The latest leaks on the ACTA treaty show that negotiations have gone a long way to resolving outstanding issues with some ground given by the US.. but some of the worst of the treaty still stubbornly in place. ACTA watchers are not impressed that three strikes still seems to be on the agenda, and that US led pro-DRM measures are included that go beyond the WIPO treaty and even existing US law.
(More details from Michael Geist and Boing Boing.)
But do we really need an anti-counterfeiting treaty at all?
Well perhaps not. The Telegraph reports on a study that shows that the impact of counterfeiting on luxury brands isn't the disaster that it's made out to be... most consumers buying counterfeits aren't being ripped off- they know it's a fake, and they would never have bought an original.... meaning that fashion houses are not losing those sales to counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is big business -but if it's not done to defraud who is it hurting?
The article is cited in many places... but the original report seems to be more elusive. You can find it though at the British Journal of Criminology - with the pithy title of:
Jailhouse Frocks: Locating the Public Interest in Policing Counterfeit Luxury Fashion Goods
by David Wall & Joanna Large
Amongst other things it looks at the links between counterfeiting and organised crime ...and has an interesting section on the 'aspirational hierarchy' that binds together both the fashion houses and the counterfeiters.
Read it.. and see if you can find the public interest in ACTA....
Piratpartiet : Building the information society. Vote Pirate!
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Monday, 6 September 2010
Friday, 23 July 2010
New technology threatens democracy: European commission reports
"The new technologies inherently tend to shift the balance of power away from the individual towards those who hold data on them: the terms “data subject” and “controller” are gaining deeper, more sinister meaning. Some technologies can sometimes be used to counter some of this - but they are much weaker and often inherently less effective than claimed or believed. Unless we tame the new technologies, their unimpeded use will undermine democratic society itself. And the tool to tame the machine in this respect is data protection."
When a European Commission report talks about impending changes undermining democratic society itself then it's definitely time to sit up and take notice...
Over at The Lift I found a reference to a recent report commissioned by the European Commission on the coming challenges for Data Protection (and by implication privacy). The report is well balanced and erudite and makes interesting reading... looking at issues like authorities sharing data across international boundaries, data mining and profiling, privacy concerns with social networking, and securing data protection when your web activity itself is not limited to national boundaries. Or more simply put... how the law needs to evolve to protect your rights to privacy.
The report 'has been kept short' and is only 57 pages... Good bedtime reading
When a European Commission report talks about impending changes undermining democratic society itself then it's definitely time to sit up and take notice...
Over at The Lift I found a reference to a recent report commissioned by the European Commission on the coming challenges for Data Protection (and by implication privacy). The report is well balanced and erudite and makes interesting reading... looking at issues like authorities sharing data across international boundaries, data mining and profiling, privacy concerns with social networking, and securing data protection when your web activity itself is not limited to national boundaries. Or more simply put... how the law needs to evolve to protect your rights to privacy.
The report 'has been kept short' and is only 57 pages... Good bedtime reading
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Let's play privacy invaders: EU, ACTA and the Digital Economy Act
When I think of privacy I think of going about my business unhindered and unmonitored by the state.. or anyone else for that matter. It's a right.. and curiously I expect the law to not only respect that right but also to protect it. But expectations and reality don't always match up.
This week though these are some positive signs that privacy concerns are starting to be taken more seriously.
First off, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that EU data protection officials have been looking into the EUs Data Retention Directive and how it has been applied in the member states. Their findings are depressing reading ...
"The provisions of the data retention directive are not respected and the lack of available sensible statistics hinders the assessment of whether the directive has achieved its objectives."
The good news is that it's not until abuses are visible that you can do something about it. The timing here is also good as the directive is up for review and this can contribute to revision or repeal of the directive which, in my view, inherently is a gross violation of people's privacy.
Meanwhile, the same Article 29 committee has also raised concerns about the privacy implications of the ACTA agreement (see Michael Geist for excellent coverage on ACTA).
"WP29 emphasizes that any form of large scale monitoring or systematic recording of data of EU citizens would be contrary to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC since that would affect millions of individuals, regardless of whether or not they are under any suspicion."
After a critical look at other provisions - including making service providers hand over personal data to copyright holders they conclude:
"Copyright infringement needs to be dealt with on a global scale and requires international cooperation. However the way things stand now, several of the proposed measures are in the end bound to interfere with the private life of many citizens.
In the EU, any such interference is subject to EU fundamental rights and must be proportional. Given the aspects of ACTA currently under negotiation and outlined above, the WP29 remains to be convinced that this will be the case."
The third piece of good news is really a consequence of the above... or at least a supporting document from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) giving a full analysis of objections to the three strikes principle. The Open Rights Group highlight that this expert opinion should have implications for the UK governments Digital Economy Act - at least the parts dealing with combating copyright infringement .
In the words of the EDPS:
"...the monitoring of Internet user's behaviour and further collection of their IP addresses amounts to an interference with their rights to respect for their private life and their correspondence; in other words, there is an interference with their right to private life. This view is in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. "
The bottom line seems to be that letting copyright holders loose as private police with powers to request private details on anyone they choose is likely to end up the wrong side of EU rights legislation.... which would be a welcome victory for our collective privacy.
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
This week though these are some positive signs that privacy concerns are starting to be taken more seriously.
First off, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that EU data protection officials have been looking into the EUs Data Retention Directive and how it has been applied in the member states. Their findings are depressing reading ...
- Service providers retain and hand over data in ways they shouldn't.
- data retention often exceeds the maximum allowed under the directive - in some case by as much as eight years!
- More data is being held than the directive allows - including in some cases message content and not just traffic data.
- Callers locations are being monitored continuously under a call - contravening the directives provisions
"The provisions of the data retention directive are not respected and the lack of available sensible statistics hinders the assessment of whether the directive has achieved its objectives."
The good news is that it's not until abuses are visible that you can do something about it. The timing here is also good as the directive is up for review and this can contribute to revision or repeal of the directive which, in my view, inherently is a gross violation of people's privacy.
Meanwhile, the same Article 29 committee has also raised concerns about the privacy implications of the ACTA agreement (see Michael Geist for excellent coverage on ACTA).
"WP29 emphasizes that any form of large scale monitoring or systematic recording of data of EU citizens would be contrary to the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC since that would affect millions of individuals, regardless of whether or not they are under any suspicion."
After a critical look at other provisions - including making service providers hand over personal data to copyright holders they conclude:
"Copyright infringement needs to be dealt with on a global scale and requires international cooperation. However the way things stand now, several of the proposed measures are in the end bound to interfere with the private life of many citizens.
In the EU, any such interference is subject to EU fundamental rights and must be proportional. Given the aspects of ACTA currently under negotiation and outlined above, the WP29 remains to be convinced that this will be the case."
The third piece of good news is really a consequence of the above... or at least a supporting document from the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) giving a full analysis of objections to the three strikes principle. The Open Rights Group highlight that this expert opinion should have implications for the UK governments Digital Economy Act - at least the parts dealing with combating copyright infringement .
In the words of the EDPS:
"...the monitoring of Internet user's behaviour and further collection of their IP addresses amounts to an interference with their rights to respect for their private life and their correspondence; in other words, there is an interference with their right to private life. This view is in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. "
The bottom line seems to be that letting copyright holders loose as private police with powers to request private details on anyone they choose is likely to end up the wrong side of EU rights legislation.... which would be a welcome victory for our collective privacy.
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Seeing what you want to see. The ICC Digital Economy report.
Thirty two billion euros and six hundred thousand jobs by 2015. Those are the losses due to piracy projected by the ICC report "Building a Digital Economy". Scary stuff...
The report is interesting reading but not totally convincing. If it were a climate report it's the type of publication that would have climate sceptics baying for blood. I'll give some comment here and if you want more analysis read on at Technollamna, Tumbled Logic, and Open.... Overall the authors I think have done a good job of setting out what they have done, and importantly what they have assumed - and in that sense it's a valuable input to the debate that bears study.
My first and biggest problem with the report is that it sets out to evaluate the damage done by piracy - and as such finds the result it is looking for. It isn't a holistic view of the economy and doesn't consider balancing factors - like increased bandwidth usage from non-commercial sharing stimulating the telecoms sector.
The basic premise of the report is that the creative industries and supporting sectors are a major part of the economy and are at serious risk from piracy. They then present figures that show that piracy as they evaluate it amounts to around a 2% of creative industry value. Noticeable but not at a level that supports the premise that piracy is killing creativity. Moreover, they include in their assessments non core industry sectors like paper production (and production of physical recording media) which are much more at risk from the rise of the digital economy than they are from piracy.
They then evaluate piracy losses based on two scenarios - one based on forecast growth of file sharing traffic (+18% p.a) - and the other based on overall growth of consumer IP traffic (+24% p.a). This second scenario, professionally speaking, I consider pure fantasy as consumer IP traffic is likely to be driven by legitimate online and IP-TV rather than an explosive growth in piracy.
Both scenarios miss an important element in a holistic view - which is the consumer's ability to pay. Predictions of traffic growth are based on significant reductions in cost per bit. There is no assumption that consumers are prepared to pay 18-24% per year more for bandwidth - and there clearly is no rationale to think that the value of pirated content conversion to legitimate sales would rise at those rates either.
Put another way - the study assumes a constant percentage of pirated content is lost revenues. Households don't have limitless pockets though, so realistically if content piracy increases the hypothetical conversion is likely to fall. Without some validation of what consumer spending trends are for entertainment content the numbers given are just wishful thinking.
In fact, Tumbled Logic suggests why current trends on Torrent downloading could mean conversion of downloads to sales could be as low as 0,5% - which would cut the estimates in this study by a huge 95%. Assumptions are crucial in reaching a trustworthy result.....
Next we hear how piracy is having huge impacts on the music industry and that reductions in physícal disc sales have collapsed and that piracy must be to blame. This is supposition not supported by the evidence... There is clear evidence that revenues from live performances have substantially increased and that the total music industry revenues including these are stable - and further evidence that shows that there is a switch in buying behaviour from music and other passive media to games - a sector that shows significant growth. Less piracy may have inhibited that shift to live performance and games, but where's the evidence that less piracy would grow the overall available market?
Again, unless a study can substantiate a growth in consumer spending on media over and above existing levels (with for instance cinema attendances at record levels) how can you project huge losses? Here in lies the rub.... as a consumer if I spend more on music, or TV or video, then I spend less on something else. So just where is the economy going to be hit if consumers are buying all their content instead of taking a share online?
Lastly, in this whistlestop critique, is the figures for lost jobs quoted... the hypothesis is that if we increase sales on video 'X' we have more money to employ more people and to create more content. But is that a realistic view? Media companies want to maximise their profits, not maximise their output - and at the end of the day consumers have a finite budget and a finite amount of time to consume content. Is it a given that higher sales will generate employment? Better sales per production could even have the opposite effect... we don't need to create as many films/songs to generate our sales (and profit) targets - so why dilute the market by creating more content?
Seek.. and you shall find. But don't believe everything you read!
Piratpartiet &; The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
The report is interesting reading but not totally convincing. If it were a climate report it's the type of publication that would have climate sceptics baying for blood. I'll give some comment here and if you want more analysis read on at Technollamna, Tumbled Logic, and Open.... Overall the authors I think have done a good job of setting out what they have done, and importantly what they have assumed - and in that sense it's a valuable input to the debate that bears study.
My first and biggest problem with the report is that it sets out to evaluate the damage done by piracy - and as such finds the result it is looking for. It isn't a holistic view of the economy and doesn't consider balancing factors - like increased bandwidth usage from non-commercial sharing stimulating the telecoms sector.
The basic premise of the report is that the creative industries and supporting sectors are a major part of the economy and are at serious risk from piracy. They then present figures that show that piracy as they evaluate it amounts to around a 2% of creative industry value. Noticeable but not at a level that supports the premise that piracy is killing creativity. Moreover, they include in their assessments non core industry sectors like paper production (and production of physical recording media) which are much more at risk from the rise of the digital economy than they are from piracy.
They then evaluate piracy losses based on two scenarios - one based on forecast growth of file sharing traffic (+18% p.a) - and the other based on overall growth of consumer IP traffic (+24% p.a). This second scenario, professionally speaking, I consider pure fantasy as consumer IP traffic is likely to be driven by legitimate online and IP-TV rather than an explosive growth in piracy.
Both scenarios miss an important element in a holistic view - which is the consumer's ability to pay. Predictions of traffic growth are based on significant reductions in cost per bit. There is no assumption that consumers are prepared to pay 18-24% per year more for bandwidth - and there clearly is no rationale to think that the value of pirated content conversion to legitimate sales would rise at those rates either.
Put another way - the study assumes a constant percentage of pirated content is lost revenues. Households don't have limitless pockets though, so realistically if content piracy increases the hypothetical conversion is likely to fall. Without some validation of what consumer spending trends are for entertainment content the numbers given are just wishful thinking.
In fact, Tumbled Logic suggests why current trends on Torrent downloading could mean conversion of downloads to sales could be as low as 0,5% - which would cut the estimates in this study by a huge 95%. Assumptions are crucial in reaching a trustworthy result.....
Next we hear how piracy is having huge impacts on the music industry and that reductions in physícal disc sales have collapsed and that piracy must be to blame. This is supposition not supported by the evidence... There is clear evidence that revenues from live performances have substantially increased and that the total music industry revenues including these are stable - and further evidence that shows that there is a switch in buying behaviour from music and other passive media to games - a sector that shows significant growth. Less piracy may have inhibited that shift to live performance and games, but where's the evidence that less piracy would grow the overall available market?
Again, unless a study can substantiate a growth in consumer spending on media over and above existing levels (with for instance cinema attendances at record levels) how can you project huge losses? Here in lies the rub.... as a consumer if I spend more on music, or TV or video, then I spend less on something else. So just where is the economy going to be hit if consumers are buying all their content instead of taking a share online?
Lastly, in this whistlestop critique, is the figures for lost jobs quoted... the hypothesis is that if we increase sales on video 'X' we have more money to employ more people and to create more content. But is that a realistic view? Media companies want to maximise their profits, not maximise their output - and at the end of the day consumers have a finite budget and a finite amount of time to consume content. Is it a given that higher sales will generate employment? Better sales per production could even have the opposite effect... we don't need to create as many films/songs to generate our sales (and profit) targets - so why dilute the market by creating more content?
Seek.. and you shall find. But don't believe everything you read!
Piratpartiet &; The Pirate Party - Make your voice heard.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
ACTA under fire at the EU Parliament
There have been rumblings for some time at the EU Parliament about the negotiations on the ACTA counterfeiting and trade negotiations. Parliament doesn't like being told they are not allowed to see what the negotiators are agreeing on their behalf and for the benefit or otherwise of Europe's citizens.
Now the decks are cleared and the cannons rolled out and the parliamentarians are taking action. Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP is one of the movers behind a motion that in fine words tells the Commission to stop fannying around and put all their cards on the table. Pointing out among other things that
"the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all stages of international negotiations"
But it's not just an armlock to get visibility of what the negotiators are up to - the motion goes further, and places concrete limitations on what the negotiators can sign up for.
"..no to three-strikes Hadopi-type legislation, and no to searches of laptops, cell phones and other digital devices at the borders by customs officers".
Representation in parliament. Isn't it wonderful. Voting on the motion is today... though it sounds like it has broad cross party support which sounds promising.
All quotes from Christian's blog.
(PS: life's kind of busy right now... so blogging is on a bit of a low tide.)
Now the decks are cleared and the cannons rolled out and the parliamentarians are taking action. Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP is one of the movers behind a motion that in fine words tells the Commission to stop fannying around and put all their cards on the table. Pointing out among other things that
"the Commission has since the 1 December 2009 the legal obligation to immediately and fully inform the European Parliament at all stages of international negotiations"
But it's not just an armlock to get visibility of what the negotiators are up to - the motion goes further, and places concrete limitations on what the negotiators can sign up for.
"..no to three-strikes Hadopi-type legislation, and no to searches of laptops, cell phones and other digital devices at the borders by customs officers".
Representation in parliament. Isn't it wonderful. Voting on the motion is today... though it sounds like it has broad cross party support which sounds promising.
All quotes from Christian's blog.
(PS: life's kind of busy right now... so blogging is on a bit of a low tide.)
Friday, 12 February 2010
Privacy, Copyright & Integrity: Steps in the right direction..
I've been a bit busy recently - but things are happening out there in the big wide world...
You no doubt saw that in Australia they've ruled that an ISP shouldn't be held to account for the content carried... a revalidation of the 'pure carrier' doctrine with it's analogy in "don't shoot the messenger". A great commentary on the judgement by Technolama
In the UK, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights were not at all happy with the provisions of the governments proposed Digital Economy Bill - which is hardly surprising but reasuring to hear. Meanwile the EU parliament think the privacy of their citizens merits protection and have said no to the Swift agreement that gives the USA bulk access to european banking data. Thanks you guys (& gals)!
The EFF today reports on a victory in the US courts that confirms the 'first rights' principle that if you buy something it's yours to enjoy, share and sell as you like - no matter what small print a company may add on the box. You bought it, you own it.
..and Cory Doctorow explains how if you look into the issues with IP, copyright and innovation you come to very different conclusions than if you crib your research from lobbyists... (from the tireless Michel Geist).
And of course Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP, celebrated making it to the big 50. Congratulations Christian - keep up the good work!
You no doubt saw that in Australia they've ruled that an ISP shouldn't be held to account for the content carried... a revalidation of the 'pure carrier' doctrine with it's analogy in "don't shoot the messenger". A great commentary on the judgement by Technolama
In the UK, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights were not at all happy with the provisions of the governments proposed Digital Economy Bill - which is hardly surprising but reasuring to hear. Meanwile the EU parliament think the privacy of their citizens merits protection and have said no to the Swift agreement that gives the USA bulk access to european banking data. Thanks you guys (& gals)!
The EFF today reports on a victory in the US courts that confirms the 'first rights' principle that if you buy something it's yours to enjoy, share and sell as you like - no matter what small print a company may add on the box. You bought it, you own it.
..and Cory Doctorow explains how if you look into the issues with IP, copyright and innovation you come to very different conclusions than if you crib your research from lobbyists... (from the tireless Michel Geist).
And of course Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP, celebrated making it to the big 50. Congratulations Christian - keep up the good work!
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
What goes round comes around... EU, Canada and IP law
Michael Geist has what for me is a depressing post on ongoing negotiations between the EU and Canada on trade.... including big changes in IP law. Depressing because it is the EU that are pressing Canada to implement more stringent measures on copyright including measures against circumvention of digital locks, and copyright term extension from 50 to 70 years. The EU aligns with the US... and then the EU presses Canada to align with the EU.
How about a new process for 2010? The EU aligns with Canada.. and tells the USA that they need to get their act in order and liberalise their IP laws?
Some of the things that are in the proposals include things I didn't even know existed under EU law... like that prohibition on circumventing digital locks - and a resale provision providing royalties for artists on second hand sales of portraits and statues... (When did that arrive???)
Christian, HAX..... what's the low down??????
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
How about a new process for 2010? The EU aligns with Canada.. and tells the USA that they need to get their act in order and liberalise their IP laws?
Some of the things that are in the proposals include things I didn't even know existed under EU law... like that prohibition on circumventing digital locks - and a resale provision providing royalties for artists on second hand sales of portraits and statues... (When did that arrive???)
Christian, HAX..... what's the low down??????
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
EU Parliament sticks to it's guns - 138 text agreed...
"A camel - is a horse designed by a committee"
Christian Engström, Piratpartiets MEP, reports that the negotiations over the wording of what was amendment 138 are now complete. The full text is available on his blog. I dare say lawyers on all sides are now going over it to see what it will mean in practce but on the face of it it provides the main safeguards that parliament had agreed were needed - including a guarantee of a prior, fair and impartial procedure.
The text is not bomb proof. I suspect in practice that much will depend on an interpretation of whether it is "fair and impartial" to cut someone off and only allow them to test it in a court afterwards. .. and an interpretation of what is a 'duly substantiated case of urgency' as a reason to circumvent due process.
I for one though want to take the opportunity of thanking Christian, Phillipe Lamberts and all the other members of the parliamentary committee for sticking to their guns.
I hope now their camel is fit for the course....
Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Guilty until proven innocent - if they can decide.
Democracy.... You all cast your vote and all these reprsentatives gets together and decides things. They vote.. and that's how it's going to be.
EU democracy.... You all cast your vote and all these representatives gets together and decides things. They vote.. Then they choose a number of representatives who may or may not agree with what parliament decided and go and talk with nominees from national governments. The representatives change what parliament has already decided on and then change it again until the nominees are happy that what parliament has decided doesn't affect them any more.....
Tomorrow is the day... when the representatives from the EU parliament meet the Council of Ministers again to discuss new wording for amendment 138- and unless the representatives find some backbone the will of the parliament is going to end on the cutting room floor.
Innocent until proven guilty. NOT negotiable....
HAX on this weeks EU proceedings
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
EU democracy.... You all cast your vote and all these representatives gets together and decides things. They vote.. Then they choose a number of representatives who may or may not agree with what parliament decided and go and talk with nominees from national governments. The representatives change what parliament has already decided on and then change it again until the nominees are happy that what parliament has decided doesn't affect them any more.....
Tomorrow is the day... when the representatives from the EU parliament meet the Council of Ministers again to discuss new wording for amendment 138- and unless the representatives find some backbone the will of the parliament is going to end on the cutting room floor.
Innocent until proven guilty. NOT negotiable....
HAX on this weeks EU proceedings
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Watching you: Surveillance and the EU.
Open Europe has published a new report taking stock of how the EU is impacting our civil liberties.... Everyone should read it: "How the EU is watching you: the rise of Europe's surveillance state"
Quoting the Open Europe blog: "There are lots of juicy proposals in the pipeline including: a target to train a third of all police officers across the EU in a “common culture” of policing; the mass collection and sharing of personal data including DNA records into an EU-wide database; controversial surveillance techniques including ‘cyber patrols’; the creation of a fledgling ‘EU Home Office’ with powers to decide on cooperation on police, border, immigration and criminal justice issues; an EU “master plan” on information exchange; the transfer of criminal proceedings among EU member states; a three-fold increase in the number of controversial EU arrest warrants; access to other member states’ national tax databases; and EU laws on citizens’ right to internet access."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
Also on: HAX & The Telegraph
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Quoting the Open Europe blog: "There are lots of juicy proposals in the pipeline including: a target to train a third of all police officers across the EU in a “common culture” of policing; the mass collection and sharing of personal data including DNA records into an EU-wide database; controversial surveillance techniques including ‘cyber patrols’; the creation of a fledgling ‘EU Home Office’ with powers to decide on cooperation on police, border, immigration and criminal justice issues; an EU “master plan” on information exchange; the transfer of criminal proceedings among EU member states; a three-fold increase in the number of controversial EU arrest warrants; access to other member states’ national tax databases; and EU laws on citizens’ right to internet access."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
Also on: HAX & The Telegraph
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Redefining piracy
Christian Engström, Piratpartiet's MEP reports on proceedings at JURI, the EU committee on legal affairs, who have been debating counterfeiting and piracy - specifically this document:
Enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market
- which contains plans to set up an 'observatory' on counterfeiting and piracy.
It's an initiative that PP blogger Mikael Nilsson describes as "a comprehensive campaign to, together with the copyright industry, find the best methods to chase and brainwash the population"
Christian, who sits on JURI as part of his work at the EU parliament, took the chance at the meeting to point out that counterfeiting and piracy are not at all the same thing - and that piracy is is not a judicial term and they in fact mean copyright infringement.
He's only partly right since (maritime) piracy is defined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982 as "any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft." (It must be true... Wikipedia says so...). ..which begs the question what does that have to do with intellectual property and copyright?
Christian's point though is that lumping non-commercial file sharing, which Piratpartiet wants to legalise, with counterfeiting, which we don't, muddies the waters - and really only to the benefit of the copyright industry.
In the comments to the article 'Daniel' points out that use of the term piracy is most probably because it's stigmatising meaning has taken root. ..and of course he's right. Talking about 'Piracy' is intended to imply that something bad is happening and the term can't be considered neutral or impartial.
Which set me thinking... we need a campaign to take back what is ours. Conservatives have conservatism. Liberals have liberalism, and Pirates have piracy. In a political context Pirates now means the pirate movement, and piracy by analogy properly ought to mean "following pirate ideology" - sharing culture, opposing intellectual monopolies and above all respect for civil and human rights (like privacy).
In which case... an observatory on 'piracy' would be a good thing... (We need more people looking out for our rights and principles)
Anyone care to sign up?
Enhancing the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market
- which contains plans to set up an 'observatory' on counterfeiting and piracy.
It's an initiative that PP blogger Mikael Nilsson describes as "a comprehensive campaign to, together with the copyright industry, find the best methods to chase and brainwash the population"
Christian, who sits on JURI as part of his work at the EU parliament, took the chance at the meeting to point out that counterfeiting and piracy are not at all the same thing - and that piracy is is not a judicial term and they in fact mean copyright infringement.
He's only partly right since (maritime) piracy is defined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982 as "any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft." (It must be true... Wikipedia says so...). ..which begs the question what does that have to do with intellectual property and copyright?
Christian's point though is that lumping non-commercial file sharing, which Piratpartiet wants to legalise, with counterfeiting, which we don't, muddies the waters - and really only to the benefit of the copyright industry.
In the comments to the article 'Daniel' points out that use of the term piracy is most probably because it's stigmatising meaning has taken root. ..and of course he's right. Talking about 'Piracy' is intended to imply that something bad is happening and the term can't be considered neutral or impartial.
Which set me thinking... we need a campaign to take back what is ours. Conservatives have conservatism. Liberals have liberalism, and Pirates have piracy. In a political context Pirates now means the pirate movement, and piracy by analogy properly ought to mean "following pirate ideology" - sharing culture, opposing intellectual monopolies and above all respect for civil and human rights (like privacy).
In which case... an observatory on 'piracy' would be a good thing... (We need more people looking out for our rights and principles)
Anyone care to sign up?
Monday, 21 September 2009
Piracy & Telecoms - taking the fight to Europe
I confess I've not seen it mentioned in the British press - but Swedish bloggers - at least the piratical ones - are all aware that the Telecom package is going for it's third round with negotiations between the elected parliament and the unelected council of ministers.
Amongst the things that's up for debate is the provisions of amendment 138 that would ensure that no-one can be disconnected from the internet without it first going to court. For some reason the council of ministers don't really want to sign up for this and have proposed an alternative wording -which leaves it open to each country to decide whether you get a judicial hearing in advance - or get to object after the event. The difference in wording is subtle but the difference in meaning is huge. Innocent until proven guilty becomes guilty until proven innocent... which simply put, ain't good enough.
On top of that the provisions of the bill as is will permit ISPs to filter content and restrict users or traffic types - carving up net neutrality just as the FCC are laying out guidelines to protect it in the US.
Piratpartiet's MEP Christian Engström is among those joining the negotiations from the parliamentary side - It's great to see Christian in the thick of it so soon, working to keeping justice and integrity on the rails - and it's nice to know my vote went to a good home.... Just a bit of bugger that he needs to...
Links: Christian Engström, HAX on the parliamentary delegates, ..and read the truly excellent analysis by Monica Horten of the University of Westminster, Communications and Media Research Institute (CAMRI)
Amongst the things that's up for debate is the provisions of amendment 138 that would ensure that no-one can be disconnected from the internet without it first going to court. For some reason the council of ministers don't really want to sign up for this and have proposed an alternative wording -which leaves it open to each country to decide whether you get a judicial hearing in advance - or get to object after the event. The difference in wording is subtle but the difference in meaning is huge. Innocent until proven guilty becomes guilty until proven innocent... which simply put, ain't good enough.
On top of that the provisions of the bill as is will permit ISPs to filter content and restrict users or traffic types - carving up net neutrality just as the FCC are laying out guidelines to protect it in the US.
Piratpartiet's MEP Christian Engström is among those joining the negotiations from the parliamentary side - It's great to see Christian in the thick of it so soon, working to keeping justice and integrity on the rails - and it's nice to know my vote went to a good home.... Just a bit of bugger that he needs to...
Links: Christian Engström, HAX on the parliamentary delegates, ..and read the truly excellent analysis by Monica Horten of the University of Westminster, Communications and Media Research Institute (CAMRI)
Thursday, 23 July 2009
News in fetters?
The latest Piratpartiet newsletter from Anna Troberg picks up on the Hamburg Declaration. This is a collection of newspaper publishers setting out their stall for the EU Commission for increased copyright protection on the Internet - with the aim of manipulating the legal structure to give them a preferential advantage to exploit the news - that is, changing the law to line their own pockets.
In the linked article is the quote "we no longer wish to be forced to give away property without having granted permission." which I find frankly bizarre.
My view on this is that, following the model set by the film and music industry the press have decided it is easier to lobby their way to a profit than to find a way to run an effective web based business. A key complaint is that aggregators and search engines are making money out of linking to their content and they want to be able to charge for content re-use.
But consider that:
In the linked article is the quote "we no longer wish to be forced to give away property without having granted permission." which I find frankly bizarre.
My view on this is that, following the model set by the film and music industry the press have decided it is easier to lobby their way to a profit than to find a way to run an effective web based business. A key complaint is that aggregators and search engines are making money out of linking to their content and they want to be able to charge for content re-use.
But consider that:
- Newspapers today make substantial use of free sources (reporting on news coming from 'citizen journalists', blogs and similar sources) and cross citation from other papers, TV and radio
- Restrictions on reporting and citation are a limitation of free speech.
- Many newspaper websites make substantial use of user generated content - blogs and user comments - to attract readers.
- A newspaper is not forced to put items on the web.
- Many publications already make some or all of it's content available on a registration only or subscription basis - like the Financial Times, Economist and New Scientist for example.
- Search engines and aggregators drive traffic to newspapers. They provide free advertising for the newspapers.
- Search engines link rather than copy material.
- A website can simply prevent it's content being included in search engines - they just don't want to.
- Nothing is stopping newspaper sites themselves providing news aggregation to increase their coverage and share of advertising revenue.
More laws aren't the answer.
For more on the debate round newspaper strategies for the digital age check out Debategraph - a reall nifty site I just discovered thanks to The Open Rights Group (also a good read).
Thursday, 16 July 2009
EU Big Brother plans
More in English on the Stockholm Programme - "a five-year plan they claim is designed to make it easier to catch criminals and keep Europe’s citizens safe".
Cribbed from the ever resourceful HAX...
Cribbed from the ever resourceful HAX...
Monday, 13 July 2009
Pirates say NO to increased state surveillance
Piratpartiet in Sweden are organising a demonstration this Wednesday against the EU's "Stockholm package"- a set of measures that, while talking of improving protection of citizens privacy and rights includes a number of measures that strengthen the rise of the surveillance state.
These include:
* Increased co-operation between the EU and the US "in the field of freedom, security and justice".
* National anti-terrorist centres in all EU states that report in to Brussels
* All EU states wil share their espionage information with all their EU states
* More and more effective, "data-mining".
* Real time access to citizens data on e.g travel, banking, mobile position, internet use as well as fingerprint and picture.
* More effective surveillance through pro-active collection of individual citizens electronic footprints.
* EU-standardisation of surveillance
* Harmonisaton of EU rules to avoid (legal) obstructions to surveillance and tapping.
* Analysis at EU level of material from member states sureveillance and mass surveillance.
* An extended EU-bureaucracy for surveillance, tapping and analysis called SitCen.
Sweden have the EU presidency right now - which puts them in the driving seat to push forward this programme - but public opinion throughout Europe will have a bearing on what mandate exists to push through measures.
Piratpartiet is supported in its opposition by a number of other politic organisations including the Green Party, the Young Greens, the Liberal Network for Integrity and 'Social Democrats against Big Brother'.
These measures were discussed in the UK press a year ago but now will move forward towards implementation. Make your voice heard - talk about it, write about it, blog about it - write to your local paper, and write to your MP and MEP....
Facebook event
Links:
The Telegraph:
The Guardian:
EU information:
These include:
* Increased co-operation between the EU and the US "in the field of freedom, security and justice".
* National anti-terrorist centres in all EU states that report in to Brussels
* All EU states wil share their espionage information with all their EU states
* More and more effective, "data-mining".
* Real time access to citizens data on e.g travel, banking, mobile position, internet use as well as fingerprint and picture.
* More effective surveillance through pro-active collection of individual citizens electronic footprints.
* EU-standardisation of surveillance
* Harmonisaton of EU rules to avoid (legal) obstructions to surveillance and tapping.
* Analysis at EU level of material from member states sureveillance and mass surveillance.
* An extended EU-bureaucracy for surveillance, tapping and analysis called SitCen.
Sweden have the EU presidency right now - which puts them in the driving seat to push forward this programme - but public opinion throughout Europe will have a bearing on what mandate exists to push through measures.
Piratpartiet is supported in its opposition by a number of other politic organisations including the Green Party, the Young Greens, the Liberal Network for Integrity and 'Social Democrats against Big Brother'.
These measures were discussed in the UK press a year ago but now will move forward towards implementation. Make your voice heard - talk about it, write about it, blog about it - write to your local paper, and write to your MP and MEP....
Facebook event
Links:
The Telegraph:
The Guardian:
EU information:
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
New voters, new views
Current in the news (as Rick Falkvinge highlights) is the results of school ballots that show the support for Piratpartiet outstripping the mainstream parties - taking more votes than the two leading parties put together. Turn out is low (~20%) - but even so, support of 30% or more shows how important PP's core issues are to the young (bearing in mind that the school ballots include a good slice of first time voters). Given that PP support is highly skewed between the sexes the support among young men must be sky high.
Critics - commenters on newspaper coverage - criticise the result as young people that 'don't understand' and are just interested in legalising filesharing, i.e. are voting for their own self-interest. Perhaps there's something in that, but it's nonchalant in the extreme to disregard their political awareness.
The young have the vision to see society how they would like it to be. They have yet to be bound in by the millstone of inertia in the existing establishment. They don't have jobs, and they don't have mortgages, or children, or elderly parents needing care - clearly they have different priorities in choosing which issues matter to them. Young voters are not voting for which party will give them the biggest tax cuts or the biggest handouts. ..and maybe the young have yet to learn by experience what a big bad place the world is.
But anyone criticising the young for voting Pirate really need to wake up and think about the real issues behind the filesharing debate. Today the world is moving fast towards a surveillance society where the Internet is a tool for the government to keep track of it's citizens.
The brightest, best and most creative thinking comes from the young... that they see the consequences of the introduction of the Internet - and the pressing need to preserve our freedoms and rights by protecting it's freedom from censorship and surveillance - should be a wake up call. What have you lost sight of?
Filesharing is a part of youth culture - and of course that means there is interest in defending that culture from 'the evils of industry'. But if that leads young people to be informed and engaged on issues of personal freedom and integrity then for me that is a great thing. ...a whole new generation that clearly see the need to defend rights and to create a better more open society.
Update: Check out Pure Nandi's description of a school political debate - and notice that it's integrity and not filesharing that is under the spotlight. (in swedish..)
Critics - commenters on newspaper coverage - criticise the result as young people that 'don't understand' and are just interested in legalising filesharing, i.e. are voting for their own self-interest. Perhaps there's something in that, but it's nonchalant in the extreme to disregard their political awareness.
The young have the vision to see society how they would like it to be. They have yet to be bound in by the millstone of inertia in the existing establishment. They don't have jobs, and they don't have mortgages, or children, or elderly parents needing care - clearly they have different priorities in choosing which issues matter to them. Young voters are not voting for which party will give them the biggest tax cuts or the biggest handouts. ..and maybe the young have yet to learn by experience what a big bad place the world is.
But anyone criticising the young for voting Pirate really need to wake up and think about the real issues behind the filesharing debate. Today the world is moving fast towards a surveillance society where the Internet is a tool for the government to keep track of it's citizens.
The brightest, best and most creative thinking comes from the young... that they see the consequences of the introduction of the Internet - and the pressing need to preserve our freedoms and rights by protecting it's freedom from censorship and surveillance - should be a wake up call. What have you lost sight of?
Filesharing is a part of youth culture - and of course that means there is interest in defending that culture from 'the evils of industry'. But if that leads young people to be informed and engaged on issues of personal freedom and integrity then for me that is a great thing. ...a whole new generation that clearly see the need to defend rights and to create a better more open society.
Update: Check out Pure Nandi's description of a school political debate - and notice that it's integrity and not filesharing that is under the spotlight. (in swedish..)
Patents: I take my hat off to the man in red
The European Patent Office has a referral ongoing to the 'Enlarged Board of Appeal' covering interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC) in regard to software patents. Basically - under what circumstances can a computer programme be regarded as a technical invention and not a programme and therefore be patentable.
Submissions from individuals, companies and governments are now in... and are all available here. As you might suppose they cover a wide range of views with varying degrees of analysis and legal argument.
For a great presentation of innovation and open source, the negative impact of software patents and for a sensible plain language interpretation of the questions put I recommend the input from Redhat... The Piratpartiet input on this occasion I'm sad to say was by comparison somewhat lightweight... Sorry guys
Submissions from individuals, companies and governments are now in... and are all available here. As you might suppose they cover a wide range of views with varying degrees of analysis and legal argument.
For a great presentation of innovation and open source, the negative impact of software patents and for a sensible plain language interpretation of the questions put I recommend the input from Redhat... The Piratpartiet input on this occasion I'm sad to say was by comparison somewhat lightweight... Sorry guys
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Voting shennanigans
Britain, as half the world knows has an antiquated electoral system (at least for parliament). You divide the country up into small constituencies, and each one votes one candidate to parliament on a first 'past the post' basis. It's a system that guarantees that the political representation in parliament bears no resemblance to the spread of political opinion in the country.
Voting though is simple.. you get a piece of paper with all the candidates listed and you cross against the one you are voting for.... ALL the candidates.
I mention this for one reason - to explain how farcical it is to me to see the recent debate on alleged election fraud here in Sweden. Each party has a whole list of candidates, so there is a separate ballot paper for each party... You just pick the one you fancy and stick it in the box.
And the state takes care of all the printing and distribution so that's OK. Unless you're a small party and then you have to print and distribute your own...
And then when the voter gets there they check over the assembled ballots and choose. Of course it's bad luck if the electoral officials chose to leave your party's blank ballots on a little table off to the side - or thought they would just ditch yours at the end the day (advance balloting is taking place now). If no one sees your ballot papers you're not likely to get many votes..
Sloppy practice, or a bit of subtle electoral bias? Both Piratpartiet and Feministiska Initiativ have cried foul - hopefully loud enough for abnormalities to be fewer in the last days of the campaign. Piratpartiet have in any case taken a practical and mature response to this risk and drawn up a clear summary of what the law says, and how to escalate.
And purely by coincidence, Sweden is to get independant external election observers for the first time ever.....
Voting though is simple.. you get a piece of paper with all the candidates listed and you cross against the one you are voting for.... ALL the candidates.
I mention this for one reason - to explain how farcical it is to me to see the recent debate on alleged election fraud here in Sweden. Each party has a whole list of candidates, so there is a separate ballot paper for each party... You just pick the one you fancy and stick it in the box.
And the state takes care of all the printing and distribution so that's OK. Unless you're a small party and then you have to print and distribute your own...
And then when the voter gets there they check over the assembled ballots and choose. Of course it's bad luck if the electoral officials chose to leave your party's blank ballots on a little table off to the side - or thought they would just ditch yours at the end the day (advance balloting is taking place now). If no one sees your ballot papers you're not likely to get many votes..
Sloppy practice, or a bit of subtle electoral bias? Both Piratpartiet and Feministiska Initiativ have cried foul - hopefully loud enough for abnormalities to be fewer in the last days of the campaign. Piratpartiet have in any case taken a practical and mature response to this risk and drawn up a clear summary of what the law says, and how to escalate.
And purely by coincidence, Sweden is to get independant external election observers for the first time ever.....
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Ducking the issue
Last night was the first candidates debate on SVT Agenda - a chance for the party leaders to trade blows on the issues in advance of the EU election. I didn't see it but by all accounts (and disregarding what was said) it was a strange affair.
Even before it went on air Piratpartiet were vocally decrying that they had no invite... This despite now being the third largest party - in terms of membership - and having had several poll results showing they have enough support to get a seat. Not only that but privacy, personal integrity and state intervention in the internet have been big news for the last year - and all have a European dimension.
It could be deliberate attempt to deny the Pirates a voice - but it smacks a little of stage management since the debate didn't in fact focus on EU issues at all ...something that ststsministern Fredrik Reinfeldt was none too pleaased of either.
The issues that the Pirate party campaign on - personal integrity, copyright and patent reform are important enough for the electorate to win them 5% of voter support on just that issue. Many other voters must think it important too but will choose to vote for a party that has a broader platform that they campaign on. A not insignificant slice of the electorate then...
Piratpartiet has the country's biggest youth party - bigger than any other two put together and draws disproportionate support among the young - which includes first time voters in this election - so excluding PP is in a sense alienating young voters at a time when people complain of voter apathy.
Political parties are a bit like banks... We pick one and stick with it.... so it is bad news for the established parties to duck the debate with Piratpartiet. ..and surprising for the programmers as well to miss the chance to have them there. Having PP on the show would sharpen the debate - and give parties a chance to show whether Piratpartiens abstinence on other issues was significant or not...
So, by my reckoning, the pirates missed out, the other parties missed out, and the voters missed out. So who was it for...??? And why run a debate on domestic politics when we are about to vote on representation in Europe?!?
Even before it went on air Piratpartiet were vocally decrying that they had no invite... This despite now being the third largest party - in terms of membership - and having had several poll results showing they have enough support to get a seat. Not only that but privacy, personal integrity and state intervention in the internet have been big news for the last year - and all have a European dimension.
It could be deliberate attempt to deny the Pirates a voice - but it smacks a little of stage management since the debate didn't in fact focus on EU issues at all ...something that ststsministern Fredrik Reinfeldt was none too pleaased of either.
The issues that the Pirate party campaign on - personal integrity, copyright and patent reform are important enough for the electorate to win them 5% of voter support on just that issue. Many other voters must think it important too but will choose to vote for a party that has a broader platform that they campaign on. A not insignificant slice of the electorate then...
Piratpartiet has the country's biggest youth party - bigger than any other two put together and draws disproportionate support among the young - which includes first time voters in this election - so excluding PP is in a sense alienating young voters at a time when people complain of voter apathy.
Political parties are a bit like banks... We pick one and stick with it.... so it is bad news for the established parties to duck the debate with Piratpartiet. ..and surprising for the programmers as well to miss the chance to have them there. Having PP on the show would sharpen the debate - and give parties a chance to show whether Piratpartiens abstinence on other issues was significant or not...
So, by my reckoning, the pirates missed out, the other parties missed out, and the voters missed out. So who was it for...??? And why run a debate on domestic politics when we are about to vote on representation in Europe?!?
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Liberté? Egalité? Fraternité?
France consumated it's marriage to the media industry this week with approval of the Hadopi law allowing internet users to be cut off from the Internet without going through the courts.. based purely on accusations from the media industry. To add insult to injury people having their internet service withdrawn are still required to pay their subscription... (if that bit made it to the final legislation?)
Details seem hard to find - but apparently the only way to prove your innocence is to accept the installation of government spyware. And failing to accept installation of the software will be taken as evidence of guilt.
Innocent until proven guilty? The right to remain silent? The right to a fair trial even....
It's scary how basic rights and principles arebeing trampled over in the rush to clamp down on copyright infringement. And curious that when half the Internet users in France are breaking current copyright law that the politicians haven't wondered whether they shouldn't be looking at whether the law (and the principles behind it) are due for some serious reform...
The ray of light in this particular dark tunnel is that this legislation conflicts with recent EU decisions to forbid exclusion from the internet without judicial review.. French MEP Guy Bono has said he will ask the European Commission to instigate a lawsuit against France if the law is not first thrown out by a French constitutional court.
My commiserations also to Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim who was sacked from his job working with internet innovation within French broadcaster TF1 after an email written to his MP opposing the bill ended up with his employer (after having been forwarded to the culture ministry). Let's add free speech to the endangered species list.......
Details seem hard to find - but apparently the only way to prove your innocence is to accept the installation of government spyware. And failing to accept installation of the software will be taken as evidence of guilt.
Innocent until proven guilty? The right to remain silent? The right to a fair trial even....
It's scary how basic rights and principles arebeing trampled over in the rush to clamp down on copyright infringement. And curious that when half the Internet users in France are breaking current copyright law that the politicians haven't wondered whether they shouldn't be looking at whether the law (and the principles behind it) are due for some serious reform...
The ray of light in this particular dark tunnel is that this legislation conflicts with recent EU decisions to forbid exclusion from the internet without judicial review.. French MEP Guy Bono has said he will ask the European Commission to instigate a lawsuit against France if the law is not first thrown out by a French constitutional court.
My commiserations also to Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim who was sacked from his job working with internet innovation within French broadcaster TF1 after an email written to his MP opposing the bill ended up with his employer (after having been forwarded to the culture ministry). Let's add free speech to the endangered species list.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
