protoslacker:

 Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a multilateral agreement which  proposes international standards for enforcement of intellectual property rights.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposes ACTA, calling for more public spotlight on the proposed treaty.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has published “Speak out against ACTA”, stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture “in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting.

Europe: this is our SOPA, our PIPA. Time to get hasslin’ our representatives (inasmuch as the EU is representative or democratic…)

Poland’s politicians don Anonymous-style Guy Fawkes masks in anti-piracy protest [Slashgear]

Open Rights Group said:

As it stands now innocent people and their families are in danger of being wrongly accused of illegal filesharing.

That’s because the code fails to set out standards of evidence, and standards for the data held on customers of ISPs, and has set out a very limited appeals mechanism.

You have until Friday afternoon to respond to Ofcom’s consultation on the draft code. We’ve made it very easy to tell them what’s wrong with it. Make sure your voice is heard and submit your response now.

Their template is good but lengthy, and like any form letter benefits from personalisation where possible. Here’s the intro I wrote summarising my objections - naturally it’s copyleft so please do use it yourself and add your objections to the Ofcom consultation.

Ofcom operates under the Communications Act 2003, which says that its general duties should be to further the interests of citizens and consumers. The Ofcom website states, “Meeting these two duties is at the heart of everything we do.”

The Draft Obligations Code Ofcom has produced, however, does not adequately specify the standards of evidence required (Section 7/124E(2)), or the criteria for the identification of subscribers (Section 7/124E(3)). It instead leaves these matters to be decided by copyright owners and ISPs, which may interpret these criteria more restrictively than the law requires and thereby penalise consumers unjustly.

In our increasingly digital society, internet access has become not just a necessity but a civil right, as countries such as Finland have already legislated. Consequently it is imperative that Ofcom’s Obligations Code protects citizens’ rights as well as those of copyright holders by allowing subscribers the presumption of innocence unless copyright holders can prove otherwise.

At present, however, the Draft Code requires subscribers making an appeal to prove that “the act constituting the apparent infringement to which the report relates was not done by the subscriber” and “the subscriber took reasonable steps to prevent other persons infringing copyright by means of the internet access service”. This clearly does not meet the requirements of Section 13/124K(5) of the Digital Economy Act, which states that the initial obligations code “must provide that an appeal on any grounds must be determined in favour of the subscribers unless the copyright owner or internet service provider shows that […] the apparent infringement was an infringement of copyright” and “the report relating to the subscriber’s IP address at the time of the infringement.”

As it currently stands, the Draft Code fails to meet Ofcom’s obligation to further the interests of citizens and consumers. Furthermore it fails to comply with the Digital Economy Act with regard to specifying standards of evidence required; the criteria for identifying subscribers; or requiring standardised information to be included in notifications to subscribers. As such the Draft Code requires substantial revisions and another round of consultation before it can legitimately be approved.

As you may have heard, BT and TalkTalk have also applied for a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act, citing worries over the compatibility of the legislation with European rules on privacy and “the role of ISPs in policing the internet”.