Links to need pre-clearance?

This is worrisome…

(A) Hamburg court ruled that the operator of a website violated on copyright by publishing a link to material that was infringing, even though the site operator was unaware of this fact.

Ars Technica: Commercial sites must check all their links for piracy, rules Hamburg court »

Pre-clearing all links with the linked websites would be a very complicated and time-consuming task – for both parties. Not to mention all the paperwork to document this, to avoid future problems.

And exactly what constitutes a »commercial site«?

The Hamburg court ruled that even though the link in question was not used to generate revenue directly, the site as a whole was commercial, since it sells learning materials via one of its Web pages.

So – I guess – if you have ads on your site, if you sell stuff or if you lead your readers to anything of commercial interest (like services that you provide) the purpose can be deemed »commercial«. This resulting in most sites on the net falling into this category.

This is leading to a very real dilemma. Links are the nerve system of the Internet. Most site owners would love to have you link to their pages. And for reference, an open and democratic debate and knowledge building links are essential. (Like in this blog post.)

But according to the Hamburg court, you can get in serious trouble if you don’t obtain a pre-clearance.

Even if you have the time and resources to pre-clear every link – it is likely that people running the sites you would like to link to simply do not have the resources to reply to every request to link.

So if you run a blog or a site that you want people to link to, you better state that it is published under Creative Commons license CC=BY or CC=0.

/ HAX

In France, your Internet history can send you to jail

The contents of your internet history are more than enough to send you to jail in France. A French man has been sentenced to two years in jail for visiting terrorist websites. According to French sources, the 32-year-old man, whose name is not yet released, had been regularly visiting pro-ISIS websites for two years. On top of the two year sentence, the man will also need to pay a 30,000 Euro fine.

A French man has been sentenced to two years in jail because of the contents of his internet history »

A word of warning on piracy filters

A group of prominent legal scholars has warned that the EU Commission’s plans to modernize copyright law in Europe appear to be incompatible with EU law. One of the main problems is the mandatory piracy filter Internet services are required to use, which largely ignore existing case law and human rights.

TorrentFreak: Mandatory Piracy Filters May Violate EU Law, Scholars Warn »

Will Facebook destroy the Internet?

Something like Facebook could never have emerged within Facebook. It needed an open web within which to gestate.

Despite this, Facebook is taking conscious efforts — like Free Basics — to destroy the open web. It’s destroying the very environment that made its own existence possible.

Quincy Larson @ FreeCodeCamp: I can’t just stand by and watch Mark Zuckerberg destroy the internet »

Falkvinge on net neutrality

Net neutrality should not even be a debate. Any market actor who abuses their customers and trust to the level of not respecting net neutrality, on a functioning market, will be dropped like a bad habit. Therefore, the mere existence of a net neutrality debate is a symptom of something much worse: the existence of gatekeepers. That’s the underlying problem that needs to be solved.

Falkvinge: Net neutrality shouldn’t be a debate – it’s a symptom of something worse: gatekeepers »

EU in new attempt to make ISP:s police and censor the Internet

Joe McNamee, EDRi: EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of free speech »

The proposed Directive:
1) requires internet companies to install filtering technology to prevent the upload of content that has been “identified by rightsholders”
2) seeks to make internet providers responsible for their users’ uploads
3) gives internet users no meaningful protection from unfair deletion of their creations

So, ISP:s will have to check on all content uploaded by users – i.e. scrutinize everything that is uploaded to the Internet.

What is to be allowed or censored will not be a matter of rule of law – but falls under company terms and conditions that can state… whatever.

There will be no legal means of redress or appeal.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information will be in the hands of ISP:s who are to be liable for all user uploads. There is good reason to fear that these companies will be overly anxious and cautious – censoring everything with even a remote possibility of being an infringement of copyright.

This is yet another attempt to get around the eCommerce-directives principle of »mere conduit« stating that net operators can not be liable for what users are doing in their cables.

And imagine the burden on the ISP:s, having to police all of the users net activities.

This proposal is an assault on »mere conduit«, free speech, privacy and the rule of law. It must be stopped.

/ HAX

EDRi on censorship of free speech in the EU

EDRi on the EU agreement with social media to censor e.g. hate speech and radicalization, the »Joint Referral Platform«…

Both incitement to violence and violence itself are utterly unacceptable. However, this abhorrent behaviour must also not result in attacks on core principles of our society. In particular, any restrictions must be proportionate, necessary and genuinely meet their objectives. This means that we need clear laws and clear responsibilities for all parties involved: states, providers and civil society. (…)

The restrictions are not provided for by law ‒ terms of service take precedence. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the German parliamentary question, the proportionality cannot be assessed as the State is not in possession of useful data.

EDRi FAQ: EU Code of Conduct on illegal hate speech »

The end of Elites?

The defining characteristics of Elites have traditionally been threefold. The first is their institutionalised access to information. The second, their exercise of influence. Thirdly, they controlled opinion and expertise in the public sphere.

Now, we’re seeing the demise of these three assets – and with them the demise of the establishment. It’s clear that we’re in the middle of a seismic change to the way information, influence and control is spread within society.

Huffington Post: The End Of Elites? How Technology Is Killing The Man »