Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Amendment Proposed For UK
Grumbleduke writes "During today's debate in the UK's House of Lords on the much-criticized Digital Economy Bill, the unpopular Clause 17 (which would have allowed the government to alter copyright law much more easily than it currently can) was voted out in favor of a DMCA-style take-down system for websites and ISPs. The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to pay the copyright owner's legal fees. This amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, which had so far been seen as the defenders of the internet and with the Conservative party supporting them. The UK's Pirate Party and Open Rights Group have both strongly criticized this new amendment."
Worse, it's in the ACTA treaty:
Their goal is to conclude the ACTA agreement by the end of 2010. Countries involved are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States (US) - and others will be pressured to join afterward.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Sigh, it's another kind of super injunction and of course there's a catch all, meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but "any issues of national security" or "any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant". So Mr. Billy Footballer could seek an injunction to block a website because it has a photo of him snorting coke on it, probably.
From TFL:
97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement
(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.
(2) In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—
(a) whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,
(b) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),
(c) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,
(d) any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State.
(e) the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,
(f) the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property, and
(g) any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living. I'm not the biggest fan of the DMCA but it's still a push in the right direction. We've been stuck in this limbo of lost revenue since 1998 (napster era) and we'll be this way forever it seems. If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should. Many countries will follow suit on any action. The DMCA sucks for users, but doing nothing is worse for the entertainment industries by far. Sitting around while ISPs play the middle ground simply isn't fair to anyone. Any action is going to be better than what we're doing now.
Sounds like a good tradeoff to me. OK, it's harder for Joe Public to see a popular website, but it keeps the government's sticky fingers off the law, and 'satisfies' the DRM lobby with a technically unfeasible sop. Meanwhile, anyone who cares still has access via proxies, ssh tunnels, blah blah blah
Along with our stupid libel laws this will destroy our democracy. This is no longer about kids sharing mp3s this is giving corporations and governments the power to silence anyone they want to.
For instance a lot of the documents leaked on wikileaks are copyrighted. So that's it, we will no longer be able to access anything that they don't want us to see. How about our MP's expenses that got leaked? Well that's copyrighted to the government right?
I also bet it wont even protect the little guy. If someone republishes my copyrighted work I bet the system won't even work unless I have a team of lawyers and a truck of money.
Its all just another way of suppressing us.
You make a very flawed and entitled assumption: that 100% of these pirates were going to buy "legal" stuff (had it been the only thing available) you say is "lost revenue".
WRONG!!!!!!
You must understand why stuff like this is pirated? CONVENIENCE. Do you REALLY think that teenager was going to buy 10,000 songs on CD if he couldn't get mp3s? You you really think all those MILLIONS downloads of $5K Photoshop would have been real purchases? You need to face reality on what would have been really lost. 99% of piracy, those would have never translated to real sales.
I had been contemplating voting Liberal Democrat as they seemed to have at least one MP who actually has a clue (Vince Cable) - which is one more than the other parties can muster. I'll go and read up on this and if they did table this then that's my vote going somewhere else... of to check the Pirate Party site to see if they are going to have a candidate here at the next general election.
If the ISP refuses the take-down notice, the copyright-holder can seek a court injunction. It doesn't speak of the ISP having rights in this process. Does a High court tribunal give the defendant a voice? Despite the USA forcing the ACTA upon its 'allies', those countries, such as the UK prefer to have trade agreements mirrored in law. This usually means a subtly different process between what the parliament approves and what the trade agreements demand.
Someone somewhere will have published a novel about a bunch of lying thieving scumbag politicians working only to enrich themselves who bring in a load of legislation and powers that enable a police state. That person can then issue takedown notices against ALL government servers.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
To hell with that. STOP THE THING. We cannot allow ignorance, fear, and greed to destroy our freedoms and rights any more.
Governments are only made up of people. They can and SHOULD be told that what they are doing is wrong, and blocked. They cannot be allowed to destroy all of the progress made just because a bunch of people are scared of the internet somehow destroying our way of life just because it gives the power back to the people.
It's time for the people who know better to stand up and block this garbage from happening. Stop doing weak garbage like "strongly criticizing" and go tell the old idiots off, and if they refuse, take back the government for the people. Certainly the UK has some sense of national need for a government that works for the people and not for those in power, right?
Took a quick look, it seems they have not made any provisions for making the block as specific as possible - if I am correct, this could turn properly silly: The entire of myspace.com blocked because someone claims that so-and-so on myspace.com infringes their copyright.
The problem with these laws are that they pretty much cover anything and can easily be misused and breaking an injunction costs $$$ which means these laws favor corporations not consumers. A government is supposed to protect it's citizens and not play into the hands of large corporations.
A better solution would be for the record industry to realize CD is DEAD!!! Try to embrace the internet not fight against it, adapt or die a simple darwinian principle.
If you need a law like this make sure it's specific and that it target's real problems. The current problem with Piracy is born of record companies inadequacy to adapt and offer an alternative. Apple store is one of the few that exists and even there the record companies don't really like it.
I agree piracy is bad, but also it's like civil disobedience it points out there is a problem. There are lots of examples of civil disobedience that have inspired good change instead of more fear mongering and draconian rules.
ACTA Jr has been introduced to Parliament in New Zealand a week ago. It includes 3 strikes, and responsibility for the ISP to keep IP address records.
We've had a few talks about it at work, and the general consensus is that it's a joke, with so many ways to render the IP addresses "evidence" questionable... and subjective application of the disconnection criteria and fines... but it's one we have to stop. You don't lose your phone if you break a law with it, and you shouldn't lose your internet connection (email, facebook, skype, etc) for the same.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
The supposingly "defenders of the Internet" turn out to be the one who table the bill.
Who else can you trust?
Internet is indeed the whipping boy of the political scums !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
In the US, when you "table" a bill you kill it, whereas in the UK when you "table" a bill you introduce it. It can only cause confusion, so please find another word to use.
I'm disapointed with the Lib Dems (which are the 3rd largest party in the UK) but not overly surprised: they have pretty much adopted the style, dialetics and posture of the two major parties.
This probably goes a long way to explain why, at a time when people are very disapointed with politicians in the UK (and one would expect that the two main parties, being more visible, would bear the brunt of it), the Lib Dems are not increasing their share of the vote.
The sleazy salesmen in designer suits have taken over the party and the result is that people, instead of going for them as an alternative, are just not voting at all or voting for more fringe parties, especially younger people.
Honestly, even though they are a bit of a "one issue" party, the UK Pirate Party are more in tune with what matters for the Internet generation than any of the "traditional" parties. If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.
How is anyone going to take you seriously with a name like that?
page 27 requires that "the online service providers act expeditiously, in accordance with applicable law, to remove or disable access to infringing material or infringing activity upon obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement" - i.e. upon receiving a cease-and-desist letter.
Page 3 has the current working text about "n order to a party to desist from an infringement" and which the EU wants to be written as "The Parties shall also ensure that the right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right."
Page 30 contains the Japanese proposal which is the current working text: 3 ter. Each Party shall enable right holders, who have given effective notification to an online service provider of materials that they claim with valid reasons to be infringing their copyright or related rights, to expeditiously obtain from that provider information on the identity of the relevant subscriber.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
My fellow internet denizens.
It seems that every single day we are getting rammed by new legislation and international agreements that are so insane and ridiculously out of touch with where technology is actually taking us, mere words fail to properly describe my feelings on the matter. The quicker we are able to share/sync the entirety of human culture the less useful copyright becomes for the well being of the human race. How useful will copyright be for our race once the complete collection of all human culture can be synced or downloaded in mere seconds to your phone?
It is our nature to share news, gossip and other bits of our collective culture where ever we go; and now that we have to ability to all talk with one another (or YELL!) through the internet the old gatekeepers of culture have collectively gone INSANE!
I could go on and on about how the old copyright deal with the public (authors get exclusive temporary right to copy their works and through greater incentive to create the public benefits from increased production of culture) is completely useless today but I am just too disgusted to bother right now. Besides, it's all been said before in all the other new stories about all the other recent times the keystone cops of copyright terrorized Gotham city while cackling insanely.
I guess what I'm really asking is: why is it that despite all the anger about these issues from those who are in favor of sharing, we are loosing ground so badly? Is there no one who writes legislation who agrees that easy sharing is good for the human race?
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
The usual keywords like "crack" "moderators" "on".
Re-arrange into a well know slashdot saying.
For my software, I use FOSS all the time and rarely need to use proprietary software (I'm a student).
I am a HUGE movie pirate. Why? Well, for starters movies are just too damn expensive-- and the quality of movies has been steadily declining for years. I pirate to avoid annoying DRM, but most importantly: I pirate so that the few quality movies I have the pleasure to watch can get all of my money. When I see a good movie, and I know I'll want to watch it again, I buy the fucking DVD. Shitty movies don't deserve my money, and good movies deserve all of my money that I would plan to spend normally.
I would LOVE to see a theater with a membership sort of deal; I enjoy going to the theaters, but paying $10 a ticket is unreasonable. I would pay $30 a month to see 10 movies. That way, the theater would get $360 a year from me instead of the $35 they're getting now. I feel like the entire entertainment biz is giving us the finger-- they routinely produce shit, at a low cost to them, and act surprised when people stop paying for it. Instead, people begin to pirate and rarely spend their dollars on such inferior goods.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
Our only true solution is to ignore them.
You want me to pay for your music? ok, a few geeks will waste a few months at some point writing a open source code that can generate music of a few given styles. You want me to pay for your movies? We have blender and python, and a few geeks can waste a few months to make it simple to generate a video if you have a script.
THESE TOOLS ONLY NEED TO BE CREATED ONCE AND WE NO LONGER NEED TO PAY.
Researchers the world over will move to open content journals because they need the money for other things. so we geeks will live on, ignoring the rich and cool as always. And if we really want to, we can pay for something that is worth the cost, and in time learn how to do that too.
on a related note, we should be less worried about this stuff. really. these are the same people who burned other people at the stake because they said the earth is round. our purpose should be to improve our quality of life, and any interaction with them should be guided by this principle.
(yes, i consider them to be "them").
new sig
Fuck Britain...
eTrade SUCKS
Lets see. If Digital is a codeword for RBS, a Northern Rock Model.
UK makes computer Hardware / Adds value: No.
UK software research and Development growing: No
UK hosting porn and download servers: No
UK Digital Gambling: No
In a position that will CREATE jobs: No
Will help out struggling UK CD shops: No.
I see a sea of red ink, and punters subscribing to crypto proxies. In Yes Minister speak, this is not helping, but putting the boot in.
Are they simply forgetting that the whole purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creativity?
Here's some points that would actually work in that direction:
This is just from the top of my head, but there are probably many more things to say about this than the actual debate is covering right now.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I said I was disgusted with the proposal etc. and here is their reply; from the horses mouth no less.
Thank you for your email yesterday. Please see Lord Clement-Jones' justification for his amendment here:
"The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing. Around 35% of all online copyright infringement takes place on non peer-to-peer sites and services. Particular threats concern “cyberlockers” which are hosted abroad.
There are websites which consistently infringe copyright, many of them based outside the UK in countries such as Russia and beyond the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Many of these websites refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content.
It is a result of this situation that the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the Lords which has the support of the Conservatives that enables the High Court to grant an injunction requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to sites.
The amendment (amendment 120A) has generated some concern on the internet in the last few days.
Amendment 120A makes an explicit reference to human rights implications being taken into consideration by the Courts whilst they consider the imposition of an injunction. Such a safeguard is paramount to our concerns.
The intention is also for the injunction to only be possible for sites where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question.
The injunction will only be granted where copyright owners had first requested ISP’s to block access to the site and where they had also requested the site operator to stop providing access to the infringing material (either by removing the material itself or removing the ability to access the material).
There already exists a remedy under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (section 97A) which grants copyright owners a broad power to apply to the Court for an injunction. Therefore, all amendment 120A does is enhance this power by giving copyright owners a more clearly defined route.
Site blocking is not a new phenomenon, the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch Foundation
Clause 17, the Government’s completely objectionable power to enable the Secretary of State to attempt to amend copyright law at any time is deleted by the joint Lib Dem and Conservative amendment.
Unlike Clause 17, amendment 120A depoliticises the process. The amendment will ensure any action will be heard before the High Court. The liberal principle of equality before the law remains intact allowing both sides to make their case before a judge, not by appeal to the Secretary of State.
Before making an injunction, under the amendment the Court has to have regard to whether the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access. This is designed to ensure that copyright owners continue to develop innovative ways of enabling their material to be accessed online legally, such as Spotify, before turning to legal action.
To conclude, the Lib Dems are not seeking to censor the internet but are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally."
Best wishes,
Dan Murch
Liberal Democrat Policy Research Unit
Note that this is happening in the House of Lords. Of course yes, as a Lib Dem voter I am horrified by this, but it's important to work out whether this amendment actually came from official Lib Dem party policy, or was an amendment put forward by Lib Dem and Tory Lords.
From the link, all it shows is an amendment proposed by a Lib Dem Lord. A Lord can propose what they like (this is both the advantage and disadvantage on the system - they're not tied to party policy).
Please don't throw away your vote for your MP for the House of Commons, based on what someone else is doing in a completely different House! Please write to your Lib Dem MP, let them know what you think, and hope ensure that this doesn't come Lib Dem policy (and preferably, get them to distance themselves from this amendment).
(Even in the House of Commons, sometimes you can have individual MPs proposing amendments that aren't party policy. I don't care whether you decide to vote based on your individual MP, or party policy, but deciding who you vote for based on the actions of other MPs is just throwing away your vote.)
By pirating their content you are strengthening their argument for excessive copyright protections. If you want cheap content, wait a couple of years when the DVD's are £3-5.
I dont pirate content, BUT I dont pay for it from big content producers either.
I do support (and purchase) independent artists (music) that have not signed a contract with big content.
Its only the creation of content outside of the fatcats at hollywood etc, that they will get the message.
It's an amendment proposed by a Lord. Does anyone have a reference that this is coming from Lib Dem party policy? The Lords can propose what they like, it doesn't have to be with their party politics.
If you're going to use this as an axe to grind, do it against the Lords proposing this, not Lib Dem MPs who work in a completely different House.
> The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner
> could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to
> infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to
> pay the copyright owner's legal fees.
This describes something which is virtually the opposite of the DMCA safe harbor, which grants immunity to ISPs who otherwise might be found liable and does not grant new powers to copyright owners.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DMCA and similar laws are about taking down the source. Whilst there are problems with this, to be fair, this isn't too unreasonable: it tackles the source rather than someone simply looking at the site, and it allows people to dispute the claim. It also means that ISPs and hosts don't have to worry about liability. (The worrying parts of the DMCA are surely the bits to do with criminalising things that can circumvent a copy protection method, no matter how trivial.)
But this proposal in the UK appears to be talking about blocking the sites. As in censorship - as in something the UK currently only do for (potential) child pr0n. As in the sort of thing that's causing an outrage in Australia, yet here we are now considering it for mere possible hosting of copyrighted files...
(Also see the post below about an email from the Lord who proposed this, where he references the Internet Watch Foundation, which is the UK organisation that provides the blocklist.)
Lord Clement Jones "is paid £70,000 in respect of his services as Co-Chairman of DLA Piper's global government relations practice" according to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg/reg06.htm
DLA Piper works on behalf of the MusicFIRST coalition.
The RIAA is a founding member of the MusicFIRST coalition.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Yes, the reaction to this seems to be wildly missing the point AFAICS.
The old version would have allowed a government minister, acting on his/her own authority without the usual oversight/consent from Parliament, to set penalties for all kinds of things. That was how we got the danger of people being completely cut off from the Internet because someone with whom they shared a connection had been merely accused of infringement three times. And yes, the current minister is unelected, and seems to have adopted rather strong views on this subject shortly after a private meeting with a big player in the game.
Now, a takedown system is not great: it's vulnerable to malicious false claims, it's going to impose a compliance burden on ISPs, and it isn't as strong a defence of copyright holders where they have a legitimate grievance. Even so, surely that is still better than effectively unrestricted penalties imposed without either the usual legislative or judicial oversight on the basis of a mere allegation by an industry with a history of making false accusations.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Profits can be made selling merchandise and playing live.
I really wish people would stop auto-repeating this line. It might be true (or it might not) for professional musicians, but how is an author, or an artist of the drawing/painting/photographer variety, or a software developer supposed to make a living in those ways?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This may be a disturbing observation but Big Media is pulling off a stunning achievement here.
Not content to work with the laws of various countries, they bought the cooperation of powerful legislators and created a mechanism to force adoption and compliance to a very restrictive set of laws.
These laws will work to penalize movement and use of copyrighted works but at the same time will have a chilling effect on the internet as a whole. They will probably force ISP's to block many services they will now be responsible for as well. At the same time paid access to copyrighted material becomes one of the few practical methods to access information.
Of course enforcement will only be as good as the ISP's and their detection software, but for most internet users that will prove good enough.
I very much hate seeing what Big Media is doing here but it really is a masterful plan. There are a lot bigger and richer special interests that can't hold a candle to Big Media. And shit - it seems like it will all work.
Blocking IPs has worked so well in China, what with that great firewall and all. Why no one can get any online content that the Chinese officials have deems inappropriate, like porn. Sooooo, the British now want to give it a go too?? Oh, yes, those Ruskie pirates will be quaking in their boots.