesses."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/23/editorial-digital-economy-bill
Friday, November 20, 2009
Digital divide over filesharing plans; Guardian, 11/20/09
Richard Wray, Guardian; Digital divide over filesharing plans:
"The government's planned crackdown on unlawful online filesharing has been attacked by privacy campaigners and internet service providers but welcomed by executives and artists in the music business.
Earlier today, the government published the digital economy bill, the result of more than a year's consultation and debate, which includes plans to send warnings letters to persistent unlawful file-sharers and paves the way for persistent illegal sharers to have their broadband cut off from 2011...
Some critics have already suggested that the wide definition of online copyright within the bill could leave the door open for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to use the new legislation to prevent sites such as Google News from linking to his online content.
But music and film companies warmly welcomed the digital economy bill. Christine Payne, general secretary of Equity and chair of the Creative Coalition Campaign, said: "The government is doing the right thing by introducing legal measures aimed at tackling widespread online infringement of creative copyright, such as by peer-to-peer filesharing or other technologies that may emerge in the future."
"Our creative sector provides 1.8 million jobs in the UK and produces world-class content, enjoyed by millions around the world, but simply put, this cannot be sustained and more jobs will be lost if illegal filesharing persists."
Chris Marcich, president and managing director of the Motion Picture Association for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, added that Mandelson's decision to include powers in the bill to further change copyright law in future, were to be welcomed as "safeguards built in that will ensure the effectiveness of the legislation in the long-term"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/filesharing-crackdown
"The government's planned crackdown on unlawful online filesharing has been attacked by privacy campaigners and internet service providers but welcomed by executives and artists in the music business.
Earlier today, the government published the digital economy bill, the result of more than a year's consultation and debate, which includes plans to send warnings letters to persistent unlawful file-sharers and paves the way for persistent illegal sharers to have their broadband cut off from 2011...
Some critics have already suggested that the wide definition of online copyright within the bill could leave the door open for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to use the new legislation to prevent sites such as Google News from linking to his online content.
But music and film companies warmly welcomed the digital economy bill. Christine Payne, general secretary of Equity and chair of the Creative Coalition Campaign, said: "The government is doing the right thing by introducing legal measures aimed at tackling widespread online infringement of creative copyright, such as by peer-to-peer filesharing or other technologies that may emerge in the future."
"Our creative sector provides 1.8 million jobs in the UK and produces world-class content, enjoyed by millions around the world, but simply put, this cannot be sustained and more jobs will be lost if illegal filesharing persists."
Chris Marcich, president and managing director of the Motion Picture Association for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, added that Mandelson's decision to include powers in the bill to further change copyright law in future, were to be welcomed as "safeguards built in that will ensure the effectiveness of the legislation in the long-term"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/filesharing-crackdown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)