The Olympics Committee has always been restrictive in who can use what footage and when, but a couple new rules introduced for the 2016 games take things even further. The official social media guidelines now prohibit streaming apps, Vines, and even the lowly GIF.
Techcrunch: Latest Olympics media rules nix GIFs, Vines, and streaming apps »
Germany and Spain introduced in their legislation what some people call a “Google tax”. The idea came from the publishers. They claimed the right to get an additional copyright, “ancillary copyright”, on any news that are published online. The idea of this “tax” (that is actually not a tax) was to charge the online news sites who publish news snippets, short extracts of news, such as Google News. Even if the main target of publishers was Google News, the laws affect other similar services, for example meneame in Spain. Ultimately it could even undermine the whole concept of links to information.
The result of this “Google tax” was a complete failure: Google decided to close Google News in Spain, while in Germany everyone except Google ended up paying the “tax”. Now, even after these clear failures, the European Commission (EC) is determined to make this error a European one; it’s considering implementing the ancillary copyright everywhere in the European Union (EU) – and on an even bigger scale than in Spain and Germany.
The copyright protection term in the EU is currently 70 years after the author’s death. Several international agreements regulating copyright (such as Berne Convention and TRIPS agreement) suggest a significantly shorter protection term.
It is arguable how long copyright protection for authors, decades after their death, helps fostering economic growth. Most books go out of print within one year from their initial publication, and the same applies to music and films. The vast majority of works are not profitable for much longer. When it isn’t financially beneficial for the rights holders to print new editions of old books, but they are still under copyright protection, nobody else can publish them either. Because of this, many cultural works end up simply disappearing.
EDRi: Excessive copyright protection term killing creativity and access to culture »
Privatised law enforcement undermines democracy and creates serious risks for fundamental rights, particularly for freedom of expression. Despite this, in current copyright debates, the focus is far too often on how private companies should police the internet, not on the need of a copyright reform.
Internet companies will always take the easiest option. If they fear laws, punishment or bad publicity, it’s always easier and safer for them to delete legal content along with possibly unauthorised or illegal content, just in case.
EDRi: Copyfail #3 – Google and Facebook becoming the Internet police force »
Monica Hortens new book The Closing of the Net is now available.
In a mail to colleagues, fans and friends she writes…
I am delighted to announce that my new book “The Closing of the Net” has been released.
“The Closing of the Net” discusses how political decisions are influencing the future direction of Internet communication. As the interests of powerful businesses are manipulating governments and policymakers, and become more embedded in the online world, so these corporations seek greater exemption from liability. The book confronts the deepening cooperation between large companies and the state. Political manoeuvrings, it argues, suggest that the original vision of a free and democratic Internet is rapidly being eclipsed by a closed, market-led, heavily monitored online ecosystem. “The Closing of the Net” tackles the controversies surrounding individual rights today, addressing policy agendas such as net neutrality, copyright and privacy. It includes research that I have not previously published on topics including Megaupload, the EU Data Retention Directive, UK copyright lawsuits, and more.
“The Closing of the Net” is published by Polity Press http://tinyurl.com/zhqz5j6 and is available from Amazon http://amzn.to/1S6zxJ7 It has been described as “thriller-esque”! I do hope you enjoy it.
Monica Horten gave us a lot of important input about the Telecoms Package and other net oriented dossiers when I worked with the Pirate Party in the European Parliament.
Germany’s ruling coalition has decided to abolish the liability for users’ copyright infringements and other behavior when operating an open wi-fi access point. This weird and anachronistic liability has seriously hampered the organic net growth in Germany, and was recently challenged at the European level. The revised law is expected to take effect as early as this fall.
Falkvinge – Finally: Germany to abolish open wi-fi liability for users’ behavior »
“Reading between the lines, it would seem that the United States negotiators are being heavied by their IP industries to push for stronger measures on IPR enforcement. This would be consistent with the industry lobbying on the previous attempt for an EU-US copyright treaty – known as ACTA or Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It is also consistent with the intensity of the relationship between the lead US negotiating body, the United States Trae Representative (USTR) and representatiives of the US entertainment industries – notably the Motion picture Association of America (MPAA).
A suggestion that is hinted at by the EU negotiators is a new IPR Committee. It is not clear where such a committee would be based, or what its role is, but we can safely assume that it will incorporate the interests of the US corporations who seek to influence EU policy.”
Monica Horten at IPTegrity.com – TTIP leaks: US warned on sensitive IPR issues »
In relation to the real motivation behind the privatised censorship proposals (copyright), the draft talks about platforms “which make available copyright-protected content uploaded by end-users”. The wording is very deliberate. While the E-Commerce Directive gives liability protection to hosting companies that passively host content on behalf of their users, “making available” is an active use of content for which the rightsowner has a “exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public”. As a result, any “making available” by online platforms without prior consent of the rightsholder would be a breach of copyright, for which the platform would be liable. The only option for being liable for a “making available” by your customers is to subject any uploads to prior checking, filtering and/or takedown in cases of doubt. Online platforms already delete vast amounts of perfectly legal content uploaded by users, so this new incentive would make the situation even worse.
EDRi: Leaked EU Communication – Part 1: Privatised censorship and surveillance »
It was a little-noticed story in the Entertainment and Oddities section: The GCHQ is using its spying network to help the copyright industry prevent “unauthorized distribution of creative works” – meaning ordinary people sharing interesting things with each other. Yes, that spying network which was supposed to prevent horrible terror attacks, and only to prevent horrible terror attacks, to safeguard our very lives as a last line of defense, is now in the service of the copyright industry.
Rick Falkvinge: So GCHQ is already spying on behalf of the copyright industry. Why isn’t there an outcry over this change of mission? »
The U.S. broadband association USTelecom, a trade association representing many ISPs, is taking a stand against abusive takedown notices and a recent push to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. They argue that ISPs are not required to pass on takedown notices and stress that their subscribers shouldn’t lose Internet access based solely on copyright holder complaints.
TorrentFreak: U.S. ISPs Refuse to Disconnect Persistent Pirates »
