// March 17th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p
p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- “The fear is that no one will know what is being cooked-up before it becomes law. It’s legislation on the hoof.” That’s a senior ISP executive quoted by the Guardian on the news that the House of Lords has passed Britain’s Digital Economy Bill. ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) and its Three Strikes and You’re Off The Net element comprise the entertainment industry’s last-ditch effort to gain global control of the internet, how ‘product’ is distributed, and direct power over users. It would make governments taxpayer funded copyright agents, turn ISPs into enforcement units working against their own customers, and make way for supposed file sharers to be disconnected from the internet on entertainment industry say-so. In Britain, the Three Strikes section is being shoe-horned in via the Digital Economy Bill, which gives “effective control to the House of Commons with regards to various controversial clauses within the bill”, says Financial Advice , going on > > > Many believe that the bill has been passed with indecent haste as we approach the next general election and many are mystified as to why the government seems so determined to push through this revolutionary and controversial bill. But there’s no mystery. It’s acting on orders from Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, as are France and other similarly weak-minded administrations which lack the courage or will to stand up to the cartels on behalf 0f their voters. If there’s any doubt about that, consider that the Big 4 organised music gang’s BPI actually wrote part of the bill . In another element of the operation BASCAP, the vested-interest Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy coalition, has issued a ‘report’ claiming illegal downloading of music, films and television programmes cost Britain 39,000 jobs and retail losses of £1.4 billion in 2008. And across Europe, “the growing impact of ‘digital piracy’ could add up to 1.2 million lost jobs and £215 billion in lost revenue” it says. Controlling members include the MPA, the offshore version of Hollywood’s MPAA, Big Music’s IFPI, Holland’s BREIN, the BSA (Business Software Alliance) and the Interactive Software Federation of Europe, with a few organisations such as Toy Industries of Europe included for effect. Using Virgin Media as the messenger, BASCAP says the document “comes ahead of a European Parliament vote on a report enforcing intellectual property rights in the EU single market”. However, the European parliament has already throw ACTA out, voting 663 to 13 against . “This Parliament will not sit back silently while the fundamental rights of millions of citizens are being negotiated away behind closed doors”, said Stavros Lambrinidis (GR, S&D) who, with Zuzana Roithova (CZ, EPP) , Alexander Alvaro (DE, ALDE) and Françoise Castex (FR, S&D), made the message clear in their earlier written declaration opposing ACTA. “We oppose any ‘legislation laundering’ on an international level of what would be very difficult to get through most national legislatures or the European Parliament,” he said. And “MEPs will go to the Court of Justice if the EU does not reject ACTA rules, including cutting off users from the Internet ‘gradually’ if caught stealing content”, European parliamentarians told Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Picture, said EurActiv . Meanwhile, in a move “that will dismay privacy campaigners and ISPs, websites with pirated content could be blocked as Tories collaborate with government to rush bill into law before election”, says the Guardian, continuing > > > The government is planning to introduce controversial measures, backed by the Conservatives, that would force internet companies to block websites that host substantial amounts of pirated content as it scrambles to get its digital economy bill through parliament. But because of the truncated timetable for getting the bill into law before a looming general election, the government’s as-yet unwritten clause is unlikely to face any major scrutiny before coming into force. It will be the product of a deal done behind closed doors between the government and opposition in the so-called “wash-up” of legislation hurried through before the dissolution of parliament. Its progress into law, however, seems assured after the shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said yesterday that he had spoken to Stephen Timms, minister for digital Britain. “We are trying to find a policy that allows the blocking of websites set up to promote illegal downloading of copyrighted digital content but does not impact on the vast majority of legitimate web users,” he said. He said the new legislation should encourage firms to find new business models “rather than look to legislation to protect their current business models”. But the news will dismay privacy campaigners, as well as internet companies, who thought they had managed to defeat many of the more draconian measures in the bill. “It’s a deeply unsatisfactory and very worrying development,” said one senior executive from the internet service provider (ISP) industry tonight. And no one in Britain seems to care. So what’s it all about? The BBC ’s Rory Cellan-Jones offers his break-down of ‘Technical Measures’, to wit > > > 1) The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to– (a) assess whether one or more technical obligations should be imposed on internet service providers; (b) take steps to prepare for the obligations; (c) provide a report on the assessment or steps to the Secretary of State. (2) A “technical obligation”, in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against some or all relevant subscribers to its service for the purpose of preventing or reducing infringement of copyright by means of the internet. (3) A “technical measure” is a measure that– (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way. Clause 18 (this is the one that the government has promised to amend) 18 Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement In Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, after section 97A insert– “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. (3) An application for an injunction under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the service provider and to the operator of each specified online location in relation to which an injunction is sought and to the Secretary of State. (4) Where– (a) the Court grants an injunction under subsection (1) upon the application of an owner of copyright whose copyright is infringed by the content accessible at or via each specified online location in the injunction, and (b) the owner of copyright before making the application made a written request to the service provider giving it a reasonable period of time to take measures to prevent its service being used to access the specified online location in the injunction, and no steps were taken, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 Digital Economy Bill [HL] 23 the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner’s mcosts of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider’s failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner. (5) In this section– “copyright owner” includes a licensee with an exclusive licence within the meaning of section 92 of this Act, “infringing content” means content which is produced or made available in infringement of copyright, “online location” means a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible, “operator” means a person or persons in joint or sole control of the decisions to make content accessible at or via an online location, and “service provider” has the meaning given to it by section 97A(3) of this Act. (6) Subsections (1) to (5) shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint not less than 3 months and not more than 12 months after subsections (1) to (5) have been notified to the Commission of the European Communities (”the Commission”) in accordance with the obligations of notification imposed by Directive 98/34/EC. (7) If any comments are received from Member States of the European Union or the Commission after subsections (1) to (5) have been so notified and the Secretary of State reasonably considers amendments are necessary to give effect to such comments, he may make the necessary regulations within the period referred to in subsection (6)(a), to amend subsections (1) to (5).” Stay tuned. Jon Newton - p2pnet - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi Guardian – Digital economy bill: Online piracy law unlikely to face major scrutiny, March 16, 2010 ACTA – ACTA transparency score card, February 27, 2010 Financial Advice – House of Lords passes Digital Economy Bill, March 17, 2010 wrote part of the bill – Intriguing new BPI Three Strikes leak, March 13, 2010 Virgin Media – Illegal downloading ‘cost £1.4bn’, March 17, 2010 663 to 13 against – EU parliament trashes secret ACTA treaty, March 11, 2010 EurActiv – Parliament threatens court action on anti-piracy treaty, March 10, 2010 BBC – Do we need a digital Parliament?, March 17, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? - Click here to learn what technologies might help you bypass censorship in your area.