Informationoverlord

I was amused as always reading the latest Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin when they were describing the latest code breaches by Bang Babes channel, Tease Me.

This broadcast featured a presenter wearing fishnet tights and a skimpy all in one“body” with a g-string back. Her breasts were exposed but with black plasters over her nipples. At various times during the broadcast the presenter adopted sexual positions, including lying on her back with her legs wide open to camera and kneeling on all fours bending over with her buttocks close to camera. While in these positions the presenter repeatedly carried out a number of sexually provocative actions

Why was it when I read this the only thing I could think of was this …

Could .XXX be coming to an internet domain near you soon? That will certainly be the hope of the ICM Registry following a ruling by the ICANN Independent Review Panel. In the Panel’s first ruling since the process was introduced six years ago the panel ruling 2-1 that ICANN should revisit its decision to refuse ICM’s application for a .XXX domain. The panel found ICANN”s handling of the .XXX application was in violation of ICANN’s Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation, as well as international and California law.

Attempts to introduce a .XXX domain have been going on since 2000 when ICANN first opened up applications for a proof of concept plan to add new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs). Falling at the first hurdle then, it was back in 2004 as one of 10 applicants as a sponsored Top Level Domain (sTLD). At this time ICM seemed to have some level of support both from those within the industry and those within the US government.

ICANN gave preliminary approval to the domain on 1 June 2005, and then entered into commercial and technical negotiations with ICM. ICANN found itself under intense political pressure to turn down the domain. The US Government, which was initially in favour of the domain changed its position following a number of US family and child protection groups attacking the proposal, and several conservative groups campaigning against the domain due to concerns that it would legitimise pornography. Several other governments also expressed some concern over the domain. The power of the US in this matter was highlighted by the fact that even had ICANN approved the domain, their decision could still have been blocked by the US Commerce Department.

This lead ICANN to delay making a final decision twice. Then in January 2007 ICANN decided to revisit the issue, asking to additional changes to be added to the proposed agreement with ICM and then re-examining the sponsorship criteria in particular whether ICM could still demonstrate that the community the domain was supposed to support, actually supported its creation.

In March 2007 in what looked like the final nail in the coffin of .XXX, the ICANN board once again rejected the establishment of a .xxx top level domain (sTLD). The vote was 9-5 with a single abstention, that of CEO Paul Twomey. ICANN’s official position was that “there are credible scenarios that lead to circumstances in which ICANN would be forced to assume an ongoing management and oversight role regarding Internet content, which is inconsistent with its technical mandate”.

Paul Twomey said the decision was not political. “The heart of the decision today was not driven by a political consideration.” Not many people outside of ICANN – even those like me who were against the creation of the domain [For the record my objection had nothing to do with the concept of an xxx domain , and was more to do with the process for granting domains and the question of whether additional gTLDs and sTLDs of any kind were actually needed. My article ‘ Do we really need more gTLDs?’ Electronic Business Law (2005) 7 EBL 6, 11 explains my thinking at the time.] - were convinced with the arguments put forward for rejecting ICM’s application.

Some inside ICANN also agreed things didn’t feel right. Professor Susan Crawford, stated “I found the resolution adopted by the Board (rejecting xxx) both weak and unprincipled. I am troubled by the path the Board has followed on this issue since I joined the Board in December of 2005. I would like to make two points. First, ICANN only creates problems for itself when it acts in an ad hoc fashion in response to political pressures. Second, ICANN should take itself seriously as a private governance institution with a limited mandate and should resist efforts by governments to veto what it does”

She added: “We should be examining generic TLD applicants on the basis of their technical and financial strength, and we should avoid dealing with “content” concerns to the maximum extent possible.”

Fast forward three years and the review panel seems to agree that ICANN made mistakes in this case. The key finding was that ICANN’s decision to reconsider the sponsorship criteria, once it had already found them to have been met did not follow its own documented policy. The Panel accepted that as ICANN was bound by a ‘duty to take account’ of views of governments and whilst recognising the government pressure on ICANN was very influential it found it unclear if this pressure was decisive in ICANN reaching its decision pointing out that had ICANN simply yielded to such pressure it could have disposed of ICM’s application earlier.

The panel also found grounds for questioning the neutral and objective performance of the board in that it seems that the ICM registry was held to a standard not imposed on any other sTLD or gTLD applicant - in short one relating to policing content.

ICANN did secure one important victory and that was a ruling that the Independent Review Process, and therefore the panel’s decision is advisory and non-binding, meaning that it does not legally have to do anything about the ICM application. Interestingly the one dissenting opinion totally backed ICANN’s actions and claimed the “majority opinion will undermine the governance of the internet community by permitting any disgruntled person, organization or governmental entity to second guess the administration of one of the world’s most important technological resources.”

What will happen next? Watch this space.

The UK parliament’s joint committee on human rights have published a report criticising the government’s attempts , through the Digital Economy Bill, to tackle illegal file-sharing. They say the bill – as currently drafted - may create over-broad powers, and that some provisions in the Bill are not specified in enough detail to ensure that they will operate in a way which does not risk a breach of individual rights.

The committee looked at the bill and the Explanatory Notes and Human Rights Memoranda. The Committee points out that The Explanatory Notes to the Bill provide a basic explanation of the Government’s view that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and that the supplementary Human Rights Memorandum accurately identifies a number of relevant human rights issues. However they found that the substance of the analysis in the memorandum adopts practices they had previously criticised – namely relying on Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to justify their view that broad discretionary powers in a Bill or in secondary legislation will operate in a way which is compatible with human rights. “On the issue of online copyright infringement: the Memorandum does not contain much detail in its analysis of a number of rights; inaccurately identifies the proportionality exercise required; and fails to consider the arguments for justification in any detail. In addition, it relies on the Section 6 HRA 1998 duty on both the Secretary of State and OFCOM to argue that certain delegated powers are appropriate and will not be exercised in a manner which breaches Convention rights.”

Copyright infringement reports

The Committee find it unlikely that the issuing of such report by ISPs will result in a significant risk of a breach of individual internet users’ pivacy rights although they still call on the Government to provide a further explanation of why they consider their proposals are proportionate in the light of the fact that the copyright infringement report and any subsequent list may form the basis for the imposition of technical measures which will have a more significant impact. Here they were referring in particular to the lack of detail about the process provided on the face of the Bill re: a legal limit on the circumstances in which an ISP will be required to disclose a copyright infringement list – how many ‘alleged’ infringements and over what timescale.

Technical measures

The Committee correctly identify that meat on the bones in these proposals in missing from the bill and state that they do “not believe that such a skeletal approach to powers which engage human rights is Appropriate” They find there is potential for these powers to be applied in a disproportionate manner which could lead to a breach of internet users’ rights to respect for correspondence and freedom of expression.

The Committee point out that the entire technical measures mechanism will be created by a combination of secondary legislation and the “technical obligations code”. This means that a number of key features are undefined or extremely broad. They say it is all very well for the Government to say that individual copyright holders will provide evidence and will only seek sanctions against “serious infringers”, but neither of these things is outlined in the text of the Bill and that the standard of evidence expected or the standard of proof to apply has also not been clearly explained.

In their view the government still needed to address the following:

a) the precise intended impact of these proposals on individual accounts, including (i) whether technical measures may include indefinite suspension of an account and whether any service limitations imposed will be for a specified time-frame and/or renewable; and (ii) any potential impact the imposition of technical measures may have on the ability of a user to secure an alternative service;

b) the minimum criteria which would be required to be satisfied before the imposition of technical measures. The Government has indicated that technical measures will follow the issue of copyright infringement notices. It would be helpful if the Government could clarify whether (i) the imposition of technical measures will be subject only to the initial assessment of the copyright holder that it appeared that the individual service user had breached his or her copyright; and (ii) if so, would the same standard of evidence and proof be required for the imposition of technical measures as would be required for the issue of copyright infringement reports?

The Committee recommended that “the Bill be amended to make it clear that technical measures may only be introduced after an assessment by OFCOM of the necessity and proportionality of these new measures, taking into account the impact of the initial obligations code. In so far as it is possible, we recommend that the Bill should be amended to provide additional details on the minimum criteria for the imposition of technical measures, including the standard of proof which must be applied; the “trigger” for the imposition of such measures; and any relevant defences for service users who have taken all reasonable measures to protect their service from unauthorised use and who have not knowingly facilitated the use of their service for the purposes of infringing copyright.” Interestingly the government has already rejected proposed Lords’ amendments that covered just these things.

Right to a fair hearing

The Bill provides for provisions for appeals in codes, however the committee identifies there is little detail about the right to appeal in the case of copyright infringement reports or decisions about the inclusion of certain individuals’ information on copyright infringement lists. The committee recommends “that at a minimum, the Government must be required to confirm that the First Tier Tribunal will be able to consider whether an infringement of copyright has occurred and any defence that no infringement of a copyright holders’ rights has been committed or knowingly permitted by the account holder.”

Clause 17

The Committee has particular concerns about the new power in Clause 17 that allows for the Secretary of State to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 by secondary legislation. This provision that has been the subject of much criticism, and lead to government amending the text of the clauseto limit the power and to use the special ’super-affirmative’ procedure to ensure that any proposed changes would be better scrutinised by Parliament.

The Committee remained concerned that, despite this (then promised) move that Clause 17 remains overly broad and that parliamentary scrutiny may remain inadequate, and the government should explain why parliamentary scrutiny of any relevant human rights issues will be adequate without any power for Members of either House to propose amendments to the draft order.

In essence the Committee are not yet convinced that these parts of the bill do stand up to the government’s assertion that the bill is in full complaince with the ECHR. They also highlight a fact mentioned by many of the Lords’ in recent proposed amendments - that the detail of the bill is being sidelined to codes and SI’s instead of guarantees being made in the primary legislation: a trick this government has excelled in - see the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for a fine example of this.

Will the government listen? Probably not. They may, at some point, sacrafice clause 17 if it looks like doing so will guarantee the bill getting on the staute books before the election. Indeed a true cynic might argue that its place in the bill in the first place is designed purely to be a bargaining chip to ensure other measures get through mostly unscathed. We shall see.

Ofcom is consulting on a request by the BBC to amend to its digital multiplex licence (Multiplex B), to allow the BBC to restrict the availability of programme listing information for HDTV services only to digital receivers (digi-boxes) that implement content management technology.

The BBC first punted this idea back in September 2009 and was sent packing by Ofcom who told it – following a lot on negative response from a first consultation – that it needed more information about why this would be good for consumers if it were to stand any chance of approval.

It seems to have worked.

Ofcom states that it is now minded to approve the request finding that content management is a justified objective and that the ability to restrict the availability of EPG data to receivers which implement content management, represents the most appropriate means for securing the benefits of a wider range of HD content for citizens and consumers. The proposals also call licence holders for Multiplexes C and D, which carry a similar requirement to Multiplex B to provide EPG data in an open format, be also granted a similar licence amendment to allow EPG data to be broadcast in a closed format.

Before allowing the BBC to broadcast EPG data in a closed format under a licence amendment, Ofcom would require that the BBC implements: commitments to establishing an “appeals” process whereby viewers who believe their lawful usage is being impinged by the BBC’s use of content management can raise their concerns to the BBC; to work with the other public service broadcasters to create a ‘user friendly’ consumer guide to content management; to facilitate discussions between broadcasters, manufacturers, relevant industry bodies and consumer groups to develop and implement a good practice framework for the use of content management on the HD Freeview platform; and to give an undertaking that it will respect current usage protections under copyright law and any future extension of these protections, such as those recommended by the Gower’s Review of Intellectual Property – such as format shifting.

So what would this mean in practice?

Under the BBC’s proposals, broadcasters would be allowed to allocate one of three content management states to individual HD programmes:

Unrestricted copy: the digital receiver output is unencrypted and unrestricted copies of HD content can be made onto any digital device. There are no restrictions imposed on internet distribution.

Multiple copy: the digital receiver output is encrypted and unrestricted copies of the content can be made onto digital devices that are compatible with the copy management technology. Internet distribution is not permitted.

Managed copy: the digital receiver output is encrypted and only one copy of the content can be made onto a DVR and one external digital device which is compatible with the copy management technology. Internet distribution is not permitted

In all three content management states:

Ofcom’s current intention is also to make a requirement of the BBC being able to broadcast EPG data in a closed format under a licence amendment, that the free to air HD broadcasters on Multiplex B must only apply the minimum level of content management needed to secure content from rights holders.

This sounds good , but if the minimum level of content management that all broadcaster demand is ‘Managed Copy’ then that will be the minimum level of content management needed to secure content from rights holders – so, this is a fairly worthless statement.

Ofcom is clear that that content management cannot be applied to Standard Definition (SD) content, or HD content that has been converted down to SD, and that no restrictions are placed on the recording of HD content onto an DVR which is integrated with a receiver.

For digi-box/receiver manufactures what this means it that they would have to sign licensing deals with the BBC to gain access to Huffman Code look-up tables, to be able to ’see’ the HD content. This will be licensed on a royalty-free basis and on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRND) terms to any party who undertakes to comply with the content management standards agreed and specified by the Digital TV Group (DTG), and the BBC will be only be able to require content management technologies in receivers that form part of the DTG specification

Why the whole idea should be binned.

It’s all about piracy, right? Just as it was when DRM was stuck on CDs - and that worked SO well. Rights holders don’t want their HD content appearing online (unless they put it there of course) hence why ‘Internet distribution is not permitted.’ In the only option above that rights holder would choose. Very nice. The reality is that if someone want to put your content online on a bit-torrent site they will, and it only takes one person to do it. What this proposal does is wastes time and money for no net benefit to the consumer – nor in reality the rights holder – all for the sake of what exactly?

Also, when you look at, for example the Multiple Copy and Managed Copy options what is are “digital devices that are compatible with the copy management technology” ? Is a blank DVD covered by this? Is an iPod? Or are we, as I suspect, just going to do things that piss off the consumer?

The Rights Holders may say, look most people just want to record something and maybe watch in on a mobile digital device or burn a copy to disc – we’re not going to stop them doing that (although I’m sure they want to stop you doing either of these things), but if they say this – which could fit the description of ‘Managed Copy’ – the questions would be, well, they can already do that now. If that’s what the average person is going to do, then you don’t need any of this DRM in place at all. If instead you’re after the few who will burn off and sell or upload to the internet and share, then they’re going to do that whether or not your output is encrypted or not.

DRM applied in this way is, as it has been every time it has been applied, is a means of saying ‘we are going to treat you all like you’re potential criminals. …because that’s how we like to think of your our valued customers.’ This proposal is merely the latest example of it.

Sadly it is now a done deal. Once Ofcom is ‘minded’ it means it has ‘decided’.

The Digital Economy Bill was debated for the first time in the UK’s House of Lords this week.

As is the case with the bill as a whole the main points of discussion centred around the provisions to deal with copyright and p2p filesharing, indeed it even offered an opportunity for Peter Mandelson to practice his stand-up comedy routine: ” I recognise that this House is probably the one place in Britain where peer-to-peer file-sharing is associated more with passing notes in the Lords’ tea room than with piracy”

He hit out at critics who have suggested that the government’s policy to tackle the problem of illegal filesharing focuses on coercion, saying this “is quite wrong” and that “there is a primary role for education about the value of copyright, and a very clear obligation on the creative industries to get their act together and build business models that provide access to content at a cost that makes the risk of breaking the law an unattractive option.”

It seemed that some of the critics he referred to were in the Lords. Lord Lucas seemed to sum up the views of many when he questioned where was the stick for the entertainment industries to go with the truck load of carrots the government were providing: ” We also need to bear in mind that the problems now facing the industry are, to quite a large extent, of their own creation. The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them, seeking to punish them before thinking of how to serve them better. It has taken a decade for the industry to produce sensible alternatives to illegal file-sharing, and the fact that a generation of people have become used to an illegality comes down to the industry’s sluggishness. It is still slow. The football people have complained that there are sites where people can download streaming video of premier division matches. All that the companies offer is an annual contract for several hundred pounds. They do not offer per match deals at a reasonable price. If companies treat their customers in that way, they really should not be surprised that their customers try to get round the system.”

The presumption of innocence and due process where also high on the minds of some Lords, with Lord Whitty making the comparison with the theft of a physical product: ” the shoplifters who steal the actual DVD, which is worth a lot more than the rights of an individual download to the rights holders, have a fair trial and are subject to due process. They do not receive a letter, but, at the first attempt of enforcement, they are subject to due process. However, in this system, due process enters the equation only at appeal stage.”

Many of the Lords criticised the government for not delivering a draft of the code which would set out how the process for alerting people about alleged infringement and the appeals process would function. This, the Lords said, was the critical part of the provisions they were being asked to approve. Lord Clement-Jones expressed the views of several Lords when he said “the terms of the all-important initial obligations code must make it clear what those thresholds are. The thresholds must be proportionate and must not be set too low. We should know what they are before the Bill goes through the House.”

Other Lords questioned whether the internet provisions in the bill would actually do more to stifle the growth of a digital economy rather than growing it. Baroness Miller pointed to the potential effect on free wi-fi networks, pointing to the planned town-wide network due to launch in Swindon. She also agreed with Lord Lucas and questioned why the bill choose not to encourage new models but to protect the old models and why it “seeks to make one industry that has seen phenomenal growth, investment and innovation-the internet service providers-pay for the protection of another sector.”

One issue, however, united the Lords more than any other and that was Clause 17, which gives the government “a power to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in future, to reflect fast-changing technology.” Lord Razzall summed up the feeling on the clause – called a Henry VIII clause by Lord Clement-Jones - by stating:”Clause 17, which effectively gives the Government power to alter copyright law by statutory instrument, should be rejected. .. I just think that if we are going to alter copyright law it has to be done by primary legislation, rather than by statutory instrument.”

This is a view echoed by Google, eBay, Facebook and Yahoo who have written a joint letter to Peter Mandelson this week asking for clause 17 of the to be deleted from the draft law.

According to the four “Clause 17 – which gives any future Secretary of State unprecedented and sweeping powers to amend the Copyright, Design and Patent Act – opens the way for arbitrary measures. This power could be used, for example, to introduce additional technical measures or increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place…This clause is so wide that it could put at risk legitimate consumer use of current technology as well as future developments. We all acknowledge that new business models need to emerge to support creative content. They are inherently risky and entrepreneurs rely heavily on there being a consistent and stable approach to copyright enforcement. This clause would inject an unprecedented level of uncertainty in this regard. The industry as a whole had hoped that the outcome of Digital Britain would be a clear, workable set of principles by which the industry could operate. On the contrary, Clause 17 creates uncertainty for consumers and businesses and puts at risk the UK’s leading position in a digital Europe.”

The Bill itself has now goes into a Committee of the whole House of Lords where the first amendments to the bill will appear, and hoefully Clause 17 - for starters - will disappear.

Ofcom has published copies of 3G coverage maps for each of the UK’s 5 national 3G licence holders – 02, Vodafone,T-Mobile, Orange, and H3G.

It makes for a very entertaining read for such a short doc. Ofcom can’t state enough that you really shouldn’t rely on these maps for anything, all but saying they are worthless.

“coverage maps are based on theoretical predictions”

“The shaded areas on the maps indicate areas where customers have the possibility of making and receiving a call outside over a 3G network (but with no guarantee of being able to do so).”

” they are not suitable for assessing the quality or depth of coverage within the indicated areas”

” the data used to generate the maps was not collected for the purpose of examining detailed mobile coverage therefore the availability or quality of mobile services cannot be assumed from these maps”

And just in case you have not got the picture yet …

The maps are provided without any representation or endorsement made and without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, compatibility, security and accuracy.

Ofcom also point people to the mobile operators own websites saying that all operators produce their own coverage indicators which are likely to provide more reliable guidance to network availability in any given area.

Having looked on the operators’ sites it looks like Ofcom’s maps are fairly spot on. It is true you need to go to your mobile operator’s site to drill down to place/postcode coverage, but Ofcom’s maps do seem fairly accurate at showing how piss poor 3G coverage still is in the UK – especially if you haven’t decided to live in a city, or England actually. Frankly if you live in most parts of Scotland or Wales, the good news is you don’t need a 3G phone! And as for a 3G iPhone … on 02? hahahahaha.

Vodafone
02
Orange
T-Mobile
3

According to the BBC the French National Assembly has passed the Hadopi law (by 296 to 233) which will implement a three strikes rule that would cut internet access to anyone ‘caught’ illegal file sharing. A new state agency, the Hadopi, would first send illegal file-sharers a warning e-mail, then a letter, and finally cut off their connection for a year if they were caught a third time.

The move comes as the UK music and film industries are putting pressure on Lord Carter to add a similar recommendation to his Digital Britain report.

The French move is a risky one, as it puts it on collision course with the European Union. Last week the European Parliament (EP) reinstated one of its first reading amendments for the EU’s new telecoms regulatory package by reinstating an amendment that guaranteed that an internet user’s internet access could not be restricted without a court ruling. “no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities (…) save when public security is threatened.”

The French Law which does not involve the accused person having their internet access blocked by any judicial authority would immediately be in breach of that law (if adopted). However: EU telecoms ministers, who have a final say on the EU legislation, could reject the amendment at a meeting on 12 June, but this would delay agreement and adoption of the whole telecom reform package for months. Also, as chances are there will be 12-24 months for Member States to implement any agreed new telecoms package; and that the infringement process of the European Commission is tediously slow (Countries are still only just being found in breach of EU law for the European Court of Justice for infringing the telecoms framework that was in place before the current one (which was passed in 2002); regardless of what the Commission eventually decides on this issue France may still go ahead with this plan.

Russ at Ofcomwatch has alerted me to the fact that our communication regulator, Ofcom, has joined Twitter: no, really they have - here’s their page, and here is a page on the Ofcom site about Twitter. The first three posts are links to Ofcom press releases, site updates - but done with an attempt to make them sound a bit more interesting. It is too early yet to know if Ofcom (or their twitterer(s)) will actually engage in any two way conversations via Twitter, or if this is merely another way to get their content ‘out there.’ As such, I will reserve judgement on the move until a later date. I notice they are not following any PMs yet.

I will say that it does, once again, demonstrate just how much Twitter is becoming mainstream and THE ‘in thing’ for 2009 - in the same way Facebook was the in thing in 2008.

The government has published its interim Digital Britain report today. I have written a post on various aspects of the report at Ofcom watch, but here I want to just highlight the government’s announced approach to illegal Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing.

According to the report: “Our response to the consultation on peer-to-peer file sharing sets out our intention to legislate, requiring ISPs to notify alleged infringers of rights (subject to reasonable levels of proof from rights- holders) that their conduct is unlawful. We also intend to require ISPs to collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers (derived from their notification activities), to be made available to rights-holders together with personal details on receipt of a court order. We intend to consult on this approach shortly, setting out our proposals in detail.”

Now, I guess IP Minister David Lammy did not get to see a copy of the report before today, as he apparently told the Times earlier this week that legislation had been ruled out.

The government’s official response to its consultation on the way forward with this issue accepted that its preferred co-regulatory proposal was not going to work ” It is clear that it would be extremely difficult to develop a co-regulatory code which fairly represented the interests of all parties and was effective in addressing unlawful file-sharing.”

Interesting the government states: “There was general agreement among respondents that there was no one solution which would effectively tackle unlawful file-sharing. Rather almost all parties recognised there was a need for new sources of attractive legal content offering consumers what they wanted, in the format they wanted and at a price they were willing to pay.”

I can see a bright light, and it’s the light of the bleedin’ obvious. HELLO, my mom could have told you that was the best way forward - and several years ago.

However, due to the government’s plan A going out of the window that leaves us with plan B, which requires some legislation to specifically oblige ISPs to notify alleged infringers of rights (subject to reasonable levels of proof from rights-holders) that their conduct is unlawful. It also means a Code of Practice dealing with illegal file-sharing, supported by backstop powers overseen by Ofcom.

I Look forward to the consultation.

One final note: What I do love about government responses is the way they throw in stuff but don’t clarify anything, so we get the following:

“However, it is clear that rights holders are suffering financial losses, and that their losses due to unlawful P2P file-sharing are growing. To take three sectors as an example, in the UK in 2007, the music industry claimed losses of £180m; the film industry £55m; and TV £22m.”

Now, I’m sure the government and the entertainment industry want you to read those loses as being solely down to illegal P2P file-sharing, and not: bad business practice; poor products; lack of advertising spend and many other reasons. The only thing missing is the proof. Still, a minor point.

Regular readers will be aware of my position on the EU’s proposals for a term extension on the related rights in sound recordings. The Open Rights Group have produced this informative video explaining some of the reasons for my opposition to the proposals.