call +44 20 7096 1079
March 11, 2010 | Jim Killock

BPI drafted web blocking

stop disconnectionJust in case you were wondering where the idea for a web blocking amendment came from, we attach to this blog post a copy of the BPI’s draft, along with their justification for it.

Now, amendments often come from lobby and campaign groups, including us, not least because it’s the easiest way for them to show parliamentarians what they want. But the fact that twice, with the original copyright by diktat proposal, and then the web blocking proposal, the BPI essentially got to write what they wanted and get it proposed more or less wholesale as law, in such a tremendously sensitive area and in such a one-sided manner, shows something is very wrong with the way this debate is being conducted.

Parliamentarians need to recognize that copyright touches everyone and every technology in the digital age. It is no longer a question of inter-business regulation and deals. Getting copyright wrong has the potential to mess up our freedom of speech, prevent us from getting the benefits of new technologies, and damage society in other very profound ways.

It is therefore deeply inappropriate for such fundamental proposals to have been introduced by both the government or the opposition parties at the behest of one side of the debate. That applies just as much to disconnection, which Mandelson introduced in the summer at the last minute under pressure again from the BPI and other rights holders.

As the Conservatives launch their digital policies today - we again ask why these proposals are being supported, in such direct contradiction to their apparent aims?

Take action

We again urge you to take action on the Digital Economy Bill, and challenge your local candidates to say what they think.

(And come to our demonstration on March 24)

google plusdeliciousdiggfacebookgooglelinkedinstumbleupontwitteremail


Comments (9)

  1. Lilian Edwards:
    Mar 11, 2010 at 12:34 PM

    Good worked example. that draft would be copyright BPI, so if am 120a was in, they could now ask an ISP to block our site and threaten to take it to court if they refused.

  2. Tom:
    Mar 11, 2010 at 01:26 PM

    Letter to my local newspaper:

    Dear Sir,

    I recently contacted my local MP, Matthew Taylor, regarding the Digital Economy bill. This is what I wrote:

    "Dear Sir,

    What is your stance on the digital economy bill, in particular, on the disconnection without trial and disconnection for infringements by OTHER people on a connection in a different person's name? Rural Cornwall has benefited and will benefit in the future from broadband technology. More and more businesses and households, old people and school and college children will all come to depend on broadband technology more and more. The DEbill is unjust and in any case, as anyone who understands this sort of technology knows, technological attempts of the type employed by ISPs to detect illegal activity are flawed and easily circumvented with only a little effort. This BPI proposed and backed legislation is disturbing not least because it smacks of private enterprise 'buying' policies which undermine an individual's right to a fair trial, imposes unreasonable penalties on those who have acted unlawfully, and detrimentally affects the communication lines of modern businesses. This bill will affect our freedom of speech, prevent us from getting the benefits of new technologies, and damage society in other very profound ways, including opening up a 'back door' into parliament for any commercial power that wishes to influence technology and technology markets in the modern world.
    What is your position on this very important issue?

    Sincerely.
    "

    I think it is important for people in Cornwall to understand what is at stake, what rights they stand to lose if the bill is passed into law, and how to stand up for their right to a fair trial and protect themselves from privacy invasion on the internet without risking being disconnected by their Internet Service Provider.

    More information on the bill and how it affects us all can be found online at: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

    Yours with thanks.

  3. J D:
    Mar 11, 2010 at 02:15 PM


    Doesn't the part below of the "BPI Clause" fall foul of correct "Due Legal Process"?

    Evidence of any wrong-doing should be presented to the PROPER legal authorities & any EVIDENCE scrutinized FIRST!

    "Guilt assumption by an interested Party" asking an ISP to remove access without any proper legal process!

    The BPI seem to want to act as Judges on their own compiled evidence then requiring ISP's to comply!

    --------------------
    Quote:-

    The injunction would be granted only where rightsholders had first requested ISPs to block access to the site, and requested the site operator to take down infringing material.

  4. TJ:
    Mar 11, 2010 at 02:58 PM

    I've now written to my MP (Dawn Butler, Labour) on this subject too, asking for her stance.

    Will be interested on her response.

    Will definitely be there on the 24th!

  5. Kate:
    Nov 28, 2010 at 12:11 PM

    I agree with you: Getting copyright wrong has the potential to mess up our freedom of speech. How was the demonstration? Any responses to your challenge?

  6. windows vista iscsi:
    Feb 09, 2011 at 08:49 AM

    That applies just as much to disconnection, which Mandelson introduced in the summer at the last minute under pressure again from the BPI and other rights holders.

  7. Adam Clarke:
    Feb 14, 2011 at 06:55 AM

    I hate the idea of web blocking.

  8. fulfillment operations:
    Feb 25, 2011 at 06:08 PM

    There we go again. Who's pressuring for the amendment is a question that I would like to know the answer. Web blocking amendment is not acceptable in anyway shape or form. Let's us surf the web and be happy going wherever we want to go! Thanks for the post.

  9. retro jordans:
    Feb 28, 2011 at 05:18 AM

    interesting post here!



This thread has been closed from taking new comments.