The Government is running a consultation asking how it should change copyright law. We think the reforms they propose would allow people to do lots of useful things that copyright prohibits. That includes allowing people to put CDs onto their iPods, or permitting academic researchers to do smarter analysis of vast amounts of information.

We've been campaigning on one proposal in particular: for a new right to parody using copyrighted work.

At the moment, parodies that use work covered by copyright are not permitted without the permission of the rights holder.

The Government is thinking of changing that. We think that's a great idea, and one which would help nurture and support a new ecosystem of creative engagement with the cultural works around us. It's a simple choice. Is this kind of creativity something that we want the law to support, or deter? We think it should support it. You can help us make that happen.

The consultation (the proposals for parody are on page 83) is nearly closed - the deadline is March 21st. We have one more week to tell policy makers that we need a right to parody.

You can help by writing to the consultation to tell them why you think this is a good idea. Or you can use our simple form to submit your opinions if you like.  

For a video artists' story of what kind of creativity is involved, take a look at Swede Mason (creator of the hilarious Masterchef Synesthesia) describing what he does and why he wants a new right to parody on ORGZine.

So what's the problem?

Videos, music and text don't just entertain us, but are used to sell us products, influence our judgement and as a way to say something about the world. That means copyrighted works are strands of our cultural fabric, not just products to consume.

Technology has made it easier to make creative re-workings of these things. And this kind of creativity is woven into the experience of cultural life online. There are 23,000 Beyonce parody videos, nearly 2,000 Adele parodies, and around 4,000 Madonna parodies.

Making these parodies can help people learn creative techniques, entertain their friends with a funny spoof for friends, or make a point about the original work.

But this kind of creativity sits on the wrong side of our law when it uses parts of the copyrighted work without permission. One reason for this is the absence of an exception for parody under copyright law.

That means that entertaining, important or just plain funny films, songs or other works can be taken out of public view at the say so of the copyright holder.

• We heard from Greenpeace, who told us that their parody of Volkwagon's 'Star Wars' themed adverts, designed to highlight apparent lobbying by German car manufacturers against stronger CO2 emission laws in Europe, was taken down from YouTube for copyright infringement just as their campaign gained momentum.
• Comedy sketch writers 'Mother's Best Child' had their Olympics parody video, published as a commentary following the riots, removed after a couple of days having accumulated over 90,000 views, becoming the number 1 comedy video on YouTube.
• Musician and video maker 'Eclectech' parodied the James Blunt's song "You're Beautiful" with a game that involved throwing tomatoes at a characature of James Blunt, who was singing a song called “You’re Gullible”. The creator of the video received legal threats, which led to the take down of the soundtrack. Visitors are now encouraged to play the tomato throwing game while the (now) mute figure mouths the song and the lyrics appear as subtitles.
• Video artist Swede Mason found that the TV company behind Masterchef initially told him to take his runaway viral hit 'Masterchef Synesthesia' down off YouTube, and that he is down to his last 'strike' on YouTube under their take down policy. 

When copyright puts creativity like this on the wrong side of the law, we think that copyright stops being something that simple incentivises people to create and rewards them for it, and works instead as a veto over culturally useful or interesting or entertaining activity. We think the law should encourage this kind of creativity instead.

So what can we do?

We need to convince policy makers that we need a new right to parody. That means if you make parodies, enjoy them, support them, or think this is an important issue, now is the time to submit a response to the consultation.

You can do that by writing to this email address. You have until March 21st. So get your skates on!

But isn't writing to the government difficult? 

It's actually easy to respond - they're just people who want to know what as many people as possible think about what they are proposing. You just have to tell them what you think. 

Remember that short and to the point is helpful. The IPO will get lots and lots of responses. Being clear about what you want to say will help get your point across. So stating whether you had a problem with copyright when making parodies, or found some parodies using copyrighted work to be of value, is great. Long stories about the details of the first time you saw comedy are probably less so!

What should I say?

It's completely up to you what you tell the consultation team, of course. Some background might help, and we have some suggestions about the issues you might want to cover.

I make parodies. What should I say?

If you make parodies and think you'll benefit from a new exception, it's really important that the Government hears from you.

Tell them what kind of parodies you make, the creative process involved, and about your experiences of copyright. For example, if you've been asked to take something down, or had videos removed, then tell them. Say why you think what you do is something the law should support.

You could try to include details about how many views you've had to your videos and video site channels if possible.

Won't this hurt artists who make the works being parodied?

We don't believe that is the case. The Government wants to introduce this as a 'fair dealing' exception (see page 75 of the consultation for an outline of what fair dealing is). This means that a parody that does not compete with or substitute for exploitation of the original, which involves work that has been published, and which uses the amount necessary for the intended purpose, will be allowed. That includes parodies made for commercial gain (so that a parody artist could make money out of their work if they wanted to.)

We think this is the best way to support parodies and safeguard against any undesirable effects on the creators of the parodied work. We don't think parodies will competitors with the original commercially – there is no suggestion, for example, that Weird Al Jankovic songs eat into the sales of the artists he parodies.

Furthermore, this won't mean that an artists' creation will be associated with an undesirable cause, because making a parody is not the same as 'passing off' a work as something made by somebody else. A parody is not the original - that's inherent to the concept. 

If you think that the Government should define what a parody exception should or shoudl not include, or limit the kind of parodies that people should be allowed to make, tell the consultation team.

Who else thinks a new parody exception is a good idea?

We've heard from many people who support the idea. Here's a few:

Graham Linehan, writer of IT Crowd, Father Ted and the theatrical adaptation of The Ladykillers:

One of the reasons digital technology is so exciting is because every individual has access to a multitude of creative tools and just as many ways of reaching a huge audience. From simple photoshop jokes to short films or even feature films, we are living through a revolution in creativity, and parody is an important part of that revolution. Now, as someone who works in what is sometimes called Old Media, I have a layer of lawyers between what starts on the page and ends on the screen, but most don't. As a result, I see too many examples of funny, creative parodies forced off the Internet for no good reason.

I hope politicians are brave enough to ensure that, through a new parody exception, we have a copyright law that allows aspiring comedians to make the most of the wonderful opportunities of the digital age.

Rob Manuel, editor of B3ta.com, and the B3ta creative community:

For the last ten years I've co-run a website called B3ta.com. Our site does 15 million pages per month and our newsletter is read by over 100,000 people.

B3ta.com is about grassroots creativity, encouraging people to pick up the tools of the internet and use them to make jokes, entertain each other and ultimately help people flower their creativity into new careers. Along the way we've played a part in the careers of a generation of people who are the bright new talents in the UK's creative industry. Our alumni include Ben Wheatley, one of the most feted directors of recent years who has just had a hit film with Kill List, music producer Swede Mason who has taken his mash-ups into the top 40 and figures like Joel Veitch, Jonti Picking and Cyriak whose animations have become a mainstay of advertising.

In the ten years of B3ta we have had various problems with lawyers and copyright holders. Unfailingly business uses copyright to suppress criticism and humour, so we're very excited by a new exception for parody and pastiche. This would be enlightened policy making.

Those who can afford lawyers use copyright to shut down legitimate criticism. We fully support the proposed move to allow parody and pastiche to be exempt from copyright. This would be sane and fantastic policy. We hope the government does the right thing.

Campaigners including Greenpeace and Campaign Against the Arms Trade (and Open Rights Group) said in a letter to the government:

Exceptions for commentary and criticism already exist. But these do not go far enough. Parodies are one of the most effective means to campaign, and should be a vital tool for civil society and campaigning organisations. Copyright without a parody exception amounts to an over-regulation of our activity. It too often inhibits our work, resulting in a chilling effect including a fear of developing effective parody campaigns and, when we do, 'take downs' of our content.

This is why we support moves to establish an exception for parody within copyright law. Such an exception would provide greater legal certainty, especially important for smaller organisations, and make it clear that copyright cannot be used as a weapon to restrict legitimate criticism.

Alex Cox, director of the film Sid & Nancy:

The protection afforded to parody in the USA remains immensely important - I cannot legally draw and sell a picture of Mickey Mouse, but I can legally draw and sell a picture of Mickey Mouse drinking the blood of innocent artists and creators. To infringe upon this right as UK law currently does is morally outrageous and a breach of my freedom to speak, or write, or draw, or film as I see fit.

I actually find it pretty bizarre that just because something is considered funny (or, more specifically, parodically funny) it is deserving of more protection from draconian copyright law than something (whatever, a statement, a piece of art, a document) which is  'serious'. Commenting, sampling, building upon and creating derivatives is a basic fact of all artistic practice, not just parodies.

The rest of copyright law should be brought in line with the USA's approach to parody - artists need the freedom to create. These constant infringements of our creative and social rights by massive media corporations, and the continual extensions of copyright terms are censorship, impure and simple.

Wait. Haven't we been here before?

Yes. This is not the first independent review to arrive at these conclusions – the 'Gowers' review in 2006, for example, also proposed a parody exception. But intense lobbying from rights holders meant the proposals for this kind of sensible reform were dropped. Instead we got the Digital Economy Act.

That's why it's so important that people who care about this say so to the consultation team.

So get your skates on – you only have seven days left!

[Read more]

Opening non-personal government data forms part of the government’s growth agenda. Yet much of this data is almost useless without the core reference to tie it together – data which is under the control of your department.

Dear Mr Cable

I read with interest yesterday your letter to the Prime Minister about some of the issues facing the UK in the future, and in particular the need for a vision and for a connected approach across government. This struck me as timely and useful, as it hopefully signalled the intention of a change in policy at one of the main roadblocks to innovation in improving government and fostering innovation.

I am referring to the policy of your own department – the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills – to restricting access to core reference datasets, such as the Ordnance Survey mapping data, postcodes, and company data, and thus not just stifling innovation and growth but preventing a consistent and connected approach across government.

Though much about the future is unclear one thing is certain, that we are increasingly living in a data world. In that world innovation – and democracy – depends on the ability to access and reuse data, particularly the core reference data on which other data is based: what area a postcode refers to, where something is located, who runs and owns the companies for which we work or which receive government money.

In fact, opening non-personal government data forms part of the government’s growth agenda, and it has already published a considerable amount. Yet much of this data is almost useless without the core reference to tie it together – data which is under the control of your department.

When I met with your then junior minister Ed Davey a couple of months ago on this subject, I asked him point blank whether the government was going to publish huge amounts of data under a licence which allowed free reuse, but was going to restrict access to the core datasets which tied these together, that were in fact the core infrastructure for our digital world? He said, ‘We’ve got some ideas for innovative charging models.’

Let’s put aside the fact that government departments aren’t the right people to come up with ‘innovative charging models’ – they don’t have the right skills, experience, and unlike entrepreneurs like myself they aren’t risking their personal money, but the nation’s future. Let’s focus instead on a ‘connected approach across government’. This would seem a perfect example of a relatively minor source of revenue (maybe as little as £50 million, according to the report published yesterday by Policy Exchange) preventing such an approach, and with it a route to how the UK will ‘earn our living in the future’.

In my own area, OpenCorporates has in a year grown to be the largest open database of corporate data in the world – without, I should add, any help, encouragement or cooperation from BIS. We have just released a new feature that allows search for directors across multiple jurisdictions, massively increasing the ability of journalists, fraud investigators, investors, civil society, customers and suppliers to understand companies. Needless to say, UK companies aren’t included in this list because this data is restricted to those who pay.

One vision for the future would include making the UK a genuinely open and transparent place to do business, for example making UK Companies House as open as that in New Zealand, where all data is available openly and without charge. It would include making the UK leaders in the field of open data, not just generating a world-leading ecosystem of companies such as we have in motorsport, but pioneering the use of open data by companies of all types and sizes. And it would include the government being able to reuse and publish its own data without the corrosive and restrictive licences placed upon it by the likes of Ordnance Survey, and thus have a truly connected approach.

You have it within your power to help enable that vision – I hope you will act on it.

Chris Taggart

Co-founder & CEO, OpenCorporates, founder OpenlyLocal.com
Member  of Local Public Data Panel

NOTE: This letter was originally published here.

[Read more]

This morning I was in court to see Golden Eye seek a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) against Telefonica UK (known to you and I as O2). They want the details of some 9,000 of Telefonica's customers, so that they can write to them and ask them to pay £700 or face further action. Computer Active have a write up of this morning's hearing here. 

The rights involved are for adult films. it was amusing to see the judge being presented with a pair of Ben Dover branded underpants. This case is ultimately about the rules that allow rights holders, or those claiming to act on their behalf, to get the details of Internet subscribers so that they can pursue civil action. This procedure was used in the past few years in a way that led to lots of often innocent people face intimidating letters that overstated the case against them and which demanded £500, with threats of legal action to follow.

That kind of behaviour is much less about copyright enforcement than a means for those undertaking such schemes to make lots of money very easily. The ACS:Law case told us that something needs tightening up. Hence the scrutiny afforded to what Golden Eye are doing. 

In court this morning, Guy Tritton represented Consumer Focus, who were there representing the interests of those whose details Golden Eye are looking to get hold of. Mr Tritton raised a number of concerns:

1. The court can't be sure of the evidence that Golden Eye have. The problems associated with connecting IP addresses with account holders mean that the process used by those seeking an NPO must be as robust and clear as possible. In this case, there are concerns about which system has been used, and if it meets such standards. Longer term, there is a need for benchmarked standards to which applicants for a Norwich Pharmacal Order must adhere to. As noted yesterday, the outcome of this particular point will have real relevance for how the Digital Economy Act works.

2. Problems with Golden Eye's role. There was some disagreement about whether Golden Eye can legitimately pursue this action - the copyright owners need to be party to the legal action, and the dispute is whether that is the case here. Furthermore Mr Tritton raised concern about the split of the profits from this speculative invoicing campaign; Golden Eye would receive 75% of the returns. Similar concerns about Golden Eye's role have been raised before.

3. The amount being requested. Individuals alleged to have infringed would be asked to pay £700. This is far and above the likely actual damages. Jonathan Cohen, representing Golden Eye, claimed that all those involved had, through the nature of the peer-to-peer site they were using, also been uploading. But the judge questioned how they could be sure of the scale of each individual's actions. They couldn't, was the answer. So the £700 figure could be seen as amounting to little more than an arbitrary figure, Mr Tritton claimed, and one that was way above actual damage. 

4. Other problems with the draft letter. Mr Tritton argued that the letter does not spell out to recipients that just because an IP address has been assoicated with an act, it does not mean the identified subscriber has infringed copyright or authorised others to infringe.

Perhaps most worrying was the claim in the letter that Golden Eye could apply to the ISP to get the subscriber to disconnect from the internet. The legal basis for this was challenged in court and it is worrying that Golden Eye uses the threat of disconnection to pressure subscribers into paying £700.

We've repeatedly been told that we're crying wolf and exaggerating for suggesting that the Digital Economy Act will lead to disconnection. It's interesting to see that exact threat being used by a rights holder in this forum.

Mr Cohen suggested that disconnection 'must have been the aspiration of policy makers' when writing the Act. Maybe, but those policy makers keep telling us that disconnection is not on the cards. Mr Cohen didn't accept the suggestion that this clause should be dropped. They're making threats that don't tally with what policy makers say about the technical sanctions that may be available under the Act. Golden Eye or the policy makers are wrong. If it's the former, then credence is added to the suggestion that the letters are designed to extract money through intimidating threats that don't ultimately withstand scrutiny. 

Some maths helped explain things - £700 times 9,000 equals a lot of money. £6,300,000, in fact.

The question is whether this is primarily a money making scheme, and if there is some injustice in the way that Golden Eye are taking this case on. For me, the whiff that this is a money making scheme with more than a passing similarity to ACS:Law didn't dissipate this morning.

Golden Eye have a week to respond to the expert evidence submitted by Consumer Focus. It will probably be a week after that that we see a judgment. It's possible that the judge will refuse the application on the evidence grounds, or set out conditions on future Norwich Pharmacal Orders and on the letters that organisations like Golden Eye can send out to alleged infringers. 

So Consumer Focus' intervention in this case could help make sure that Norwich Pharmacal Orders are not used for money making schemes. This case could push up the standards of evidence required in the application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order, and help nail down what a fair letter to alleged infringers looks like. That should have a material benefit for the many thousands of people who may otherwise have received confusing and intimidating letters, demands for money, and consequence distress. So it will be a significant judgment, and an important intervention.

[Read more] (4 comments)

A court decision tomorrow may have a big impact on how the Digital Economy Act works. At issue is the strength of the evidence required against alleged copyright infringers facing possible civil action. It should help focus attention on the need for Ofcom to demand that water-tight standards of evidence are required for rights holder chasing alleged infringers through the Digital Economy Act.

What's happening tomorrow?

Tomorrow a firm called Golden Eye International (no, really) will be in court seeking a 'Norwich Pharmacal Order' against Telefonica UK Ltd, which could see them handed the details of many thousands of individuals who they allege have downloaded adult films from unlicensed peer-to-peer services. The case will be heard in the Rolls Building in Court 6 at ten tomorrow (Friday, 9th March - and not half ten as listed in the link). 

Why should you care? The process involved here is called 'speculative invoicing'. It involves a company getting the details of subscribers from ISPs via a court order, then writing to them en masse threatening court action unless they settle for a reasonably large sum of money (for example, £700).

You may remember last year that a company called ACS:Law had a similar case thrown out by Judge Birss. The person behind ACS:Law, Andrew Crossley, was subsequently suspended for two years by the Solicitor's Regulation Authority (The SRA judgment is available here). ACS:Law tended to 'materially overstate their case', according to the judge, and relied on problematic evidence to connect apparent instances of infringement with subscribers.

Golden Eye have done this before - and had similar problems to ACS:Law. 

There are a number of problems. Here's three of the bigger ones:

1. The letters to people accused of infringement tend to be worded in such a way that they would believe the case against them is stronger than it is, and that their options are limited. For example, the letters from ACS:Law implied that a user was liable infringing on their account in all circumstances. The point is to make them pay, for fear of complicated, expensive and intimidating court case against them. 

2. The ISPs don't always challenge the 'Norwich Pharmacal Order'. Given what happened with ACS:Law, the ISPs have a responsibility to protect users by challenging requests for their users data.

3. The evidence against alleged infringers is often not robust. What kind of evidence should be required before an ISP is forced to hand over details of your account to a rights holder wishing to take legal action against you? For example, not only is the process of linking IP addresses to subscribers problematic, but that process identifies the owner of the connection and not the person who committed the infringement (these kind of problems were outlined by security expert Richard Clayton here).

Unless there is very robust evidence that the internet connections in question have been used to infringe copyright, then Norwich Pharmacal Orders should be refused.

When the information is given out too easily, with weak evidence and a hands-off ISP, often innocent people will face letters effectively strong-arming them into settling the case for not small sums. ACS:Law case clearly wasn't the end of this nefarious practice. The practice has seen people put through huge amounts of stress and inconvenience and financial harm. Not in the service of promoting creators' interests, but for cheap money making schemes.

Friday's decision and the Digital Economy Act

Under the Digital Economy Act, copyright owners would submit copyright infringement reports (CIRs) to ISPs (these are basically cases where rights holders think a particular IP address is responsible for an instance of infringement), and the ISP then match IP addresses with customer records. They then pass on notifications to that user. If a user gets a certain number of notifications (a number to be set in the initial obligations code, and which was set at 3 in the draft) then subscribers get placed on “copyright infringement lists”.

In advance of 'technical measures' being introduced, copyright owners would be able to apply for these Norwich Pharmacal Orders for personal data of those who are on the copyright infringement list, and then take them to court for civil copyright infringement.

Ofcom are required to define the standards of evidence required against alleged infringers through the Initial Obligations Code (see Consumer Focus' guide to the 'IOC' here).  The revised version of this is due out soon. Without stringent standards, there is a risk that people are wrongly placed on infringement lists and are subject to the civil action in the initial phases of the Act. Once the technical measure come into force, anyone on the blacklists can have technical measures imposed on their connection, which may include speed-bumping or disconnection. We're concerned that Ofcom will not have done enough to set that standard of evidence.

There's an interesting problem for the Act itself as well - if Ofcom's standards of evidence are not high enough, then they may face a situation in which Norwich Pharmacal Orders are turned down, undermining a key purpose of the Act - to make it easier for rights holders to take civil action against repeat alleged infringers. It would also leave potentially thousands of internet subscribers blacklisted on the basis of evidence that is not even strong enough to obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order.

We'll be reporting from the court tomorrow morning on what happens.

[Read more]

Today, we are formally opening the second elections to the Open Rights Group's Board. This time, we are asking you to nominate and elect three board members for a term of three years. As before, the Board will appoint extra members to balance skills and experience. You can find our current Board members here.

PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS

The ballot will be by post, so we need your current postal address. If it has changed since you joined ORG, call us on 020 7096 1079 weekdays between 10 am and 6 pm, or email supporters@openrightsgroup.org you may be asked for some details to verify your identity.

Want to stand for the Board?

Anyone who is a current paying ORG Supporter can stand for the election. You need to find a proposer and seconder. Nominations open today and remain open until Tuesday 20 March 2012. A "hustings" where candidates will answer questions from supporters will take place at ORGCon.

Read the rules here:

CanI meet the candidates?

Hopefully, yes. Come to ORGCon - and meet them at the hustings! There's plenty of other great reasons to come to ORGCon, including keynotes by Cory Doctorow and Larry Lessig, training sessions and in depth talks on privacy, censorship and digital rights. See the full programme.

When will the postal vote take place?

The postal vote will take place after ORGCon, in April, after candidates have given us their statements and we have printed ballot papers. Don't forget to update your address! The count will take place in early May.

Information about the election

You can find out more about the election here. The full rules are here.

Thank you for your support, which we depend on to fight for your digital rights: and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

[Read more]

You could make a pretty convincing case at the moment that the European Parliament has more to say about democratic policy making than our own Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Yesterday Javier and I were at an ACTA workshop in Brussels organised by the INTA Committee of the European Parliament. (You can read the European Parliament's Storify summary here, and a Twitter search for #ACTAws also has lots of info). A year ago, a workshop on IP policy would have been a niche affair, dominated by promises to crack down on internet piracy and little meaningful debate or scrutiny of the proposals about how to do so.

But yesterday's workshop saw, according to some, around 600 people subjecting those kind of proposals to the light of unprecedented public scrutiny. It was great to see the energy generated by protests and criticisms across Europe manifesting itself in one of Europe's key decision making forums - and credit is due to the Committee for welcoming so many in to the discussion (although the chairman of the workshop had an eccentric take on what applause means!). It was especially heartening to see so many MEPs critical of the way that that ACTA was written and asking such sharp questions of its provisions.

I think it is fair to say that the representatives of the European Commission - who are seen as the villains of the piece for leading on negotiating ACTA and now downplaying many of the problems with it - got a roasting. As Professor Michael Geist said in his panel discussion, this is the kind of scrutiny and discussion that should have been happening two years ago when the agreement was being written. (You can read Professor Geist's speech here).

With this in mind, it's helpful to think about what's happening in the UK at the moment. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport continue to hold closed door meetings in which industry lobbyists get to pressure other businesses like ISPs and Google into adopting voluntary schemes to police content online, with no public input (like the proposals to police search results that we revealed here). There have been two more such meetings in the past two weeks.

The Department are about to publish the Communications Green Paper, which they promise will be the vehicle for proposals for legislation along these lines if no agreement is reached in these private meetings. 

As we keep saying, these kind of voluntary arrangements aren't in themselves the end of the world. But the only people in the room discussing these agreements are the industries affected. Other perspectives are relegated to some kind of strange observer role. No public input has been sought. And the Department itself claims it has no evidence or analysis to guide what it is saying, making it difficult to understand how they will judge when an acceptable agreement is reached. How do they know what they are looking for? You wonder if the views of selected industry representatives are being conflated with good public policy. 

This process shares many traits with the proposed IP laws that have stirred such anger in the recent months, first in the US regarding SOPA and currently around ACTA: closed forums for negotiation; a lack of clarity about the analysis and evidence driving policy; a serious democratic deficit.

DCMS are pursuing a model of policy making that has led copyright policy not only into further disrepute amongst internet geeks, digital rights advocates and consumer champions, but amongst growing numbers of the public as well.

The IP policy wagon has been followed this year by loud expressions of concern, most recently as tens of thousands took to the streets across Europe. The debate has made its way from the USA, with the focus on the Stop Online Piracy Act, to Europe, with ACTA the current focus. The results of the UK's closed shop policy making will soon be revealed in the Communications Green Paper, so the UK is probably next.

When there is a room overflowing with people subjecting ideas and proposals to scrutiny in a democratic forum, as happened yesterday in Brussels, democracy seems like such a good idea.

But as much as it was heartening to see MEP's taking up the fight, it's a shame it was ultimately a debate about a proposal presented to the public as a fait accompli.  

Private negotiation ≠ democracy.  We'd urge DCMS to make sure that they open up and make their policy making a properly democratic exercise as soon as possible.  

[Read more] (2 comments)

Through reports to the blocked.org.uk site, we have established that Orange UK are filtering access to La Quadrature du Net’s website on pre-paid mobile accounts.

La Quadrature du Net is similar to ORG – it is an advocacy group that seeks to defend citizen’s fundamental rights on the Internet. They have been a leading voice in the growing movement to oppose the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, behind which so much momentum is gathering. They have provided detailed analyses alongside practical suggestions about how to help with the political effort to oppose the treaty.

This mobile blocking technology was built to prevent individuals under the age of 18 from viewing adult-related and unmoderated content on sites. This specifically meant content involving, for example, gambling, chatrooms, dating, user generated content and visual material of a sexual nature. 

Mobile phone operators automatically ‘filter’ the mobile Internet on pay-as-you-go phones as they are unaware whether a child or an adult is using the device, and, as such prohibit access to websites that supposedly fall within this category.

Searching for LQDN’s website on Orange pre-pay handsets leads to a warning that ‘Orange Safeguard has classified this page as only suitable for people over the age of 18.’ LQDN’s site does not contain any such material. But it still falls within the parameter of adult-related material. You can see Orange's classification system here.

That La Quadrature du Net is blocked under such a policy highlights the need for change. The problem of over-blocking is being exacerbated by a lack of transparency (so that it's not clear what is blocked and to whom) and the problems users experience trying to opt-out.  

We're gathering more evidence of the scale of the over-blocking problem through blocked.org.uk site, and you can help by reporting inappropriate blocks you find. We're currently in the process of meeting the mobile operators and the Mobile Broadband Group to tell them our concerns and outline how we think the problems can be addressed. More efficient measures need to be implemented in order to allow parents to implement tools to try to manage their children's Internet use whilst ensuring that adults are not subject to unnecessary censorship.

Update: Sometime between Friday February 17th and Monday February 20th, the La Quadrature du Net website was unblocked on Orange. We have not established why it was blocked or subsequently unblocked. We are meeting Orange tomorrow to discuss their mobile filtering policies. 

[Read more] (1 comments)

This morning we confirmed with the Serious and Organised Crime Agency that the apparent takeover of rnbxclusive.com, reported yesterday on TechDirt here, is genuine. 

[Read more] (4 comments)