<a href="http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=9">http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=9</a><br><br><b>UK latest: it's not a Hadopi, not as we know it </b>
<table class="contentpaneopen"><tbody><tr>
<td colspan="2" align="left" valign="top" width="70%">
<span class="small">
Written by Monica Horten </span>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" class="createdate" valign="top">
Oct 07, 2009 at 09:50 AM </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" valign="top">
<p><strong><br></strong></p><p><strong>Parking-fine
style Internet suspension may be proposed by the British government, as
a sanction for against peer-to-peer users who are alleged to have
infringed copyright. </strong></p><p>Details have emerged of British government proposals for an </p>
administrative body to handle appeals by users under threat of their Internet being cut off by "technical measures". <p> </p> <p>The
new proposals follow the agenda set out in the Digital Britain report
and the P2P Consultation, whereby the rights-holders will make
allegations of copyright infringement, and ISPs will send warnings to
their customers, before applying "technical measures". </p> <p> </p> <p>The
new element is that the users will get a final warning, telling them
that a "technical measure" will be applied. The warning notice will
give them opportunity to appeal before the measure is applied. The
appeal will be made to a panel of adjudicators. The panel will comprise
legally-trained people, but it is not envisaged that they will be
judges, and it is not even clear whether it will be a formal
institution or a call centre. </p> <p> </p> <p>The "parking fine"
element is that users would receive a lesser technical measure if they
do not appeal, or conversely, they would risk a more severe measure -
possibly a longer period of being cut off the Internet - if they do
appeal and lose. </p> <p> </p> <p>"Technical measures" is the
British government's euphemistic term for the use of network technology
to cut off, block or slow traffic. They include protcol blocking, URL
blocking, "traffic shaping", throttling, and suspension of the users
account. In other words, "technical measures" mean ‘cutting people off
the Internet' either directly by suspending access, or indirectly, by
blocking them from doing specified activities. They would be applied to
users individually. </p> <p> </p> <p>"Technical measures" require
equipment such as traffic management systems and deep packet
inspection. Indeed, the deep packet inspection systems are necessary
in order to apply technical measures to specific individual users. They
work in conjunction with software called ‘policy management' which
enables the ISPs to manage exactly what each individual user's account
can do. </p> <p> </p> <p>The proposals are not strictly speaking the
same as a Hadopi, because the new adjudication panel will be an
appeals body, whereas the French Hadopi will impose sanctions.
However, it arguably is a Hadopi in the sense that it is about
administrative justice, applied on the basis of an allegation by
private, commercial organisations, and it deprives the user of the
right to an oral hearing, before the sanction is applied. </p> <p> </p> <p>There
is also of course the question of whether an adjudication panel,
staffed by ‘legally trained' people is a ‘legally competent tribunal'.
It is not clear whether industry or government would run the panel. </p> <p> </p> <p>It's
understood that the new proposals were drawn up by the British music
industry at the request of the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills (BIS). The request was apparently made because Amendment 138 in
the EU Telecoms Package is a problem. </p> <p> </p> <p>It is another
indication of the British government's failure to understand Amendment
138, namely that the European Parliament opposes cutting people of the
Internet as a sanction for copyright enforcement. It should not matter
what form the cut-off takes. </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="background-color: rgb(192, 192, 192);">This
article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License.
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/</a> It may be used for
non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be
attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten
(2009) UK latest: it's not a Hadopi, not as we know it ,
<a href="http://www.iptegrity.com">http://www.iptegrity.com</a> 6 October 2009.</span> </p></td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>FGV Direito Rio<br><br>Center of Technology and Society<br>
Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br>