New Technology Reviews!.: rights

Leaked proposals reveal UK web censorship plans

Ed Vaizey, the UK's Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, has been taking part in closed meetings with copyright lobbyists, apparently working on a proposal that could amount to internet censorship. Leaked online, the proposed "voluntary website blocking" scheme would "inhibit access to specific sites" based on the opinions of "expert bodies" and through shotgun court hearings. Ed Vaizey has already admitted in parliament that he has held a number of roundtables with ISPs but public interest organisations like the Open Rights Group who asked to attend the meetings were denied access. Industry bias The document relates to copyright infringement, but has also been linked to online child safety and there are fears that it could become a one-stop-censorship-shop for anything this "expert body" deems inappropriate. Other rights-holding organisations involved in the talks include the Football Association, the Publishers Associations, the Motion Picture Association and music industry execs. While these organisations are keen to protect their own content and stamp out online piracy, rights infringement and plagiarism, the fact that only one group with the interests of the average consumer have been invited to participate in just one session poses a real concern. Access to the open internet is gradually becoming a human rights issue, and taking on only the views of a biased few when discussing actively blocking websites could have longterm repercussions for Brits. Human rights The Digital Economy Act has already proposed blocking sites for copyright infringement, but it's an act that has been the subject of much debate and concern among web-users and some ISPs. As the Open Rights Group says, "Open policy making that takes on board the broadest range of views is not something within the gift of politicians but a responsibility they bear." "It is critical that policy making happens through a broad and open public debate, especially on matters that so tangibly affect rights such as access to information and freedom of expression. "This is not simply about the rights of 'sites that facilitate infringement' or those running them. It is about the processes through which decisions are made about what you are allowed to see and do. Clumsy, quasi-judicial and unaccountable website blocking is dangerous for exactly that reason."

Leaked proposals reveal UK web censorship plans

Ed Vaizey, the UK's Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, has been taking part in closed meetings with copyright...

Gary Marshall: Secret censors could cripple the internet

The Open Rights Group has published details of secret plans to censor the internet - plans which, if implemented, would probably see the ORG site booted off the net for copyright infringement. The plans are being developed by a motley crew of organisations including the Football Association Premier League, the Publishers Association, BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) Limited, the Motion Picture Association and the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television. Only one group representing consumers has been allowed in - Consumer Focus - and that was only for the most recent meeting. CF has "serious concerns" [PDF]. So do we. As Consumer Focus points out, the plan is to make ISPs block allegedly offending sites within two hours. The process, it seems, goes something like this: BIG COMPANY: Oi! Judge! This website's made of villains and evil! JUDGE: Blimey, what a well-researched and argued case, with lots of supporting evidence! Let's block it forever! The leaked document says that "sound internet policy should encompass notions of accountability to incentivise private sector participants to take commercially reasonable steps, where available, to prevent or limit those harms that flow from the products or services they offer." In other words, it's up to ISPs to block bad things. This week, bad things include MP3s and streaming football matches. Next week, who knows? One-sided argument There are several problems here. The first is that the discussions are secret, so we're not supposed to know who's there or what they're talking about. The second is that the participants are almost all from one side of the argument, the sod-freedom-we've-got-profits-to-protect side. And the third is that blocking is a bloody stupid idea, especially if it involves permanent blocks with just two hours' notice. Things are bad enough now - action against Lulzsec took Pinboard and Instapaper offline for no good reason and if lobbyists get their way, that's going to happen all the time. That was the FBI. Reckon the BPI will do a better job? The proposals say that they would "give responsibility to rightsholders to initiate action where the evidence is that the sites in question are substantially focused on infringement of copyright." I'm willing to bet that the definition of "substantially focused on infringement" means "hosts an MP3, or maybe an illegal ePub". The proposals say that censorship means there will be less need to target individuals, presumably because if they can shut down entire domains then nobody will be able to do anything worth suing over. And everything will be overseen by a "council" and an "expert body" that, if the current discussions are representative, would consist of representatives from the copyright industries rather than consumer groups. As Consumer Focus puts it: "we do not believe that it is appropriate for two non-judicial bodies to broadly interpret existing case law, effectively establish new copyright law, and direct the Applications Court to issue a permanent injunction, without a trial." <a href="http://da.feedsportal.com/r/106214978175/u/49/f/9809/c/669/s/161cb839/kg/221-239/a2.htm"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2138/12911046.gif" /></a><img alt="" height="1" src="http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4200/96600368.gif" width="1" />

Gary Marshall: Secret censors could cripple the internet

The Open Rights Group has published details of secret plans to censor the internet - plans which, if implemented, would probably see the ORG...

Avatar 3D Blu-ray: Panasonic nabs rights till 2012

<div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Avatar" src="http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/classifications/world%20of%20tech/images/Avatar_image-420-90.jpg" width="420"></div><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=latesttecompu-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B002VPE1B6&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Panasonic has said to have bought the rights to Avatar 3D Blu-ray until February 2012, meaning that if you want to see the movie in 3D and on Blu-ray you will have to wait more than a year of purchase some Panasonic AV kit. 
AV enthusiast blog <a href="http://avzombie.com/blog/2010/12/13/panasonic-ties-up-avatar-3d-blu-ray-until-feb-2012-no-retail-release-planned-for-2011/#more-1855">AVZombie</a> has spoken to Panasonic and it seems that it has the exclusive global distribution rights to the blockbuster title until February 2012. 
The company's exact words: "Just to confirm the Avatar bundle deal does run until Feb 2012."

Avatar 3D Blu-ray: Panasonic nabs rights till 2012

Panasonic has said to have bought the rights to Avatar 3D Blu-ray until February 2012, meaning that if you want to see the movie in 3D and ...