UK Search Engines Will Sign Up To A 'Voluntary' Code On Piracy -- Or Face The Consequences
from the and-who-cares-what-you-think? dept
As Techdirt readers know, the copyright industry has almost no means to tackle infringement, or to demand that pirated materials are removed from Internet sites. At least, that's the impression you would get as a result of the constant whining you hear from the entertainment companies that they are doomed and terribly neglected by the lawmakers. Indeed, not content with the copyright ratchet that constantly makes copyright laws longer, stronger and broader, the film, music and publishing industries are always pushing for "voluntary" agreements with the Internet industry that don't require anything so tiresome as actual laws to be passed... or pesky things like "due process."
One example of this approach is the "six strikes" scheme in the US. As Techdirt noted recently, the approach was a complete failure, and has just been dropped. Unfortunately, the idea lives on around the world -- the EFF has an entire section on its site about what it calls "shadow regulation," and it has just published a global review of copyright enforcement agreements. Particularly troubling are the EU's proposals for a new copyright directive, which would require:
large user-generated content platforms to reach agreements with copyright holders to adopt automated technologies that would scan content that users upload, and either block that content or pay royalties for it.
As the EFF notes, the reason why these would be "voluntary" deals is pretty clear:
The Commission is likely taking that approach because that it knows that it can't directly require Internet platforms to scan content that users upload -- an existing law, Article 14 of the Directive 2000/31 on electronic commerce (E-commerce Directive), expressly prohibits any such requirement.
That is, it would be impossible to make this a legal requirement, because it is forbidden by another key EU directive, but "voluntary" agreements can skirt that law, which is another reason they are so insidious. The EU's revised copyright directive is still at an early stage of discussion, so there is some hope that this harmful proposal can be fought and removed. Sadly, that's not the case in the UK, where it seems that search engines have had their arms twisted to sign up to another "voluntary" agreement, with the threat of new laws being brought in if they don't. As a post on TorrentFreak explains:
Google and other search companies are close to striking a voluntary agreement with entertainment companies to tackle the appearance of infringing content links in search results. Following roundtable discussions chaired by the UK's Intellectual Property Office, all parties have agreed that the code should take effect by June 1, 2017.
TorrentFreak quotes a revealing comment made by the UK government minister that has been leading the talks, Baroness Buscombe:
"The search engines involved in this work have been very co-operative, making changes to their algorithms and processes, but also working bilaterally with creative industry representatives to explore the options for new interventions, and how existing processes might be streamlined," she said.
The fact that the talks were "bilateral," involving only entertainment companies and search engines, exposes one of the worst features of these so-called "voluntary" agreements: that there is no open debate of the kind that would be standard when actual legislation was involved, nor any opportunity for ordinary people to contribute. Instead, closed-door discussions produce deals that may be satisfactory for the copyright industry, and bearable for the Internet companies, but which are uniformly bad for the general public, whose views are simply not considered relevant.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody 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: copyright, due process, removing content, search engines, shadow regulations, uk, voluntary agreements
Reader Comments
The First Word
“What I don't understand is why the tech companies are rolling over and letting this happen.
You know what would have stopped a massive amount of this nonsense in its tracks? If the first time some movie studio or record company had tried to sue Google for frivolous reasons, they'd responded with, "OK, let's settle this like businessmen. Initiating hostile takeover."
This is something that needs to happen.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Where's the penalties for willfully false positives?
Hey, your shared file is our great new movie that nobody has paid money to watch.
Oh shit, it isn't? Oh well, we weren't making any money off of it anyway so who cares if we don't own the copyright for it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the penalties for willfully false positives?
Copyright enforcers could eat a baby and still get the benefit of the doubt for "good faith".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voluntary -- or face the consequences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voluntary as a mugging
"Do it our way or we'll make some laws(that won't stand up in court unless we own the judge) that force you to do it our way" is about as 'voluntary' as "Hand over the money unless you want to find out if the gun aimed at you is loaded."
If you're being threatened for non-compliance with the demands presented to you, you cannot 'voluntarily' agree to something, as coercion nullifies consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I don't understand is why the tech companies are rolling over and letting this happen.
You know what would have stopped a massive amount of this nonsense in its tracks? If the first time some movie studio or record company had tried to sue Google for frivolous reasons, they'd responded with, "OK, let's settle this like businessmen. Initiating hostile takeover."
This is something that needs to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]