It’s no secret that content owners are not fans of digital piracy, and for years, they’ve been trying to get someone to do something about it. In the latest round of international trade negotiations, they are on the brink of turning ISPs and governments into their private police force, with the power to monitor, warn, and potentially ban users accused of sharing protected content.
The problem is that content owners represent one side of a complex negotiation on the meaning of fair use, ownership, theft, and revenue models in the digital age. These are the folks that claim it’s illegal to rip a CD that you purchased so you can listen to it on your digital music player and who have cluttered up consumer technology with an unending stream of burdensome digital rights technologies, arbitrary restrictions (such as region-coding on DVDs), and draconian measures against violators (such as pushing out code to disable hardware with illicit modifications).
These content owners have been making their case to governments and ISPs for years, but neither entity has shown much appetite to get in the middle of a civil dispute between the content owners and their customers. Now, content owners are pursuing a new tactic: They are actively looking for ways to smuggle their maximalist position on IP restrictions for average consumers into legislative efforts designed to fight counterfeiting and large-scale illicit distribution of pirated materials.
Several weeks ago, news broke
on the popular tech-culture site Boing Boing that the U.S. was in secret negotiations with foreign governments on an international trade agreement called ACTA -- the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement -- that would write these kinds of restrictions into treaties that take precedence over domestic laws.
This incited a predictable firestorm on the part of online rights and policy advocacy groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation , which is determined to “stop the ACTA juggernaut” before it rolls over every notion of fair use and stamps out any online innovation that could in any way be construed as violating somebody’s intellectual property rights.
The whole “secret negotiations” thing carried the faint whiff of conspiracy theory. But even paranoids have real enemies.
Last week, the British government announced plans to enact extremely broad anti-piracy measures. The proposed Digital Economy Bill is part of the government’s ongoing efforts to modernize Britain’s legal framework for the 21st century, and it requires ISPs to forward warning letters from copyright holders to subscribers and keep anonymized lists of accused pirates.
The joker in the deck comes in the form of “reserve powers” delegated to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, and Skills (a post currently held by Peter Mandelson, a main proponent of ACTA on the British negotiating team). These powers, which can be exercised at the Secretary’s discretion without further act of Parliament, are written in terms broad enough to include anything from monetary fines to bandwidth throttling to suspending the accounts of accused pirates.
While the current government has bent over backwards to reassure a wary public that they will “ensure that the interests of consumers are properly recognized,” there is nothing in the language of the proposed legislation to prevent the government from acting as digital executioner, pulling the plug on anyone that content owners claim -- without burden of proof or due process -- violates their absolute rights of ownership.
This measure, by the way, comes from the ostensibly Liberal party in the U.K., which has pursued it in a rather illiberal and opaque manner, preventing even the government’s own experts from having a look at the law until it was introduced in the House of Lords.
If the bill passes -- and it is a high priority of the government to see that it does -- it potentially settles all outstanding and controversial issues of intellectual property conclusively in favor of IP owners and gives them unlimited and unaccountable power over the online lives of citizens. It will also be a preview of how the IP climate might change everywhere if ACTA becomes international law.
I agree that it is a somewhat complicated issue, complicated mainly by what is defined as fair use of a digital product.
I also agree that it is unlikely that someone who would watch the borrowed DVD would be willing to pay the owned price of it just to watch it.
Do you see any movement toward reason in this area? It does seem a bit tedious to try to figure out what the copyright entails, (beyond blatent digital ripping to sell at the flea market)
One thing that makes digital piracy confusing is that there are several issues going under the same name. On one hand, there's commercial piracy of content - people who record or copy digital media, then sell it (maybe on the street, as a $3 DVD of a movie that just released in theatres). This is usually a large-scale business where people are making money off stolen content, straight up. It's a big problem, especially in low-income countries where most people can't afford legal versions of content; it also pours money into organized crime rings that are generally involved in other unsavory activities. It needs to be stopped, and international efforts to prevent it at the technical, legal, and law-enforcement level are welcome, IMO.
The other issue is duplication and "sharing" of copyrighted digital content for personal, non-commerical use. Speaking as a consumer, and also as an author with books in print, this is a much muddier area. If I buy a DVD for $15, am I allowed to loan it to my friends? Can I have a movie-night for 15 friends at my house? How about ripping a copy for my iPod to watch at the gym? What about leaving it on a folder that is shared on a P2P network, so others can download a version for themselves to watch or sample?
The content owners want every person who sees the content to pay them $15 or whatever, then pay them again if they want to reuse the content in some other way or format. Of course they do. They're in business to make money. So they want the most odious and stringent rules in place to control consumer behavior, on the flawed theory that anyone who would watch their content for free would also be willing to pay list-price for it. IMO, that's a much more complex negotiation.
What's happening is that the content owners are trying to avoid negotiating with leigitimate parties (e.g., their customers) over these tricky issues of personal use and non-commercial sharing, under the guise of combatting the legitimate problem of large-scale commercial piracy. Perhaps secrecy is appropriate when dealing with genuine law-enforcement issues and international organized crime, but it's much more of a problem when government and large IP-owning corporations are conspiring behind closed doors against consumers engaging in behaviors that simply do not rise to the level of illegality relative to the penalties that the authorities would like to impose.
I dont know why anyone would want to live in the UK anymore???Super-High Taxes,**edited** governance and no Freedom or privacy to speak of .
Ashish, could you do me a favor? I read this site at work. The language I edited out makes it difficult to justify even the few minutes I exercise in doing so. I'd really appreciate consideration that posts here could be accessed at work, and that we keep the language on a professional, business-proper level. Thanks.
As for your point, I see way too many indications in other nations, the USA especially since that's my residence, to think this unique to the UK. they may perhaps be a few steps out in front in this attack on individual liberties and rights, but there's a scary amount of lock-step effort in the USA. And it's not limited to just one political party.
Even if ACTA comes in force;the chances of enforcing it are close to NIL;especially in jurisdictions like China,Russia,The Ukraine and across most of Africa.
As for the UK -they have always had the most Privacy invasive force in the world.If you live and are a UK citizen-You have to accept that you have no Privacy.Its a fact of life.
I dont know why anyone would want to live in the UK anymore???Super-High Taxes,Shitty governance and no Freedom or privacy to speak of .
This current administration made some big promises about transparency and open, honest dealing. I do understand the need for secrecy in the name of national security, but that should be operational secrecy, not legislative secrecy. The US government is supposed to be representative of the will of the people. If they shut the people out, who are they really representing?
International piracy laws need to be focused on the producers of the pirated goods, not the consumers. Soccer mom should not lose her house because Johnny downloaded bit torrent movies a couple of times. Without having a voice or at least an advocate for the consumer, corporate business will be dictating our legislation.
You're correct that the French three-strikes law was overturned by their Constitutional Council. thanks for reminding me, because I'd forgotten that. I think it's relevant to point out, however, that French President Sarkozy supported the passage of this law, and even got "pass it, or I'll resign" support from the then-Culture Minister Christine Albanel (I never checked back up to see if the Council's ruling convinced her to follow through as if the law had not passed).
Still, the fact that it had such ardent support from the government, and appears to have similar support in Britain and the USA, is a very telling indictment when it comes to individual rights and liberties, and how all Western governments seem intent upon damage to same.
Sorry. My comment was directed at Robsalk. And I failed to notice my shortening of his name was also a shortening of your name. But the statement about secrecy was pionted at your comment.
So, in response:
Not only that, but privateering laws providing for keeping the booty from such action, too. I'm not necessarily against such consequences, frankly. When copyright, and cybersecurity, is legitimately violated, I'm all for a "throw the book at 'em" attitude. More, even. The consequences *should* be harsh.
I agree onsequences should be harsh. But they must be comensurate with the severity of the crime (You don't banrupt families for making a copy of a movie). And you don't leave prosecutrion ands punishment to the company.That is vengence, not justice.Those privateer laws gave the corp power of execution, without court involvement.
Also I was unaware that France had revitalized their 3 strikes law. I had read it was overturned by their high court. And thought that was the end of it.
If such an insinuation came from me then I apologize. I intended no such generic a message. I was and am speaking more narrowly than that.
I'm sorry. I took your statement at face value. I am used to extreme positions on what is and what is not "A FREE SOCIETY." The government has a right and a need to keep secrets. But not about what constitutes a law, it's definition, and violations of the secret law being prosecuted.
Last. But, not least. I'm ot intending to change your or anyones opinions. Just stating my own opinions.
WHEW! I'm glad you could read through some of my typos! Fat-finger is a chronic condition with me. :)
The East India Trading Company, and other 18th century commercial enterprises were given carte blanc to deal as they felt proper with the pirates of that day.
Not only that, but privateering laws providing for keeping the booty from such action, too. I'm not necessarily against such consequences, frankly. When copyright, and cybersecurity, is legitimately violated, I'm all for a "throw the book at 'em" attitude. More, even. The consequences *should* be harsh.
It does not logically follow, however, that this means we should surrender Fair Use, First Sale, and a host of other rights that copyright has historically provided to us, in order to make life easier for the holders of Intellectual Property.
But recent events in the European Union, have been moving in favor of the pirates. I believe there will be a more sane attitude adopted globally.
I would be more inclined to agree were I not aware of the "Three Strikes" law already on the books in France.
Also, I take great umberage to some of the comments that insinuate there is no good (genuine, pure, honest) reaon to want to keep a secret.
If such an insinuation came from me then I apologize. I intended no such generic a message. I was and am speaking more narrowly than that.
I am speaking specifically to the two legislative matters discussed in this conversation, and to their analogues in the USA. We already have a clear-cut case of this allegedly "progressive" executive administration in the USA trying to dictate to The Press what is and is not a "legitimate" news organization. To then provide executive power, by simple decree, the ability to shut down Internet Communications? In that particular context, unbrage or not, I don't believe secrecy is in anyone's interest who seeks free and open society.
Likewise with ACTA. How can the populace be shut out, corporate interests be given a seat at the (proverbial or literal) table, and then Copyright is somehow to be governed as a state secret? Once again, anyone's umbrage (if any) will not change my firm conviction that secrecy in this matter has no place in a free and open society. And is not being done to server the interests of the same.
Very interesting and thought provoking material. But Brit laws giving corporations an open season on pirates is not a new concept. The East India Trading Company, and other 18th century commercial enterprises were given carte blanc to deal as they felt proper with the pirates of that day.
But recent events in the European Union, have been moving in favor of the pirates. I believe there will be a more sane attitude adopted globally.
Also, I take great umberage to some of the comments that insinuate there is no good (genuine, pure, honest) reaon to want to keep a secret.
Methods of securing cyberspace, that's a complicated subject. Copyright, that's a complicated subject.
Undue secrecy, that's simple. One engages in such suecrecy only because one has something to hide. And, in this case, that bodes very, very ill for the common man.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Earlier this month, I came into possession of a used Xbox console that I planned, with all due sincerity, to use exclusively as a “media center extender” to get music and movies from the PC in my office downstairs onto the TV in our bedroom.
If your Facebook friends are deadbeats, it might be harder for you to get a credit card or mortgage, according to a recent report on the banking industry site, CreditCards.com.
The ground had barely stopped trembling under Port-au-Prince when the first tweets started coming in. The 7.0 magnitude earthquake that devastated Haiti on January 12 is turning out to be another grim proving ground for a new mode of crisis management that coordinates responses through social media.
Usually a little imprecision in business intelligence systems costs companies a few dollars. Last month, a BI failure nearly cost hundreds of airline passengers their lives.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you listen to the hype, clouds are everywhere. But if you look at the data, it turns out most customers say they still wouldn't use cloud computing for mission-critical apps or data. What's holding them back? Fritz investigates.
With the number of mobile broadband users more than doubling in 2009, and soon to exceed fixed broadband, the Internet saw a historic transition this year – and the long-term effects are incalculable.
In 2010, telecom executives should put their words into action when it comes to their Internet development strategies and, um... hire a bunch of children. Or so says our European correspondent.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
