Thu Oct 28, 2010 21:31
Since Tuesday ComON have tried to get access to the draft prepared by the Ministry of Culture had pieced together the recommendations of the Anti-Piracy Committee.
Today, Monday, got ComON draft handed, but not without some wrangling. When we from time to time seek access to the authorities, there is a big difference in how long it takes. Sometimes, the authorities have an interest in providing consultation and so may go right down to a couple of minutes before an email is ticking in your inbox.
In the case of the Anti-Piracy Committee, the Ministry of Culture clearly shown not had an interest in sharing out the documents. It would have been easy to send mail, but still took almost a week before we got a pdf file dump end. Funnily enough only after the Anti-Piracy Committee met again to discuss the draft.
Committee members explained to ComON that they had promised to keep working secretly in order not to create too much fuss - they could never agree on some recommendations if there was too much public debate about its work, was thinking.
"We have given the handshake that it is something we are not talking about with the press," said Martin Salamon from the Consumer Council, which opposes warning letters.
How can it be that there must be discussion, while the committee working on the case? Their work and thoughts may turn out to be the basis of the letter model that politicians may one day introduce into Denmark. Why must the committee work done in the dark with a tyssende finger in front of your face? Consumers already have only a single representative, Consumer Council, in committee!
Committee nørkler with models of how the Danes receiving intimidating letters. At the same time it will probably be an expensive affair. It costs money to monitor file-sharing services, find identities and send out letters to suspected pirates and ultimately it will be consumers who pay the price. If copyright holders pay, movies and music more expensive if the ISPs pay becomes internet connection expensive. If the government pays, it costs taxpayers.
Therefore, the matter deserves publicity so that all shades are fully elucidated. If politicians end up introducing a letter model, so it should be based on a fierce public debate, where all are heard, and even the smallest details will fly fucked.
So praise to the Culture Ministry to disclose. Next time it must be like to go a little faster.
Here is Denmark's answer to 3-strikes
Danes can look forward to receiving letters, if they illegally download movies or music on the Internet.
When a Dane illegally downloading movies or music on the Internet can be a time out in the near future dump a letter through the mail slot that it should not. There can also dump a second letter in, if the individual continues copyright violations. Then it's over with warning letters.
Ad: The letters to be sent at the request of copyright holders without any review of the burden of proof, since it contains a sentence or have legal binding.
This is the draft letter model, Anti-committee under the Ministry of Culture just now being finalized. Committee members, however, according ComON's figures disagree on who to send the letters out.
The model letter does not mention what will happen after the two letters.
The Danish legislation does, however, rights holders the opportunity to seize people's computers as evidence as part of enforcement proceedings. This move, the Danish right-holders so far made very limited use because it is considered excessive.
Anti-Piracy Committee had already come in September with recommendations on how Denmark can strengthen the fight against piracy on the Internet. Another committee of the Ministry of Culture discussed last year the same problems, but did not offer recommendations. The same parties, including the Ministry of Culture, licensees' various interest groups, telecommunications companies, lawyers and the Consumer Council has, since January of this year trying to agree on a Danish anti-piracy efforts, and thus paved the way for letter model, including politicians, such opposition has demanded.
The draft, which has not yet submit finalized, is likely to be the basis for a legislative amendment.
It is according ComON's data clearly that letter model - also known from Britain - is on its way to Denmark. Already since the committee was established, was set up to models like 3-strikes, where citizens are stripped of your Internet connection after repeated violations of copyright are excessive.
Therefore, the pure letter model - as a transition has been experimentally in Britain and is also a part of France's 3-strikes model - the solution that most can agree on.
The document, which the Culture Ministry officials have made deals primarily with how the letter model should be implemented - not whether it is a good solution. The draft proposals made by the committee contains no evidence that the letter model, which can be costly, can pay off. The document does not justify that citizens would stop illegally downloading films and music when they receive an information letter in the mail.
Who should send letters?
The big issue within the anti-piracy committee is who to send email and pay to send them by post.
The parties in the committee do not agree. Therefore, ministry officials outlined three options. In all three scenarios must rightholders themselves monitor services where you download movies and music illegally. Rights-industry anti-piracy group keeps already monitor file-sharing services and entrepreneur from time to time a civil action against a netpirate.
Since copyright holders do not on their own can find the specific identity and address of your Internet connection is being used for file sharing, the ISPs involved in the process of sending information letters to suspected file sharers.
In the first letter model, outlined in the draft, rightholders make ISPs such as TDC, Yousee, Telenor and Telia aware that a particular IP address, ie internet, illegally downloaded material over the Internet. Then sends the ISPs a letter to the customer, according to rights holders have downloaded material illegally.
This model has met with criticism from the telecommunications industry who do not want to act pirate police. It will damage the business relationship with their customers, they fear if the customer gets the impression that their own ISP monitor them.
Another model is that copyright holders send information about illegal activity at an IP address on to ISPs. Then sends the ISPs the address of the customer on to an independent public body which sends the message out.
A third model is that copyright holders will receive the addresses. Today, copyright holders have approval from a court if they want to catch the identity behind an IP address. No party to the Ministry of Culture Anti committee - not the rights holders - seems however that it is a good idea if the rights holders must get hold of the addresses to send newsletters out.
Who will pay?
In the draft, which now lies, but may be changed to another meeting of the committee next week, there will be two models for the payment of costs.
In one financing model, as proposed, the rights holders have to pay the cost of the scheme - including the majority of ISP costs.
In the second model is to right holders have to pay to find the IP addresses, while ISPs pay themselves and then find the physical address of the customer who owns the Internet connection. State would then pay for the creation and operation of the public body.
Common to both models is that each household should receive the maximum two letters. The letters must not contain threats or be a part of an accelerating enforcement process. In return, it is suggested that the licensees must be informed when a specific IP address has already received two letters, and therefore can not receive more. After ComON's information there are no plans for that there must be a means of redress for citizens to turn to if they feel wrongly to have received an information letter.
Then holders of rights in theory, as yet go to court - enforcement court - and ask to get ISPs to disclose the address of your Internet connection. They can then initiate a civil judicial process in which they can seek damages for piracy. At the same time they are likely this time telling the judge that the citizen had already been warned. Twice.
Right holders according ComON's information said they would not seek damages for the copyright infringement that took place during the broadcast of the two warning letters.
and there will soon be elections in Denmark so there is no politician who dares to come out and say they support 3 strikes they know they lose the votes