An open letter from Boards.ie to Minister Sean Sherlock

Look at this and it's IN.

Russia's New Censorship Law Diminishes the Entire Internet

On Wednesday, the Russian parliament's lower house approved legislation that would block Web pages selectively. The proposed law reportedly lets officials filter out specific domain names and IP addresses. Law enforcement agencies could add URLs to the blacklist without a court order. Hosting services would need to remove banned materials within 72 hours or risk being shut down.

Another bill currently in the Russian parliament would increase penalties for defamation, while yet another would compel nongovernmental organizations that accept foreign financing to register as foreign agents.

No climbing back up that slide:(




Internet content blocking travels downstream, affects unwary users

Nice, will skim through them; odd that they needed to be FOI'd, it's exactly the kind of stuff that should be publicly available on a website to start with.

It is different I guess, to the submissions that were previously published, on the CRC website?

I've skimmed through it all, and here's a brief summary of it: (most of the arguments for/against are fairly much the same)

Companies/groups/people expressing concern about the SI:
Google
Telecommunications and Internet Federation: Worth reading the full submission; page 36 onwards of Scan 001.
Eircom (expressed concerns at length about the SI, and specifically about why it is not a part of CRC review)
Ronan Sheehan (John Philpot Curran Foundation)
IDA Ireland
Telefonica/O2
Alternative Operators in the Communications Market
Digital Rights Ireland
3G Ireland
Computer and Communications Industry Association (makes the very good point, that where infringers can be pursued in court directly, injunctions should not be allowed against their websites)
International Service Providers Association of Ireland
UPC

Companies/groups/people in support of SI: (it's notable, that just about none of these go into detail or express concerns on needed limitations of the SI, but all endorse it wholesale)
Mechanical Copyright Protection Society Ireland
Irish Association of Songwriters, Composers and Authors
William Ryan (lawyer representing some record labels in Ireland)
Interactive Software Federation of Europe
Viacom/MTV
Warner Bros: Also proposes removal of the following from the SI (about the only limitation it places on the injunctions):
"(b) In considering an application for an injunction under this subsection, the court shall have due regard to the rights of any person likely to be affected by virtue of the grant of any such injunction and the court shall give such directions (including, where appropriate, a direction requiring a person be notified of the application) as the court considers appropriate in all of the circumstances."
Motion Picture Association (also supports removal of above)
Irish National Federation Against Copyright Theft
Recorded Artists Actors Performers
Music Managers Forum (also recommends 'graduated response' i.e. three strikes, and argues against legislating 'fair use' laws)


So, there was not just widespread public opposition to this, but widespread industry opposition as well; all the more incomprehensible, as to why this was forced through with a SI.

It seems the SI had been in the pipe for more than a year as well, before finally being implemented (with the government first flip-flopping in Feb 2011, deciding not to implement it based on concerns of balance).
So again, plenty of room for discussion and management of a more balanced piece of legislation (an entire year it seems), even the 2011 copyright reform committee passed as an opportunity to work it out, yet it got implemented as-is with no modifications this year?

One very notable part of the concerns expressed in the submissions, is various groups (Eircom in particular) don't understand why consultation about the SI is separate to the general Copyright Review Committee consultation; there is no satisfactory (or offered) explanation for this, which makes me all the more cynical as to the reasons for that.


It's noted throughout the submissions, that it's not a requirement to transpose the EU law directly into our own law, but that it's supposed to be considered in the context of wider considerations first (to see it does not impact on other areas and rights); this is usually done through a Regulatory Impact Assessment, and the government completely failed to do that here.

Moreso, the government previously explicitly spoke out against implementing laws through secondary legislation, like they have done here.
So, this SI was unnecessary, not urgent in any way, did not have sufficient regulatory assessment, was not properly negotiated, was not democratically debated and put forward as primary legislation, and consultations submitted by industry were 100% ignored, and government has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation regarding concerns put forward; this makes me extremely cynical, and makes me think there were copyright/entertainment industry interests behind the scenes, who undemocratically influenced the government into pushing this through.


I would imagine we will find out the next step with all of this (if any), when the 2012 copyright review committee process finishes up; submissions are long closed now, any word on government reactions (and potential reforms) in light of that consultation? (discussion of the SI was not excluded from this consultation as well I take it)

That said, the fact that the concerns put forward in this previous (SI-specific) consultation process in 2011 were entirely ignored, seem to indicate that any concerns put forward during this years consultation will be ignored too. We'll see anyway, but I don't have my hopes up; I reckon the consultation this year was (judging by last years) just to fob people off.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20160...-internet.html

Control of the Internet must be stopped from falling into the hands of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the European Parliament has warned.

The European Union’s elected representatives loudly called for negotiators to block attempts by the ITU to gain ultimate control over the Internet at a conference in Dubai next month.

The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) will attempt to revise international telecommunication regulations, which have not been updated since 1988. A resolution approved by an overwhelming majority of Members of the European Parliament on Thursday warned that some of the proposals presented ahead of WCIT could result in the ITU itself becoming “the ruling power of the Internet,” something the parliament is determined to prevent.

“The ITU, or any other single international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over the Internet,” said the resolution, drawn up by Dutch parliamentarian Marietje Schaake.

The Parliament also said that it is concerned that some of the ITU reform proposals would set up charging mechanisms, which could seriously threaten the open and competitive nature of the Internet by driving up prices and hurting innovation.

Meanwhile search giant Google has invited users to “pledge your support for the free and open Internet,” warning that governments working behind closed doors in Dubai should not direct its future.

A free and open world depends on a free and open web.


http://techpp.com/2012/11/21/google-take-action/

Underneath the surface, it seems that some governments from the 42 attending want to take advantage of this situation and discuss, why not enforce, some censorship rules in their countries and to all those that comply. While censorship illegal downloads for the hottest movie is an adequate move, Google advises that terrible things may be questioned here, ones that may affect innovation itself.

WCIT-12: Conference Overview

In my (very brief) understanding, it basically puts regulation of the Internet under control of an international UN-type group with most countries as members, where a very sizable number of influential countries in that group have domestic policies which censor or otherwise restrict the Internet, and with this they'd then be in a position to (potentially) collaboratively screw up the entire Internet.

It's kind of "the evil we know" type of situation; as bad as the US is, they're not nearly as bad as an international agency, stuffed with countries that engage in widespread censorship and privacy invasions.

BENDERS LINKS wrote: »

Record labels sue Digiweb, UPC, Imagine, Vodafone and 3 to block The Pirate Bay

Why are they wasting their time on this,seriously. It's doesn't matter at all if they block tpb with tpb own proxy and all the workarounds. I nearly wish they would do it and shut up and let us get on with it.

Heard there was an Australian ISP iiNet that walked out of court and told the studios it was their own fault for not fixing their model of distribution. People want to get their shows when released in the states not 6 months later. They had a very good point really.