But you missed the first rule of lawyering; never lie. If you lie you might get into trouble. So you have to come up with a way of answering the question without giving them any new information and without lying. So "he's a whistle-blower and asylee" - which is obviously something the border guard will know, so isn't going to be remotely useful to the border guard, or have any chance of incriminating the lawyer.
Source; went through lawyer training (well some of it).
I wonder what legal authority they used for this. And whether this could be another potentially-embarrassing case against the Home Office for illegal stops & questionings.
That said, she did admit to going to meet a wanted fugitive, may have been coming from another person who is probably on some wanted lists, and I'm not sure the extent to which legal privilege would cover a border stop for questions.
Harassment, though, isn't acceptable; if they wanted to arrest her, they should have done that, and been upfront about it. More likely, though, this is incompetence; she's on a list somewhere, flagged up Snowden and Assange (also, presumably on lists) so some border agent thought this might be interesting.
Not necessarily. This ruling only applies to links to sites where the "public" that is able to use the link is one that the copyright owners of the site considered when they put their stuff on the site.
The ruling doesn't consider what would happen if the stuff being linked to wasn't already unauthorised or an infringement of copyright.
Plus there are other ways of getting people than direct copyright infringement; in the UK, at least, it would be possible to go for them for "authorising" infringement of others, or for secondary infringement for being intimately involved in the infringement of others.
Sorry, but we're going to need a lot more before we get close to running TPB-style sites being legal.
First, why are European regulators involved in determining what Google should or should not show anyone? If Google users don't like the results they get, they don't have to stick with Google.
While I agree with much of what was written, I think this bit isn't quite right. Google has a dominant position in the search market. While end users (people Googling search) may be able to switch to another search engine if they want to, the other users (site operators) can't - they have to rely on Google as that is what most searchers use.
So if Google decides to promote its own e.g. map services above other ones, it is using its dominant position as a search engine to give its map service a competitive advantage, and there's nothing its competitors can do to affect how many of the Google searchers find their site. No matter how much they improve it, they won't be found by people using Google, i.e. the majority of Internet users.
It is a competition law issue not because of the direct affects on searchers, but on people who want to be found.
My first thought about this was whether this was finally clear evidence that GCHQ was acting illegally. I know that there are a few ongoing cases against them, but this seems pretty clear.
(a) to monitor or interfere with electromagnetic, acoustic and other emissions and any equipment producing such emissions and to obtain and provide information derived from or related to such emissions or equipment and from encrypted material
(b) to provide advice and assistance about languages, including terminology used for technical matters, and cryptography and other matters relating to the protection of information and other material, to the armed forces of the Crown, to Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom or to a Northern Ireland Department or to any other organisation which is determined for the purposes of this section in such manner as may be specified by the Prime Minister.
I don't see how DDoSing Anonymous, or cosying up to them fits in (b), and while the former might count as "interfering with electromagnetic emissions" I'm not sure the rest will.
I can't see how the copyright in any of the film would belong to the Government or Cameron. Some of it (the shots from the Parliamentary committee) will be owned by Parliament, but is released under a fairly permissive licence.
And then there are the exceptions to copyright; fair use for news reporting. Plus the lack of actual damage.
So no, I don't think anyone will be suing Rusbridger (or the Guardian) for copyright infringement. Or anything else...
"Before the story aired, CSEC made clear that nothing in the stolen documents showed that Canadians' communications were targeted, collected, or used, nor that travellers' movements were tracked."
You've said that this is a half-truth by pointing out what counts as a "communication", but I think this is even sneakier.
Not that he didn't say; "No communications were/are being targeted, collected, or used."
He said that nothing in those specific documents showed that this was the case. He isn't even denying that CSEC are targeting, collecting or using the communications of Canadians.
If people would stop calling these things "porn filters" this wouldn't be so much of a problem.
They have been (or are being) implemented voluntarily by only 4 UK ISPs, but cover a wide range of topics. Far from just porn. Calling up your ISP to say "I want access to information on alcohol, or bullying, or, in the case of the O2-filter, Government websites" should be far less awkward.
However, with most of these filters (including at least the TalkTalk one) account holders can remove the filters online, through their account menu. No need to call someone up.
Who in their right mind would sign up with an internet provider that did whitelisting?
O2 isn't really an Internet provider (or wasn't when this block went into place many years ago); they're a phone provider, who happened to start providing people with mobile Internet through their phones. Given that mobile Internet was likely to be used by younger people when not being supervised, they put in place a default white-list filter that was fairly easy to disable (with proof of age), limited to various "approved" sites. With mobile Internet being as slow (and capped) as it was, this wasn't that big of a deal.
Now that mobile Internet is much faster, cheaper and more widespread, this policy sounds slightly more crazy... but in the context it sort of made sense.
Just to clarify, the filter which blocked Claire Perry's site isn't one of the new "Cameron Filters" (can we stop calling them porn filters, as they aren't designed to, nor were ever intended to, block just porn?), but O2's mobile Internet filter that has been around for years.
This is a whitelist filter, unlike the new blacklist ones, so blocks every site apart from a few "approved" ones. Thus it is no surprise that it blocks any particular site as it blocks nearly all of them. This is a distinction that has been missed by most of the reporting in this area, including in both the Forbes article linked, and the Independent one it cites.
Which isn't to say that the new Cameron Filters are good; they are slightly better, but as the Independent article noted:
Other ISPs have faced criticism over their filters, with TalkTalk blocking sex education and rape crisis sites and BT denying access to a domestic abuse helpline.
They're still blocking stuff they shouldn't be, but not as much.
What's interesting about O2's filter isn't what it blocked, but the categories things were blocked under, and the distinctions between services. Google was allowed, but Bing wasn't, most newspapers were classified as "news", but the Daily Mail counted as "entertainment", most political parties were in the "politics" category, apart from the BNP website which was blocked as a "hate" site.
At least, from what I could tell before O2 removed their filter-checking tool.
They're not releasing them now because of the change in the law. The change means that they now get 70 years of bonus copyright from releasing them now, instead of 50.
I think this may have been rushed because the record labels were expecting the 50->70 change to also affect how long they have to first publish the works, but that time didn't get extended. If it had, these wouldn't have been released for another 20 years.
...but in determining whether a sound recording has been published, played in public or communicated to the public, no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.
It's an extra 70 years, not 20. The current law (at least, in the UK) says:
... copyright [in a sound recording] expires—
(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or
(b) if during that period the recording is published, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published, or
(c) if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,
[changes in bold; they were 50.]
Sound recordings come out of copyright 50 years from the end of the year in which they were recorded unless they are published or performed in public, in which case copyright expires at the end of 70 years from the year in which that happens.
So if these works weren't released by January, they would go into the public domain then (the underlying songs wouldn't, though, just the sound recordings). However, by releasing them before January, copyright won't expire until 2084. Assuming the law doesn't change.
Which, of course, means that in order to maximise copyright duration, publishers are encouraged not to release works for 49 years.
Previously artists would retain copyright for 50 years after a song was released.
Hah; silly author of the article, thinking that the copyright in a sound recording goes to the artist... it defaults to the producer or their employer; the record label. By default the artist gets nothing from this for 50 years.
I'm all for calling out the UK Government when they do nasty things, but I'm not convinced this is as controversial as it sounds.
For starters, it is a turf war between the Labour-controlled Home Affairs Committee and the Government-controlled Intelligence and Security Committee. Having watched the HAC's "grilling" of Rusbridger, I'm far from convinced that it (on the whole) cared about the underlying issues of privacy and security - it seemed more interested in finding ways to embarrass the Government while broadly supporting the actions of GCHQ. The message seemed to be that the ISC's oversight was terrible and so the ISC needed to be reformed (in particular, giving Labour control over it).
For the issue here, both decisions make sense; the ISC is the committee that has "jurisdiction" over the intelligence services, with special powers to monitor MI5. If the Home Affairs Committee has issues with what MI5 is doing, they should be taking that up with the Home Office, or with the ISC.
With Kim Darroch, again I'm not sure it would be appropriate to bring him before the Home Affairs Committee; he acts as advisor to the National Security Council; getting him to testify would be like getting someone's lawyer to testify rather than the person themselves, which is why it makes more sense for the Home Secretary (or someone else from the NSC) to give evidence.
The prime minister has suggested that the home secretary should come before us to answer our questions and Theresa May is suggesting that it is a matter for the intelligence and security committee. We cannot play pass the parcel on the issue of accountability on these important issues.
And that is misleading politics; the Prime Minister did say the Home Secretary should be the one giving evidence instead of the National Security Advisor, but she said that the ISC should be the one looking into what MI5 are doing; different answers to different questions.
Given that it was Labour who created most of these surveillance powers, I have little faith that they are going to do anything about them...
I watched most of the hearing, then my computer crashed and I couldn't be bothered to watch the end; it was rather boring. For the most part it was just party politics.
The committee chair (Keith Vaz, Labour) was pushing for quotes to show the oversight system needed looking into; Labour don't want more oversight, they just want the oversight committee chair to have to be from Labour.
Michael Ellis and the other Conservative went on the attack; trying to get Rusbriger to admit to breaking the law - even though at least one of them is a lawyer and should understand the subtleties involved. And Keith Vaz had to cut them off a bit, as it was clear they were talking mostly-nonsense in order to get a quote.
The only one really asking about surveillance was the Lib Dem (Julian Huppert) but even he seemed to mostly be focussed on praising the Guardian (which endorsed the Lib Dems at the last general election).
But that's Select Committees for you; it seems the more attention they have the more party-political they get.
I can't speak for US law, but over in the EU there is some debate as to whether linking a work amounts to communicating that work to the public (an act restricted by copyright).
The latest site-blocking judgment in the UK had a brief discussion on this, but didn't reach a conclusion (finding infringement on other grounds), and there are a handful of cases pending before the CJEU.
So it isn't surprising that some people do think that you can't link without permission (whether from a copyright owner or at law). Obviously to most of us it is clear that requiring this would break large chunks of the Internet, but that doesn't always stop the courts...
It was EU Directive 2011/77/EU. The law went through the Parliament in the late 00s, but got stalled by Denmark(?) and a few other countries blocking it. In 2011 Denmark changed its position, which meant it could get enough votes to pass through the EU Council. The new Parliament tried to block it (or call it for another vote) but they were stalled long enough for it to get through.
The change itself was pushed mainly by the UK and French recorded music industry, particularly the late EMI. Much of their balance sheet value was wrapped up in the copyrights of sound recordings from the 50s and 60s, so they had been trying for a long time to get the copyright extended (even though their own study on its effects showed it wouldn't help them much, and would be bad for everyone else).
Obviously it was too late to save EMI - perhaps if they'd spent more money investing in new music, and less in trying to cling on to the past, they'd have survived.
I may be wrong but I think Article QQ.H.12 is more relevant to the Cablevision ruling:
[US propose: Notwithstanding Article QQ.G.16 [limitations and exceptions] and Article QQ.G.14.3(b) [over the air broadcasting reference], no Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal and, if any, of the signal.]
Although that comes with the footnote:
[US: For purposes of this Article and for greater certainty, retransmission within a Party's territory over a closed, defined, subscriber network that is not accessible from outside the Party's territory does not constitute retransmission on the Internet.]
I don't know enough about the Cablevision ruling or current law to know whether or not that conflicts. My instinct is that the main Article would negate the ruling, but the footnote saves it. Perhaps someone with a greater understanding of the US legal position could comment.
It's a fairly standard process now. Country A expands copyright law. Then they push a treaty or agreement which encourages other countries to match them. Except the treaty has room for uncertainty; enough so that, before it is in force, the countries can claim that it is compatible with their existing laws, but afterwards can be used to justify an expansion.
And so one country goes further than the others (with duration that's currently Mexico, with the longest duration - and it's pushing for some longer copyright in TPP, along with the US). And then it starts again, with that country leading the way to push their position on others.
But at each level the treaty locks things into place, so even if things go wrong, copyright can never get reduced or shortened. Even if all the countries realise they don't actually want such strong laws, they can't do anything without re-negotiating the treaty (and possibly not even then, if it has investor-state dispute resolution procedures).
Copyright always gets bigger, never smaller.
There's a good explicit example of this in the recent change to UK copyright law (covered by Techdirt here). It extends copyright in various situations, including some where it returns works that were in the public domain back into copyright. But then there is a specific section that makes it clear that even if the drafters have screwed up somewhere and made copyright shorter for some works, the old term will still apply. It's a one-way process.
I just have no idea how going after lyrics sites is at all justified in an age where you can legally purchase an album digitally and thus never get the liner notes that contain the lyrics.
Because it reflects the mindset of many people connected with the music and film industry at the moment, fostered by years of propaganda and lobbying. It seems to have three main aspects:
* If I came up with something (no matter if it was inspired by anything else) I should have complete control over it;
* No one should be able to make any money from my stuff without my permission;
* If someone does make money from my stuff without my permission, even if they are willing to pay me some of the proceeds and are doing a positive service, they must be stopped and punished.
I can see why people hold these views and understand where they are coming from, but they are major stumbling-blocks in reform of copyright law and technological progress. I think it comes from modern copyright being based on ownership and permission, rather than exploitation with reasonable remuneration.
On the post: Snowden's Lawyer Interrogated By UK Authorities At Heathrow Airport
Re: Re:
Source; went through lawyer training (well some of it).
On the post: Snowden's Lawyer Interrogated By UK Authorities At Heathrow Airport
That said, she did admit to going to meet a wanted fugitive, may have been coming from another person who is probably on some wanted lists, and I'm not sure the extent to which legal privilege would cover a border stop for questions.
Harassment, though, isn't acceptable; if they wanted to arrest her, they should have done that, and been upfront about it. More likely, though, this is incompetence; she's on a list somewhere, flagged up Snowden and Assange (also, presumably on lists) so some border agent thought this might be interesting.
On the post: Europe's Highest Court Says Linking Doesn't Require Permission
Re:
The ruling doesn't consider what would happen if the stuff being linked to wasn't already unauthorised or an infringement of copyright.
Plus there are other ways of getting people than direct copyright infringement; in the UK, at least, it would be possible to go for them for "authorising" infringement of others, or for secondary infringement for being intimately involved in the infringement of others.
Sorry, but we're going to need a lot more before we get close to running TPB-style sites being legal.
On the post: Google Promises To Point To Competitor's Results To Settle Antitrust Claims In Europe
The end users aren't the only people involved...
So if Google decides to promote its own e.g. map services above other ones, it is using its dominant position as a search engine to give its map service a competitive advantage, and there's nothing its competitors can do to affect how many of the Google searchers find their site. No matter how much they improve it, they won't be found by people using Google, i.e. the majority of Internet users.
It is a competition law issue not because of the direct affects on searchers, but on people who want to be found.
On the post: Snowden Docs Show GCHQ Tried To DDoS Anonymous
Wondering if this is legal
From my (far from perfect) understanding of GCHQ's legal basis, they are limited to two functions:
I don't see how DDoSing Anonymous, or cosying up to them fits in (b), and while the former might count as "interfering with electromagnetic emissions" I'm not sure the rest will.
Perhaps this time GCHQ has gone too far?
On the post: Guardian Releases Video From That Time Its Editors Were Forced To Destroy A Laptop That Had Snowden Documents
Re:
I can't see how the copyright in any of the film would belong to the Government or Cameron. Some of it (the shots from the Parliamentary committee) will be owned by Parliament, but is released under a fairly permissive licence.
And then there are the exceptions to copyright; fair use for news reporting. Plus the lack of actual damage.
So no, I don't think anyone will be suing Rusbridger (or the Guardian) for copyright infringement. Or anything else...
On the post: Canadian Gov't Responds To Spying Revelations By Saying It's All A Lie And Calling Glenn Greenwald A 'Porn Spy'
I think he's being even sneakier there...
Not that he didn't say; "No communications were/are being targeted, collected, or used."
He said that nothing in those specific documents showed that this was the case. He isn't even denying that CSEC are targeting, collecting or using the communications of Canadians.
On the post: UK Porn Filter Blocks Porn Filter Advocate Claire Perry's Website [Updated]
Re: Re:
They have been (or are being) implemented voluntarily by only 4 UK ISPs, but cover a wide range of topics. Far from just porn. Calling up your ISP to say "I want access to information on alcohol, or bullying, or, in the case of the O2-filter, Government websites" should be far less awkward.
However, with most of these filters (including at least the TalkTalk one) account holders can remove the filters online, through their account menu. No need to call someone up.
On the post: UK Porn Filter Blocks Porn Filter Advocate Claire Perry's Website [Updated]
Re: Re: This is a different filter...
Now that mobile Internet is much faster, cheaper and more widespread, this policy sounds slightly more crazy... but in the context it sort of made sense.
On the post: UK Porn Filter Blocks Porn Filter Advocate Claire Perry's Website [Updated]
This is a different filter...
This is a whitelist filter, unlike the new blacklist ones, so blocks every site apart from a few "approved" ones. Thus it is no surprise that it blocks any particular site as it blocks nearly all of them. This is a distinction that has been missed by most of the reporting in this area, including in both the Forbes article linked, and the Independent one it cites.
Which isn't to say that the new Cameron Filters are good; they are slightly better, but as the Independent article noted:
They're still blocking stuff they shouldn't be, but not as much.
What's interesting about O2's filter isn't what it blocked, but the categories things were blocked under, and the distinctions between services. Google was allowed, but Bing wasn't, most newspapers were classified as "news", but the Daily Mail counted as "entertainment", most political parties were in the "politics" category, apart from the BNP website which was blocked as a "hate" site.
At least, from what I could tell before O2 removed their filter-checking tool.
On the post: 59 Bootleg Beatles Tracks Released Officially -- For All The Wrong Reasons
Re: Re: In all fairness
I think this may have been rushed because the record labels were expecting the 50->70 change to also affect how long they have to first publish the works, but that time didn't get extended. If it had, these wouldn't have been released for another 20 years.
On the post: 59 Bootleg Beatles Tracks Released Officially -- For All The Wrong Reasons
Re: Re: Not an extra 20 years...
So they've got you situation covered.
On the post: 59 Bootleg Beatles Tracks Released Officially -- For All The Wrong Reasons
Not an extra 20 years...
... copyright [in a sound recording] expires—
(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or
(b) if during that period the recording is published, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published, or
(c) if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,
[changes in bold; they were 50.]
Sound recordings come out of copyright 50 years from the end of the year in which they were recorded unless they are published or performed in public, in which case copyright expires at the end of 70 years from the year in which that happens.
So if these works weren't released by January, they would go into the public domain then (the underlying songs wouldn't, though, just the sound recordings). However, by releasing them before January, copyright won't expire until 2084. Assuming the law doesn't change.
Which, of course, means that in order to maximise copyright duration, publishers are encouraged not to release works for 49 years.
Hah; silly author of the article, thinking that the copyright in a sound recording goes to the artist... it defaults to the producer or their employer; the record label. By default the artist gets nothing from this for 50 years.
On the post: Committee That Grilled Guardian Editor Over Snowden Documents Won't Get To Question Intelligence Boss
For starters, it is a turf war between the Labour-controlled Home Affairs Committee and the Government-controlled Intelligence and Security Committee. Having watched the HAC's "grilling" of Rusbridger, I'm far from convinced that it (on the whole) cared about the underlying issues of privacy and security - it seemed more interested in finding ways to embarrass the Government while broadly supporting the actions of GCHQ. The message seemed to be that the ISC's oversight was terrible and so the ISC needed to be reformed (in particular, giving Labour control over it).
For the issue here, both decisions make sense; the ISC is the committee that has "jurisdiction" over the intelligence services, with special powers to monitor MI5. If the Home Affairs Committee has issues with what MI5 is doing, they should be taking that up with the Home Office, or with the ISC.
With Kim Darroch, again I'm not sure it would be appropriate to bring him before the Home Affairs Committee; he acts as advisor to the National Security Council; getting him to testify would be like getting someone's lawyer to testify rather than the person themselves, which is why it makes more sense for the Home Secretary (or someone else from the NSC) to give evidence.
And that is misleading politics; the Prime Minister did say the Home Secretary should be the one giving evidence instead of the National Security Advisor, but she said that the ISC should be the one looking into what MI5 are doing; different answers to different questions.
Given that it was Labour who created most of these surveillance powers, I have little faith that they are going to do anything about them...
On the post: UK Parliament Makes A Mockery Of Itself Interrogating Guardian Editor
Politicians playing politics...
The committee chair (Keith Vaz, Labour) was pushing for quotes to show the oversight system needed looking into; Labour don't want more oversight, they just want the oversight committee chair to have to be from Labour.
Michael Ellis and the other Conservative went on the attack; trying to get Rusbriger to admit to breaking the law - even though at least one of them is a lawyer and should understand the subtleties involved. And Keith Vaz had to cut them off a bit, as it was clear they were talking mostly-nonsense in order to get a quote.
The only one really asking about surveillance was the Lib Dem (Julian Huppert) but even he seemed to mostly be focussed on praising the Guardian (which endorsed the Lib Dems at the last general election).
But that's Select Committees for you; it seems the more attention they have the more party-political they get.
On the post: Goldieblox May Be Right About Fair Use, But Wrong About Claiming You Need A License To Link To Its Site
Linking and Copyright
The latest site-blocking judgment in the UK had a brief discussion on this, but didn't reach a conclusion (finding infringement on other grounds), and there are a handful of cases pending before the CJEU.
So it isn't surprising that some people do think that you can't link without permission (whether from a copyright owner or at law). Obviously to most of us it is clear that requiring this would break large chunks of the Internet, but that doesn't always stop the courts...
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
The change itself was pushed mainly by the UK and French recorded music industry, particularly the late EMI. Much of their balance sheet value was wrapped up in the copyrights of sound recordings from the 50s and 60s, so they had been trying for a long time to get the copyright extended (even though their own study on its effects showed it wouldn't help them much, and would be bad for everyone else).
Obviously it was too late to save EMI - perhaps if they'd spent more money investing in new music, and less in trying to cling on to the past, they'd have survived.
On the post: The Most Nefarious Part Of The TPP Proposal: Making Copyright Reform Impossible
Re: Not just Congress they're trying to bypass
Although that comes with the footnote:
I don't know enough about the Cablevision ruling or current law to know whether or not that conflicts. My instinct is that the main Article would negate the ruling, but the footnote saves it. Perhaps someone with a greater understanding of the US legal position could comment.
On the post: The Most Nefarious Part Of The TPP Proposal: Making Copyright Reform Impossible
It's about ratcheting up the law...
And so one country goes further than the others (with duration that's currently Mexico, with the longest duration - and it's pushing for some longer copyright in TPP, along with the US). And then it starts again, with that country leading the way to push their position on others.
But at each level the treaty locks things into place, so even if things go wrong, copyright can never get reduced or shortened. Even if all the countries realise they don't actually want such strong laws, they can't do anything without re-negotiating the treaty (and possibly not even then, if it has investor-state dispute resolution procedures).
Copyright always gets bigger, never smaller.
There's a good explicit example of this in the recent change to UK copyright law (covered by Techdirt here). It extends copyright in various situations, including some where it returns works that were in the public domain back into copyright. But then there is a specific section that makes it clear that even if the drafters have screwed up somewhere and made copyright shorter for some works, the old term will still apply. It's a one-way process.
On the post: When Is A Lyric Site More Than A Lyric Site?
Re:
* If I came up with something (no matter if it was inspired by anything else) I should have complete control over it;
* No one should be able to make any money from my stuff without my permission;
* If someone does make money from my stuff without my permission, even if they are willing to pay me some of the proceeds and are doing a positive service, they must be stopped and punished.
I can see why people hold these views and understand where they are coming from, but they are major stumbling-blocks in reform of copyright law and technological progress. I think it comes from modern copyright being based on ownership and permission, rather than exploitation with reasonable remuneration.
Next >>