Rick Falkvinge: Would you like this hypothetical telecom regulator to head up ICANN? »
Category: Internet
Enter: Ethereum
ECJ to rule that providing open internet connection is not a crime?
In a recommendation the Advocate General to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) states that business who provide free, open Wi-Fi to customers should not be responsible for copyright infringements carried out on their network.
But there might still be national restrictions. Glyn Moody at ArsTechnica:
However, the Advocate General ruled that national courts may issue injunctions against the provider of free Wi-Fi services in the case of copyright infringement provided they are “particular, effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and “that they are aimed at bringing a specific infringement to an end, and do not entail a general obligation to monitor.” Moreover, courts must strike a fair balance between “freedom of expression and information and the freedom to conduct business, as well as the right to the protection of intellectual property.”
The Advocate General goes on saying that there need to be no obligation to secure an open network with a password. It might even be possible that a shop or a café providing open Wi-Fi might be covered by the mere conduit principle. (Under the mere conduit principle of the EU E-Commerce Regulations of 2002, network operators have no legal liability for the consequences of traffic delivered via their networks.)
Now it is up to the ECJ to draw its final conclusions. But the court normally rules in line with the Advocate Generals recommendations.
This is good news for an open, creative society where people work and use their devices in public establishments. Providing free internet connection should not be a crime.
ArsTechnica: Free Wi-Fi providers not liable for user’s piracy, says top EU court lawyer »
/ HAX
Back to the future
IPRED 2 in the works — have your say
IPRED — the EU Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive — was highly criticised when introduced. It gave IPR holders wider rights to go after e.g. illegal filesharers than the police, skewing the legal system in favour of the industry. (But even then, IPRED has never been really effective.)
In 2014, the Italian EU presidency announced its’ plans to beef up IPRED. On this blog, I quoted the reaction from Brussels-based NGO EDRi on the matter…
“However, having established that the current legislative framework is not fit for purpose, the best thing that the Presidency can think of proposing is to expand and deepen the failed, not fit for purpose enforcement measures that are currently in force. The Italians apparently hope that, if they do the same thing over and over again, different results will be produced.”
But such objections do not discourage Brussels. The political process continues.
Preparing IPRED 2 the European Commission now has launched a consultation (normally being the first step for new or revised legislation). Once again EDRi explains it best…
“Injunctions, internet blocking, blackmailing of individuals accused of unauthorized peer-to-peer filesharing – the so-called IPRED Directive has been very controversial. Now, the European Commission has launched a consultation on the Directive (whose full name is Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED) in the online environment).”
“The consultation is of great importance not only to those working on copyright or “intellectual property rights” in general, but in fact crucial to anyone using the Internet. This consultation covers to how private companies should or should not be involved in law enforcement online – for example by removing your online content in case it might include copyrighted material. It also covers the range of internet intermediaries that could or should be subject to legal obligations to undertake law enforcement activities.”
This consultation is open for everyone to respond to. And as political processes are easier to influence the earlier you get into them, this is an opportunity that should not be missed.
In order to make it easier for individuals to answer the consultation, EDRi has created an “answering guide” – an online tool with the European Commission’s questions and our analysis to guide your responses. The answering guide can be found here: http://youcan.fixcopyright.eu/limesurvey/index.php/829127?lang=en
Please get involved. Your reactions can shape the future of the Internet.
And a big thank you to EDRi for hacking the political system — analyzing, explaining and opening up the process for everyone to participate.
/ HAX
China to tighten control over online content
The ruling Chinese Communist Party has announced new regulations that will ban foreign companies from publishing online media, games and other “creative” content within China’s borders from next month.
The “Regulations for the management of online publishing services” also ban foreign-invested joint ventures from engaging in online content provision, according to a copy of the rules posted on the official website of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.
And any Chinese companies wishing to produce online creative content, including audio, video, games and animations, must first seek official approval from the country’s media regulator.
This is big news — changing the situation in China from bad to worse.
UK one step closer to ban anonymous porn surfing
With a public consultation, the British government now is one step closer to demanding age verification at internet porn sites.
This is a bad idea in itself. But what makes it even worse is that it will make anonymous porn surfing impossible (at least for the not so tech-enlightened).
BBC: Government launches porn site age checks consultation »
First of all, is it at all wise to ban people under the age of 18 from watching porn online? After all, they are allowed to enjoy sexual activities from the age of 16. But they shouldn’t be allowed to see depictions of other people fucking? Really?
Second, there is a strong case for anonymous porn surfing: Many people might want to explore alternatives to heterosexual missionary position sex. But they might not want the government, the ISP:s, the credit card companies or the site owners to know about it. And rightly so. People have a right to sexual privacy.
My third objection is about security. One of the options in the consultation is that people should have to check in to porn sites (even free porn sites) by using their credit card. Thus exposing themselves to obvious risks. This way porn sites (real ones, that can be hacked and fake ones, set up for skimming) will become a very popular tool for credit card fraud.
The whole project will become a morass of unintended and unwanted consequences.
/ HAX
Sweden to censor the Internet?
Is Sweden to join the likes of Turkey, China and Cuba?
It turns out that the Swedish government is looking into the possibility to censor non-licensed online gambling sites.
The pretext is the health and safety of the Swedish people. But the real reason is rather glaring: Money.
The state-owned national gambling company, Svenska Spel, sends a lot of money to the treasure. But that’s just the beginning. Let’s follow the money.
The Social Democrats, who are in government at present, are also the owners of one of the few licensed Swedish gambling companies, A-lotterierna. From this, the party pockets some five million euros a year.
Furthermore, the Swedish foreign minister — Margot Wallström — was recruited from a senior policy position at another licensed gambling company, Postkodlotteriet. This company has been sending millions of euros to the Clinton Foundation. Just between friends.
So, of course, the Swedish government doesn’t want the Swedish people to go to other, foreign gambling sites. The money should stay in the country, preferably in Party hands.
This is preposterous.
So the idea, now being aired, is to block access to all non-licensed gambling sites. (And there are quite a few in the world.)
Opening the doors for Internet censorship — what could possibly go wrong?
I can imagine the ruling political class could fancy blocking quite a few sites that annoys it, if that option becomes available.
Swedish Internet censorship is still under consideration. Now, the civil rights movement will have to sound the alarm and try to stop the idea before it reaches Parliament.
The Swedish government also has a plan B: To block payments to non-licensed gambling companies.
That also is a terrible idea, but in a different way.
/ HAX
VPN providers vs. Netflix
“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 »
Free flow of information is a facilitator of democracy
During the cold war, the Soviet Union deployed radio jammers in the bay of the Baltic Sea between Finland and Estonia. The purpose was to limit people’s access to Finnish television in the then Soviet Baltic states.
It didn’t work. When Finnish television aired the soft porn movie Emanuelle, the streets of Estonian capital Tallin were empty. And after every episode of Dallas, people in northern Estonia kept friends and relatives in other parts of the country up to date with the doings of JR & Co by mail. (There is a very interesting and amusing film about this, Disco and Atomic War.)
When the Berlin Wall fell, people in the GDR had a rather good picture of life in the west from radio and television, transmitted from the BRD and West Berlin. And they knew that the world was watching and supporting the change that was going on.
Free flow of information is a facilitator of democracy.
Today, we have the Internet. It’s global, it’s instant and even in places where the regimes try to build digital walls, there are often ways to connect to the global network.
The Internet is as important for people who live under political and religious oppression today, as radio and television were during the cold war.
With access to strong encryption and other tools, the Internet also allows people within such countries to communicate in a relatively safe way with each other. This is essential to build a democratic opposition, enable activism and build alternate structures.
It has turned out that it is very difficult to introduce and uphold democracy by military means. And the Arabian Spring shows that freedom and democracy cannot be won overnight. It is a frustratingly slow process, that frequently backfires. But to succeed it is essential that people in totalitarian and failed states can find support, inspiration and good examples from us in the (relatively) free world.
The fight for a free and open internet is not only about our freedom and privacy. It’s about a democratic and peaceful world.