“VPN providers have unanimously condemned Netflix’s crackdown on subscribers who use so-called unblocking services. Several VPN companies have announced counter-measures, while others raise the issue of Net Neutrality, suggesting that there are better ways to tackle abuse.”
Torrentfreak: VPN Providers Condemn Netflix Blocking Crackdown »
Today the Swedish district court of Stockholm ruled that internet service providers (ISP:s) can not be forced to block out pirate sites like the Pirate Bay. (TorrentFreak» | Also in Swedish»)
But it’s still early days. Copyright holders are to appeal the verdict. However, it’s very unusual that Swedish lower courts take bold stands. This might indicate that the judicial system has found that there is a strong case against blocking.
Interestingly, yesterday the German federal court ruled in the opposite direction. (TorrentFreak» | Also in German»)
The key issue seems to be if an ISP can be considered a co-culprit of copyright infringement in relation to the EU Infosoc directive. Conflicting judgements in different member states indicate that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will have to address the issue. And this can happen soon as a Dutch court already has asked the ECJ for guidance in a similar case.
However, it is possible for a member state to have a stronger copyright protection than required in the EU directive. But this issue might also concern freedom of enterprise and freedom of speech. So there is a high level of uncertainty and confusion.
From a practical point of view, it is interesting to see that blocking out pirate sites has little or no effect on illegal filesharing. (Link 1» | Link 2»)
The bigger question is the principle that ISP:s are not responsible for what their customers are up to in their network (mere conduit). This is a well-established principle in the EU.
In comparison, telephone companies are not liable for what people might say on their phone lines; postal services are not liable for what people send in the mail; owners of roads are not liable for criminals driving around.
If ISP:s were to be responsible for their customers activities — they would have to police everything we do online. Everything. That would be practically extremely difficult and a fierce violation of privacy. (But proponents of mass surveillance often seem to see this as an opportunity to establish new points where to tap into public communications.)
/ HAX
Swedens largest film streaming site is to be taken down.
Practically all Swedish film is produced using tax payers money…
Read more: Sweden’s Largest Streaming Site Will Close After Raid »
Today a Swedish district court decided that Pirate Bay founder Fredrik Neij no longer can control the domains piratebay.se and thepiratebay.se – as they have been used for “illegal activities”.
However – the court does not give the government control over the domains. They stay with the domain top level administrator, the Punkt.se foundation.
On the one hand, it is strange that domain names can be seized. It is like if a street adress would be seized, because of illegal activities carried out there.
On the other hand, it is interesting that the court does not accept the prosecutors demand for the domain names to be handed over to the Swedish government. This still gives top domain administrators some leverage – and indicates that they are not liable for how a domain is used.
But the most important lesson to be learned from todays verdict is that we need to build a decentralised system for domain names — where they cannot be seized or taken down.
/ HAX
Read more: Key Pirate Bay Domains Must Be Seized, Court Rules »
Some days ago Wikileaks released the “dump” from the Sony hack. Among other things, we can find this piece of information…
“Finally, in regard to trade, the MPAA/MPA with the strong support of your studios, continue to advocate to governments around the world about the pressing the need for strong pro-IP trade policies such as TPP and the proposed EU/US trade agreement (TTIP).”
i) This might refer to the ISDS article of TTIP, allowing companies to sue countries who are changing laws in ways that may limit these companies future profits. In this case, suing the EU if it would reform its legal framework on copyright.
ii) It might also be a signal that TTIP will be yet another attempt to limit the freedom of the Internet — and to force Internet Service Providers to police (and be responsible for) everything their customers are up to. (Like in the ACTA treaty, that was voted down by the European Parliament.)
Probably both.
Today, copyright and “intellectual property” are concepts that are used in ways they where never intended to. They have become arguments for limiting free flow of information and free speech. They have become arguments for mass surveillance and control. And they are suffocating the free market.
Copyright must be reformed and adopted to todays markets and todays technology. But apparently Big Entertainment is doing all in its power to stop such a reform.
Finally, I love free trade. But I’m not so sure that is what trade agreements like TTIP is about. It looks more like regulations and restrictions, in many areas. And you don’t need trade agreements to have free trade. All you have to do is to open up your borders.
/ HAX
