The lower house of Russia’s parliament, the Duma, approved [ru] a first draft of the legislation today, June 14, 2013, with a vote of 257 to 3 (plus one abstention). This move by lawmakers comes despite unanimous opposition from Russia’s Internet companies, which have rushed this week to publish detailed reports on the legislation’s potentially catastrophic damage to the RuNet.

This image was created by Kevin Rothrock using Vladimir Putin's official portrait by the Russian Presidential Press and Information Office, 2006. (CC-BY 3.0)

Russian SOPA’s nuts and bolts

Indeed, Russia’s SOPA-clone contains a number of worrying clauses. The law’s regime for notifying Internet service providers of copyright abuses, for instance, is laughably inadequate. Copyright holders do not need to provide ISPs with the specific location of an infringement (not even a URL address), forcing Internet companies to conduct constant monitoring for possible misuses of (potentially) copyrighted materials.

The law also revises the conditions of limited liability, exposing ISPs and other Internet intermediaries to legal responsibility in situations where they exercise no control over the content in question. Russian search engine Yandex warns [ru]:

[…] позволяет прийти к абсурдному выводу о том, что, получив уведомление правообладателя о потенциальном нарушении, имеющем место при передаче материала, провайдер, осуществляющий передачу, будет обязан каким-то образом прекратить такую передачу в отношении конкретного материала, что технически невозможно.

[The law] allows us to come to the absurd conclusion that, having been notified by the copyright holder of a potential violation occurring in the transmission of materials, the ISP, which performs the transmission, will be required somehow to stop the transfer of some specific material, which is technically impossible.

The Russian Association for Electronic Communications (RAEC), which participated in the Culture Ministry’s working group [ru] on the anti-piracy legislation, has also criticized [ru] the law’s lack of consideration for possible fair use of copyrighted materials. Additionally, the RAEC protests, the law creates circumstances wherein ISPs must take provisional measures before copyright holders have filed a formal claim with the courts. Many opponents of the Russian SOPA cite this aspect of the law as an example of extrajudicial censorship. The reality of the law’s provisions is more complicated.

According to the legislation, the Moscow City Court would serve as the court of first instance in all civil cases involving online copyright infringement. Copyright holders first appeal to the court with a complaint that their property is being misused online, attaching (1) proof that they own the materials in question, and (2) proof that someone else is using them. (The court is supposed to take no action, without these attachments.) The court then determines a deadline, not to exceed fifteen days, by which the plaintiff must file a formal statement of claim, which actually launches the legal suit.

In the two weeks between the initial appeal and the option to file a suit, however, the law empowers the Moscow Court to force ISPs to take “interim measures” to remove the content in question, or risk having their entire IP address blocked, if they fail to comply within three days. If the plaintiff fails to file suit after fifteen days, the court dismisses the case and lifts the order for interim measures.

The RAEC claims that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent copyright holders from appealing to the Moscow Court every two weeks, without ever filing a formal suit. In other words, determined plaintiffs could keep in force what are supposed to be interim measures, by using the law as a rotating door. The RAEC explains in its report [ru] on the legislation:

Правообладатель имеет возможность не подавать иск, а каждые 15 дней обращаться за применением новых предварительных обеспечительных мер, и никакой ответственности за подобную практику не установлено.

The copyright holder has the opportunity not to sue, but every fifteen days [it can] appeal for the application of new interim measures, and [the law] establishes no responsibility for such behavior.

However, there is a provision in the law that allows ISPs to sue for losses incurred when executing the interim measures, if the plaintiff fails to file a formal suit within the fifteen-day period, or if an arbitration court later rejects the copyright holder’s claim. The current legislation [ru] reads:

Организация или гражданин, права и (или) законные интересы которых нарушены обеспечением имущественных интересов до предъявления иска, вправе требовать по своему выбору от заявителя возмещения убытков […], если заявителем в установленный судом срок не было подано исковое заявление по требованию […], или если вступившим в законную силу судебным актом арбитражного суда в иске отказано.

The organization or citizen, whose rights and (or) lawful interests are violated by ensuring the [plaintiff’s] property interests before the filing of a claim, has the right to demand their choice of indemnity for losses suffered […], if the plaintiff did not file a claim in the required time period […], or if a valid court decision by an arbitration court rejected [the plaintiff’s] claim.

Finally, the RAEC complains that the law creates a jurisdiction overlap with existing arbitration procedure code, and generates an inconvenient and inefficient legal bottleneck by forcing all parties, regardless of their location, to deal with a Moscow court.

Stakeholders propose changes

The new anti-piracy law also calls for blocking entire IP addresses, in the event of noncompliance with court-ordered interim measures. The push for blacklisting entire IPs is surprising, given the growing consensus that this method is more likely to damage legitimate websites than the Web’s copyright infringers, who can easily circumvent an IP blacklist by changing hosts, adopting dynamic IP addresses, and so on. While Internet service providers and industry experts have long criticized IP blocking (which came packaged in Russia’s legislation last year to blacklist online materials harmful to children), even Roskomnadzor—the government body responsible for administering that blacklist—recently acknowledged the inefficiency of IP blocking in a post [ru] on its new public outreach website, “WeCanTrust.net.”

The Duma’s Committee on Culture has also proposed a series of controversial amendments that could appear in the next iteration of the legislation. The Committee’s suggestions include an expansion of the law’s applicability to search engines; the creation of a new blacklist for all websites containing illegal materials; and applying the law not just to audiovisual content, but also to “books, articles, photographs, and other copyrighted objects.”

Yesterday, on June 13, 2013, Yandex sent [ru] the Duma its official list [ru] of comments and suggestions for revising the anti-piracy law, as the bill heads back to committee for more amendments, ahead of its second and third readings on the parliament floor, which could take place as early as next week [ru]. In a blog post [ru] that also sharply criticized the new legislation, Google Russia’s Director of Government Relations, Marina Zhunich, announced that Google, too, has shared with the Duma its recommendations for eliminating the most radical aspects of the draft legislation.

Both Google and Yandex are calling for amendments that would render the Russian SOPA more similar to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, another American law, passed in 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Unlike the anti-piracy law that Russian legislators are now considering, the DMCA exempts from liability Internet service providers and other intermediaries under a regime in which copyright holders directly notify ISPs of infringement claims, without the application of automatic censorship or state-administered blacklists.

Written by Kevin Rothrock · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [en] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) blocked YouTube on September 17, 2012 to prevent people from watching a trailer of a US film titled “Innocence of Muslims,” which mocks Islam and Prophet Hazrat Muhammad. The telecom watchdog claimed that it contacted Google prior to the ban asking them to remove the video, but Google reportedly refused to oblige.

The ban was lifted on June 5, 2013, making the site accessible to Bangladeshi netizens once again.

Image by Wikimedia Commons user HernandoJoseAJ. CC By-SA.

The block actually incurred a loss for the Bangladeshi economy, according to Fahim Mashroor, the ex-Secretary of the Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services. He said in an interview [bn] with German radio Deutsche Welle that the outsourcing industry suffered due to the ban.

Last year, Bangladeshis earned 57 million US dollars working for the online outsourcing industry with an annual growth of 54 percent. The eight month-long ban on YouTube will curtail that phenomenal growth this year.

Not only economic loss, many students, teachers, and researchers faced difficulties in their studies not being able to access online education videos hosted on YouTube.

Web users celebrated the renewed YouTube access. Khaledur Rahman Shakil (@krshakil) expressed his delight:

@কেআরশাকিল: ‘মুক্তি’ পেল ইউটিউব ফুলের মালা দিয়ে বরণ করে নিলাম ! জয় স্বাধীনতা।

@krshakil: YouTube is free! Ushering it with garlands. Go freedom!

Neel Aparajita (@oporajita789) celebrated the joys of social networking freedom:

@অপরাজিতা৭৮৯: ইউটিউব জেলখানা থেকে ছাড়া পাওয়ার আনন্দে ফেসবুক-টুইটার-এ যেদিকে তাকাই, যেখানে চোখ যায়… অইস!! খালি ইউটিউব আর ইউটিউব! #ফিলিংগ্রেট

@oporajita789: The joys of YouTube's freedom from the jail of filters is evident everywhere on social media. Everybody is talking about it #feelinggreat.

Although YouTube was blocked, many in Bangladesh were able to circumvent the ban. Ashickur Rahman Noor (@ashicunnoor) remembered that fact on Twitter:

@ashicunnoor: ডিজিটাল বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা… :) সোজা পথে অনেকদিন পর ইউটিউবে হান্দাইলাম… #চৌক্ষেপানি! :)

@ashicunnoor: The freedom of Digital Bangladesh. Could access YouTube without any circumvention tool :) #tearsinmyeyes :)

Blogger Bahadur Bappi questioned the reason behind such a long ban on community blogging platform Somewhereinblog.net:

আমার প্রশ্ন হৈল এই ৮ মাস ইউটিউবকে আটকিয়ে রেখে সরকার কি এমন লাভ করলো??

My question is what benefit did the government achieve blocking YouTube for eight long months?

Written by পান্থ রহমান রেজা (Pantha) · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [bn] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The new regulation issued by the Media Development Authority (MDA) requires news websites that report on Singapore and which have 50,000 unique IP views a month to secure a license. Further, they must put up a ‘performance bond’ of $50,000. The websites must also remove objectionable content within 24 hours after being ordered by the government. The MDA has so far identified 10 websites, including Yahoo! Singapore, which are covered by the ruling.

Prior to the Saturday event, more than 160 blogs participated in a ‘blackout’ protest. Despite the assurance of the government that blogs are exempted from the ruling, netizens described the new regulation as threat to Internet and media freedom. The video below shows some of the blogs which replaced their homepages with a black image.

The ‘Free My Internet’ movement issued this media statement after the protest:

The success of the campaign is no mean feat. #FreeMyInternet came together at a few days’ notice, and the three-prong campaign was organised within a week and a half. Given the spontaneous and leaderless nature of the #FreeMyInternet movement, this is a remarkable achievement.

In the weeks to come, we will roll out material and programmes to educate members of the public and Members of Parliament about why the Licensing Regime needs to be withdrawn.

We do not rule out a dialogue with the government, but this dialogue needs to be a discussion on how the withdrawal of the Licensing Regime will take place, and should be a dialogue about how de-regulating the media environment can best be done to benefit Singaporeans.

Photo from Flickr page of Raymond Lau. Used under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license.

Some students challenged the Minister for Communications and Information to withdraw the regulation:

As young mass communications students and practitioners, this new framework concerns us as the wording of the amendment suggests that the State will have unmoderated power to muzzle not only journalists, but virtually everyone and anyone who uses the Internet

These concerns obligate us, in our capacities as concerned young Singaporeans, to request that the Minister for Communications & Information rescind the gazetting requiring online news sites to be regulated; and if he would not, to engage us in a dialogue to explain why he cannot.

Article 14 highlighted the success of the campaign:

…the bare mimimum that has been achieved this week is that the blogging community has sent a clear message that we value our limited space and are not willing to give it up easily

It helped to demonstrate the broad cross-section of support that exists for the freedom of online space.

Photo from Flickr page of Raymond Lau. Used under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license.

Thoughts of a Cynical Investor congratulated the organizers:

Getting 2,000 to 2,500 S’poreans out at very short notice (less than a week) is a very good achievement, no a great feat, on the part of the organisers.

Ravi Philemon asserted that the protest is for ordinary Singapore netizens:

This protest is for us. Because this new regulation gives the government so much power to arbitrarily decide, nobody knows what kind of ‘traffic monitoring tools and perception-based surveys’ – maybe not even god knows, what these tools are – which site is a online news site and which is not.

Aaron Koh was inspired by the protest:

I attended the protest and was quite inspired by the speakers. The speakers, consisted mainly of bloggers, who were concerned, not only about MDA's online “news sites” licensing scheme, and at the speed at which it became law, without consultation with Parliament or with the Public.

Political Writings warned that small protests are not enough:

Whether protests are a legitimate way to force policy change or political change is a separate matter. What is important is that Singaporeans should realize that Hong Lim Park style ‘protests’ will not change anything.

Lim Jialiang explained the importance of participating in a cause:

It is crucial to remember that active participation is something that is to be proud of, even if participation might not translate to actual results at the end. There is nothing wrong in trying. There is something wrong, however, when people actively demean the efforts of others, who are trying their best to secure and speak out against at best, a toothless and aimless piece of regulation, and at worst, a new choker placed upon our democratic voice.

Written by Mong Palatino · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [en] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The blockage came after a deadline that the Saudi Communications and Information Technology Commission had set. Since then, at least one telecommunication company has been caught trying to break encryption to enforce government regulation. The earlier threat also mentioned Skype and WhatsApp as violators of the current regulation.

The decision was largely condemned in the Saudi Twittersphere.

Human rights lawyer Abulaziz al-Hussan tweeted [ar]:

إذا حجب الإنسان فكل شيء بعده تبعاً …!

@AHussan: If humans are blocked, everything then follows.

Blogger Essam al-Zamil thought it was only an experiment:

يبدو أن هيئة الاتصالات (والداخلية) اختارت البرنامج الأقل انتشارا (فايبر) لمعرفة ردة فعل الناس تجاه الحجب.

@essamz: Apparently, The Communications Commission (and the Interior [Ministry]) chose the least popular website to test the people's reaction to the blockage.

Others blamed the telecommunication companies for having a role in the blockage:

بإمكان تكونوا صريحين مع المُتلقي وتقولون أن السبب هو ماتتكبده شركات الإتصالات من خسائر فادحة جراء تواجد هذه البرامج!

@mo3tem: You can be frank with the people and say that the reason was the great revenue loss of the telecommunication companies because of these applications.

A popular technology website, Technology World, prepared a list of available alternatives that are not blocked (yet):

بعد إيقاف تطبيق فايبر، هنا مجموعة من البدائل

techwd: After the Viber blockage, here is a list of alternatives.

Written by Osama Khalid · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [en] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Under the new rule, news websites that report on Singapore and which have 50,000 unique IP views a month must secure a license. Further, they must put up a ‘performance bond’ of $50,000. It also has this provision which angered and worried many netizens:

The Licence also makes it clear that online news sites are expected to comply within 24 hours to MDA’s directions to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards.

So far, the government has identified 10 websites, including Yahoo! Singapore, which are covered by the ruling.

The #freemyinternet movement thinks the license scheme will undermine internet freedom and free speech in Singapore:

We encourage all Singaporeans who are concerned about our future and our ability to participate in everyday online activities and discussions, and to seek out alternative news and analysis, to take a strong stand against the licensing regime which can impede on your independence.

A petition warned Singapore bloggers that they could still be affected by the ruling despite the assurance of the government that bloggers are exempted from the measure:

Even though MDA said that blogs do not fall under the licensing scheme, this is not reflected in the wording of the legislation. It leaves the door open for blogs or any other site to be forced to license in the future without any change in the law.

Socio-political bloggers and commentators issued this joint statement:

As part of the community of websites in Singapore that provide sociopolitical news and analysis to Singaporeans, we are concerned about the impact of the newly-introduced requirement on fellow Singaporeans’ ability to receive diverse news information.

The new licensing regime has the very real potential to reduce the channels available to Singaporeans to receive news and analysis of the sociopolitical situation in Singapore and it is in the interest of all Singaporeans to guard against the erosion and availability of news channels that Singaporeans should rightfully have access to.

Responding to the barrage of criticism, the MDA insisted that the license scheme is fair:

An individual publishing views on current affairs and trends on his/her personal website or blog does not amount to news reporting.

…content guidelines are focused on core content concerns that would threaten the social fabric and national interests of our country. Examples include content that incites racial or religious hatred; misleads and causes mass panic; or advocates or promotes violence.

The framework is not an attempt to influence the editorial slant of news sites

visakan veerasamy notes that the MDA scheme has unified Singapore netizens:

Maybe a few years from now the MDA licensing thing will be remembered as the issue that got bloggers and alt-news agencies coming together against a common threat to have a national conversation of their own.

They propose a terrible idea, and then piss off the masses enough to inspire a co-ordinated response. Boom, active and engaged citizenry. This is great for Singapore.

It is a draconian measure, writes Jentrified Citizen:

The Government is well aware of the power of the Internet and how it is fast igniting the people’s conscience and socio-political consciousness. This is why they are trying to cut off our oxygen with more draconian measures. And they are in a position to do so as they have absolute power and control over almost everything in tiny Singapore.

Because of vague wording in the ruling, a popular news blog can still be ordered to apply for license. It all depends on the MDA. Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is not happy with this authority given to MDA:

It is discomforting that the Minister has the discretion, the limits of which is still unclear, to decide whether and when a website should be licensed.

Z’ming Cik warns about the impact of the scheme on political blogging:

The new rules will serve to deter bloggers in Singapore from discussing social and political issues, and encourage people to blog about facial cream or their pet dogs instead.

This would presumably help create a ‘safe’ environment for the ruling party’s continual domination in Singapore, free from criticisms.

publichouse.sg argues why Singaporeans should oppose the measure:

…because this new rule affects not only moderators and contributors of online news sites but also their readers, all Singaporeans should fight to protect their rights and voice their opposition of the rule. It is most certainly not in the interest of the people to have what they read censored or controlled, especially when the primary purpose of online news sites is to provide alternatives to the mainstream media.

Siew Kum Hong fears that the regulation would further hurt the image of Singapore in the world:

This new regulation is a mistake, and reinforces the perception that Singapore is a repressive place — which is precisely the wrong message to be sending to a globalised and networked world, when you are trying to build an innovative and creative economy where freedom of thought is so essential.

Written by Mong Palatino · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [en] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The Youth Sex Protection Law went into effect a little less than two months ago, but there already has been a flurry of complaints about the ambiguity of the law and the police's overzealous crackdown of file-sharing sites. According to local news report [ko], 1,938 people were taken into custody and six were arrested for violating the law in April alone. Only 106 were directly involved in making and sales of child porn.

The Youth Sex Protection Law not only punishes those directly involved in producing and selling child porn but also people who simply downloaded a file that contains implied sex with someone who appears as underage. Users have flooded online community sites, including ‘Netizen’s Discussions on Porn Crackdown’, the largest site dedicated to the issue with 93,000 members, to detail their own experiences. Some have written that they were being charged as pornography distributors for unknowingly sharing files which they downloaded via torrent file.

A one-person protest against the Youth Sex Protection Law. Photo by blogger DooPiece (CC BY- NC- ND 2.0)

One of the law's clauses stipulates that “a [cultural or art] expression that depicts or implies sexual intercourse with ‘a human or an image that can be perceived as underage kids” in any medium is a violation. This includes virtual characters in animation or game.

User Hanguk-dongin [ko] on DeviantART, an online community site for artists, protested against the controversial clause, writing [ko]:

이 법률은 ‘실재'아동을 괴롭히는 이들을 처벌하려는 것이 목적이 아니라, 마치 표현물, 창작물을 검열하기 위한 것으로 보입니다 [...] 당신이 그린, 쓴 캐릭터가 아동이나 청소년이 아닐지라도 “아동/청소년으로 보인다”는 집행기관의 자의적 판단으로 당신은 범죄자가 될 수 있습니다.

This law seems not really about punishing those who harass the “real kids”, but about censoring creative works and [cultural] expressions [...] Although the characters you draw and depict may not be technically underage, if the characters “appear as underage kids”, you can be a criminal who violated the law. It is totally up to the law-enforcing entity’s deliberate judgement.

The writer also accused the law of having a double standard when it comes to art — some literary works perceived as “serious work of art” can get away with containing similar contents, while popular cartoons cannot.

Blogger DooPiece elaborated [ko] on this:

표현의 자유 측면에서도 아청법은 상충된다. 청소년을 대상으로 한 여러 만화나 애니, 게임에 등장하는 캐릭터들은 설정이 20세가 넘은 젊은 여성이거나 늙지 않는 판타지 세계의 요정일지라도 의도치 않게 여기에 걸려들수 있다. 당연히 작가나 출판, 배표 업자의 입장에선 서비스를 위해서라도 해당 내용을 수정 순화시킬 수 밖에 없단 얘기고, 이는 곧 자유로운 표현의 위축을 불러오게 될 것이다.

The law also contradicts freedom of expression. Any character in cartoons, animations, and games which are sold to kids [is subjected to this rule]. This includes 20-something female characters and age-defying elves [if they appear underage]. This has obviously forced authors, publications, and syndication companies to alter their content and it will chill free expression.

South Korea’s Open Net, together with several cartoonist consolidations, released a statement voicing concerns over the abuse of the law. The writer revealed that many of those convicted for violating the law witnessed changes made in their initial written arraignments – meaning police changed some descriptions of the grounds on which they were charged — which would be a serious misstep caused by the ambiguity of the law:

경찰단계에서 실존 아동에 대한 성범죄를 보호하기 위한 수사활동을 하기보다는, ‘보여주기식’으로 무리하게 수사 및 기소를 하여, 아청법 위반의 소지가 없었던 사람들이 억울하게 오랜시간 고초를 겪은 셈입니다. [...] 실존아동과 전혀 관련없이 아동학대라는 설정을 그림이나 애니메이션으로 표현하였다고 해서 아동성범죄로 처벌하는 것은 살인에 대한 내용이 있다고 해서 살인죄로 처벌하거나 [...] 이렇게 해석되면 아동학대, 살인, 마약의 극악무도함을 보여주려는 작품 제작자들까지 모두 범죄자가 되어버립니다.

Police investigations, instead of focusing on protecting underage children who are potential victims of sex crimes, were instead determined to demonstrate their seriousness about the law. And police indeed investigated and indicted too much.  Due to this, innocent people, who should not be suspected for violating the law, have unfairly suffered for a long period of time [...] Treating a mere depiction of harassment, which were expressed via image and animation, as a real crime against kids is [ridiculous. It is] equivalent to applying the same level of punishment to a content creator who depicts murder as they do to a real murderer [...] If they are overzealous in applying this law, content creators who show the villainy of child abuse, murder, or drug abuse can all be labeled as criminals.

Written by Lee Yoo Eun · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [en] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Image from Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog.

The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (IPO) [zh] recently proposed [zh] to amend the Copyright Act and provide legal justification of IP and DNS blocking at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level through a black list system. The government claims that the amendment would stop the illegal sharing of movies and music protected by copyright law.

Although IPO has stressed that the Internet service providers will only block overseas online platforms which are “specifically designed for copyright infringement activities” or websites which have “obviously violated copyrights,” such as Megaupload, the authorities will target online platforms that enhance peer-to-peer transmission including Bit Torrent, Foxy, and FTP sharing.

The Taiwanese government proposal is similar to the United States bill, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which was suspended last year following criticism from companies and civil society groups asserting that the legislation would threaten online freedom of expression and information flow. If the Taiwanese copyright amendment is implemented, the Island will have a mechanism that blocks and filters away “illegal websites” that host material that infringes copyright laws. This could be detrimental to sites like YouTube, where users regularly upload videos that may violate copyright laws. Although the company has a system for removing these videos, a law like this could lead to the site being blocked altogether.

Many Taiwanese find the proposal backward and contrary to the principle of an open society. Blogger I-Chen Tsai explained [zh] in Q&A format how the amendment has violated citizen's rights:

問：你是不是想看盜版？
答：不，我從不看盜版院線片，每個月平均進電影院兩次。我想捍衛的是一種價值。
如果今天政府找個理由，不經由法律程序，就能立即封掉任何境外網站。那麼，安個「言論影響國家安全」，就能立刻封掉「想想論壇」(hosted byAcquia)；安個「影響我國傳統市場秩序」，就能封掉「好魚網」(hosted byAmazon)；安個「錯誤引導年輕人就業觀念」，就能封掉「Mr. Jamie」(hosted by Media Temple)。
不管你做平台或電子商務，隨時暴露在歸零的危險裡，脖子上永遠架著經濟部的這把刀。你能接受嗎？
安個「侵權影片過多無法管理」，就能封掉 facebook (hosted by facebook)；安個「常被使用於傳送非法軟體」，就能封掉 Dropbox (hosted by Dropbox)。你能接受嗎？
這不是「盜不盜版」的問題，這是「侵害人民權益」的問題。

Q: Do you want to see pirated movies?
A: No, I never watch pirated movies and I go to the cinema at least twice a month to see movies. I want to defend a principle.

If today the government finds a reason to get around legal procedures for blocking foreign websites, some day, it could block Thinking Taiwan [a blog hosting platform] (hosted by Acquia) because it has threatened national security, or block fish.123 [an online shopping platform for fish lovers] (hosted by Amazon) because it has affected our conventional market order; or block Mr. Jamie [a platform for start-ups] (hosted by Media Temple) because it has misled our young people's attitude in their career development.

No matter if you are the operator of a platform or commercial business, you will be exposed to the threat of being blocked. The knife of the IPO is against your throat. Can you accept that?

Can you accept the blocking of Facebook (hosted by Facebook) because there are too many infringed movies or the blocking of Dropbox (hosted by dropbox) because it is frequently used for the transmission of illegal software? This is not a copyright infringement issue, it is an issue of the violation of people's rights.

Ching Chiao, the CEO of DotAsia, an operator of a top-level domain registry, believes [zh] that the amendment is a setback for democracy and offered an alternative solution:

但是, 封網站就是不對, 就是開民主倒車, 勞民傷財的豬頭政策. 有執行封網站政策的國家聯上的是Intranet, 而不是Internet. 封網站是現代國家邁入鎖國的第一步.

智財局若想以行政命令的方式, 用”管好ISP業者就能防堵侵權內容散佈”的思維, 無非是自亂陣腳, 落入了開民主倒車的困境中. […] 要求ISP以黑名單的方式封堵網站, 短期間可能有效, 長期下來必定會造成用戶體驗不佳, 或是用戶繞過ISP既定的路由模式, 自行訪問被封鎖的站點, 情況就如同大陸的網友進行所謂的”翻牆”來訪問Youtube, Facebook等政治敏感的網站.

智財局其實可以積極地對付侵權網站, 尤其是侵犯到我國著作權人經濟利益的網站. 網站的宿主可能是在台灣境內, 可能是境外. 網站使用的網域名稱可能是.tw, 可能是其他如 .com / .net的國際域名, 這些管理單位都有通報機制, 智財局建立起良好的通報和聯繫機制, 讓國內外業者來配合執法, 每年定期出國開會吸取新知新做法, 遠比替自己要到一個封網站落後國家的臭名來的強.

Blocking websites is wrong, it is a setback for democracy, and a stupid policy that wastes people's money. Countries which have implemented ISP-level blocking are turning the Internet into an Intranet, the first step for turning a modern country into a self-enclosed country.

If the intellectual property bureau wants to implement the policy with an administrative order under the rationale of “blocking copyright infringement by pressuring the ISPs,” it will fall into a trap. […] To request ISPs to block websites according to a blacklist may have some effects in the short run. In the long run, the users will be dissatisfied with their online experience and use circumvention technology to get around ISPs to visit the blocked sites, like what has happened in mainland China, they “jump the Great Firewall” to visit politically sensitive websites such as YouTube and Facebook.

There are other measures that could be utilized by the bureau to fight copyright infringement, in particular if the infringement has harmed Taiwanese copyright holders. Every website has to register under a top level domain, the domains can be .tw (local) or .com / .net (international); all of the top level domain registry has a notice system to communicate with government authorities for law enforcement. The IPO should spend more time communicating with the international communities rather than pushing through a notorious policy for ISP-level blocking.

CK Hung, a writer from collective science blog PanSci.tw, pointed out [zh] that most of the copyright-related legislation in Taiwan is serving US-based copyright holders’ interests and that the side product of the blacklist system is the favorite tool of a dictator for censorship:

臺灣的智財法律/檢警體系/教育系統所發生的智財保護政策或重大案件， 從來就是由美國的利益團體在主導的， 從來就不是在服務國內的著作權人。 還記得 Now.in 抄臺事件 嗎？ 主導者是 國際著作權權利組織 IFPI。 傷害無辜的獨立創作者不說， 就連正在談權利金的 國內著作權權利組織 MUST 的利益都受到傷害。 請告訴我這個行動保護了國內哪一位創作者的權利？

Most of the policies or incidents related with IP protection in Taiwan have been dominated by US-related interest groups. You still remember the police shutting down music platform Now.in (an online radio and podcast platform) last year? IFPI is behind the incident. The collateral damage has harmed many independent writers and the Music Copyright Society of Chinese Taipei (MUST) [as Now.in has secured initial consensus with MUST for uploading their music online]. Please tell me who in Taiwan can benefit from this kind of incident?

「以 IP 位址或 DNS」 的方式封鎖侵權網站， 這個封鎖黑名單不能公開， 因為一公開就更加替這些網站廣告。 這個清單會一直改變， 因為被封鎖的網站會搬來搬去。 具有這種特性的黑箱作業封鎖清單， 正是獨裁政府最喜歡的言論管制工具。

The blacklist for blocking websites at the IP and DNS level cannot be disclosed or else the list would make them more popular. The list will keep updating as the blocked sites will keep changing their DNS. Authoritarian states love these kinds of blacklists which operate in a black box to help them censor the Internet.

Briian argued [zh] that the policy goes against the emerging business model that is based on online sharing:

早就有研究指出盜版的存在對於正版的銷售有相當大的幫助，連台灣一堆唱片公司 […] 都搶著把自家歌手的 MV 搬上 YouTube 讓大家免費欣賞、免費收聽（以前都是網友私自分享的「侵權」行為啊）。而去年紅透全球的 PSY 江南大叔的騎馬舞也都是免費放上網路上讓大家看、讓大家聽，儘管在唱片的銷售方面可能無法 100% 賺到錢，實際上演唱會、商演與其他周邊的銷售，卻讓該公司賺到了以前的模式賺不到的更多的錢。更別說藉由分享的方式可能讓商品擴及到以前接觸不到的族群或國家、地區。

There is research pointing out that the distribution of pirated copy can enhance the sale of original copy. Even music companies in Taiwan […] now upload their singers MV to YouTube for free consumption (in the past, such kind of sharing was defined as infringement). Last year, PSY's Gangnam Style horse dance became a global hit because of free distribution and consumption online. Although the music company can't take 100 percent of the profit from record sales, it makes a huge amount of profit from PSY's global performance contract and other side products. The free distribution has help the company to extend the market to those countries and regions that cannot be reached before.

Concerned citizens have created an event page [zh] on Facebook to gather information and mobilize against the amendment.

Written by Oiwan Lam · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [en] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Youth media project Syrian Documents reported on his death, and Syrian news blog YALLA SOURIYA called him the “Spirit of Syria”.

The conflict in Syria, as well as other Arab Spring uprisings, has seen a rise in citizen journalists reporting from the ground on the ongoing war between the country's pro- and anti-government forces. Many have been detained, tortured, and even killed while trying to bring the story of the revolution to the world.

Children have also paid a terrible price during the conflict, with thousands killed during the violence so far.

Media activist Omar Qatifaan was 14-years-old when he was killed while covering a battle in Daraa, Syria. Photo from the Twitter account of ‏@RevolutionSyria

Another media activist recorded video of Qatifaan after he was killed. The footage was posted on YouTube by SyrianDaysOfRage [GRAPHIC VIDEO]:

Written by Rami Alhames · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [en] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

According to the government-run Bahrain News Agency, the “six suspects” where charged in five different cases “related to the misuse of freedom of expression and defaming His Majesty the King on Twitter.” It added that the six were “charged [with] misusing freedoms of expression and opinion publicly and remanded…in custody ahead of their trial.”

King Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa of Bahrain with US Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England. Released to the public domain.

According to the London-based Bahrain Press Association those sentenced are [ar]:

المحكمون بالسجن في #البحرين بتهمة إهانة الملك في #تويتر هم: المحامي مهدي البصري، محمود طارش، محسن عبدعلي، حسن عبدعلي، حسن عبدعلي، عمار مكي.

@BahrainPA: Those sentenced to prison with the charges of insulting the king on Twitter are: lawyer Mahdi Al Basri, Mahmood Taresh, Mohsin Abdali, Hassan Abdali, Hassan Abdali and Ammar Makki.

The name Hassan Abdali appears twice and Global Voices Online cannot verify whether it is two separate people or a mistake. A query by Global Voices remained unanswered at the time of writing this post.

The association added:

@BahrainPA: BPA: [we] consider these sentenc[es] unfair provisions that violate the freedom of Expression

Meanwhile, the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights said that five Twitter users have been sentenced to a year in prison – and called for their immediate release:

The Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR) demands:

1. the immediate release of those who were arrested due to freedom of opinion and expression and to drop all charges against them;
2. put an end to the restrictions against social media in Bahrain;
3. protect the free exchange of information on the Internet and not restrict it.

The sentencing sparked criticism online.

Bahraini Freedom Prayers sees the sentences as a threat to silence other dissidents:

@FreedomPrayers: Last year twitter users sentenced to 6months. This year the offering reached 1yr. If the rest didn't shut up, next it will be 5yrs. #Bahrain

From Cambridge, UK, author Toby Matthiesen tweets:

@TobyMatthiesen: Bahrain court jails 6 tweeters for a year for “insulting” the King. Another sign of GCC trying to limit Twitter impact

And researcher Marc Owen Jones challenges:

@marcowenjones: They couldn't arrest everyone if they all insulted the King on Twitter. Or could they…? #Bahrain

Written by Amira Al Hussaini · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [en] · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Senegalese authorities have expelled Chadian journalist and blogger Makaila Nguebla, an opponent of his country's President Idriss Déby [en] who has ruled Chad for more than two decades, to neighboring Guinea after refusing to grant him political refugee status.

Nguebla, who had lived in exile in Senegal's capital city of Dakar since 2005, was deported on May 8, 2013. He settled in Senegal after being arrested in Tunisia in 2005; thanks to international pressure, Tunisian authorities did not deport him back to Chad, as he explains in this YouTube video:

Global Voices had the opportunity to interview Nguebla by phone after he was expelled. He began by telling the story of his transfer to Conakry, the capital city of Guinea:

Mes ennuis ont commencé le lendemain du départ du ministre de la Justice tchadien Jean-Bernard Padaré au Sénégal où il était venu rencontrer les autorités en vue du procès de l’ancien président tchadien Hissène Habré. Jean-Bernard Padaré a rencontré le ministre de la justice et chef de l’état sénégalais seul sans la présence d’aucun autre officiel tchadien. Il a quitté Dakar le dimanche 5 mai. Le lundi 6 mai, la Division de la surveillance du territoire sénégalaise (DST) me convoque pour le mardi 7 mai à 15H. Je me rends à la convocation en présence d’Amnesty International Sénégal à qui il est demandé de quitter les lieux. Je reste donc seul avec eux.
Ils me mettent dans un avion pour Conakry dans la nuit du mardi au mercredi. Une « maman » me voyant pleurer durant le vol me prend sous son aile : elle m’aide à passer les formalités de police une fois à Conakry – les autorités sénégalaises n’avaient pas informé leurs homologues guinéens. Je suis actuellement logé chez cette dame dans les mêmes conditions que les Guinéens : coupures d’électricité le soir et connexion internet avec une clé qui marche à peine.

Makaila Nguebla (MNG): My troubles began the day after Chadian Minister of Justice Jean-Bernard Padaré left Senegal where he had come to meet the authorities in connection with the trial of former Chadian President Hissène Habré. Jean-Bernard Padaré had a private talk with the minister of justice and the Senegalese head of state without the presence of any other Chadian official. He left Dakar on Sunday, May 5. Monday, May 6, the Surveillance Division of Senegal summoned me to their offices for Tuesday, May 7 at 3 p.m. I went to the appointment accompanied by members of Amnesty International Sénégal who were asked to leave. Therefore, I remained alone with them.

They put me on a plane to Conakry on the night of Tuesday to Wednesday. A “Mama” who saw me crying during the flight took me under her wing. She helped me through the police formalities once we arrived in Conakry–the Senegalese authorities had not informed their Guinean counterparts of my arrival. I am currently staying with this lady and I live in the same conditions as the Guinean people: power cuts in the evening and Internet connection with a key that barely works.

Senegal is known for having a stronger human rights record than much of West Africa, and has strong laws governing protections for asylum-seekers. Makaila explained to Global Voices that, like many other political refugees, this is what made him seek asylum in Senegal.

Global Voices (GV): How would you explain that Senegal, given its strong human rights record, gave in so easily on something that looks like pressure from the Chadian authorities?

Makaila Nguebla : Le conflit au Mali a donné une nouvelle autorité à Idriss Deby, notamment parce que l’armée tchadienne est la seule à connaître parfaitement le terrain et la seule des armées africaines à être en mesure de soutenir effectivement l’armée française. De plus, grâce à l’argent du pétrole tchadien, Idriss Deby a pu contribuer au financement de la campagne de Macky Sall au Sénégal. Dans les négociations sur le dossier Hissène Habré, il est demandé que l’on me livre aux autorités tchadiennes. J’ai été arrêté en Tunisie en 2005 je ne dois qu’à la pression internationale de ne pas avoir été expulsé vers le Tchad.

MNG: The conflict in Mali [en] has given Idriss Deby a new weight, especially due to the fact that the Chadian army is the only one to perfectly know the ground and the only African army able to effectively support the French army. In addition, due to the money earned with the Chadian oil, Idriss Deby was able to support financially [Senegal President] Macky Sall‘s [en] campaign when he was running for president. During the negotiations on the Hissène Habré case, it was requested that I should be handed to the Chadian authorities. I was arrested in Tunisia in 2005. I owe it to international pressures that I wasn't deported back to Chad.

GV: Do you feel safe in Guinea?

Makaila Nguebla : Non. J’ai rencontré le Ministre des droits de l’homme de la Guinée qui m’a dit qu’il ne peut pas garantir ma sécurité dans le contexte actuel de son pays. Depuis plusieurs années, la Guinée traverse une période difficile. Les élections législatives n’ont pu se tenir après les dernières élections présidentielles. Et il y a depuis plusieurs semaines des manifestations de l’opposition.

MNG: No. I met with the Guinean Minister of Human Rights and he told me that he could not guarantee my safety in the current context of his country. For several years now, Guinea has been in a dire situation. The general elections could not be held following the last presidential election. And there have been opposition protests [en] for several weeks now.

GV: You told me earlier that you are staying with the lady that you met on the plane. But where do you stand when it comes to your administrative status with the Guinean authorities?

Makaila Nguebla : Ce matin [samedi 11 mai], accompagné de membres du Conseil National des Organisations de la Société Civile Guinéenne et du HCR, j’ai pu introduire une première demande de statut de réfugié.

MNG: On Saturday, May 11, escorted by some members of the National Council of Organizations of the Guinean Civil Society and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, I was able to proceed with an initial application for political refugee status.

Meanwhile, the Senegalese blogosphere called for Nguebla's return to Senegal, especially on Twitter under the hashtag #FreeMakaila. Cheikh Fall, the blogger behind citizen media monitor Sunu2012, rallied behind Nguebla:

Non seulement ceci constitue une atteinte aux droits de Makaila Nguebla qui n’a aucune attache en Guinée et s’est construit sa vie au Sénégal depuis 8 ans, mais ceci est une atteinte à la liberté d’expression de tous les Sénégalais : si les autorités commencent à livrer des opposants aux régimes dictatoriaux, elles n’hésiteront pas à s’en prendre à leurs propres opposants sur n’importe quel prétexte.

Not only is this a violation of Makaila Nguebla’s rights who has no tie to Guinea and has built his life in Senegal for the past eight years, but this is an attack on freedom of speech for all Senegalese: if the Senegalese authorities are starting to deliver opponents to their dictatorial regimes, they will not hesitate to go after their own opponents under any pretext.

The Senegalese government issued a statement three days after Nguebla was expelled through its spokesman, saying:

Sa présence était simplement tolérée. Mais sous certaines conditions : qu'il s'abstienne de faire un certain nombre de choses et de déclarations que le gouvernement sénégalais estime contraires à sa volonté de vivre chez nous.

His presence was merely tolerated. But under certain conditions, to refrain from doing a number of things and statements that the Senegalese government considers contrary to his desire to live among us.

African Twitter users quickly responded. Fall (@cypher007) noted:

@cypher007: « Situation irrégulière, Présence tolérée sous conditions … » Depuis quand un statut pareil existe au #Sénégal?

@cypher007: “irregular situation, presence tolerated under certain conditions …” Since when does such a statute exist in #Senegal?

User “wirriyamu2011″ (@wirr2011) theorized in a series of nine tweets that the Senegalese government has deliberately unsettled Nguebla for eight years in order to be able to pressure him if necessary.

BBC journalist Yacouba Ouédraogo (@Bambyam) replied to one of those tweets, referencing former leader of Chad Hissène Habré, whose rule was characterized by widespread atrocities but was allowed to live in Senegal for years after he was deposed:

@Bambyan: Quand on a offert le gîte à Habré et à mains ensanglantées, on peut continuer à “tolérer” un parleur.

@Bambyan: If you offered Habré a shelter despite the blood on his hands, you can go on “tolerating” a talker.

Several Twitter users found it ironic that the government spokesman [en], Abdoul Latif Coulibaly, holds the position of Minister of Good Governance. Previously a journalist, Coulibaly was persecuted under former President Wade, a leader who faced numerous allegations of corruption and civil liberties violations from critics and journalists including Coulibaly. Twitter users lamented the fact that this former leader in exposing government wrongdoing has been reduced to such shameful practices.

Written by Anna Gueye · Translated by Global Voices · View original post [fr] · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper