Australian Parliament Moves Copyright Amendment Out Of Committee and Into Law

from the concerns?--what-concerns? dept

As we have been discussing over the past few months, Australia has been considering updating its copyright law from one which does site-blocking with judicial oversight to one which does site-blocking, mirror-blocking without judicial oversight, search results blocking, and expands the definition of the types of sites to be blocked from those with the primary "purpose" of infringement to those with the primary "effect" being infringement. These changes came with concerns in tow, both from government officials and tech companies, and it's understandable why. Any time the government looks to lessen its own oversight in the interest of making it easier for corporate interests to censor the internet for the common citizen, it creates a situation practically begging for abuse with the principal effect being dampening the primary purpose of the internet as a communications tool. The concerns raised over this change in the law focused on those very things, while also highlighting how the copyright industries have been touting the site-blocking already in place as a success.

But, as is too often the case, the Australian government has hand-waved those concerns with claims that nebulous "safeguards" are in place to prevent abuse and recommended going ahead with the changes to the law.

Yesterday, the Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee published the results of its inquiry. Those hoping for an additional dissenting voice will be disappointed.

“The committee is of the view that the amendments proposed by the bill are likely to improve the operation of the injunctive scheme in section 115A of the Copyright Act, and represent a measured and proportionate response to concerns identified by stakeholders in relation to the operation of that scheme,” the report reads. “In this respect, the committee also notes that the majority of submissions received by the committee supported the bill and recommended that it be passed unamended.”

After noting that the expansion for blocking mirror sites without judicial approval could be abused, the committee goes on to say it's all under control.

“[T]he committee is of the view that the measures are appropriately circumscribed. In particular, the committee notes the evidence that the Court would maintain ultimate oversight over these injunctions, as well as the evidence that there must a sufficient nexus between the online location covered by the original injunction and the location to which the order is expanded,” the report reads.

In other words, way back in the distance, the courts are ultimately still in charge of the injunctions, somehow making the fact that the expanded injunctions are approved outside of the court all good. And, on top of that, none of this will be abused because rightsholders will have to rely on good evidence for the expanded injunctions, despite the fact that rightsholders' grasp on what good evidence is has always been laughable. Again, all of this is pitched as a way to get site-blocking in place more speedily, which sets off all the obvious justice alarm bells.

On the search-blocking portion of the amendment, the committee relies on a claim that, essentially, Google is helping people infringe copyright.

Finally, on forcing search engines to purge their results of previously-blocked sites, the Committee again acknowledges objections from those who feel such measures are unnecessary. Again, however, the report dismisses the concerns, noting that search engines may play a role in both infringement and enforcement of copyright so the measures are “appropriate.”

Except that this is nonsense industry drivel, and always has been. Search engines don't play "a role" in infringement. They play a role in returning relevant search results to the public. They're address books, of a kind, and search engines no more play a role in infringing copyright by returning search results than address books play a role in drug use by listing where a flop house might be. If that is what the committee is relying on to approve a copyright amendment with valid opposition and concern, it sure doesn't make one confident in the rest of its assessment.

It was on the back of these nebulous claims of safeguards and shaky claims about how search engines work that the amendment was moved out of committee and quickly passed by the Australian Parliament. And it was announced in a manner that appears designed to irritate those of us who actually know what copyright infringement is and is not.

Announcing the adoption of the amendments by Parliament today, the Government said that the Bill will give rightsholders enhanced ability to fight copyright infringement. Minister for Communications and the Arts Mitch Fifield noted that there will now be “less room” for pirates to circumvent Australia’s existing measures.

“The Government has zero tolerance for online piracy. It is theft, and damaging to our creative economy and local creators. We are committed to protecting Australia’s creative industries and the world-class content we produce every year,” Minister Fifield said. “The passage of our legislation today sends a strong message to online pirates that Australia does not tolerate online theft.”

I actually wouldn't have thought it possible to include the "copyright is theft" fallacy not once, but twice, in a three sentence statement on passing a bill that does nothing to stop theft, but will almost certainly be an avenue for abuse by copyright industry groups that have always been willing to slam open a door after its been cracked an inch. The only silver lining in all of this is the amendment comes with a two year review period, after which the government will have the opportunity to make further changes if such abuses occur.

And they almost certainly will occur, though I would expect the government to perform its same hand-waving trick when those concerns arise two years from now as well.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, copyright, search, site blocking
Companies: google, village roadshow

Google, Village Roadshow Weigh In On New Search Blocking Amendments To Australian Copyright Law

from the loaves-of-bread dept

As we've been talking about for some time, Australia is set to amend its copyright laws to expand what were site-blocking provisions into search-blocking ones. It's an odd bit of mission creep, as the copyright industries in Australia have at once praised site-blocking as being very effective at curbing piracy while also insisting that search-blocking needs to be done to curb piracy. Despite this, the amendment appears to have broad government support, with the exception of a few detractors. The Australian government is still taking comments about the proposed changes and Google has decided to wade in. As is typical with Google, the arguments it makes are nuanced and careful, whether you agree with them or not.

While Google supports effective industry led measures to fight piracy, Google does not support the proposed amendments foreshadowed in the Extended Site Blocking Bill,” Google writes.

“In particular, Google opposes Section 115(2B)(a)(ii) and (b)(ii) of the Bill, which would have the effect of removing the direct oversight of the Federal Court over the site blocking process and instead leave it to commercial entities to decide which websites Australian users may access.”

Google also notes that the proposal to extend the Site Blocking Scheme to search engines has not been adopted by any other country in the world. Presumably this is because other countries have long recognized that there is no utility in extending site blocking schemes beyond ISPs to other online service providers,” the company writes.

As TorrentFreak notes, that is only kinda sorta true. Russia has recently put in place a search-blocking policy as well, although it is a voluntary program and Google does not currently participate in it. It is true that codifying search-blocking in the way Australia is seeking has not really been done in the past. Given how fast the process for this amendment has and continues to be, and given its extraordinary nature, it's not unreasonable for Google to suggest that everyone pump the brakes and study whether or not any of this is actually necessary or will have an impact on the broader piracy problem.

But the real takeaway from Google's submission and public comments is the detailed, thoughtful analysis in them. Unlike, say, Village Roadshow's response to Google.

“Google say they are up for the fight against piracy. This is a sham,” writes Village Roadshow CEO Graham Burke.

“There [sic] sole interest is using a treasure trove of stolen movies as part of attracting people to a business model that is strengthened by theft. [Google] auto complete and search are used to steal movies. This is no different from stealing a loaf of bread from a 7-11 store.”

So, we have thoughtful analysis of the new law and the need for caution on the one hand, and accusations of convenience store bread-stealing on the other. Were this a just world, this sort of ham-fisted misstatement of the facts of copyright infringement would be enough to torpedo this law.

Instead, it looks like Google will be ordered by law to keep people from stealing internet bread.

Cool.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, site blocking
Companies: google, village roadshow

After Being Sued To Block Sci-Hub; Swedish ISP Blocks Court's And Elsevier's Website In Protest

from the but-is-that-a-good-thing dept

Late last week, Torrentfreak had a fascinating story about Bahnhof's response to a court case demanding it block the site Sci-Hub due to demands from Elsevier that Sci-Hub was inducing infringement of academic papers. We've written in the past about Sci-Hub. Rather than an evil piracy site as Elsevier likes to imply, it is a very clever system to allow academics to share and access other academic works. Of course, Elsevier prefers to lock up academic research that it did not pay for, which is a travesty. And it has gone after Sci-Hub in multiple jurisdictions, and is constantly playing a form of Whac-a-Mole as Sci-Hub keeps on moving around (not to mention each attempt at taking it down only seems to add to Sci-Hub's popularity). In this case, Elsevier sought a blocking order in Sweden. The Swedish ISP, Bahnhof, which has spent years pushing back against copyright maximalist extremism, but without much luck.

In giving in to the block demand, however, Bahnhof went a step further. It also put up a "block" for any subscriber visiting Elsevier's sites or the court's sites:

These are not full "blocks" per se. After reading Bahnhof's protest message, you can then apparently click through to the original site.

I posted this on Twitter on Friday and it got a huge response, with many people cheering it on. I think many of them had an initial gut reaction that this was a clever (and somewhat amusing) way to protest what many people feel is an unjust blocking order by turning the tables on those who requested and approved the blocking order. Indeed, that was my instinctual reaction as well. But, I don't think we should be that celebratory about this.

For one thing, this is exactly the kind of thing that many of us warn about concerning a lack of net neutrality laws. In this case, many people support this because they all agree that Elsevier is being ridiculous and censorial here. But... it's not hard to imagine a different situation. How would people feel if an ISP were, say, putting up a similar block page for anyone trying to visit a union webpage of striking telco workers? Because that happened once in Canada. Then... it feels a bit more like a giant company using its market position to silence critics in its workforce. We shouldn't change our views on what is and what is not okay for an ISP to do based solely on whether or not we like who is put out by the decision.

Sweden doesn't currently have net neutrality rules as far as I can tell, though ironically it appears that Bahnhof sells a pro-net neutrality hoodie. But blocking sites -- even to make a good point in the ridiculousness of the site blocking order -- still goes against net neutrality and raises serious questions about whether anyone should want an ISP inspecting the sites that we go to and interjecting its own man in the middle attack to make a political message.

Suddenly... it doesn't look quite as clever in that light. I understand the value of protesting an unjust court ruling, and this certainly feels like just desserts for Elsevier and the court, but we should always see it as problematic when an ISP is getting between us and the sites we want to visit, even if it's for a good cause.

Filed Under: copyright, net neutrality, protest, site blocking, sweden
Companies: bahnhof, elsevier, sci-hub

Australian MP Pushes Back Against Expanded Site And Search Blocking Laws

from the my-hero dept

We've been talking for several months now about the amendments to Australian copyright law currently under consideration by the government there. As a refresher, Australia put a site-blocking policy in place several years ago. That policy has been praised by both government and rightsholders as effective, even as those same interests insist that it doesn't do enough to stop piracy down under. As a result, the government is currently considering amendments to Australian copyright law that would make it easier for extra-judicial blocks of "piracy sites" and their mirrors, and includes demands that search engines like Google participate in this censorship as well, despite the fact that blocking search returns relevant to a user request is the opposite of what Google does. Predictably, the amendments to the law have wide support across political parties in Australia, and pretty much everyone is sure it's going to pass as is.

A key aspect of this is that all of the focus is on piracy and how to stop or minimize it, regardless of whatever negative effects that might have on ISPs and a free and open internet. There has been zero focus thus far on whether these legal mechanisms are really the optimal route to addressing this problem. This week, however, one Australian MP decided to grab a microphone and finally take rightsholders to task.

An expansion of Australia's piracy site-block laws is "a form of regulatory hallucinogen", Labor MP Ed Husic has said, adding that the voice of the consumer needs to be heard and rights holders should be less "resistant" to digitisation and reforming their systems.

"The big challenge is the freeing-up of copyright to ensure that innovation can spread more widely and to face up to big rights holders and the types of hysterical arguments we get in this space," Husic said. "These rights holders think that by constantly using legal mechanisms through this place and elsewhere, piracy will disappear. The reality is that piracy is a reflection of a market failure."

It's rare that a member of government gets things so absolutely correct on this subject. Far too many rightsholders seem to only have one arrow in their quiver, and that's the legislative or judicial arrow. What has actually occurred is that a disruptive force, the internet, has changed the possibilities and demand for certain types of content. Does anyone remember the consumers of these products, legitimate and otherwise? They are supposed to have a voice in government as well, and yet they are consistently ignored. But, really, it's the public and the internet that are driving this whole discussion. How is it possible that they don't have a seat at the table?

Husic goes on to ask the same question, all while poking lawmakers in the eye for bowing to the wrong constituency.

"As lawmakers, just because we might get a selfie with Richard Roxburgh -- I love Rake as much as anyone else -- or a political party gets a donation from a rights holder, does not mean that we should stop looking at how to make the types of reforms that balance the needs of creatives and the needs of producers versus the needs of consumers," he said.

The sad part of all of this is that Husic is the exception, not the rule. When you read that these amendments will almost certainly pass in Australia, that prediction is almost certainly correct. And, when that happens, exactly whose interests will be served? The answer, I think, cannot possibly be "the public's."

Filed Under: australia, copyright, ed husic, innovation, intermediary liability, search blocking, site blocking

As Predicted, Australian Government Looks To Creep Site Censorship Into Search Censorship

from the creep-creep-creep dept

Earlier this year, we discussed Australia's Department of Communications asking for feedback on the effectiveness of its site-blocking policy after it had been in place for several years. The copyright industries both local and foreign leapt at the chance, making two divergent claims. Claim one: site-blocking is working really, really well and should be continued. Claim two: site-blocking is being vastly undermined by, you guessed it, Google, and the government should extend site-blocking into search-blocking as a result. We made the point at the time that this type of thing occurs like clockwork: you open the door to some censorship and those cheering it on will attempt to expand it further.

Well, after collecting its feedback, the Australian Department of Communications has come out with proposed amendments to Australian copyright law that would, you guessed it again, force search engines to censor links to so-called "pirate sites."

The aims of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018 are fairly straightforward.

Where existing legislation compels ISPs to prevent access to sites listed in an injunction, the amendments attempt to deal with sites that “have started to provide access to the online location after the injunction is made”, meaning that subsequently appearing mirrors and proxies can be dealt with much more quickly.

Turning to the perceived problems with search engines, the amendments will allow rightsholders to apply for injunctions that will not only target infringing ‘online locations’ but also their appearance in search results.

Again, this is plainly stupid. Search engines have one goal if they want to be successful: return the most relevant search results to a user's query. That's it. The problem in all of this is that the Australian public searches for infringing content. For a company like Google to kneecap its own usefulness in this manner makes no sense and, again, opens the door to force search engines to behave in all kinds of ways that governments may desire. And, yes, that's a slippery slope argument, except we're already inching down this particular slippery slope, making it a question of just how far down Australia will slide.

And, because of course, the requirements placed on search companies are both vague and onerous.

Companies including Google will be required to “take such steps as the Court considers reasonable so as not to provide a search result that refers users to the online location.” Search providers will also be compelled to deal with the subsequent appearance of mirrors and proxies by ensuring that these don’t appear in search results either.

In a statement published this morning, the Department of Communications offered the following summary.

“The Copyright Amendment Bill will ensure a broader range of overseas websites and file-hosting services widely used for sharing music and movies are within the scope of the scheme, and provide a means for proxy and mirror pirate sites to be blocked quickly,” the statement reads.

Let's be clear about what this is. This new legislation is a national government requiring a useful internet tool to be less useful to the average Australian citizen that is searching the internet, simply as a favor to a few big content players in both Australia and, what will be more common, abroad. That's a clear disservice by the Australian government to its own people.

Filed Under: australia, copyright, search, site blocking

The War On Fan-Subtitles Comes To Australia in The Form Of Site-Blocking

from the block-party dept

One of the more curious fronts in the never ending copyright wars is the one launched against fan-made subtitles. The theory from the entertainment industry goes something like this: these subtitles allow pirates to download movies in foreign countries and then apply the subtitles to view them coherently, therefore it's all copyright infringement. It's a dumb argument on many levels, but chiefly because it's inescapably true that the entertainment industry has done an absolutely terrible job of making sure it releases its own subtitled movies in these same countries and in these same languages. In other words, the entertainment industry isn't going to serve you foreigners, and we're not going to let anyone else serve you either. To date, much of this front of the war has been fought in Europe.

But now it's poised to make landfall in Australia, where a site-blocking request lobbed by a group of entertainment industry players has, for the first time, included fansub sites.

Together the companies filed an application for the broadest-ever blocking injunctionat the Federal Court in Australia. If successful, it would compel Australia’s ISPs to block a record-setting 151 domains related to 77 ‘pirate’ sites.

The list of ISPs in the case is familiar. Telstra, Optus, Vocus, TPG and their subsidiaries are all named as respondents in the case with the addition of Vodafone, which was added after recently entering the fixed-line broadband market.  What is notable about the list is the inclusion, for the first time, of sites such as Subscene, Subsmovies, YIFYSubtitles. As their names suggest, these platforms offer subtitles for the latest movies and TV shows, something that doesn’t sit well with any of the companies involved but particularly Madman Entertainment which specializes in Japanese anime.

Let's be clear about what this represents. The entertainment industry wants entire websites blocked for helping viewers understand what is being said on in their own native languages. If that doesn't smack of overreach, it's hard to imagine what would. This isn't to say that fansubs can't be used in combination with pirated movies and shows. They sure as hell can, but that isn't the only application. The other is that entertainment fans buy the products legitimately, rip them, and then apply the fansubs so they can enjoy what they bought. The fact that such a market even exists makes the obvious point that the entertainment industry is failing at giving customers what they want or, in this case, need in order to enjoy those products. And yet the end result here is bans on entire sites?

Fortunately, the judge overseeing all of this appears to be fairly sober on how big a shift this represents for site-blocking.

As a result, the ever precise Justice Nicholas told the parties to ensure that no stone is left unturned in preparing evidence for the Court.

“You better make sure your evidence in relation to that is particularly thorough,” the Judge said. “There’s some creep here occurring – I don’t say that critically… [but] it’s a new angle so I’ll need to look at that closely.”

That sure sounds like a judge telling the industry that it sure better have the goods if it expects the court to go along with any of this. That isn't to say Nicholas can't be convinced with a sub-par response to his request. Perhaps he will be. But from the outset it's good to see Nicholas realize the importance of this shift and the industry's creep into areas of site-blocking.

In the end, as is always the case, the bigger point is that attacking fansub sites is dumb. All the recent evidence seems to show that good legal alternatives are the recipe for stamping out concerns over piracy. Site-blocking those actually providing those alternatives, on the other hand, is not.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, copyright, fan subs, site blocking, subtitles

They Always Suck: UK ISP 'For The Children' Filters Block Disney And Educational Websites

from the it-never-works dept

Website blocking is now all the rage across much of the world. The way such website censorship happens is, however, as varied as the countries in which the censoring occurs. While some nations enact laws for internet filtering on all sorts of grounds -- be it porn, extremist content, or political dissent --, other countries have ISPs that proactively do this kind of filtering for their host countries. In many cases, this results in "parental filters" designed to keep harmful content from finding the eyeballs of children. In reality, when Comcast tried this here in America, it managed to block TorrentFreak for some reason.

But nobody does collateral site-blocking damage like UK ISPs. The stories about "for the children" and "but...terrorists!" ISP website filtering are legion, but recent reports put any focus by ISPs on the well-being of children in heavy doubt, given the amount of purely innocent children's content that is getting blocked by ISP filters.

What really stood out to us is that some sites which are targeted at kids, or at least useful to them, are blocked too.

One prime example is the official UK Disney website, located at disney.co.uk, which is blocked by BT’s Strict filters. That seems a bit cruel. The same is true for disneymoviesanywhere.com, which is not very useful, but certainly doesn’t seem harmful to us either.

Apparently, BT doesn’t want children to visit these Disney sites.

One can only imagine the rampage Mickey Mouse went on when he discovered this travesty. But this collateral damage went far beyond the House of Mouse, and across multiple UK ISPs, too. BT and Virgin Media blocked the website for Internet Safety Day, because apparently kids shouldn't be safe on the internet. Kidsandcode.org is also blocked by BT, while Three and Sky are blocking vikingsword.com, a site dedicate to history education.

None of this should really be a surprise, of course. Large organizations trying to accurately filter out unwanted content for parents, rather than having parents actually policing their children's online activity, is always going to fall prey to mistakes, laziness, and collateral damage. Always, always, always. What should be immediately apparent to witnesses of this is that if ISPs can't get this right, at least to the degree of not blocking Disney, what hope do legislators have in crafting site-blocking legislation that does this any better?

Filed Under: collateral damage, copyright, filters, site blocking, uk
Companies: disney

Japanese Lawyer Sues NTT For Voluntarily Blocking 'Pirate Sites'

from the censoring-is-censoring dept

Well, that didn't take long. Over the past few weeks, we have been discussing yet another attempt to introduce a censorious site-blocking program to combat copyright infringement, this time in Japan. While site-blocking is unfortunately now popular in several countries, Japan's attempt at it is interesting in that the Japanese constitution specifically forbids censorship of this kind save for the need to combat very serious, typically deadly instances. What's not arguable is that Japan's constitution intended to allow for a sweeping site-blocking program to combat general copyright infringement. Despite this, and despite the fact that the Japanese government hasn't bothered to actually put any law in place that would institute site-blocking, at least one ISP decided to get a head start and began blocking access to several websites it determined to be "pirate sites." The Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp., or NTT, did this while saying the government should still get on crafting an actual law for its actions, despite the obvious unconstitutional nature of the whole enterprise.

Because of its actions, it will be NTT that will face the first legal challenge to site-blocking rather than the government, with a private citizen, who happens to be a lawyer, suing the ISP for invading his privacy in order to censor his access to the internet.

Lawyer Yuichi Nakazawa has now launched legal action against NTT, demanding that the corporation immediately ends its site-blocking operations. The complaint, filed at the Tokyo District Court, notes that the lawyer uses an Internet connection provided by NTT. Crucially, it also states that in order to block access to the sites in question, NTT would need to spy on customers’ Internet connections to find out if they’re trying to access the banned sites.

The lawyer informs TorrentFreak that the ISP’s decision prompted him into action.

“NTT’s decision was made arbitrarily on the site without any legal basis. No matter how legitimate the objective of copyright infringement is, it is very dangerous,” Nakazawa explains.

Regardless of the specific legal arguments in this suit, it's hard to imagine that NTT wouldn't have seen this coming. Operating without a legal framework to unilaterally censor parts of the internet in a country with a commanding federal legal framework hardened against this very thing was putting the ISPs neck out there, to put it mildly. Why NTT wanted to paint a legal target on its own back rather than waiting for the government and courts to sort this out at the federal level is beyond me. One has to imagine that this lawsuit will be the first of many, if NTT decides to carry on blocking websites. Japanese law is quite clear on the matter, after all.

Breaches of privacy could present a significant problem under Japanese law. The Telecommunications Business Act guarantees privacy of communications and prevents censorship, as does Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The secrecy of communications being handled by a telecommunications carrier shall not be violated,” the Telecommunications Business Act states, adding that “no communications being handled by a telecommunications carrier shall be censored.”

The Constitution is also clear, stating that “no censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.”

Now, as TorrentFreak notes, how this specific legal action is adjudicated will likely come down to the technical specifics of how NTT is doing its site-blocking. That and, of course, how Japanese courts interpret that technical implementation.

The question of whether site-blocking does indeed represent an invasion of privacy will probably come down to how the ISP implements it and how that is interpreted by the courts.

A source familiar with the situation told TF that spying on user connections is clearly a problem but the deployment of an outer network firewall rule that simply prevents traffic passing through might be viewed differently.

But what is more clear than anything else is that this lawsuit signals that the Japanese public won't simply allow ISPs to unilaterally censoring their internet access. Whatever the technical details, Japanese law would make any introduction of site-blocking a matter of deft attempts at skirting the purpose of the anti-censorship laws on the books rather than fully complying with them.

And if we've already reached the point that it's clear the government and NTT are trying to game the system rather than following the law, the public backlash is likely to be heavy.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, free speech, japan, site blocking
Companies: ntt

At Least One Japanese ISP Gets A Jump Start On The Government's Unconstitutional Site-Blocking Plans

from the what's-the-rush dept

You will recall that we recently discussed the odd announcement by the Japanese government that it would seek to start a site-blocking policy to prevent copyright infringement. The announcement itself was odd for several reasons. First and foremost, this exact kind of government censorship is specifically forbidden in Japan's constitution except to "avert present danger", the context for which normally applies to real-life violence, the taking of liberty, or the destruction or taking of property. To be clear, the exception has never been used for anything remotely like this. But that's not all. The announcement was also strange because pretty much everyone agrees that the government is looking to subvert its own constitution to protect the anime and manga industries, which is both almost certainly the most Japan sentence ever written and completely unnecessary given the that the anime and manga industries are both massive and growing. None of that sounds like a "present danger."

And, yet, it seems like at least one Japanese ISP has decided to get a head start on all of this.

The government didn’t have to wait long for a response. The Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (NTT) announced yesterday that it will begin blocking access to sites that provide unauthorized access to copyrighted content.

“We have taken short-term emergency measures until legal systems on site-blocking are implemented,” NTT in a statement.

NTT Communications Corp., NTT Docomo Inc. and NTT Plala Inc., will block access to three sites previously identified by the government – Mangamura, AniTube! and MioMio which have a particularly large following in Japan. NTT said that it will also restrict access to other sites if requested to do so by the government. The company added that at least in the short-term, it will prevent access to the sites using DNS blocking.

If nothing else did, this sudden move by NTT ought to demonstrate to everyone in Japan just how dangerous these sorts of ham-fisted government attempts at policy are. This sort of bowing to government pressure, especially when that pressure is of an unconstitutional nature, doesn't typically find a home in democratic nations. That's all the more true when we're discussing a form of censorship. It's also more than a little jarring to watch a private sector industry carry out government aims as an "emergency" with the excuse essentially of "legislating democratically takes too long."

And, while we made this point in our original post on this topic, let's reiterate that cracking this censorious door open an inch will lead to the government barging straight through it.

To date, just three sites have been named by the government as particularly problematic but it’s now promising to set up a consultation on a further response. A bill will also be submitted to parliament to target sites that promote links to content hosted elsewhere, an activity which is not illegal under current law.

Read that last bit again and understand what it means: the Japanese government will target websites for censorship that are not breaking Japanese law. If that doesn't terrify Japan's public, then it damn well should.

Meanwhile, other ISPs in the country have taken a slightly more measured approach, stating that they will consult with experts on what to do. That's certainly better than NTT's approach, except that it still falls short of what every ISP ought to be saying: "No, this is against the law."

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, free speech, isps, japan, site blocking
Companies: ntt

The Music Industry Now Wants To Creep Past Site-Blocking Into App-Blocking

from the creepers-gonna-creep dept

With site-blocking now fully en vogue in much of the world as the preferred draconian solution to copyright infringement, one point we've made over and over again is that even this extreme measure has no hope of fully satisfying the entertainment industries. Once thought something of a nuclear option, the full censorship of websites will now serve as a mere stepping stone to the censorship of all kinds of other platforms that might sometimes be used for piracy. It was always going to be this way, from the very moment that world governments creaked open this door.

And it appears it isn't taking long for the entertainment industries to want to take that next step, either. As the debate about Kodi addons rages, and as governments begin to clamp down on the platform at the request of the entertainment industry, several industry players at an IP forum event in Russia have started announcing plans to push for app-blocking as the next step.

Over in Russia, a country that will happily block hundreds or millions of IP addresses if it suits them, the topic of infringing apps was raised this week. It happened during the International Strategic Forum on Intellectual Property, a gathering of 500 experts from more than 30 countries. There were strong calls for yet more tools and measures to deal with films and music being made available via ‘pirate’ apps.

The forum heard that in response to widespread website blocking, people behind pirate sites have begun creating applications for mobile devices to achieve the same ends – the provision of illegal content. This, key players in the music industry say, means that the law needs to be further tightened to tackle the rising threat.

“Consumption of content is now going into the mobile sector and due to this we plan to prevent mass migration of ‘pirates’ to the mobile sector,” said Leonid Agronov, general director of the National Federation of the Music Industry.

Look, all of that is true. Innovation happens often at the margins when it comes to technology, after all, and the technology that powers piracy is no exception to this rule. At the same time, neither the entertainment industry nor the governments of the world have ever, even once, shown themselves to be good or fair arbiters of what tools are "pirate tools" and which are legitimate tools that sometimes are used for piracy. If given the power, both will overshoot the mark, with entertainment groups carpet-bombing their way to collateral damage just to be sure that pirates are obliterated, and governments all too often using this copyright censorship as cover to enact oppressive censorship on matters of pure politics.

In other words, it's not that the entertainment industry is wrong that there is some measure of a problem to be dealt with, it's just that their censorious solution creates way more problems than it solves.

Despite that, the music industry, in particular, is banging its war drum.

The same concerns were echoed by Alexander Blinov, CEO of Warner Music Russia. According to TASS, the powerful industry player said that while recent revenues had been positively affected by site-blocking, it’s now time to start taking more action against apps.

“I agree with all speakers that we can not stop at what has been achieved so far. The music industry has a fight against illegal content in mobile applications on the agenda,” Blinov said.

This is not an arms race that the content industry has shown it is capable of winning. But while they beat these war drums for evermore censorship, the unintended consequences are strewn like bodies all around them. From Blinov's home country of Russia, the government has been laughably inept at separating pirate site from non-pirate site to the tune of a ten-fold blocking of collateral damage sites, all while the government also uses those same copyright laws to shut down political speech and reporters it doesn't like.

And it is in this climate that content companies want to hand even more blocking powers to the authorities? First they came for the websites, then they came for the mobile applications? Whatever comes after that is not something to look forward to.

Filed Under: app blocking, censorship, copyright, piracy, site blocking