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+

Filed Under: copyright, due process, removing content, search engines, shadow regulations, uk, voluntary agreements

EFF Exposing The Back-Room Deals That Allow Corporations And Governments To Control The Web

from the sorry-you-didn't-get-the-memos,-stakeholders dept

The EFF is publishing a series looking at the multitude of ways gatekeepers and governments can make content disappear from the web -- using everything from legislation they helped craft to applying pressure to multiple points between the content they want removed and the person who put it there.

But not every tool used to remove content comes in a form that can be contested by the general public. Some of these tools are the result of private agreements with private entities -- agreements in which users have no say. The EFF calls it "Shadow Regulation."

For example, agreements between copyright holders and Internet companies that give copyright holders the ability to effectively delete users' content from the Internet, and agreements on other topics such as hateful speech and terrorism that can be used to stifle lawful speech. Unlike laws, such agreements (sometimes also called codes, standard, principles, or guidelines) aren't developed with public input or accountability. As a result, users who are affected by them are often completely unaware that they even exist.

Even those who are aware of these agreements have few options for changing them, because users aren't a party to these private deals. They tend to cover multiple companies, so shaming or boycotting a single company isn't an option. And asking regulators to step in might not be possible either, because these agreements often have the active support of government officials who see them as a cheap and easy alternative to regulation.

It may be difficult to battle these agreements, but there's nothing to be lost by exposing their inner workings to those affected by them. The EFF names a few examples: the "six strikes" infringement notification system, Europe's hate speech code of conduct, and the MPAA's "Trusted Notifier" program, which requires domain name registries to disable domains accused of infringement.

But the reach of these private agreements extends much further than this. Pretty much every intermediary between hosted content and those seeking to view it have options at their disposal for disappearing content should they be pressured to do so. The EFF highlights each link in the chain between site visitors and the hosted content, showing how these have been affected by shadow regulation.

ISPs, payment providers, certificate authorities, and search engines all are forms of internet connective tissue that can be severed at any time, and with few recourse options for those whose content has been removed. The private agreements aren't just used by other private entities, like the MPAA and RIAA. They're also exploited by censorious governments to stifle criticism or reporting that's at odds with the official government line.

This is the introduction to a series of posts by the EFF, which will more closely examine each of these "weak links." Just as importantly, the EFF is hoping to provide readers with the information they need to fight back against this unofficial, often-opaque form of speech regulation.

Filed Under: copyright, private agreements, regulations, shadow regulations