News Digital Rights
April 2009 government make new proposals for a Rights Agency including enforcing a code of practice on ISPs that would require filtering of peer to peer traffic.
Digital rights are important
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides rights to certain people. The rights control copying (duh!) and also distribution of copyright material. The author and other parties such as composers, performers, and so on, have rights. They are important rights as without them there would be no legally enforceable way for people that create such material to get paid for it.
The rights conveyed cover moral rights and legal rights. Moral rights are enforced by means of a county court claim (a legal action by one party against another party). The legal rights are enforced by criminal charges for infringement which are enforced by the crown prosecution service, usually at the request of the police.
Unfortunately, at present, there is widespread infringement of some of these rights by people copying music and other material freely without paying the rights holders for a licence to do so. This is supposedly costing the music industry a lot, though this itself is a controversial point. The music industry are understandably miffed at all this illegal copying. The government are trying to do something about it.
New business models are essential.
The fact that many people share music and other material is a clear indication that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. There are many web sites and services allowing download of music for a small fee, and they are popular. They make it easy to legitimately buy music and videos cheaply and quickly. If the price is right and the process is simple then most people that would buy the music if they could not get it any other way will be happy to do so. The people that would not buy the music are not the issue as they are not lost revenue for the rights holders anyway.
What is needed is new business models. Models and processes that make it easy for lots of people to pay a small fee which gets to the rights holders. In some ways we have this already - advertising pays for some TV channels allowing us to watch films so we do not have to pay at all to see them. New models could even have very tiny per-play charges. There are many ideas for how this can be done, and if done sensible the rights holders get paid.
Of course, right now, the complexity of copyright law and the number of people holding the rights makes it hard for anyone trying to create a new business model to get started. There is no right to insist a copyright holder negotiates a license on reasonable terms. This means music companies can dig their heels in, stay in the stone age, and badger government to interfere.
Are digital rights special?
One of the big issues with the government taking action in this case is that it suggests copyright is somehow special. There are many rights and laws. Civil cases are brought to the county court all the time for people breaking someone's rights (e.g. rights of tort and contract). Criminal cases are brought all the time for people breaking laws.
Copyright is already special. There are many rights that are not. I have a right to stop people going on my property, but doing so is not criminal. I have to go out there and use reasonable force to remove them. I have patents, but breaching them is not criminal - I have to sue to protect them at my expense. Copyright already has criminal penalties for some breaches that patent holders would love, where the CPS will take action for a breach. Do they really need more?
There is a formal legal process for taking action (civil or criminal) that tries to be fair. Indeed, it is a basic human right that you can defend yourself against an accusation.
However, the government proposals seem to try and cut short that legal process, bypass people's human rights, and insist ISPs filter the traffic that is supposedly illegal.
There really is no justification for this. There is already a legal process in place for both civil and criminal copyright violation. If that process does not work, then that process needs fixing. If the county courts are too costly and complex or a large corporate music company to employ, they need to be made cheaper and simpler. This is one reason we have things like the small claims court, to allow for actions to be taken quickly an easily.
If the music industry need special treatment so do many other industries. It is likely one of the most common actions in civil courts is for debt recovery - so do the interests of commerce in the UK need a special means to bypass all legal process and take money from people's bank accounts (or, for a closer analogy, block people spending the money on other things)? If not, then why should the music industry have means to bypass all legal process and interfere with someone's internet access?
In short, there is no compelling reason for copyright to be treated in some special way.
Can you filter peer to peer?
You can't.
Were you expecting more? Well, basically, whatever you do can be bypassed. Encryption is standard on most peer to peer systems, and any technical moves that actually work will be bypassed by changes to the software. With encryption you have no way to see the content and so no way to actually tell if the data transferred breaks someone's copyright. The only other way is blanket bans on data transfer blocking not only alleged infringing traffic but certainly valid traffic too.
Even just trying to block peer-to-peer traffic is not viable. Once, there was an argument that it is almost all copyright infringing. That is no longer valid as there are many legitimate and licensed uses uses of this technically sensible technique to distribute data.
Also, technical means to try and block traffic mean more complexity and cost to ISP. Complexity that risks more failures of key infrastructure. Cost that has to be paid by someone (and the music industry are not offering any money as far as we know).
If someone complains to us as an ISP
Firstly we publish contact details of the network administrator in whois records, so complaints normally go to our customers directly as we require them to take responsibility for their network. If someone complains to us, we will pass on the complaint (forward the email) although we are considering charging the sender for this service.
If someone demands we disconnect someones service we refer them to the police and county courts who are the parties that deal with criminal and civil copyright breaches. They are also the parties that enforce the final outcome of such action. If the courts make an order to us we will, of course, comply.
Our response to goverment proposals
We agree with the proposed LINX response. We feel moves to encourage new business models are important. We feel education is important. We feel any attempt to filter traffic is a bad idea, technically unsound, legally unsound, and doomed to failure.
