A bit of rabble-rousing

As I mentioned in my review of Tom Watson's Causewired, I've been a bit of an online activist for some time, in my own quiet way. Here's what I did today in ten minutes over lunch.

• Emailed my MEP about illegal logging
• Emailed my MP about the Climate Change Bill
• Emailed my MP about more support for renewable energy in the Energy Bill
• Voted in the EU Worst Lobbying Awards

It may not change anything, but at least I know that I've put my point of view to the people who are elected to represent me.

The MEPs reply

So far, the following MEPs have said to me they'll vote against the Telecoms package.

• Glyn Ford (LAB)
  
• Graham Booth (UKIP)
• Tom Wise (UKIP)
  
• Roger Knapman (UKIP)
  
• Jeffrey Titford (UKIP)
  

The following will be voting in favour

• Robert Sturdy (CON)
  
• Neil Parish (CON)
  

I'm reproducing in full the whole of the email Neil Parish sent me, since he was involved in creating the amendments. Make your own minds up. (The emboldenings are mine.)

Dear Matt Kelland

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Telecom Package.

My colleagues Malcolm Harbour MEP and Syed Kamall MEP have been involved with tabling some of the amendments involved in the Telecoms Package. Rather than reduce the rights of internet users and inhibit freedoms, the amendments are in fact intended to reinforce the openness of the Internet. Both have been responsible for making sure that consumers' rights are respected, with copyright issues being restricted to public service information only.

The amendments have been created to strike a balance between the need for monitoring of unlawful activity, thus protecting ordinary lawful users of the Internet, whilst ensuring "sweeping powers" are not handed down to authorities. It is evident that this protection should not extend to any unlawful content or applications. In fact, the question of lawfulness is outside the scope of this legislation and depends on the national laws of each country. It is to be decided by the relevant judicial authorities of each country, not by the ISPs. The intention is however not to turn ISPs into "copyright police". Whilst I appreciate that P2P and other filesharing devices are invaluable for businesses such as your own, the aim of this package is to clamp down on its illegal usage. I have no doubt that the Internet will move fast to fill the void left by their absence for legitimate, legal usage; already there is talk of a "legal P2P" alternative being created.

Amendment K1 refers to the free movement of goods and makes it clear that a country can not start requiring manufacturers to incorporate features that would allow detecting or preventing for example copyright infringement, as that would hinder the free movement of the computers and other terminal equipment concerned. Any such requirements would have to be agreed by all member states of the EU. We are not aware of any such proposals. Specifically, it states "in implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no mandatory requirements for specific technical features, including, without limitation, for the purpose of detecting,intercepting or preventing infringement of intellectual property rights by users, are imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment which could impede the placing of equipment on the market and the free circulation of such equipment in and between Member States".

Amendment H2 asks national regulatory authorities to promote - not force - cooperation, as appropriate, regarding protection and promotion of lawful content. It is entirely independent of "flexible response" and does not prescribe the outcome of any such cooperation. As opposed to the text proposed by the Commission, amendment H3 shifts the burden of explaining the law from the ISPs to the appropriate national authorities. It also broadens the concept so that any type of unlawful activities are covered, not only copyright infringement. Such other activities could be for example child pornography. This public interest information would be prepared by the relevant national authority and then simply distributed by the ISP to all their customers. It involves no monitoring of individual customer usage of the internet.

The package gives national regulatory authorities and the Commission the power to take appropriate action to prevent degradation and slowing of traffic and against unreasonable restrictions of users' possibilities to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice. None of the amendments have been drafted by any outside lobbying organisation.

I hope this information helps. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any further queries.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Parish MEP

I've read the amendments as drafted, and, let's say, erm, his interpretation of them isn't the same as mine, whatever his original intent might have been.  I'll just make two comments.

First of all, I never told him what my business is, and used a private email address, so what does he mean by "businesses such as yours"?  Was that a generic message, or do I hear the sound of black helicopters?

And second, look at that neat little reference to child porn.  Of course.  That's what it's all about.  So only paedophiles and child pornographers could possibly want to oppose this bill.  Standard FUD tactics.

Email your suggestions about how to make a "three strikes" law work without monitoring individual usage to politician@talkingbollocks.com

Machinimators vs the EU

Third blog post of the day.

This afternoon, Strange Company made a machinima video in WoW to protest against the proposed EU legislation against file-sharing.

I love the fact that machinima can be used in this way.

So you think you're immune?

If you've heard about the proposed EU law against file-sharing, and haven't done anything about it because you think it doesn't apply to you, think again. You don't have to be one of those hardcore torrent junkies who downloads pirated movies or has gigabytes of mp3s to get caught by this one.

If any of the following apply to you, then you are at risk.

1. You watch machinima
2. You use YouTube
   
3. You listen to podcasts or Internet radio

The way the legislation is worded, it covers downloading any content that infringes IP. So all those video clips, game-based machinima, and mashups, are officially Bad and could get you banned from the Net. Even cover versions of songs could be illegal.

Here's an exercise for the reader. Click here to see Hayseed Dixie performing Queen's Fat Bottomed Girls live in concert. Is that legal? Fact is, I don't know, and neither do you. Clicking that link may be illegal.

And it doesn't have to be you doing it. It's your IP address they track. So if you share a house, run a business, or have a wi-fi network that could be hacked, it's you that gets hit.

Still sitting around?

Get off your butt and write to your MEP. NOW.

OK, guys, this is serious. On Monday, the EU plans to introduce an anti-filesharing law that could see you banned from using the Net, even if you've never torrented a TV show or ripped an mp3 in your life. It's undemocratic, it's draconian, and quite frankly it's bloody terrifying.

Imagine not being able to stay in touch with your friends or family via Skype, MSN, or email; not being able to play games; not having access to news; not being able to fill in your tax return; not being able to do your homework; not being able to book a flight or check a train timetable; not being able to find out about the most basic things. If, like me, you're a parent, imagine having to tell your kids that they're the only kids in the class who can't go online. Just think for a moment about the things you've used the Net for in the last week, and imagine living without them. If you lose your phone connection, how long does it take you to start crawling walls? Two days? Three? Maybe a whole week? You get the picture.

So how does this law work?

If your ISP determines that you are filesharing (note, they decide, not a court, and they don't have to prove it), they are obliged to give you two warnings, and then on the third "offence" you are cut off from the Net. You will have no right of appeal.

This is not a joke. They plan to do this now as part of a huge telecoms reform package. See http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2008/07/three-strikes-and-youre-er-confused.html - it's by a specialist in cyber-law, and explains exactly why this is so scary, and how the EU is bringing it in by stealth.

Did you know about it? No? Convenient, huh? I wouldn't have known about it if Hugh hadn't called me an hour ago and told me.

And we have just under 48 hours to stop it.

Don't just sit there and moan about how terrible this is, and how it should be stopped. You can help stop it. Just do two things. If you're a European, write to your MEP, this weekend. If you're in the UK, use http://www.writetothem.com/ And tell all your friends to do the same. Monday will be too late.

(If you're a European from outside the UK, please let me know via the comments of any equivalent sites for your country. Thanks. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public.do will at least tell you who your MEPs are, and may have a link to a Web site or email address.)

It can work - one of my MEPs, Graham Booth, has already replied and told me he will be voting against this law.

If you're not sure what to say, here's what I wrote.

I have just found out about the plan to include a "three strikes" directive in the new Telecoms legislation (la quadrature) which is scheduled for voting on Monday, July 7. This legislation means that anyone determined three times by their Internet Service Provider to be downloading copyrighted material would be disconnected from the Internet.

This is a dangerous piece of legislation for a number of reasons, but most importantly:

1. There is no legal safeguard. The sanction is at the sole discretion of a commercial company, and there is no burden of proof on their part or possibility of redress.

2. The punishment is unduly harsh. The Internet is now the dominant means of communication. Denying someone access to the Net denies them access to communication with friends an family; access to shops, goods and services; access to educational materials; access to news, support materials, and information. It may affect their ability to work by denying them the opportunity to work from home, or may close down their business. The Government itself is keen to try and encourage citizens to make more use of online services, such as online tax returns, tax credits, or training courses, and has recognised the importance of getting people to use the Net. Disconnecting people is draconian.

3. This is collective punishment. Disconnection would apply to all members of a household, regardless of who had committed the offence, or whether they even knew about it. The legislation makes it clear that sanctions would apply even if the "offender" were ignorant of the offence being committed.

4. The proposal is technically flawed. The ISP can only identify the computer involved (technically, its IP address), and not the individual. There are many circumstances in which this can be misleading. Without going into detail, your computer could appear to be involved in filesharing if someone breaks into your wireless network; if your computer is infected with malware; or if you allow a guest to access the Net using their laptop.

While I can appreciate the desire of rights holders to address the issue of copyright violations, this is not an appropriate way to deal with it. The issue needs to be carefully thought through and debated, and not sneaked through as part of a package containing some 800 amendments.

Please vote to strike down this legislation on Monday.

Yours sincerely,

Feel free to use this as a template.

Now tell your friends.

Thank you.