Did The UK Gov't Back Down On Three Strikes... Or Did It Just Change What It Called It?

from the seems-like-the-latter dept

There were a smattering of reports that the UK gov't was backing down on plans to implement three strikes rules as part of Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill. That would be a pretty big surprise, if true, as kicking people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) had been the key thing Mandelson wanted after his little dinner with David Geffen last summer (after barely caring about this particular issue at all). But, it appears that reality is that this is just UK politicians playing games with words. Apparently, the political wordsmiths decided that "disconnection" is too harsh a word to describe the policy (even if it's accurate), and are now going with "temporary account suspension" (even though it does mean you're disconnected from your account). So when a petition came through asking the government not to disconnect those accused of file sharing, the government had no problem saying "sure," even though it still supports temporary account suspension. And copyright supporters accuse those in favor of reform as playing word games?

Filed Under: digital economy bill, semantics, three strikes

House Of Lords Has Serious Concerns About Digital Economy Bill

from the amendments-to-come dept

We've already pointed out how Lord Lucas seems to be quite concerned about the ridiculousness in the Digital Economy Bill, and has proposed a series of amendments to help get rid of these problematic elements. However, it looks like some others in the House of Lords are equally concerned as well. Michael Scott points us to the news that the Lords' Human Rights Joint Committee has put out a report that is highly critical of the more controversial points in the Digital Economy Bill, starting with the pressure on ISPs to disconnect users under a three strikes plan:

The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to have the power to require ISPs to take "technical measures" in respect of account holders who have been the subject of copyright infringement reports. The scope of the measures will be defined in secondary legislation and could be wide-ranging.

We do not believe that such a skeletal approach to powers which engage human rights is appropriate. There is potential for these powers to be applied in a disproportionate manner which could lead to a breach of internet users' rights to respect for correspondence and freedom of expression.

There are also grave concerns over section 17, which would effectively let the Business Secretary change copyright law at will:

The broad nature of this power has been the subject of much criticism. In correspondence with us, the Secretary of State explained that the Government intended to introduce amendments to limit the power in Clause 17 and to introduce a 'super-affirmative' procedure. The Government amendments would limit the circumstances in which the Government could use their powers to amend the Act by secondary legislation and would provide a system for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.

Despite the proposed amendments we are concerned that Clause 17 remains overly broad and that parliamentary scrutiny may remain inadequate. We call for a series of clarifications to address these concerns.

On top of that, they're still a bit skeptical even of requiring ISPs to send notices when a user is accused of infringement, noting that while they don't think this would be a restriction on human rights or freedom of expression, they would like "a further explanation of why they [the backers of the bill] consider their proposals are proportionate."

Definitely nice to see that this bill isn't just getting rushed through, and there are some folks who are heavily questioning the more ridiculous parts of the bill.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, house of lords, lord lucas, peter mandelson, uk

UK's Digital Economy Bill Does Promote New Music... But It's Songs Against The Bill

from the dear-mandy dept

A little while back, we posted about Dan Bull's excellent song protesting Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, which (among other things) would force ISPs to kick off users accused of file sharing, and grant the UK Business Secretary incredible sweeping powers to change copyright law at will. And while the stated purpose behind such a law is to "help protect the entertainment industry" it seems that it's actually incentivizing the creation of new works in a different way. Martin points us to a competition that was recently held for songs about the Digital Economy Bill. The "winning" song is called "Only Idiots Assume" and is a punk ditty with some choice words for Peter Mandelson.

Filed Under: digital economy bill, music, peter mandelson, uk

Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines

from the how-will-rupert-murdoch-survive dept

We've been discussing how Lord Lucas in the UK has spoken out against Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, which would give Mandelson (and his successors or anyone he deputized) massive powers to change copyright law on a whim. Beyond that, the technology-savvy Lord Lucas has been proposing various amendments to the bill, including requiring copyright holders to detail actual damages and also a penalty for bogus copyright threats.

Another proposed amendment, as pointed out by Copycense would automatically exempt search engines from copyright law. While, for the most part, what search engines do seem to be covered by existing law (fair use, and the like), there are still some questions about whether or not the fundamental actions of search engines do or do not infringe. Clearly exempting them, however, could expand what search engines could do in some pretty impressive ways. This would also serve to negate the threats by the likes of Rupert Murdoch to remove News Corp. content from Google (since Google could then ignore any attempted block, as there would be no copyright violation).

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, exemption, lord lucas, search engines

Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal

from the guilty-by-association dept

As if Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill proposal wasn't bad enough, Dave sends in yet another problem with it. While it does include a process for appealing if you are cut off for accusations (not convictions) of unauthorized file distribution or reproduction, you will have to pay up to appeal. So even if you are innocent, it will cost you money to make your case for why you shouldn't have been cut off in the first place.

Filed Under: appeals, digital economy bill, peter mandelson, uk

BPI Insists UK ISPs Overstating The Cost Of Three Strikes; So Will BPI Pay The Difference If Wrong?

from the come-out,-pony-up dept

The UK's version of the RIAA, BPI, has been a very, very strong supporter of Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill -- a position that has even some of its members resigning in disgust. In the past, BPI has also implied that ISPs already have some sort of legal obligation to stop file sharing and that they rely on unauthorized file sharing to fund their own business model. As the battle over the bill heated up, many ISPs pointed out that the cost of implementing the bill's requirements would be quite high. On top of that, the UK government did its own study and found that the costs were even higher than the ISPs estimated and the cost of implementing the bill would outstrip even the most ridiculous of BPI's estimates of "losses" from file sharing.

Of course, BPI can't accept those numbers, so its commissioned its own study which (of course!) claims that the cost to ISPs would be tiny. Hell, they'd barely be noticeable at all.

Well, if BPI is so sure of this, how about it steps up and puts some money behind that claim. I would imagine that ISPs would feel a bit more comfortable about supporting the Digital Economy Bill if BPI promised to pay any of the fees above and beyond what its own estimates are for implementing the plan. According to BPI's analysis, it would cost ISPs all of £13.85 million ($22.5 million) in the first year, £9 million ($14.6 million) in the second year and just £3.45 million ($5.6 million) in the last year. Hell, if it's such a small cost, how about BPI pays for the whole thing. Only fair, right? After all, the whole purpose behind the plan is to prop up BPI members' business models because they'd rather not adapt. Seems only right that they should pay for it.

Filed Under: costs, digital economy bill, isps, three strikes, uk
Companies: bpi

UK Ministers 'Concede' Some Ridiculous Points in Digital Economy Bill In Attempt To Get Other Ridiculous Measures

from the it's-a-diversion dept

When Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill was first announced, many people were so shocked by the provision that would let Mandelson or his successor change copyright law at will, with no Parliamentary approval, that they started focusing on that, rather than the expected problem with the bill, like the fact that it could allow people to be kicked offline without a conviction. There has been a lot of pushback from some politicians in the UK and various amendments proposed to fix the bill. And now it looks like the gov't has agreed to make some changes to the infamous Section 17 provision.

Of course, the concessions appear to be rather minor, and my more cynical view is that they knew they were going to do this all along. The idea is simple. Introduce one section that's even more ridiculous and outrageous than the sections you really want passed, and then let all the complaints and press coverage focus on that more ridiculous section. Then, after people get all worked up about it, "concede" just a little bit, and notice that most people no longer have the energy to fight about the other provisions.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk

Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill

from the smart-man dept

As the debate over Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill (which would represent a radical shift in copyright law in the UK) continues, it appears that Lord Lucas continues to propose all sorts of good ideas in response. You may recall that Lucas was quite explicit in questioning why such changes were needed when it was obviously the industry's inability to adapt that was the problem. Later, he suggested adding a remedy for bogus copyright claims. His latest is to try to add an amendment that would require copyright holders to detail actual damages done by file sharing in their reports to ISPs notifying them of infringement.

This is a very sensible idea for a variety of reasons. Last year, we wrote about a fascinating paper that points out that, realistically, the only way to reconcile free speech with copyright law is to have copyright holders prove what damages were caused by the infringement. Every other limitation on free speech in the US (defamation, for example) has such a requirement. It makes no sense that copyright makes no such requirement. Now, obviously, the UK is different from the US and not bound by the First Amendment, but it's hard to come up with any compelling reason at all that a copyright holder shouldn't have to prove actual damages before making a claim of copyright infringement.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, lord lucas, peter mandelson, uk

UK Government Report Shows That Digital Economy Bill Will Cost More Than Highest 'Piracy' Estimates, Drive 40,000 Offline

from the this-is-good-for-who-exactly? dept

As the UK considers Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, a UK government report that looks into the likely impact of the law is incredibly damning. It finds that the plans to send threat letters to users and eventually kick them offline based on accusations (not convictions) would cost consumers in the neighborhood of £500 million. Note, of course, that the music industry itself claims that £200 million worth of music is downloaded in the UK per year (and, of course, that's only "losses" if you use the ridiculous and obviously incorrect calculation that each download is a "lost sale"). The report also finds that these greater costs on ISPs for managing such things (all of which will get passed along to consumers) will likely caused 40,000 residents to just give up their broadband, rather than pay the higher fees.

You might think that this would be reason enough to drop the bill as quickly as possible, but not so fast. The report also, without any evidence, suggests that the same law would also increase sales for the music and movie industry by £1.7 billion over the next ten years. That's odd, because there's still no one who can explain how kicking people off the internet actually gets anyone else to buy anything. In fact, we already have proof that it won't. Prior to the threats of losing your internet access were the much more threatening prospect of ending up being fined millions for sharing two dozen songs. And that didn't convince people to buy more.

Either way, the cost side of the equation makes it quite clear that this is the government asking consumers to artificially foot the bill for an entertainment industry that appears unwilling to adapt to a changing marketplace that requires new business models.

Filed Under: consumers, copyright, costs, digital economy bill, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk

Lord Lucas Wants UK Digital Economy Bill To Include Remedy For Bogus Copyright Threats

from the seems-like-a-good-idea dept

We've heard so many stories of copyfraud that many of us have been wondering why there aren't greater penalties for making bogus copyright claims. It appears at least someone over in the UK is asking the same question. We already noted how Lord Lucas, a technology aware member of the House of Lords who can program and has run some digital businesses, was speaking out against Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, noting that the entertainment industry is to blame for not adapting.

Now, via Michael Scott, we learn that Lord Lucas has introduced an addition to the Digital Economy Bill adding remedies against those who bring "groundless" copyright claims:

"169A. Remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings

(1) Where a person threatens another person with proceedings for infringement of copyright, a person aggrieved by the threats may bring an action against him claiming--
(a) a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable;
(b) an injunction against the continuance of the threats;
(c) damages in respect of any loss which he has sustained by the threats.
(2) If the claimant proves that the threats were made and that he is a person aggrieved by them, he is entitled to the relief claimed unless the defendant shows that the acts in respect of which proceedings were threatened did constitute, or if done would have constituted, an infringement of the copyright concerned.
(3) Mere notification that work is protected by copyright does not constitute a threat of proceedings for the purposes of this section.
(4) A copyright infringement report within the meaning of section 124A(3) of the Communications Act 2003, if notified to a subscriber under section 124A(4) of the Communications Act 2003, does constitute a threat of proceedings for the purposes of this section."

While it would be nice to see those who are falsely accused of copyright infringement have at least some stronger legal rights, it seems unlikely that this gets anywhere.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, groundless copyright, lord lucas, uk