Secretive Government…Rights holders present secret paper to the government proposing website blocking

Read more UK Government Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from openrightsgroup.org See also Response to working paper from consumerfocus.org.uk

The Open Rights Group has learnt that detailed website blocking proposals have been presented by rights holder groups to Ed Vaizey. The paper was submitted by the Football Association Premier League; the Publishers Association; BPI (British Recorded Music Industry); the Motion Picture Association; and the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television. The paper itself has not been published or circulated, despite requests to rights holder groups. The meeting on 15 June, where the paper was presented, was closed to ORG or any other rights group. Consumer Focus did attend, as the official consumer watchdog. However, it is unclear if Consumer Focus or anyone else is able to show us the proposal. In essence, we have a secret website blocking proposal tabled by rights holders, that may become a self-regulatory, privatised, censorship platform for the UK. It is unacceptable for trade groups and government to conduct policy in this way. Censorship proposals must be made and discussed in public. Many of us will oppose any censorship that impacts directly and widely on free expression. UPDATE: Consumer Focus have published a response to the secret paper. This says the core of the proposal is that: The trade associations are proposing that the Applications Court of the High Court issues permanent injunctions on the basis that a Council and expert body have come to the view that the evidence submitted by copyright owners is valid and the blocking access to the website is appropriate.

Searching for Defiance…Google not impressed by UK website blocking measures in the Digital Economy Act

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to Nick Based on article from guardian.co.uk

Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, has warned that government plans to block access to illicit filesharing websites could set a disastrous precedent for freedom of speech. Speaking to journalists at Google’s Big Tent conference in London, Schmidt said the online search giant would challenge attempts to restrict access to the Pirate Bay and other so-called cyberlocker sites,  part of government plans to fight online piracy through controversial measures included in the Digital Economy Act. Schmidt described website blocking as akin to China’s restrictive internet regime: I would be very, very careful if I were a government about arbitrarily [implementing] simple solutions to complex problems, he said. So, ‘let’s whack off the DNS’. Okay, that seems like an appealing solution but it sets a very bad precedent because now another country will say ‘I don’t like free speech so I’ll whack off all those DNSs’ — that country would be China. It doesn’t seem right. I would be very, very careful about that stuff. If [the UK government] do it the wrong way it could have disastrous precedent setting in other areas. Speaking at the same conference, the culture minister, Jeremy Hunt, said plans to block access to illicit filesharing websites were on schedule. He admitted that a challenge of the controversial measure is deciding which sites get blocked. Ofcom is due to present its report on the practicability of the site-blocking measures included in the DEA to Hunt in the coming weeks.

The Great Firewall of Britain…Ed Vaizey confirms plans for a website blocking scheme

Read more Control Freaks at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from openrightsgroup.org

Minister Ed Vaizey has confirmed to Open Rights Group that Government ministers are talking to copyright lobby groups and ISPs about a voluntary “Great Firewall of Britain” website blocking scheme. We need you to act now. They want to block websites that music and film companies accuse of copyright infringement. But a ‘self regulatory’ censorship scheme places decisions about what you can and cannot look at online in the hands of businesses. It would remove the vital judicial oversight required by existing powers. Inevitable mistakes would lead to the censorship and disruption of legitimate traffic from businesses, publishers and citizens. And there is little evidence it will have any beneficial effects for the creative economy. The good news is that the Minister has promised to include civil society groups in future discussions. We need to be there to counter the pressure rights holders are exerting on decision makers. You can do your bit by letting your MPs know that website blocking is not acceptable and that the voice of civil society needs to be part of the discussions. Please email them now to tell them to oppose web blocking. Read more on the legal and technical background here

Thinking Blocks…Government asks Ofcom to study the practicality of ISP website blocking for file sharing websites

Read more UK Government Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from culture.gov.uk

Ofcom will review sections of the Digital Economy Act to see if they are workable following public comments submitted in the Your Freedom exercise. Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has asked Ofcom to assess whether the Act’s reserve powers to enable courts to block websites dedicated to copyright infringement could work. The site-blocking measures need secondary legislation before they can be introduced and the review will inform the Government’s decision on the next steps to take. Hunt said: The Digital Economy Act seeks to protect our creative economy from online copyright infringement, which industry estimates costs them £400 million a year. I have no problem with the principle of blocking access to websites used exclusively for facilitating illegal downloading of content. But it is not clear whether the site blocking provisions in the Act could work in practice so I have asked Ofcom to address this question. Before we consider introducing site-blocking we need to know whether these measures are possible. The review will look at areas such as whether it is possible for internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the sites, how robust such a block could be and whether specific parts of a website can be blocked effectively.

Bongo Republic Lawmaking…Digital Economy Bill completes in the Commons

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from guardian.co.uk

The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading – which means it will get royal assent and become law – after just two hours of debate in the Commons. But despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour MPs who spoke up against measures contained in the bill and put down a number of proposed amendments, the government easily won two votes to determine the content of the bill and its passage through the committee stage without making any changes it had not already agreed. Tom Watson, the former Cabinet Office minister who resigned in mid-2009, voted against the government for the first time in the final vote to take the bill to a third reading. However the vote was overwhelmingly in the government’s favour, which it won by 189 votes to 47. Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking 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. The Labour MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech – but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked. Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: it could apply to Google, he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about likely to be used meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions. Video game censorship is now set to migrate from the BBFC to the Video Standards Council (VSC) using European-wide PEGI ratings.

Internet Censorship Gets Closer…Lords pass Digital Economy pending government amendments to better implement state website blocking

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from news.bbc.co.uk

Legislation to tackle internet piracy, including bans for illegal file-sharers, has been passed by the Lords. The Digital Economy Bill is now expected to be rushed through the Commons before the general election. Earlier this month, peers defeated the government when they rejected a clause giving ministers the power to change laws on online copyright in future without the need for further legislation. But their chosen replacement – a measure allowing courts to use injunctions to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites – also prompted criticism from companies, consumer rights campaigners and academics. Liberal Democrat media spokesman Lord Clement-Jones, who led the moves for the replacement clause, offered clarifications and improvements during the bill’s third reading on Monday evening.  He did not, however, put them to the vote. Instead, junior business minister Lord Young of Norwood Green said the Lib Dem amendment was incompatible with the EU Technical Standards Directive. He said it would not be capable of being enforced and could lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences. But Lord Young told peers: It is our intention to try to bring forward, as the bill moves to the Commons, a clause that would seek to ultimately achieve the same effect. This would include a power for the secretary of state to bring forward regulations to achieve the desired effect of site blocking, he added. Lord Clement-Jones, while warning of many a slip between cup and lip, agreed to wait for the government’s amendment. Andrew Robinson, from Pirate Party UK, which campaigns on the issue, said: The public will not respect a law that was quite literally written by the record industry, for the record industry. As it stands, the bill is fatally flawed, and fundamentally unjust.

Copyright on Bad Ideas…Lib Dem peers propose a state internet filtering law

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

3rd March 2010. Based on article from openrightsgroup.org

Not So Liberal Democrat peers have proposed a new clause for the Digital Economy Bill that sets the ball rolling for state internet filtering: Lord Razzall and Lord Clement-Jones have proposed the following new clause Preventing access to specified online locations In Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, after section 97A insert— 97B Preventing access to specified online locations (1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court. (2) In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters— (a) whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright, (b) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringing content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both), (c) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location, and (d) any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant. (3) An application for an injunction under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the service provider and to the operator of each specified online location in relation to which an injunction is sought. (4) Where— (a) the Court grants an injunction under subsection (1) upon the application of an owner of copyright whose copyright is infringed by the content accessible at or via each specified online location in the injunction, and (b) the owner of copyright before making the application made a written request to the service provider giving it a reasonable period of time to take measures to prevent its service being used to access the specified online location in the injunction, and no steps were taken, the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner’s costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider’s failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner. (5) In this section— copyright owner includes a licensee with an exclusive licence within the meaning of section 92 of this Act, infringing content means content which is produced or made available in infringement of copyright, online location means a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible, operator means a person or persons in joint or sole control of the decisions to make content accessible at or via an online location, and service provider has the meaning given to it by section 97A(3) of this Act. Update: Shared Interests 5th March 2010. Lord Clement-Jones one of the proposers of the  new clause became the talk of the internet when it was noticed that he receives significant money from a law firm standing to gain from measures in the Digital Economy Bill See Register of Interests from publications.parliament.uk CLEMENT-JONES, Lord Partner of DLA Piper (international law firm) and adviser to its global government relations practice. The member is paid £70,000 in respect of his services as Co-Chairman of DLA Piper’s global government relations practice Update: Shared Interests 5th March 2010. Based on article from guardian.co.uk One of the most contentious parts of the controversial digital economy bill was voted down by the House of Lords last night – only to be replaced by a clause that campaigners say is even more draconian. The Liberal Democrats forced through a surprise amendment to the bill’s notorious clause 17 on Wednesday – in a move that dealt a defeat to the government but troubled critics, who suggest it will have the opposite effect that its creators intend. Instead of sweeping new powers that threatened sweeping alterations to British copyright law, the Lib Dems added a clause that gives extra oversight to the high court. The new proposal – which was passed in the House of Lords by 165 votes to 140 – gives a high court judge the right to issue an injunction against a website accused of hosting a substantial amount of copyright infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline. Putting forward the amendment, Lib Dem peer Lord Clement-Jones said that it would placate concerns over the so-called three strikes rule – which could see those accused of sharing files illegally online having their internet connections cut off – and added that it was a more proportionate, specific and appropriate way to approach infringement than the previous proposals made by the government. But instead of making the proposed system more transparent and accountable, critics say it will simply leave it open to abuse. This would open the door to a massive imbalance of power in favour of large copyright holding companies, said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group. Individuals and small businesses would be open to massive ‘copyright attacks’ that could shut them down, just by the threat of action. This is exactly how libel law works today: suppressing free speech by the unwarranted threat of legal action. The expense and the threat are enough to create a ‘chilling effect’. In particular, there are concerns that the amendment could follow in the footsteps of America’s controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been accused of encouraging companies to file bogus copyright claims to block material they dislike. The high costs and dangers of dealing with copyright claims in court mean that many web hosts simply take down the material in question without checking whether the copyright case is legitimate – even going as far as shutting down entire websites in some cases. The new amendment could also have dire implications for websites like YouTube, where users can upload copyright-infringing material without the knowledge of the site’s owners.

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee…Britain to ban open Wi-Fi hotspots

Read more Government Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from news.zdnet.co.uk

The government will not exempt universities, libraries and small businesses providing open Wi-Fi services from its Digital Economy Bill copyright crackdown, according to official advice released earlier this week. This would leave many organisations open to the same penalties for copyright infringement as individual subscribers, potentially including disconnection from the internet, leading legal experts to say it will become impossible for small businesses and the like to offer Wi-Fi access. Lilian Edwards, professor of internet law at Sheffield University, told ZDNet UK that the scenario described by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) in an explanatory document would effectively outlaw open Wi-Fi for small businesses, and would leave libraries and universities in an uncertain position. This is going to be a very unfortunate measure for small businesses, particularly in a recession, many of whom are using open free Wi-Fi very effectively as a way to get the punters in, Edwards said. Even if they password protect, they then have two options — to pay someone like The Cloud to manage it for them, or take responsibility themselves for becoming an ISP effectively, and keep records for everyone they assign connections to, which is an impossible burden for a small café. In the explanatory document, Lord Young, a minister at BIS, described common classes of public Wi-Fi access, and explained that none of them could be protected. Libraries, he said, could not be exempted because this would send entirely the wrong signal and could lead to ‘fake’ organisations being set up, claiming an exemption and becoming a hub for copyright infringement. Young added that free or coffee shop access tends to be too low-bandwidth to support file-sharing and, under the bill, such a service is more likely to receive notification letters as a subscriber than as an ISP. He recommended that they secure their connections and install privacy controls, to reduce the possibility of infringement with any cases on appeal being considered on their merits.

Would You let this Man Censor the Internet?…Opposition unites against powers to let the government change censorship of the internet without consultation

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from timesonline.co.uk

Controversial proposals that would give Lord Mandelson unprecedented powers to amend censorship laws will be jettisoned next week when the Government suffers the first large defeat of its flagship media plans. Conservative and Liberal Democrat lords will unite to vote down Clause 17 of the Digital Economy Bill, which has been criticised by internet giants such as Google and Yahoo!, when the Bill is put to vote in its report stage. The Government maintains that the plans are necessary to future proof the Bill against emerging methods of piracy. But internet firms and the Opposition said that despite attempts by Lord Mandelson to water down the proposals and increase parliamentary scrutiny of any fast-tracked legislation, via measures such as a 60-day consultation period, the proposals still allowed ministers to impose arbitrary measures. Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Shadow Culture Secretary, said his party will vote against the clause next week. He added: The Government has failed to address any of the concerns we raised with them. They still want a wide ranging and unconstitutional power yet can’t tell us what they want to use it for.

Digital Economy Bill…Changes to the Video Recordings Act being debated in Parliament

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Digital Economy Bill Parliamentary Status from services.parliament.uk See Digital Economy Bill Text from publications.parliament.uk See Digital Economy Bill Explanatory Notes from publications.parliament.uk

The Digital Economy Bill has started its progress in Parliament starting in the House of Lords. It has already been discussed in committee and will next be heard at the Report Stage in the Lords on the 1st March 2010. There are several sections of interest to Melon Farmers: Online infringement of copyright This includes open ended and general powers for the government to censor the internet in the name of copyright protection Powers in relation to internet domain registries Setting up another tool for the government censorship of the internet Video recordings Act The Government are making the following basic changes This section separates out video censorship into two sections, video games censorship (PEGI ratings will be implemented by the Video Standards Council) and video works censorship (as implemented by the BBFC). The current exemptions from mandatory games classification will be reduced so that anything that would be rated 12 or upwards will now be subject to mandatory vetting by the games censors. The government seem to be adding a new power for the censors to revoke as well issue certificates People submitting video works are to be forced to agree to a ‘code of practice’ re the labelling of their products. There’s also added complex wording targeting more complex mixtures of media And of course the government have added the power to change the Video Recordings Act at any time in the future via an order of the secretary of state