vincenoirblog-blog

[vincenoirblog-blog]

*Law makes trying to understand how the cloud computing works.

Classic IT: explaing cloud computing

[vincenoirblog-blog]

As the world edges closer to smart cities becoming the norm, it is important to consider the regulation changes that may be needed. With tensions already high at these early stages, this could just be the beginning of the fallout. Heres a short and informative article by Womble Bond Dickinson, to help you start to think about the issues that may arise. 

[vincenoirblog-blog]

Who wants Cookies?

An informative and fun video explaining how cookies work. Do you have any cookies on your computer from sites you haven't visited? #mmmmcookies

[vincenoirblog-blog]

One Size Fits All

The atrocity of the sexual exploitation of women through human trafficking is increasing within Europe. The digital age has made the operation more efficient and easily accessible. However, what liability do websites face for profiting off the facilitation of human trafficking?

The Law as It Stands

The current EU regulatory framework is set out in the E-commerce Directive (ECD). Currently, liability for hosts is set out in Article 14. Hosts for third-party material are not liable so long as:

(a)    they do not have actual knowledge of the illegality of that content and, as regards claims for damages, awareness of facts or circumstances from which the illegality is apparent;

or

(b)   upon obtaining such knowledge, they act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the content.

It is important to note that under article 15, there is no general obligation on hosts to monitor the material posted to seek out illegal activities. Europe operates a horizontal intermediary liability system, which means the protection received is independent of the specific wrongdoing leveled against them. In other words, whether the infringement derives from private law (copyright) or criminal law (child pornography) the protection doesn’t change.

Hiding in Plain Sight

Like every other business, sex traffickers rely on marketing and communication tools in order to ensure that there is a steady demand and supply chain. The use of everyday websites to facilitate trafficking became public knowledge during cases against Backpage. Backpage was a website that was initially set up as a classified advertising website for a wide variety of services and products. Over time the adult section of the website was used to facilitate the prostitution of trafficked women.    

This is not just an American phenomenon, the most recent parliamentary inquiry into organised sexual exploitation, stated that adult services websites represented the biggest enabler of sexual exploitation. With UK websites such as Vivastreet, which operates as an almost mirror image of Backpage, having being accused of not doing enough to prevent the use of their website for advertisement of trafficked women.

Does One Size Really Fit All?

The line between legal protection and serious criminal liability for intermediaries is tough to differentiate. One would question whether it is appropriate to offer the same the protection to websites whose user-generated content infringes copyright as another’s whose website facilitates human trafficking. Backpage maintained that they had acted to prevent illegal content by filtering posts and removing others. If this was a European case, one must wonder whether that would have been sufficient to satisfy Article 14(b).

Is it time to follow the United States and introduce legislation which directly targets websites into taking a more proactive approach? Under Fosta, platforms that are “assisting, supporting or facilitating” sex trafficking could be found liable if they fail to take appropriate action. Or is this as critics would argue another step towards unfair censorship where current laws are sufficient to handle the issue. While there is no obvious solution, one thing is certain in that change is needed.

[vincenoirblog-blog]

He has a point #Thingsthatmakeyougohmmm

#piratebay

[vincenoirblog-blog]

Will copyright save the music store?

Following last week’s negative blog on the outcomes of the implementation of Article 13 of the Copyright Directive, I will assess whether the celebration of the music industry is justified. Will this directive protect the artist while encouraging innovation as they claim? The music industry believes that there are several large tech firms are taking advantage of old outdated copyright to benefit off the work of artists and paying them very little remuneration or nothing at all in return.

Robert Ashcroft, chief executive of British collection society PRS for Music, celebrated the vote by saying: “The European Parliament today took a bold step forward to ensure a functioning and sustainable digital single market for creative content”. However, is Article 13 of the copyright directive the way forward?

End of Innovation?

To explore the implications of Article 13, let’s focus on remixes. People seem to think that remixing is a totally new phenomenon, however, it’s a practice that has developed throughout human history. The saying that there is nothing new under the sun becomes abundantly clear when we retrace the steps of how cultural movements began. According to media scholar Professor Henry Jenkins “the story of American arts in the 19th century might be told in terms of matching and merging of folk traditions taken from various indigenous and immigrant populations”. Then from early hip-hop sampling to 80’s New York disco to the eventual rise of EDM, the art of the remix has come a long way. Where does Article 13 leave this innovative art form?

Proponents of Article 13 PRS Music argue that it will not stifle creativity but rather encourage it as it will benefit user-generated content. Under Article 13, platforms would be required to either have licence agreements with record companies for the content or to use content filters. As Julie Reda highlights, it is impossible to hold licences for billions of copyrighted works, therefore, platforms will need to have content filters. However, these filters are exceptionally expensive (YouTubes Content ID reportedly costing 60 million to maintain) and unreliable.

The cost of implementing a filter will severely limit the ability of creators to rely on platforms that allow or content to be created, distributed, and most importantly promote. New up and coming DJs have relied on platforms such as Soundcloud, Mixcloud, and Bandcamp. However Soundcloud, what was once seen as space for young innovative musicians has be driven to the brink of collapse trying to implement filters and by entering into licencing agreements with large record companies.

As DJs remix and sample a large variety of sounds and musical works that are often copyrighted how can we expect the filter to differentiate between what is and isn’t copyright infringement. Content ID has proven time and time again that it is incredibly flawed when trying to distinguish copyright work even removing a video of a cat purring due to copyright infringement.

Will Article 13 help innovative DJs? Or just big Music Labels?

[vincenoirblog-blog]

Internet 1983-2018

Wednesday the 12th of September may be forever remembered as the day copyright killed the internet. European Parliament voted to approve an updated version of Article 13. The reasoning behind the proposed changes can be found in the summary of the EU Directive. In short, the internet has become the marketplace for the distribution of copyright-protected materials. However, unlike other marketplaces, people do not receive the same protections. According to the summary, the updated copyright laws will “ensure that copyright and copyright-related practices stay fit for purpose in the new digital context”. The result was celebrated by record labels and film companies calling it “a great day for Europe’s creators”. However, while noble in its aim, it has been met with overwhelming criticism and critics have slated the means of achieving this goal.

What is Article 13?

Article 13 requires online platforms to enforce tighter regulation over copyright holders protected content. This would require “the use of effective content recognition technologies”. Currently, complaints surrounding copyright are dealt with on a case by case basis and reviewing takedown notices once posted. Article 13 would require platforms to pre-screen user-generated material to ensure it does not break copyright laws.

Implications for Business

Allied for Startups maintains that Article 13 fundamentally misses its aim by targeting the bigger platforms, it will ultimately be society and small start-ups that will suffer. They emphasise the huge financial burden that would be placed on start-ups to implement the filtering technology and in turn, this discourages investment in user-generated content start-ups due to this. Therefore, reinforcing the monopoly held by big platforms already in existence such as YouTube.

Julia Reda, a leading critic of the changes, and MEP of Germanys Pirate Party, points out that there will be unintended targets harmed. She points out the consequences Article 13 has for free and open source software (FOSS). These platforms allow developers from around the world collaborate and freely access and alter software. Therefore, automatic filters would show many false positives. Software development platform GitHub has said these changes in the law would have a devastating effect on developers. The need to automatically remove code suspected of infringement would see projects built on common resources disappear.

Human Rights Implications

Critics also argue that Article 13 will violate European rights of free expression and free information. In July a joint letter signed by more than 70 leading technology experts including the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners Lee, opposed the changes. They stated that Article 13 would take “an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users”. This is also echoed by the United Nations Human Rights Council report which that states and intergovernmental groups should “refrain from establishing laws or arrangements that would require the “proactive” monitoring or filtering of content”.

Could this be the end of the Internet as we know it?

[vincenoirblog-blog]

As I begin my blogging journey, I would like to introduce you to an extremely informative article which highlights the difficulties developers currently face  within the tech industry. One area within the tech industry where this issue is prevalent is the gaming industry.  This year there have been several high profile cases such as PUBG v Fortnite, and Bethesda v Warner Brothers. It is exceptionally difficult for young innovative developers to see their ideas come to fruition as patents held by larger companies block their path.