Slashdot Mirror
Digital Act Could Spur Creation of Pirate ISPs In UK
scurtis writes "British anti-copyright group, Pirate Party UK, has predicted that Pirate ISPs will spring up across the country — promoting online privacy and allowing users to share files anonymously — in response to draconian file-sharing proposals outlined in the Digital Economy Act. The news follows reports that the Pirate Party in Sweden (PiratPartiet) will launch the world's first 'Pirate ISP.' The move is designed to curb the use of online surveillance in the country, and combat what PiratPartiet describes as the 'big brother society.'"
ISPs receive a safe harbor status provided they actually respond to DMCA takedown notices
To my mind, it would depend on whether the "Pirate ISP" simply handled traffic (i.e. was an access provider), or whether it provided hosting services too.
s.512 of the DMCA, and Art.14 of the eCommerce directive (European) offers protection for hosts (in Europe, the provision of services which "consist of the storage of information"), provided that the ISP takes steps to remove infringing material upon becoming aware of them. However, the corresponding protection for traffic carriage, Art.12, has no such requirement - as long as the IAP does not select the receiver of the transmission, initiate the transmission, or modify the content of the transmission, it is not liable for the traffic which it carries.
That being said, I would not be surprised to see an application of the Sharman Networks / Grokster reasoning, that there is a difference between being a mere conduit, over which parties transmit and receive information, where these acts are infringement of copyright, and promoting / encouraging copyright infringement (using these words loosely).
GPL is a clever hack of the copyright system created because people did not agree with the predominant (then) system of knowledge lockdown. Stallman has stated in the past that if he would have the power to abolish copyright, he would do so, even considering the fact that this would also kill the power that GPL depends on, because this is what GPL was created to defeat in the first place. By hacking around it.
Personally, I don't think so. You only need look at the US to see that having two elected chambers is not necessarily a good thing. While the hereditary aspects of peerages are not very nice, the vast majority of the debate that goes on within the Lords would surprise you and some startlingly frank and honest discussion is carried out that really does represent the best interest of our country.
In my ideal world (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is a perfect system), the upper house would be replaced with a system of jurors. Just like in jury service, a selection of 100 people are chosen at random and they debate the bill under discussion, and place their vote in favour, against, or decline to vote. There would be no politics to play, as they have no seat to defend - just like how the Lords was designed. Only now, you get the common-man check on the bill that the Commons is trying to pass.
As a by-product, I think you'd get legislation that is also a hell of a lot easier to read and understand, rather than the legalese that seems to be produced at the moment.
Most Pirate Parties internationally are for copyright reform, not the abolition of copyright. I'm tired of the misconception. It's like saying the Australian Liberal Party is about freedom. Ha.
Disagree != mod troll.