This article was originally published on Open Democracy, as a part of a week-long series on the future digital freedom guest-edited by Index

The digital age has inevitably shaken the concept of copyright to its core. When you have “digital” content, you always have the “human readable” format and you also have the digital expression of the copyrighted material translated by computers into bits — the ones and zeroes. As a result there is a degree of inevitable copying of the work in question. “Digital” means copying, in other words.

Similarly, networks must make temporary copies to function. So, “network” means copying.

Computers make copies in order to process and display information. Therefore “computer” also means copying. As a result, the growth of computers accessing content over digital networks means either reinventing information and communications technologies or re-inventing copyright to some extent.

Unfortunately, it has taken a painfully long time for this fairly simple realisation to dawn on many of the analogue industries that had grown too comfortable to grab the opportunities that the digital revolution offers. One of the best examples of this dogged refusal to accept the most basic concepts of digital technologies was the debate surrounding the copyright status of temporary technical copies created by computer networks.

In 1999/2000, publishers and the music industry ran an energetic lobbying campaign against a copyright exception for incidental network copies that, “do not interfere with the normal exploitation of the work” by the copyright owner.

The European Publishers’ Council (EPC) warned in 2001 that “unless we have Parliament’s amendments [to prohibit unauthorised temporary copying] or something similar in effect, we do not have the ability to authorise any kind of copy, regardless of its economic significance, and thereby lose our control over illegal, piratical distribution of our works.”

The logic of the publishers was somewhat more subtle and more dangerous than it sounds. If every copy in an internet provider’s network would be a copyright infringement, the provider could not function without prior authorisation. Providers would be liable for copies made in the transmission of legal/authorised content and doubly liable (for the copy and the facilitation of the infringement) for illegal/unauthorised content.

If the amendments in question had been adopted, European Internet companies would have had no option other than to monitor, delete, censor and restrict their customers in every way that the publishers considered appropriate for fighting against copyright infringement — as well as increasing prices by demanding royalties for legitimate content. Of course, 1999/2000 was a lifetime ago in internet years and things have moved on in the meantime.

Or have they? In 2012, the Austrian High Court has referred the “kino.to” case to the European Court of Justice. One of the questions asked in that case is: “are reproduction [sic] for private use and transient and incident reproduction permissible only if the original reproduction was lawfully reproduced, distributed or made available to the public?”

The referral attempts to re-open the question of making internet companies independently liable for copyright infringement in relation to every unauthorised file that passes over its network. So, we are back in 2000, with a threat that internet companies could be forced into a “gatekeeper” role as a privatised police force.

An unwise ruling from the European Court of Justice would speed up an already problematic trend that is fuelled by efforts to use internet companies as private enforcement “tools” in order to protect copyright in the online environment. Even though both ACTA and SOPA failed, their proposals on the enforcement of copyright through “voluntary”arrangements with any or all internet intermediaries live on. The US-led OECD “Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making”[pdf] adopted in June 2011 talks obscurely of norms of responsibility that enable private sector voluntary co-operation for the protection of intellectual property.

It somewhat less obscurely reflects an active choice to avoid references to the right to a fair trial and due process of law, choosing instead to refer to “fair process” — which sounds like both, but means neither. This practical implementation of such a policy can be seen in efforts of the United States “IP Enforcement Coordinator”, to exploit the global reach of US companies to take “voluntary” punitive actions against foreign online services considered to be breaching US copyright rules. The “voluntary” measures taken against Wikileaks also give a taster of where this policy is heading. Payment service providers blocked payments to Wikileaks while Amazon withdrew hosting services.

Amazon pulled hosting services from Wikileaks in 2010 after pressure from the US government

This increasing pressure on intermediaries to meddle with content is happening at a particularly inauspicious time. Internet access providers are increasingly demanding the right to interfere with the functioning of the open internet (i.e. undermining the concept of network neutrality). The core value of the internet for free speech is the “any-to-any” concept whereby any part of the network can (broadly speaking) communicate unrestricted with any other part of the network.

This is now under threat from the privatised enforcement measures demanded by some policy-makers from internet intermediaries that are increasingly finding commercial advantages in making such interventions.

Suddenly, we end up confronted simultaneously with all the worst aspects of policy-development over the past fifteen years. We have courts questioning the most fundamental elements of the networked environment — the “right” of network providers to make the transient copies that are essential to the functioning of the Internet — the argument that we already had thirteen years ago.

Layered on top of these existential questions, we have policy-makers tinkering with the most fundamental legal principles of a society that is based on the rule of law, seeking to replace the regulation of free speech and communication by laws and courts with terms of service and the whims of internet access providers, hosting providers, domain name registrars, domain name registries, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks.

And layered on top of this, we have internet access providers raising their own existential questions about the viability (from their perspective) of the core concept of the internet – the  ”any-to-any” principle.

Joe McNamee is EU advocacy co-ordinator at European Digital Rights

The post Getting copyright right appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malström, is proposing a directive this week to block websites that show images of child abuse.

While tackling such websites is clearly laudable, we should not be misled by a politically motivated and ultimately destructive measure. Europe’s approach is in fact counterproductive, dangerous and could ultimately lead to gross abuses against the most vulnerable in society. The only truly effective way to address these abhorrent crimes is an international measure that has the websites deleted as quickly as possible. All available resources – including resources currently wasted on blocking measures – should be spent on the identification and rescue of victims, and on ensuring that the criminals behind the websites and peer-to-peer trafficking are prosecuted with the full force of the law.

Blocking websites merely offers an illusion of action, reducing pressure for effective policies to be implemented and for the international community to tackle the issue head on. As a result, citizens are led to believe that something is being done, and politicians can take refuge in a populist policy in the full knowledge that blocking has no positive benefits and leaves the websites online.

It is difficult to understand why policy on this issue is so passive. If there were websites that contained evidence of murder, it would be ludicrous to suggest that they be blocked rather than deleted and all possible efforts made to identify the victims and prosecute the murderers.

It is disturbing to note that every international trade agreement signed by the European Union includes strict requirements on protection of intellectual property, but none contain elements to encourage the removal of child abuse websites. Louis Vuitton handbags and Cartier watches are given a higher priority in international legal co-operation than abused young people.

Despite the lack of effective action, on average there is a new international treaty approximately every two years banning child abuse, with smiling politicians posing for press photos and demonstrating their determination by signing and sometimes even ratifying the agreements. Yet the “binding” obligation on states party to the United Nations child rights convention (to take all bilateral and multilateral actions to prevent the “exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials”) appears to be the victim of global amnesia. The policy of supporting internet blocking, at either a national or international level, supports and facilitates this inaction.

The internet was designed with the aim of ensuring that any one block on the network can be worked around – this is fundamental to how it works. Therefore, blocking is almost by definition doomed to failure and a waste of resources that could be deployed more effectively through deleting the information at source. At the core of this issue are real human beings and a technologically inadequate block will do less than nothing to protect them.

Politicians will sometimes argue that blocking will stop deliberate access or that it will stop accidental access to sites or that the aim is to stop commercial distribution of illegal images. But the truth is that it is not only exceptionally easy to evade blocking, it is also ultimately ineffective as sites now move location and web address ever more quickly, so it won’t stop deliberate access. No statistics have been produced to indicate that accidental access of actually illegal sites could either be solved by blocking or that the problem is a major one. For the problem of commercial websites, there is only a limited number of online payment methods, so ensuring a level of law enforcement that would deter subscribers would be a far more wide-reaching solution.

Though blocking is useless, it is becoming an increasingly popular policy, resulting in the censorship of more and more types of information across Europe, thanks to well-funded lobbying campaigns. The UK recently narrowly avoided legislation requiring blocking of websites to protect intellectual property. Denmark is proposing criminal sanctions for ISPs that provide access to gambling websites and Lithuania is proposing blocking for websites that are considered to endanger the family values defended by its constitution – with all the inherent dangers that this will have for free speech.

This is an edited extract of an article in the new issue of Index on Censorship. To read the rest of the piece, subscribe now.

Joe McNamee works as Advocacy Coordinatory for European Digital Rights in Brussels (EDRi). He works on issues related to privacy, cybercrime, intellectual property, freedom of information/communication and related topics.

The post Out of sight, out of mind appeared first on Index on Censorship.