...Except that the process in the DEA (particularly the initial obligations code) still requires a NPO for any legal action to be taken. All the IOC does is make it easier for copyright owners to find out which IP addresses they are repeatedly accusing of copyright infringement. Once they have the list of "frequently-infringing users" they still need to sue the names and addresses out of the ISP using an NPO.
When you publish something on the web, copyright effectively breaks down. In order for anyone to view a website, they're already making a copy of the content in their local browser. Is that authorized?
This is actually one of the very few things UK copyright law seems to get right. Section 28A of the CDPA 1988 (added by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) specifically adds an exception to copyright for "the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process".
Of course, I have no idea how well that would hold up in practice or in this case; and it isn't like the rest of the law here is perfect, but it is nice to see we got some things right.
Don't worry; they'll be doing that sort of thing for online visits as well. In the EU there is already the data retention directive and there is a plan in the works (see under the "Early warning system") to increase this to cover all search engine activity. Of course this is being done to protect us from paedophiles and sex offenders, but if the data is going straight to the police, I'm sure they can use it to stop anything else they might find objectionable.
If you are wondering why the EP has taking this position, it is partly because they are getting fed up with being messed around by the Commission. After the Lisbon Treaty was passed the Parliament was given more power and authority, and it looks like they are finally beginning to use it.
For those interested, the Parliament voted 633-13 for this motion (with 16 abstentions). Of those 13, 3 Dutch members apparently changed their votes to "yes" rather quickly and the remaining 10 were the members of the UK Independence Party - who vote "no" on everything because they don't want the UK to be in the EU (ironically voting for excessive external powers). Similarly, of the 16 abstentions 2 were also from the UK; the members of the right-wing British National Party who didn't vote either due to not bothering to turn up (one is running in our upcoming general election) or just not understanding all the fancy long words in the resolution. Anyways, on behalf of the British people I apologise for these 12 who thought their personal politics were more important than the Internet.
It is worth noting that the effect of this amendment could be even worse. According to the debate it would be expected that a copyright holder would first send a letter to the ISP (Section 97B 4(b), under amendment 120A) alleging that a certain website is hosting or linking to (Section 97B 2(a)) material infringing their copyright and that the ISP should block it or face legal action. If it does go to court, under Section 97B 4, the ISP has to pay the copyright owner's legal costs unless there were "exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider's failure to prevent access despite notification".
We have already seen how unwilling the UK's ISPs are to put up any sort of fight when it comes to legal action aimed at their subscribers, never mind third parties and the wealth of abuses of the DMCA take-down system has shown to what extent laws such as this can be misused if not properly challenged.
It has recently been noted that the Lord who proposed (and spoke passionately, if technically inaccurately on) this amendment is paid £70,000 a year by a firm of IP lawyers with close to the RIAA. He even tried to compare this amendment to the IWF's (voluntary) censorship of a few hundred sites hosting child abuse images - fortunately this was criticised during the debate by the Minister.
In any case, this amendment is one of the most shocking things to come out of the DEB process, and was pushed in at the last minute with a clear lack of thought - some Lords had already been complaining at the speed with which this bill has been drafted and debated - it seems the British pubic are going to suffer greatly due to the government's (and now, both opposition parties') desire to appease the media giants in time for the election.
More details of the debate can be found on the PPUK's website.
As has been mentioned elsewhere recently, the topic of ACS:Law (and their predecessors) has been brought up in the various debates in the House of Lords over the Digital Economy Bill. Phrases such as "legal blackmail", "bullying", "irresponsible", "relentless" and "disreputable" were brought up. It was also noted that the "allegations are based on very secretive processes carried out under no known protocol and of uncertain legality".
For those interested, complete transcripts of the debates can be found here[parliament.uk].
It is also worth noting that, to my knowledge, none of these cases (including the ones from 2007-08) went to a full trial - all those that were contested were dropped. Apparently ACS:Law has only one registered solicited (the AC part of the name) who was "convicted by the SRA for conduct unbefitting a solicitor in 2006". The SRA have also confirmed that they've launched an investigation into the company more recently (November).
Just to make things even worse, it has been suggested that before taking the ISPs to court to obtain subscribers' details (which enable them to send threatening letters) they contacted the ISPs to see if they would contest the case and then avoided proceedings against any that would (hence it seems that only customers of BT and Virgin Media are receiving letters).
I would like to second the recommendation to those affected to investigate Beingthreatened.com. They have a very informative FAQ section on the topic (although it should not be taken as a replacement for professional legal advice).
On the post: UK Judge Not Impressed By Mass Copyright Pre-Settlement Campaigns
Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright Questions Over Flipboard Show -- Yet Again -- How Outdated Copyright Rules May Stifle Innovative Tech
This is actually one of the very few things UK copyright law seems to get right. Section 28A of the CDPA 1988 (added by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) specifically adds an exception to copyright for "the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process". Of course, I have no idea how well that would hold up in practice or in this case; and it isn't like the rest of the law here is perfect, but it is nice to see we got some things right.
On the post: Using An Online Map As Part Of Your Criminal Activity Gets You A Longer Sentence In Louisiana
Re: Elementary, Watson...
On the post: EU Politicians Get Serious Demanding ACTA Transparency And No Three Strikes
If you're wonding why...
If you are wondering why the EP has taking this position, it is partly because they are getting fed up with being messed around by the Commission. After the Lisbon Treaty was passed the Parliament was given more power and authority, and it looks like they are finally beginning to use it.
Of course, this could also be something to do with there being a Pirate in the European Parliament - hopefully the first of many.
For those interested, the Parliament voted 633-13 for this motion (with 16 abstentions). Of those 13, 3 Dutch members apparently changed their votes to "yes" rather quickly and the remaining 10 were the members of the UK Independence Party - who vote "no" on everything because they don't want the UK to be in the EU (ironically voting for excessive external powers). Similarly, of the 16 abstentions 2 were also from the UK; the members of the right-wing British National Party who didn't vote either due to not bothering to turn up (one is running in our upcoming general election) or just not understanding all the fancy long words in the resolution. Anyways, on behalf of the British people I apologise for these 12 who thought their personal politics were more important than the Internet.
On the post: UK Politicians Keep Getting It Wrong: Now Want To Outlaw Weblockers
It could be even worse
It is worth noting that the effect of this amendment could be even worse. According to the debate it would be expected that a copyright holder would first send a letter to the ISP (Section 97B 4(b), under amendment 120A) alleging that a certain website is hosting or linking to (Section 97B 2(a)) material infringing their copyright and that the ISP should block it or face legal action. If it does go to court, under Section 97B 4, the ISP has to pay the copyright owner's legal costs unless there were "exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider's failure to prevent access despite notification".
We have already seen how unwilling the UK's ISPs are to put up any sort of fight when it comes to legal action aimed at their subscribers, never mind third parties and the wealth of abuses of the DMCA take-down system has shown to what extent laws such as this can be misused if not properly challenged.
It has recently been noted that the Lord who proposed (and spoke passionately, if technically inaccurately on) this amendment is paid £70,000 a year by a firm of IP lawyers with close to the RIAA. He even tried to compare this amendment to the IWF's (voluntary) censorship of a few hundred sites hosting child abuse images - fortunately this was criticised during the debate by the Minister.
In any case, this amendment is one of the most shocking things to come out of the DEB process, and was pushed in at the last minute with a clear lack of thought - some Lords had already been complaining at the speed with which this bill has been drafted and debated - it seems the British pubic are going to suffer greatly due to the government's (and now, both opposition parties') desire to appease the media giants in time for the election.
More details of the debate can be found on the PPUK's website.
On the post: Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement
Quotes from the Lords
As has been mentioned elsewhere recently, the topic of ACS:Law (and their predecessors) has been brought up in the various debates in the House of Lords over the Digital Economy Bill. Phrases such as "legal blackmail", "bullying", "irresponsible", "relentless" and "disreputable" were brought up. It was also noted that the "allegations are based on very secretive processes carried out under no known protocol and of uncertain legality".
For those interested, complete transcripts of the debates can be found here[parliament.uk].
It is also worth noting that, to my knowledge, none of these cases (including the ones from 2007-08) went to a full trial - all those that were contested were dropped. Apparently ACS:Law has only one registered solicited (the AC part of the name) who was "convicted by the SRA for conduct unbefitting a solicitor in 2006". The SRA have also confirmed that they've launched an investigation into the company more recently (November).
Just to make things even worse, it has been suggested that before taking the ISPs to court to obtain subscribers' details (which enable them to send threatening letters) they contacted the ISPs to see if they would contest the case and then avoided proceedings against any that would (hence it seems that only customers of BT and Virgin Media are receiving letters).
I would like to second the recommendation to those affected to investigate Beingthreatened.com. They have a very informative FAQ section on the topic (although it should not be taken as a replacement for professional legal advice).
Next >>