Wow, I've been gone a long time haven't I? There was quite a lot of Real Life to catch up on after the DEB/DEA, y'know :-) Also an election, and some real everyday work to do!
Breaking my silence however, I've just blogged over at the ORG-blog on Welcome to the Former Big Brother House - considering the new programme of rolling back the surveillance state and bolstering civil liberties in the Lib/Con coalition document; and wondering what more concessions to better privacy we might get in the ongoing process of reforming the Data Protection Directive, where a first draft proposal is expected by end 2010. Pangloss is involved in one part of the process (the impacy assessment, as an external expert) and so far is feeling cautiously hopeful about it.
Also on upcoming events:
THIS! Friday May 21st is my inaugural lecture, free for all comers:
Anti-Social Networking
This lecture will look at the exponential growth of social networking sites (SNSs) eg Facebook, Twitter, over the last few years and ask what the social and legal impacts have been. The first half will cover the well trodden litany of threats and risks associated with SNSs eg privacy impacts, inadvertent data disclosure, targeted advertising, fraud, malware and spam, child protection etc, and ask what progress is being made in these areas, with particular emphasis on privacy. The second half however will turn to the bright side and ask, especially in the wake of the Digital Economy Bill/Act debacle, if SNSs present an opportunity to move from an outmoded and geography-limited 19th century version of representational democracy, towards a new electronic agora, which might in particular re-attract the young towards political participation.
St George's Church, Mappin Street, Sheffield
at 5pm, 21st May 2010. Reception after at ICOSS building adjacent. Email: g.hague@sheffield.ac.uk for info.
June 1: Arcadia seminar at the Cambridge Univerity Library, 6pm, Old Combination Room (OCR) at Wolfson College.
Death 2.0: What Becomes of Digital Assets after Death?
Death seems to be discussed in web 2.0 circles only when it is tragic (eg internet suicide clusters) or in some other newsworthy (eg the Lori Drew online harassment case ). Yet if Facebook alone claim some 400 million subscribers, then it stands to reason that some of them will be reaching their final end as I write in quite ordinary ways. Yet the law is vague in the extreme (and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) on who would "own" a user's Facebook profile in that sad event; and more significantly, what rights either the deceased or the heirs might have against Facebook to demand that the profile be deleted, maintained as a going concern , exported or preserved ("memorialised"). Nor is this problem confined to Facebook. Digital assets will be increasingly important as items in succession - and as cultural heritage - as the web 2.0 generation ages ; and might include not only profiles on social networking sites, but also reputations and identities on money-making sites like eBay, photos on sites like Flickr and even user preferences on sites like Last.fm. Yet so far little or no attention has been paid to the legal nature and transmission of digital assets, except within the limited (if glamorous) domain of virtual property in virtual worlds and MMORPGs. Neither are all digital assets likely to fall into categories of recognisable intellectual property (IP) protection. This paper seeks to investigate this domain, having regard to the interests of user, relatives, platform and especially, the public interest in preservation of online cultural heritage.
16 June, OECD Workshop on Internet intermediaries, Paris; closed meeting.
17 -18 June, CCD COE Conference on Cyber Conflict 2010, Tallinn, Estonia (speaking on state attribution and domestic legsl remedies for preventing cyberattacks, with Russell Buchan , Sheffield University)
28-29 June GikII V, Edinburgh, final programme up very shortly.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Hitler's response to the EC proposing mandatory ISP blocking of porn sites
Ok, actually no Hitler at all, but a usefully cynical video:-)
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Hitler reacts to the Hitler parodies being removed from YouTube
Yes I know this is last week's news, but I'm pleasantly surprised to find this hilarious commentary on take down vs fair use is still available (though for how much longer?) (And given all the swearing, can I get away with showing it to the students??)
Of course, You Tube appears to have responded to Hitler's plaint: by providing a "put back, it's fair use honest guv" button. However note this only applies where take down has been automated by You Tube's Content ID system: so it wouldn't apply to the video above.. However, it's a step in the right direction (even if it has, say YT, been available since 2007, only no one noticed! ) so hurrah, say we all (even though I like cat videos too..)
There is of course currently no copyright exemption for parody in the UK (see current Gowers consultation, paras 16ff, indicating no prospect of change on this) - so if a video is streamed/watched in the UK, having been uploaded in the US, taken down via Content ID (or via overt notification), but then put back for fair use in US - quid iuris? or more accurately, what of You Tube and their claim to be exempt from liability under art 14 of the E Commerce Directive? have they received "notice"?? arguably yes, via their automated system or otherwise and yet they are still publishing a copyright infringing item. Can Google UK then block the video even though it remains available on the US site? and can the automation software deal with this? Google has, I'm sure, thought of this. Individual copyrights being inherently territorial, we are in deep waters for Pangloss. Comments welcome!
Of course, You Tube appears to have responded to Hitler's plaint: by providing a "put back, it's fair use honest guv" button. However note this only applies where take down has been automated by You Tube's Content ID system: so it wouldn't apply to the video above.. However, it's a step in the right direction (even if it has, say YT, been available since 2007, only no one noticed! ) so hurrah, say we all (even though I like cat videos too..)
There is of course currently no copyright exemption for parody in the UK (see current Gowers consultation, paras 16ff, indicating no prospect of change on this) - so if a video is streamed/watched in the UK, having been uploaded in the US, taken down via Content ID (or via overt notification), but then put back for fair use in US - quid iuris? or more accurately, what of You Tube and their claim to be exempt from liability under art 14 of the E Commerce Directive? have they received "notice"?? arguably yes, via their automated system or otherwise and yet they are still publishing a copyright infringing item. Can Google UK then block the video even though it remains available on the US site? and can the automation software deal with this? Google has, I'm sure, thought of this. Individual copyrights being inherently territorial, we are in deep waters for Pangloss. Comments welcome!
Friday, April 23, 2010
Law and sausages: How Not to Legislate for the Digital Economy
The audio of this talk at Sheffield Cafe Scientitfique (an hour long, sorry!) is now here for those who wish at http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/42040&63509 along with the powerpoint slides.
The slides are also available on Slideshare.
The slides are also available on Slideshare.
Deb Act Talk April 2010
View more presentations from lilianedwards.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
If it's tomorrow it must be Embra..
Another talk by me on the #debill, plus, more excitingly, Simon Frith!!
UK
21 April 2010: Digital Economy Bill: Professors Simon Frith and Lilian Edwards (Universities of
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
From ORG-list, useful update on Viviane Reding's progress on data protection directive reform . First stage of consulting is over and response being considered.
"Data Protection" [I have italicised most interesting parts]
On privacy and data protection I have initiated the process leading up
to the reform and modernisation of the 1995 Directive. In line with
the legal prerequisite introduced by Lisbon we have now a specific
provision (Article 16) to develop a comprehensive and coherent
framework for the protection of personal data. The new legal framework
should address new challenges of the information age, such as
globalisation, development of information technologies, the internet,
online social networking, e-commerce, cloud computing, video
surveillance, behavioural advertising, data security breaches, etc.
The Commission is currently analysing the over 160 responses to the
public consultation. I will present a legislative proposal reforming
the Directive before the end of the year and I will consider
establishing the principle of "privacy by design."
This is by no means an exhaustive list of the novelties I intend to
propose, but one thing is clear: reinforcing the confidence of both
citizens and businesses in data systems will lead to better protection
for individuals, as well as to trust and confidence in new services
and products. This will in turn have a positive impact on the
economy."
"Data Protection" [I have italicised most interesting parts]
On privacy and data protection I have initiated the process leading up
to the reform and modernisation of the 1995 Directive. In line with
the legal prerequisite introduced by Lisbon we have now a specific
provision (Article 16) to develop a comprehensive and coherent
framework for the protection of personal data. The new legal framework
should address new challenges of the information age, such as
globalisation, development of information technologies, the internet,
online social networking, e-commerce, cloud computing, video
surveillance, behavioural advertising, data security breaches, etc.
The Commission is currently analysing the over 160 responses to the
public consultation. I will present a legislative proposal reforming
the Directive before the end of the year and I will consider
establishing the principle of "privacy by design."
This is by no means an exhaustive list of the novelties I intend to
propose, but one thing is clear: reinforcing the confidence of both
citizens and businesses in data systems will lead to better protection
for individuals, as well as to trust and confidence in new services
and products. This will in turn have a positive impact on the
economy."
Monday, April 12, 2010
Life is very strange lately..
.. Pangloss, still detoxing from a week on Twtter, is somewhat flattered to find herself the actual centre of an op piece!! Even one by notorious troll Andrew Orlowski!
Orlowski reports that the BBC has received a complant about the impartiality of a (4 minute, on the hoof, non pre recorded) interview I gave on Radio 2 to Richard Madeley of Judy fame (this has made my mother very happy :-) the day that the Digital Economy Bill cleared House of Commons.
Having looked at his story I'm fairly amazed that any editor let this pass; not because it has scandalous revelations but because absolutely nothng said there is remotely controversial let alone false or deceptive. I'll reproduce in full so we don't up his hit count:)
A few points for legal reasons (if already bored you are quite welcome to stop reading now)
(1) Orlowski has elided the fact that the discussion about the impact on wi fi of the DEB had included small businesses, especally cafes offering free public wi fi, as well as libraries. In all cases, however, I had said , correctly as far as I know, the language of the bill clearly ascribed liability to those who "allow" their Internet connection to be used for infringing acts; then said that of course there were options to minimise risk such as password protection. Then I tried to summarise (in a very short intervew) what is well known: namely that password protection does not remove liability, merely excludes those not allocated passwords and allows tracking of those truely culpable - but this latter would stll requre detailed marrying up of log ins and time stamps wth reports of infringing downloading ("Copyright Infringement Reports in the language of the DEB) from rightsholders.
This is a technical process many small businesses would not be equipped to perform, so they might (as big companies like MacDonalds etc regularly do) feel required to bring in help, from companies like The Cloud who provide wi f hotspots. Unfortunately that would be prohibitively expensive for many cafes etc. leading to a general reduction in the amount of free public wi fi available (password protected or otherwise).
(2) I had nothing to do wth Madeley's comments about them coming to take away hs computer - was already off air by then (or I mght have corrected him!). the fact I've heard nothng about this "BBC investigation" until this piece, makes me suspect (if it even exists - ref please Mr Orlowski) that it is restricted to what Madeley said, not what I did.
(3) I am a bit perplexed at what the inverted comments round "a Professor of Law" and "expert" indicate. I do hold that post. For what it is worth, I prevously held that title at Southampton. These are and were both respected Russell Group Universities; Soton was a 5* law department. Although I do not so self style, yes, within academe I think I am regarded as an expert on the Digital Economy Bll. I also (and this is hardly a surprise or a secret) am on the ORG Advisory Councl (as are several other academics). This fact is on an open web site available via Google (and often mentioned on this blog). They do not pay me or employ me (if only! :-) It would be dfficult to find an academic who was an expert on any subject and of any standng who did not advise external bodies or sit on Advisory Boards - this is part the job of being a senior academic.
(4) Though not really my fight, I note the BBC guidelines and quote the following back :
"we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented."
Since the BPI's views on the DEB were widely reported in the press and media at the time, while opposing views were largely only reported in the IT trade press and the Guardian tech section at the time, it seems to me the Rado 2 show was gallantly doing its bit to redress the balance as per BBC rules. In any case nothing said above is anything other than a reasonable interpretaton of the legal rules along with a final personal sentiment - which I absolutely stand by.
(5) I suspect the final line may in its implications well be libellous. I was asked to speak on the show and have absolutely no idea who the producers were nor did I have any prior relatonship with them. I have no intention of gettng involved in libel suits under current dreadful UK libel law, but would warn Mr Orlowski (and his publishers) to be careful when messing with someone who is not only an expert on the Digital Economy Bll but started off as an early expert in Internet libel law :-)
(6) Finally is all this alleging of bias one way only? Are we entitled to know if Orlowski is beng paid off by the BPI or other rightsholder groups for his relentlessly dull would-be-scare-stories about ORG? I wonder what the Press Complaints Commission thinks. Ah, reciprocity, doncha love it :->
Orlowski reports that the BBC has received a complant about the impartiality of a (4 minute, on the hoof, non pre recorded) interview I gave on Radio 2 to Richard Madeley of Judy fame (this has made my mother very happy :-) the day that the Digital Economy Bill cleared House of Commons.
Having looked at his story I'm fairly amazed that any editor let this pass; not because it has scandalous revelations but because absolutely nothng said there is remotely controversial let alone false or deceptive. I'll reproduce in full so we don't up his hit count:)
"The BBC tells us it is to investigate how Richard Madeley told the nation that the Government was going to whisk away his computer last week.The segment on Monday's Simon Mayo drive time heard Madeley, who is filling in for Mayo, say: "What a pain! I only got computer literate three years ago, just as I get wised up to it, they take it away."
We don't yet know how many car accidents were caused by the news of mass confiscations.
Madeley was following a segment of the show about the Digital Economy Bill (now Act). The sole 'expert' was Professor Lilian Edwards. Edwards was simply billed as "a Professor of Law" at Sheffield University.
Edwards made some curious statements about "disconnections" (not mentioned in the Act) and how libraries might have to put passwords on their PCs. Libraries already operate a pretty strict lock-down regime: requiring password authentication, firewalls, and prohibiting the installation of Third Party software. But she insisted: "Even if you do password protect it, policing it may get very expensive."
The impartial Lilian Edwards
Even this didn't raise any suspicions amongst the show's presenters. But then, why would it - Edwards was an unbiased expert.
Asked why some Twitterers were upset about the Bill, Edwards replied: "I've been thinking about this. It's a hard thing to say on a music station, but the House of Commons thinks most important thing here is the music industry - which is of course important - but these people think the most important thing is the future of the internet, and I tend to agree with them."
The problem for Radio 2 is that the show breached the Corporations' editorial guidelines. Edwards is a member of the Open Rights Group's Advisory Council, and she relentlessly blogs about the coming armageddon - not always accurately - here. As an ORG advisor her duties include to "Fundraise and/or make fundraising introductions" and "Be available for media contact if required".
By failing to declare Edwards' partisan affiliations, the show fell foul of the guideline, which states:
...we should not automatically assume that academics and journalists from other organisations are impartial and make it clear to our audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint"We are aware of the issues you have raised with us and are currently looking into the matter," a spokesperson told us on Friday.
It's amazing what the title 'Professor' can do. If you can find the right production staff, you can get away with anything. ®"
A few points for legal reasons (if already bored you are quite welcome to stop reading now)
(1) Orlowski has elided the fact that the discussion about the impact on wi fi of the DEB had included small businesses, especally cafes offering free public wi fi, as well as libraries. In all cases, however, I had said , correctly as far as I know, the language of the bill clearly ascribed liability to those who "allow" their Internet connection to be used for infringing acts; then said that of course there were options to minimise risk such as password protection. Then I tried to summarise (in a very short intervew) what is well known: namely that password protection does not remove liability, merely excludes those not allocated passwords and allows tracking of those truely culpable - but this latter would stll requre detailed marrying up of log ins and time stamps wth reports of infringing downloading ("Copyright Infringement Reports in the language of the DEB) from rightsholders.
This is a technical process many small businesses would not be equipped to perform, so they might (as big companies like MacDonalds etc regularly do) feel required to bring in help, from companies like The Cloud who provide wi f hotspots. Unfortunately that would be prohibitively expensive for many cafes etc. leading to a general reduction in the amount of free public wi fi available (password protected or otherwise).
(2) I had nothing to do wth Madeley's comments about them coming to take away hs computer - was already off air by then (or I mght have corrected him!). the fact I've heard nothng about this "BBC investigation" until this piece, makes me suspect (if it even exists - ref please Mr Orlowski) that it is restricted to what Madeley said, not what I did.
(3) I am a bit perplexed at what the inverted comments round "a Professor of Law" and "expert" indicate. I do hold that post. For what it is worth, I prevously held that title at Southampton. These are and were both respected Russell Group Universities; Soton was a 5* law department. Although I do not so self style, yes, within academe I think I am regarded as an expert on the Digital Economy Bll. I also (and this is hardly a surprise or a secret) am on the ORG Advisory Councl (as are several other academics). This fact is on an open web site available via Google (and often mentioned on this blog). They do not pay me or employ me (if only! :-) It would be dfficult to find an academic who was an expert on any subject and of any standng who did not advise external bodies or sit on Advisory Boards - this is part the job of being a senior academic.
(4) Though not really my fight, I note the BBC guidelines and quote the following back :
"we strive to reflect a wide range of opinion and explore a range and conflict of views so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under represented."
Since the BPI's views on the DEB were widely reported in the press and media at the time, while opposing views were largely only reported in the IT trade press and the Guardian tech section at the time, it seems to me the Rado 2 show was gallantly doing its bit to redress the balance as per BBC rules. In any case nothing said above is anything other than a reasonable interpretaton of the legal rules along with a final personal sentiment - which I absolutely stand by.
(5) I suspect the final line may in its implications well be libellous. I was asked to speak on the show and have absolutely no idea who the producers were nor did I have any prior relatonship with them. I have no intention of gettng involved in libel suits under current dreadful UK libel law, but would warn Mr Orlowski (and his publishers) to be careful when messing with someone who is not only an expert on the Digital Economy Bll but started off as an early expert in Internet libel law :-)
(6) Finally is all this alleging of bias one way only? Are we entitled to know if Orlowski is beng paid off by the BPI or other rightsholder groups for his relentlessly dull would-be-scare-stories about ORG? I wonder what the Press Complaints Commission thinks. Ah, reciprocity, doncha love it :->
Saturday, April 10, 2010
GIKII V : last reminder!
GikII V, Edinburgh 2009
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/gikii/2010.asp
GikII V, The Voyage Home
28-29 June 2010
John McIntyre Conference Centre
Edinburgh
Call for Papers expires April 15!
Abstracts send to moi at lilian.edwards@sheffield.ac.uk AND a.guadamuz@ed.ac.uk, please.
We may accept abstracts after this if space but last time we were full with papers received before deadline!
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Social Media 1 : Democracy 1 (after extra time)
More fascinating fall out from last night's DEB debates: via a random tweet, Phil Gyford writes
"On the plus side — let’s end on an up note — I was cheered by some aspects of all this. I was pleased that there are MPs, in all parties, who understand these matters and try to change things. Too few, too late, but even so. Quite aside from this particular bill, seeing MPs stand up against their party whip and speak out against what they believe is right was encouraging. My opinion of MPs couldn’t have been much lower recently, and this glimmer of light was welcome. More of that please.
I’m also feeling positive personally about all this. I genuinely enjoyed spending two evenings watching the House of Commons. I found it interesting and would like to do that more. For the first time in a long time, after months and years of my opinion of politics and MPs and government withering away I’m interested and want to get involved somehow. Even if that just means paying more attention, a fraction of the attention we payed to this bill, that’s an improvement."
I feel a bit the same actually. So is democracy dead or isn't it? Discuss!
Anyway , I've realised this is the second half of my projected inaugural lecture, "Anti-Social Networking", on May 21.
First half: anti-social networking - all the stuff we Internet lawyers go on about in relation to the social networks people love: loss of privacy, data collection, targeted advertising, stalking, pedophile grooming, bullying, fraud, you name it.
But second half - PRO social networking - what we did last night. Common cause. Creativity. Information sharing. Community building. Future planning. From representational democracy to personal responsibility.
I think I have a lecture!
And that's all folks
The DEB has now officially passed and become law at 4pm 8 April 09.
Pangloss may now look at the shredded remnants of the rest of her duties..
Pangloss may now look at the shredded remnants of the rest of her duties..
Last night: the DEB passes in the Commons
And after the 3am tweetwake, the weary rise and totter towards their laptops..
Law
Well. Much has been covered elsewhere. There is a useful crib at the Guardian, which is, I think, mainly right except for cl 18, on which see below. What can I add? First two points: one, the DEB has not actually passed yet. Yes it was voted through (in as much noted, an almost empty Commons by 189 to 47. But it still has to go through Lords this afternoon. That will almost certainly happen on the nod.
Two, "clause 18" or "s 97B" - infamously allowing court orders to be sought to block sites which may conceivably be expected to assist in copyright infringement eg Google :-) - has neither been deleted not retained. There is much confusion on this. Despite Lib Dem opposition at the eleventh hour, the government & Tories did in esence force this clause through on the whip. However the form it now takes (or will, it seems take) is that there will NOT be an amendment to the Copyright D&PAct - but instead a power is given the Minister to introduce regulations - NOT new primary legislation - to achieve this, next session.
I have already written about substantively the same clause at length before, saying it made matters worse not better, but the interesting formulation I did not highlight before is this:
Note that "may". This doesn't have to happen. Indeed, it is specifically not to unless the measures are shown to be proportionate AND use of the internet for activities that infringe copyright is shown to be having a serious adverse effect on businesses or consumers . See subs 3 of amendment 7. No new law has been inserted into any other currently existing law. The next government - absolute majority or hung - can decide to bury this. All those MPs who wrote back saying they didn't like cl 18 - and especially the Lib Dems, if they do take the balance of power next session, who promised to take cl 18 out - this is something to consider. Indeed if no such resistance is organised at the next Parliament, especially by the Lib Dems, serious questions should be asked.
Other basic points: clause 43 on orphan works, not much liked but believed by some to be better than nothing, went, as the Tories channelled the photographer's lobby. I still sort of wonder why they have more clout than the entire rest of the non-music digital economy. (Perhaps the parties were worried if they opposed them , no one would take photos of them campaigning? :-) A few other tweaks were made. But basically the Bill goes through as per 2nd reading.
But. There still needs to be a consulation by Ofcom as to whether disconnection is really a good idea and a vote in both Houses. There still has to be consultation on whether web blocking is a good thing and a similar vote. There is still a great deal to play for here. The message to those who opposed to the DEB is not to go home with their ball - not yet anyway. Which brings me to -
Politics
In some ways this is a much brighter section. As much discussed round the blogosphere, the last two days have been something of a revelation - albeit an unpleasant one - to thousands of British people who have never stepped into the palace of Westminster or attended a hustings meeting. Via the miracles of iPlayer and Parliament TV, we have all seen the pitifully under occupied Commons debate chamber and yet the sudden flood of MPs from bars and offices when a vote is called; and via the equal miracle of Twitter, we have discussed, mocked, and revenged ourselves on those MPs and their invisible friends and financiers.
This is, ironically, the surveillance (sousveillance?) society in action: those in power who are used to being largely secluded from those governed, have found themselves watched from above, criticised and found wanting. Last night, as intelligence flowed at the speed of fibre round the Twitter network, was the most fascinating political occasion Pangloss has ever seen. This may come to be seen as the first battle of the social media vs old style democracy wars: our own Battle of Canary Wharf, if you like.
Creativity flowed, as geeks expressed their horror at apparent contempt for their views in the only way they know how : via software. See eg here, here and here. (This Slapometer is also not DEB specific but kind of fun if you've had a hard few days.)
Meanwhile, the #debill hashtag became the second busiest tag in the world (not just the UK) last night - attracting the attention not just of Brits but of people worldwide to what was going on. Tweets came in at about one a second. At least 8 times as many people tweeted on the DEB as about the general election as a whole. This is political engagement with a vengeance - just what the parties have said for years they wanted, especially from the young. Well, beware getting what you ask for, appears to be the bottom line , because these people are not happy with (non?) representational democracy. At all.
Where will this go? Internet naming and shaming of last night's rollcall has grown like topsy. One suggestion is that voters should vote against DEB yes-votes or absentee MPs where they inhabit marginal seats, as a kind of Sicilian revenge. Naturally the list of MPs this would apply to is already up there. Many are also likely to respond by not voting at all, or voting for marginal parties like the Greens. Others take the view that it is time to engage with power, not via party poitics but in online fora, such as the newly announced ORG regional fora.
Will we see one-cause or one -time MPs beginning to emerge more widely? or is UK politics too resistant to this for any headway to be made, pace the Greens, the Pirates? We will see. I almost wouldn't mind finding out myself, perhaps.
But what this DEBacle (ho ho) has indubitably shown up is (a) the techno-illiteracy of most MPs, and indeed, most front bench ministers (with a few glorious exceptions, hello Tom Watson) and (b) the regulatory capture of all major parties in this smug bankrupt Parliament by vested and cash rich interests.
One way or another, I think the DEB will go down in history as having been a turning point about a lot more things than downloading.
Law
Well. Much has been covered elsewhere. There is a useful crib at the Guardian, which is, I think, mainly right except for cl 18, on which see below. What can I add? First two points: one, the DEB has not actually passed yet. Yes it was voted through (in as much noted, an almost empty Commons by 189 to 47. But it still has to go through Lords this afternoon. That will almost certainly happen on the nod.
Two, "clause 18" or "s 97B" - infamously allowing court orders to be sought to block sites which may conceivably be expected to assist in copyright infringement eg Google :-) - has neither been deleted not retained. There is much confusion on this. Despite Lib Dem opposition at the eleventh hour, the government & Tories did in esence force this clause through on the whip. However the form it now takes (or will, it seems take) is that there will NOT be an amendment to the Copyright D&PAct - but instead a power is given the Minister to introduce regulations - NOT new primary legislation - to achieve this, next session.
I have already written about substantively the same clause at length before, saying it made matters worse not better, but the interesting formulation I did not highlight before is this:
The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the
granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the
internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used
for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.
Note that "may". This doesn't have to happen. Indeed, it is specifically not to unless the measures are shown to be proportionate AND use of the internet for activities that infringe copyright is shown to be having a serious adverse effect on businesses or consumers . See subs 3 of amendment 7. No new law has been inserted into any other currently existing law. The next government - absolute majority or hung - can decide to bury this. All those MPs who wrote back saying they didn't like cl 18 - and especially the Lib Dems, if they do take the balance of power next session, who promised to take cl 18 out - this is something to consider. Indeed if no such resistance is organised at the next Parliament, especially by the Lib Dems, serious questions should be asked.
Other basic points: clause 43 on orphan works, not much liked but believed by some to be better than nothing, went, as the Tories channelled the photographer's lobby. I still sort of wonder why they have more clout than the entire rest of the non-music digital economy. (Perhaps the parties were worried if they opposed them , no one would take photos of them campaigning? :-) A few other tweaks were made. But basically the Bill goes through as per 2nd reading.
But. There still needs to be a consulation by Ofcom as to whether disconnection is really a good idea and a vote in both Houses. There still has to be consultation on whether web blocking is a good thing and a similar vote. There is still a great deal to play for here. The message to those who opposed to the DEB is not to go home with their ball - not yet anyway. Which brings me to -
Politics
In some ways this is a much brighter section. As much discussed round the blogosphere, the last two days have been something of a revelation - albeit an unpleasant one - to thousands of British people who have never stepped into the palace of Westminster or attended a hustings meeting. Via the miracles of iPlayer and Parliament TV, we have all seen the pitifully under occupied Commons debate chamber and yet the sudden flood of MPs from bars and offices when a vote is called; and via the equal miracle of Twitter, we have discussed, mocked, and revenged ourselves on those MPs and their invisible friends and financiers.
This is, ironically, the surveillance (sousveillance?) society in action: those in power who are used to being largely secluded from those governed, have found themselves watched from above, criticised and found wanting. Last night, as intelligence flowed at the speed of fibre round the Twitter network, was the most fascinating political occasion Pangloss has ever seen. This may come to be seen as the first battle of the social media vs old style democracy wars: our own Battle of Canary Wharf, if you like.
Creativity flowed, as geeks expressed their horror at apparent contempt for their views in the only way they know how : via software. See eg here, here and here. (This Slapometer is also not DEB specific but kind of fun if you've had a hard few days.)
Meanwhile, the #debill hashtag became the second busiest tag in the world (not just the UK) last night - attracting the attention not just of Brits but of people worldwide to what was going on. Tweets came in at about one a second. At least 8 times as many people tweeted on the DEB as about the general election as a whole. This is political engagement with a vengeance - just what the parties have said for years they wanted, especially from the young. Well, beware getting what you ask for, appears to be the bottom line , because these people are not happy with (non?) representational democracy. At all.
Where will this go? Internet naming and shaming of last night's rollcall has grown like topsy. One suggestion is that voters should vote against DEB yes-votes or absentee MPs where they inhabit marginal seats, as a kind of Sicilian revenge. Naturally the list of MPs this would apply to is already up there. Many are also likely to respond by not voting at all, or voting for marginal parties like the Greens. Others take the view that it is time to engage with power, not via party poitics but in online fora, such as the newly announced ORG regional fora.
Will we see one-cause or one -time MPs beginning to emerge more widely? or is UK politics too resistant to this for any headway to be made, pace the Greens, the Pirates? We will see. I almost wouldn't mind finding out myself, perhaps.
But what this DEBacle (ho ho) has indubitably shown up is (a) the techno-illiteracy of most MPs, and indeed, most front bench ministers (with a few glorious exceptions, hello Tom Watson) and (b) the regulatory capture of all major parties in this smug bankrupt Parliament by vested and cash rich interests.
One way or another, I think the DEB will go down in history as having been a turning point about a lot more things than downloading.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Yesterday's debate
is now up on Hansard and will, i think, be a fascinating historical record of parliamantary attitudes to technology c 2010 :-)
From Austin Mitchell, Lab MP's speech:
and from the ever excellent Tom Watson, Lab MP:
From Austin Mitchell, Lab MP's speech:
I heard all the Secretary of State’s answers about how the House of Lords has devoted its usual frenzied, hectic consideration to the Bill, full-time, for months and months, and how the Government have conducted a full consultation with all the outside interests. However, I am suspicious, because if it has had such full consideration, why are so many of my hon. Friends upset at the speed at which it is going through? Why am I getting more e-mails than I can competently deal with now that I am in half-campaigning mode, saying, “This is a bad Bill. Stop it. We don’t want it and we are threatened”, from people more active and interested in the internet than I am?
The e-mails are mainly from young people, who feel threatened by the Bill. They may be wrong, they may not be threatened by it and the procedures for cutting off their access through the service provider may be fair, just, wholesome and very effective, but they still feel threatened. It will take time to explain things to them, and to examine their worries and discuss them. When I have replied to their e-mails, their answer has always been, “This is a Bill on which the big boys, the big corporations and the big businesses, which are now involved in the internet, have all been well consulted. Their voices have been well heard and they have dominated the consideration of the Bill. It is far too favourable to them and far too unfavourable to the little guy.” The little guy—in particular, the people indulging in harmless file sharing out of interest—is how the people writing to me see themselves.
That is a complex argument, but it is true that the big corporations and big business have loud voices and that the House of Lords is a natural forum for the expression of those loud voices and opinions. When discussing the Bill we have talked about peer-to-peer transfers, but peer-to-vested-interest transfers are a major part of the process.
...Logic says to the Government and the precautionary principle says to me, “If it is doubtful, if you are not sure, if you have not consulted and if there are voices that need to be heard, do not rush into doing anything. In particular, do not rush into legislation.”
and from the ever excellent Tom Watson, Lab MP:
I know that the worthy intention of those on all three Front Benches is to defend our creative industries. Everyone in this Chamber wants to do that... However, more enlightened members of both main parties privately tell me that they know that the copyright measures in this Bill are nonsensical. They say that they will give the big publishing interests that dominate the debate in this country a period of respite, during which they can compose themselves while they consider their next moves in the internet age.
I admire the Bill’s motives in respect of copyright, but there is an opportunity cost associated with defending old publishing interests. Innovations will not stop in our competitor countries while we give the UK record industry time to think.
There is a less charitable, more sinister view of this Bill. I readily admit that it might play into the conspiracy theories so ably portrayed by the previous two speakers, but the attempts to create artificial scarcity with information goods represent a second enclosure movement in this country. The intangible assets of our society are being packaged up in a contemporary expansion of intellectual property.
..
It is hard to describe to colleagues how our digital natives—the people who entered the world of work without thinking of the internet as a “new” technology—think about the anachronistic ideas that underpin the thinking behind this Bill. They understand the power and the beauty of the serendipitous hypertext link, and believe that it is part of human nature to take an idea and use it—to play with it and remix it into something new, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) described.
If hon. Members are beginning to think that I have taken leave of my senses with that comment, they should think about the Gene Hunt poster. What are the barriers to entry for young people who want to make a political statement? To take control of two images, they would have to sign a cumbersome licensing deal so that they could remix them and thus spark a debate, but in fact the remix event that took place caused thousands of young people to talk about the future. If we do not accept that that represents a cultural change in Britain, we will be forever doomed to holding debates that will appear merely futile to those young people.
ps has there ever before been a Parliamentary debate with quite so many mentions of Star Wars?? Not to mention Charles Stross, C Shirky and Christopher Brookmyre..!
DEB 2nd reading, HC (& a few musings on party politics & Twitter)
The Digital Economy Bill has passed its Second Reading in the Commons and goes to its final vote tomorrow.
Today in Parliament was not inspiring viewing, although Tom Watson and John Redwood, inter alia, made commendable good sense. Austin Mitchell , Lab MP , (who had earlier tried to get an early day motion re the Bill) was declared King of the Internet for the Day, for actually knowing about things like Charlie Stross and the "long tail". Pete Wishart, ex Runrig & now SNP, ranted. They weren't very good as a band either.
Despite these gems, as some tweeted, 20,000 people wrote to MPs,646 Members of Parliament, 36 turned up : not a good advert for democracy, especially in respect of eleventh hour still intensely disputed legislation. The Tories suddenly decided they didn't like the orphan works clause for its mysterious but unfortunate effects on photographers (who clearly have more hit points than geeks - one tweeter suggested this was because lots of old people take photos, whereas young people, who dislike the rest of the Bill, don't vote) ; the Lib Dems stuck to their guns in opposing the clause they themselves invented (sorry! I meant the BPI invented); and Labour, largely, wasn't there. it was most edifying.
Pangloss went on Radio 2 drivetime, spoke to Richard of Judy fame (I believe, m'lud) and tried to explain all this to people stuck in gridlock. This was less than simple.
A very large number of ordinary people appeared to watch the debate on iPlayer. Mostly they came away appalled to mutinous about the empty House, the bad Star Wars jokes apparently tailored for the nerds who must surely be the only people interested in the future of the digital economy, and the strange Parliamentary habit of dissing the Bill but then voting for it anyway, as per the whip.
It will be interesting to see longterm what effect widespread live-Tweeting plus iPlayer/Parliament TV access to debates may have on arcane Westminster procedures. Some, one hopes. Certainly it will be fascinating to see if MPs becomes aware that their actual constituents (and voters in a month's time) can see them waving their cock tails in their weird and wonderful natural habitat - and, judging by the backstream, come away largely unimpressed. Certainly the Lib Dems lost a lot of techy votes today. Tom Watson MP on the other hand, who sat reading tweets between speakers, came away with a lot of new supporters.
Twitter/iPlayer/blogs give individual MPs, not just parties, access to the public consciousness, and thus a chance to resist the uniformity of the whip, in a way not seen since the rise of party politics - plus a chance for the public, largely disenfranchised except every five years in the current system, to very easily know what the MPs they vote for are actually up to, and to respond angrily if they don't like it. Representational democracy is morphing here, assisted by other grassroots enablers such as TheyWorkForYou.com, Whatdotheyknow.com and 38 Degrees. This may do remarkable things for the Commons - I hope I will see this. (Interestingly the first two of these were created by the excellent MySociety whose founder Tom Steinberg is now advising the Tories in this campaign.)
Oneof the more far out suggestions tonight was that the House should have had a "tweetfall" screen in the background on which appalled tweets could have unfurled. This is a common device at conferences these days, and perhaps , as at least a salutary reminder of the electorate, not such an insane suggestion after all?
Meanwhile, back at the DEB, the Law Society of Scotland - hardly a hot bed of radical copyright abolitionists and technonerds - has issued an interesting statement that they view the DEB disconnection provisions as in breach of the ECHR. Refreshing for this expat Scot:-) (Thanks to Scott Wortley for this.)
Mo McRoberts, one of those people listening in as @nevali on Twitter, has been moved to write an open letter to the MPs who spoke in favour of the Bill in Second Reading. It is a really excellent letter from a non party political but very astute person.
ADDED: There is now a long long list of IT people, academics, artists and just ordinary folks who have signed on to this letter, and it is being RT ed by the demi celebs of Twitter. It is a quite remarkable piece of spontaneous grassroots bottom up participation - the sort of thing political parties long for and never get. I wonder why? Worthy of note anyway.
It looks to me that the future of the digital economy would be a lot better safeguarded if we had more input from the very involved public out there, including related professionals (technical or legal, for example), and less from MPs who have largely shown themselves (with some very welcome exceptions) to be technologically illiterate. Something to start working on after the election? One place to go may be the new Open Rights Group Forum which is designed to encourage discusion in the digital community generally, not just in ORG. I will be speaking a bit about this at the Cafe Scientifique meet in Sheffield on April 21 (at the Showroom).
A demain..
PS Someone rather funnier than me - Nick Doody of the Now Show on the DEB.
Today in Parliament was not inspiring viewing, although Tom Watson and John Redwood, inter alia, made commendable good sense. Austin Mitchell , Lab MP , (who had earlier tried to get an early day motion re the Bill) was declared King of the Internet for the Day, for actually knowing about things like Charlie Stross and the "long tail". Pete Wishart, ex Runrig & now SNP, ranted. They weren't very good as a band either.
Despite these gems, as some tweeted, 20,000 people wrote to MPs,646 Members of Parliament, 36 turned up : not a good advert for democracy, especially in respect of eleventh hour still intensely disputed legislation. The Tories suddenly decided they didn't like the orphan works clause for its mysterious but unfortunate effects on photographers (who clearly have more hit points than geeks - one tweeter suggested this was because lots of old people take photos, whereas young people, who dislike the rest of the Bill, don't vote) ; the Lib Dems stuck to their guns in opposing the clause they themselves invented (sorry! I meant the BPI invented); and Labour, largely, wasn't there. it was most edifying.
Pangloss went on Radio 2 drivetime, spoke to Richard of Judy fame (I believe, m'lud) and tried to explain all this to people stuck in gridlock. This was less than simple.
A very large number of ordinary people appeared to watch the debate on iPlayer. Mostly they came away appalled to mutinous about the empty House, the bad Star Wars jokes apparently tailored for the nerds who must surely be the only people interested in the future of the digital economy, and the strange Parliamentary habit of dissing the Bill but then voting for it anyway, as per the whip.
It will be interesting to see longterm what effect widespread live-Tweeting plus iPlayer/Parliament TV access to debates may have on arcane Westminster procedures. Some, one hopes. Certainly it will be fascinating to see if MPs becomes aware that their actual constituents (and voters in a month's time) can see them waving their cock tails in their weird and wonderful natural habitat - and, judging by the backstream, come away largely unimpressed. Certainly the Lib Dems lost a lot of techy votes today. Tom Watson MP on the other hand, who sat reading tweets between speakers, came away with a lot of new supporters.
Twitter/iPlayer/blogs give individual MPs, not just parties, access to the public consciousness, and thus a chance to resist the uniformity of the whip, in a way not seen since the rise of party politics - plus a chance for the public, largely disenfranchised except every five years in the current system, to very easily know what the MPs they vote for are actually up to, and to respond angrily if they don't like it. Representational democracy is morphing here, assisted by other grassroots enablers such as TheyWorkForYou.com, Whatdotheyknow.com and 38 Degrees. This may do remarkable things for the Commons - I hope I will see this. (Interestingly the first two of these were created by the excellent MySociety whose founder Tom Steinberg is now advising the Tories in this campaign.)
Oneof the more far out suggestions tonight was that the House should have had a "tweetfall" screen in the background on which appalled tweets could have unfurled. This is a common device at conferences these days, and perhaps , as at least a salutary reminder of the electorate, not such an insane suggestion after all?
Meanwhile, back at the DEB, the Law Society of Scotland - hardly a hot bed of radical copyright abolitionists and technonerds - has issued an interesting statement that they view the DEB disconnection provisions as in breach of the ECHR. Refreshing for this expat Scot:-) (Thanks to Scott Wortley for this.)
Mo McRoberts, one of those people listening in as @nevali on Twitter, has been moved to write an open letter to the MPs who spoke in favour of the Bill in Second Reading. It is a really excellent letter from a non party political but very astute person.
ADDED: There is now a long long list of IT people, academics, artists and just ordinary folks who have signed on to this letter, and it is being RT ed by the demi celebs of Twitter. It is a quite remarkable piece of spontaneous grassroots bottom up participation - the sort of thing political parties long for and never get. I wonder why? Worthy of note anyway.
It looks to me that the future of the digital economy would be a lot better safeguarded if we had more input from the very involved public out there, including related professionals (technical or legal, for example), and less from MPs who have largely shown themselves (with some very welcome exceptions) to be technologically illiterate. Something to start working on after the election? One place to go may be the new Open Rights Group Forum which is designed to encourage discusion in the digital community generally, not just in ORG. I will be speaking a bit about this at the Cafe Scientifique meet in Sheffield on April 21 (at the Showroom).
A demain..
PS Someone rather funnier than me - Nick Doody of the Now Show on the DEB.
Monday, April 05, 2010
DEB: the Final Countdown
Gordon Brown goes to the Palace tomorrow to dissolve Parliament, and the Digital Economy Bill goes to the House of Commons for its second, and almost certainly its last, reading. These are not unconnected. As most readers of this blog will know, the DEB is headed for "wash up", a hasty process for pushing Bills through at the end of a Parliament's lifetime, without any of the normal Commons scrutiny, and thus in theory reserved for legislation whose shape is in the main settled and whose content is uncontroversial.
If there is one thing that can be said about the DEB it is that it is not without controversy and that its many flaws have not been ironed out yet. Almost 20,000 people have now written to MPs expressing their disquiet about the Bill - a remarkable number compared to other prominent campaigns, such as the 6,000 who wrote to save Radio 6 and received endless media attention. (By contrast, most the media except the Guardian have been oddly silent on the DEB) From Twitter, from blogs and from published or reported replies to constituents, it is clear many decent, conscientious constituency MPs then went and looked at the issues, and have also been convinced the DEB's provisions on copyright enforcement are bad, ill drafted and need further work. It is also clear though, sadly, that many of these honest MPs are being pointedly ignored by their own front benches or have received false information. For many have written back to constituents saying the Bill would definitely not pass at wash up due to lack of consensus and controversy. Yet in the end this now looks to be the likeliest outcome tomorrow, with the two main parties obdurately claiming against the evidence that the Bill must go through before the end of this governmet, even despite the fact that the Liberal Democrats have, late but admirably, said they would not support the Bill in its current form at wash up.
This Bill is not fit for passing into law and should not be. As both Labour and Tory front benches have reiterated their commitment to it in principle, there seems absolutely no reason why at least the most controversial parts of the Bill - on "three strikes", disconnection, website blocking (cl 18) and to a lesser extent, orphan works and domain name management, could not be removed from wash up and reconsidered properly after the election - ie in around two months time maximum- not exactly an eternity. Since this is clearly not the current intent, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the intention is to push through a bad and unpopular law in a rush, against the wishes of the public and of a large number of MPs, while most of both are distracted by the combo of the election itself and the aftermath of the Easter holidays. This is not democracy; it is a farce masquerading as such.
A number of academics, from IT, intellectual property and public law fields, and including myself, have written a final letter conveying our deep concerns about the DEB, both the process of passing it and the substance. It should be published in the Times tomorrow, but if not , I will reproduce it here.
In the meantime I strongly recommend reading the blog post of my former colleague, Scott Wortley, a property law academic at Edinburgh University who also teaches statutory interpretation, and a qualified practicing lawyer. He is not a "copyright activist" nor an IP lecturer; he is someone who is plain and simply worried about the creation of badly drafted laws which will not work and will need repealed or reformed after causing endless difficulty . His post is salutary reading.
My own "open letter" to MPs says simply: please demand proper debate tomorrow, and in particular ask for the holding over of cls 4-18 until after the election. The flaws I identified with cl 18, , in particular, are still all there. Similarly, many of the issues I raised about the whole of cls 4-17 are still outstanding, such as the harmful effects on public free wi fi, on universities and libraries, on small business, on digital inclusion and access to knowledge. These are real problems. This is not about "net libertarianism", or a demand for abolition of copyright. It is simply a desire for laws that work, that benefit artists and the public alike,and that will not make a mockery of the law by introducing unenforceable regulations dictated unilaterally by partisan interests.
Like the new eleventh Dr Who, whom many of us will have enjoyed watching emerging over Easter, the DEB has not yet "finished cooking". There is plenty of time to put it back into the oven of democracy after the election - whoever wins.
If there is one thing that can be said about the DEB it is that it is not without controversy and that its many flaws have not been ironed out yet. Almost 20,000 people have now written to MPs expressing their disquiet about the Bill - a remarkable number compared to other prominent campaigns, such as the 6,000 who wrote to save Radio 6 and received endless media attention. (By contrast, most the media except the Guardian have been oddly silent on the DEB) From Twitter, from blogs and from published or reported replies to constituents, it is clear many decent, conscientious constituency MPs then went and looked at the issues, and have also been convinced the DEB's provisions on copyright enforcement are bad, ill drafted and need further work. It is also clear though, sadly, that many of these honest MPs are being pointedly ignored by their own front benches or have received false information. For many have written back to constituents saying the Bill would definitely not pass at wash up due to lack of consensus and controversy. Yet in the end this now looks to be the likeliest outcome tomorrow, with the two main parties obdurately claiming against the evidence that the Bill must go through before the end of this governmet, even despite the fact that the Liberal Democrats have, late but admirably, said they would not support the Bill in its current form at wash up.
This Bill is not fit for passing into law and should not be. As both Labour and Tory front benches have reiterated their commitment to it in principle, there seems absolutely no reason why at least the most controversial parts of the Bill - on "three strikes", disconnection, website blocking (cl 18) and to a lesser extent, orphan works and domain name management, could not be removed from wash up and reconsidered properly after the election - ie in around two months time maximum- not exactly an eternity. Since this is clearly not the current intent, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the intention is to push through a bad and unpopular law in a rush, against the wishes of the public and of a large number of MPs, while most of both are distracted by the combo of the election itself and the aftermath of the Easter holidays. This is not democracy; it is a farce masquerading as such.
A number of academics, from IT, intellectual property and public law fields, and including myself, have written a final letter conveying our deep concerns about the DEB, both the process of passing it and the substance. It should be published in the Times tomorrow, but if not , I will reproduce it here.
In the meantime I strongly recommend reading the blog post of my former colleague, Scott Wortley, a property law academic at Edinburgh University who also teaches statutory interpretation, and a qualified practicing lawyer. He is not a "copyright activist" nor an IP lecturer; he is someone who is plain and simply worried about the creation of badly drafted laws which will not work and will need repealed or reformed after causing endless difficulty . His post is salutary reading.
My own "open letter" to MPs says simply: please demand proper debate tomorrow, and in particular ask for the holding over of cls 4-18 until after the election. The flaws I identified with cl 18, , in particular, are still all there. Similarly, many of the issues I raised about the whole of cls 4-17 are still outstanding, such as the harmful effects on public free wi fi, on universities and libraries, on small business, on digital inclusion and access to knowledge. These are real problems. This is not about "net libertarianism", or a demand for abolition of copyright. It is simply a desire for laws that work, that benefit artists and the public alike,and that will not make a mockery of the law by introducing unenforceable regulations dictated unilaterally by partisan interests.
Like the new eleventh Dr Who, whom many of us will have enjoyed watching emerging over Easter, the DEB has not yet "finished cooking". There is plenty of time to put it back into the oven of democracy after the election - whoever wins.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Singh libel win in Court of Appeal
Dr Simon Singh has succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal that a defense of fair comment is applicable to his critical comments on chiropractic practice - ie they are not excluded as "fact" not "opinion".
- The present case is not in this class: the material words, however one represents or paraphrases their meaning, are in our judgment expressions of opinion. The opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been denounced on the basis of it to compel its author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth. Milton, recalling in the Areopagitica his visit to Italy in 1638-9, wrote:
"I have sat among their learned men, for that honour I had, and been counted happy to be born in such a place of philosophic freedom, as they supposed England was, while themselves did nothing but bemoan the servile condition into which learning among them was brought; …. that nothing had been there written now these many years but flattery and fustian. There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo, grown old a prisoner of the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought."That is a pass to which we ought not to come again."
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
DEB: heavens
Reproduced from Boing Boing
"UK Labour MP Austin Mitchell has had a change of heart on the dread Digital Economy Bill and has produced a nearly day motion asking to have all 24,000+ words of it subjected to scrutiny and debate, rather than being hidden away in the undemocratic, secretive "wash-up" process: "That this House believes that the Digital Economy Bill [Lords] is too important to be taken further in the last days of a dying Parliament; and considers that a bill with so many repercussions for consumers, civil liberties, freedom of information and access to the internet should be debated and properly scrutinised at length and in detail, with a full opportunity for public discussion and representation in a new Parliament after the general election and not rushed through in the few days that remain in this Parliament." Write to your MP and support the motion!"
"UK Labour MP Austin Mitchell has had a change of heart on the dread Digital Economy Bill and has produced a nearly day motion asking to have all 24,000+ words of it subjected to scrutiny and debate, rather than being hidden away in the undemocratic, secretive "wash-up" process: "That this House believes that the Digital Economy Bill [Lords] is too important to be taken further in the last days of a dying Parliament; and considers that a bill with so many repercussions for consumers, civil liberties, freedom of information and access to the internet should be debated and properly scrutinised at length and in detail, with a full opportunity for public discussion and representation in a new Parliament after the general election and not rushed through in the few days that remain in this Parliament." Write to your MP and support the motion!"
Clause 18, DEB redux
Pangloss is back from Vienna where she hugely enjoyed BILETA 2010, courtesy of Erich Shweighofer and the Vienna Law Faculty and was amazed at the palatial Hapsburg museum they work in :-) More on BILETA later, I hope.
However first, because several people have asked, a few words (ha!) on the newly published government version of clause 18 of the Digital Economy Bill on website blocking (formerly amendment 120a). (NB this is not an amendment of the old cl 18 - it is entirely withdrawn and a new section inserted. It is not clear to me what this new section would be numbered but it is not 97B of the CDPA (edited))
Mainly because most (sensible!) people are only reading the accompanying letter from Mandelson, and not the text itself, the new version is getting a fairly good reception in some parts. The new section itself is however, like the famed curate's egg, good and bad in parts, but overall a complete waste of time, and should be dropped entirely before the election. Let me go through some points.
First, the original amendment 120a (as famously drafted by the BPI) defined an online location as " a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible,"
and then essentially added a power for the courts to force ISPs to block such.
Now we have a power to block (subs(4))
"(a) a location from which a substantial amount of material has been, is
being or is likely to be obtained in infringement of copyright,
(b) a location at which a substantial amount of material has been, is
being or is likely to be made available in infringement of copyright, or
(c) a location which has been, is being or is likely to be used to
facilitate access to a location within paragraph (a) or (b)."
Notice all these "likely"s? Much much wider. In essence this is a power in principle to block any site on the Internet, any search engine and any P2P clent site, however legal. Of course the govt will say this is limited by all the other things a court has to consider before making an order. Which is true. But there seems no reason at all to make this definition so much wider, especially given the government's ostensible purpose was to narrow the scope of clause 18 and make it "enforceable".
If you recall previous posts on this matter, my principle worry was that the safeguards on court orders under am 120a as-was would in fact be entirely irrelevant, as requests would simply be made for ISPs to block by rightsholders, without any need to go to court. Why would an ISP agree to do this? Well in the original version of 120a, because if they refused to block on demand, and things went to court, all the costs of the action would be dumped on the ISP - despite the fact they are merely piggy in the middle here between rightsholder and alleged infringing site.
Mandelson pledges in his open letter that this has now been changed in the interests of due process. To quote, "ISPs should not be expected to pay court costs" .
Great! but if you look at the actual regulations, all it says in subs (7)(c) is that there MAY be regulations to this effect. Or there may not. Nothing may be said in the regulations (quite likely, quite usual) in which case it will be left to courts to develop their own rules - and who knows how that might go. The Norwich Pharmacal jurisprudence on allocating costs where ISPs are asked to disclose subscriber identities might be adopted - or might not. Still pretty risky therefore for ISPs to force the obtaining of an injunction, and still likely to incentivise extra-legal website blocking by all but the most committed ISP (read for the big 6: Talk Talk?).
Which leaves me wondering why the amendments that were proposed by the Lib Dems at 3rd reading, to try to control pre-judicial blocking, and which were backed generally by civil liberties groups, are conspicuously NOT in the list of things to be included in the future regulations, either optionally or mandatorily.
No specification of what form a notice requesting blocking should take (a la DMCA) so an ISP can at least find the right site (or part of a site) and know the request comes from genuine rightsholders, with genuine grievances, and not A N Other. No need to notify a site if it is blocked without court order. And no provision for a site to go to court and demand it be unblocked or at least demand to know why it has been blocked ("stay up" a la DMCA "put back" . A model for these already existed. Why has it been pointedly ignored in favour of a profusion of "mays" and "likely"s?
As I have noted before, an ISP will not disclose the ID of a subscriber in the UK without a court order for fear of breaching the Data Protection Act. Isn't access to an entire web site or a search engine or mobile operator for *everyone*, arguably more important than one person's anonymity? The comparison makes this all seem very strange. Would we be happy if BT
could randomly decide to block phone numbers because it (or someone else) suspected the owners of those numbers of crimes, or even of the likelihood they would one day commit crimes?
But frankly if there's to be first-stage consultation on this whole huge question of website blocking after the election, why not wait till that time to decide what shape the enabling law, if any, should take? If court ordained website blocking is to be introduced it is a vast and unprecedented step. Maybe the constitutional position of the IWF should be reconsidered at the same time? Certainly its practical success in getting ISPs to block sites should be relevant - technical experts have said all along that most UK ISPs can't, in fact, reliably block at all. So should the new EC draft Directive on web blocking for child porn, announced yesterday. This is all completely cart before horse now. Cl 18 should simply be withdrawn for now, and stop wasting everyone's time in the run up to Big E-Day.
Finally all this is given especial piquancy by the fact that the English High Court, in an important case called Newzbin yesterday, decided, on its first encounter with s 97 A CDPA blocking (oh don't ask), that blanket blocking orders - asking a search engine site to block access to all sites and files everywhere - as opposed to an orders to block access to particular named copyright works which were being , demonstrably, being downloaded in reach of copyright, is illegal. This principle makes it look very likely that the new clause as proposed has in fact just been declared unlawful by the courts. To quote Kitchin J:
Parliamant can, of course, over rule the courts. Parliamentary supremacy rules OK. But really, given the vast mess the DEB and clause 18 has become, should it? Can't we wait till after the elcection and sort the whole damn thing out then with proper attention, research, consultation and decent drafting, as opposed to lobbying, intrigue, hurry and back room deals?
As a mere academic, that's how I'd like to see the legal system run. But what do I know? :-)
EDIT: Apparently not alone in this - as I pressed PUBLISH this appeared ! See Guardian, lawyer Robin Fry quoted:
"It's alarming that these blocking injunctions are to be wheeled out against websites and search engines which are not contravening any laws," says Fry. "This is a chaotic response to massive industry pressure."
However first, because several people have asked, a few words (ha!) on the newly published government version of clause 18 of the Digital Economy Bill on website blocking (formerly amendment 120a). (NB this is not an amendment of the old cl 18 - it is entirely withdrawn and a new section inserted. It is not clear to me what this new section would be numbered but it is not 97B of the CDPA (edited))
Mainly because most (sensible!) people are only reading the accompanying letter from Mandelson, and not the text itself, the new version is getting a fairly good reception in some parts. The new section itself is however, like the famed curate's egg, good and bad in parts, but overall a complete waste of time, and should be dropped entirely before the election. Let me go through some points.
First, the original amendment 120a (as famously drafted by the BPI) defined an online location as " a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible,"
and then essentially added a power for the courts to force ISPs to block such.
Now we have a power to block (subs(4))
"(a) a location from which a substantial amount of material has been, is
being or is likely to be obtained in infringement of copyright,
(b) a location at which a substantial amount of material has been, is
being or is likely to be made available in infringement of copyright, or
(c) a location which has been, is being or is likely to be used to
facilitate access to a location within paragraph (a) or (b)."
Notice all these "likely"s? Much much wider. In essence this is a power in principle to block any site on the Internet, any search engine and any P2P clent site, however legal. Of course the govt will say this is limited by all the other things a court has to consider before making an order. Which is true. But there seems no reason at all to make this definition so much wider, especially given the government's ostensible purpose was to narrow the scope of clause 18 and make it "enforceable".
If you recall previous posts on this matter, my principle worry was that the safeguards on court orders under am 120a as-was would in fact be entirely irrelevant, as requests would simply be made for ISPs to block by rightsholders, without any need to go to court. Why would an ISP agree to do this? Well in the original version of 120a, because if they refused to block on demand, and things went to court, all the costs of the action would be dumped on the ISP - despite the fact they are merely piggy in the middle here between rightsholder and alleged infringing site.
Mandelson pledges in his open letter that this has now been changed in the interests of due process. To quote, "ISPs should not be expected to pay court costs" .
Great! but if you look at the actual regulations, all it says in subs (7)(c) is that there MAY be regulations to this effect. Or there may not. Nothing may be said in the regulations (quite likely, quite usual) in which case it will be left to courts to develop their own rules - and who knows how that might go. The Norwich Pharmacal jurisprudence on allocating costs where ISPs are asked to disclose subscriber identities might be adopted - or might not. Still pretty risky therefore for ISPs to force the obtaining of an injunction, and still likely to incentivise extra-legal website blocking by all but the most committed ISP (read for the big 6: Talk Talk?).
Which leaves me wondering why the amendments that were proposed by the Lib Dems at 3rd reading, to try to control pre-judicial blocking, and which were backed generally by civil liberties groups, are conspicuously NOT in the list of things to be included in the future regulations, either optionally or mandatorily.
No specification of what form a notice requesting blocking should take (a la DMCA) so an ISP can at least find the right site (or part of a site) and know the request comes from genuine rightsholders, with genuine grievances, and not A N Other. No need to notify a site if it is blocked without court order. And no provision for a site to go to court and demand it be unblocked or at least demand to know why it has been blocked ("stay up" a la DMCA "put back" . A model for these already existed. Why has it been pointedly ignored in favour of a profusion of "mays" and "likely"s?
As I have noted before, an ISP will not disclose the ID of a subscriber in the UK without a court order for fear of breaching the Data Protection Act. Isn't access to an entire web site or a search engine or mobile operator for *everyone*, arguably more important than one person's anonymity? The comparison makes this all seem very strange. Would we be happy if BT
could randomly decide to block phone numbers because it (or someone else) suspected the owners of those numbers of crimes, or even of the likelihood they would one day commit crimes?
But frankly if there's to be first-stage consultation on this whole huge question of website blocking after the election, why not wait till that time to decide what shape the enabling law, if any, should take? If court ordained website blocking is to be introduced it is a vast and unprecedented step. Maybe the constitutional position of the IWF should be reconsidered at the same time? Certainly its practical success in getting ISPs to block sites should be relevant - technical experts have said all along that most UK ISPs can't, in fact, reliably block at all. So should the new EC draft Directive on web blocking for child porn, announced yesterday. This is all completely cart before horse now. Cl 18 should simply be withdrawn for now, and stop wasting everyone's time in the run up to Big E-Day.
Finally all this is given especial piquancy by the fact that the English High Court, in an important case called Newzbin yesterday, decided, on its first encounter with s 97 A CDPA blocking (oh don't ask), that blanket blocking orders - asking a search engine site to block access to all sites and files everywhere - as opposed to an orders to block access to particular named copyright works which were being , demonstrably, being downloaded in reach of copyright, is illegal. This principle makes it look very likely that the new clause as proposed has in fact just been declared unlawful by the courts. To quote Kitchin J:
I do not believe it would be appropriate to grant an injunction of the breadth sought by the claimants for a number of reasons. First, it is apparent from the terms of Directive 2001/29/EC that it is contemplating the grant of an injunction upon the application of rights holders, yet the claimants are seeking an injunction to restrain activities in relation to all binary and all text materials in respect of which they own no rights and about which I have heard little or no evidence. Second, I do not accept that the defendant has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe all such rights. Therefore I am not persuaded I have the jurisdiction to grant such an injunction in any event. Third, the rights of all other rights holders are wholly undefined and consequently the scope of the injunction would be very uncertain. In my judgment the scope of any injunction under section 97A(2) should extend no further than that to which I have already concluded the claimants are entitled, namely an injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the claimants' copyrights in relation to their repertoire of films. "
Parliamant can, of course, over rule the courts. Parliamentary supremacy rules OK. But really, given the vast mess the DEB and clause 18 has become, should it? Can't we wait till after the elcection and sort the whole damn thing out then with proper attention, research, consultation and decent drafting, as opposed to lobbying, intrigue, hurry and back room deals?
As a mere academic, that's how I'd like to see the legal system run. But what do I know? :-)
EDIT: Apparently not alone in this - as I pressed PUBLISH this appeared ! See Guardian, lawyer Robin Fry quoted:
"It's alarming that these blocking injunctions are to be wheeled out against websites and search engines which are not contravening any laws," says Fry. "This is a chaotic response to massive industry pressure."
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Google Wins on Adwords in ECJ
Google is not in principle breaking EU law by selling AdWords to competitors of those who own associated trade marks in those keywords - official! World's Biggest Search Engine, not facing bankruptcy after all, sighs with relief..
Advertisers who buy AdWords themselves, however, basically receive a stern warning from the ECJ not to try and dupe searchers by buying deceptive adwords and using them in a confusing way in the ads served next to search queries - so expect lots of litigation against fake-goods advertisers, not Google, to follow?
Google itself however also gets a warning that if it had basically drafted the served advert text for the competitor - and so must have known it was essentially part of a deceptive practice - then things might be very different (see para 118 below).
Although IP lawyers will mainly be interested in the findings specifically on trade mark law, this is going long term, I think, to be a more important, indeed crucial decision, on intermediary liability and the ECD, arts 12-15; a clear signal from the ECJ that it is unwilling to let the intermediary status of both search engines and other hosts and conduits such as ISPs be compromised- along with the public interest in a functioning Internet - in the interests of ever more maximal exercise of IP rights.
Particular attention should be paid to this para of the judgment, on Google's liability and immunities under the ECD as a "service provider";
For these, these paras will also be crucial, and (so excited am I)! I have emboldened the most important parts:
(1) just getting paid for a service somehow associated with the potential for IP infringement does not seem to automatically remove arts 12-14 protection. eBay will be pleased to hear this one.
(2) liability does however depend on whether the service provider "has not played an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, the data stored." "Active" = non neutral, it seems? Again this adds a new qualification to what was already in art 14. Does this - or is it meant to - describe (in order it sems to me of descending likelihood) eBay's listing service? You Tube's upload service? Tiscali's provision of access to P2P clients to its subscribers as disputed by SABAM (see below)? We shall see.
If a service is not taking an "active role", all rights holders can ask for is traditional post factum notice and takedown. Art 14 is clearly restated in para 120. If it is.. then filtering and prior monitoring may be legal to ask for, if national law so allows, is the obvious implication. Although of course that too would be mediated by other instruments such as the Data Protection Directive and the ECHR arts 6, 8 and 10, as well as national laws.
I hope eventually to do a fuller analysis (for my views on the AG's opinion which preceded this see here) but in the meantime I'll merely note that this probably points the way forward for the equally important cases on who should be primarily responsible on the Internet for IP protection - the rights holder or the conduit - queuing for the EC - including the cases against eBay from luxury brand holders, as well as the Belgian P2P filtering case of SABAM (which we have just heard is scheduled for 2012!! given the crucial EU importance of this case, which willl in essence determine if 3 strikes legislation is legal in the EU, could it not be fast tracked?). On the other hand there is still (of course) a degree of ambiguity here in what the ECJ has said: in particular, re neutrality in para 114 above.
Anyway from ZedNet, a useful summary:
Advertisers who buy AdWords themselves, however, basically receive a stern warning from the ECJ not to try and dupe searchers by buying deceptive adwords and using them in a confusing way in the ads served next to search queries - so expect lots of litigation against fake-goods advertisers, not Google, to follow?
Google itself however also gets a warning that if it had basically drafted the served advert text for the competitor - and so must have known it was essentially part of a deceptive practice - then things might be very different (see para 118 below).
Although IP lawyers will mainly be interested in the findings specifically on trade mark law, this is going long term, I think, to be a more important, indeed crucial decision, on intermediary liability and the ECD, arts 12-15; a clear signal from the ECJ that it is unwilling to let the intermediary status of both search engines and other hosts and conduits such as ISPs be compromised- along with the public interest in a functioning Internet - in the interests of ever more maximal exercise of IP rights.
Particular attention should be paid to this para of the judgment, on Google's liability and immunities under the ECD as a "service provider";
114 Accordingly, in order to establish whether the liability of a referencing service provider may be limited under Article 14 of Directive 2000/31, it is necessary to examine whether the role played by that service provider is neutral, in the sense that its conduct is merely technical, automatic and passive, pointing to a lack of knowledge or control of the data which it stores. "Thebig question will be if this is taken as merely restating what arts 12-15 already in essence say - no liability without actual or constructive knowledge if host, or at all if mere conduit, or if merely caching - or whether the word "neutral" - not found in the ECD and invented by the AG in his pre-match opinion - imports more-than-statutory qualifications. I guess we will find out when the eBay cases come along.
For these, these paras will also be crucial, and (so excited am I)! I have emboldened the most important parts:
So:115 With regard to the referencing service at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the files and from the description in paragraph 23 et seq. of the present judgment that, with the help of software which it has developed, Google processes the data entered by advertisers and the resulting display of the ads is made under conditions which Google controls. Thus, Google determines the order of display according to, inter alia, the remuneration paid by the advertisers.116 It must be pointed out that the mere facts that the referencing service is subject to payment, that Google sets the payment terms or that it provides general information to its clients cannot have the effect of depriving Google of the exemptions from liability provided for in Directive 2000/31.117 Likewise, concordance between the keyword selected and the search term entered by an internet user is not sufficient of itself to justify the view that Google has knowledge of, or control over, the data entered into its system by advertisers and stored in memory on its server.118 By contrast, in the context of the examination referred to in paragraph 114 of the present judgment, the role played by Google in the drafting of the commercial message which accompanies the advertising link or in the establishment or selection of keywords is relevant.119 It is in the light of the foregoing considerations that the national court, which is best placed to be aware of the actual terms on which the service in the cases in the main proceedings is supplied, must assess whether the role thus played by Google corresponds to that described in paragraph 114 of the present judgment.120 It follows that the answer to the third question in Case C‑236/08, the second question in Case C‑237/08 and the third question in Case C‑238/08 is that Article 14 of Directive 2000/31 must be interpreted as meaning that the rule laid down therein applies to an internet referencing service provider in the case where that service provider has not played an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, the data stored. If it has not played such a role, that service provider cannot be held liable for the data which it has stored at the request of an advertiser, unless, having obtained knowledge of the unlawful nature of those data or of that advertiser’s activities, it failed to act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the data concerned."
(1) just getting paid for a service somehow associated with the potential for IP infringement does not seem to automatically remove arts 12-14 protection. eBay will be pleased to hear this one.
(2) liability does however depend on whether the service provider "has not played an active role of such a kind as to give it knowledge of, or control over, the data stored." "Active" = non neutral, it seems? Again this adds a new qualification to what was already in art 14. Does this - or is it meant to - describe (in order it sems to me of descending likelihood) eBay's listing service? You Tube's upload service? Tiscali's provision of access to P2P clients to its subscribers as disputed by SABAM (see below)? We shall see.
If a service is not taking an "active role", all rights holders can ask for is traditional post factum notice and takedown. Art 14 is clearly restated in para 120. If it is.. then filtering and prior monitoring may be legal to ask for, if national law so allows, is the obvious implication. Although of course that too would be mediated by other instruments such as the Data Protection Directive and the ECHR arts 6, 8 and 10, as well as national laws.
I hope eventually to do a fuller analysis (for my views on the AG's opinion which preceded this see here) but in the meantime I'll merely note that this probably points the way forward for the equally important cases on who should be primarily responsible on the Internet for IP protection - the rights holder or the conduit - queuing for the EC - including the cases against eBay from luxury brand holders, as well as the Belgian P2P filtering case of SABAM (which we have just heard is scheduled for 2012!! given the crucial EU importance of this case, which willl in essence determine if 3 strikes legislation is legal in the EU, could it not be fast tracked?). On the other hand there is still (of course) a degree of ambiguity here in what the ECJ has said: in particular, re neutrality in para 114 above.
Anyway from ZedNet, a useful summary:
"In 2003, Vuitton, Viaticum and CNRRH sued Google because their competitors had bought AdWords for trademarks owned by the plaintiffs. In the case of Vuitton, the AdWords sent users to sites selling imitation Louis Vuitton goods, while the trademarks corresponding to Viaticum and Eurochallenges trademarks sent users to competitors' sites.A French court found in the plaintiffs' favour, ordering Google to stop providing the AdWords in question and pay a fine. The case made its way to the French Court of Cassation — France's highest court for final appeals — which asked the ECJ for its opinion.
The ECJ said on Tuesday that an advertiser purchasing an AdWord that corresponds to someone else's trademark was using that word "in relation to its own goods or services".
However, the ECJ said, trademark holders can take action in national courts against advertisers who "arrange for Google to display ads which make it impossible, or possible only with difficulty, for average internet users to establish from what undertaking the goods or services covered by the ad originate".
The court added that the provider of an automated referencing service such as AdWords cannot be held liable for advertiser data stored on its systems — unless it is made aware that the data is unlawful, in which case it becomes liable if it does not take the data down."
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Today not in Parliament but in Manchester
In pub in Manchester after yes, an interesting panel on the DEB! No time yet to write it you (though you could try looking at Twitter on #counter2010.)
But in the meantime from Boing Boing:
"Richard Mollett, Director of Public Affairs for the BPI (the UK record industry lobby) has gone on record saying that Parliament shouldn't debate the Digital Economy Bill. This is the same Richard Mollet who wrote the infamous internal memo that said that if Parliament were to debate the Bill, it would die. Way to subvert democracy, record industry. (Thanks, Jim!)"
But in the meantime from Boing Boing:
"Richard Mollett, Director of Public Affairs for the BPI (the UK record industry lobby) has gone on record saying that Parliament shouldn't debate the Digital Economy Bill. This is the same Richard Mollet who wrote the infamous internal memo that said that if Parliament were to debate the Bill, it would die. Way to subvert democracy, record industry. (Thanks, Jim!)"
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
DEB: write to MPs campaign launch
My views on the DEB are I think relatively plain:-)
38 Degrees are trying to get 10,000 people to write to their MPs in next few days to make a real impact that might lead to a debate in the Commons over the Digital Economy Bill. I feel it is an insult to democracy as well as bad for the digital economy (sic) for this Bill to pass without effective further Commons .scrutiny. See my summary here: (now confirmed by Hansard).
I imagine many people who read this blog have already written to their MPs (though I also know some readers support the Bill, which is their opinion) - but if you oppose it and haven't, please do: a form letter can be found in various places, notably here but please do tweak it to your own ends as multiple identical letters are usually discounted by MPs.
Please write via the 38 Degrees page which can count the letters sent - it's here.
What you can also do is repost this on your own blogs, social networks etc . If you follow @OpenRightsGroup (whose Advisory Council I sit on) on Twitter you will get tweets about this which are easily re-tweetable.) Please think about doing this. The Guardian comments on the campaign here. Some MPs have already said they are going to insist on having a say. About 1-3,000 people have already written.
I have just heard that the Government has already rushed through the First Reading in the Commons and the Second Reading is being scheduled. After Second Reading it is likely Committee will be skipped, as constitutionally the Bill can then be dumped in wash-up and put through in an hour. This is how sausages are made, not laws. Which reminds me..
Upcoming speaking venues
COUNTER Conference (EC FP7 funded event) Manchester, March 23rd-24th, http://www.counter2010.org/; I am on a panel Wed 24th at 1.30 which includes Richard Miollett of the BPI and looks rather interesting .
I will be speaking at Cafe Scientifique in Sheffield at the Showroom, on April 19th (not the usual date due to Easter) on "Law and sausages: how not to legislate for the Digital Economy." Free. 7-9pm. Contact C.Kuppuswamy@sheffield.ac.uk for details.
BILETA 2010, March 29th -30th, Vienna: speaking with Andreas Ruhmkorf of Sheffield University on web rating sites for teachers, doctors etc, and their legal issues in Europe. Fab looking programme.
Oxford Internet Institute, 12th-13th April, privacy event, no details yet.
IISS Cyber Warfare Workshop, London, 20 April 2010: speaking on cyber crime and cyberwar, legal aspects.
MY INAUGURAL LECTURE, Sheffield, May, 21st : "Anti-Social Networking" - all welcome , free, with drinks reception after; 5pm, St George's Church, . Please email if you're coming and want to let me know in advance!
A couple more events to add shortly in Edinburgh, London and Estonia - I must be mad..
Oh and
GIKII V: the Voyage Home - Edinburgh, 28th-29th June. Contact me or a.guadamuz@ed.ac.uk.
38 Degrees are trying to get 10,000 people to write to their MPs in next few days to make a real impact that might lead to a debate in the Commons over the Digital Economy Bill. I feel it is an insult to democracy as well as bad for the digital economy (sic) for this Bill to pass without effective further Commons .scrutiny. See my summary here: (now confirmed by Hansard).
I imagine many people who read this blog have already written to their MPs (though I also know some readers support the Bill, which is their opinion) - but if you oppose it and haven't, please do: a form letter can be found in various places, notably here but please do tweak it to your own ends as multiple identical letters are usually discounted by MPs.
Please write via the 38 Degrees page which can count the letters sent - it's here.
What you can also do is repost this on your own blogs, social networks etc . If you follow @OpenRightsGroup (whose Advisory Council I sit on) on Twitter you will get tweets about this which are easily re-tweetable.) Please think about doing this. The Guardian comments on the campaign here. Some MPs have already said they are going to insist on having a say. About 1-3,000 people have already written.
I have just heard that the Government has already rushed through the First Reading in the Commons and the Second Reading is being scheduled. After Second Reading it is likely Committee will be skipped, as constitutionally the Bill can then be dumped in wash-up and put through in an hour. This is how sausages are made, not laws. Which reminds me..
Upcoming speaking venues
COUNTER Conference (EC FP7 funded event) Manchester, March 23rd-24th, http://www.counter2010.org/; I am on a panel Wed 24th at 1.30 which includes Richard Miollett of the BPI and looks rather interesting .
I will be speaking at Cafe Scientifique in Sheffield at the Showroom, on April 19th (not the usual date due to Easter) on "Law and sausages: how not to legislate for the Digital Economy." Free. 7-9pm. Contact C.Kuppuswamy@sheffield.ac.uk for details.
BILETA 2010, March 29th -30th, Vienna: speaking with Andreas Ruhmkorf of Sheffield University on web rating sites for teachers, doctors etc, and their legal issues in Europe. Fab looking programme.
Oxford Internet Institute, 12th-13th April, privacy event, no details yet.
IISS Cyber Warfare Workshop, London, 20 April 2010: speaking on cyber crime and cyberwar, legal aspects.
MY INAUGURAL LECTURE, Sheffield, May, 21st : "Anti-Social Networking" - all welcome , free, with drinks reception after; 5pm, St George's Church, . Please email if you're coming and want to let me know in advance!
A couple more events to add shortly in Edinburgh, London and Estonia - I must be mad..
Oh and
GIKII V: the Voyage Home - Edinburgh, 28th-29th June. Contact me or a.guadamuz@ed.ac.uk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)