On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 01:53:41 AM +0700, Michel Bauwens wrote:
Hi Marco,
I don't think that article is understandable for outsiders, but if you want to write something on it for the p2p blog, feel free!
Michel, sorry to have left this unanswered. The main reason why I didn't answer earlier is that I was hoping to have something new to report about that online-censorship-disguised-as-copyright-protection proposal:
Note: practically the same thing is happening now in Italy, see my post here: http://stop.zona-m.net/2011/07/agcom-how-many-italians-realize-who-is-its-re...
but now, one month later, the main thing to report is that there is, IMHO, nothing definite, just even more confusion than in early July: what will the complete rules be? who will approve them, will they listen, or at least pretend to listen, to outside advice? Above all, will they be applicable (ie a concrete danger) or so twisted to fade away into oblivion? Not clear. Of course, it <may> depend (insert sad grin here) on the fact that right now all of Italy is more or less frozen at (not) looking more serious and urgent realities... Apart from this, surely it's my fault (I mean it!) but I honestly have problems to see where exactly the problem you mentioned is:
I don't think that article is understandable for outsiders
The gist of that post of mine is: AGCOM, the Italian Communications Authority, should issue a new set of rules to enforce online copyright protection. Synthesizing from some excellent articles in Italian by lawyer Guido Scorza, a lawyer who closely follows these issues: AGCOM (that is not a Court of Law!) would self appoint itself as a sheriff entitled, by a code written only by AGCOM and media industry lobbies, to shut down or make unreachable from Italy, without real investigation or appeal, any website that they consider guilty of copyright violation. According to current laws, AGCOM has no legal standing whatsoever to implement this. My (Marco) opinion is that: The real goal of rules like these, or at least their most dangerous effect, has nothing to do with protecting the gains of the media industry and it surely won’t be “small personal websites” (assuming such a definition still makes sense today) to lose. The proposed rules are physically impossible to apply to achieve their _declared_ goal: however, AGCOM and friends don’t really care because their real goal is not defending copyright and TV royalties: it is only to have enough legal tools to quickly shutdown whoever creates political problems. Wasn't this clear? Of course there's no problem to put on the blog this excerpt, but I'm not sure atthis point if what I meant is clear. Marco -- Digital Citizenship basics: http://mfioretti.com/node/129