There are no shortage of Swedish citizens irate over what happened with the admins of The Pirate Bay during the “spectrial”. Even though the admins cannot appeal the judicial review that decided that the judge in the Pirate Bay spectrial was not biased, the story is far from over at this point in time. It seems that a debate has re-emerged where many key players in the Swedish justice system are debating whether organization affiliations should be questioned prior to a case. It’s interesting to know that this debate isn’t new, and the high profile case has re-energized that debate.

While the debate is going on, the admins of The Pirate Bay are currently considering pressing charges against Sweden in the European court of Human Rights.

“And it should also be noted that Anders Eka,” The Pirate Bay wrote in their blog, “the guy with the final decision that is not appealable, heads in an immaterial rights organisation as Peter Drowsky and Monique Wasted, the MPAA and Ifpi-lawyers. However, he does not feel that working together with the lawyers that enjoys this decision the most has an impact on his decision or that he might be biased himself…”

“Tomorrow,” they added, “we will probably file charges against the swedish legal system to the european court of human rights.”

One admin from The Pirate Bay said at one point that he simply Googled the judges for their affiliations and found them to be affiliated with pro-copyright organizations within minutes.

We haven’t yet found any formal documents that suggest that charges have been filed yet.

Still, while the trial of the Pirate Bay admins is a high profile case, that isn’t the only one fuelling anger. Another key case in the copyright debate in Sweden is also making some waves as well. According to The Local, publishers have recently tested the new anti-filesharing law by demanding that customer information be handed over from the ISP. Ephone resisted, so the Publishers took the issue to court and got the Swedish court to force the ISP to divulge the information.

Having the legal means to force an ISP to divulge customer information via an IP-address is a key step in the waves of lawsuits seen in the United States (which has seen over 35,000 lawsuits against alleged file-sharers) If that weren’t possible, the United States would not have seen all these lawsuits against file-sharers in the first place. It’s unclear whether or not waves as seen in the United States or Britain will be seen in Sweden, but this case suggests that it is now possible to sue alleged file-sharers en-mass in Sweden now.

Two court cases later and now the whole Swedish justice system is now under the gun by many. Imagine what would happen if more file-sharers receive legal threats.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

There’s an international movement afoot to get ISPs to more closely monitor their networks and the traffic that flows through it. On the international stage, questions are being raised over ISP or DNS blacklists, ISP level surveillance and data retention. Since no human is perfect, does these new expansions in powers around the world also increase the potential for abuse as well?

The editorial in the National Post comments on the repeated themes on how legislation like warrantless wiretapping was pushed forward in the past. In Canada, it’s the repeated themes of how this is suppose to help save the children from online predators. In North America, there’s also that theme of how it’s suppose to somehow help fight terrorism. The editorial article comments on how such arguments are weak while defending the broadening of surveillance in Canada.

Meanwhile, the Ottawa Citizen echoed those sentiments and also notes how in any given gathering, there are those who are present for less than ideal reasons. Not only this, but also puts forth the question, since when do judges block a police investigation on a regular basis and prevents them from getting a warrant in the first place? The editorial suggests that apologists for the surveillance legislation has yet to provide such evidence and concludes that given another Conservative member had issues with the Google van taking pictures around neighbourhoods for their Street View project (they were definitely questioned in committee over privacy concerns) and given that the Safety Minister is pushing for surveillance legislation that would diminish privacy much more severely than any fleet of vans with 360 degree cameras ever could, the party that argues for small government is sending mixed messages to the public.

There was another theme both editorials conveyed which has been an underlying issue ever since the legislation was tabled, the fact that the minister who tabled the legislation was the same minister who, in a different time, promised to not expand surveillance powers and have such surveillance laws forgo the need of a warrant. Was this part of the political deal when Canadians saw their election postponed to at least the Fall? Who knows. At the very least, though, a backtrack is a backtrack and for the months leading up to the tabling of the legislation, the Liberal party has continually pushed to have surveillance legislation tabled in the House of Commons (Just use Google to search through the Hansard for things like ‘modernization’, ‘2008′, ‘2009′ and ‘investigation techniques’) With support from both the Liberal party and the Conservative party, the legislation is pretty much guaranteed to pass save for another election.

But what of the fears that this opens the floodgates for abuse? The legislation does, indeed, call for the installation of surveillance technology on the ISPs in Canada. We’ve looked through Bill C-46 and Bill C-47 to find that out. While the editorials have pointed to evidence in Canada that police are actually prone to doing less than legal things (one pointed to unauthorized plate checking for one) However, we also know that, internationally speaking, when things like ISP level wiretapping occur, not only has it opened the floodgates for abuse in the legal and law enforcement sphere, but it also opened the floodgates for abuse in the commercial sphere as well.

We begin our look at the country that is geographically closest to Canada. The neighbours to the south. The United States where it has appeared that the debate on such things looks as though security trumps privacy, an ironic turn of events considering that famous quote from Benjamin Franklin that rings true today, which says “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither”, actually comes from the United States in the first place. The NYTimes unearthed quite a lot recently about the Bush promoted AT&T wiretapping program recently. Among the evidence was commentary on how, probably millions of, Americans were wiretapped that went far beyond the legal restraints surrounding such activity. One of those Americans who was illegally wiretapped? Former president Bill Clinton. One can get the impression that the unauthorized wiretapping is starting to get out of control.

It is important to note the differences between the case in the United States. In Canada, the proposed legislation would grant eavesdropping to police without a warrant. In the United States, the eavesdropping permits a copy of the traffic flowing through ISPs like AT&T and connects that information directly to organizations such as the NSA. While an important difference, when it comes to privacy concerns for many, that is little more than a clerical difference rather than a significant difference. In the end, police obtained unfettered access to details of your activity online.

Of course, an increase in state powers have gained the interest of commercial entities as well. The most vivid also happening to be the most recent. Austria is a member of the European Union. In the European Union, there is a law that makes ISPs retain data of all of it’s users – also known as Data Retention. While there was a movement to stop the data retention directive, data retention ultimately became law. It appears that an organization of Austrian newspapers have been eyeing that data retention and have called upon the government to use data retention to enforce copyright. There was a stunning quote from the organization that seemed to cap off this attempt which says, “Privacy should not be used as a cover for rights abused.” Forget child abuse. Forget the terrorists. Forget identity thieves. The debate, judging by that development, has shifted to whether or not commercial entities should have access to that data retention for their commercial interests. The real question is, where do these surveillance demands end? What interests should be brought up to the level of access enjoyed by entities interested in, say, national security? As we’ve noticed, this kind of thing isn’t an isolated incident either in Europe.

Last year, in Germany, Deutsche Telekom was raided over spying allegations. In essence, the telecommunications company was worried that insiders were leaking information to reporters, so they monitored their employees – illegally. Since the Canadian case is about installing surveillance infrastructure, it’s important to note how installing such technology would open up potential abuse precisely like this. Legal or not, the potential is there.

Recently, Germany passed legislation that would bring in mandatory censorship legislation. While not wiretapping or surveillance, it does force ISPs to grant new powers over the internet – in this case, blocking a whole list of websites. Isn’t it interesting that just three months earlier, German book publishers wanted to add Rapidshare to that blacklist?

Even further back into January of this year, there were things that happened that forced the German government to say that data retention is for terrorists, not copyright infringers. In response, the IFPI said that it would be contradictory for the government to not hand over all the information over to them for copyright legal pursuits.

What about free speech? A government mandated blacklist in many countries is said to stop child pornography. Australians know all too well how web censorship like that can go too far after the ACMA blacklist leak showed perfectly legal sites on them. While the governing body denied the authenticity of the leaked list, there have been suggestions that the blacklist did come from an ISP in the first place and some of those sites have been added on there because of commercial reasons. Over in Britain, a similar incident happened where British ISPs blocked Wikipedia.

Going further, these aren’t the only cases where new surveillance or censorship measures were attempted to be used for reasons beyond what the legislation was promoted to be stopping in the first place. Already, the copyright industry, along with a few other companies, have tried multiple times to use surveillance or censorship for commercial gains or interests. Legal websites have been put on national blacklists in the past in other countries. The question many Canadians should be asking over top of other questions that have already been raised is where would these intrusions on internet users rights end? Is this legislation in Canada merely an update or modernization and that would be the end of it or would further demands be raised if the currently proposed legislation is passed? All this given multiple international examples.

It certainly, from this standpoint, that this surveillance legislation is not only bad for users privacy, but also the tip of the iceberg as well.

[Hat Tip: Michael Geist 1 and 2]

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

There’s a report from UPI that is certainly worth reading. MEP Guy Bono said that if France adopts legislation that would disconnect internet users through the HADOPI or “three strikes” law, then legal action may be requested. From the article:

French Socialist MEP Guy Bono says he will to ask the European Commission, which has consistently supported the parliament’s position against Internet access cut-offs, to initiate a lawsuit against Paris for “not respecting (European) community legislation.

“If a French constitutional judge does not react, I will ask the European Commission to request the European Court of Justice launch infringement proceedings against the French government for not respecting community law,” Bono told the newspaper.

Already, the French National Assembly has passed the controversial three strikes law even though the European Parliament passed legislation that prevents such laws from being passed in the first place. The law has not been made into law as it has at least one more democratic hurdle to overcome before it becomes law. Still, with the threat of legal action, one wonders if this will have an affect on the legislation in France or if it will ultimately boil down to a showdown between the European Parliament and France. At this point in time, it’s difficult to say, but we do know that HADOPI is currently a hotly contested piece of legislation. From 01Net (Google Translation):

Some MPs have already raised the issues that they deem unconstitutional. For Martine Billard (Greens), who explains on his blog, is that “all the subscribers will not be punished the same way.” Based on statements by the rapporteur Frank Riester, she notes that Internet connection is likely not to be suspended if illegal downloads were made from a line of professional (lawyers, health professionals, etc.).. “It is a breach of equality before the law may of censorship of the Constitutional Council. ”

MP Nicolas Dupont Aignan, President of the Republic Standing, also referred to a censure by the Council of a constitutional text “freedoms”. As for Jean Dionis du Séjour (New Center), he has several times considered what he called ” double jeopardy Ie that the subscriber’s private connection to the Internet continues to pay his subscription to his ISP might be considered unconstitutional.

Essentially, the questions being raised here is whether or not it’s considered unconstitutional if there’s a “double Jeopardy” provision in place – that being that users are forced to pay for their internet subscription even if they are disconnected thanks to getting a third strike. Then again, if that’s the dialogue taking place over the law, then it almost sounds as if the passage of some form of a Three Strikes law in France is practically guaranteed in some form or another. If that’s true, then it really sounds like it could boil down to a showdown between Europe and France. The question is, will Bono get to follow through with what he said earlier and issue legal action against the country or find some way to prevent France from enforcing the three strikes law given the constitutional conflicts. Something, no doubt, is going to happen out of all of this.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Michael Geist has highlighted a very interesting thing that the IFPI has done. Canada has recently been in talks with the European Union to form a free trade agreement. In the midst of all of this, an IFPI spokesperson went on the record to say this (hat tip Michael Geist for the excerpt):

Canada has one of the world’s highest levels of internet piracy and one of the weakest IP enforcement systems. The country suffers from serious legislative deficiencies and a lack of engagement by its enforcement authorities.

It was also suggested that Canada should reform copyright laws before entering into a free trade agreement with the European Union. Now, aside from the fact that it would be absurd to just jump on to copyright reform just because the copyright industry said Canada should, there’s a few points that should be made.

First off, the note by the IFPI is clearly taken from a USTR Special 301 report which is almost practically controlled by the copyright industry itself. While the USTR Special 301 report claims that Canada has the worst piracy problems in the world, any actual hard evidence, even the copyright industry’s, let alone any third party evidence shows that this has been proven to be patently untrue. Canada’s digital market growth continues to be a front-runner in the world and Canada’s piracy rate doesn’t even show up as even a blip on the world stage.

Secondly, putting Canada on the Special 301 priority watch list has showed many signs that the move will ultimately backfire. One commentator has already highlighted the fact that this will only serve to alienate and anger Canadians, not shame them into reforming copyright laws. Not only that, but from around the world, the placement of Canada on the priority watch list is being viewed as just another reason to dismiss the Special 301 report for being… well, practically untrue. Take this analysts thoughts for instance (Via Geist):

It could be in the seemingly absurd decision to place Canada in the top rank of worst offenders with China, Russia and Thailand. Canada has stolidly refused to ape the US government in enacting a punishing law protecting the movie and music distributors. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a blatantly anti-consumer law which has little to do with IP protection, and everything to do with stifling digital copying of material owned by huge and profitable companies which help to finance US political campaigns.

Thus Washington seems to be using its annual IP report to hammer nations to enact and enforce US IP laws, or suffer the consequences. This appears to be nothing but ham-handed protection of big businesses at the expense of free trade. The US Trade Representative must accept that there are many ways to protect IP rights, and cease its threats against those who take different courses.

Lastly, it’s next to impossible to take these claims of Canada as a piracy haven seriously when there are so many conflicting allegations going around. Back in May of last year, the French government has been lobbied by the copyright industry to enact the three strikes law. The French government, in turn, went as far as to say that Canada is already thinking about enacting a Three strikes law (which was completely untrue). Toward the end of last year, the Motion Picture Association of America said this in a lobby paper to the then newly elected president:

One of the MPAA’s top priorities is attacking Internet piracy, through vigorous investigation and enforcement worldwide, as well as working with governments to ensure that their laws provide adequate remedies to stop internet piracy and are in full compliance with the WIPO Treaties. Achieving inter-industry cooperation in the fight against online piracy, including through automated detection and removal of infringing content is imperative to curb theft of online content, and is a priority for MPAA and its member companies. MPAA views recent efforts by the Governments of France and the United Kingdom to protect content on-line and facilitate inter-industry cooperation as useful models.

The last sentence, of course, references heavily the French three strikes law. While France has lobbied the European Union heavily over getting an EU-wide three strikes law, the European Union ultimately rejected these efforts and adopted amendments to the telecoms package to say that internet access is a right. So really, if Canada wanted to adopt a law that was more in line with the European Union, perhaps it would be essential for Canada to recognize the same thing. Conveniently, though, it’s not likely that the copyright industry will mention that.

Ultimately, how believable can the IFPI be in this case when they pretty much use a widely discredited report to pressure Canada into copyright reform in ways that they probably it to be reformed to before Canada enters into a free trade deal with a union that has made moves to enact laws that involve something that the copyright industry no doubt despises?

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Late last week, we reported that in a near last minute last ditch effort, the graduated response backdoor for a European-wide three strikes law was re-introduced in the European parliament. Since then, consumer rights organizations like the Open Rights group have been working very hard to round up European support for amendments that would recognize internet access as a right – an amendment that would shoot down any last remaining hope that a Three Strikes law could prevail through the European Parliament.

Now, Squaring the Net reports that the critical amendments to the telecoms package were adopted. Essentially speaking, the three strikes law in the EU parliament is officially dead.

“A formidable campaign from the citizens put the issues of freedoms on the Internet at the centre of the debates of the Telecoms Package. This is a victory by itself. It started with the declaration of commissioner Viviane Reding considering access to Internet as a fundamental right. The massive re-adoption of amendment 138/46 rather than the softer compromise negotiated by rapporteur Trautmann with the Council is an even stronger statement. These two elements alone confirm that the French ‘three strikes’ scheme, HADOPI, is dead already.” explains Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net.

While the victory is major one for consumer rights and the internet, the victory isn’t completely absolute. Individual countries in the European union can still adopt a three strikes law. Squaring the Net also noted another issue.

“The strong statement for the access to the Internet as a fundamental right demonstrates that the Parliament can be courageous and reject the pressure to compromise when essential values are at stake. Unfortunately, on issues that appear more technical such as the absence of discrimination of services and contents on the Internet, the Parliament did not take the full measure of what it is at stake yet. Citizens must remain mobilized on these crucial questions.”, concludes Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, analyst for La Quadrature.

So while the three strikes law is dead in the European Parliament, something like traffic shaping or throttling is easily alive and well. There’s plenty to watch out for in the future, but for now, many can enjoy their fresh victory.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

It’s been a back and forth battle preventing a European-wide three strikes law. Under pressure from France and the copyright industry, there’s been a number of attempts to sneak a so-called ‘graduated response’ into Europe’s telecoms package. Previously last month, that attempt failed with an amendment that said that European’s cannot be disconnected from the internet. It seemed like a victory for many, but a recent report suggests that the battle momentum just took a swing into the other direction.

The report comes from Squaring the Net which says that the anti-net discrimination recitals in the telecoms package was reduced down to little more than a blurb.

Citizens from all the EU must phone their MEPs to explain to them how crucial these stakes are for the future of our societies and our economies. MEPs have a chance to correct their colleagues’ mistakes by voting for the “Citizen Rights amendments” package, which includes the original amendments 138, 130 (ITRE), and 166 (IMCO) from first reading, along with clear protections against “net discrimination”, and removal of all remaining traces of “graduated response”.

Squaring the Net also urged European citizens to contact their Member of European Parliament and urge them to prevent a graduated response to a possible Europe-wide “three strikes” law.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the European elections are just around the corner. Already, the Pirate Party is currently set to win a seat in parliament thanks to an extra boost in support some say is the result of an overly aggressive copyright industry trying to shape laws that supports an ageing business model. With this latest new threat to European citizens, one might suspect that the support will grow. If the current members don’t support the rights of European citizens, maybe voting in someone else like those in the Pirate Party will take their place to pick up where previous members left off.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

The Open Rights Group reported on a letter sent from Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, a commission adviser, to the Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. The letter essentially asks why the evidence arguing against copyright term extension has been, by and large, ignored.

The term has been recommended to be extended by 45 years. The Open rights Group says that if the commission is extending the term of copyright, it would be “locking away vast swathes of our cultural heritage in a commercial vacuum for 45 years, it was clear that they had rejected all the expert evidence in favour of voodoo economics.”

The letter contains the following:

The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the proposal for a term extension of the rights of performing artists and phonogram producers, which is the centre-piece of the Commission’s package, references at various places studies and data provided by stakeholders, but fail to even mention our Recasting Study, which deals with the topic of term extension in detail and, on the basis of a thorough legal and economic analysis, rejects the main arguments made in favour of an extension. The Explanatory Memorandum also disregards our critical analysis of the issue of co-written musical works, which constitutes a seperate chapter of the Recasting Study.

Amazingly and quite misleadingly, the Explanatory Memorandum states (on p. 6, in fine) that ‘[T]here was no need to external expertise’. This is patently untrue, as the terms of reference of the Recasting Study, which were drawn up by the European Commission (Invitation to tender Mark/2005/08/D), expressly asked for the examination of, among other issues, the need for a term extension and the issue of co-written musical works. The Impact Assessment that supposedly underlies the Commission’s proposal also ignores the Recasting Study, except for a single mention in footnote 51, which quotes our study out of context. Similarly, the Green Paper on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, that covers much of the terrain explored in both our studies, once again, ignores the critical findings of our research.

As you are certainly aware, one of the aims of the ‘Better Regulation’ policy that is part of the Lisbon agenda is to increase the transparency of the EU legislative process. By wilfully ignoring scientific analysis and evidence that was made available to the Commission upon its own initiative, the Commission’s recent Intellectual Property package does not live up to this ambition. Indeed, the Commission’s obscuration of the IViR studies and its failure to confront the critical arguments made therein seem to reveal an intention to mislead the Council and the Parliament, as well as the citizens of the European Union.

In doing so the Commission reinforces the suspicion, already widely held by the public at large, that its policies are less the product of a rational decision-making process than of lobbying by stakeholders. This is troublesome not only in the light of the current crisis of faith as regards the European lawmaking institutions, but also – and particularly so – in view of European citizens’ increasingly critical attitudes towards intellectual property law.

Efforts to stop copyright term extension has been great outside of scholarly study. As we reported early on this year, there is a petition citizens of Europe can sign that argues against copyright term extension. The petition, known as sound Copyright, was launched by the EFF and Open Rights Group. The petition, aso of right now, has nearly 14,000 signatures.

Copyright term extension is a particularly sensitive issue in Britain. It was only earlier this year that a British MP had to stop the term extension in Britain to prevent it from being extended.

In contrast, the idea of copyright term extension has been quite dormant in North America. The last time copyright term extension was brought up in the US was when the Copyright Office commented, “We’ve certainly lengthened the term [of copyright] perhaps — I won’t even say perhaps — too long a term. I think it is too long. I think that was probably a big mistake, but one that Congress can make.”

In Canada, the subject of the length of copyright was, in a big way, brought up last year in the IMSLP and Universal Edition story where public domain works, by Canadian standards were involved with the term not yet up in the originating country. Howard Knopf commented on the case, “If C&D letters like this catch on, Canada will have to accede to the highest (sic – lowest?) common denominator of mindless copyright extensions – which currently is that of Mexico. The latter has irrationally extended its copyright term to life + 100 years. Talk about being nice to the USA!”

Many experts in the field of intellectual property have long argued against the extension of copyright. While the debate may be relatively dormant in some countries, the debate is alive and well in Europe. It seems that pushing for copyright term extension in Britain was stopped, but the backdoor to push such laws are being brought forth through the European Commission. It’s reminiscent of a comment made by Cory Doctorow a few years back where he said (paraphrased), ‘if mommy says ‘no’, go ask daddy.’ At the time, he was referring to copyright lobbyists going to the world Intellectual Property Organization to push for even more restrictive copyright laws when Congress in the US, for the few times they do, refuse to go along with the copyright industry’s demands. While it may be a different issue, the move is quite similar in this case as well.

Meanwhile, the copyright industry has argued that if copyright isn’t extended, then artists like ‘The Beatles’ will not have retirement money. Exactly how much constitutes “retirement money” for The Beatles is unclear, but apparently, selling 545 million records worldwide by 1972 isn’t enough for retirement according to the recording industry.

The movement to extend the term of copyright isn’t over yet, but it has already been dealt several blows. It isn’t too hard to imagine that there will be more blows in the future as well.

It may be the first time many in English speaking circles have even heard of the Hadopi law model, but the name may soon become more familiar if it is successfully placed into a law proposal after the talks with the European parliament. The EDRI has provided extensive coverage on the issue that is very noteworthy.

Those who follow the European law-making process may recall last months news of a telecom package that could force ISPs to essentially ban file-sharing. It may appear redundant when there is already a proposal in place that would do what is specifically demanded. That was true until amendments were stripped out of the telecom package. While the idea of “lawful content” remains intact, the whole business about internet monitoring was essentially removed from the proposal (though nothing is guaranteed at this point since the vote doesn’t happen until September 22. The proposal in it’s last known state would likely make it illegal to file-share copyrighted works, but would not force filtering or monitoring software on ISPs.

It may not be a surprise that some in the major copyright industry isn’t finding this acceptable since the original intent was to make a European law that would force ISPs to block suspected file-sharing (ala protocol blocking) as rejected by the Swedish earlier this year.

Recently, it seems as though Christine Albanel, French Minister of Culture and Communication has been in talks with people in the European Union in Versailles to discuss “harmonizing” copyright law enforcement over the internet. From the EDRI:

Albanel expressed her concern on the lack of consistency and harmonization of the methods to fight illegal file sharing at the European level: “The fight against pirating music, audiovisual and cinema works has imposed itself in our debates as stakes of prime importance. (…) It is indubitably a complex and delicate issue the solution of which will not reside on a single category of player but, on the contrary, on an increased cooperation between various involved parties.”

The Minister continued to underline the importance of the ISPs in the fight against illegal file sharing: “the Internet access providers and the telecom operators have to play an active role – as some of them do individually or within the framework of inter-professional agreements -, in making their subscribers aware and systematically supplying them with information” referring here to the gradual response system proposed by the French law which will oblige the operators and ISPs to send warning messages issued by the High Authority for work dissemination and protection of copyright (HADOPI). The text of the draft law is still facing opposition from EPs, ISPs and consumer associations.

Ministers at the meeting agreed on the “need to inform” society of the consequences of Internet piracy and underlined the need to maintain the balance between economic constraints and public-interest objectives. Commissioner Viviane Reding proposed that ISPs be obliged to inform clients on the legislation related to copyright and the “consequences of piracy” when signing a contract.

Britain is currently undergoing a major similar debate over the idea that ISPs should fight piracy after major UK ISPs were pressured to fold against the copyright industry’s demands.

One source the EDRI sites is of particular interest. It’s found on silicon.fr (google translation) which cites ISPs resisting the idea that they should filter certain protocols, citing the fact that filtering technology has yet to be proven to be a working solution to stop copyright infringement.

One must wonder, if there is now a new movement afoot to get a European law proposal in place to put mandatory filtering on ISPs, is that an indication that the telecom package may not see such an amendment, or is this the copyright industry’s plan ‘B’? Either way, it seems to be another desperate attempt to force ISPs to be the copyright police in Europe from French lawmakers.

The European Digital Rights (EDRi) organization signed an amicus curiae brief which was started by the German non-governmental organization (NGO) Working Group. The case will be heard by the European Court of Justice. The case, Ireland vs. Council of the European Union, European Parliament (Case C-301/06), was filed two years ago.

The brief (PDF) states, “As “friends of the Court”, we would like to express our support of the action [of annulling the data retention directive]. However, while it is true that there is no legal basis for the directive, it is first and foremost illegal on human rights grounds. We urge the court to base its decision on the compatibility with human rights is essential to prevent member states from replacing the directive with a framework decision that equally violates human rights (as has happened in regard to the transfer of PNR [Passenger Name Record] data to the USA).”

It also adds, “Human rights are decisive in determining the legality of blanket traffic data retention. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is binding not only for individual states, but also for the European Union (Art. 6-2 TEU). Because of Art. 6-2 TEU, directives must be compatible with the ECHR and are subject to review, in this respect, by the European Court of Justice (Art. 230 TEC)”

EDRi also points to the list of Signatories to the amicus brief.

It appears that Germany has been active on the data retention file. According to Digital Rights Ireland, the German Constitutional Court restricted data retention saying that it threatens the “trust in the privacy of telecommunication as a whole”

“The data that is collected about the entire population allows our movements to be traced,” Vorratsdatenspeicherung, the NGO behind the initiation to annul data retention said, “any calls or communications with personal and business contacts to be monitored and removes privacy in our personal relationships. Information regarding the content of communications can be deduced relating to personal interests and the individual life circumstances of the persons communicating. Access to the data is granted to the police, public prosecutors, secret services and foreign states which hope for better prosecution of crimes.”

The NGO adds, “The current scheme regarding the collection of information about citizens’ communication, movements and use of media constitute the greatest threat yet to our right to an independent and private life.”

Wikipedia says:

On 15 March 2006 the European Union formally adopted Directive 2006/24/EC, on “the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC”

The Directive requires Member States to ensure that communications providers must retain, for a period of between 6 months and 2 years, necessary data as specified in the Directive

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Demands_Increase_to_Annul_European_Data_Retention_Policy’;

In a press release, the European Commission said, “EU citizens should be able to enjoy easier and faster access to a rich variety of music, TV programmes, films or games via the Internet, mobile phones or other devices. The Commission therefore encourages the content industry, telecoms companies and Internet service providers to work closely together to make available more content online, while at the same time ensuring a robust protection of intellectual property rights. The Commission also wants to facilitate copyright licences for online content covering the territory of several or all of the EU Member States.”

“Europe’s content sector is suffering under its regulatory fragmentation, under its lack of clear, consumer-friendly rules for accessing copyright-protected online content, and serious disagreements between stakeholders about fundamental issues such as levies and private copying”, said Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for the Information Society and Media. “We have to make a choice in Europe: Do we want to have a strong music, film and games industry? Then we should give industry legal certainty, content creators a fair remuneration and consumers broad access to a rich diversity of content online. I will work on these issues with my colleagues in the Commission and propose a Recommendation by mid-2008 on new ways for achieving a single market for online content. I ask in particular Europe’s consumer associations to take a very active part in this debate. Because for online content, the demand and preferences of 500 million potential consumers are the strongest arguments for achieving new solutions at EU level.”

The main points that the commission is the following:

• Availability of creative content – Owners of creative content are sometimes reluctant to make it available for online distribution. Amongst the reasons for this are concerns over illegal downloads and online “piracy”. In addition, there are across the EU major difficulties in negotiating and settling terms of trade between the right owners and the online distributors of creative content. The Commission is therefore today strongly encouraging stakeholders to find innovative and collaborative solutions to exploit the market for content online. A first step into this direction was taken in 2006 with the “European Film Online Charter”, but the Commission notes a lack of ambition and implementation in the follow-up to this initiative.
• Multi-territory licensing for creative content – Online environments such as the Internet and mobile services inherently allow content services to be made available across the single European market. However, the lack of multi-territory copyright licences – allowing the use of content in several or all EU Member States – makes it difficult for online services to be deployed across Europe and to benefit from economies of scale. While it is first for rights holders to appreciate the potential commercial benefits of multi-territory licensing, there is an underlying need, also from a consumer perspective, to improve on existing licensing mechanisms.
• Interoperability and transparency of Digital Rights Management systems (DRMs) – Technologies that support the management of rights and the fair remuneration of creators in an online environment can be a key enabler for development of innovative business models. Lengthy discussions amongst stakeholders have yet to lead to the deployment of interoperable and user-friendly DRM solutions. The Commission therefore seeks to establish a framework for DRM transparency concerning, amongst others, the interoperability of different DRMs, and ensuring that consumers are properly informed of any usage restrictions placed on downloaded content, as well as of the interoperability of related online services.
• Legal offers and piracy – Piracy, including the unauthorised up- and downloading of copyrighted content, remains a central concern. The Commission intends to instigate co-operation procedures (”codes of conduct”) between access/service providers, right holders and consumers to ensure not only the widespread offer of attractive content online, but also adequate protection of copyrighted works, and close cooperation on the fight against piracy and unauthorised file-sharing.

The first point is interesting given that rights-holders shut down the original Napster was in 2001. Ever since then, the industry has developed a reputation of trying to keep to a business model suitable in an era before the internet. Since then, it wasn’t until 2004 that Europeans saw, for instance, EMI selling music on iTunes – a gap of over three years for the citizens of the continent – more than enough time to find another network or two in the mean time.

The second point is interesting given that it’s a recognition that borders, as a general rule, vanish on the internet. It follows up the first point nicely because it is inherently one of the major problems record labels have been struggling to come to terms with. It’s not just music, but movies as well. Region coding in DVDs, for instance put borders on specific formats of DVDs. Supposedly, it was to prevent the spread of physical piracy, but of course, that’s where DVDJon came into the content scene and broke the DRM (Digital Rights Management) and kicked off the debate on the use of DRM which, in this case, put the borders on content in the first place. Now the Commission wants to put an end to this, at least within Europe. Some observers might point out that it would be best applied throughout the world to better adapt to what the internet has brought to everyone. Licenses such as Creative Commons and the GPL have adapted to this, but it’s highly unlikely that major companies like Adobe or record labels such as Warner would put such licensed on all of their content because, to them, it doesn’t protect their business models.

A framework for transparency over DRM will likely be a welcome initiative among many consumer advocates, but even the Sony BMG DRM (namely the one used in the XCP rootkit fiasco) was disclosed to a degree (though the rootkit itself was not disclosed legally) It may be interesting to see what this “transparency” initiative really means and what it would look like.

For the last point, it’s currently unclear whether or not the idea is to right file-sharing with the other three points or if they are referring to something else like the controversial file-sharing lawsuits occurring in the United States.