New Zealand Uses Earthquake As An Excuse To Sneak 3 Strikes Law Through

from the well-isn't-that-nice dept

You may recall that a few years back, New Zealand politicians tried to sneak through a "three strikes" proposal to kick people offline based on accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. When lots of New Zealanders complained, the Copyright Minister first got angry that anyone wouldn't accept this, but eventually the government was forced to back down. Of course, that was only temporary, as last year the plan came back, with a sneaky provision that said they'd only really implement it if file sharing didn't decrease. The argument was that you couldn't say the law was about kicking people off the internet, because it wouldn't start doing that for a few years.

Of course, that proposal hadn't been touched since last December... and yet suddenly it's being pushed through quickly, to the surprise of many New Zealand politicians who had no idea it was even on the docket. Even more nefarious? Supporters are trying to attach it to an emergency bill related to earthquake recovery efforts in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake. Of course, no politician wants to be seen holding up an earthquake recovery bill. This is the ultimate in underhanded moves by politicians, at the behest of the entertainment industry, to ram through broken policies by attaching it to a separate bill. Update: Good explanation in the comments showing that this bill wasn't "attached" to the earthquake bill, but rather just put through the same process in parallel.

Filed Under: copyright, earthquake, new zealand, three strikes

Irish Gov't Trying To Sneak Through Massive Copyright Law Changes Via Questionable Legal Process

from the this-won't-look-good dept

Looks like the lobbyists have gotten to another government. Conor Lalor points us to the news that the Irish government is using a really questionable process to rush through massive copyright law changes today. As you may recall, last fall, a court recognized that Irish copyright law didn't mandate three strikes. This is perfectly sensible. Three strikes is a really dangerous concept that involves limiting basic due process, and turning ISPs into copyright cops for an entertainment industry that refuses to adapt.

However, the Irish government has responded to that legal ruing by trying to sneak three strikes into the law with no notice and no public discussion. Apparently, the current government is in its "final days," and the current group of politicians is pushing to get this done before the government changes over. Of course, a huge change to copyright law is supposed to involve public discussion and debate and a real vote. But that's not happening here. I don't fully understand the way the Irish government works, but this sure sounds like trying to sneak a massive copyright law change through a backdoor loophole:

The legislation is expected to be sanctioned by the present Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation Mary Hanafin TD before Friday.

A statutory instrument is secondary legislation -- only the Oireachtas can pass primary legislation -- and as such is the only way changes can be made to legislation in such a tight timeframe.

Considering how controversial three strikes is, it's rather stunning that elected official in Ireland would sneak through such an anti-consumer change. It's also going to massively damage the view of Ireland as a "tech hub," since this sort of law is simply a transfer payment type of law, passing off one industry's failures to adapt on the tech industry. The article also quotes an Irish law expert who notes how this move seems to violate basic procedural rules for establishing new laws in Ireland:

Internet law expert TJ McIntyre says the legislation is premature in light of the Taoiseach promising a review of Irish copyright for the digital age. He said it is also premature in terms of a case taking place in the European Court of Justice between Belgian publishers group SABAM V Tiscali (Scarlet).

"What's happening in Europe is similar litigation over the obligation of ISPs to conduct filtering and the question is what does European law require regarding injunctions against ISPs?

"To my mind, you can't legislate in Ireland until we've seen the judgment from Europe.

"There are also procedural issues -- normally, if you legislate you have to have completed a regulatory impact assessment beforehand, as well as a public consultation. Also, if there's a breach found in a law then it would be normal to discuss it with the European Commission," McIntyre said.

Of course, when it comes to the entertainment industry, they never seem to care about actually following the rules in order to get their favored legislation passed. In the meantime, could those who usually chime in supporting everything the entertainment industry has to say explain what's wrong with actually going through the normal process to put a law like this in place? Is the industry really so afraid of allowing public debate on this issue that they have to sneak it through backdoor loopholes?

Filed Under: copyright, ireland, three strikes

Two Years After The RIAA Suggested ISPs Were Ready To Implement 3 Strikes, Most ISPs Have No Such Plans

from the lies-the-riaa-tells dept

It's been a little over two years since the RIAA dropped its strategy of suing music fans for sharing files online -- a strategy that was an unequivocal disaster for the record labels. Of course, when the news came out, the RIAA suggested that the reason they had done so was because of a backroom deal with various ISPs to implement three strikes plans. And yet, here we are, two years later with no major ISP having put in place such a policy. Greg Sandoval has been following this story closely, and his contacts at most of the major ISPs indicate no interest in putting in place such policies, and a widespread recognition that the ISPs have enough lobbying clout to push back on the RIAA if necessary.

There have been some smaller ISPs who do seem to be using a modified three strikes policy, but without the major players, it's really not that widespread. Of course, it's notable that Sandoval says his sources expect Comcast to put in place a three strikes plan once its merger with NBC Universal is done, and suddenly it decides that protecting obsolete business practices is more important than kicking off your own customers. Either way, this is notable in seeing one place where the RIAA may have actually met its match. Two years ago, the group acted as if three strikes was inevitable. Even in Sandoval's latest article, he notes:

Executives from entertainment companies brush all the bad news aside. They say the same thing they've said for two years: Just wait. They say there's a big announcement from some of the major ISPs coming around the corner.

But they've been suggesting that for two years now, and at some point you have to question if there's anything to back that up. Perhaps the RIAA is just so used to getting its way that it doesn't know how to react when it runs into an even stronger lobbying organization.

Filed Under: isps, three strikes
Companies: comcast, riaa

Record Labels Angry That Hadopi Isn't Kicking People Off The Internet Fast Enough

from the pick-up-the-pace dept

A few months back, we noted that Hadopi, the French bureaucracy in charge of sending out "you're an infringer" notices and then kicking people off the internet under that country's three strikes plan, was receiving 25,000 notices from record labels per day (there was some confusion on that story, as I originally believed Hadopi was sending out 25,000 notices, but it was only receiving that many). Only a few months later, and the labels have now ramped it up to 50,000 per day, which was the target amount that they had set back in September. However, it appears that the record labels are upset that, while they're sending Hadopi 50,000 notices per day, Hadopi is only sending out notices on about 2,000 per day. The industry wants Hadopi to just do what I had thought they were doing originally and rubber-stamp all their notices and pass them on. It hopes to get up to 10,000, but the industry is still pushing for 50,000 per day, which is insane when you think about it.

Think about how many mistakes are being made when you're sending 50,000 notices per day. Over the course of about five years, the RIAA apparently sued less than 20,000 people -- and still made a lot of mistakes. US Copyright Group got a lot of attention for accusing a few thousand people of file sharing particular movies -- and also appears to have made a lot of mistakes. Yet, here, with Hadopi, the labels are accusing 50,000 people per day, and are upset that Hadopi isn't just rubber stamping all the notices? It appears that the record labels don't care at all about what happens if they accuse totally innocent people.

Filed Under: france, hadopi, labels, three strikes

India The Latest To Think About Kicking People Off The Internet Based On Accusations Of File Sharing

from the guilty-until-proven-innocent dept

A few months back, we pointed to a discussion looking at how three countries with some of the biggest movie industries outside of the US -- Nigeria, China and India -- all were thriving, despite massive "piracy." As you looked at the details of each, it showed how each industry had been adapting to a marketplace in which some of the content was widely available, but were still figuring out ways to make money (i.e., you can compete with free). However, because competing with free actually involves work, it should come as no surprise that some are seeking to implement government protectionist policies.

Gautam John points us to the news that a "High Level Committee on Piracy" in India, put together by the Indian government has come back with a variety of suggestions including a "three strikes" plan that would kick users off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) for unauthorized file sharing. There's also a suggestion that would appear to make theater owners somewhat liable for customers camcording movies. They also support preventative detention of potential pirates -- a ridiculous idea that has been put in practice in some areas of India already -- and which the US entertainment industry has encouraged. Yes, this is detaining people who might make an unauthorized copy. Welcome to pre-crime, India-style. About the only suggestion that isn't massively damaging to individuals' rights is the idea that filmmakers "make piracy unviable" by offering their movies at more reasonable prices and in more ways, so that people are more willing to go with legitimate options. They probably should have just stuck with that suggestion and left the rest alone.

Filed Under: copyright, india, three strikes

New Zealand's New Three Strikes Policy Avoids Being Called A Three Strikes Policy By Only Triggering It Later

from the sneaky,-sneaky dept

For a few years now, we've covered the fight in New Zealand about implementing a three strikes policy. The latest version includes a special "copyright tribunal" to review the various cases... and also a bit of a sneaky way to pretend it's not really a three strikes proposal. That's because three strikes will only kick in at a later date, if it's determined that warning letters alone didn't decrease file sharing. Of course, that seems unlikely, so it will likely still be a three strikes policy, but this way they can pretend it's not really about three strikes. Sneaky. Also, it's worth pointing out that the law appears to still hold account holders liable for any actions done on their local network, which seems pretty ridiculous.

Filed Under: new zealand, three strikes

A Look At How Many People Have Been Kicked Offline In Korea On Accusations (Not Convictions) Of Infringement

from the one-strike dept

With the Hadopi three strikes program in France kicking into full speed, it may be worth jumping halfway around the world to South Korea, which put in place a very strict copyright law last year, that included the ability to kick people offline for accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. It's worth noting, of course, that the reason South Korea put in place such a draconian copyright law was due to serious diplomatic pressure from the US as a part of a supposed "free trade" agreement between the two countries. It's also worth pointing out that the trade agreement between South Korea and the US was, according to many, the basis for the initial draft of ACTA (though, obviously, it's changed a lot since then).

So, now that the law has been in place for over a year, what's been happening in South Korea? Well, it turns out that people are getting kicked offline for accusations of filing sharing -- but worryingly, it appears they're being kicked off with one strike, not three. Glyn Moody points us to a report on the data behind what's going on in South Korea.

Now, it's important to understand the specifics of the law there. There are two ways a user can have his or her account suspended. The first is if the Minister of Culture orders the ISP to suspend the user. However, this can only come after the user has been warned three times (hence: three strikes). However, there's also a separate way, which is that the Copyright Commission can "recommend" that ISPs warn someone, block or delete materials believed to be infringing or suspend accounts. Deleting or suspending doesn't require any prior notice or warnings or anything. Basically, the Commission says "we recommend you censor this content and/or suspend this user" and the ISPs then have a choice to make. Guess what they do? That's right, they obey. Nearly every time. Out of over 65,000 "recommendations" by the Commission, ISPs have only declined to follow the recommendation 40 times -- 20 times in sending out warnings and 20 times in deleting content. It's never declined to follow a recommendation to suspend an account.

Below is the full chart of data concerning the Copyright Committee's recommendations, and what was done about them: Hopefully, it's clear what's going on. Basically, the Commission has sent out a lot of warnings, and blocked/deleted a ton of content. A total of 31 users have had their accounts suspended -- again, with no indication that there was any number of warnings or pre-notice at all. Separately, the blog post in question does note that the other method (the actual three strikes way, involving the Culture Minister) has sent out a much smaller 275 warnings and 41 orders to delete content, but none to suspend accounts.

Filed Under: bans, infringement, south korea, three strikes

French ISP Free Gives In, Will Send 3 Strikes Notices

from the too-bad dept

Well, it looks like the saga of the Hadopi loophole is now over. We had written how the French ISP 'Free' had been refusing to pass on Hadopi "three strikes" notices, realizing that the law did not mandate that ISPs pass on the notices, but the law did say that you couldn't have your connection disabled if the notices hadn't been sent. Not surprisingly, this upset the French government, which took the extraordinary step of simply decreeing a change to the law to require ISPs send on the notices. This seemed extreme, and potentially illegal.

While Free had initially indicated interest in fighting this, it's now given in and will send the letters. Apparently, French President Nicolas Sarkozy had threatened to "make an example" of ISPs who didn't send on the notices. Fitting, of course, that a law that avoids due process is changed without any due process.

Filed Under: france, hadopi, three strikes
Companies: free

Paul McGuinness Thinks Recognizing Due Process Is Bad For Ireland's Reputation?

from the really-now? dept

Ah, Paul McGuiness. U2's manager, who seems to be very, very confused in always blaming everyone else for not making him even wealthier, has apparently responded to the news we recently wrote about, concerning an Irish court recognizing that ISPs have no legal obligation to kick file sharers off the internet on a three strikes regime. Now, this should be common sense based on the fact that there is no "three strikes" law in Ireland. The record labels were trying to force ISPs to implement three strikes by just claiming it was legally required, but without any actual basis in the law. Even if you support three strikes laws, you have to admit that the law needs to actually have that provision before ISPs are required to obey the demands of the record labels to kick people offline. You would think it's hard to argue against that.

But, this is Paul McGuinness we're talking about.

Zeropaid points us to McGuiness's response to the legal ruling, where he basically goes off the deep end, in suggesting that this rather straightforward reading of the law somehow harms Ireland's reputation:

"This is extremely bad for the international reputation of Ireland as a jurisdiction with appropriate legal protection for all kinds of Intellectual Property and copyright generally."

How so? Seriously. I'm wondering how anyone in their right mind could possibly believe that a court saying "gee the law doesn't say that, so it's not required" harms Ireland's reputation. He then insists that Ireland needs to pass a three strikes law to "fix" this awful ruling:

"The government must now as a matter of urgency, do its job properly and implement the required EU legislation without further delay."

Um, except this is flat-out wrong. There is no "required EU legislation" that mandates three strikes. In fact, after serious debates in which members of the EU Parliament initially rejected three strikes rules, they eventually reached a compromise that allows three strikes under some very specific conditions, which are clearly not met by the attempts to automatically enforce three strikes in Ireland. I mean, at this point, McGuiness is flat-out making stuff up. It makes you wonder why anyone takes him seriously.

Filed Under: due process, ireland, paul mcguinness, three strikes

French Culture Minister Unilaterally Tries To Change Hadopi Rules To Close Loophole

from the that's-how-democracy-works? dept

We recently wrote about how the French ISP Free was using a loophole in the Hadopi "three strikes" rules to protect its subscribers. Basically, the law says that ISPs should pass along the notices, but does not have any penalties if the ISP does not pass the notices along to users. So Free simply chose not to pass along the notices, even if it did send user info to the agency. But the problem is that the law says that users can't be cut off unless they've been notified, so without the notification, there can be no kicking people off the internet, which was the entire point of Hadopi.

In response, it appears that French culture minister Frederic Mitterand decided to unilaterally decided to issue a "decree" clarifying Hadopi and extending the fines for not handing over info to not passing along the notices. Of course, that raises all sorts of questions about the French lawmaking process, and Free is insisting that such a decree, issued quickly with no review or vote is simply not legal. Also, it's been pointed out that EU law requires that members notify the EU regulatory bodies of any new laws that would punish ISPs if they don't comply -- and clearly this didn't happen in this case.

As Zeropaid points out in the link above, it is pretty clear that Free is playing a semantic game, and it's likely that the law will be changed eventually to close that loophole, but that certainly doesn't mean it's okay for the French culture minister to unilaterally change a law without any review or oversight, just because the original law makers left a loophole in.

Filed Under: france, frederic mitterand, hadopi, loopholes, three strikes
Companies: free