Friday, 21 December 2012

Jump Off the Coursera Bandwagon

Jump Off the Coursera Bandwagon - Commentary - The Chronicle of Higher Education: "Why should we be impressed that an online course can reach 100,000 students at once? By celebrating massification, advocates of Coursera elevate volume as the chief objective of online learning. Is that truly our goal in academe?
Interactivity and customization are the fundamental advantages of online education. By using technology, we can bridge geographic divides while creating a continuing learning relationship between faculty and students, students and students, and students and the greater society." 'via Blog this'

Wednesday, 19 December 2012

Turkey: Landmark European Court Decision finds blanket Google… · Article 19

Turkey: Landmark European Court Decision finds blanket Google… · Article 19: "The European Court found that the blocking order amounted to a violation of Yıldırım’s right to freedom of expression for the following reasons:
In order to comply with the requirements of Article 10 of the European Convention, a restriction must be prescribed by law, which means it must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct. However, the relevant Turkish law did not authorise the wholesale blocking of an entire online platform such as Google Sites. The law also failed to provide sufficient safeguards against potential abuses.
There was no evidence that Google Sites had been informed that it was hosting content held to be illegal, or that it had refused to comply with an interim measure concerning a site that was the subject of pending criminal proceedings.
The law had conferred extensive powers on an administrative body, the TİB, in the implementation of a blocking order originally issued in relation to a specified site. "
'via Blog this'

Thursday, 29 November 2012

Case C-466/12

InfoCuria: "Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 18 October 2012 - Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retreiver Sverige AB
(Case C-466/12)"

If anyone other than the holder of copyright in a certain work supplies a clickable link to the work on his website, does that constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society?
Is the assessment under question 1 affected if the work to which the link refers is on a website on the Internet which can be accessed by anyone without restrictions or if access is restricted in some way?
When making the assessment under question 1, should any distinction be drawn between a case where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown on another website and one where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown in such a way as to give the impression that it is appearing on the same website?
Is it possible for a Member State to give wider protection to authors' exclusive right by enabling 'communication to the public' to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society? 'via Blog this'

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Threat or Menace?

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Threat or Menace?: "The legislative history of s 127 is usefully narrated in DPP v Collins[6] (at [6]), a case involving a man who made repeated telephone calls to his local MP's office asking for him to do something about the 'black bastards' – and similar even more unpleasant terms. He was charged with sending 'grossly offensive' messages under s 127. On appeal to the House of Lords, the charge against Collins was upheld but what is particularly interesting for present purposes lies in LJ Bingham's analysis at [7] of what the purpose of s 127 is." 'via Blog this'

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

Irish academics' paper on copyright enforcement on the Internet

Copyright as One of Several Competing Rights in European Law (April 2012) Peter Charleton and Sinéad Kelly* to a highly prestigious New York conference 'via Blog this'

Excellent summary of recent UK cases from judge who decided them!

See here: The main speaker was Mr Justice Arnold, Judge of the High Court, Chancery Division.
He was followed by Mike Holderness (Creators Rights), Andrew Heaney (TalkTalk plc) and Saskia Walzel (Consumer focus).
Legal Background: On 26 October 2011 the High Court granted the first website-blocking order under section 97A of the Copyright Act 1998 (sic) resulting in ISPs being required to block access to Newsbin2.  Subsequently the Court has made similar orders against the Pirate Bay. During the recent Golden Eye case a Norwich Pharmacal order was made requiring O2 to release details of over 9,000 subscribers who were suspected of downloading infringing copyright. In all of the aforementioned cases Mr Justice Arnold was the presiding Judge.
'via Blog this'

The legality of online blocking measures

Excellent summary of case law to date.
'via Blog this'

Should private copying levies apply to the cloud?

The 1709 Blog: "The Commission has said that it will "assess whether there is a need to clarify the scope of the private copying exception and the applicability of levies, in particular the extent to which cloud computing services allowing for the direct remuneration of right holders are excluded from the private copy levy regime."
The levy system is a controversial one." 'via Blog this'

29 June 2012 — UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, Munich (Germany), Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH

EUR-Lex - - EN: "Questions referred
1. Is Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC [1] (the Information Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that a person who makes protected subject-matter available on the internet without the rightholder’s consent (Article 3(2) of the Information Directive) is using the services of the access providers of persons seeking access to that protected subject-matter?
2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Are reproduction for private use (Article 5(2)(b) of the Information Directive) and transient and incidental reproduction (Article 5(1) of the Information Directive) permissible only if the original of the reproduction was lawfully reproduced, distributed or made available to the public?
3. If the answer to the first question or the second question is in the affirmative and an injunction is therefore to be issued against the user’s access provider in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Information Directive: Is it compatible with Union law, in particular with the necessary balance between the parties’ fundamental rights, to quite simply prohibit an access provider from allowing its customers access to a certain website (without ordering specific measures) as long as the material available on that website is provided exclusively or predominantly without the rightholder’s consent, if the access provider can avoid incurring preventive penalties for breach of the prohibition by showing that it had nevertheless taken all reasonable measures?
4. If the answer to the third question is in the negative: Is it compatible with Union law, in particular with the necessary balance between the parties’ fundamental rights, to require an access provider to take specific measures to make it more difficult for its customers to access a website containing material that is made available unlawfully if those measures require not inconsiderable costs and can easily be circumvented without any special technical knowledge?" 'via Blog this'

Thursday, 22 November 2012

Five Myths about Chinese Internet censorship

LW660:Freedom of Expression, Privacy and the Media: Five Myths about Chinese Internet censorship: Five Myths about the Chinese Internet - By Eveline Chao | Foreign Policy : "In 2000, President Bill Clinton said: "There's no question China...

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

Vorschaubilder II. The second case on image search thumbnails

Vorschaubilder II. The second case on image search thumbnails | Kluwer Copyright Blog: "The German Federal Court of Justice rejects liability for image search thumbnails even if they are indexed on websites showing the images without permission as long as other websites did so with the rights holder’s consent." 'via Blog this'

Monday, 5 November 2012

Twitter Help Center | Copyright and DMCA Policy

Twitter Help Center | Copyright and DMCA Policy: "Twitter’s response to notices of alleged copyright infringement may include the removal or restriction of access to allegedly infringing material. If we remove or restrict access to user content in response to a notice of alleged infringement, Twitter will make a good faith effort to contact the affected account holder with information concerning the removal or restriction of access, including a copy of the takedown notice, along with instructions for filing a counter-notification.
In an effort to be as transparent as possible regarding the removal or restriction of access to user-posted content, we clearly mark withheld Tweets and media to indicate to viewers when content has been withheld (examples below). We also send a copy of each DMCA notification and counter-notice that we process to Chilling Effects, where they are posted to a public-facing website (with your personal information removed)." 'via Blog this'

Sunday, 21 October 2012

Merging competition authorities and sector regulators; a good idea?

Chillin'Competition: "two incipient trends [emerge] whereby multiple specific/sector regulators are either (a) folded into one sole multi-market regulator (which allegedly takes advantage of economies of scale, minimizes the risk of regulatory capture and ensures a consistent approach to the regulation of network industries; this is the case of the German Bundesnetz; or (b) merged with the competition authority. To my knowledge, the only example of the latter “trend” has been that of the NMa in the Netherlands.... blurring the frontiers between the applicable standards, attitudes and instruments used under competition law (a sanctioning system with criminal features) and those characterizing sector regulation risks affecting the way competition law is enforced, and could result in a lowering of standards." 'via Blog this'

Friday, 19 October 2012

SCL Media Group Seminar Report: Intermediary Liability

SCL Media Group Seminar Report: Intermediary Liability: "In Europe, we wait the decision of the CJEU on the reference from the Austrian Court in on questions relating to fairness and proportionality of web blocking, and the important task of balancing the fundamental rights of the various stakeholders in the process (which Arnold J had no difficulty with in Newzbin)." 'via Blog this'

Saturday, 6 October 2012

Babar Ahmad Extradition Reaction: 'RIP British Justice'

Babar Ahmad Extradition Reaction: 'RIP British Justice': " "Allowing the US to expand its extraterritorial reach by claiming jurisdiction over internet servers is undermining British and international justice.
"Servers are commonly cloud-based - which is where the UK's judicial and government leaders have their heads today.
"British extradition law urgently needs updating to assert jurisdiction over the territory in which cyber crime is physically committed.
"No matter how much the public and their representative MPs protest at today's outrage, no British court will ever try these two suspects.
"RIP British justice.""
'via Blog this'

Thursday, 4 October 2012

Foreign Secretary speech at the Budapest Conference on Cyberspace

Foreign Secretary speech at the Budapest Conference on Cyberspace: " The internet has been an unprecedented engine for growth, for social progress and for innovation, across the globe and in all areas of human endeavour.
But there is a darker side to it, and in the United Kingdom we believe it is time to shine a strong light on those shadows.
We are calling for a new international consensus on rules of the road to guide future behaviour in cyberspace, and to combat the worst abuses of it.
We are not calling for a new Treaty between governments which would be cumbersome to agree, hard to enforce and too narrow in its focus. " 'via Blog this'

Wednesday, 3 October 2012

YouTube Improves Content ID, Introduces New Appeals Process

YouTube Improves Content ID, Introduces New Appeals Process: "YouTube originally developed Content ID to protect content creators from copyright infringement (and to protect itself from lawsuits), but as many frustrated users know, videos have been mistakenly targeted as infringing content in the past. To help resolve some of these mistakes, YouTube is now introducing an appeals process, which lets users take copyright disputes further, in the event that they are rejected by content owners. As YouTube explains, now when a user “files an appeal, a content owner has two options: release the claim or file a formal DMCA notification.”" 'via Blog this'

Thursday, 27 September 2012

Google Brazil chief jailed, court orders YouTube blackout over clips

Google Brazil chief jailed, court orders YouTube blackout over clips | World | News | National Post: "Google’s head of operations in Brazil was detained by the country’s federal police Wednesday after the company failed to heed a judge’s order to take down YouTube videos that the court ruled violate Brazilian electoral law.
The detention came as another court ordered YouTube to remove clips of an anti-Islam film that has been blamed for deadly protests by Muslims around the globe, both joining a spate of court-ordered content-removal cases against Google’s video-sharing website in Brazil.
The arrest of Google executive Fabio Jose Silva Coelho was announced in Sao Paulo. A press release issued by the federal police said he was not expected to remain in jail and should be released later in the day after signing a document promising to appear in court." 'via Blog this'

Monday, 24 September 2012

The Twitter Joke Judgment: The Law with Unintended Consequences?

The Twitter Joke Judgment: The Law with Unintended Consequences?: "By describing and defining the Internet as a 'public electronic communications network' for the purposes of the Communications Act because it is ultimately funded by the public and because it facilitates communication with the public as a whole, the judgment appears to implicate inadvertently a wide range of network and service providers within the scope of EU and UK communications law.  It leaves open the possibility, for example, that Twitter could be bound by the above regulatory requirements.
In Chambers, the prosecution won on this point, successfully establishing that the message was sent over a public electronic communications network, and the defendant won his case overall. "
'via Blog this'

panGloss: Section 127 Communications Act 2003 - Threat or Menace?

panGloss: Section 127 Communications Act 2003 - Threat or Menace?: " LJ Bingham in Collins, in para 7 he observes the existence of the 1988 Act and thus deduces that the purpose of s 127 is "not to protect people against receipt of unsolicited messages which they may find seriously objectionable". Instead, it is "to prohibit the use of a service provided and funded by the public for the benefit of the public for the transmission of communications which contravene the basic standards of our society".
This history can clearly be seen of course in the preceding ancestor statutes - which originate from a time of state monopoly services over post and phone.  What LJ Bingham seems to be acknowledging is that  s 127 as formulated way back when, was about not wasting public money on transmitting material which was unpleasant. As such, the  words used forbid categories of speech which would now be permitted speech  in public using the Handyside test - or to put it another way, would be allowed in any pub or park." 'via Blog this'

Thursday, 20 September 2012

Copyright in thirteen clips | Lex Ferenda

Copyright in thirteen clips | Lex Ferenda: "Copyright in thirteen clips
As part of the wholesome September activity of revisiting past teaching, I was reminded of a class I am not teaching this year, but may be of wider interest (or at least trivia).  It’s a presentation on copyright law to an audience of (mostly) media studies students.  This task came my way a couple of years ago and after a pleasant bit of reading and brainstorming the result was the all-about-copyright playlist, which after further changes looked like this.  Enjoy the links!" 'via Blog this'

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

OECD – Who studies abroad and where? - University World News

OECD – Who studies abroad and where? - University World News: "These data illustrate the dramatic growth in foreign enrolments over the past three decades, with the number of students enrolled outside their country of citizenship rising dramatically from 0.8 million worldwide in 1975 to 4.1 million in 2010 – an increase of more than five-fold" while overall university numbers increased only 77% in that period. 'via Blog this'

Monday, 17 September 2012

Germany pushes for an end to massive fines for hijacked Wi-Fi

Germany pushes for an end to massive fines for hijacked Wi-Fi | ZDNet: "Some German lawyers specialise in this field (a practice known as Abmahnung in German law), demanding huge sums of money on behalf of rights holders if they find copyright infringements have been made over a free Wi-Fi network. The city of Berlin thinks that the amount of damages requested in such cases is inappropriately high and may endanger the financial existence of citizens or owners of small firms.
A new legal initiative will be put before the Bundesrat (the assembly of German states, comparable to the US Senate), asking it to consider how to limit WLAN owners' liability. If the initiative is approved, the Bundesrat will ask the German federal government to pass a law bolstering the protection for Wi-Fi network owners." 'via Blog this'

Thursday, 13 September 2012

RoboCops - or why copyright and libel put-back procedures are needed...

ORG Zine | RoboCops: "Granted that it's not unreasonable that there should be some mechanism to enable people to complain about material that infringes their copyrights or is libellous, what doesn't get sufficient attention is that there should also be a means of redress for those who are unjustly accused. Even without this week's incidents we have enough evidence - thanks to the detailed collection of details showing how DMCA notices have been used and abused in the years since the law's passage being continuously complied at Chilling Effects - to be able to see the damage that overbroad, knee-jerk deletion can do. It's clear that balance needs to be restored. Users should be notified promptly when the content they have posted is removed; there should be a fast turnaround means of redress; and there clearly needs to be a mechanism by which users can say, "This content has been cleared for use"." 'via Blog this'

Thursday, 9 August 2012

Communications Offences: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service

Communications Offences: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service: "If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place. The test for "grossly offensive" was stated by the House of Lords in DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 to be whether the message would cause gross offence to those to whom it relates (in that case ethnic minorities), who need not be the recipients. The case also said that it is justifiable under ECHR Article 10(2) to prosecute somebody who has used the public telecommunications system to leave racist messages." 'via Blog this
This needs re-writing in view of the Twitter joke trial Court of Appeal decision.

Monday, 6 August 2012

Communications Primer: Internet Archive

Communications Primer: Internet Archive: what you're studying in simple terms, a 1953 film calling on the insights of Claude Shannon 'via Blog this'

University of Essex : globally diverse

University of Essex :: Vice-Chancellor :: Professor Anthony Forster FHEA FRSA AcSS: "Essex is one of the world’s most internationally diverse campus universities, with 40 per cent of our students from outside the UK, representing 135 countries. We take pride in being globally recognised, being ranked 20th in the world for universities under 50 years old by the Times Higher Education (May, 2012)." 'via Blog this'

Saturday, 4 August 2012

French Socialists May Weaken, Instead of Kill, Piracy Law

French Socialists May Weaken, Instead of Kill, Piracy Law | World | "Does France’s trailblazing Internet antipiracy law risk death by a thousand cuts? That could well be the case in light of comments made on Thursday by Culture Minister Aurélie Filippetti, in which she revealed plans to slash funding for the organization enforcing the law — one of the few surviving policy innovations of former conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy’s reign." 'via Blog this'

Monday, 30 July 2012

West tightens Internet censorship, says China

West tightens Internet censorship|Americas| "Western countries are tightening Internet censorship and implementing tougher cybermonitoring policies.
While governments tend to play the national security card to defend plans for wider state access to email and digital communications, analysts and Internet users are concerned that unwatched cybermonitoring might tip the delicate balance between online security and state surveillance." 'via Blog this'

Evidence of online copyright infringement? Proof or disproof

ORG Zine | Evidence of online copyright infringement? Who did that...: "Ultimately, without the NAT information, the subscriber is, on a technical level, not able to disprove the accusation that the infringement was committed by a computer within the household, or more precisely, their own computer. In a court, the copyright owners would have to prove their case, it is not the subscriber who has to disprove the allegation. But the small number of cases against consumers for infringement involving peer-to-peer filesharing that have been brought in UK courts have not been fully fought." 'via Blog this'

Friday, 27 July 2012

Twitter Joke Trial: Appeal Judgment Sees the Joke

Twitter Joke Trial: Appeal Judgment Sees the Joke: "The Divisional Court has given judgment in the appeal of Paul Chambers against his conviction under the Communications Act 2003, s 127. The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 27 July in Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 – the much publicised 'Twitter joke' case. The appeal against conviction was allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character.
The full judgment can be downloaded.
Lord Judge LCJ gave the judgment of the Court. He did not deal with each aspect of the wide-ranging questions posed by the Crown Court for decision but did agree with the Crown Court judge's analysis that a tweet was indeed a message capable of supporting a charge under the Act. However, he was clearly impatient with the support given by the magistrates and the Crown Court to the view that the message was menacing."
'via Blog this'

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

Dean Bubley: Reverse-engineering Ericsson's mobile data numbers

Reverse-engineering Ericsson's mobile data numbers: "If I assume that growth in traffic for 2011-2012 falls to 80% from 99% the previous year, and taking their 15x growth from 2011-2017, brings down the global 5-year CAGR figure from 2012-2017 to 53%
- This compares with Cisco's 2011-2016 Mobile VNI forecasts [5 year] of 18x traffic growth
- In general, Cisco's forecasts are considerably more aggressive than Ericssons. The difference (hat-tip to Tim Farrar here) is mostly in the assumptions on average smartphone data use towards the end of the period
-  Then, reconstructing the regional breakdowns from the piecharts & reformulating the CAGRs, I reckon we have my best estimates as:
"Western Europe Mobile Data Traffic CAGR 2012-2017 = 45%
North America Mobile Data Traffic CAGR 2012-2017 = 42%
Other global regions are 56-62% CAGR"'via Blog this'

Search engines' plans to help combat piracy seek extra safeguards that existing EU law does not provide, expert says

Search engines' plans to help combat piracy seek extra safeguards that existing EU law does not provide, expert says: "Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft have drawn up a series of "principles" to guide how rights holders should act when issuing them with requests for the removal of infringing content from search indexes as well as the responsibilities search engines themselves should be required to conform to. The plans were published (4-page / 43KB PDF) by digital rights campaign group the Open Rights Group (ORG) who obtained details of the proposals via a freedom of information (FOI) request to the Government."
'via Blog this'

Thursday, 17 May 2012

Will FCC act? Observing traffic prioritization in Comcast’s network

berg'd: Bryan Berg's tumblr — Observing traffic prioritization in Comcast’s network: "What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app (so that I’m using consistent terminology, I’m going to call this traffic “Xfinity traffic” in the rest of the post). This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network." An election year problem for the FCC and their 2 new commissioners? 'via Blog this'

Finnish Court: Open WiFi Owner Not Liable for File-Sharing Copyright Infringement | Turre Legal

Finnish Court: Open WiFi Owner Not Liable for File-Sharing Copyright Infringement | Turre Legal: "In a landmark ruling, a Finnish District Court (*Ylivieskan käräjäoikeus*) has today clarified the legal status of WiFi owners for internet file-sharing in the light of various pieces of EU legislation.
Finnish Anti-Piracy Centre, a coalition of entertainment industry rights-holders, had sued a Finnish woman for copyright infringement, demanding compensation of circa 6000 euros for internet file-sharing conducted with the Direct Connect (DC++) protocol through her internet connection.
The applicants were unable to provide any evidence that the connection-owner herself had been involved in the file-sharing. The court thus examined whether the mere act of providing a WiFi connection not protected with a password can be deemed to constitute a copyright-infringing act."
'via Blog this'

Saturday, 5 May 2012

EU Commission re-sets clock for IP enforcement review: IPtegrity

EU Commission re-sets clock for IP enforcement review: "It emerged last week that the European Comission is changing the timings for the IPR Enforcement directive (IPRED) review.  At a conference organised by DG Markt, the Commission said that the consultation on the directive will be extended. The move is significant, because DG Markt was scheduled to unveil the revised directive in September, with the intention of getting it adopted next year. That timetable appears to have been torn up. The conference was  entitled “Enforcement of intellectual property rights: the review of Directive 2004/48/EC”. "
'via Blog this'

Friday, 4 May 2012

Chronicle of a Block Foretold: UK ISPs ordered to block Pirate Bay

Chronicle of a Block Foretold: UK ISPs ordered to block Pirate Bay | TechnoLlama: "Presented with a block, those knowledgeable enough will simply bypass it. The truth is that bypassing the order will become quite easy through technical means, TPB has issued instructions on how to circumvent blocks from other ISPs, which include signing up to OpenDNS, or to get people to sign up to a VPN service. Those not knowledgeable enough, will simply migrate to one of the hundreds of other services that do exactly the same thing as the Pirate Bay does. Then we are back to the game of whack-a-mole. But perhaps the saddest part of the ruling is that it should serve as a reminder of the utter failure in the “War on Piracy”."
'via Blog this'

Friday, 20 April 2012

Studios lose landmark anti-piracy suit in Australia

BBC News - Studios lose landmark anti-piracy suit in Australia: "The High Court upheld a previous ruling that internet service provider (ISP) iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement among its customers.US and Australian studios had wanted iiNet to stop its customers from downloading pirated material.In 2010, a federal court had ruled in favour of iiNet, saying it did not authorise the downloads."

'via Blog this'