European Commission Looks To Backdoor In ACTA By Pushing For Same Results Through 'Voluntarism'
from the ooh-that's-clever dept
This year saw two huge victories for digital activism: against SOPA in the US, and against ACTA in the EU. The big question is now: what will be the next moves of those behind SOPA and ACTA as they seek to regain the initiative? For SOPA, we've had a clue in the call for a "Son of SOPA" from the US Chamber of Commerce. But what about the European Commission?
Although it is supposedly waiting for the European Court of Justice to rule on the compatibility or otherwise of ACTA with European law, that's more a matter of saving face -- even a positive result there is not going to bring ACTA back in its original form. But two public consultations from the Commission that are currently open for comments share a common theme that points to one possible approach to bringing in some of ACTA's ideas through other means: the increased use of extrajudicial punishments.
The first one, which closes soon -- on 5 September now extended to 12 September -- concerns Europe's e-commerce directive. But its title makes clear that the consultation is actually much more tightly focused on one particular aspect. As "A clean and open Internet: Public consultation on procedures for notifying and acting on illegal content hosted by online intermediaries" suggests, the consultation is really about trying to stop online sharing. Although the use of the word "clean" is clearly intended to suggest that this is about removing extreme material like child pornography, the detailed questions reveal that the central concern is taking down unauthorized copies of legal content.
The method for achieving that is what the European Commission calls "notice and action" -- broadly similar to the DCMA's "notice and takedown" approach. The Commission tries to suggests that such "notice and action" has always been part of the e-commerce directive, but as Monica Horten points out in a recent post, that's not true:
the Commisson appears to be trying to re-write history. It says that Article 14 [of the e-commerce directive] forms the basis for Notice and Action procedures. That was certainly not the intention of Article 14.
Some of the questions in the e-commerce consultation give the impression that what the European Commission would like to see are voluntary notice-and-action agreements between service providers and media companies that would make allegedly infringing material simply disappear without any judicial process or appeals. It's the perfect solution, since it doesn't require new legislation, and is based on the service providers' fear that if they don't go along with this approach they will find themselves liable for the infringing activities of their customers.
The E-commerce directive, with its provisions for mere conduit and exemptions on the liabiilty was the result of a political compromise thrashed out in 2000 between the ISP industry and others, such as the copyright industries, who wanted it to incorporate a notice and takedown regime. However, that notion of notice and takedown was explicitly rejected.
This move to "voluntary" extrajudicial punishments is confirmed by the other consultation, which closes at the end of the month, and goes by the innocent-sounding name of "Code for Effective Open Voluntarism: Good design principles for self- and co-regulation and other multistakeholder actions" (pdf). It is couched in the very vaguest terms, exemplified by this extraordinarily opaque question:
Please share your knowledge, ideas and opinions about how best to ensure that voluntarism receives its appropriate
share of attention in the policy-making toolbox. How best can we address the grey area of self-regulation that are not quite
as purely autonomous as the wording in the 2003 Inter-institutional Agreement on better lawmaking implies, and yet has none
of the characteristics required in that Agreement for a system to qualify as co-regulation, and how best to give a new momentum
to self- and co-regulation and open voluntarism to ensure that they are duly considered and practiced when they appear to be
the most efficient route to the societal benefits in point. This does NOT mean voluntarism should substitute for lawmaking and
regulation in any systematic manner, rather making the best possible use of voluntarism is critical to a highly effective policy
approach. Please use the text box below or upload any additional relevant material.
Even though this comes across as harmless bureaucratic nonsense, it conceals a deadly serious intent: to shift from rules based strictly on those laid down by the relevant laws, to one "making the best possible use of voluntarism." Translated into English, it means that where the European Commission can't push through the legislation or treaties that it wants (as with ACTA), it will encourage ad-hoc "voluntary" agreements and self-regulation that achieve the same aim (as the e-commerce directive consultation seems to be pushing for).
It's a clever tack to take, because it is hard to motivate people to oppose something that is so ill-defined and therefore apparently unthreatening -- even the name "voluntarism" sounds rather appealing, especially compared to the more honest description of "extrajudicial punishment". But the danger lies in that very vagueness, which allows all kinds of rules and behavior that, if proposed in the normal way as traditional legislation, would be completely unacceptable and fiercely resisted.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: backdoor acta, e-commerce directive, eu, eu commission, europe, voluntarism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we are lucky enough those ppl will die earlier with a heart stroke or something ;))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name And Shame
It is time we started paying a lot more attention to exactly who is continuing to push these idiotic proposals. There should be a lot of naming and shaming going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Name And Shame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Several questions irritated me but question 24 at least allowed me to focus my wrath on the whole exercise:
What kind of nutty stakeholders in 2010 didn't feel there was any need to differentiate between the measures that might be taken for child pornography compared to the measures that are (not) necessary for someone publishing a copyright infringing video on YouTube?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case in point, the Hugo Awards were streamed...or rather tried to be streamed. http://io9.com/5940036/how-copyright-enforcement-robots-killed-the-hugo-awards
But copyright bots took it down, because clips from Neil Gaiman's shows were being shown...just prior to Neil Gaiman making an acceptance speech.
bob, darryl, and that Anonymous Coward (no, not our TAC), that is why we hate moves like these. In order to protect the sanctity of copyright, speech that is clearly 100% legal is allowed to be censored. THAT IS CENSORSHIP, not your whining about the Click to Show here on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tough shit. You whip up the masses with hysteria and FUD to block any law that would set up procedures to reduce infringement and then decry the inevitable private initiatives. This result was as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise. Deal with it, you brought it on yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We will, and gladly. This is a much better situation than having this stuff enshrined in legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do, and will continue to, complain when these companies enact policies that are unjust and harmful and pressure them to change their ways. I will also encourage people to use competing services that behave in a responsible way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, please. You've personally elevated sniveling to an art form. You should be giving lessons to some of the less developed crybabies on Techdirt. I'm particularly impressed with the way you excel in contrived indignation and meaningless rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Backdoor or not, once enough people get hit with collateral damage they'll be pissed regardless of whether it's public and demand action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA gives them an out, a way to act like innocent hosts (rather than the publishing service they are), and get away with widescale copyright violations, just by complying with notices.
Euro companies probably wish they had this option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you do not scare your "customers" away, you are doing something illegal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know if you're intentionally conflating the notice and takedown provision with the safe harbors in order to pretend ISPs and such actually enjoy the former, or just made a mistake, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assumption that allegations are always true
What the commission seems to want to do is to equate such knowledge with knowledge of *allegations* of infringement (i.e. a notice-and-takedown system). However, that's intellectually dishonest. Of course it is possible to be aware of allegations without being able to tell whether they are reasonably true or not. To use the words of the directive itself it may not at all be "apparent" to the third-party.
As always there is this faulty assumption that allegations will always be true, presented in good faith and take into account fair-use-like legislation or case-law. There are ample historical examples that that just isn't the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Assumption that allegations are always true
What is truely needed, no matter what, is a way to make it easy to prove and punish false accusations very hard if they are made under these "allegation is always trueth" laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Assumption that allegations are always true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Voluntarism" vs "Crimestop"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On a more serious note, I've registered my concerns with the consultation team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
volunteerism vs. sharing
So why not call it voluntary? That's what it is anyways. The ISPs need some carrot and when they get it, they'll volunteer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: volunteerism vs. sharing
Sharing is the natural way of mankind and no amount of calling it theft will magically make it the same as theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: volunteerism vs. sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: volunteerism vs. sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: volunteerism vs. sharing
"So why not call it voluntary? That's what it is anyways."
Yeah - that's the ticket. Paying for "protection" is also voluntary - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somewhat ironic way to start the question, given what they're trying to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A carefully crafted smokescreen, typical of the EU
If a destroyer hides like that, you know it is trying to sink you. If the EU does so, you know it is trying to enslave you. How anyone can keep a straight face while writing democracy and EU in the same sentence is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]