We have been invited to the next roundtable focused on 'self-regulatory' measures to tackle copyright infringement, hosted by the Minister Ed Vaizey on Wednesday 7th December. We've written about these roundtables a few times before (for example here and here).

Self-regulation means, in this context, the search for agreements that would see 'intermediaries' such as Internet Service Providers, search engines and advertisers block, demote or cut off support for sites allegedly involved in copyright infringement. The Government says they would rather that the stakeholders involved came to an agreement together about how this should work, than pass legislation.

This has so far placed intermediaries in a pretty difficult position - the Government wants action, but the nature of the problem and what's considered a necessary response is being framed almost entirely by one voice in the debate. The intermediaries are threatened with legislation, and are seen by the Government as obstructive, if they don't at least look like they are trying to work through the ideas put forward. Yet the fundamental basis of the discussion and the bottom line requirements go unchallenged, as policy makers consider themselves simply facilitators of a voluntary relationship. Such is the problem of a discussion about self-regulation that involves only a narrow range of views.

Our concerns with this range from the seeming absence of any meaningful focus on the health of legal markets for content (see the agenda below, our research on the problems of the film market, and the Competition Commission inquiry into pay TV and how Sky's deals with Hollywood majors causes competition problems), through to an acknowledged lack of evidence to help policy makers understand the *nature* of the infringement problem (are we trying to catch the right sites, address the right people and behaviour, and with the right remedies?)

It is hard to see how judgements of necessity and proportionality can be made in this context.

Moreover, we are troubled by the closed-door process, with a small group of vested interests talking over ideas which which raise issues of significant public concern.

So on the one hand we are glad that this roundtable is more broadly constituted and will feature the voices of a wider range of perspectives. This gives us a further opportunity to emphasise arguments about evidence, website blocking and due process.

But on the other hand, we don't want to simply play along in a process that continues to hide from the light of proper public debate, and which operates on what is a skewed and flawed basis. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

"Roundtable on Online Copyright Infringement

Agenda

1. Introductions

2. Purpose of the meeting

3. Topical updates:

a. DEA update

b. MoJ / Judiciary update

c. Site-blocking

d. Search Engines

e. Revenue approaches: Credit Cards / Advertising

4. Next steps and timetable

5. AOB"

The roundtables have so far been driven by proposals written by rights-holders, first for a faster website blocking scheme and more recently for how search engines can help stop copyright infringement. The only way to see the actual proposals, for those not involved, is through Freedom of Information requests.

From what we understand, the new proposals involve some alarming ideas to give powers to rights-holders to control search results. It's hard to say precisely, because despite being one of the participants in Wednesday's debates, we haven't seen the actual proposals. We have requested them via an FoI, but have not yet heard back.

There is no good reason I can think of to continue to operate the discussions with no transparency or room for public input. It has to be time to put these discussions on a firm, legitimate and transparent footing. Not to stop talking about the issues. But to establish a clear, equal process that ensures that the direction of travel is not determined by one voice alone, with others permitted to occasionally suggest minor course directions.

We'll report back, of course, on how well such suggestions are taken.

[Read more] (2 comments)

I posted a week or so ago about the latest round of discussions hosted by DCMS regarding 'self-regulation' and Internet policy.  In addition to ongoing discussions about a new, faster scheme for website blocking, there are now plans proposed by rights holders for search engines to 'self-regulate' in the name of copyright enforcement too. 

The UK is not alone facing this issue. Any country exploring how to develop their policy for the Internet will struggle to work out what mix of legislation and 'cooperation' / self-regulation / private policing to pursue. So far, it seems that digital rights and the interests of consumers and citizens come last on the list of problems that policy makers consider when thinking these questions through. The risks of self-regulation are pretty obvious where the relationships involved in such a scheme, for example between rights holders and search engines, affect basic freedoms and rights by giving power over what people can access away too cheaply. 

So it's good to see that the MEP Marietje Schaake is hosting an interesting looking event in the European Parliament next week on this very issue. It will look at what "'self-regulation' and 'cooperation of service providers and rights holders' mean in practice." If you're not in Brussels but want to follow the event, you can watch a live stream here).

Joe McNamee from EDRi, who produced the report "The slide from "self-regulation" to corporate censorship", will be talking on the panel, and other talks are promised from:

• Werner Stengg, DG Markt, Head of Unit ‘Online Services’, about the forthcoming initiatives from the Commission,
• Nicole Dewandre, DG Information Society, Advisor on Stakeholder Issues
• Els Hendrix, Council of Europe expert, dealing with international (new) media and content issues
• Chris Ancliff, General Counsel, Warner Music Group, representing record companies 
• Patrick Ager, ECSA, representing composers and songwriters
• Jermyn Brooks, GNI, representing tech companies who respect fundamental rights worldwide
• Malcolm Hutty, EuroISPA, representing intermediary companies online

ORG will be there, with the hope of bringing news of the variously mad, entertaining and unworkable proposals for self-regulations schemes being discussed here in the UK. 

Meanwhile, we're on the hunt for the proposals discussed in the most recent roundtables hosted by the Minister Ed Vaizey, regarding how search engines should join with some 'self-regulation'. We've submitted an FoI. We'll update you as we learn more. 

[Read more] (2 comments)

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an international trade treaty, drawn up over the past five years, that aims to improve 'global standards for the enforcement of IPR, to more effectively combat trade in counterfeit and pirated goods.' Having been negotiated in international fora, the treaty now requires national Parliaments and negotiating parties (including the EU as a whole) to sign and ratify it. This is what's going on now.

ACTA raises a number of extremely controversial issues, all of them outlined very well in this booklet from Access, EDRi and the Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue. Concerns include a further drift towards private companies being forced to police the Internet and the further pressuring of ISPs to carry out surveillance of their users.

One of the most troubling aspects, which is the focus of this post, is procedural - the persistent opacity that has surrounded the negotiation, and now ratification, of the treaty. It has seemed at every stage as if the process has a momentum and direction beyond the reach of the people it will affect. It has been formulated in closed international fora, with transparency an afterthought. Civil society groups have been consistently frustrated when seeking a mechanism to clearly put forward their objections in a meaningful and constructive way.

Now ACTA has been sent to the various parties to be ratified. And this should be the stage at which democracy really kicks in - even where it was absent before - with public scrutiny, and a public voice in decisions that affect us, including those regarding the ratification of treaties that bind domestic policy makers by international rules.

I have patched together some of the story of ACTA scrutiny in the UK. Warning: it is, to borrow a phrase from Alan Partridge, a long, drawn out affair. A couple of weeks ago, Julian Huppert MP asked the Minister in Parliament what the process of scrutiny for ACTA looked like in the UK. Here are the Minister's answers, first on the timetable for signing and secondly on what the scrutiny processlooks like. Here's the low-down on what has happened:

1. Scrutiny in the UK comes in the form of ACTA going before two EU Committees - one in the House of Commons, and one in the Lords.

2. ACTA passed scrutiny of the Commons EU Committee on 14th July this year. The scrutiny report classifies it as 'document not raising legal or political questions requiring a report to the House'.

3. ACTA passes scrutiny of the Lords EU Committee report on 14th October. The report references 'Government doubts about the legal basis' (pdf). I asked the Lords committee about these doubts. They replied with the letters that are copied below. I aim to one day understand exactly what they mean. Help with that is appreciated.

4. The Government said it is now 'considering its position'.

I also asked for the basis upon which the Commons Committee scrutinised ACTA, and they sent an Explanatory Memorandum provided by BIS, which you can download here. It paints a reasonably rosy picture.

In stitching this convoluted story together, one gets a further feeling that the treaty process is independent from any meaningful form of proper and open democratic scrutiny. (I should point out, to be fair to the clerks of the Committees, both were very responsive and helpful in providing information).

Your chance to say 'I don't like this' has been minimised throughout ACTA's development. Calls for scrutiny, transparency and accountability regarding ACTA are rising across the EU. You can follow these on the 'Act on ACTA' site.

Now is the time for the EU and its constituent nations to play democracy catch up and offer its citizens a chance to have their say - meaningfully - on this important and far reaching treaty.  We will be chasing the Government on what it means to say that they are 'considering their position' - the IPEX site says that ACTA has already cleared scrutiny in the UK. Are there still opportunities for people in the UK to have their say? We have asked for a meeting with Baroness Wilcox, Minister for Intellectual Property, where we shall try to get some more clarity and set out our concerns. 

Letters regarding the Lords EU Committee scrutiny of ACTA:

15 September letter (Lord Roper to Baroness Wilcox):

 

Docs 12190/11 & 12193/11 (COM (2011) 379 & 380):  Proposals for Decisions on the signing and conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America

 

Thank you for your Explanatory Memorandum of 14 July.  This was considered by the Justice and Institutions Sub-Committee at its meeting of 14 September.  We decided to hold these proposals under scrutiny.

 

 

We note that the Agreement does not make any provision for the EU to lodge a declaration of competence.  We regard a declaration as valuable in providing legal certainty.

 

 

We should be grateful for further information detailing the nature of your doubts concerning the legal basis.

 

 

We should be grateful for a reply to this letter within the usual 10 day period.

 

 

I am copying this letter to Mr William Cash MP, Chair of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee; and to Alistair Doherty, Clerk to the Commons Committee; Paul Hardy, Legal Adviser to the Commons Committee; Les Saunders (Cabinet Office); and Elaine Barley, Departmental Scrutiny Co-ordinator.

 

 

 

The Rt Hon the Lord Roper

 

Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Union

5 October letter (Baroness Wilcox to Lord Roper):

 

Docs 12190/11 & 12193/11 (COM(2011) 379 & 380): Proposals for Decisions on the signing and conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America

 

I am writing in response to your letter of 15 September, in which you requested further information on the legal basis of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

 

 

 

At the time of my original letter to you, we were considering whether Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) needed to be cited in addition to Article 207 TFEU.  We are now satisfied that in so far as Article 114 TFEU may be considered relevant, it is no more than ancillary to Article 207 TFEU in relation to the ACTA agreement. 

 

I was pleased to note that the Explanatory Memoranda attached to the European Commission's proposals made a statement about the division of competence between the EU and the Member States in the field of criminal enforcement, following the clear preferences of the Member States including the UK.  In particular, the Commission has not proposed exercising shared competence in the field of criminal sanctions, which I very much welcome.  The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union has requested an EU declaration of competence in addition.  My officials will discuss this issue with the European Commission.

 

 

The Presidency is keen to secure agreement on the Council decision for EU signature shortly, to allow signature with other international partners.  I would therefore be grateful if the Committee would consider clearing these documents from scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am copying this letter to William Cash MP, Chair of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee; the clerks of both Committees; to Les Saunders, Cabinet Office European & Global Issues Secretariat; and Elaine Barley, Departmental Scrutiny Coordinator, BIS.

 

 

 

BARONESS WILCOX

14 October letter (Lord Roper to Baroness Wilcox):

Doc 12190/11 & 12193/11 (COM (2011) 379 & 380):  Proposals for Decisions on the signing and conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America

 

 

 

Thank you for your letter of 5 October.  This was considered by the Justice and Institutions Sub-Committee at its meeting of 12 October.  We decided to clear these proposals from scrutiny.

 

 

In doing so we agree with you that the common commercial policy provides an adequate legal basis for these proposals. 

 

 

We are pleased that you will pursue our suggestion of a declaration of competence.  Ideally this should be incorporated into the Agreement to provide maximum legal certainty and transparency.

 

 

We should be grateful for an update on the outcome of your discussions with the Commission in due course.

 

 

I am copying this letter to Mr William Cash MP, Chair of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee; and to Alistair Doherty, Clerk to the Commons Committee; Paul Hardy, Legal Adviser to the Commons Committee; Les Saunders (Cabinet Office); and Elaine Barley, Departmental Scrutiny Co-ordinator.

 

The Rt Hon the Lord Roper

 

Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Union

 

[Read more]

Today, ISPA, ORG and LINX have informed Nominet that we are unable to agree with the draft Issue Group statement on domain name suspensions. We have been closely involved in these discussions.

Nominet has to date been suspending domain names at the mere request of law enforcement in a variety of cases. The full details of these suspensions have not been released: rather, some summary information has been provided orally giving an indication of the volumes and the nature of the offences. We are asking Nominet to publish this information.

Law enforcement have argued that Nominet must take responsibility for acting once they are informed of suspensions, in some cases threatening them with potential liabilities under the Proceeds of Crime Act. We have no doubt that so far most of the domains have been worth removing. Some clearly have been taken down incorrectly. But whatever the current practice - the scope of a criminality policy puts in place principles which will inevtably be used much more widely in the future.

Currently, no-one can know in advance when their fundamental Convention rights of freedom of expression, assembly, property and private communications may be interfered with by Nominet – acting at its own discretion on advice from a variety of state agencies.

Nominet – who are aware that running ad hoc procedures is dangerous and unsustainable – therefore convened an Issue Group to try to create a process to deal with these requests from law enforcement.

This process has been unable to reach agreement. ISPA, LINX and ORG have each separately decided that domain suspensions need to take place after receipt of a court order, and informed Nominet of this today.

ORG’s understanding is that Nominet’s current practices fail to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).[1] It is an Article 6 right under the Convention to have an open fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Article 6 rights cannot be waived.  Further the underlying rights are only subject to justified or authorized interference in accordance with or prescribed by law –which is accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable citizens to regulate their conduct.[2] This is not and cannot be met when Nominet itself exists in a statutory and legal vacuum –and now acts without court orders.

ORG’s position is that seizures and suspensions should be taking place only on court orders as the law and the Convention require.

ORG has participated in Nominet’s stakeholders issues group in the hope of persuading the stakeholders to agree to seek court orders, and to introduce transparency and clarity. We have tried to find ways to balance the rights of individuals, but law enforcement agencies have been resisting suggestions that court orders might ever be sought. Their reasoning has been based around a lack of resources.

We have had some fundamental concerns with the process:

• The level of detail and specification needed in the policy was difficult to achieve: and without this, we could not be confident in the way the recommendations might be acted upon
• The scope of the policy, including non-urgent problems such as counterfeit goods sites, was set by Nominet’s de facto suspensions policy, rather than any test of principle
• Law enforcement agencies in effect were able to rule out prior or first-available opportunity court orders, constraining our ability to construct a truly compliant policy
• We had not resolved whether we would not have the ability to input to final policy language—without such input we would potentially be signing away your fundamental rights.

Nevertheless, the result is a dangerous one. We have suspensions with no policy: and the possibility of legislation to compel domain suspensions. We will need to hear from Nominet how they wish to proceed, particularly

• how they will act on future law enforcement requests, and whether they will require court orders
• whether law enforcement will be seeking new legislation, and what balances Nominet will argue for
• whether they will publish full details of suspensions to date, the agency making the request, the domains affected and the alleged offences associated with the request

Thanks to Victoria McEvedy for her advice and help with the legal aspects of this post

[Read more] (1 comments)

Mandarin admits ORG got it right about opaque evidence

This morning the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee began another evidence session looking at the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. Among the four panellists in the morning session were Baroness Wilcox, the Minister for Intellectual Property, and Adrian Brazier, a senior civil servant from DCMS. You can watch the session here.

The hearing started with a positive discussion of our work (read our original post here) to reveal that the Government holds no evidence on the effects of copyright infringement online, or of the effectiveness of different ways of dealing with it. Mr. Brazier said that we 'had a point' about the 'opaque' evidence used in the Digital Economy Act, and that the methodologies behind the evidence used in the Digital Economy Act was not publicly available - or indeed available to the Government.

He admitted that they should have commissioned more evidence, and that they were 'left making the best brick with the straw available'. He even suggested ORG 'have a fair point' that not all infringement is economic bad - suggesting even that there is industry has evidence that shows 'tasting before you buy'. He suggested this added weight to Professor Hargreaves' recommendation that future evidence is rooted in sounds evidence.

This is great news. DCMS should be applauded for this stance, which hopefully marks a commitment to an evidence-based approach to enforcement. It stands as a vindication of ORG's - and others' - consistent arguments about the strength of the evidence used to justify enforcement measures, and the need to focus far more clearly on understanding the nature of the problem at hand and what is an appropriate response to it.

But it wasn't all good news this morning.  Mr Brazier revealed that later today rights holder groups will meet search engines, facilitated by the Minister Ed Vaizey - in a similar fashion to ongoing talks about website blocking (for the latest on these discussions see our post here) - to discuss what search engines can do to downgrade certain results and promote others.

Details are sketchy, as they unfortunately tend to be in such matters at the moment. However, some familiar problems arise. Who adjudicates on what counts as a site or search result worthy of action? With what authority, and using what evidence? What recourse is there to proper due process?

The signs aren't great that the right problem is in focus. Mr Brazier suggested that the search and infringement problem is evident from typing 'mp' into Google.  The first result given, he revealed, is 'mp3 converter'.

Now, this may or may not tell us something about the relative popularity of mp3 converters and Members of Parliament.  But it suggests nothing about what action search engines must engage in to boost the creative industries' digital businesses. One reason, aside from how useful audio converters can be, is the Government has so far supported Hargreaves recommendation for a new exception to copyright for format shifting which would make most conceivable use of an audio converter perfectly lawful.

Mr Brazier then suggested that work with search engines would focus on the 'top 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 sites that cause most economic damage'. But DCMS have told us they don't have evidence to back that kind of analysis up. So what are they basing these judgements on?

Once again there are concerns about self-regulation and the process for determining procedures that affect the free flow of information. Self-regulation isn't necessarily bad, and the Internet is not absented from the rule of law. But there are obvious risks when the relationships involved in a self-regulation scheme, for example between rights holders and search engines, affect basic freedoms and rights, and where those interests are not reflected in the process. This applies to work with search engines and other developing schemes, including relationships between industry, police and payment services to cut off financial support for sites allegedly involved in infringement.

The groups discussing these ideas *must* be broadly constituted, including voices that can adequately reflect civil society, consumer interests and legal experts.  We should not be entrusting decisions affecting the free flow of information online just to the relevant industry groups. If the Government are facilitating the downgrading of certain sites or results, it is critical at least that the criteria and evidence used to make such decisions are transparent.

This is especially so where the Government takes an explicitly 'hands off' role. With no evidence to hand, what kind of scheme between industries is the Government hoping to see emerge? What would they consider to be enough, or appropriate, or proportionate?

It must be time for policy making on this to happen in a transparent way that reflects the legitimate freedom of expression and due process concerns. That can be the only way to develop self-regulation schemes. Due process is not an optional extra.

We're asking for more details about the meeting and what is being proposed. Updates as we get them.

[Read more] (3 comments)

Last week the BPI, apparently with a coalition (or gang, or cabal, or flock - perhaps even a 'disaster' - pick your preferred collective noun) of other rights holders, asked BT to block access to the Pirate Bay. This follows the court decision (the detailed order is here) that handed film studios an injunction against BT that forced the ISP to block access to the website Newzbin2.

The BPI are citing the Newzbin judgement as a precedent that they argue should lead to BT voluntarily blocking the Pirate Bay. The move helps to demonstrate the precarious position that ISPs are now in. Their willingness to dig in to their own legal budgets is now almost a proxy for due process.

BT deserve great credit for making sure that the requests to block Newzbin have been through the courts. Now they are facing immediate calls to extend blocking to new sites. So far BT have said that 'in line with the Newzbin judgment, a court order will be needed before any blocking could begin'.

A crucial feature of the Newzbin2 injunction was a previous court case that established that Newzbin were secondary copyright infringers. (You can read ORG's legal analysis of this original case here.) As James Firth points out on his blog, without such a judgement, its hard to see how there's an easy read-across to new cases unrelated to Newzbin.

Perhaps the presumption is that pressure from requests to block voluntarily, along with the threat of costs for challenging blocking requests, will incentivise ISPs to be more receptive to developing a streamlined, voluntary scheme through the process hosted by the Minister Ed Vaizey MP, and which we posted about below.

But proper due process is for life, not just for private reassurances in policy makers' ears - especially when it is the principles of freedom of expression that are at stake. The cost of due process should not be used as a mechanism for speeding up the process of getting websites blocked. Whatever you think of the Pirate Bay, the dangers of allowing private interests to conspire to block access to a site should be obvious.

The Judge in the Newzbin injunction hearing seemed very clear that rights holders would handle the injunctions very responsibly. I've been thinking over how responsible use of a quite specific injunction includes using it to ask ISPs to block other sites. I've not figured that out yet.

[Read more]

In September ORG and a number of other groups met with the Minister Ed Vaizey (a meeting that we wrote up here). We spoke about copyright policy and the proposals for a new, streamlined website blocking scheme that he had been discussing in private meetings with rights holders, Internet companies and, more recently, Consumer Focus.

Around the same time, the Minister also held another meeting with this official roundtable group. Thanks to FoI requests to Consumer Focus and DCMS, we have the new proposals for a website blocking scheme and minutes from the meeting. The new suggested scheme is a revised version of the proposals outlined earlier in the year.

In the new proposals there is at least a written commitment to the need some form of due process. But the document doesn't resolve some of the most fundamental problems concerning what fair due process looks like: the desire to 'speed up' the injunction process; the process of classifying the websites concerned through an expert body; the evidence required to do so. With an eye on the due process and the rule of law, we are left with this rather insufficient concession:

"it was recognised that there would need to be legal consideration of the fine details at some point."

The Minister, according to the minutes released under the FoI, also makes reference to the need to have a list of '50 or 60 of the most egregious websites'. Only recently the DCMS told us that they have no evidence of the effects of copyright infringement, or of the effectiveness of different ways of dealing with it. Yet the aim is '50 or 60' websites. Which ones? Why is website blocking the best way of tackling them? What evidence is there that this is the case?

It is hardly surprising that critical considerations of the public interest are still taking a back seat. The attendees of the meeting, according to the FoI response from DCMS, were:

Campbell Cowie – Ofcom
Adam Smith – DCMS SpAd
Emma Ascroft – Yahoo!
Geoff Taylor – BPI
Richard Mollett – Publishers Association
David Wheeldon – BskyB
Chris Marcich – MPAA
Feargal Sharkey – UK Music
DJ Collins – Google
Theo Bertram – Google
Daniel Wood – UKIE
Rickard Granberg – Talk Talk
Mike O’Connor – Consumer Focus
Mark Gracey – ISPA
DCMS officials X 3
Tim Colbourne – No. 10 SpAd

It is worth remembering that these meetings are designed to establish processes for deciding what information people are allowed to access. If you were to design a group of people to properly consider such ideas and proposals, would it look like that list of attendees?

It falls to Consumer Focus to be the sole voice of civil society. They do a more than fantastic job - and you can read their excellent response to the proposals here  - but they should not be the token interest representing critical views on blocking. They are primarily a consumer representative group. Their presence does not change a fundamental imbalance in the attendees, whether it is the absence of broader civil society interests or legal experts.

One problem here is the model of policy making being used to develop what the Minister hopes will be a form of self-regulation.

As this is not a formal policy or Government regulation, the discussions are proceeding on the basis that the policy makers are merely facilitating other stakeholders reconciling their interests. This becomes a problem when the outcomes of the relationships, codes or measures that stem from these discussions have a detrimental effect on users, consumers and citizens, and when those broader interests do not have their voices represented.

It is about seven days since the Government told us there that interference with freedom of expression online is a matter of the upmost importance. DCMS can live up to these aspirations with a properly open process for developing their policies for the Internet age. This cannot be a two-track policy process, with a lag between Departmental action and their willingness to engage with the full range of stakeholders about it. Self-regulation should not be an excuse for invitation-only policy making.

[Read more] (2 comments)

This event is part of our new London supporter meetings, held every 3rd Monday of the Month. Each month we meet to discuss a specific topic that ORG is campaigning on, explain the problem, explain why ORG is campaigning on it, and how everyone (and anyone) can get involved. Come along to find out more!

Details

Date: Monday 21st November 2011
Time: 7pm
Location: Green Man
383 Euston Road, London NW1 3AU

Hashtag: #orgcensor

Background

Censorship is rearing its ugly head on the UK Internet, and at the Open Rights Group, we're not happy about that. 

Copyright owners want censorship, because they don't want to take websites to court. They want websites like Pirate Bay banned, even though accessing these websites is completely legal.

Some MPs who don't like adults accessing pornography want all Internet accounts to have "adult content" banned by default, potentially putting data users "opting-in" onto a list of people at the ISP who want to access porn. The filters would have to be relatively weak, and would encourage parents to wrongly believe that children were being properly protected.

Censorship without legal backing is not only a violation of the freedom of speech, but justifies the actions of those who have genuinely broken the law. Once it is in place it, society will just battle over what to censor and ban next, rather than discussing how to deal with the problems itself.

Want to learn more? Discuss what we should do next? Or just jump into action?
Come along to our supporters meeting
Monday 21st Nov, 7pm to 9pm

We'll be having some great (expert) speakers on the subject, an opportunity to discuss censorship and its problems/merits, and get more involved in ORG's actions and campaigns.

[Read more]