Who wants to restrict the internet and how?
This is a modal window.
Das Video konnte nicht geladen werden, da entweder ein Server- oder Netzwerkfehler auftrat oder das Format nicht unterstützt wird.
Formale Metadaten
| Titel |
| |
| Serientitel | ||
| Teil | 5 | |
| Anzahl der Teile | 60 | |
| Autor | ||
| Lizenz | CC-Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland: Sie dürfen das Werk bzw. den Inhalt zu jedem legalen Zweck nutzen, verändern und in unveränderter oder veränderter Form vervielfältigen, verbreiten und öffentlich zugänglich machen, sofern Sie den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen und das Werk bzw. diesen Inhalt auch in veränderter Form nur unter den Bedingungen dieser Lizenz weitergeben. | |
| Identifikatoren | 10.5446/20935 (DOI) | |
| Herausgeber | ||
| Erscheinungsjahr | ||
| Sprache |
Inhaltliche Metadaten
| Fachgebiet | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
|
re:publica 20105 / 60
3
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
32
33
34
35
37
39
40
42
43
44
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
56
57
59
60
00:00
TelekommunikationGewicht <Ausgleichsrechnung>Web-SeiteMomentenproblemt-TestGrundraumFlüssiger ZustandDienst <Informatik>InternetworkingHypermediaVorlesung/Konferenz
00:56
Umsetzung <Informatik>InternetworkingTelekommunikationVorlesung/Konferenz
01:19
Web-ApplikationInternetworkingVorlesung/Konferenz
01:35
KonditionszahlInternetworkingUmsetzung <Informatik>Web SiteComputeranimation
02:09
Diskrete-Elemente-Methodep-BlockMetropolitan area networkInternetworkingTreiber <Programm>p-BlockPhysikalisches SystemService providerRechter WinkelElektronische PublikationExogene VariableZahlenbereichGrenzschichtablösungFormation <Mathematik>PunktComputeranimationVorlesung/Konferenz
04:22
RechnernetzNichtlinearer OperatorDienst <Informatik>Metropolitan area networkInklusion <Mathematik>InformationDiskrete-Elemente-MethodeBitfehlerhäufigkeitData Encryption StandardFundamentalsatz der AlgebraAggregatzustandNatürliche ZahlDienst <Informatik>Rechter WinkelFormale SpracheKonditionszahlAutorisierungService providerSoftwareTelekommunikationMehrrechnersystemWeb SiteRichtungGesetz <Physik>Kartesische KoordinatenDiskrete-Elemente-MethodeKontextbezogenes SystemInhalt <Mathematik>Design by ContractNichtlinearer OperatorUmsetzung <Informatik>AggregatzustandSchlussregelSondierungDreiSummierbarkeitRegulator <Mathematik>VarianzBitComputeranimation
09:20
Metropolitan area networkMatrizenrechnungSoftwaretestFundamentalsatz der AlgebraDienst <Informatik>Natürliche ZahlAggregatzustandPartielle DifferentiationService providerRechter WinkelEinflussgrößeProzess <Informatik>Algorithmische ProgrammierspracheModallogikSchlussregelSoundverarbeitungDatenmissbrauchImplementierungComputeranimationVorlesung/Konferenz
11:26
Prozess <Informatik>AggregatzustandService providerTelekommunikationInternetworkingSpeicherabzugRechter WinkelComputeranimation
12:25
Umsetzung <Informatik>Physikalisches SystemFilesharing-SystemInternetworkingCASE <Informatik>SoftwarepirateriePunktRechter WinkelAusnahmebehandlungFigurierte ZahlGesetz <Physik>TelekommunikationComputeranimation
14:22
ZahlenbereichComputeranimation
14:47
Service providerAutorisierungMathematikVorlesung/KonferenzBesprechung/Interview
15:05
Rechter WinkelNabel <Mathematik>PunktEnergiedichteFormale Sprache
15:28
AggregatzustandGesetz <Physik>GamecontrollerPunktEntscheidungstheorieRechter WinkelInstantiierungDifferenteCASE <Informatik>Vorlesung/Konferenz
16:11
CASE <Informatik>SoundverarbeitungVorlesung/Konferenz
16:25
Rechter WinkelFilesharing-SystemInternetworkingQuick-SortCASE <Informatik>Fundamentalsatz der AlgebraSelbstrepräsentationCoxeter-GruppeVorlesung/Konferenz
16:58
Arithmetischer AusdruckComputerunterstützte ÜbersetzungFilesharing-SystemTermRechter WinkelPunktVorlesung/Konferenz
17:38
Rechter WinkelGruppenoperationMessage-PassingVorlesung/Konferenz
18:42
Vorlesung/Konferenz
Transkript: Englisch(automatisch erzeugt)
00:02
Okay, can everybody hear me? Great. I'm going to begin this session now. My name is Monica Horton. I'm from the University of Westminster in London. I'm a PhD student at the university.
00:22
And just two days ago, I completed the first draft of my entire PhD, all 286 pages. And I'm going to be speaking about the EU telecoms package. Who wants to restrict the internet and how?
00:41
The EU telecoms package and three strikes. After me will be Jeremy Zimmerman of La Croix d'Auteur du Net in France. And he will tell you more about himself in a moment. So, the EU telecoms package and three strikes.
01:01
I think there are two conversations going on which are quite different. There's a conversation we are having here at Republica. And there is a political conversation. The conversation at Republica is about the open internet.
01:24
It's about innovation based on freedom of access, freedom to use web applications. People are excited about new ways of doing things online. We assume that it must be that way and that it will always stay that way.
01:45
The political conversation though is quite different. The political conversation is about how to block the internet. I myself was quite shocked last week when I watched the British Parliament debating the conditions under which websites could be blocked.
02:10
Why would the politicians want to block the internet? If the internet is such a driver of innovation, surely that's a good thing.
02:22
Well, there are several reasons. In Germany, as I'm sure you will know, it's about protecting children. In China, it's about political censorship. In the UK and France, it's about copyright enforcement.
02:45
They want to block your access to copyrighted music and entertainment files. To stop them being played, shared, reworked and used in presentations such as this.
03:02
I'm hoping this is going to work. There was a piece of music that you were supposed to very briefly hear at this point. But the technology has failed me for some reason.
03:31
Anyway, what we're talking about here is the system known as three strikes or graduated response.
03:47
Broadly speaking, this is a system of warnings sent to internet users. The warnings will be delivered by the rights holders who are the entertainment industries and will be sent to your broadband provider who will pass them on to you.
04:04
After a certain number of warnings, your broadband provider can be asked to punish you. That punishment may be that you are cut off the internet or it may be something else that they can think of. Three strikes is because it's often considered you get two warnings before you are cut off.
04:23
Now what does the European Union have to say about this? Well, the political conversation in the EU happened in the context of something called the telecoms package. In German, it's the telekompakit.
04:40
The telecoms package is a big piece of legislation. It is a review of the commercial arrangements between the network operators. That is, it's about how Deutsche Telekom deals with Vodafone, for example. It also reviews how the network operators deal with you and I as consumers.
05:02
It's about your contract with Deutsche Telekom, your individual relationship with Vodafone. That review took place between 2007 and 2009 and it ended on the 4th of November last year. Now into this telecoms package, lobbyists inserted provisions which would support three strikes.
05:26
I'm going to review three of these provisions now and then I'm going to look at the final outcome of the telecoms package and present you with one or two conclusions that we might be able to draw from it. The first thing that the lobbyists wanted was a general obligation for the broadband providers to enforce copyright
05:49
and to work with the rights holders to do that enforcement. This is the so-called cooperation amendment or cooperation provision.
06:00
In German, it is the Zusammenarbeit and I've put the text in German here underneath. So in English, it's national regulatory authorities may promote cooperation between the undertakings providing electronic communication services that is Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom and so on.
06:21
Or the sectors interested in the promotion of lawful content which is broadly the entertainment industry companies like Disney or EMI. The next thing they did was they inserted an obligation for the broadband providers to tell you in your contract
06:44
about the restrictions to the service. Now the language here is a little bit strange. In English, it's conditions limiting access to and or use of services and applications.
07:01
In German, you'll see here, it's Einschrankungen im Hinblich auf dem Zugangzur oder die Notzung von Diensten und anwendungen. Now what exactly does that mean? Well, one condition limiting your access to or your use of the service could be that if you infringe copyright
07:22
through your service, your broadband provider is entitled to cut off your service. Another condition limiting that they might put on is that the provider may stop you from accessing sites which are alleged to contain infringing content.
07:43
The third provision says that this directive neither mandates nor prohibits conditions limiting users' access to and or use of services. So, in German, die zuricht lännier vordat werde von den Anbetern die Mausgabe den, without reading it all, the important text,
08:12
die vordat werde die den Zugangzur oder die Notzung von Dienen und anwendungen,
08:23
noch verbitet sie diese. That's the important text there. So basically the EU is saying that member state governments, like the German government or whoever, does not have to do it, they don't have to impose any restrictions through the law,
08:41
but it is open for them to do it, and governments such as the UK and France are doing it. This text does also have implications, by the way, other than copyrighted content, which I believe Jeremy will be addressing.
09:02
Now, the European Parliament wasn't entirely happy about these provisions, and some of you will know about the famous Amendment 138, which wanted to impose a prior judicial ruling. Now, that would have meant that the entertainment industries would have had to get a court ruling,
09:26
which they would then pass to the broadband provider. So the broadband provider would only be able to cut you off if they received notice that there was a court ruling against you. Now, Amendment 138 would have then neutered or weakened these other provisions that we have just seen in the package.
09:48
It didn't survive, partly for legal technical reasons, but the European Parliament did want to preserve that principle. And so they wrote some other text. Now, this text again is a little complicated, it's not entirely clear,
10:08
but what it does say is, where governments are introducing legislation which is liable to restrict your fundamental rights, and that is understood to mean three strikes legislation in particular,
10:26
any measures to restrict your access must be appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society. The implementation must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
10:44
You must have effective judicial protection and due process. Now, this is trying to describe a court process, and it's arguable whether it really does or doesn't and how far it goes, but that's what they intended to do. And respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy.
11:02
So they wanted to preserve the principle that you are presumed innocent until a court has proved you not to be. And it is to be a prior fair and impartial procedure, a procedure imposed before the sanction is given.
11:23
Now, why is this important? I'd just like to put forward a few thoughts here for you about what this actually means, and what does the telecoms package as we have it now, on the one
11:41
hand with these provisions where broadband providers and governments may impose restrictions on the Internet, and on the other hand, this kind of caveat that you have to go through some kind of court process, what does that mean? We have a scenario where the big entertainment corporations want to restrict your access to the Internet.
12:02
They want the state to authorise a punishment for you if you infringe copyright. But Three Strikes, as they propose it, is arguably private justice. The rights holders accuse, the broadband provider implements the punishment.
12:25
It will be automated. The whole point of Three Strikes is that millions of people are file sharing. There's an iffy figure around that says six million people in the UK infringe copyright through file sharing. Whether or not that's true, there are millions of people they want to go after.
12:43
They cannot do this any other way except through automation, and we heard in the previous session about deep packet inspection and some of the possibilities there. It also is a system which assumes you are guilty, and it is dependent on the implementation whether
13:03
or not you have any rights to appeal or for your case to be heard in any way. On the other hand, the principles of the EU legal system, as they have stood until now,
13:20
are that you do have a right to be heard if you are accused of a crime. You are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty, and only if you are proven guilty is a punishment given to you. It would seem to me, just to conclude, that we have two conversations going on about the internet.
13:47
We also have two systems of justice being proposed. One is the established system of justice where the presumption of innocence is paramount, and the other is an automated private system to support the entertainment industries.
14:05
The point that I would like to make today is to show you just how easily this switch can be made by making some very small adjustments to communications law.
14:38
Does anybody have any questions immediately? Otherwise Jeremy will speak and then we'll take questions together afterwards.
14:53
I was just wondering, you said in the package text it says they may cooperate the legal authorities with the internet providers.
15:03
I mean, they can cooperate anyway. What does it change? Does it change anything if they write that they may cooperate? Okay, there's two points you've got there. One is the technical legal language. May means it is optional. If it said shall, it originally said shall, and shall would have meant that every EU government would have to implement it.
15:26
Yeah, that's why I asked, because it says may and it's really weak. It's up to the government, so the government can choose, the member state government can choose whether or not. But the point is that this is in the law, and that's what the rights holders want.
15:41
So the rights holders can then go to governments who may or may not worry about the difference between may and shall. They can just go and say you're supposed to do this. If they are lawyers, they should care about the difference, but okay. Look at what's happened in Britain and in France and decide on that one. That's what the rights holders wanted. Check over there and then somebody over here.
16:02
Do you foresee any instances where cases might sort of arrive before the ECHR? It was referenced in the article there. It's questionable. I mean, yes, it certainly could be the case if someone can bring
16:20
a case, but it takes somebody with the will and the money to bring a case. Well, I just find it questionable that someone would be able to make a case sort of that the fundamental human rights have been breached by not being able to access the internet. Can you say who you are and who you represent?
16:42
Oh, I don't represent anyone. I'm here as a private person. Okay. Jeremy's presentation, I think, is going to deal more with the fundamental rights issues. The issue that I'm concerned about is not whether you can justify file sharing. Oh, sorry. Yeah. It's not whether you can justify file sharing.
17:02
It's about restriction of access so that the restrictions to support these industries will have other consequences for restricting other things. So that is really the point where you have the human rights aspect under the freedom of expression point.
17:21
Does that kind of help? Yeah. And sorry? Hi. I'm Edward Hasbrook, and I'm with the National Writers Union in the United States, among other hats. And I wanted to draw a distinction between two terms which you used somewhat interchangeably, the entertainment or publishing industry and the rights holders.
17:46
Because the reality, as groups like the Writers Union and other creators groups have been pressing against those publishers, is that frequently those who are asserting copyright claims against downloaders and the public are not the rights holders.
18:03
They are making false claims. They are copyright thieves who never licensed the relevant rights from the actual rights holders who remain the creators, the writers, the musicians. And so I think it would be a mistake for the public to either accept uncritically the claims of these publishing companies to actually be the rights holders,
18:23
or to smear with the same brush the creators whose common enemy is often the publishers who are stealing these copyrights, claiming rights they don't have and didn't pay for, and then prosecuting these bogus claims against the public.
18:40
If there are no more questions, I'll pass over to Jeremy.