Like Me? Follow Me.
Naturally, as our own ISP we are now legally required to monitor ourselves and report ourselves for copyright infringment to the copyright owners.
I'm sure they'll all be very upset by the free publicity and links and as a result we'll be required to shut off our own internet access, but hey ho. Such is life in 2010 when laws about the internet are made by the people who understand it the least.
The contentious clause in the Bill begins by saying:
"“Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on the internet
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.
(2) “Blocking injunction” means an injunction that requires a service provider to prevent its service being used to gain access to the location."
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.
(2) “Blocking injunction” means an injunction that requires a service provider to prevent its service being used to gain access to the location."
You can read the debate for yourselves (or watch it) at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-04-06b.836.0 I'm sure reproducing that transcript is somehow illegal under the bill.
The Guardian explains the problem by asserting,
"As altered, the bill now allows for ISPs to be required to block access to sites that allow "substantial" infringement. One of Lord Mandelson's principal targets here – urged on by the BPI and Federation Against Copyright Theft and Federation Against Software Theft – is "cyberlocker" sites that let people store files, or move them between two people easily, which, lobbyists argue, allows widespread copyright infringement. The argument then becomes how you tell whether a cyberlocker is being used for substantial infringement. But as they don't publicise their contents (they are like safe deposit boxes for the web), how can it be
determined whether they are substantially infringing?
One site that would immediately be trapped by this provision is Wikileaks – which exists solely to republish leaked, and hence copyrighted, work. Would a Trafigura-like company in the future use the DEB to shut off UK access to the site if something embarrassing appeared there?
The bill allows for the "temporary suspension" of internet connections for those deemed to have allowed multiple copyright infringement after warnings from their ISPs (who are required to maintain "copyright infringement reports" on users, anonymously). Hotels and businesses that offer free or paid-for Wi-Fi have expressed serious concerns that they would have to shut such services down."
determined whether they are substantially infringing?
One site that would immediately be trapped by this provision is Wikileaks – which exists solely to republish leaked, and hence copyrighted, work. Would a Trafigura-like company in the future use the DEB to shut off UK access to the site if something embarrassing appeared there?
The bill allows for the "temporary suspension" of internet connections for those deemed to have allowed multiple copyright infringement after warnings from their ISPs (who are required to maintain "copyright infringement reports" on users, anonymously). Hotels and businesses that offer free or paid-for Wi-Fi have expressed serious concerns that they would have to shut such services down."
Skeptobot published a well-thought out attack on the bill, relating that,"During the minuscule 2 hours the 2nd reading took one man mashed up the #DEBill twitter feed with the parliament feed onto his TV to avoid having to multitask so much. He published his work so others could do the same."
This is an activity which will be illegal under the new bill.
Skeptobot continues,
"The true hero was Tom Watson (Labour MP) who quickly came to be the people's champion. His criticism of the bill didn't stop with the preposterous technical issues (ip address are not fingerprints) or the equally preposterous human rights violations (guilty till proven innocent, child downloads musics - dad loses the internet he needs for his job).
He went on to point out that remixing copyrighted works is part of culture now."
He went on to point out that remixing copyrighted works is part of culture now."
@solobasssteve, a professional musician, published an open letter to the Musician's Union on his blog explaining his dissatisfaction with the bill,
"To shut down sites and services on suspicion of illegal activity is a civil liberties travesty. To have my internet traffic monitored ‘in case I do anything bad’ is like the royal mail reading my post, in case my letters contain naughty words. While threatening to brick up my front door if they find them, or think they might have found them."
One Flickr user reprinted the following exchange on Twitter, courtesy of the Director of Communications of the BPI,
"A conversation on twitter on the day the Digital Economy Bill was passed between Adam Liversage (Director of Communications for the BPI, the BPI that supports/wrote some of the DEBill) and Janet Liversage.
Janet: "Great. Bought a card but forgot the envelope - doh."
Adam: "There's some in my study on the shelf."
Janet: "yes but not necessarily ones that will fit the card I have bought"
Adam: "Crop the card using scissors - job done. Or scan the card, shrink it and re-print it."
Where Adam suggest stealing and repurposing a bought card.
Wait, I don't mean stealing I mean making a copy leaving the original intact, and then adjusting the second copy to better suit a purpose.
When you've shrunk it and sent it, the original will still exist. I assume you can just then use the original for something else, sell it on, or perhaps scan it again and again and again that's a money saving tip right there. Shame the copyright owner wont get the benefit of all those copies.
Just saying; copyright, it's a bit complicated."
Janet: "Great. Bought a card but forgot the envelope - doh."
Adam: "There's some in my study on the shelf."
Janet: "yes but not necessarily ones that will fit the card I have bought"
Adam: "Crop the card using scissors - job done. Or scan the card, shrink it and re-print it."
Where Adam suggest stealing and repurposing a bought card.
Wait, I don't mean stealing I mean making a copy leaving the original intact, and then adjusting the second copy to better suit a purpose.
When you've shrunk it and sent it, the original will still exist. I assume you can just then use the original for something else, sell it on, or perhaps scan it again and again and again that's a money saving tip right there. Shame the copyright owner wont get the benefit of all those copies.
Just saying; copyright, it's a bit complicated."
As another blog pointed out,
"1 Digital Economy Bill
24545 Tweets
20000 Letters written
7152 Twitterers
643 Members of Parliament
227 Voted
189 Said yes"
24545 Tweets
20000 Letters written
7152 Twitterers
643 Members of Parliament
227 Voted
189 Said yes"
There's some good YouTube content as well:
The third reading and ensuing debate took place over 2 hours during which only 40 MPs participated and 50 clauses were discussed. Not even half the total number of MPs bothered to vote.
There is no way that a bill this controversial which affects so many people was considered at the level of detail it should have been by the people elected to Parliament and the British Government and the people elected to run that Government - both in power
and in opposition - should be ashamed.
If you feel that Parliament rushed the Digital Economy Bill through without due consideration, add your voice by republishing your favourite editorial in our comments (make sure you credit your source).
Discussion
Leave a Reply