I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them - George Bush
|
|
|
Lib Dems cock up on digital freedom
WHILE THE LIB DEMS are celebrating embarrassing the Government over Lord Mandelson's controversial Digital Economy Bill, they seem to have cocked up as far as the rights of ordinary people are concerned.
The Liberal Democrats forced through a surprise amendment to the Bill's notorious clause 17 or "three strikes and you're out" clause. Instead of sweeping new powers that threatened major alterations to British copyright law, the Lib Dems added a clause that gives extra oversight to the high court.
The new proposal, passed in the House of Lords by 165 votes to 140, gives a bewigged one the right to issue an injunction against a website accused of hosting a "substantial" amount of copyright infringing material, potentially forcing the entire site offline.
Lib Dem peer Lord Clement-Jones said that it would end concerns over the so-called "three strikes" rule.
"This is going to send a powerful message to our creative industries that we value what they do, that we want to protect what they do, that we do not believe in censoring the Internet but we are responding to genuine concerns," he said.
However, Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group said that the Lib Dems just handed more power to the copyright industries than they could ever dream of. Individuals and small businesses would be open to massive "copyright attacks" that could shut them down with a soliciter's letter.
The amendment is dangerously close to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been accused of encouraging companies to file bogus copyright claims to block material they dislike, he warned.
Lilian Edwards, a cyberlaw expert at Sheffield University, told the Guardian that that the new proposals had sweeping downsides. One of them being that Sony and the rest can now go to court and demand that every ISP in the UK block Youtube.
Although the Lib Dems believed that by throwing something in front of a court it will be fair, open and balanced, the reality of the situation is that it will be expensive threatening letters.
"This is essentially legislation for cover [of] extralegal censorship for the benefit of entrenched private interests," she warned.
We don't blame the Lib Dems for accidentally falling for the content industries' cunning plan. They have been shouting at people loudly for some months and after a while you get brainwashed into believing that they are right.
Lord Puttnam said that the scheme was being rushed through Parliament without sufficient scrutiny, and that legislators were subject to an "extraordinary degree of lobbying" from copyright holders. In Parliamentary speak, lobbying can mean anything from threats to paying cash into party funds.
The Lords will send the Bill back to Parliament and perhaps by then saner minds will have worked out a better way. But we don't hold out much hope. It is election year and with their expenses scams all exposed MPs have to find another way of funding their campaigns. µ
Share this:
Share
This whole orphaned works 'need to be published' myth is just away to try and get the small publisher/individual to have to pay someone for their currently preserved rights.
The Murdochs of this world will be more than happy to publish rare books and pay the copyright owner the same for a Lindisfarne Bible as they would for some Dan Brown keyboard diarrhoea -after a reasonable search. This bill, like Googles land grab, may look good at first glance but is really the most pernicious legalised theft since the enclosures act.
All that scaremongering just makes you sound like you have an axe to grind. Wild exaggeration doesnt strengthen your case, it actually undermines it.
The Act explicitly states that a work is only considered "orphaned" if reasonable efforts fail to reveal the owner. I appreciate that it is difficult to imagine anyone being reasonable these days, but nevertheless.
It is *highly* unlikely that using works of unknown provenance without even the most cursory effort to track down the owner would be considered "reasonable".
If somebody has told you otherwise, it may be that *they* have an axe to grind. Mayhap it would be interesting to examine their motives.
Not implyin nothin, just sayin.
Typical liberal democrats, lets hope no one votes for a party that takes back handers from the film and music industry. Sony is big enough to look after themselves without laws being invented for them.
There's other aspects of the DEB I'd love to see you investigate - namely the Ophan Works part of DEB.
An Orphan Work is essentially a photograph where the original photographer can't be identified.
If a publisher can't find who created a photograph though a "reasonable search" (reasonable is undefined) then they can simply pay a central body a small fee for the rights to use the work.
The gov gets a cut - lord knows why, greed I expect - some goes to the central body while the rest is held in case the 'tog ever comes looking.
Naturally the amounts are a pittance compared to what a 'tog could reasonably expect.
With photography it's VERY easy to create Orphaned Works. Strip out the EXIF and remove the watermark. Job done. Takes about 30 seconds. Strangely the government isn't making this a crime - sure the dude who Orphaned the photograph is committing copyright infringement but the final publisher won't have to bat an eye!
This bill was been lobbied by Rupert "Arsehole" Murdoch and cronies although I guess it's a boon for other papers too - I wonder if that's why we hardly hear anything about it.