MP Tom Watson has an interview with UK Culture Minister Ben Bradshaw on government plans for cutting off illicit filesharers. Right at the start he answers the question:
" Given ... the proposals to temporarily cut people off as a result of accusations of illicit file sharing by some sections of the music industry, do you think that those people deserve to prove their innocence in a court of law."
To which the answer was " Absolutely, Yes". He then goes on to explain how court orders will be taken out on the basis of accusations - and only then will accused copyright infringers be given the opportunity to prove their innocence.
I was gobsmacked.... How is this an acceptable and fair judicial process? - the burden of evidence (not accusation) ought to lie in proving guilt - not in proving innocence. What sort of tin-pot country are you running over there?
It does of course get around the problem seen in countries like Denmark where prosecutors have more or less given up because providing evidence that stands up in court has proved almost impossible to get.
This neatly sidsteps that issue and instead puts the defendant in the tricky position of proving they weren't the one making downloads....
Reading on in the interview we hear that he doesn't know how much the new systerm will cost to implement, and he doesn't know how much artists can expect to gain as a result. He does however know that the music industy is losng £200m a year from piracy - because they told him.
Then in a wonderful piece of double talk he goes on to tell us that illicit filesharing is potentially devastating for the creative industries - industries that are growing much faster than the rest of the economy. Strange that - if they have such strong growth given the current levels of file sharing, doesn't that kind of say there is no problem???
Some days I wonder what planet these people are on.....
(There's no date on the blog post so I don't know when it was posted - it is reported on P2PNet as being from Novemeber)
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.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Behind closed doors - more on ACTA
Michaels Geist's update on the latest discussions on ACTA brought forward this pithy comment.
"Our silly cops here are concerned with trivial things like gang murders, armed holdups, stabbings, crystal meth, tracking rapists etc. I'm sure they would really appreciate being diverted to hunt down unlicensed Mickey Mouse dolls, and infringing mp3s of the latest Metallica album."
The topic under discussion was criminal penalties for copyright offences...
When governments get together behind closed doors to protect the interests of big business against the winds of change - and aginst the interests of their voters - you start to wonder where democracy went...
Can't we please just cut the terms for copyright back to something sensible (thereby simulating more new work, instead of letting companes live off back catalogs) and decriminilise non-commercial file sharing.
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
"Our silly cops here are concerned with trivial things like gang murders, armed holdups, stabbings, crystal meth, tracking rapists etc. I'm sure they would really appreciate being diverted to hunt down unlicensed Mickey Mouse dolls, and infringing mp3s of the latest Metallica album."
The topic under discussion was criminal penalties for copyright offences...
When governments get together behind closed doors to protect the interests of big business against the winds of change - and aginst the interests of their voters - you start to wonder where democracy went...
Can't we please just cut the terms for copyright back to something sensible (thereby simulating more new work, instead of letting companes live off back catalogs) and decriminilise non-commercial file sharing.
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Internet enforcement under ACTA
Michael Geist blogs on the details of the latest chapter of ACTA under debate in Korea. His top level take:
"it is clear that there is no bigger IP issue today than the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors this week in Korea."
Cory Doctorow gives his take on it all here....
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
"it is clear that there is no bigger IP issue today than the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors this week in Korea."
- Covers enforcement of intellectual property
- Eliminates sovereign choice of domestic copyright policy
- making Canada's recent copyright consultation a little pointless
- Focuses on copyright, not counterfeiting
- Goes beyond the terms of WIPO
- Third party liability for copyright infringement
- Restrictions on carriers limitation of 3rd party liability for infringement
- Termination of subscriptions
- Notice & takedown to become a requirement
- Anti-circumvention legislation with ban on DRM circumvention
- Rights management
- statutory damages
- search and seizure powers for border guards
- anti camcording rules
- mandatory disclosure of personal information
Cory Doctorow gives his take on it all here....
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.
Protect children - but not like this
Sweden, it's proposed, should have a law that bans looking at child pornography - ostensibly because if no one can look at it no one is going to make it. (It is of course already illegal to make and spread child pornography).
Is that a good idea? A number of bloggers have already come out to say that it's not - including PP stalwarts Rick Falkvinge & Anna Troberg who go further and say it should be a political issue for Piratpartiet.
So is it a good idea? And does it fall into the scope of pirate politics?
OK - Is it likely to be effective? Consider that Sweden's population is a fraction of a percent of the global population - and that child pornography is an international problem. That means unless Swedes are prolific consumer's of child porn it's unlikely to have a noticeable impact on the supply side. Unless this legislation impacts on the creation of child pornography it is ineffective in improving life for those caught up as children in it's production. It seems that it will fail in it's primary objective.
Then there is the philosophical question - how does someone know you have looked at something pornographic if they haven't looked at it. And if they have seen it haven't they themselves committed a crime?
..which leads to the practical problem of how do I avoid committing this crime if I have no way of knowing what is in an image - or on a web page - before I've seen it.
..and what constitutes a pornographic image of a child? That's undoubtedly defined somewhere for those working in enforcement - but will a layman know? .. this last is pertinent as the legislation will apply for images of models under 18. How can you tell from an image how old the person is??? ..before you've even seen the image?
But, practical issues apart - there is a big issue with the scope. You see there is one group of people that take lots of pictures of semi-clad teenagers - doing innocent and not so innocent things, and that is teenagers themselves. Now you might think it unseemly and immodest - but what happens legally between consenting young adults is more than likely going end up on camera sometimes. Fine - but this law would make it illegal to ever look at those pictures....
And if you think this is improbable you don't need to look further than the USA in March this year where teenage girls were threatened with being convicted of 'sexual abuse of children' for sharing semiclad photos - of themselves....
Fighting child porn is, or should be about working to protect the innocence of the child victims of that industry. Legislation that would make criminals where there are no victims is bad legislation - and criminalising teenagers for doing something that their elder peers can do legally is hypocritical, and an injustice.
Add to that the question of enforcement. How do you know who has looked at what? Legislation is pointless if it's not enforceable. What kind of surveillance powers are going to be needed to ensure compliance - monitoring everyone's surfing? Police trojans on every desktop?
So if we sum up: Ineffective, disproportionate and with serious risks for our rights to a private life...
not least for millions of teenagers who deserve the right to grow up unmolested by intrusive legislation.
Is that a good idea? A number of bloggers have already come out to say that it's not - including PP stalwarts Rick Falkvinge & Anna Troberg who go further and say it should be a political issue for Piratpartiet.
So is it a good idea? And does it fall into the scope of pirate politics?
OK - Is it likely to be effective? Consider that Sweden's population is a fraction of a percent of the global population - and that child pornography is an international problem. That means unless Swedes are prolific consumer's of child porn it's unlikely to have a noticeable impact on the supply side. Unless this legislation impacts on the creation of child pornography it is ineffective in improving life for those caught up as children in it's production. It seems that it will fail in it's primary objective.
Then there is the philosophical question - how does someone know you have looked at something pornographic if they haven't looked at it. And if they have seen it haven't they themselves committed a crime?
..which leads to the practical problem of how do I avoid committing this crime if I have no way of knowing what is in an image - or on a web page - before I've seen it.
..and what constitutes a pornographic image of a child? That's undoubtedly defined somewhere for those working in enforcement - but will a layman know? .. this last is pertinent as the legislation will apply for images of models under 18. How can you tell from an image how old the person is??? ..before you've even seen the image?
But, practical issues apart - there is a big issue with the scope. You see there is one group of people that take lots of pictures of semi-clad teenagers - doing innocent and not so innocent things, and that is teenagers themselves. Now you might think it unseemly and immodest - but what happens legally between consenting young adults is more than likely going end up on camera sometimes. Fine - but this law would make it illegal to ever look at those pictures....
And if you think this is improbable you don't need to look further than the USA in March this year where teenage girls were threatened with being convicted of 'sexual abuse of children' for sharing semiclad photos - of themselves....
Fighting child porn is, or should be about working to protect the innocence of the child victims of that industry. Legislation that would make criminals where there are no victims is bad legislation - and criminalising teenagers for doing something that their elder peers can do legally is hypocritical, and an injustice.
Add to that the question of enforcement. How do you know who has looked at what? Legislation is pointless if it's not enforceable. What kind of surveillance powers are going to be needed to ensure compliance - monitoring everyone's surfing? Police trojans on every desktop?
So if we sum up: Ineffective, disproportionate and with serious risks for our rights to a private life...
not least for millions of teenagers who deserve the right to grow up unmolested by intrusive legislation.
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.
Who is reading your mail?
I think most of us take t for granted that email works like the post. What you write gets sent by the postal (email) service and delivered to the recipient . and no-one is going to read it alnog the way.
EFF reports on two court cases in the US should make you think again. Both are about government investigations getting access to emails stored with third parties. The cases make interesting reading - but to cut a long story short they reach different conclusions on whether handing your mail over to be stored on a third party server means you have given up your right to privacy - in american terms, are you protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The EFF do their usual professional job of explaining in chapter and verse why the good guys got it right. Of course you can expect the same protection of your privacy of communication on the web as you can on snail mail or on the telephone. Isn't that want we all want and expect?
What these two different cases mean for American legal precedent is not clear to me - but it is clear for me that if the law doesn't protect our privacy it is the law that needs to change. And of course it's really convenient for police forces and government agencies to be able to gather information on criminals, political activists and undesirables (by whose definition) - but respecting our rights is fundamental to the society you are there to protect. Don't go there!
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
EFF reports on two court cases in the US should make you think again. Both are about government investigations getting access to emails stored with third parties. The cases make interesting reading - but to cut a long story short they reach different conclusions on whether handing your mail over to be stored on a third party server means you have given up your right to privacy - in american terms, are you protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The EFF do their usual professional job of explaining in chapter and verse why the good guys got it right. Of course you can expect the same protection of your privacy of communication on the web as you can on snail mail or on the telephone. Isn't that want we all want and expect?
What these two different cases mean for American legal precedent is not clear to me - but it is clear for me that if the law doesn't protect our privacy it is the law that needs to change. And of course it's really convenient for police forces and government agencies to be able to gather information on criminals, political activists and undesirables (by whose definition) - but respecting our rights is fundamental to the society you are there to protect. Don't go there!
Piratpartiet & The Pirate Party - Putting privacy first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
