CyberLaw Blog

Archive for September 16th, 2009

Web Censoring Widens Across Southeast Asia: “(WSJ)
Attempts to censor the Internet are spreading to Southeast Asia as governments turn to coercion and intimidation to rein in online criticism. Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam lack the kind of technology and financial resources that China and some other large countries use to police the Internet. The Southeast Asian nations are using other methods — also seen in China — to tamp down criticism, including arresting some bloggers and individuals posting contentious views online. See interactive graphics.

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

(more…)

(Via TorrentFreak.)

ISP Appeals Decision Forcing it to Disconnect Pirate Bay

On 24th August Stockholm’s district court ordered action to remove The Pirate Bay from the Internet, pending the outcome of a civil action taken by several entertainment companies.

The court ordered Black Internet, supplier of bandwidth to The Pirate Bay, to disconnect the site from the Internet or face penalties of 500,000 kronor ($70,600). The ISP had little choice but to comply. The issue is a serious one and goes far beyond The Pirate Bay – it could be used to silence many other sites in the future unless action is taken.

Earlier this month several politicians objected to the court’s decision, including Camilla Lindberg who sits in parliament for the Liberal Party. She believes that threatening an ISP with damages is taking things too far;

‘To silence an operator, I think this is outrageous. We need to review the law and we need a proper investigation,’ she said. ‘Both the public and companies in the IT industry have been surprised and outraged by the Stockholm district court’s decision to issue the ban on Black Internet. The decision is considered by many to go against the legislative history behind the amendment of the Copyright Act in 2005.’

Lindberg went on to say that there is fear that in the future ISPs may be forced to examine the content of traffic that passes through their networks, in order to protect themselves from legal action.

Now, after taking a little while to consider its options, Black Internet has changed its mind about appealing the decision. Initially Black Internet CEO Victor Möller told the Swedish press his company would not appeal, citing a laborious and expensive legal process, but now there has been a change of heart.

‘This is the first time in Sweden that an operator has been ordered to stop delivering Internet to someone. We want to know if it’s correct to do so,’ said Möller

‘The district court made a very controversial decision. The entire ISP business needs some clarity in this matter. A door has been opened and we don’t know what’s behind it. This is a very important question for all ISPs and we can’t just lay down,’ he added.

Having previously cited cost as a barrier to an appeal, TorrentFreak learned that there are other groups who are very interested in Black Internet appealing the Stockholm court’s decision, so it appears some sort of collaboration could be on the cards to enable that.

Here we go again… Hadopi strikes 2

(Via TorrentFreak.)

France Passes New 3 Strikes Anti-Piracy Bill

Following its initial adoption in May 2009, the original version of the controversial Hadopi anti-piracy legislation was nuked by the Constitutional Council, France’s highest legal authority. It took a similar view to that of the European Parliament, declared the proposals unconstitutional and demanded that those accused should enjoy a fair trial.

On July 8th, a modified version of the bill was accepted by the French Senate after assurances were made that the final decision of disconnection under a 3 strikes-style regime would be passed to a judge.

The new structure is suggested as follows. Once an individual has been warned about a third online copyright infringement, he or she will enter a mechanism which will see them reported to a judge. After a hearing the judge will have the power to cut the individual off from the Internet, issue a fine of up to 300,000 euros, or even hand out a 2 year jail sentence.

Furthermore, innocent ISP account holders who find themselves accused over the infringements of a 3rd party could be found guilty of ‘negligence’, risking a maximum 1,500 euro fine and a 4 week disconnection.

Today French legislators voted on the new compromise bill. In the National Assembly it passed with 225 votes against and 285 votes in favor. The bill (now known as Hadopi 2) will now move to the upper house (the Senate) for approval. It will then be signed into French law.

EU Commission sets up piracy monitor but rejects copyright reform: “The European Commission is establishing a body to analyse the scale of counterfeiting and piracy and to co-ordinate international action on the issue. It has asked each member state to nominate a co-ordinator to aid the process.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

UK lawyer threatens Facebook, mulls action against ISPs to block defamation: “The lawyer who has threatened Facebook with a defamation suit on behalf of boxing promoter Frank Warren has said that he may take action against internet service providers (ISPs) for US-published defamation.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Lily Allen hits out at file sharers as Tories mock government plans: “The battle within the music industry over how to deal with internet pirates intensified today as the Conservatives announced their opposition to government plans to disconnect repeat offenders from the internet, and Lily Allen condemned artists who have spoken out against the proposals.

Allen, in a lengthy posting on her blog, criticised “rich and successful artists” such as Ed O’Brien, of Radiohead, and Nick Mason, the Pink Floyd drummer, told The Times that file-sharing had some beneficial effects for artists.

Allen wrote today: “I think music piracy is having a dangerous effect on British music, but some really rich and successful artists like Nick Mason from Pink Floyd and Ed O’Brien from Radiohead don’t seem to think so.

“Last week in an article in The Times these guys from huge bands said file-sharing music is fine. It probably is fine for them. They do sell-out arena tours and have the biggest Ferrari collections in the world.

“For new talent, though, file-sharing is a disaster as it’s making it harder and harder for new acts to emerge.

“The Featured Artists Coalition also says file-sharing’s fine because it ‘means a new generation of fans for us’.

“This is great if you’re a big artist at the back end of your career with loads of albums to flog to a new audience, but emerging artists don’t have this luxury.

“Basically the FAC is saying, ‘we’re alright, we’ve made it, so file-sharing’s fine’, which is just so unfair to new acts trying to make it in the industry.”

(Via Tech and Web from Times Online.)