Fire Alarms Systems

A number of you have show to discuss conceived James Firth 's detailed post leaked some information about a "private" meet the rights holders, ISPs and the government in Great Britain \ a "voluntary" Web censorship system to that block keep hurting what rights holders.

"Confidential" documents that show this blog to the Premier League has joined a coalition of rights holders, including the Publishers Association, BPI, MPAA and other copyright lobbying hard for a great firewall of Britain.

The group attempts to influence public policy with a desperate sounding confused and to serve in places private template for the internets Ed Vaizey, the proposal at a meeting of stakeholders (including ISPs) debated last Wednesday.

As Firth 's source notes, no matter where you stand on issues of copyright, it seems the notion that political decisions are involved behind closed doors without the public incredibly questionable, even if it' s quite common. We 've to think the same thing in the U.S., where politicians seem to see that the public isn' ta stakeholders, and that the Beneficiary of a law are the only players. In this case, makes matters worse is that representatives from the Open Rights Group asked not to attend the meeting and were rejected. The government has thus a Single "the rights of consumers 'representatives take part, by a group called Consumer Focus. We 've never seen. If the USTR was on ACTA work, it is shown very briefly, some consumer rights groups, a copy of a draft (to copy what they weren 't set out on notes or do anything with) and then claimed that they were fair so that all parties access. Of course they ignored that copyright maximalists were helping in the actual drafting and had full copies of the documents. But ... Details.

In the actual proposal for discussion: It would be a provision under which ISPs would "fast" access block certain websites owners have claimed violated, as if by a \ is reviewed at the speed with which the "expert board". Held little actual censorship would propose testing the sites in question because it hints to censor even the desire to sites that can stream live events. Due process? That 's for day laborers, apparently. And while the people there and again that this sort of thing would only hurt obvious sites are used, remember, it was only in recent days that we pointed out that owners claimed copyright, which obviously does not hurt sites like Archive.org, Vimeo and SoundCloud were pirate sites.

About the only good news at the beginning of the meeting is that the British government apparently wasn 't even in a part of this scheme, which is supposedly "on a voluntary basis." Interested

If another contact of mine inside government to be believed, Ed Vaizey said to have remarked, "if it 'sa voluntary scheme to go and do it." What Stark means that the government will not be involved.

What 's really scary here, but how much is behind closed doors, done to create policies - whether "voluntarily" or the government - which heavily influence everyone and their rights to free speech. No matter what your opinion on the enforcement of copyright, is it really so crazy to think that these discussions and proposals should be done in the open, to get all Views heard?

Permalink | Comments | E-Mail This Story