ORG and consumer groups were back in the Ofcom offices on the South Bank this lunchtime to talk about the initial obligations code. The process is rattling ahead, with a deadline imposed by the legislation of having the whole thing in place within X months. As this includes three months during which the EU must be able to check that the draft code is compatible with European legislation, Ofcom is left with an impossibly tight deadline. The result is that these initial discussion meetings are being arranged with barely a few days notice and very little possibility to prepare.
The atmosphere was nevertheless friendly and we agreed on certain issues. There are, however, four points we are particularly worried about.
1. It is unclear what will happen to providers of open WiFi
There are a number of long established grassroutes open WiFi networks in the country, as well as individuals who feel they should be able to share their connections. Many councils such as Camden or Shoreditch (Hoxton Square WiFi) in London provide open WiFi. They deliberately leave their network open because they want to share their internet access with other people (who may not be able to afford it). ORG strongly believes that everyone should be allowed to do that.
The appeals process is allowed to accept an appeal if a customer has taken 'reasonable steps' to stop third parties from infringing. Apparently, what those reasonable steps are might well be left up to the appeals process to establish. It's unclear what 'reasonable steps' might be if you wish to run an open WiFi network, which is still completely legal. And preventing people from sharing wifi seems totally disproportionate. Meanwhile, the letters are going to have to advise customers what they might do - and what the consequences might be.
2. Will ISPs and help services be ready to deal with the process?
The contents of the letter will be very important. If format, length and tone are not appropriate, there is a fair chance that people misunderstand the information or don't take it seriously. Yet rights holders and ISPs are inclined to view the process as informative rather than quasi legal, with genuine consequences such as court action if people fail to take note of them. We also think that it is easy to underestimate the sheer number of copyright infringement reports (CIRs) and subsequent notification letters, and the reactions they will bring; and the need for help and information as a result.
3. The letter must clearly set out the right to appeal and how the subscriber can get independent advice
It is not enough to simply say that you have the right to appeal. A lot of citizens will not notice a simple sentence setting this out, let alone understanding what it means, especially as it means appealing against an allegation. The letter might go straight to the bin, and the need to appeal be ignored. Therefore, a section in the the letter must clearly set out the process for the subscriber, that they can and should appeal if innocent, and how and where the can get independent advice. Furthermore, this advice needs to come from a body different from the appeals body. This can be a citizens advice bureau in the first instance, but then probably needs to be an independent service like Consumer Direct in order to cope with the volume of queries.
4. If technical measure are different to the notification process, the number of alleged infringements needs to be cleared
Ofcom say that technical measures are not part of this consultation. They are not able to answer the question of what will happen to the lists of copyright infringement allegations at the end of the notification stage. The list of alleged copyright infringements may be kept and used in a future technical measures stage. If the threshold was, say, 50 infringements and you accumulated 35 during the notification stage, you would get disconnected after another 15. This is clearly unacceptable: it would be a retrospective application of the law. A simple solution would be if BIS (or whichever department is in charge in a new government) stated that the evidence collected in the notification period would not apply to the technical measure period.
ORG will be liaising with groups such as Consumer Focus and Which? and present Ofcom with a list of principles for the whole process next week.
Pete:
May 06, 2010 at 07:29 PM
I wonder, is it possible that a strategy of "digital appeasement" is simply facilitating something very wrong?
Wouldn't it be better for ORG to withdraw from the whole process completely? On the basis that it is fundamentally wrong in principle to disconnect (or threaten to disconnect) personal communications services without judicial procedure.
Particularly when copyright holders have existing, and generous, civil measures available to them if they so desired.
Then allow civil servants to screw DEB up, as they undoubtedly will?
Otherwise I fear the Government will claim that these shabby measures have been 'endorsed by ORG'.
Instead perhaps... accept we failed on DEB, and watch it become the disaster we told them it would be.
Focus our attentions on something constructive.
Promoting encryption, identity protection, and legal music services... giving people access to the skills, insight, technology, and services they require to protect themselves from crazed Government?
And switch campaigning to the next big campaign. Net neutrality, fairness in bandwidth advertising, stopping the 'telegraph pole tax', enforcement of RIPA against ISPs, championing rural broadband, pre-empting future policy making so a disaster like DEB never happens again?
Matt:
May 07, 2010 at 03:20 PM
I understand what you're saying Pete, but I feel that with ORG involved in the process, we are more likely to end up with something that's fairer than it will be otherwise.
Nobody want's to be threatened or disconnected and ORG's involvement in drafting the process will hopefully help to protect people more.
Florian Leppla:
May 10, 2010 at 04:04 PM
Thanks for the comment Pete. I'm afraid I have to agree with Matt. ORG has always said that disconnection is wrong and will continue to say so. If we decided to withdraw from the consultation process it would be easy for Government to argue that we have no interest in working with them, which could make any further involvement very difficult. Ofcom might not take everything on board we say, but they have asked us for advice and I think we should give it to them. It's now a matter of ensuring that features in the code, i.e. clearly worded letter, the opportunity to get independent advice, number of CIRs not carried over to next level etc.
mp3 cd burning software:
Feb 09, 2011 at 08:32 AM
ORG will be liaising with groups such as Consumer Focus and Which? and present Ofcom with a list of principles for the whole process next week.
windows vista iscsi:
Feb 09, 2011 at 08:51 AM
Promoting encryption, identity protection, and legal music services... giving people access to the skills, insight, technology, and services they require to protect themselves from crazed Government?
Reverse Phone Lookup:
Mar 01, 2011 at 02:50 PM
Where are the details of the Digital Economy Act? I'm very curious to research the specifics of the legislation with regards to the don't call list, reverse phone lookup, and mass email marketing. Are these provisions laid out in the document or am I way off base here?