CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘Digital Britain’ Category

Digital Economy Act: Ofcom consults on blacklisting infringers: “Small ISPs, mobile operators and Wi-Fi providers like hotels and coffee shops will be exempt from a notification and blacklisting process under the Digital Economy Act, at least initially, according to a draft Code published by Ofcom.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Draft code of practice to reduce online copyright infringement « Ofcom

28|05|2010

A proposed code of practice which implements legislative measures aimed at reducing online copyright infringement has today been published by Ofcom, as part of its new duties under the Digital Economy Act 2010.

The Act requires that the code of practice is implemented no later than eight months from Royal Assent, including approval from the European Commission.

Subject to consultation and approval, Ofcom expects the code to come into force in early 2011.
The code of practice

The draft code sets out how and when Internet Service Providers (ISPs) covered by the code will send notifications to their subscribers to inform them of allegations that their accounts have been used for copyright infringement.

In passing the Act, Parliament’s intention was that Ofcom should apply the obligations in a proportionate way, with the code initially covering only the larger fixed-line ISPs, but with the clear message that, should levels of copyright infringement on other networks, including mobile, increase then those ISPs will similarly be required to comply with the obligations.

Ofcom proposes, therefore, that fixed-line ISPs with over 400,000 subscribers will be covered initially.

This would mean that the seven largest ISPs – BT, Talk Talk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange, O2 and Post Office – will be covered by the code from the outset.

Ofcom proposes to regularly review evidence of online copyright infringement across all service providers and to extend the scope of the code if appropriate.
Online copyright infringers

The code also sets out the threshold for including subscribers on a copyright infringers list which must be compiled by ISPs.

ISPs will have to record the number of notifications sent to their subscribers and maintain an anonymised list of alleged serial copyright infringers.

Copyright holders can then request information on this list and pursue a court order to identify serial infringers and take legal action against them.

Ofcom is proposing a three stage notification process for ISPs to inform subscribers of copyright infringements and proposes that subscribers which have received three notifications within a year may be included in a list requested by a copyright owner.
Appeals process

Ofcom’s approach is guided by the need to protect the interests of consumers and citizens. Ofcom will establish an independent, robust subscriber appeals mechanism for consumers who believe they have received incorrect notifications, arrangements for enforcement and dealing with industry disputes, as well as sharing the costs arising from the code.
Additional measures to reduce copyright infringement

The code of practice forms part of a wider set of industry activity to tackle online copyright infringement including consumer education, the promotion of lawful alternative services and targeted legal action against serious infringers.

Ofcom intends to monitor how these develop and will report regularly to Government on both the effectiveness of the code and on the additional measures.

Click here to read the consultation which closes on 30 July 2010.

Ofcom creates piracy havens at small ISPs: “

Fleeing freetards could yet cause tiddler crackdown

Ofcom has decided that only fixed line ISPs with more than 400,000 subscribers will be forced to comply with the Digital Economy Act’s controversial anti-filesharing provisions.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

A user’s timetable to the Digital Economy Act: “

P2P: What happens next?

Now that the Digital Economy Act has been passed by both Houses, what can internet users expect, and when? Quick answer: nothing much soon.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Mandybill: All the Commons drama: “

Web-blocking goes through, orphan works fails

Live TV and internet coverage allowed the nation to feel grubby as the Mandybill was shunted through the House of Commons late last night. The government’s replacement for Clause 18 – a catch-all illiberal web-blocking measure that few in the music business ever expected to survive – was approved, and the photographers cemented a spectacular victory by crushing the orphan works clause.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Digital Economy Bill passed by House of Commons: “The Digital Economy Bill has been passed by the House of Commons and will become law before the general election. The Bill was passed amidst criticisms from inside and outside of Parliament about the lack of Parliamentary time and debate given to it.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Massive Protest Against UK Anti-Piracy Bill | TorrentFreak: “Massive Protest Against UK Anti-Piracy Bill
Written by enigmax on March 19, 2010

As Feargal Sharkey, head of UK Music, speaks of his confidence that the massively controversial Digital Economy Bill will be passed before the general election, the Open Rights Group has revealed that in the last 3 days more than 10,000 outraged citizens have written to MPs demanding a debate on the issue.

The UK Government continues to push forward the Digital Economy Bill (DEB) that aims to protect copyright holders from online pirates. On 15th March the House of Lords approved the bill and handed it over to the House of Commons.

To the absolute dismay of most outside the music and movie industries, some of the most controversial elements of the Bill are unlikely to receive any major scrutiny and will be dealt with quickly under the so-called ‘wash-up’, a short period between the announcement of an election and parliament being closed down.

‘It’s a deeply unsatisfactory and very worrying development,’ a senior executive from an ISP told The Guardian. ‘The fear is that no one will know what is being cooked-up before it becomes law. It’s legislation on the hoof.’

But this situation suits the BPI just fine. This week a leaked memo from the BPI fell into the hands of Cory Doctorow which showed that the ‘LibDem amendment’ – a proposal under the DEB which would allow for websites to be blocked if, essentially, the BPI didn’t like their activities – was in fact written by the BPI. Very cosy.

But the controversies don’t end there. Doctorow also received an internal document prepared by the BPI’s Director of Public Affairs and prospective Labour parliamentary candidate, Richard Mollet. In the document he admitted that the only reason the DEB had a chance of passing is because MP’s are resigned to voting on it without debate.

‘Translation: if MPs got to debate the Bill, they would tear it to unrecognizable pieces as they realized what terrible rubbish it really is,’ wrote Doctorow. The scandals go on and on, but we have to stop somewhere.

Nevertheless, UK Music head Feargal Sharkey says that he is confident that the DEB will be passed before the general election, although others are not so sure.

‘It will still be nip and tuck to get the Digital Economy Bill onto the statute book before the election so the battle is not won yet,’ wrote Shadow Culture Minister, Jeremy Hunt, on his blog this week.

According to Jim Killock at the Open Rights Group, UK citizens aren’t leaving anything to chance with 10,000 of them having written to their MPs in the last three days to demand a debate on the Digital Economy Bill.

‘It is outrageous for corporate lobbyists including the BPI, FAST and UK Music to demand that MPs curtail democracy and ram this Bill through Parliament without debate,’ says Killock, adding: ‘The British people did not elect UK Music and the BPI to write our laws.’

Killock says that what is making the 10,000 so angry is the pushing through of the DEB without debate, an act he describes as ‘undemocratic and dangerous’.

If you’d like to add your dissenting voice, please email your MP, write to your local newspaper, and attend the planned demonstrations”

(Entry by Dr. Yaman Akdeniz)

Good news and bad news at the same time. Glad the Lords thought the government’s plan was no good but at the same time they offered “court ordered blocking powers” as an alternative measure. Website blocking is a crude measure and it is not even half a preventative measure. It does not address the “problem” and by blocking access to websites the alleged infringements d o not disappear. What happens is that users are punished rather than the offenders who uploaded the allegedly infringing materials in the first place.

I have recently addressed the problems associated with regards to blocking access to websites within the Turkish context and my analysis can be found in an OSCE report: Akdeniz, Y., Report of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on Turkey and Internet Censorship, January 2010, at <http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2010/01/42294_en.pdf>.

BBC News – Lords force rethink of government’s online piracy plans

04 March, 2010

The government has been defeated in the House of Lords over measures to tackle online piracy after opponents said the plans could hamper digital innovation.

Ministers want the power to change laws on online copyright in future without the need for further legislation. The Lords said the ‘blanket nature’ of the clause was ‘objectionable’.
But their chosen replacement – giving courts the right to block internet sites which are infringing copyright – has also prompted criticism.

The government argued that the new Digital Economy Bill should include the power to amend copyright law to ensure legislation could cope with more technically advanced forms of piracy in the future.

But Google and Facebook were among the firms to express ‘grave concerns’ about the provision, saying it could allow ministers to ‘increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place’.

‘Swift recourse’

And on Wednesday, Lords voted to support a Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment to the bill which paves the way for the clause to be scrapped. Lib Dem spokesman Lord Clement-Jones said it would be replaced with a measure allowing courts to use injunctions to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites. He said the ‘more proportionate, specific and appropriate’ measure, approved by 165 votes to 140, would tackle websites offering films or music illegally.

‘There are several sites out there on the web, many of which are based outside the UK, which refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content – indeed whose business plan depends on supplying illegal content,’ Lord Clement-Jones said.

“We cannot rely on the front bench of any major party to respect or understand the internet and modern technology” Pirate Party UK

‘At the moment it is not explicit what could be done about such sites.

‘This site-blocking remedy would give rights holders an explicit, swift recourse to courts to block access to those sites.’

He added: ‘I believe this is going to send a powerful message… that we do not believe in censoring the internet, but we are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally.’

But the amendment has caused just as much concern in some quarters.

Search engines

The Internet Services Providers’ Association said it would lead to ‘blocking based on accusation rather than a court injunction’.

“I don’t think it would be sensible or appropriate to adopt this approach” – Lord Young of Norwood Green, junior innovation minister, on site-blocking

The Open Rights Group said the industry was ‘faced with an appalling sight’ – a choice between the government’s flawed stance, and that of the Lib Dems and Tories, who are ‘pushing an approach likely to produce straightforward threats, bans and withdrawals of sites with user generated content’.

Pirate Party UK, which campaigns on the issue, said the new measure does not require offending websites to be hosting the infringing material, only that such material is ‘accessible at or via’ the location.

Therefore, it said it could affect search engines like Google and sites like YouTube, adding: ‘Today’s events clearly demonstrate that we cannot rely on the front bench of any major party to respect or understand the internet and modern technology.’

Junior innovation minister Lord Young of Norwood Green said blocking websites was an ‘enormous step’.

He said it would be hard to block sites offering illegal content without also blocking legitimate material, and agreed that sites linking to other sites – such as search engines – could be adversely affected.

‘I don’t think it would be sensible or appropriate to adopt this approach,’ he warned during the debate on the bill.

MPs, Lords question human rights compatibility of Digital Economy Bill: “The Government must provide more detail on exactly how alleged copyright infringers will be cut off from the internet before a file-sharing disconnection law is passed, according to a parliamentary committee.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Government denies Wi-Fi operators copyright exemption: “Cafes, pubs, universities and libraries that offer wireless internet access will not be granted a special exemption from measures aimed at tackling copyright infringement, the Government has said.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)