UK Politician Pushing For Its Own Version Of PROTECT IP
from the and-so-it-spreads dept
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.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.
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.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: References
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: References
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: References
Even if his middle name should be changed to "The".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BAN ALL THINGS, BLOCK ALL THINGS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another brilliant move in my ultimate plan......
Wait..Aw, damn it! What is it about evil plots that I can’t keep my mouth shut.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]