A couple of disturbing things
5 Mar
It’s been far too long since I have updated my blog and tonight I have been chilling out, reading some blogs, and it got me to thinking I really really should post an update. There are a couple of things that have been playing on my mind so that could be a good place to start!
First up the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement or ACTA is a rather secretive trade agreement that plans to enforce international standards on intellectual property rights. The jist of the act is that ISPs can give out personal information about “suspected” file-sharers without a warrant. Notice that they have used the term used ’suspected’ but nowhere is this term defined. And because it’s a Trade Agreement it does not have to be passed politically without public opposition.
Next up is the Lords Copyright Bill here in the U.K. The Liberal Democrats forced through a surprise amendment to the bill on Wednesday. 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 website accused of hosting a “substantial” amount of copyright infringing material. The judge could potentially even force the ISP to take the entire site offline.
One concern with this bill is that it could become similar to that of America’s controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act which has been accused of encouring companies to file bogus copyright claims to block material they dislike. Due to the costs of dealing with copyright claims in court many web hosts simply take down the material in question without checking whether the copyright case is legitimate. In some cases going as far as to shut down the entire website.
Last week the well-known whistleblower website Cryptome was taken offline when Microsoft issued a copyright claim under the DMCA in an attempt to suppress the publication of its so called “spy-guide”. When the site’s service provider received the request from Microsoft it not only blocked the document in question but also removed access to the entire Cryptome site. Microsoft then retracted its claim in order to let the site, which had stayed online for years despite numerous troubles with other companies and US government agencies, go back online.
This could be a big change for us in the United Kingdom considering at present hosts are under no obligations to remove website content under the terms set out in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or any other like it.
The new ammendment could also bring dire implications for websites such as YouTube, Justin.tv and uStream where users can upload, or broadcast live, copyright infringing media without the knowledge of the site’s owners. The video sharing site, owned by Google, is already in a $1bn lawsuit by US media giant Viacom but argues that it cannot screen every video that goes onto its site to check whether or not it infringes copyright.
Lilian Edwards, a cyberlaw expert at Sheffield University, said that the new proposals had some benefits but also had sweeping downsides. “For the first time, Sony and the rest can now go to court and demand that every ISP in the UK blocks YouTube,” she wrote.
If we don’t act quickly on this then we could soon find that the Internet we know and love is no longer open and free. If a country can force every ISP to block a website run by Google then really, who else has a chance?
Keepin it real K meister.
Nice article.
I’ve been observing the worrying trend towards internet censorship & control for a few years now. The Industry must stand together if we want to keep our internet and by extension our freedom. I would urge anyone who opposes this worrying trend to write to their mp now.
Here is a template provided by Alec Meer of rockpapershotgun.com
I’m writing to you today because I’m very worried that the Government is planning to rush the Digital Economy Bill into law without a full Parliamentary debate.
The law is controversial and contains many measures that concern me. The controversial Bill deserves proper scrutiny so please don’t let the government rush it through. Many people think it will damage schools and businesses as well as innocent people who rely on the internet because it will allow the Government to disconnect people it suspects of copyright infringement.
Industry experts, internet service providers (like Talk Talk and BT) and huge internet companies like Google and Yahoo are all opposing the bill – yet the Government seems intent on forcing it through without a real debate.
As a constituent I am writing to you today to ask you to do all you can to ensure the Government doesn’t just rush the bill through and deny us our democratic right to scrutiny and debate.
Frank MacDonald.
Thanks for the comments lads.
It is a very real threat to the Internet as we know it and if people don’t take a stand now then it will be too late; before we know it.
Not that copyright infringement isn’t a real threat to those creating media that is protected by intellectual rights, but there are better ways to deal with it than to take down every website linking to a few MP3s or to force popular websites be made inaccessible simply because someone has posted something that infringes copyright, sometimes unknowingly to the sites operators.
The term “if you can’t beat them, join them” comes to mind. Let’s think about this for a minute. Copyright infringement is the reason we are being given for all these new legislations yet it’s the record labels fault that the industries status online is as it is today.
Instead of starting out online by suing Napster, imagine just for a second that the record companies had started to provide music online for £0.99 a track, pick what you want, in 320kbps MP3. Who would be complaining?
They got in the game late. They are loosing mone because they didn’t sort it out sooner and now just want to take it out on every tom, dick and harry that has a website linking to a few mp3s.
The true sad state of affairs is how much political pull the record labels have and how they can lobby the politicians to quickly pass their acts. What difference does a bit of copyright infringement make to the politician? Maybe he saves a bit of money on his kids music collections; unknowingly.