UN Report On Human Rights Condemns Three Strikes As Civil Rights Violation

from the nice-to-see dept

Via Michael Geist, we learn of a new UN report on Human Rights, that (among many other things) talks up the importance of free speech online (pdf), worries about the expansion of third party liability laws as a tool to suppress speech online, and is generally concerned about government attempts to censor the internet. Where it gets even more interesting is where it pretty clearly states that three strikes or other efforts to kick people off the internet for file sharing is a trend it does not approve of at all:

While blocking and filtering measures deny access to certain content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by discussions regarding a centralized “on/off” control over Internet traffic. In addition, he is alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three strikes- law” in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.

Of course, supporters of such laws will downplay the significance of this, but they might not realize just how much influence these types of reports can have over time. Either way, it's nice to see UN officials recognizing that yes, copyright can and often is used for censorship.

The report goes on to worry about ACTA as well:

Beyond the national level, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been proposed as a multilateral agreement to establish international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. While the provisions to disconnect individuals from Internet access for violating the treaty have been removed from the final text of December 2010, the Special Rapporteur remains watchful about the treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right to freedom of expression.

We keep hearing from supporters that there are no "free speech" concerns here, and yet the UN clearly sees the issues. Seems like ACTA supporters have a serious case of willful blindness.

On top of that, the UN report points to all sorts of other serious concerns that we've raised, including how "notice-and-takedown" provisions such as those found in the DMCA are open to widespread abuse.

In the recommendations section, the UN report is pretty clear and damning. Kicking people off the internet is a violation of existing civil rights:

The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Now watch as our usual "law & order" commenters rush to talk about how the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be ignored as it's no big deal.

Finally, the report actually (amazingly) goes so far as to suggest countries "repeal or amend" any law that would kick people off the internet for infringing:

The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.

While I doubt the report will have too much impact, it certainly is nice to see it getting some significant attention. It's too bad, but you can bet that politicians around the globe will simply ignore it... and when asked about it, will instead just point to debunked industry claims of "losses" to back up their ongoing push towards censorship and civil rights violations in the name of protecting the obsolete business models of a few industries.

Filed Under: 3 strikes, acta, civil rights, copyright, dmca, free speech, notice and takedown, un

US Ambassador To The UN: Protecting Patents & Copyrights More Important Than Development

from the say-what-now? dept

The US's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Betty E. King, recently gave a press conference in Geneva to talk about a variety of issues. What caught our attention, not surprisingly, was the discussion on intellectual property issues, which seemed to raise a lot more questions than it answered. Towards the end of her talk, she basically complained about WIPO, and how various developing countries are hijacking WIPO to focus on "development," at the expense of things like patents and copyright. She says that she, and the US government, are pro development, but not if it comes at the expense of patents and copyrights.

Of course, that makes no sense. The whole point of patents and copyright is supposed to be to create incentives for development. So development should always be at the core of the discussion. It's not, as King implies, that the two should be in conflict. Instead, if the two are in conflict, it suggests that there's something wrong with the way our intellectual property laws are working. What's really scary is she seems to think that more and longer patents automatically means better results:

Now long before I got here the United States has been stationing its experts around the world to help more countries be better able to apply for patents. We have our patent officers in our Embassy in Egypt as well as in other places around the world, and that has worked because we have seen an increase in the number of patent applications from a broader range of countries. That is good. However, the group in Geneva seems hell-bent on shortening these patents and creating more exceptions.

My point is if you create too many exceptions to a rule, you may as well not have the rule.

The problem is that she doesn't seem to realize that those exceptions actually have been shown, time and time again, to improve overall development. Which is what she should be in favor of supporting. But, it quickly becomes clear that King is simply unfamiliar with the history of copyright or pretty much any of the details of how intellectual property works, when she makes the laughable claim that exceptions to copyright will mean we'll have no more books:

While we certainly want access to books for a lot of people around the world, I think denying the authors of these books their rights, or abrogating the rights of these authors, would mean that eventually we will never have a book.

Someone should send King a study on the history of copyright in the US, including the fact that, during its developmental stage, the US refused to respect the copyrights of any foreign book... and how, despite that, Charles Dickens made a ton of money in the US by using the cheap copies of his books that were abundant to fund lavish tours of the US which were quite profitable for him. There are ways other than copyright to make money. And there are many reasons, other than copyright, to write books. It's kind of scary when an official so high up in US government policy circles doesn't seem to know that.

Later, in the questions, a reporter goes back to King's statements about WIPO, and references how ACTA was done outside of WIPO. We've actually discussed this before, pointing out that the reason the US and a few other countries went outside of WIPO was because those countries were upset that WIPO was actually listening to countries like India and Brazil, and paying attention to the actual evidence that showed you could actually create more culture and more opportunities by pushing back on copyright expansionism. The reporter asks whether or not ACTA means that WIPO is becoming irrelevant, and she responds that basically if the "Development Agenda Group" keeps pushing that darned "development" angle over intellectual property rights, then it will "kill" WIPO:

I think the people at WIPO are aware that without successful conclusions to these longstanding negotiations the people who apply for patent protection may find ways around WIPO. That is obviously the sort of existential threat to WIPO. I think the Director General understands that very clearly. But we're also in an era where you have emerging economies that want to have their voices heard. It is important to note that the Development Agenda Group is led by Egypt, Brazil, India and Indonesia -- countries that themselves have patents to protect but also have thriving businesses in generic drugs.

...

But if we get to a system where the protections of patents are abrogated in the name of development then we certainly will kill that organization.

In other words, if these countries who are concerned about economic development don't get in line and accept draconian US patent and copyright laws that will significantly curtail development in those countries, then the US will move to shut down the venue in which they negotiate such things, and focus instead on agreements like ACTA that shut them out. How nice.

Filed Under: betty e. king, copyright, development, patents, un, us, wipo