Six million UK citizens are infringing copyright daily by downloading material via P2P and other file sharing services, according to the government’s Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property.

Let’s not however fall into the trap of assuming that the choice is between massive infringement bringing industries to their knees, and clamping down on users.

What we are faced with at root is a choice about how we want to reward artists in the future, and the products we want. What P2P and download services show is that access, sharing, trying and finding are some of the keys to a good digital native product. We can see that there is very little like this commercially available.

How creative producers get paid is on the face of it more difficult. But there are plenty of possibilities. We could see industry out-competing ‘illicit’ services, by putting their own P2P style ‘all you can eat’ services on the market. There have been rumours that Spotify might launch such a product, and we know that Virgin failed to reach agreement with licensing bodies.

If commercial services cannot out-compete P2P, then we can listen to the academics. Among academics and some groups on the continent, there are calls for a ‘cultural flat rate’ which would mean broadband users paying the equivalent of a pound or two a month for access to content which is currently illicit. The Open Rights Group would broadly support a flat rate that was voluntary for consumers.

Beyond all of these questions, we need to remember that ‘recorded music’, just like a gig or sheet music, is a commercialised form, designed for a particular method of access (a record or file, a venue or a booklet). We may choose very different ways of accessing and experiencing music in the future. These may - and in all probability will - be much more commercially lucrative in the future than ubiquitous electronic files.

What’s clear is that the answers to monetising music have nothing to do with harsh copyright enforcement. We do not need to bend our internet infrastructure into an enormous and unfair copyright infringement detection tool, nor do we need ‘three strikes’ disconnection regimes which the EU parliament currently wishes to make illegal.

Up to now, the debate has run along the lines of suggesting that downloads are destroying legal markets, and therefore clamp down measures are needed. However, attempts at harsh enforcement are unpopular and unfair, and create a backlash. They aren’t the answer, but legal services can be.

This month’s supporter update is now available.

In this edition:

• Do your MEP candidates care about your digital rights?
• Advisory Council nominations
• All-Seeing Eye video
• Volunteer meeting: Stalls workshop
• Consultations: APComms and INSPIRE
• Press

Supporter update - May 2009

Reposted from La Quadrature du Net

The debates on the Telecoms Package, thanks to a remarkable citizen mobilization, led to an extremely strong recognition of the access to internet as a fundamental right with the re-adoption of amendment 138/46 in second reading by a qualified majority. It is the final blow against three-strike laws such as Nicolas Sarkozy’s HADOPI bill, which are explicitly banned. The European Parliament nevertheless adopted a soft compromise on issues of network equity: no strong protection against “net discrimination” was adopted.

Click through for more detail on the vote and its implications.

GeneWatch UK Press Release

GeneWatch UK today questioned the Home Office’s proposed delay in deleting innocent people’s DNA profiles from the police National DNA Database, following last year’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights. The Government has announced a consultation on proposals to delete innocent people’s computerised DNA records and fingerprints after 12 years if they have been accused of a serious violent or sexual offence, or six years for a lesser offence (1)

“This is a long time for innocent people to wait to have their records wiped”, said Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK. “DNA profiles can be used to track an individual or their relatives. Where are the weighty reasons that the European Court demanded to justify retention of this data?”

In Scotland, only people who have been prosecuted for serious violent or sexual offences can have their DNA profiles retained after acquittal. After three years, the police must apply to a court to retain such people’s DNA profiles for a further two years, if this is deemed necessary, and the individual can appeal.

GeneWatch urged people who considered their DNA records to be held unfairly to continue to contact the police to seek removal from the database, and to have their say by responding to the consultation (2). The organisation also criticised continued misinformation about the supposed benefits of the database expansion (3).

“As long as the Home Office drags its feet on Database removals, people need to stand up for their rights”, said Dr Wallace. “It is unacceptable to treat everyone who is arrested as if they are a rapist or a murderer”.

However, GeneWatch welcomed Home Office plans to destroy the spare DNA samples which are usually taken by the police from arrested people using a mouth swab. One of the samples is analysed to produce the string of numbers known as a DNA profile that is stored on the computer database. But until now, a second spare sample has been stored indefinitely by the commercial laboratories that analyse DNA for the police. The samples are not needed for identification purposes and are already destroyed in some countries, such as Germany.

“DNA samples contain unlimited genetic information, including some sensitive personal information about people’s health. We strongly welcome the proposal to destroy the samples to prevent misuse”, said Dr Wallace.

In 2006, GeneWatch revealed that stored DNA samples had been used for genetic research without the consent of the individuals involved, including controversial research to try to predict ethnicity from DNA (4). There is a strong racial bias in the database, which is estimated to contain DNA profiles from more than a third of the black male population, rising to 3 out of 4 young black men (aged between 15 and 34).

For further information contact:

Dr Helen Wallace, Mobile: 07903-311584

Notes for Editors:

(1) The Home Office consultation ‘Keeping the right people on the DNA database’ was launched today by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. In the S. and Marper case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK Government was acting unlawfully by retaining the DNA profiles, samples and fingerprints of innocent people indefinitely. The judgment noted that: “Weighty reasons would have to be put forward by the Government before the Court could regard as justified such a difference in treatment of the applicants’ private data compared to that of other unconvicted people”.

(2) The website www.reclaimyourdna.org was launched on 27th April by GeneWatch UK, NO2ID and the Open Rights Group. It is also supported by Action on Rights for Children (ARCH), Black Mental Health UK, Liberty, NO2ID, and Privacy International.

(3) The Home Office cites many examples where DNA has been useful in investigating crimes, but these examples are mostly misleading because they do not rely on retaining DNA profiles from innocent people. The number of crimes detected using DNA has not increased despite the database more than doubling in size. With more than 5 million records, Britain’s DNA database is by far the largest in Europe, yet Britain has one of the lowest conviction rates for rape. The DNA database is not used or needed to exonerate innocent people, who carry their DNA with them at all times.

(4) More information is available on: http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539491

(This urgent call to action was originally posted by La Quadrature du Net)

ALERT: last minute trick to prevent European Parliament to vote on amendment 138/46 by changing the order of votes. A dedicated campaign page regarding the issue below has been put on the wiki, including arguments, counter-arguments, and advice on how to contact MEPs.

Paris, May 4 2009 - Threats to citizens’ basic rights and freedoms and to the neutrality of Internet could be voted without any safeguard in the EU legislation regarding electronic communication networks (Telecoms Package). EU citizens have two days to call all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ask them to vote for the “Citizens’ Rights Amendments”, in the second reading of the Telecoms Package. These amendments include all the safeguards that were removed in the “compromise amendments”, as well as provisions protecting against “net discrimination” practices and filtering of content.

On Wednesday, 6 May at 12:00, both reports from Catherine Trautmann (PSE - FR) and Malcolm Harbour (PPE/ED - UK) will come to a vote in the second reading of the Telecoms Package. In last minute opaque negotiations with the EU Council, both rapporteurs agreed to water down in their reports the crucial safeguards for fundamental rights and freedoms of EU citizens:

• In the Harbour report, amendment 166 was replaced by an empty version that has no more protective value. Some very light protection against “net discrimination”, where operators can choose what content, services and applications may be accessed or used through their networks, was also completely neutralized. The only protection left is now customer information through the contracts, which is a scam because customer and competition law cannot regulate fundamental rights (and they failed to regulate mobile communication networks, which are still agreed as cartels in most member states).
• In the Trautmann report, amendment 138/46 was turned down into a weaker version (yet still a clear political sign and legal reminder against the French “three strikes” HADOPI bill), that may require interpretation from an EU court of justice, and years of challenge, to counter “graduated response”/“three strikes” schemes.

The Citizens’ Rights Amendments (1) correct all these problems. They restate amendment 138/46, article 32a (amendment 166 from first reading), they remove any open door to “three strikes” policies and protect against abusive “net discrimination” practices by operators.

“All MEPs must vote for the ‘Citizens Rights Amendments’, because safeguarding EU citizens fundamental rights and freedoms is the most important mission of the European Parliament. Protecting basic rights must not be left to consumer and competition laws. There can be no compromise on basic principles, certainly not merely to make the EU procedure go faster. The image of the Parliament, a few weeks before the elections, is at stake” explains Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, analyst for La Quadrature du Net.

It is urgent to contact ALL Members of European Parliament (MEPs) to inform them about these issues, and advise them to follow La Quadrature’s voting lists (2). They must understand that a few weeks before the elections, EU citizens are watching and scoring their votes in Political Memory (3).

“Call your MEPs and tell them to vote to protect Citizens rights. Direct opposition to the Council of EU is preferable to steps backwards on fundamental rights and freedoms, especially concerning Internet, which is so vital in structuring the future of our societies. Moreover the Citizens’ Right Amendments do not directly oppose to the compromise negotiated with the Council, they strengthen it.” concludes Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net.

(1) Citizens’ Rights Amendments are mostly:
On Trautmann report: am. 3=7: guarantee of access and distribution of any content/application/service, am. 1CP=2=5=6=9: original am.138/46
On Harbour report: am. 101=111=117: no discrimination in traffic management policies, am. 102=112=118: regulatory powers against discriminated traffic management policies, am. 62=94=104=119: original am. 166, am. 96=106=120: deleting cooperation between ISP and copyright holder about lawful content

(2) Voting list for the Harbour report and voting list for the Trautmann report

(3) Political Memory is a web-based tool for finding and better knowing MEPs. It records their public positions and scores their votes on La Quadrature’s topics: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Political_Memory