UK Politician Pushing For Its Own Version Of PROTECT IP

from the and-so-it-spreads dept

Thu, Sep 15th 2011 7:32am — Mike Masnick

One thing that entertainment industry lobbyists are exceptionally skilled at is making their campaigns global. You notice it all the time. You see a particular (usually bad) law pop up in one country... and, very soon after, nearly identical legislation pops up elsewhere. The really nefarious part is that the lobbyists then use these attempts in a few countries to make it seem like there's a "worldwide push" for such laws -- even though they're all written by the same lobbyists. Even worse, they introduce slight differences in different countries, which then allows them to make use of the most draconian laws in one place to pressure the other countries to ratchet up their own laws in the name of "harmonization" -- usually under the bogus guise of a "free trade agreement."

The latest example of this is that it appears that lobbyists have convinced some UK politicians to create their own version of PROTECT IP, which is now being run up the flagpole by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who says that Google should be liable if it doesn't block links to pirate sites. Of course, the basic description of what he's proposing sounds like a near perfect clone of PROTECT IP:

Hunt is expected to tell the Royal Television Society that search engines, advertisers and credit card companies should go further to �make life more difficult� for online pirates.

According to reports, if a court deems a site to be unlawful the government wants search engines to push it down the rankings to stifle traffic and at the same time cut off advertising or payment revenues to make the site economically unviable.

That sounds almost the same as PROTECT IP, including putting the liability and compliance effort entirely on "search engines, advertisers and credit card companies"... except that in the actual bill the terms are defined much more broadly and ambiguously. In PROTECT IP, it uses "information location tools," "internet advertising services" and "financial transaction provider" (and also domain name system server). Note that "information location tools" and "financial transaction provider" could be interpreted much more broadly than just search engines and credit card companies.

Of course, I'm curious how all the Google critics will react to this. After all, for months, they've been slamming the Hargreaves report for being the "Google copyright review" and insisting that the UK government is in the pocket of Google on copyright issues. Instead, it looks like, as per usual, the government is still very much under the sway of some legacy entertainment industry lobbyists.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: protect ip, search engines, uk
Companies: google

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 7:11am

You mean Culture Secretary Cunt? Colour me completely unsurprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 7:38am
  
  Re: References
  I find your statement to be a vulgar insult to female anatomy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re: References
    Hey, don't blame me, it was a Radio 4 presenter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 7:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: References
      Oh! Apologies, I only follow BBC World Service.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 7:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: References
      Oh! Apologies, I only follow BBC World Service.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dave W (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 7:57am
      
      Re: Re: References
      Now, just because he was formulating a plan to severely cut back the BBC (in favour of giving Sky/New International more say) and then on the same day two respected BBC reporters just happened to completely accidentally, without any hint of malice, refer to him as Jeremy C*nt, does not mean they actually meant to do it.
      
      Even if his middle name should be changed to "The".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 9:16am
  
  Re:
  If I colour you unsurprised, who gets the copyright?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Jesus! Jesus ALWAYS gets the copyright. Well, he might need to be a zombie raptor first, but that's just nitpicky.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2011 @ 7:57am

Saw this, le sigh. So much for the evidence based policy making not lobbyeconomics.

BAN ALL THINGS, BLOCK ALL THINGS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 8:11am
  
  Re:
  Dissent is dangerous, kill all dissenters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 8:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can't kill me if I was a zombie before they were born.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 15 Sep 2011 @ 8:19am

Another brilliant move in my ultimate plan......
As major industries around the world continue to grind to a halt at the foot of the intellectual property movement. I continue to gather all the knowledge that is shared by the fools intending for it to never be used by others. Once the movement has sufficiently spread around the globe, I will quickly repeal our laws over IP creating a free for all mindshare of unimaginable innovation that will skyrocket the country into untold power and profits. Muahahaha� MUHAHAHAHAHAHA! *lightning* *THUNDER*

Wait..Aw, damn it! What is it about evil plots that I can�t keep my mouth shut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 15 Sep 2011 @ 8:46am

basically, after condemning the UK DEA when it was first introduced by the Labour Government, just before the last General Election, this coalition government is making it even worse. previously, it was Mandelson that was involved and doing what the entertainment industries wanted. now it is Hunt. he has made the position worse by totally ignoring the recommendations of the hargreaves report, instigated by the coalition government, and after saying that web site blocking would not be implemented, is now forcing others to do it instead. it's obvious which industries are behind this but the government is not going to be able to look squeaky clean because it will be introducing the changes into law. yet again, fuck the citizens! they dont matter in the slightest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alex Macfie, 15 Sep 2011 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  Only the Lib Dems condemned the DEA when it was introduced, and then only after a massive membership rebellion forced them to. The Tories mostly abstained on it in Parliament, and only the Lib Dems voted against it en masse. Unfortunately, the Lib Dems are now part of the coalition, and appear to have lost out to the Tories on this issue. You will still hear opposition to the DEA from Lib Dem backbenchers, and if something emerges that MPs have to vote on, there will be trouble in the coalition.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2011 @ 12:52pm
  
  Re:
  asically, after condemning the UK DEA when it was first introduced by the Labour Government, just before the last General Election, this coalition government is making it even worse. previously, it was Mandelson that was involved and doing what the entertainment industries wanted. now it is Hunt. he has made the position worse by totally ignoring the recommendations of the hargreaves report, instigated by the coalition government, and after saying that web site blocking would not be implemented, is now forcing others to do it instead. it's obvious which industries are behind this but the government is not going to be able to look squeaky clean because it will be introducing the changes into law. yet again, fuck the citizens! they dont matter in the slightest!
  
  Funny. I'll bet that the legislators who will be voting in favour of anti-piracy legislation in the US, Canada and the UK will all be returned to office in their next election cycle. Which of course, begs the question of since there are these pronouncements of universal voter condemnation- why are these guys returned to office? Methinks that voter/citizen discontent over anti-piracy measures is pretty inconsequential. Except on Techdirt that is!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 15 Sep 2011 @ 8:49am

Dear legacy content industries,

We don't need you any more. Please go away and die, or figure out how to make customers of us without trying to spit on us at the same time.

Thanks,

People of Earth (well, most of us anyway)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2011 @ 12:12pm

They can push whatever they want, I want to see them enforce that crap LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]