by Irma Arkus

Newly proposed rules in EU will enable broadband providers to manipulate users in an unprecedented ways.

Under the suggested Telecoms Package, Internet Service Providers will be able to “limit the number of websites you can look at, and to tell you whether or not you are allowed to use particular services.”

Similarly to Canadian ISPs, the EU ISPs are attempting to package more expensive “consumer options” in order to manipulate use of content at a far greater degree than ever before.

In this case, the ISPs will be able to restrict what users may or may not access. The type of “walled garden” approach will allow access to only certain content, rather than Intenet as we know it.

The Blackout Europe warns of the legislation, and describes in terms of corporations and governments reasserting their control over what citizens can and cannot do:

“It means that the Internet will be packaged up and your ability to access and to put up content could be severely restricted. It almost certainly means an end to free sharing online. It will create boxes of Internet accessibility, which don’t fit with the way we use it today. This is because Internet is now permiting exchanges between persons that cannot be controled or “facilitate” by any middlemen (the state or a corporation) and this improve the citizen life but force the industry to lose power and control. That is why they are forcing government to act those changes.” (Blackout Europe)

What is the reason for this type of legislation?

Why Copyright, of course.

This latest attempt of government interference on behalf of corporate interests is naturally tied to attempts to control piracy. However, issues of free speech, freedom of information, for that matter, consumer or any of civil rights that may be impinged upon, are undermined by the proposed legislation.

Additionally, any imposed limitation to Internet access will ultimately result in that dreaded economic slowdown of new enterpreneurs. But we will end up saving the industry dinosaurs from extinction.

Read more here.

Thanks to Jelle for the tip.

by Irma Arkus

The breakout news of the day is that judge who presided over the Pirate Bay trial, has been found to be a member of numerous pro-copyright groups. According to TorrentFreak, the judge belongs to a rather pro-industry exclusive club, whose members are also Henrik Pontén, Monique Wadsted and Peter Danowsky.

Who are these people? What do these names represent?

Well, Henrik Ponten, for example, is a member of the Svenska Antipiratbyrån, or in translation, The Swedish Anti-Pirate Bureau, a lobby group representing large corporations and media industry.

While the judge, Tomas Norström, is obviously not working as a lobbyist, he does however participate in groups affiliated with the lobbying efforts.

Tomas Norstrom is an active participant in Swedish Association of Copyright (hello Henrik Ponten, you again!), an organisation working towards “tougher copyright laws,” as well as holding fun think-tank sessions, such as Nordic Championships in Intellectual Property Rights Process Strategies. Another prominent member of this organisation is Peter Danowsky, the prosecution lawyer in the Pirate Bay case, representing music and film industry interests.

But that is not all. Tomas Norstrom is also an active member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, as well as The Internet Infrastructure Foundation.

In other words, the presence of the judge in this case is extremely biased, and riddled with ethical concerns. The ombudsman at the Stockholm court expressed his dismay at the fact that Norstrom has not take a chance to recuse himself from the case on the grounds of a possible perception of a bias, especially since the case has international prominence, as well as political and social repercussions.

According to Norstrom, his participation in these extremely polarized groups, associated with heavy industry lobbying, somehow did not constitute a bias: “I made the judgment that the membership in the Association for Copyright did not constitute a bias that would rule me out from participating in the case. The association works to promote knowledge of copyright.”

This revelation has prompted the defense to start the process of requesting a retrial.

The bias is, by association, definitely present in the case of judge Tomas Norstrom. However, being that this is not an episode of Law and Order, but rather grittier, real life drama, the courts have to actively decide that Norstrom has been in fact biased. And that may be more difficult than one may initially suspect of.

In case of a successful appeal, the bias of the judge would dismiss the current verdict for the Pirate Bay Four. Currently, they await a one year incarceration, and are expected to pay a sum of $3.6 million in damage fines.

But that does not mean that the case itself would be dismissed. The Pirate Bay Four in that case, would have to endure a new trial.