Leaked proposals reveal UK web censorship plans

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.


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.

Read more: techradar.com

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.openrightsgroup.org

The leak can be found above and below.

Well, well, well, ATS has been saying censorship was coming to the West for years. I do not think this is for 'child safety' or copyright infringement, it may be at first but this 'expert body' would have the power to block any sites they like for UK residents, like ATS for example. Anyone think this is genuine?

THE LEAK

www.techradar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by BarmyBilly


It's all about control, and who gets the money.

Greed is driving these agendas, corporate elite want the internet to be their exclusive domain, and all of the small and medium internet sites to lose the ability to sustain themselves.

Kind of like the way Wal Mart moves into small towns in the USA and all of the small businesses die.

Only on the net, they need to regulate and restrict advertising/content to make that happen, so the little guys can't survive.

If they have their way, one day, the governments and the corporate giants will control everything, and find ways to make you like it.

I would say when it comes to the UK gov they have many such plans up their sleeves which they try to implement again and again.. like ID cards which they pushed and pushed to only shelve (for the time being) the idea is to get as much control as possible for our own benefit as only they know whats best..

I deeply dislike know it alls who feel they know what is best for everyone...

As the local motto** goes, "we wunt be druv" or we are not sheep to be driven.

**County Motto for Sussex.

It´s about time we (the people) stood up for ourselves and stop these people telling up what we can eat, watch, do, and made it clear we can decide for ourselves which and what we can do.

Sounds more like they are trying to shut down the pirates, rather than censor.
I think you are jumping the gun with your 'censorship' claim, at the moment.

Youtube would be finished in the UK if it came to censorship.
Censorship wont happen in my opinion.

Pirate sites may well end up getting blocked once they have been reported.
But then I am sure there will be some ISPs who will not sign up the scheme.

st.

This is the equivalent of corporate powerhouses influencing the government to create laws to benefit them exclusively.

The tile says it all...

Addressing websites that are substantially focused on infringement
Working paper submitted by the Rightsholder Group'

The "Rightsholder" group is obviously exactly who you think it would be, Big Media.

Interestingly, they specifically mention only ONE organization by name....

This note is confidential, commercially sensitive and without prejudice. In particular the proposal
made in this note is entirely without prejudice to the right, of copyright owners under UK law,
including (without limitation) the claim, made in the action brought by the studios represented by the MPA, directed at blocking subscriber access to the Newzbin 2 website.

I believe 'commercially sensitive without prejudice' is a phrase which lawyers use, intended to isolate the substance of the dialogue - which cannot be relayed to a third party (such as a judicial authority) until such time as a 'settlement or agreement' is reached. I take it to mean that they will continue to bring suits and appeals for action regardless of this lobbyists' effort. And in all likelihood the MPA is part of the "Rightsholders" group.

The statement continues by stating that the group will continue it's current tactics and practices regardless of the focus of the effort, which is to get ISPs involved in blocking sites the group identifies.

The introduction to the statement opens by identifying this as a "request from the Minister" meaning it was he who opened the door for this discussion with the lobbyists.... I find that interesting. The authors point out the 'crucial' need for the participation of search engines and ISPs to achieve 'effective prevention of infringement.'

The assumed Lobbyist authors identify the system as "the Proposed Voluntary Scheme"

Although they admit that this "self-regulatory" solution largely supplants existing law (Section 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (S17/18 DEA), they ask for the S17/18 to remain in place "if S97A CDPA is not held by a court to be an adequate provision" for their purposes. Which some might take to mean this is a law on top of a law that already exists, but "we don't like how you (the government) are implementing it."

In essence, this document provides a unique opportunity to see how your ministers operate and why huge corporate conglomerates can succeed in compelling the government to expend their resources of behalf of themselves and their interests.

It also interested me to see that the concept of the "expert body" managing and implementing the "Voluntary Code" would consist of "those with the relevant skills and experience but who do not have current direct interest, in the relevant industries." Creating high-paying job opportunities for their retired comrades - no doubt.

In my humble opinion this "leak" is well worth reviewing closely; especially if you are the kind of citizen who is engaged in monitoring the evolution of your government's culture and how it impacts your society. Section 8 is particularly interesting....

Bravo!

Originally posted by SatoriTheory
Sounds more like they are trying to shut down the pirates, rather than censor.
I think you are jumping the gun with your 'censorship' claim, at the moment.

Youtube would be finished in the UK if it came to censorship.
Censorship wont happen in my opinion.

Pirate sites may well end up getting blocked once they have been reported.
But then I am sure there will be some ISPs who will not sign up the scheme.

st.

Youtube is already heavily censored in the U.K.

reply to post by Mister_Bit


You have examples? My guess is you are be getting copyright protected material mixed up with censorship.
If that is the case, then they are not censored by ISPs, it is most likely down to Youtube and the original poster of the material.

st,

It's the infamous “This video is not available in your country“.

Whatever you choose to call it, it's a control of the data coming into the country, that my friend is censorship.

reply to post by Mister_Bit


But that has nothing to do with the UK gov or UK ISPs though. Which is what the thread is about.

What you are on about is down to Youtube or the poster of the video alone. It's one time you can't blame the UK gov or UK ISPs.

Look for who benefits, whether certain MPs in the decision making process have ties to ISPs, whether their family members, run, own, manage, or otherwise have ties to ISPs. Look to see if new Quangos would be required to administer the rules, nice salaried jobs for the boys for a couple of days a year work, well I ay work, turning up to the odd lunch.

If there is any way these fat pigs could further bury their snout in the trough of public funds then it will happen. No matter whether it's in anyone's interests, denies free speech, is badly constructed legislation that would make simple things like iTunes illegal, to a fully controlled Stasi like internet where you have to justify every last keystroke to the authorities, is utterly irrelevant. It's all about the money. It's all about lining their own pockets at the expense of the public.

I have been feeling for a while that the whole anon/lulsec hacker thing is a controlled plan to censor the net.
Trust my home county UK for at least discussing being one of the biggest players in their "fightback" in other words a totally restricted and censored internet,where a board of suited goons say what websites you may or may not visit.

I bet some of the topics discussed at ATS will be deemed unsuitable by our loving leaders.
We can't have a free internet after all,the corporations rule now,and we see what they want us to see-nothing more or less.

How much does this suck?
And yes,its global or going that way.

reply to post by SatoriTheory


I have to disagree about this not being a form of censoring.

It's in my opinion indeed all about monopolizing of news outlets, I have a news site that combines all of the headlines of the Dutch newspapers, imagine newspaper owners saying that it is a violation of copyright to use those headlines?

Though it would be bad for their own business if less people find their articles, I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

There are already enough newspapers where you have to pay to read their articles.

So when there are less news sources, it is harder to combine articles to make up your own mind.

Imagine what kind of impact that would have on a website like ATS.

If I misread the leaked papers please say so because I think this is scary stuff.

reply to post by Grey Magic


Well, to me, censoring would be to not allow something to be available, in this case in the UK. But that's not what these docs are getting at. The docs are trying to protect copyright.

So, for example, lets say the Financial Times writes at article that you have to pay to read. If some other website takes that article and posts it without permission, then they are infringing on copyright. The docs are suggesting the website who reposted the article should be blocked because it infringed on copyright.

They are not suggesting the people cannot read the story, which would be censorship.

Imagine you wrote the next Harry Potter and you posted it on your website as pay-to-read. How would you feel if some other website copied the story and posted it for free?

It's just capitalism, protecting capitalist interests.

reply to post by SatoriTheory


Yip, but capitilist interests are not adapting to the technology fast enough, and instead of adapting they are infact choosing to illicit our government into forcing some fairly draconian laws that should in no circumstances ever be allowed. As like any laws you will see the scope is vast and vague in the extreme, giving governmental departments power they are simply not entitled too in any democracy.

reply to post by Johnze


Yeah, although I don't think its a case of capitalists not adapting to new technology. I think its more a case of capitalist not wanting to spend money and time taking someone who infringes their copyright to court.

It's pathetic. But politicians are too stupid to see sense. They all need blasting into the sun.

st,

reply to post by SatoriTheory


Maybe man, but you would probably find there would be a lot less copyright infringement if they were simply willing to move with the times. A movie is released in the U.S, why is it i have to wait months to see it here in the UK exactly?, whats that all about?. Nah think ill just download it thanks, think ill just utilise the ultra efficiencies of the technology around me to help enrich and better my life.

Why should people such as ourselves be held liable for the failings of there outdated bureaucracy?. They really need to wake the ***k up and understand things are changing, were evolving wether they like it or not, and these asinine laws that only serve to stiffle society and hold back our progress can in no way be practicaly implemented, and will over time simply entrench and embitter an entire generation of people[well at least the ones that have a clue anyway]

reply to post by Johnze


Aren't we always held liable?

Capitalism is a broken corrupt system. We will never have fairness, peace, respect until that lame horse is put to rest. But, it probably won't happen in my life time, as people are blinded by the material world around them.

st.