EU admits - Telecoms Package is copyright law
-
Author: Monica Horten
-
Published: 22 October 2010
The European Commission has made the first public admission that the Telecoms Package is part of the legal framework for IP enforcement. What does it mean for ACTA?
Regular readers of iptegrity.com will know that for the past two years I have consistently argued that the Telecoms Package contained provisions for copyright enforcement.
A similar analysis was made by others, including the citizens group La Quadrature du Net, who campaigned against the Telecoms Package.
During the passage of the Telecoms Package in the European Parliament, there were denials, lies, and cover-ups - or just plain
silence. Citizen campaigners were accused of "scare-mongering". The provisions themselves were written in obscure text and tucked into places where they were not expected to be. The EU powers-that-be did not want the truth of what they were doing exposed. The aim was to raise doubts, and soften the opposition.
We can see the results in the UK's Digital Economy Act, and the French Hadopi law.
Now, in a press release from DG Trade on the almost "final" version of ACTA (note that some important points have NOT been agreed) the European Commission sets out the IP enforcement legal framework for Europe. Last but not least on its list of directives, is the Telecoms Package - the Universal Services and Users Rights directive, and the Framework directive:
European IPR enforcement legislation includes the:
- Enforcement of IPR Directive;
- IPR Customs Regulation
- Copyright in the Information Society Directive
- E-commerce Directive
- Data Protection Directives
- Telecom Reform package of 2009, including the regulatory framework forelectronic communications.
We face a similar situation with ACTA. Tucked away in obsure texts, are some quite damaging provisions which the European Commission is trying to cover up. (See also my previous articles with analysis).
At least, with the Telecoms Package, legislators had some opportunity to build in safeguards against abusive practices, and the outcome is Article 1.3a of the Framework directive. Whilst it may not be as comprehensive as might have been wished, at least it is there. It is an instruction that due process - a prior, fair and impartial hearing - must be followed in all cases where Internet users are to be sanctioned for copyright infringement.
In ACTA, there is no "Article 1.3a". And therefore no safeguard against privately operated justice.
In a strange sort of way, we must thank the team at DG Trade for clarifying the position of the Telecoms Package under Europe's IP enforcement framework - but there is a need to be ever-vigilant against their too-ready accedence to ACTA.
And the ongoing attempts to deny, lie, and cover-up.
---
DG Trade press release on ACTA October 2010
For the full story of the Telecoms Package, see my book The Copyright Enforcement Enigma: Internet politics and the Telecoms Package
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2009) EU admits - Telecoms Package is copyright law http://www.iptegrity.com 23 October 2010 .
-
Article Views: 42721
IPtegrity politics
- Social media ban for kids: simple message, tough choices
- How could they ban X?
- Grok AI images: can compliance be enforced?
- AI and copyright – an author’s viewpoint
- UK climb-down over Apple back-door was foreseeable
- Copyright wars 3.0: the AI challenge
- Why would the UK take on Apple?
- What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy analyst: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Social media ban for kids: simple message, tough choices
- How could they ban X?
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?

