tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post3168325754585237608..comments2022-12-02T13:41:41.120+00:00Comments on Francis Davey: New amendment gives copyright owners a blank cheque for web censorshipFrancis Daveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-31471466275405982010-03-11T13:28:30.458+00:002010-03-11T13:28:30.458+00:00I'm reminded of the Law Commission report on I...I'm reminded of the Law Commission report on Internet Defamation:<br /><br />"There is a strong case for reviewing the way that defamation law impacts on internet service providers. While actions against primary publishers are usually decided on their merits, the current law places secondary publishers under some pressure to remove material without considering whether it is in the public interest, or whether it is true. These pressures appear to bear particularly harshly on ISPs..." (para 1.12 of http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/defamation2.pdf)<br /><br />That was written in 2002 (!) about notice and takedown liability, which is considerably less one-sided than the Amendment 120A proposal.<br /><br />As far as I know, no such review ever took place :-(Andrew Cormacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-18063117864652873212010-03-08T11:35:27.129+00:002010-03-08T11:35:27.129+00:00Are subsections (6) & (7) of any help? They se...Are subsections (6) & (7) of any help? They seem to say it can't happen until we've told Brussels and no one has objected? Steve, (non-lawyer)Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07038807618137272711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-34126678737414637332010-03-06T12:02:35.923+00:002010-03-06T12:02:35.923+00:00Francis
Thanks for this. FIPR colleagues and I ha...Francis<br /><br />Thanks for this. FIPR colleagues and I have long argued that costs shifting is wrong, and that the UK should follow the US lead in making each party bear its own costs by default in all cases. We set out our reasoning in our response to the Jackson inquiry into the costs system <a href="http://www.fipr.org/090730jackson.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. In brief, the UK costs shifting rule has bad consequences across a broad spectrum of rights and policy issues, with technology particularly badly hit. It empowers the rich against the poor and the state against the citizen; it undermines human rights by limiting their enforcement to areas that throw up legally-aided cases; and given that courts react within fifteen months while legislatures take fifteen years, it ensures that much of our technology policy is wrong.Ross Andersonhttp://www.ross-anderson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-66813622024632914382010-03-05T16:54:38.261+00:002010-03-05T16:54:38.261+00:00Very good post and disapointed a lib dem peer got ...Very good post and disapointed a lib dem peer got pulled into this.aidannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-32925001642695257942010-03-05T14:19:44.795+00:002010-03-05T14:19:44.795+00:00What do you understand by "exceptional" ...What do you understand by "exceptional" in the extract: "unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider's failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner"?<br /><br />The ISP has to cover costs unless they can show _exceptional_ circumstances? So mere ordinary circumstances justifying the continuing service (such as the BPI being a bunch of ignorant bullies and having no basis for their takedown request) would not be enough to avoid them paying out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-79687868621760716652010-03-05T13:54:06.482+00:002010-03-05T13:54:06.482+00:00Interesting view, very much in line with what othe...Interesting view, very much in line with what others think. I've <a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/03/04/digital-economy-bill-why-amendment-12a-isnt-our-enemy/" rel="nofollow">written something about this myself</a>.<br /><br />I have a couple of bones to pick though. Firstly, the plausible case of blocking the telegraph is already a possibility on the law books. In the Copyright etc. act 1988 as amended 97a allows for injunctions against ISPs to block sites. It's not as well defined as this amendment makes it, but that is actually a worse thing (courts now at least would know how to process an injunction case according to the law).<br /><br />It's a nasty law, I agree...but we're losing sight of the fact the law already exists. We can make this Lord the subject of our hatred and anger, but parliament passed this in to law in 2003 as a statutory instrument (so it received no scrutiny whatsoever). This is the first time the law has had a chance to be debated properly, most MPs probably won't realise this law already exists, just like the general public don't.<br /><br />Secondly....<br /><br />"Well there's plenty more that's wrong with the amendment, for example what on earth is a "location on the internet" (IP address, URL, DNS domain...)? Did anyone who knows anything about computer networking get asked about this before it was tabled (I assume: no)? But I think that is enough for me to complain about in one post. I hope you get the general idea. Sadly the politicians involved don't."<br /><br />Law makers have to weigh up the future in their law making. "online location" is a good definition because it doesn't pigeon hole the legislation and open up loopholes that need to be amended with secondary legislation. Online location is good because it is so broad, it could apply to a domain if necessary, but also a single page, or an IP address, or a single image if you want to argue it that way.<br /><br />There is certainly a greater need for more precise wording, however sometimes you need to be imprecise in order to ensure the law you're making isn't useless a year later.Lee Griffinhttp://www.twitter.com/niacccurshinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-41145951855114086672010-03-05T11:03:51.741+00:002010-03-05T11:03:51.741+00:00test2test2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-29256668164898671672010-03-04T19:17:49.915+00:002010-03-04T19:17:49.915+00:00Test commentTest commentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com