Brits: tell the LibDem Peers not to bring web-censorship to Britain!

The awful UK Digital Economy Bill is being debated in the House of Lords, and it might just get more awful, thanks to the LibDems. The LibDem peers, Lords Razzall and Clement-Jones, have introduced an amendment that would open the door to nationally censoring entire websites on unsubstantiated claims of copyright infringement -- so YouTube or WordPress.com might disappear from the British Internet if someone makes a false accusation of copyright infringement against them.

The LibDems are supposed to be the party of liberty. That's why I joined them. That's why I fundraise and campaign for them. I believe that this is an embarrassment for the party, and I'm writing to them to tell them so. I hope you will, too.

"97B Preventing access to specified online locations
(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court.

Lib Dems seek web blocking: ask them to stop (Thanks, Glyn!)

Previously:

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: Action

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

efergus3

“But it’ll NEVER be used like THAT. Take our word for it.” I trust ANY government as far as I can spit a whale.
Cory Doctorow

I’m still reeling from the news that a party that I fundraised for has proposed a web-censorship law — this is the party that has proposed a “liberty bill,” for chrissakes.
efergus3

Hey, we can still trust the EFF. I think I’ll wear one of my Ts tomorrow.
efergus3

When it comes to governments, remember what the scorpion told the frog: “I could not help myself. It is my nature.” They’re all based on lies and betrayal.
prentiz

Bad luck Cory – the Lib Dems are absolutely notorious for saying one think on the door-step and doing the opposite in power. I was going to say that this is probably just random peers straying from the party line, but I see Lord Clement Jones is the Lib Dem Culture, Media and Sport spokesman in the Lords. I’d bet it will still get binned – people who are concerned should contact Lib Dem MPs or prospective parliamentary candidates in their area- I’d imagine that would do the trick…
asuffield

Lord Clement-Jones has responded here: http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html

Brief version: Labour proposed granting the Secretary of State the power to change copyright law at whim to do whatever they wanted; this is being proposed as an alternative to that. It’s reducing the badness in the Bill rather than increasing it. Furthermore, it is not creating a new power to censor the internet, but placing extra limits on a power to censor the internet which already exists in UK law. (Yeah, we have one of those stupid laws. Bletch)

It’s important to note that this does not mean the Lib Dems think this power is a good thing.
asuffield

Before you flip out over this, you need to understand something about how the Lords works. Introducing an amendment doesn’t mean that you’ll vote for it, and in fact most amendments are withdrawn without ever being put to a vote. However, by placing an amendment before the House, it forces a debate. This is how you introduce a new topic for debate when you think it is relevant. It’s a little silly, but many things about the Lords are like that.
Paul

@prentiz

Eh? Do you mean at the council level? The LibDems have never been in power at a national level, and the last time their predecessors the Liberal Party was in power was about a hundred years ago.
Anonymous

Cory, let’s stop trusting these democrats. What we need is benevolent totalitarianism. The bene-tot party will have rules like anti-copyright etc., I’m willing to make you my chief anti-copyright enforcer. Vote Bene-Tot!!
cabalamat

The LibDems are supposed to be the party of liberty. That’s why I joined them.

If you want a party that’s very clear on liberty on the internet, and won’t deviate from that position, yuou should consider joining Pirate Party UK.
- NeilM
  
  If you want a party that’s very clear on liberty on the internet, and won’t deviate from that position, yuou should consider joining Pirate Party UK.
  
  Or if you want a party that’s very clear on liberty and is also very clear on property rights, you could ignore the Pirate Party and go for the LPUK.
Paul

I’ve just had a thought.

Don’t write just to the Lords, write to your MP or LD candidate as well.

If it’s just the Lords getting messages it’s easy for them to ignore you. It’s much harder for a bunch of MPs to ignore prospective voters, especially in the run-up to the next election.
Anonymous

I do not wish to see a party that I have delivered for (a lot) introduce a web censorship law. I expect to see the amendment withdrawn. I would like to see the wording of the amendment that replaces it.
Anonymous

“LibDems are supposed to be the party of liberty” ?? Eh? They are the most petty, spiteful and interfering busybodies of the lot? Forever trying to wrap society up in cotton wool and legislation. Thank goodness these small-minded people will never be in power and won’t be able to enact their daft web policy!
Stooge

Cory, it’s not quite as bad as you make out.

The amendment says before issuing an injunction, the High Court must first determine “whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright”.

If the court gets to decide what is and is not infringing content, that means the claims have to be substantiated.
Cory Doctorow

@9: YouTube, blogger and Flickr *all* fail that test.
Anonymous

I have looked at this blog for years, but im quite disturbed that you find reason to should support any of the bourgeois parties- they do not act in the interests on the people

the are all capitalist parties

why is this even a surprise to people?
Cory Doctorow

Further to that, the court will make the finding without any kind of case-by-case adjudication — that is, the court won’t give every photographer on Flickr who’s accused of infringement a chance to appear before it to defend the charge. So it will make a finding of fact without hearing from both sides — that’s what I call unsubstantiated.
- Anony Mouse
  
  So what really is evil about this is that it doesn’t allow copyright-infringing websites to launch a ‘Bhopal Defense’ in response to legal action from copyright-holders?
  
  I share your suprise at the Lib Dems tabling something like this; but then with no clear policy to speak of (well, that’s an accusation you could justifiably fling in the faces of any of the main parties, but it’s definitely MORE true of the Lib Dems) It isn’t entirely incomprehensible that it should happen; tossed upon the seas of politics, they’ve just happened upon this particular plank. Next week they’ll be cosying up with the Pirate Party, hoping that some of the ‘politically active yoof’ sparkle rubs off.
Simon Bradshaw

It looks as if that version of the amendment has been withdrawn and a new one substituted that has some extra wording, including (under factors the court must consider):

(e) the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,
(f) the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property

I’m asking ORG contacts to urgently enquire what is behind this, as these two peers have so far been generally supportive of ORG’s stance. I am wondering if this is a well-intentioned (if arguably very misguided, for the reasons pointed out) effort to say “the courts will grant this sort of injunction anyway, so at least let’s regulate the manner in which they do it.” Of course, that still has the problem of highlighting the existence of such a powerful legal tool.

In practice, I doubt that it would be the YouTubes and Flickrs of the world that would be affected – they can afford lawyers to argue that such a ban would be disproportionate. It will be the small, specialist sites that will be targetted the most.
kacamelot

Corey – Youtube, Flickr etc DO NOT fail the test. This is about a SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION of infringing material. Sites that fail the test would be Newzbin, The Pirate Bay, NovaMov, SurftheChannel, ZML.COM, Warez-BB, etc, etc. You’re intelligent, can’t you take a look at yourself and realise how far to the left you are, it is beyond reason in my opinion.
- Cory Doctorow
  
  One you host a billion images, if even one percent of them infringe, that’s substantial. When you look at Viacom’s claims against YouTube, you’ll see that this is *exactly* what rightsholders mean when they describe sites that have a “substantial proportion of infringement” (likewise, the RIAA litigants in Napster successfully argued that the content filtering system that Napster used after the initial injunction was insufficient because it let through less than one percent of the infringing material on Napster’s network).
  - kacamelot
    
    I suppose you’re right that some rights holders are too aggressive, that is why there should be laws making things fair. “Substantial” should be defined, if it is not defined in law then I agree with you that this proposal has issues. It is quite obvious what the intent of many sites are, even if they do link to Linux ISOs and family home videos. Currently the existing law makes it almost impossible to do anything about these kinds of sites in the UK. In my opinion, “substantial” should be up over 50%. The law should prevent loopholes as well, such as sites filling themselves up with random crap to go below the threshold. A Judge should have to make a determination on the intent of the site, based on factual evidence. I’m sure if it was a combined “intent” + “substantial infringement percentage” kind of thing, then surely that would be a better way. This would hit all the right targets in my opinion and it would ensure that a Judge didn’t inadverdently make Google, Flickr etc illegal.
    
    I don’t think it helps your cause to appear so radical.
    Personally, I do not think it is right for sites like these to exist, making their pseudo-criminal leech operators rich through advertising and affiliate revenue (yes I’m talking specifically about the operators of The Pirate Bay, Newzbin, etc.)
- Raj77
  
  You win the worst comment award, I do believe. Why should being intelligent be negatively associated with left-wing political beliefs? Empirically, there’s very substantial evidence suggesting that the opposite is true.
  
  Anyway. For an astroturfer and/or troll, you know a lot about warez sites.
  - kacamelot
    
    It is not intelligent to appear radical either way in the context of influencing laws being made, especially in the UK where everything is controlled by the elite. You sir, should not be talking about trolls. You are correct however, that I do know a lot about warez….probably more than 99% of the people here. I’ve been around since the early BBS days in various capacities so I know exactly what goes on, why and who.
    - Raj77
      
      Speaking as a lawyer from the UK, you’re more than a little off in several respects. The UK as a state is, in general, much less prone to dismiss doctrinally radical ideas )unless there’s a practical reason to do so) than is the US. That’s why we’ve had successful socialist governments, have a *cough* former Communist as one of our most senior judges, and have had the NHS since 1948. Similarly, if everything is run by some notional ‘elite’, why are so many of our most powerful people over the last century those who’ve come from working-class or middle-class backgrounds?
      
      Secondly, I fail to see what’s left-wing at all about Cory’s OP; his points could equally be coming from a (UK-style) mainstream liberal perspective.
      
      Thirdly, why shouldn’t I be talking about trolls? Will they come and eat me?
stumo

I’m finding it hard to work out what the exact amendment is, but it looks like it might be “Remove clause 17 and replace with…” – in which case the critical detail is what is being replaced.

I’m not sure what to make of the text they’re suggesting. It doesn’t strike me as *too* bad; since they know that people will go for these injunctions, defining that the court has to take into account certain factors that it might otherwise not is potentially a good thing.

Worth watching carefully? Yes. But not quite the smoking gun you make out. Stop, have a cup of tea, and look again.
Anonymous

As a Lib Dem member, and worker, I will reconsider my membership if this goes through. Members like me belong to the Lib Dems because we see them as the only party that stands for liberty and social justice. Fail that, and you fail the party membership.
CaeVye

The real question is why there’s still no sizeable Pirate Party in the UK.
Anonymous

Don’t forget that it was the Liberal party that sleepwalked the UK into the first world war and then totally screwed up the peace negotiations afterwards. Subsequently being the root cause of all the problems we currently see in the Middle East today.
Flying_Monkey

I’m just amazed that Cory was so naive as to join the Lib Dems and then seemed surprised that they turned out to be rather stupid.
dave

Couldn’t they just ban P2P sharing between Lib Dem Peers Lords Razzall and Clement-Jones?
yezzer

I’m very disappointed by the Lib Dems actions here. I was considering voting for them, but anyone who’s backing the bill won’t get my vote.

It almost makes the Pirate Party UK look tempting..

I wonder if we all wrote to our local MPs and said ‘If you vote FOR the bill, I, and XXX others will actively campaign against you at the general election.’ – Would that have any effect? :)
LiudvikasT

Internet censorship is the worst crime ever. Anyone who proposes to censor even a single bit of information must be executed. Period.
cabalamat

@15 CaeVye: The real question is why there’s still no sizeable Pirate Party in the UK.

I’m not sure how big PPUK would have to be before you considered it sizeable, but copyfighters should bear in mind that unlike the big parties, PPUK doesn’t get massive donations from vested corporate interests, we have to rely on our members and volunteers for everything we do.

If you think PPUK isn’t big enough, the solution is to join it and make it bigger.

Once upon a time, there was only one Pirate in the world — Rick Falkvinge. That was 4 years ago, and today there are Pirate Parties throughout the world, with thousands of members. We’re still growing, and if people who care about freedom on the internet join us, we’ll continue to grow and we’ll win.
cdjaco

This is yet another warning for us all — on either side of the Atlantic. Authoritarianism is not exclusive to any party or end of the political spectrum.

Any politician who claims to support the social/fiscal policies you do, but also supports ANY program that can restrict your right (or the right of anybody else) to express themselves should be rejected. Immediately.

Once you know of a politician’s agenda, there is simply no excuse for supporting them if they favor censorship…all other issues be damned.
Anonymous

Just goes to show that you can’t pick a political party on name alone. ;-)

But seriously, no one political party is going to perfectly represent all of your views. You’ve got to rank and prioritize. For example, you might not like the party that panders to the religious for votes, but its better than the party that wants to outlaw freedom of expression.
Anonymous

I totally sympathise with you in the UK.The Australian government is trying to impliment censorship of the internet here also.Basically we have been told by the broadband communications Minister that we are in agreeance with child porography if we disagree to having a mandatory internet.This coming from democratic Australia.
Australia is now to be on par with countries such as Burma and China in regards to internet restrictions, Im scared.If enough of us oppose this , surely it cannot happen , heres hoping , and all the best with your struggle to access the uncensored internet, a right I believe is everyones.
Zophiel

Keep in mind that every site with user submitted content could be found to violate copyright. Especially if. . .purely hypothetically of course. . . someone were to anonymously post infringing material then report their alter ego to get the site taken down.

Don’t just think web lockers and Youtube. Myspace and facebook already feature “pirate” copies of all sorts of images found on the web and used as profile photos. Amazon.com has a space for user reviews. The whole idea of removing entire sites without needing substantial proof and of holding hosts responsible for their user content (whether that be an ISP, wireless hotspot or an unmoderated comments page) is rife with abuse not just by those who want to remove objectionable material but by those with an axe to grind against any of those services.

When lockers are outlawed, only outlaws will use lockers.
Anonymous

If I’m not mistaken, this bill would also render owners of open wifi spots responsible for what is done on their networks. Say goodbye to hot spots in coffee houses, and welcome back to the stone age, mes amis!
James Neil

The Lib Dems were in government in Scotland, and they are indeed notoriously unreliable and illiberal. They even abstained on ID cards:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4292893.stm

They are also notoriously dishonest in their leaflets:
http://www.channel4.com/fc/quote.jsp?id=51

Whoever you support, I would seriously advise against them.