![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerMany of you will have seen the comments on the alarming news that amendments have been inserted into the otherwise uncontroversial EU Telecoms Package that would have the effect of allowing the 'three strikes' anti-filesharing policy to be implemented. For more details, see the following:
http://stealth.strangecompany.org/
http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2008/07/three-strikes-and-youre-er-confused.html
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/02/write-to-your-mep-say-no-to-3-strikes-through-the-backdoor/
I've written to one of my London MEPs as below to express my concerns.
Dear Jean Lambert,
You will doubtless already have been contacted by other concerned constituents regarding what have been termed the 'stealth amendments' to the Telecoms Package. This legislation is to be voted on by the IMCO and ITRE committees on Monday 7th July; whilst most of it is uncontroversial refinement to a number of existing Directives, several amendments have recently been inserted that purport to address the issue of illicit file-sharing. My concern, and that of many other people, is that these amendments seek to reintroduce by the back door the manifestly excessive and abuse-prone 'three strikes' policy that would impose disproportionate and unwarranted penalties upon internet users merely accused (not prosecuted or found liable by courts) of copyright infringement.
What is particularly worrying are both the method by which this legislation is being introduced and the implications of enacting it. As someone who is a strong supporter of the principles of democratic European union, it is disturbing and disappointing to see the worst stereotypes of what opponents of the EU would describe as unaccountable, covert law-making actually taking place. In the interests of the reputations of the European Parliament and the EU such legislative changes should be made openly and transparently. Furthermore, the sort of pervasive surveillance regime that this legislation seeks to enable will have very worrying implications for privacy and data protection.
Advocates of these amendments may seek to portray opponents of them as anarchistic scofflaws intent on denying artists their rights and seeking a free-for-all of uncompensated downloading. This is not the case; in particular, many academics specialising in telecommunications and internet law have expressed serious concerns regarding this issue. I myself am a trainee Intellectual Property lawyer, and I strongly support a fair balance between artists' rights and the culture-sharing interests of the community. Nonetheless, I am deeply concerned about the scope for abuse of the proposed amendments (including the prospect of arbitrary denial of internet access to segments of the community), the privacy implications of the implied monitoring mechanisms, and the very undemocratic manner in which the 'stealth amendments' are being introduced. I therefore urge you to ask your colleagues involved in the IMCO and ITRE committees to vote against these amendments.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Bradshaw MEng MSc LLB CEng MIET
Limehouse, London
http://stealth.strangecompany.org/
http://blogscript.blogspot.com/2008/07/three-strikes-and-youre-er-confused.html
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/02/write-to-your-mep-say-no-to-3-strikes-through-the-backdoor/
I've written to one of my London MEPs as below to express my concerns.
Dear Jean Lambert,
You will doubtless already have been contacted by other concerned constituents regarding what have been termed the 'stealth amendments' to the Telecoms Package. This legislation is to be voted on by the IMCO and ITRE committees on Monday 7th July; whilst most of it is uncontroversial refinement to a number of existing Directives, several amendments have recently been inserted that purport to address the issue of illicit file-sharing. My concern, and that of many other people, is that these amendments seek to reintroduce by the back door the manifestly excessive and abuse-prone 'three strikes' policy that would impose disproportionate and unwarranted penalties upon internet users merely accused (not prosecuted or found liable by courts) of copyright infringement.
What is particularly worrying are both the method by which this legislation is being introduced and the implications of enacting it. As someone who is a strong supporter of the principles of democratic European union, it is disturbing and disappointing to see the worst stereotypes of what opponents of the EU would describe as unaccountable, covert law-making actually taking place. In the interests of the reputations of the European Parliament and the EU such legislative changes should be made openly and transparently. Furthermore, the sort of pervasive surveillance regime that this legislation seeks to enable will have very worrying implications for privacy and data protection.
Advocates of these amendments may seek to portray opponents of them as anarchistic scofflaws intent on denying artists their rights and seeking a free-for-all of uncompensated downloading. This is not the case; in particular, many academics specialising in telecommunications and internet law have expressed serious concerns regarding this issue. I myself am a trainee Intellectual Property lawyer, and I strongly support a fair balance between artists' rights and the culture-sharing interests of the community. Nonetheless, I am deeply concerned about the scope for abuse of the proposed amendments (including the prospect of arbitrary denial of internet access to segments of the community), the privacy implications of the implied monitoring mechanisms, and the very undemocratic manner in which the 'stealth amendments' are being introduced. I therefore urge you to ask your colleagues involved in the IMCO and ITRE committees to vote against these amendments.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Bradshaw MEng MSc LLB CEng MIET
Limehouse, London
