Write to your MEP: say no to "3 strikes" through the backdoor

Gavin, 02 July 2008

Could Europe be drafting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers from the internet? MEPs have already signalled their condemnation of this approach. But last-minute amendments to telecommunications legislation could bring the so-called "3 strikes" approach in by the backdoor. If you want your MEP to stick to their guns on 3 strikes, write to them today to voice your concerns.

Back in February, we reported that the UK Government was considering a law to ban illicit filesharers from the 'net. A promised consultation on proposed legislation is yet to materialise (although we're still hoping it will appear before the Summer recess). Meanwhile, pressure on ISPs and rightsholders to come to a voluntary arrangement has had some effect, with both Virgin and BT recently starting to "educate" those customers they believe are infringing copyright in their use of p2p networks.

As we pointed out at the time, neither the voluntary nor the statutory approach will put a penny in artists' pockets unless accompanied by viable legal alternatives that deliver consumers what they want. A recent survey commissioned by British Music Rights [pdf] indicates that 80% of those currently downloading music would pay for so-called "legal p2p" - properly licensed and competitive filesharing alternatives. Rumours that industry is close to developing such an offer are yet to be confirmed. But without it, any enforcement move is likely only to drive illicit filesharing further underground.

Over in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy (who also took over the European presidency yesterday) has put his weight behind legislation proposed by the Olivennes report. The bill, which has been delayed until the Autumn, will mandate termination of internet connections. It goes without saying that it is the subject of much controversy across the Channel.

La Quadrature du Net - a French pressure group - have been actively campaigning on the issue. They're also tracking the progress of the Telecoms Package, a review of European telecoms law currently in the European Parliament. Ordinarily this bill would deal with network infrastructure, universal service and other purely telecoms matters.

But as La Quadrature du Net announced yesterday:

"One week before a key vote in the reform of European law on electronic communications ("Telecom Package"), La Quadrature du Net (Squaring the Net) denounces a series of amendments aimed at closing the open architecture of the Internet for more control and surveillance of users..

…this set of amendments creates the unprecedented mechanism known as graduated response in European law; judicial authority and law courts are vacated in favour of private actors and "technical measures" of surveillance and filtering. According to rules set forth by administrative authorities and rights holders, intermediaries will be forced to cooperate in monitoring and filtering their subscribers, or they will be exposed to administrative sanctions"

If you want to voice your concerns about 3 strikes legislation brought in through the backdoor in Brussels, you have until 7 July, the date of the vote in IMCO and ITRE committees, to contact your MEP and inform them that the "Telecoms Package" amendments could bring in disproportionate and ineffective law.

You can find details of your MEPs here. Suggestions for topics to raise in your letters are here and analysis and commented amendments with other resources about the Telecoms Package are also available.

Showing comments 1 to 30 of 85 | Next | Last
Dynamo_ace
Comment

Reply #85 on : Thu July 03, 2008, 12:26:24
Already written to Liz Lynne MEP, West Midlands

Does anyone want a copy of the letter?
Comment

Reply #84 on : Thu July 03, 2008, 13:53:42
from Turn on JavaScript!
to Turn on JavaScript!
date Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:35 PM
subject Re: Telecom Package amendments 7 July

I will be voting against. Graham Booth
Comment

Reply #83 on : Thu July 03, 2008, 16:51:21
[...] to do with policing the Net, but got 80 changes in the last phase) right before summer holidays. Write your EU politicians and protest against this, before we don’t even have full Internet access [...]
Tony Marsh
Comment

Reply #82 on : Thu July 03, 2008, 17:49:16
@Dynamo_ace

Yeah, a copy of the letter would be handy, thanks.
Comment

Reply #81 on : Thu July 03, 2008, 19:21:46
[...] fuckery is this? It looks like the French government, having failed to impose an awful record-industry inspired snoop.... The so-called “3 strikes” law foresaw that ISPs would be required to cut off service [...]
Dynamo_ace
Comment

Reply #80 on : Thu July 03, 2008, 20:15:37
I recently ammended the letter due to a few errors and has sent that to my MEP. I hope she doesn't mind. So here is the amended letter:

"Dear Liz Lynne,
This is a amended letter of the last one i sent you, due to the fact i made a few mistakes. Please accept my apologies for
this. I am getting fed up on constantly having to sound out the so called "anti-pirates" and their affiliates for who they
really are. I want to spend more time setting up and running a business and basically live life to the full, rather than
being worried about what the state of the world is.

I am writing to you concerning the proposed “Telecoms Package”. I ask you and other MEPs to reject the “Telecoms
Package” and any further efforts for a "3 strikes and your out process" for if this goes ahead, it could cause a dangerous
precedent for the econamy, the creative industries and the Internet. It is also a damage to civil liberties (including ones
in the EU itself, which are supposed to be non-negotiable, presumably to prevent another world war from happening in
Europe).

The proposed “Telecoms Package” will only benefit large corporations, who have recently thought of themselves as a
elite bunch. Now they have got politicians on their side, including Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and Lord Tresman to
push their nefarious campaign of presumed hate and technophobia which if it continues, Small and Medium Businesses,
and consumers (regardless of their involvement in filesharing) will be severely targeted by the large corporations in a
bigger way than they are now. The large corporations who are trying to get the “Telecoms Package” though use the
guises of "Protecting Creativity" and "Protecting Industry" but all they are really doing is protecting their large sums of
money, and preventing others to benefit in many ways. They may have even violated laws of the UK, presumably the
"Computer Misuse Act 1990" (Concerning the shutting down of OiNK) and the "Companies Act 1985" (Since the BPI,
FACT, FAST and ELSPA are actually Limited Companies, registered on Companies House yet not complaining with the Act
which presumably states that their full trading name has to be show on Business Stationery, Advertising and their
website"). They even misrepresented themselves as a union, and a representative of a industry. Just several of the
many dark actions they have done since 2000.

The “Telecoms Package” is just a spin word, Like "The Worlds Creative Hub" and "Olivennes". Its doublethink for making
something bad to the world, look like something good. The “Telecoms Package” also violates Net Neutrality and destroys
innovation or severely restricts it to a "elite class". I don't think I need to say how dangerous that is. I could say it could
even damage the UK's status as a democracy.

Efforts should be made in reforming copyright into a more balanced form, and legalizing filesharing though voluntary
means or though a reformed TV Licence.

If you need more info, please refer to the following websites:
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/02/write-to-your-mep-say-no-to-3-strikes-through-the-backdoor/#more-560
http://www.savetheinternet.com/ (A similar Net Neutrality campaign in the US)

There is already a massive condemnation of the “Telecoms Package” and its related stuff worldwide. From consumers to
human rights groups to even some large companies themselves like Talk Talk and BT (Despite the Phorm incident), even
unions like the ISPA have condemned it.

Also, if you want to see how deadly a three strikes policy is, look no further than Youtube's "Gatling gun policy" (As a
former user of Youtube said), three removals of content from your account due to so called "Copyright violation", and you are suspended. And it could be for anything, even saying something bad about a company. That's how bad copyright is, it has become a "God card" for holders to do what they want to consumers and basically get away with it.

I apologize for the length of this letter, but I needed to stress the importance of why you and other MEPs (As well as
MPs, both in the Lib Dems and out) need to reject the “Telecoms Package” and other similar proposals. And to
encourage more sane ideas. I fear for what might happen to the world if things like the “Telecoms Package” are allowed
to pass. Because since when did bullies like the IFPI and BPI be allowed to rule the UK and other countries?"
Comment

Reply #79 on : Thu July 03, 2008, 22:22:52
[...] Write to your MEP: say no to “3 strikes” through the backdoor Could Europe be drafting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers from the internet? MEPs have already signalled their condemnation of this approach. But last-minute amendments to telecommunications legislation could bring the so-called “3 strikes” approach in by the backdoor. If you want your MEP to stick to their guns on 3 strikes, write to them today to voice your concerns. [...]
Comment

Reply #78 on : Thu July 03, 2008, 23:38:16
[...] would have avoided, but which is more than appropriate in this case - “What fuckery is this? It looks like the French government, having failed to impose an awful record-industry inspired snoop.... The so-called “3 strikes” law foresaw that ISPs would be required to cut off service to anyone [...]
Comment

Reply #77 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 00:01:12
[...] Även Slashdot skriver om detta: “ZeroPaid is reporting that ISPs could be turned into the copyright police through European legislation that received a number of ‘intellectual property’ amendments. Many of these amendments can be found here. Judging by the amendments, ISPs could be mandated to block legitimate traffic in an effort to ‘prevent’ illegitimate traffic. To help stop this legislation, you can check out the action page. Additional coverage can be found on EDRI and Open Rights Group.” [...]
Comment

Reply #76 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 04:09:27
[...] Open Rights Group page on the issue (includes action links) [...]
Comment

Reply #75 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 09:32:07
[...] Även Slashdot skriver om detta: “ZeroPaid is reporting that ISPs could be turned into the copyright police through European legislation that received a number of ‘intellectual property’ amendments. Many of these amendments can be found here. Judging by the amendments, ISPs could be mandated to block legitimate traffic in an effort to ‘prevent’ illegitimate traffic. To help stop this legislation, you can check out the action page. Additional coverage can be found on EDRI and Open Rights Group.” [...]
Comment

Reply #74 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 11:13:57
I've just watched the video and I'm not sure this would convince anyone other than the convinced. The message I get from it as a neutral party is "we're swapping copyrighted music and how dare the studios send us letters telling us to stop." The suggestion of a legal sharing network sounds, again to a neutral party, like "if you want us to stop ripping off your music, you'd better offer us a better deal."

Now I'm no doubt preaching a contrary message in this crowd, but logically who is this video addressed to? People who share music or those who don't? If it's the former, then people already agree with you or (mostly) just don't care. The majority share music because it's easy and will grumble and shuffle off if it becomes difficult. The latter... well the message is firstly a confession of "guilt" and a refusal to stop. It even offers some encouragement when it says these efforts will just "drive file sharing deeper underground." This is SUCCESS for the big labels and studios. Deeper underground = Harder to find / use. I don't think this is the defiant message that was intended.

There are serious issues with these amendments that are being proposed in the EU, but they are more to do with the appointment of private businesses as judge and executioner without recourse (the three strikes legitimisation) and the misrepresentation of file sharing as copyright infringement. I dread the day I lose my job (which requires Internet access) because some automated software at Virgin saw me torrenting a perfectly legal Debian ISO.

What is the real aim of campaigning against these laws? Because this video makes me believe it is principally about ensuring a continued ability to share copyrighted music. It may be a shock in this community but there is an entire world of people out there (including many who vote and who make laws) that see that as wrong. If the aim is propose a different distribution model, a less partisan presentation would be more effective. Though I have my own concerns about the technological measures that would be required to establish a blanket "music tax" that people could opt in or out of.

Sorry to be so confrontational / critical on this.

Taliesin
Comment

Reply #73 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 11:50:03
@Taliesin

Thanks for your comments. I think it was confusing for us to have put the video up there in the first place, as it isn't strictly about the Telecoms Package at all. We've taken the video down and may put it up in a separate post later. You can still view it here: http://www.friction.tv/ftv_debate.php?debate_id=3532

The aim of campaigning against the Telecoms package amendments is that the 3 strikes measures they could bring in are disproportionate and lack consumer safeguards, turning ISPs into private police at the behest of rightsholders.

Yesterday, a voluntary scheme was in the news in the UK, where on ISP (Virgin) send subscribers "educational" letters about filesharing based on evidence supplied to them by a music industry group (the BPI). No threat of disconnection is made in this scheme...yet. So that's what the video was about - sorry for the confusion.

I do think it's valid to point out that neither the 3 strikes nor the voluntary scheme being tried in the UK is going to put a penny more in artists' pockets - and when you're at a stage where around 6 million UK citizens are filesharing illicitly, I think you can start talking about market failure without sounding like you're blackmailing anyone. I disagree that driving filesharing underground is going to make it harder to use in the long run, as those who are technically able enough to use encryption or IP masking will soon develop interfaces that let the technically less-able use these tools too.

In the end, we are campaigning against overly-punitive / disproportionate measures aimed at illict filesharers which have the potential to adversely affect all internet users in a number of ways. Although it's right to point out why the laws are bad, it's also useful to point out that such laws won't achieve their stated aim - to reward artists. Your comments have reminded me that it's important to get the balance right between these two approaches, so thanks!
Brian
Comment

Reply #72 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 12:53:40
This is why I vote Non to Lisbon

Brian (ireland)
Comment

Reply #71 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 13:13:31
[...] Via the Open Rights Group: [...]
Comment

Reply #70 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 13:46:21
"Three strikes laws" are for morons,
whose the politikal ninny who came up with this idea?
You think that's really going to work?

Duh!
duh!
duh!
Stupidity does cross International boundries after all.

Let's go after the source of the problem.
The corporations who created these file sharing programs
and the companies who profit from it.

What are you people scared of a lawsuit?
These corporations are all about making a buck
off the expense of the average person.
Go after the corporaions and not the peoples.
Comment

Reply #69 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 19:41:23
@Becky.

Ah, thanks for explaining. I had interpreted the video as accompanying the story it was with, as you realised. In a different context (the one you give), it comes across differently. But you can understand why in this context I felt it risked playing to those promoting these laws who try to present it as a simple issue of copyright infringement rather than something potentially much father reaching.

I wrote to my MEPs with pretty much the points you suggested in your second and last paragraphs. Two of the South West MEPs are from UKIP (!) so I don't know if they actually bother attending committee meetings, but you never know. ;) No acknowledgment as yet, but we will keep hope for Monday, I guess. Thanks for the full reply - much appreciated.
Dynamo_ace
Comment

Reply #68 on : Fri July 04, 2008, 20:52:23
No response yet from the MEP i wrote to. But you might be interested to know that the FFII has also thrown their hat in the ring.

http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/European_Parliament_rushes_towards_Soviet_Internet
XtremeWays
Comment

Reply #67 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 00:43:23
@Taliesin
IMHO you see people demanding a "better offer" as extortionists ("make me a better offer for this t-shirt, or I will shoplift it"). Under normal circumstances, you would be right, but in this case it is a legitime because the world has changed. An offer for gas lighting was a good offer 200 years ago; today I _demand_ office workspace that uses better technology.

Let me make an example. Imagine that all news agencies and newspapers would still do the business the old way, how they did it before telegraph and radio. That is, they would print newspapers in Europe and physically ship them to the US by sea, and vice versa. All news from the other continent would be delayed for a week or so (as it used to be at the time).

Do they have legal right to do so ? Yes !
Do they have right to enforce this way of doing business ? Yes!
Would it work ? NO!

People would be scanning and faxing fresh news stories from the newspapers instead of buying "legal" week-old copies delivered by ships.
Of course, news agencies would hate it. They would propose restriction on fax machine ownership. They would demand telecom to produce DRMed fax machines that won't send newspapers. Newspapers would be printed in yellow color on blue background (impossible to scan by a b/w fax). Finally, all this won't help and they would propose three strike law, to disconnect people from fax network.

Does it remind you of anything ;) ?
Instead of using chances provided by Internet, that guys still fight it.
Comment

Reply #66 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 13:55:46
[...] Pentru aprofundari: la quadrature, open rights group [...]
Comment

Reply #65 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 14:32:22
I'm going to have to retract my earlier comments about UKIP (blast!). I've had two responses so far from the MEPs I wrote to (I have five in my area). The Conservative one (Neil Parish) is for the amendments and I'll raise the things he said on the discussion list when I've had a chance to type up my own comments on it. One of the two UKIP ones (Roger Knapman) I got a reply from (well, his office) to inform me that he will oppose the amendments. So that's gratifying at least. Um, go UKIP? :/
Comment

Reply #63 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 15:59:19
Does anyone know of sites for non-UK EU nationals to find their MEPs, i.e. the equivalents of writetothem.com? I'm assembling a list to accompany a campaign being organised in the machinima & online gaming community.

If you could reply via comments in my blog, I'd be extremely grateful.

http://worldofmongoose.blogspot.com/2008/07/get-off-your-butt-and-write-to-your-mep.html
Comment

Reply #62 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 16:00:02
[...] napja még csak francia viszonylatban kommenteltem, most már minket is elér ez a [...]
Comment

Reply #61 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 16:08:18
[...] Open Right Group [...]
Comment

Reply #60 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 17:21:33
Worth pointing out that the crucial amendments are proposed by British Conservatives - Malcolm Harbour and Syed Kamal. Obviously not worth rubbing this point in if you are writing to other British MEPs or other members of the EPP group, but I have used it in my own letters which run roughly as follows:

"...I am writing to you about the Telecoms package which goes to IMCO and ITRE next week. I'm very concerned by the amendments proposed by [British Conservatives,] Malcolm Harbour and Syed Kamal, which introduce a number of new provisions related to Intellectual Property Rights. These legal changes would allow intrusive monitoring of use of the Internet, entirely contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights law in Europe. I hope that you and your colleagues will reject these dangerous and ill-considered proposals; apparently they are to be voted in IMCO on Monday, 7 July."
Comment

Reply #59 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 18:03:06
[...] to The Open Rights Group, …neither the voluntary nor the statutory approach will put a penny in artists’ pockets [...]
Dynamo_ace
Comment

Reply #58 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 18:30:48
Ah, so we have proven that the tories are in did at war with itself!

And we found three traitors to prove it.

Shame on you, Neil Parish,Malcolm Harbour and Syed Kamal. You join David Cameron and Ann Widicome in the traitors of the conservite ideoiogy.

And i'm no tory, and now i know why.
Hmpf
Comment

Reply #57 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 18:55:09
How do I find out who to write to? I'm German...
Comment

Reply #56 on : Sat July 05, 2008, 19:31:01
[...] More info here and here. [...]
Showing comments 1 to 30 of 85 | Next | Last

Write a comment

  • Required fields are marked with *.