SEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/lut-news/Fears-of-further-violence-prompt.557
7389.jp
Fears of further violence prompt march ban
'We had no alternative' say police and council
The Home Office has issued a ban on any unofficial marches taking place
in Luton for the next three months.
The ban was granted to Beds Police and Luton Borough Council, who feared
a planned 'anti-extremism' march on September 19 would mean a repeat of
violent scenes from earlier in the year.
Several 'marches' have taken place in Luton in response to disruption
caused by Islamic extremists at the homecoming parade for the 2nd
Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, nicknamed the Poachers, on
March 10.
The most recent, in May, saw protestors clash with police and cause
damage to cars and a takeaway shop. A man was also assaulted.
The ban, granted under the Public Order Act, prohibits "any procession
or march involving members or supporters of, but not limited to, the
English Defence League, UK Casuals United, March For England and United
People of Luton" from marching in the town without having made a formal
application to Luton Borough Council.
The English Defence League is behind the September 19 event, postponed
from the August Bank Holiday weekend, but they have not applied for
permission to hold the event.
The league's members want to march in protest at the fact that Luton was
not included in the battalion's 'All the 4s' 10-day charity march
through several towns and cities, which ends in Hertford on Sunday.
Chief Superintendent Andy Frost, Divisional Commander for Luton, said a
significant police presence would be in place to uphold the ban, adding:
"The risk the proposed marches pose to public safety has left us with no
alternative but to apply for a banning order."
Sunday telegraph
Preacher threatened with arrest for reading out extracts from the Bible
in public A street preacher is at the centre of a row over freedom of
speech after police threatened to arrest him for reading the Bible in
public.
By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
Published: 9:00PM BST 15 Aug 2009
Street preacher a\ccused of inciting religious and racial hatred Photo:
GETTY Lawyers acting for Miguel Hayworth, 29, have demanded an
explanation over the alleged intimidation and abuse of power by three
officers. Andrea Minichiello Williams, the director of the Christian
Legal Centre, has written to Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater
Manchester, over the incident.
She claims that Mr Hayworth and his father, John, 55, were unlawfully
and unfairly treated as they preached Christianity in the city at the
end of July. "They were clearly told that reading the Bible and
preaching can be offensive and that they could be arrested," she wrote.
"Furthermore, they were subjected to abuse and intimidation. They were
told that they were being monitored and filmed," she wrote. Critics
claimed that a Muslim preaching his religion in the street would not
have been treated in such a way by police. Mr Hayworth, a voluntary
worker who is married with two children, has been a street preacher in
the Manchester area for five years and he is often accompanied by his
father. He said that he and his father had decided to preach from 11am
at St Ann's Square in Manchester instead of their usual place on nearby
Market Street. He was reading passages from the Old and New Testaments
while his father distributed leaflets containing the message of the
gospel. "At 2pm, I was approached on more than one occasion by several
police officers who falsely accused me, stating that I was inciting
hatred with homophobic and racial comments," he said.
"One plain-clothed officer, who was with the other two uniformed
officers, said: 'It is against the law to preach and hand out tracts:
preaching causes offence and handing out tracts is harassment and could
result in an arrest.'"
Mr Hayworth said that at about 2.30pm a second officer confirmed that
his colleague had accused the preacher of inciting religious and racial
hatred and wanted to warn him that this was an arrestable offence.
The second officer, Mr Hayworth claimed, also warned him his actions
were being videoed and recorded, and he stopped preaching. Some passages
in the Bible are regarded as homophobic. For example, sections read out
by Mr Hayworth in St Ann's Square included Romans Chapter 1 Verse 27,
from the King James Bible, which says: "And likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is unseemly..." He also read
from 1 Corinthians Chapter 6, Verse 9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers
of themselves with mankind." Mr Hayworth says he cannot understand how
the racism complaint arose. Shortly after being confronted by the
police, he stopped reading from the Bible. He and his father later
approached the Christian Legal Centre, which seeks to promote religious
freedom and, particularly, to protect Christians and Christianity. The
centre, in turn, has instructed Paul Diamond, the leading religious
rights barrister. The centre and Mr Diamond believe that the police
abused their powers during the dispute on Saturday, July 25. It is
against the law to use offensive, threatening or abusive words or
behaviour. It is also an offence to incite hatred on grounds of race,
religion or sexual orientation. However, in its letter to the police,
the Christian Legal Centre said: "Freedom of religious and freedom of
religious speech is specifically protected by the European Convention on
Human Rights." The letter added: "This means that any restriction on the
'right' to evangelise will have to be justified by the Police by a
'pressing social need'. "In a free society, this is very difficult to
do; and a few complaints by irate individuals will not suffice." The
centre and Mr Diamond have represented a number of Christians in alleged
religious discrimination cases. Earlier this year The Sunday Telegraph
revealed that Caroline Petrie, a nurse, has been suspended from her job
for offering to pray for an elderly patient's recovery from illness. She
was later reinstated. Chief Inspector Chris Hill, of Greater Manchester
Police, said: "Police were called to St Ann's Square in Manchester city
centre following complaints from members of the public who considered
the comments being made by two street preachers as racist and
homophobic. "When spoken to, the men said they were quoting from the
Bible. The officers confirmed they were entitled to preach on the
street, but advised them offensive behaviour is not acceptable. "No one
was arrested. I have received a letter from the Christian Legal Centre
and will respond in due course."
Sunday telegraph
Why must we bow to the intolerant ways of Islam? Jim Fitzpatrick MP and
his wife were quite right to leave a wedding because it was segregated
by sex, says Alasdair Palmer.
By Alasdair Palmer
Published: 5:07PM BST 15 Aug 2009
Comments 96 | Comment on this article
When Jim Fitzpatrick MP and his wife decided to leave a Muslim wedding
party after they discovered it was segregated by sex, he did not
anticipate the controversy his decision would generate. "It reflects
badly on him," said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former head of the Muslim
Council of Britain. "It shows a lack of interest… to engage with
people of different backgrounds." Tim Archer, the Tory who is standing
against the minister of state at the next election, commented that
"Fitzpatrick is playing a certain race card to save his skin at the next
election".
All this because Mr Fitzpatrick did not want to imply that he endorsed
sexual segregation by remaining at the party. Yet what can possibly be
wrong with an MP, or anyone else, withdrawing from a celebration whose
organisation suggests that women are not equal to men?
Homosexual 'weddings' should be celebrated in church, says Chris Bryant
Some people claim that segregating the sexes is a matter of personal
choice, like choosing between flavours of ice-cream. It has no
implications in terms of your view of the equality of the sexes, any
more than wearing the niqab or the hijab – the Islamic garments that
cover women from head to toe – implies that you think women are
inferior.
The Muslims who feel most strongly about sexual segregation, or about
the importance of ensuring that women dress "modestly", see those
customs as ordered by God. They are profoundly offended by the idea that
they reflect merely human choices. That is why there is a vocal strain
of Islam in Britain that insists that Muslims should be governed, not by
British law, but by sharia.
Islamic law does not, of course, accept that men and women have equal
rights. Sharia courts in Britain have already judged that a man may have
up to four wives at any one time; that a wife has no property rights in
the event of divorce; that a woman may not leave her home without her
husband's consent; and that a woman cannot marry without the presence
and permission of a male guardian.
In 2004, in response to pressure from some of its Muslim leaders, the
Canadian province of Ontario planned to impose legally binding
arbitration on Muslims according to sharia. The most vigorous protests
came from Muslim women, who insisted that the main reason they had
emigrated to Canada was to get away from it. Their arguments prevailed
over those who claimed that sharia was merely "a choice" which should be
allowed in any "multicultural society".
There are other conflicts with the liberal tradition. A fundamental part
of Islamic law is that someone who converts to another religion should
be executed. In Islamic states, the death penalty for apostasy is on the
statute books; even in Britain, very few spokesmen for the Muslim
community will condemn such laws as wrong.
So it is a mistake to pretend that there is no conflict between
principles that are supposed to animate British society – freedom of
religion, equality of the sexes, and the primacy of secular law made by
democratic representatives – and fundamentalist interpretations of
Islam. But much official policy seems to be based on the hope that such
a conflict is illusory, and will simply evaporate if we pretend it is
not there.
For example, polygamy is illegal under British law. But while condemning
it in theory, the Government endorses it in practice: each woman in such
a relationship is entitled to the same benefits as the wife in a
monogamous married couple. Mr Fitzpatrick warns that segregation is a
recent development, one which reflects the increasing influence of more
fundamentalist strains of Islam. Perhaps it is time for the Government
to consider a more vigorous stance in defence of Britain's fundamental
values, rather than continuing to pretend the issue has no more
significance than the conflict between those who like chocolate
ice-cream, and those who prefer hazelnut.
Sunday telegraph
Swimmers are told to wear burkinis
British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move
described as divisive by Labour MPs.
By Patrick Sawer
Published: 9:00PM BST 15 Aug 2009
UK councils running restricted swimming session for Muslims Under the
rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering
the pool in normal swimming attire. Instead they are told that they must
comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with
women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately,
covered from the navel to the knees.
The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last
week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini –
the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to
preserve their modesty in the water. The 35-year-old, named only as
Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials
in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on
hygiene grounds. But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming
sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict
dress codes. Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a
half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and
Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre. Swimmers were told last week on
the centre's website that "during special Muslim sessions male costumes
must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be
covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists". There are similar rules
at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where "users must
follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and
shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)". In Glasgow, a men-only
swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside
Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee. At
a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys
Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most
participants wear "modest" outfits although normal costumes are
permitted. The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics
who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and
non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion. Ian Cawsey, the Labour
MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: "Of
course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go
beyond that. "I don't think that in a local authority pool I should have
to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else.
That's not integration or cohesion." Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose
Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims,
said: "Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on
community relations. "It's seen as yet another demand for special
treatment. I can't see why special clothing is needed for what is a
single-sex session." Muslim swimming sessions are also held at a number
of state schools around the country. At Loxford School in Ilford, east
London, a local Muslim group organises weekly sessions for Muslim men,
with the warning that "it is compulsory for the body to be covered
between the navel and the knees. "Anyone not adhering to the dress code
or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim". The practice of
holding special Muslim swimming sessions has led to non-Muslims being
turned away. David Toube, 39 and his five year old son Harry were last
year refused entry to Clissold Leisure Centre, in Hackney, east London,
after being told the Sunday morning swimming session was for Muslim men
only. Council officials later said staff had made a mistake and both Mr
Toube, a corporate lawyer, and his son should have been admitted. After
discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident,
34-year-old Alex Craig, said: "I think it is preposterous that a council
should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal
facilities. "Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn
up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else."
Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, last night
condemned the practice. He said: "This kind of thing is extremely
divisive. "Non-Muslims see these extremist demands as an example of
Muslims wanting things to fit into their lifestyle, when there aren't
similar things organised for Hindus, Buddhists or Jews. "It also puts
moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that
they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover
themselves in a shroud in a pool." A press officer at Croydon council,
which introduced Muslim-only swimming in 2006, claimed that the wording
on the website was a mistake and the dress code should be regarded as a
suggestion rather than a requirement. The website was late changed to
remove the reference to the dress code. However, an official at the
leisure centre said the dress code remained compulsory. Earlier,
defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: "We
appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict
rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to
requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions
at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre." ???Sunday telegraph
'Hundred people an hour' joining Pirate Party UK The Pirate Party, a
political group which hopes to legalise internet filesharing, has
attracted a huge number of new members since announcing its plans to
contest seats at the next election.
By Claudine Beaumont, Technology Editor
Published: 12:50PM BST 14 Aug 2009
The Pirate Party UK is hoping to emulate the success of its Swedish
counterpart, which recently won a seat in the European parliament Photo:
AFP/GETTY Andrew Peter Robinson, the leader of the Pirate Party, said
they had been flooded by enquiries from people who wanted to join the
group. At its peak, he said, around 100 people an hour were signing up
to become party members. "It has exceeded all expectations," he said.
"Put it this way – donations have been coming in so fast that PayPal
were concerned we were a fraudulent site."
The Pirate Party was recognised as an official political party in the UK
on July 30. The group has a presence in 37 countries, including Sweden
and Germany, although all parties operate independently. However, they
have some common aims, including campaigning for reforms to intellectual
property and copyright laws, particularly in the digital space.
The UK Pirate Party wants to legalise non-commercial file sharing and
reduce what it calls the "excessive length" of copyright protection
while still ensuring artists are financially rewarded. It also calls for
an overhaul of the patents system so that innovation is not stifled and
life-saving drugs are not "so expensive that patients die".
"We're not going to win any seats but we can get these issues
discussed," said Robinson.
Prospective supporters of the Pirate Party can become a member for £10,
though voters aged between 18 and 21 pay a reduced fee of £2. Members
are entitled to vote on the policy line taken by the party on specific
issues, and can also decide who runs the party or stands as a
representative for election.
The Pirate Party hopes to have at least 5,000 members by the time the
next European elections take place in 2014. It also plans to contest
seats in the next general election, standing in as many constituencies
as funds allow. The Party may even consider standing at a by-election if
one occurs before the next general election, but will need a significant
war chest in order to pay the deposit levied for contesting a seat, as
well as publicity and campaign material.
In June, the Swedish version of the Pirate Party won a seat in the
European parliament after capturing 7.1 per cent of votes in Sweden.
Sunday telegraph
Interview: Andrew Robinson, Pirate Party UK's leader
The Pirate Party UK’s leader Andrew Robinson, talks to The Telegraph
about his group’s political ambitions and how it will achieve its
vision.
By Emma Barnett, Technology and Digital Media Correspondent
Published: 1:13PM BST 14 Aug 2009
Comments 9 | Comment on this article
Andrew Robinson hopes to get the British public talking about legalising
free file-sharing and reforming the copyright law Andrew Robinson, a
graphic designer by trade and musician in his spare time, has had a
crazy couple of months. Weeks after he joined the Pirate Party UK, it
has gone from an active online discussion forum with approximately 250
members, to one of this country’s official political parties –
having been added to the electoral register.
This means the group can now have a Pirate Party candidate standing at
the next general election. Mr Robinson only joined the forum in June
2009 after the Swedish Pirate Party, its sister organisation, won a seat
in the European Parliament, having captured 7.1 per cent of its
country’s votes. He began pushing for the UK Pirate Party to become
registered on the electoral commission and soon after, found himself the
leader of a British political group, which currently is enjoying massive
success with 100 people an hour signing up for membership. “It is the
first time I have ever been a member of a political party, let alone the
leader of one!” says Mr Robinson, sounding rather overwhelmed by his
new status.
The Pirate Party, which has groups in 37 countries, is not related to
the Pirate Bay torrent site and wants to legalise internet file-sharing,
safeguard people’s online and offline privacy and reform the patent
and copyright laws. Policy differs slightly from country to country but
these are broadly the issues which define each group’s manifesto.
Previously an obscure group of single-issue activists, the umbrella
organisation has enjoyed a jump in popularity after the conviction in
April of four men behind The Pirate Bay, one of the world's biggest free
file-sharing websites.
The case cast a spotlight on the issue of internet file-sharing, a
technique used to download movies, music and other content. In light of
the group’s newly official status, Mr Robinson is eager to explain
what the key issues the UK branch of the Pirate Party are focussing on,
while hastily telling me they are still refining precise policy detail.
“We hate being called a single issue party as we are concerned with
three core issues,” he explains. “Firstly: reforming the copyright
and patent laws in the UK. At the moment they are hugely biased in one
direction – all in favour of increasing the wealth of the big
businesses, like record labels or film companies, as opposed to solely
and directly benefiting the artists.
“Secondly we want to help end the excessive surveillance of citizens.
It was announced last month that the Government plans to put 20,000
families under 24-hour CCTV supervision in their own homes. We need to
set limits on issues lie this and whether the government should be
allowed to log, track and store your emails.
“And thirdly ensuring all UK citizens do have proper freedom of speech
– both online and in real life. This covers openness in the
government, which should be forced to publish the methodology of their
research – so we can always have an open debate.”
Another reason why the Pirate Party UK is hot property at the moment is
because of the recent publication of the Government's Digital Britain
report in June 2009 – which contained a controversial section focused
on tackling internet piracy. The Pirate Party UK want to legalise
not-for-profit file sharing, (which often centres around music files)
while reforming the copyright system by reducing the length of time
material is protected by anything from five to 14 years, and ensuring
artists retain 100 per cent of their own rights. “At the moment
artists sign over 95-100 per cent of their rights in order to get the
marketing power of the labels behind them," says Mr Robinson. "If free
file sharing became legal, artists would reach prominence through word
of mouth and because all the profits would go to them, even if their
sales take a hit, at least they would take home 100 per cent of a
smaller sum rather than five per cent of a larger amount. "Labels would
still exist but bands would pay them for their services – and not the
other way round.” However, he is realistic about how much they can
achieve as a fringe party and with a general election looming in the
next few months. His aim is to get the debates going around these issues
and get as many parties as possible to adopt their policies. “We are
looking to form bonds with other parties and be enough of a pest by
showing we can get people to vote for our candidates on these matters,”
he says. The party is aiming to emulate or even surpass the German
Pirate Party’s 5,000 membership figure. It costs £10 to join, which
will allow people the right to join in the policy debate, set policy and
elect party candidates. Currently the website allows people to do all of
this for free – but soon certain areas will only be available to
paying members. Nearly all party correspondence is conducted online,
which is particularly appropriate for the issues they are trying to
tackle, and arguably instantly helps it qualify as a political party for
the digital generation.
When pushed for his views of the major political parties, Mr Robinson is
at pains to remind me that the Pirate Party UK is apolitical. However,
having already aired his disdain for Labour’s proposed methods for
tackling online piracy, he reveals he is still none the wiser about the
Conservative’s or Liberal Democrat’s stance on these issues. “They
are saying precious little about these issues that are very important to
a new generation of voters,” he says.
He is positive about how his group will fare in the hearts and minds of
the British public, despite only having three major focuses. “A
tightly focussed manifesto has proved to be successful in Sweden. In the
European elections, the majority of voters under 30 supported the
Swedish Pirate Party.
“We expect to be the only party where a voter can look at all our
policies and agree with all of them. Usually when you vote for a
political party, there will usually be at least one policy you don’t
agree with and it’s a compromise. We don’t think we present that
issue to the voter.”
A self confessed Daily Telegraph reader and Alex cartoon addict, Mr
Robinson admits he is still getting used to his new role. “Its been
pretty strange accepting I am now leading a recognised political party.
However, these issues are really important and I am looking forward to
getting the UK talking about them properly.”
Europe
Ireland's state broadcaster called on to avoid "heated, simplistic"
Lisbon Treaty debates
The Irish Times reports that Noel Dorr, the former Secretary General of
Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs, has called on state broadcaster
RTÉ to reformat the way it presents information about the Lisbon Treaty
in the run-up to the second referendum on 2 October by presenting
"extended and well-structured television debates". He said, "I think
this kind of structured debate would be very helpful to viewers who
genuinely want to know what the treaty is about - and certainly more
helpful than the heated, simplistic and confusing arguments across a
table with a single moderator which we have seen too often in the past."
Writing in the paper Elaine Byrne notes that Irish politicians have been
almost entirely absent from the referendum campaign to date and are
instead leaving it to civil society groups to lead the debate on the
Treaty. And in a letter to the paper the Irish Friends of Palestine
organisation argues that "Ireland's role on the international stage will
be reduced" by the creation of a new post of EU High Representative to
the Union for Foreign and Security Policy under the Lisbon Treaty.
Irish Times Irish Times: Letters Irish Times: Byrne
Tech giants unite against Google
By Maggie Shiels
Technology reporter, BBC News, Silicon Valley
Three technology heavyweights are joining a coalition to fight Google's
attempt to create what could be the world's largest virtual library.
Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo will sign up to the Open Book Alliance being
spearheaded by the Internet Archive.
They oppose a legal settlement that could make Google the main source
for many online works.
"Google is trying to monopolise the library system," the Internet
Archive's founder Brewster Kahle told BBC News.
"If this deal goes ahead, they're making a real shot at being 'the'
library and the only library."
Back in 2008, the search giant reached an agreement with publishers and
authors to settle two lawsuits that charged the company with copyright
infringement for the unauthorised scanning of books.
In that settlement, Google agreed to pay $125m (£76m) to create a Book
Rights Registry, where authors and publishers could register works and
receive compensation. Authors and publishers would get 70% from the sale
of these books with Google keeping the remaining 30%.
Google would also be given the right to digitise orphan works. These are
works whose rights-holders are unknown, and are believed to make up an
estimated 50-70% of books published after 1923.
Comments on the deal have to be lodged by 4 September. In early October,
a judge in the Southern district of New York will consider whether or
not to approve the class-action suit.
In a separate development, the US Department of Justice is conducting an
anti-trust investigation into the impact of the agreement.
'Open access'
Critics have claimed the settlement will transform the future of the
book industry and of public access to the cultural heritage of mankind
embodied in books.
"The techniques we have built up since the enlightenment of having open
access, public support for libraries, lots of different organisational
structures, lots of distributed ownership of books that can be
exchanged, resold and repackaged in different ways - all of that is
being thrown out in this particular approach," warned Mr Kahle.
The non-profit Internet Archive has long been a vocal opponent of this
agreement. It is also in the business of scanning books and has
digitised over 1.5 million to date. All are available free.
As the 4 September deadline approaches, the number of groups and
organisations voicing their opposition is growing. But with three of the
world's best-known technology companies joining the chorus, the Open
Book Alliance can expect to make headlines the world over.
Microsoft and Yahoo have confirmed their participation. However, Amazon
has so far declined to comment because the alliance has not yet been
formally launched.
"All of us in the coalition are oriented to foster a vision for a more
competitive marketplace for books," said Peter Brantley, the Internet
Archive's director of access.
"We feel that if approved, Google would earn a court-sanctioned monopoly
and the exploitation of a comprehensive collection of books from the
20th Century."
'Trust'
Much of the focus of the proposed settlement has been on anti-trust and
anti-competitive concerns, but just as many are worried about privacy.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU of Northern California and
the Consumer Watchdog advocacy group wrote to Google to ask the company
to "assure Americans that Google will maintain the security and freedom
that library patrons have long had: to read and learn about anything...
without worrying that someone is looking over their shoulder or could
retrace their steps".
"We simply don't like the settlement in its current form," said Consumer
Watchdog advocate John Simpson.
"There are serious questions about privacy and Google seems to be taking
the view 'let us put this in place and we will do the right thing down
the road'. That is simply not good enough."
The American Libraries Association (ALA) agrees.
"We do think the product in essence is good but the proposed settlement
asks us to trust Google and the other parties a little too much," the
ALA's associate director Corey Williams told BBC News.
"When it comes to privacy, the agreement is silent on the issue and with
regard to what Google intends to do with the data it collects. It's a
great idea but it requires more trust than I think we feel comfortable
being able to extend at this point," said Ms Williams.
'Brave new world'
In its defence, Google has argued that the deal brings great benefits to
authors and will make millions of out-of-print books widely available
online and in libraries.
In a statement, the company said: "The Google Books settlement is
injecting more competition into the digital books space, so it's
understandable why our competitors might fight hard to prevent more
competition."
Despite the increasing tide of criticism over the settlement, there are
some who believe there is not that much to fear.
Michelle Richmond is the author of New York Times best seller The Year
of Fog, which is also being turned into a movie starring Rachel Weiss.
"The thing I keep hearing from authors is 'I don't know what this
settlement really means'. But this is the brave new world and we don't
really know where it is going," Ms Richmond told BBC News
"Most authors work for so little and start from the point of we are
doing this for the love it. But when there is this company that has
nothing to do with the creation of the book or its publication, I think
a lot of authors are concerned about this being a portal to greater
access to their work without compensation for writers."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/8200624.stm
Published: 2009/08/21 09:31:34 GMT
Daily telegraph
Pirates, protectionists and panic: the battle for the future of the web
Lord Mandelson's piracy crackdowns are not the right way to tackle the
challenges of making money from entertainment in the digital age, says
Shane Richmond.
By Shane Richmond
Published: 6:46PM BST 20 Aug 2009
Comments 24 | Comment on this article
On the wrong track: Lord Mandelson is backing internet protectionists
Photo: Reuters
Depending on who you listen to, the internet has either brought about an
entertainment revolution or the collapse of our culture. Companies that
sell music, films, television shows, books or news – anything that can
be converted into data and transferred online – are seeing the
internet chew up their business model, and have no idea what, if
anything, will be spat out at the other end.
It's a situation that terrifies many in the creative industries, and has
created a rift between those who believe that the internet makes it
impossible to charge for their work and those determined to protect the
old business models. This week, the protectionists were celebrating
after it was reported that Lord Mandelson is prepared to back a
crackdown on internet piracy. Broadband connections make it possible to
download the latest blockbuster film or album in no time at all: but
many people are doing that illegally, which means the creators don't get
paid.
The Digital Britain report, which the Government published in June,
proposed that internet service providers such as BT or Tiscali should be
required to send warning letters to customers who download content
illegally. But some thought that didn't go far enough: they want
persistent offenders to be blocked from going online, and they may have
convinced Lord Mandelson of their case.
Yet, leaving aside the PR drawbacks of taking legal action against your
biggest fans, piracy crackdowns don't have a successful history. The
large companies have been trying to crush online file-sharing for more
than a decade, but the technology always stays ahead of them. Thus
Napster begat Limewire, and Limewire begat the Pirate Bay. No matter how
many legal letters are sent out – some to innocent people – piracy
will stay with us.
Making matters worse is the fact that consumers have come to expect
online services to be free. Few newspapers have ever charged for their
content online; you can listen to a vast range of music, legally,
without paying, and the same could soon be true of books – to the
outrage of many publishers and authors, Google is building a massive,
free-to-browse library from which they will have to specifically opt
out.
For many content producers, this era of free content has to end. They
argue that it still costs money to make films, music and books, and
these free services aren't paying their way. They have a powerful ally:
Rupert Murdoch recently announced plans to charge for all his news
websites, saying that "the digital revolution has opened many new and
inexpensive distribution channels, but it has not made content free".
He's right that content costs money to produce. But simply asking people
to pay doesn't mean that they will. Mike Masnick, who writes the
influential blog Techdirt, recently pointed out that with so much
available free, not wanting to pay is rational behaviour: "It's not some
nefarious story of a bunch of immoral 'thieves' wanting stuff for free.
It's an inherent understanding of competitive markets."
Masnick favours the "freemium" model – giving away much of your work,
but asking people to pay for premium products. Last year, the rock band
Nine Inch Nails sold 2,500 copies of the ultra-deluxe edition of their
album Ghosts I-IV at $300 apiece. The British band Radiohead say that
their last album, In Rainbows, which was released online under a "pay
what you want" system, made them more than any of their previous
releases.
Is this the future? Personally, I think it is. Of course, it has its
drawbacks – but there are still people who want to buy films, music,
books and information, and people who want to sell them, and the
internet makes it possible to bring them together more quickly and
cheaply than ever. It should surely be possible to find a business model
that ties those things together.
Daily telegraph
Christian primary school receptionist sues over religious discrimination
A school receptionist suspended after a row over her Christian faith is
suing the school, its headmaster and the council for religious
discrimination, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Caroline Gammell
Published: 11:00AM BST 22 Aug 2009
Jennie Cain is now suing for religious discrimination Photo: PAUL GROVER
Jennie Cain, who was told to stay away from her job for nearly four
months before receiving a written warning over the affair, has lodged a
complaint with Exeter employment tribunal. She alleges that she and her
five-year-old daughter were discriminated against and harassed because
of their religion and that the school was “anti-Christian”.
Mrs Cain’s clash with Landscore Primary School, in Crediton, Devon,
was first reported by The Daily Telegraph in February. She claimed her
daughter Jasmine, who is a pupil at Landscore, had come home from school
in tears after being told off by a teacher for talking to another pupil
about Jesus, Heaven and God.
Mrs Cain, 38, then wrote an email she claimed was private to 10 close
friends from her church to ask for prayers for her daughter and the
school.
The email was passed to Gary Read, headmaster of Landscore, who called
the receptionist into his office and told her she was being investigated
for alleged serious professional misconduct.
At the time, Mrs Cain, who had worked part-time at the school since
January 2007, described herself as a "quiet Christian'' who would never
force her beliefs on others She said: "I do feel our beliefs haven't
been respected and I don't feel I have been treated fairly. I don't know
what I am supposed to have done wrong.” In return, Mr Read claimed
Jasmine had been overheard frightening another girl about “the
prospect of 'going to hell' if she does not believe in God”. He said:
“We conveyed to her mother in a perfectly respectful manner that we
did not expect this to happen again.'' The headmaster insisted that the
school was tolerant of all faiths but could not go into detail about the
prayer email as it “contained an untrue allegation about the
school”. Mrs Cain said she was subsequently investigated by an
internal panel and found guilty of serious misconduct. She she appealed
and lost. She said the appeal panel reduced her penalty from a final
written warning to a straight written warning and she returned to work
in early June. However, Mrs Cain claims she has been victimised and
harassed because of her faith since her return. Sean Kehoe, senior
partner of the law firm Advance Legal who is representing Mrs Cain, said
she had launched her claim against the governors of the school, Mr Read
and Devon County Council. He said: “No one ever seemed able to answer
the simple question of what exactly Jennie had done wrong. “We say
there is an undercurrent of anti-Christian sentiment which she has come
up against. If she had been from another religious background, nothing
would have happened. “Compensation for injury to feelings is not
capped, but Jennie is not doing this for the money.” Lawrence Davies,
of law firm Equal Justice, said that while discrimination payouts can
run into millions, the average pay out is £7,500. He said that the
burden of proof would rest with Mrs Cain to show she was treated
differently because of her religion. "The law around religious
discrimination is still being formed having only been introduced in
2003, and in that dynamic process, this case could add another layer to
what that law will be in the future," he said. A spokesman for Exeter
employment tribunal said the complaint had been lodged in the last month
and a date for the hearing would not be fixed until those named on the
claim had responded. Mike Judge, from the Christian Institute, said the
organisation was supporting Mrs Cain’s decision to take legal action.
“Her case is important because it highlights a wider problem,” he
said. “I am sad to say that a number of Christians, particularly those
who work in the public sector, have been disciplined for expressing
their faith." A spokesman from Devon County Council said it had a "clear
policy" on discrimination in the workplace and supported Mrs Cain's
right to make a claim. "Any grievance taken out against the council or
its employees will be investigated in line with our grievance
proceedures," he added.
We are fast forgetting how to be guilty about the past | The Spectator
We are fast forgetting how to be guilty about the past
Kate Williams
Wednesday, 19th August 2009
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article_images/articledir_10552/5276313/1_list
ing.jpg
Kate Williams says that Tarantino’s reduction of Nazi atrocities to
entertainment is part of a dangerous trend in which the great evils of
history become show business
One of this summer’s big screen openings is Quentin Tarantino’s
hyperbolic battle movie, Inglourious Basterds. Featuring Brad Pitt
demanding his men search for ‘100 Nazi scalps’, this ironic
shootfest is bloody, explosive, rowdily entertaining — and a fantasy.
‘You haven’t seen war,’ screams the trailer, ‘until you have
seen it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.’ As the pound falls and
Germany under Merkel is resurgent, 2009 is the year in which our
representations of the Third Reich and the second world war have turned
towards areas that we would have seen as excessive only a few years
back.
At a time when we are seemingly more obsessed with Hitler than ever,
Tarantino has released an historical film in which history is
irrelevant. Now, when most of those who fought in the 1940s are dead,
the war is becoming not so much a memory, but a series of images, as fit
for creative revision and ridicule as the Boleyn sisters and Henry VIII.
‘We are going to laugh at Hitler,’ declared Max Falk, the manager of
the Admiral Theatre in Berlin, on the first staging of Mel Brooks’s
musical The Producers in May. German audiences had never been exposed to
a goose-stepping Hitler singing ‘Heil Myself’ and dancing
stormtroopers. For Falk, the production was a ‘great step forward for
Germany’.
Brooks’s tale of two New Yorkers creating the most tasteless musical
possible in order to fleece their backers is a piquant comment on modern
culture. The weighty seriousness of films focusing on the victims of the
Holocaust such as Schindler’s List and Sophie’s Choice seems a thing
of the past.
Now, if seriousness is present at all, it is confined to examining the
roots of evil — and even excusing those who committed the atrocities.
Oliver Hirschbiegel’s Downfall (2004), evoking the intimate life of
Hitler’s bunker, made audiences weep across Europe, and this year we
have watched Kate Winslet as a former Auschwitz officer in The Reader,
Tom Cruise as a would-be assassin of Hitler in Valkyrie, and Viggo
Mortensen as a liberal professor seduced by the Third Reich in Good.
Arguably the most important American literary novel of 2009 so far is
Jonathan Littell’s attempt to write as a SS officer in The Kindly
Ones, winner of the Prix Goncourt in France.
Less successful was Fugitive Pieces, the film of Anne Michaels’s
sensitive portrayal of living in the aftermath of the Holocaust. The
novel won the 1997 Orange Prize but society and culture have altered
much in the past ten years. Now we have Tarantino showing Hitler
shrieking — and that wins profit and prizes.
All this comes when Germany is changing. Recent surveys suggest that the
country’s youth are putting guilt behind them. The old prohibitions
against its troops are over, there are thousands of German soldiers in
Afghanistan, and Germany is lobbying for a seat on the UN Security
Council.
Germans themselves make films about other aspects of their long and
fascinating history, such as The Lives of Others, and the forthcoming
biopic of Goethe. But the English-speaking world is more obsessed with
the Third Reich than ever. Whether we show SS officers as decent men
caught up in an inhuman system, or evil and deserving of death as in
Inglourious Basterds, Nazis win column inches and awards.
Theodor Adorno argued that artists should not represent the Holocaust
because the very act of turning such horrors into art would confer upon
them elegance — and mask the true terror. If art enables moral
relativism, this is particularly true for films, which require likeable
protagonists with which the audience can sympathise. Good, the title of
C.P. Taylor’s 1981 play, was ironic: Professor Halder believed himself
a decent man when he was a self-obsessed coward. The film was less
ambivalent. Mortensen plays, as the publicity declared, a ‘devoted
father’, a decent man convincing himself that the Third Reich is
harmless.
Ricky Gervais might have told Kate Winslet that the way to win an Oscar
was by playing a part in a Holocaust film, but it is as a sympathetic SS
officer that ‘seriousness’ really awaits. The Reader works to
attract compassion to Hanna Schmitz by showing her as illiterate. But
does this imply that if she could read, she would not have committed
such atrocities? It has been argued that Schmitz was based on Hermine
Braunsteiner — a brutal officer accused of murder and rape — and
more than able to read. Littell’s eagerness to show the horrors of war
means that the soldiers are increasingly glorified — and he attributes
perverse scatological sexual fantasies to his protagonist, Max Aue, to
establish his depravity. This reveals a distinctly American
preoccupation with sexual probity: dubious sex acts are more indicative
of evil than policies of death.
No human can be entirely unlikeable or perpetually cruel. George Steiner
struggled with the paradox that lovers of Beethoven could be brutal
killers, and Gitta Sereny, biographer of Speer, admitted to finding him
appealing. Art needs heroes and villains, and Littell castigates
Eichmann as a crazed obsessive, determined to gas the Jewish population,
whereas honest Speer wanted them only to work. This is to elide the
death rates and the cruelty of the camps, and indeed their very
illegality.
Directors and authors suggest that if we understand why ‘ordinary’,
home-loving men and women participated in an evil regime, then we will
guard ourselves against doing the same. They wish us to engage with the
question, as in The Reader, of ‘what would you do?’ But this ignores
those Germans who refused to participate — and teeters towards
pandering to Holocaust deniers and the rise of neo-Nazi movements.
Rather than understanding the nature of evil, we may come to excuse
those who commit it.
And now we have Inglourious Basterds, vehemently promoted and polarising
the critics. To the accompaniment of pumping rock music, Pitt shouts the
importance of ‘murder, torture, intimidation and terror’ as he
encourages his Jewish-American troops to scour occupied France for
‘the German’ and leave him ‘disembowelled, dismembered,
disfigured’. ‘The German has no humanity,’ he declares, in a film
that has much in common with a violent computer game. War is a joke,
thrilling but ultimately empty entertainment.
When The Producers opened in Berlin, the complaints about the Nazi
insignia on the marketing were dismissed as the last oversensitive gasp
of an older generation. Those who find the Holocaust more painful than
entertaining are seen as the old guard.
If no one is affected and worrying about guilt is passé, then
everything is up for revision. What can be next — a film acclaiming
Nazi doctors for their work on genetics? Or Brad Pitt as Speer,
sensitive family man battling a brutal system? Now that SS officers are
highly profitable Hollywood ‘booty’ — as Pitt’s character shouts
in Inglourious Basterds — you can bet it’s only a matter of time.
•Comment is free
Meerkat forces? Not good enough
Why do television advertisers think it's OK to parody eastern European
pronunciation?
•Comments (509)
•Buzz up!
•Digg it
•peter
•Peter Jones
•guardian.co.uk, Saturday 22 August 2009 15.00 BST
•Article history
A few weeks ago, my girlfriend and I were watching TV at home when the
advert for comparethemarket.com appeared on our screen. I had seen the
ad before and not thought anything of it. However on this occasion, my
girlfriend, who is Ukrainian, turned to me and said: "I don't like this
advert, it is very offensive to me." I mentioned it to a friend who said
his Latvian lodger also found it offensive.
The advertisement centres on the word "market" – a word that eastern
Europeans/Russians pronounce "meerkat" – using talking CGI-animated
meerkats. The sole point of this African animal's appearance is, it
seems, to highlight the idea that east Europeans cannot pronounce the
word market properly when they speak English. It struck me how racist it
was to parody what is now a significant part of the British population
in this way. It also occurred to me that were the ad to use
stereotypical Indian or Caribbean accents in the same way it would never
be allowed on TV.
Over the following week the ad seemed to be perpetually in our faces,
the meerkat characters shouting "meerkats", "meerkats" in their
stereotypical tones into our living room. I decided to complain first to
ITV. When I looked on the ITV website, to my shock, I found that their
business development manager Richard Chilvers was boasting that this was
his favourite ad and that it helped to bring his "passion alive". I
emailed my complaint. ITV responded that "the subject matter, content
and treatment of all commercials are always given serious consideration
to determine their suitability for transmission". They also stated that
"particular care is needed to ensure that advertisements are not
misleading or offensive". They then stated that I should contact the ASA
(Advertising Standards Authority) which I duly did.
The ASA informed me that it did not assess advertisements before they
went out but responded to complaints. The initial assessment and
clearing was done by a company called Clearcast which, I was told,
conveniently did not deal with the public. I then emailed my complaint
to the ASA, whose response stated: "Whatever impact the mild
stereotyping of the eastern European accent has is undercut by the fact
that it is a cartoon rather than a live actor. As such we do not feel
that the content of the commercial is likely to provoke widespread
offence." It said it had not had any other complaints.
I asked my girlfriend why that might be. She told me that people from
eastern Europe were brought up in a society where it was not normal to
complain, especially to such sectors as the government and the media.
She told me that they would not expect to be able to do anything about
it, they would not know of the existence of the ASA and the power to
demand that an advert was taken off television. It is also the case that
as so many people from eastern Europe were so new to the country that
they would not want to be seen to be causing trouble. It then dawned on
me that this ad was targeting a sector of the population who would be
unlikely to fight back.
The irony of the situation is that those in charge at the ASA and ITV
probably consider themselves the most politically correct in society.
However, the evidence shows that they have only learned who not to
offend, not how not to offend. It looks as though those from eastern
Europe are going to have the same fight on their hands as people from
India and the Caribbean did all those years ago.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gt8BinWdSEo8h91QI-
wmJyVbzpBA
Loophole leaves DVD law toothless
(UKPA) – 1 hour ago
Retailerss cannot be prosecuted for offences such as selling 18-rated
DVDs or computer games to children because of a legal blunder 25 years
ago, it has been revealed.
Dozens of prosecutions for alleged breaches of the 1984 Video
Regulations Act have been dropped, with ministers admitting it is "no
longer enforceable" in UK courts because of a technical loophole.
The problem has arisen because the then government failed to notify
the European Commission about the legislation's classification and
labelling requirements.
The Act also covers restricted adult movies which can be sold only in
licensed sex shops.
The error by Margaret Thatcher's government was seized upon by the
Liberal Democrats, who said it had left film censorship in chaos.
The party's culture spokesman Don Foster said: "The Conservatives'
incompetence when they were in government has made laws designed to
prevent video piracy and protect children from harmful DVDs
unenforceable and has thrown film censorship into chaos.
"This must be a massive embarrassment to the Tories, especially as
David Cameron was the special adviser to the home secretary in 1993
when the law was amended."
A Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) spokeswoman said
retailers had agreed to observe the regulations on a voluntary basis.
Ministry of Justice figures for 2007, the latest available, show 87
people were convicted under the Act for offences including supplying
material which should be sold only in sex shops and selling
unclassified work.
The DCMS spokeswoman said previous convictions under the Act would
stand despite the discovery of the technical flaw in the legislation.
http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/townhall/ads/sept06/homepageheaderLogo.g
if
http://news.newsmax.com/images/16168/lavheader.jpg
http://news.newsmax.com/images/16168/trans.gif
Dear Townhall Reader:
I have some very shocking news.
ABC television has banned our TV ad from airing on its network.
Frankly, I was stunned when I heard the news from our media buyer
yesterday.
Right now, our TV ad exposing Obamacare is running in 12 states.
You can see this powerful ad by Going Here Now.
With our success — thanks to your incredible support — we were
planning to go national, so we sent the ad to the major networks.
This TV ad simply tells the truth about Obamacare.
It was crafted by Dick Morris, the Fox News contributor and famous
campaign strategist.
This powerful ad features a respected medical doctor — a neurosurgeon,
in fact — who warns that Obamacare will decimate healthcare for
seniors and others in need of life-saving medical procedures.
As Dr. Cuffe explains in the ad, if Obama gets his way and adds 50
million new patients to the government system, it inevitably will lead
to rationing of healthcare procedures and vital medicines for the
elderly.
Dr. Cuffe says universal healthcare has led to this same situation in
Canada and England.
You can see Dr. Cuffe and donate to help air this ad — Go here Now.
We know why ABC is so afraid of the League's TV ad. It knows the message
resonates with the American people.
This is the same network that aired an infomercial for the Obama plan
directly from the White House.
Clearly, ABC knows seniors will not be hoodwinked by Obama when they
learn the truth.
Despite ABC's brazen act of censorship, we need to continue to run this
ad on other stations across the nation and on major networks.
Time is very short, so we really need your help.
Please Go Here Now to Support This Ad.
We CAN make a huge difference. The ABC decision proves we are on the
right track.
Please help us today!
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Adams
Executive Director
P.S. I know this is vacation season for many people. I can assure you
that we at the League are working overtime to stop Obamacare. We have
made incredible progress. But we believe we have a major battle ahead
this September when Congress returns. We need to get our message out to
as many people as we can. Please remember both individuals and
corporations can donate to us, and there is no limit to the amount. So
please Donate Here Now.
Paid for by the League of American Voters. Contributions to the League
of American Voters are not tax deductible as charitable contributions
for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from individuals and
corporations are permitted by law and welcome.
http://news.newsmax.com/images/16168/trans.gif
http://news.newsmax.com/images/16168/lavfooter.gif
League of American Voters | 722 12th Street
N.W. | Fourth Floor | Washington, D.C. 20005
http://www.townhallmail.com/ldzpmlydppwrmdpdrdmgyrfnnhrnndhyqqglcmwkdgdjk
z_admppyldh.gif
__________________________SUBSCRIPTION INFO__________________________
This newsletter is never sent unsolicited. It is only sent to people on
the Townhall.com network OR a friend might have forwarded it to you. We
respect and value your time and privacy.
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from this Townhall Spotlight by clicking here.
OR Send postal mail to:
Townhall Spotlight Unsubscribe
1901 N. Moore St - Suite 701, Arlington, VA 22209
WERE YOU FORWARDED THIS EDITION OF THE TOWNHALL SPOTLIGHT?
You can get your own free subscription by clicking here. * Copyright
2006 Townhall.com, Salem Communications and its Content Providers.
All rights reserved. Wikipedia to launch page controls
The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia is on the cusp of launching a major
revamp to how people contribute to some pages.
The site will require that revisions to pages about living people and
some organisations be approved by an editor.
This would be a radical shift for the site, which ostensibly allows
anyone to make changes to almost any entry.
The two-month trial, which has proved controversial with some
contributors, will start in the next "couple of weeks", according to a
spokesperson.
"I'm sure it will spark some controversy," Mike Peel of Wikimedia UK, a
subsidiary of the organisation which operates Wikipedia, told BBC News.
However, he said, the trial had been approved in an an online poll, with
80% of 259 users in favour of the trial.
"The decision to run this trial was made by the users of the English
Wikipedia, rather than being imposed."
The proposal was first outlined by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in
January this year. It was met by a storm of protests from Wikipedia
users who claimed the system had been poorly thought out or would create
extra work.
'Lock down'
The two-month trial will test a system of "flagged revisions" on the
English-language Wikipedia site.
This would mean any changes made by a new or unknown user would have to
be approved by one of the site's editors before the changes were
published.
Whilst the changes are being mulled over, readers will be directed to
earlier versions of the article.
Wikimedia said the system was "essentially a buffer, to reduce the
visibility and impact of vandalism on these articles".
There have been several high-profile edits to pages that have given
false or misleading information about a person.
For example, in January this year the page of US Senator Robert Byrd
falsely reported that he had died.
If a page has a number of controversial edits or is repeatedly
vandalised, editors can lock a page, so that it cannot be edited by
everyone.
For example, following initial reports of the death of Michael Jackson,
editors had to lock down two pages to stop speculation about what had
caused his death.
"For these articles, flagged protection will actually make them more
open," said Mr Peel.
The decision had been made to focus on the pages of living people, he
said, because they were the "most high-profile pages with the highest
probability of causing harm".
"[The trial] may also be extended to organisations which are currently
operating," he added.
The system has already been in operation on the German version of
Wikipedia for more than a year.
The changes to the English language site - which now has more than 3m
pages - will be rolled out in the coming weeks, said Mr Peel.
The changes will be discussed in Buenos Aires this week at the annual
Wikimania conference.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/8220220.stm
Published: 2009/08/25 11:57:16 GMT
Anger at UK file-sharing policy
Internet service providers (ISPs) have reacted with anger to new
proposals on how to tackle internet piracy.
The government is proposing a tougher stance which would include cutting
off repeat offenders from the net.
UK ISP Talk Talk said the recommendations were likely to "breach
fundamental rights" and would not work.
Virgin said that "persuasion not coercion" was key in the fight to crack
down on the estimated six million file-sharers in the UK.
TalkTalk's director of regulation Andrew Heaney told the BBC News the
ISP was as keen as anyone to clamp down on illegal file-sharers.
"This is best done by making sure there are legal alternatives and
educating people, writing letters to alleged file-sharers and, if
necessary, taking them to court.
" If Lord Mandelson really 'doesn't get the internet', you can be sure
that there will be plenty of people now offering to educate him "
But introducing measures to simply cut people off will not work, he
said.
"Disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is
relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or
their activity to avoid detection," he added.
There are also concerns that the method of identifying offenders using
the IP address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web
connection.
A spokeswoman for Virgin Media was concerned that a "heavy-handed,
punitive regime will simply alienate consumers".
It was also concerned about the costs of implementing such a system.
Listening carefully
Originally the Digital Britain report, published in June, gave Ofcom
until 2012 to consider whether technical measures to catch pirates were
necessary.
However, according to a statement from the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills released on Tuesday, that timeframe is now
considered "too long to wait".
Stephen Timms, minister for Digital Britain, explained the change of
heart.
"We've been listening carefully to responses to the consultation this
far, and it's become clear there are widespread concerns that the plans
as they stand could delay action, impacting unfairly upon rights
holders," he said.
It proposes that internet service providers (ISPs) are obliged to take
action against repeat infringers and suggests that the cost of tracking
down persistent pirates be shared 50:50 between ISPs and rights holders.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills denied that it had
changed its position since the publication of Digital Britain and said
that the recommendations were open to consultation.
"We are simply adding new ideas to the table that could potentially make
the whole system more flexible and provide a quicker way to bring in
technical measures," it said in a statement.
'Disproportionate'
ISPs have repeatedly argued that it is not their job to police the web.
The Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) said it was
"disappointed by the proposal to force ISPs to suspend users' accounts".
"ISPA and consumer groups consider disconnection of users to be a
disproportionate response, a view that was recently supported by the
European Parliament," it said in a statement.
ILLEGAL FILE-SHARING
# File-sharing is not illegal. It only becomes illegal when users are
sharing content, such as music, that is protected by copyrights
# The crackdown will be aimed at people who regularly use technologies,
such as BitTorrent, and websites, such as The Pirate Bay, to find and
download files
# There are plenty of legitimate services which use file-sharing
technology such as the BBC's iPlayer
European politicians recently ruled that cutting off someone's internet
connection could be a breach of their human rights. The challenge came
in response to France's tough policy on file-sharers.
ISPA also said that the changes had been proposed "without consultation
with the internet industry".
Global issue
However, the u-turn has been welcomed by some.
BPI, which represents the recorded music industry in Britain, welcomed
the government's decision.
"'Digital piracy is a serious problem and a real threat to the UK's
creative industries," it said in a statement.
"The solution to the piracy problem must be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive." HAVE YOUR SAY By all means fine those who download
illegally, but to cut them off from the internet would be taking away
the right to free speech and communication Janet Shaw, Romford, UK
Countries around the world are grappling with how to control internet
piracy. In the US, student Joel Tenebaum was last month ordered to pay
$675,000 (£412,000) to various record labels after admitting downloading
800 songs.
In May, the French parliament passed legislation which would see a new
state-agency sending warning letters to file sharers. If they are caught
three times, they will be cut off.
There have been protests against similar proposed legislation in
Australia and New Zealand.
It is estimated that half of all the traffic on the net in the UK being
content that is shared illegally.
The UK government has set a target of reducing the problem by at least
70% in the next few years.
The games industry has already begun a clampdown of those illegally
sharing videogames and the methods it uses would broadly be similar to
those the music and film industry would rely on.
It uses a third body anti-piracy firm to identify alleged file-sharers
and a court order is sent to the relevant internet service provider,
forcing it to reveal the identity of the person behind the IP address.
Some 6,000 letters have been sent out by law firm ACS Law on behalf of
firms such as Reality Pump and Topware Interactive who own video games
Two Worlds and Dream Pinball respectively.
Some 20 users have come forward to say they have been wrongly accused.
All face fines of up to £665 or threat of court action.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/8219652.stm
Published: 2009/08/25 15:07:39 GMT
Telegraph
Thousands join British Pirate Party's quest to legalise file sharing
Pirate Party UK, the political party that wants to make peer-to-peer
filesharing legal, has seen more than 4,000 people join its Facebook
page in the last few weeks.
Published: 8:06AM BST 25 Aug 2009
Andrew Robinson, the leader of the Pirate Party UK
The political party, which registered with the Electoral Commission at
the end of July, predicted it would soon be the biggest party on the
social networking site, overtaking the BNP and Labour, which each have
more than 6,000 members.
Pirate Party UK intends to be the British equivalent of the Swedish
Pirate Party, which secured 7.1 per cent of that country's vote at the
last European elections, securing an MEP. The two parties are affiliated
but legally separate.
Organisers believe they can capitalise on the popularity of file sharing
among young people who would otherwise not bother to vote. More than 60
per cent of people aged 14 to 24 have downloaded tracks illegally,
according to a report by UK Music, an umbrella group representing
Britain's music industry. Andrew Robinson, leader of Pirate Party UK,
told The Guardian: "With Government plans, outlined in the Digital
Britain report, to fine people who have shared even one file up to
£50,000 and an estimated seven million file sharers in the UK, this is
a very big issue indeed." Since registering with the Electoral
Commission it has gained 450 paid-up members, according to Mr Robinson.
Membership rates are being kept low, with those aged 18 to 21 having to
pay only £2. It is also harnessing the power of Twitter to recruit. But
the party could face a hurdle to political power, as many of its
faithful are too young to vote. Besides aiming to legalise filesharing
between private individuals, which it describes as "the modern
equivalent of lending a book or a DVD to a friend", the group also wants
to reduce the "excessive length of copyright protection", end "excessive
surveillance ... by Government and big businesses" and ensure "real
freedom of speech". Music companies are unlikely to view the party
favourably. File sharing costs the industry £200 million a year,
according to the BPI, which represents the British music industry. It
argues that without copyright protection, record labels "would have no
financial incentive to invest in new music and Britain would not have
its world-beating music business." Leona Lewis is one such artist to
fall foul of illegal file sharers, when her new single Don't Let Me
Down, a duet with Justin Timberlake, was leaked on to the internet
earlier in August. Jeremy Banks, head of internet anti-piracy for the
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, said of the
incident: "Such pre-release leaks, however they are sourced, are highly
damaging to our members who invest considerable budgets in marketing and
promoting music ahead of release."
Telegraph
BT and Virgin Media attack Government plans to curb illegal downloading
BT and Virgin Media have launched an attack on the Government following
the announcement of plans to punish illegal file-sharers by cutting off
their internet connections.
By Amanda Andrews, Media Editor
Published: 6:12PM BST 25 Aug 2009
The Chinese government has blocked access to Google across large swathes
of the country and accused the internet giant of breaking Chinese law.
Both have expressed objections to the latest plans to by Stephen Timms,
the minister for Digital Britain, which go against previous proposals
announced at by his predecessor Lord Carter as part of his Digital
Britain report two months ago. The previous plans included collecting
the identities of repeat offenders and then handing them over to rights
holders so court action could be issued.
John Petter, the managing director BT Consumer, said: “BT is
disappointed by today’s announcement. We were broadly supportive of
the original plans but these changes run the risk of penalising
customers unfairly. We believe the creative industries need to play a
larger role in tackling copyright infringement and so we will be making
our views known to the government”.
Virgin Media added that “persuasion not coercion” is key to changing
consumer behaviour, as a “heavy-handed, punitive regime will simply
alienate mainstream consumers”. It said that the government should be
concentrating on the quick development of new legitimate services that
provide a compelling alternative to illegal filesharing. “We are also
concerned that, as they stand, the government’s funding proposals
would increase costs and penalise internet service providers (ISPs) who
want to invest in making implementation efficient, while doing little to
encourage rights holders to use the regime in a proportionate way and
complicating the evolution of new legitimate services,” said Virgin
Media. Solicitor Patrick Charnley, of law firm Eversheds, said that
adequate measures should be put in place to deal with problems such as a
person being cut-off as a result of their neighbour unlawfully using
their wireless internet connection. The government has also been accused
of caving into a “big lobbying operation” over its U-turn on the
treatment of illegal downloaders, by Tom Watson, the Labour MP formerly
responsible for the Government’s internet policy. Writing on his blog
today, Mr Watson wrote the new measures would “lead to accusations
that the Government has been captured by the big lobby operations of
powerful rights-holders.” This might not bode well for Lord Mandelson,
the Business Secretary, who met and dined with David Geffen, the
co-founder of the DreamWorks Studio, on August 7. The film companies
have been hit hard by illegal downloads and are keen to stamp out web
piracy. The music industry has supported the new proposals. A
spokesperson from UK Music, the industry body said: “UK Music is
pleased that Government is proposing accelerated and proportionate
action to meet their stated ambition of reducing illegal file-sharing by
70-80% within 2-3 years. “Throughout this debate, UK Music has voiced
concerns that the original time frame of proposed legislation, and
particularly the trigger mechanisms that would grant Ofcom reserve
powers to implement technical measures, would have failed to meet these
ambitions. “More than that, these trigger mechanisms would have
required our members to take legal action against individuals – a move
the UK music industry has consistently resisted.”
Posts
