Information about http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/images/0/0e/Telecom_package.paper.monica.horten..28.june.2008.v5.pdf

Briefing on the Telecoms Package (Paquet Telecom) - DRAFT Written by…

Tags: 3 strikes, amendments, camri, enforcement measures, european legal framework, european parliament, european telecommunications, fundamental principles, horten, imminent changes, individual freedom, individual rights, july 7th, legal changes, phd research, privacy on the internet, public debate, riposte, telecommunications law, university of westminster,
Pages: 10
Language: english
Created: Mon Jun 30 16:21:09 2008

Display cached document

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Briefing on the Telecoms Package (Paquet Telecom) - DRAFT
Written by Monica Horten
University of Westminster, Communications and Media Research Institute (CAMRI)
PhD research: The Political Battle for Online Content in the European Union
30 June 2008

The `Telecoms Package' and the copyright amendments � a
European legal framework to stop downloading, and monitor the
Internet
Abstract

This paper considers how imminent changes to European telecommunications law will
permit the monitoring and blocking of websites and peer-to-peer exchanges by ISPs, in
a way that is currently not legally possible. These legal changes will also permit ISPs
to sanction users by suspending or terminating Internet access. And they are essential
in order for the French `riposte graduee' or `3 strikes' copyright enforcement
measures to be implemented.

The changes are a series of hidden amendments related to copyright, and contained in
the so-called `Telecoms package'. This paper argues that these amendments will
effectively erode the ISP's legal status of `mere conduit', which currently protects
individual rights and liberties on the Internet. It argues that the `mere conduit' status
should be preserved, and the copyright amendments rejected.

The proposed copyright amendments will result in the loss of individual freedom and
privacy on the Internet � in breach of fundamental principles of human rights law in
Europe. Ultimately, they could open the door to wider political or commercial
censorship, and this is the real danger of permitting them to get into law. The risk is
that this will happen without proper legislative scrutiny or public debate. The European
Parliament committees responsible for the Telecoms package vote on July 7th and the
Parliament as a whole will vote on September 2nd.

Monica Horten www.iptegrity.com monica.horten@iptegrity.com 01628 672155
Briefing on the Telecoms Package (Paquet Telecom) - DRAFT
Written by Monica Horten
University of Westminster, Communications and Media Research Institute (CAMRI)
PhD research: The Political Battle for Online Content in the European Union
30 June 2008

The `Telecoms Package' and the copyright amendments � a
European legal framework to monitor the Internet and stop free
downloading
Overview
The so-called `Telecoms Package' (Paquet Telecom) is a review of European telecoms law �
the law the governs how Internet service providers and telephone companies can operate in
Europe. It is currently going through the committee stages of the European Parliament and
important votes on it will be taken in July.

Telecoms law should have nothing to do with copyright, but entertainment industry lobbying
has resulted in the inclusion of a number of important legal changes that relate to copyright.
The changes are intended to bring an end to free downloading and the use of copyrighted
material on sites such as MySpace and YouTube. However, the consequence of these legal
changes heralds an even more sinister prospect of censorship of the Internet by corporate
organisations and/or the State.

The bottom line is that fundamental changes to the telecoms regulations are needed before
European governments can bring in "3 strikes" copyright enforcement rules similar to the
"riposte graduee" being implemented in France - these changes are hidden in the detail of the
Telecoms Package. Among over 200 amendments, is a core group of changes which
effectively incorporate copyright enforcement within the rules for European telecoms
operators and ISPs, and mandate regulators to oversee that they do it. Copyright enforcement
means, in real terms, that ISPs will be asked to monitor, block and censor content to support
rights-holders, and without any right of defence for the user or creator.

ISP 'mere conduit' status will be lost
ISPs will lose their legal status as `mere conduits' which was enshrined in European law in
the E-commerce directive to protect individual freedom. `Mere conduit' means they are only
responsible for carrying electronic data from a to B, but not for the content. Thus, they have
to date been able to argue succesfully against enforcing copyright, and regulators were
obliged to protect that legal position.

The copyright amendments to the telecoms package, if passed, will mean that ISPs have a
legal obligation to monitor copyrighted content and users' activity. Monitoring could involve
blocking users who are using peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing, or it could mean blocking
specific websites or web pages. The criteria for blocking would be related to copyright
infringements, as presented to the ISP by the rights-holder companies. This represents a key
change to the framework law which governs the ISP business. There is no provision for
legal oversight to determine what is legal or illegal ( i.e. infringing) content, or what happens
when a dispute arises. It is private censorship.

Regulation by stealth
There is evidence that the copyright amendments have been lobbied for by the US and
French film industries, to support their copyright. They have been calling on the EU to get rid
of the `mere conduit' status, on the grounds that that is an obstacle to copyright enforcement.
They also make it very clear in their written communications with the Commission, that
`copyright enforcement' means they will pursue `on a mass scale'i, Internet users who
download content, and they want access to personal data in order to do this.

The `Telecoms package' copyright amendments will achieve the rights-holders objectives by
stealth, without permitting proper Parliamentary scrutiny or public debate on a fundamental
change to the Internet. They have been included in the Commitee stages of the European
Parliamentary process, and although the texts are publicly available, they are long and
difficult to wade through and interpret. Many of the changes are so subtle - just a one-word
change - that only a legal expert knows what they are intended to mean. But most
importantly, because they are buried within a set of laws about telecommunications networks,
discussion about copyright enforcement and the Internet becomes a secondary discussion and
does not get the attention it needs.

Why we should protect `mere conduit'
The political issue here is that the `mere conduit' status of the ISP was put in place to protect
individual privacy and freedom. Once this change to telecoms framework law is in place,
`mere conduit' is effectively eroded, and this apparently small legal change will give
corporations and governments control over the Internet which they have not previously been
able to get. If it is legally possible for Internet content to be monitored and blocked to
support copyright infringement, what is to stop it being used for other forms of censorship,
including political purposes?

Under the current legal framework, we are protected from such censorship by the `mere
conduit' status, combined with data protection law. It is therefore vital to retain that `mere
conduit' status, in order to protect citizenship rights to communicate freely using the Internet.

And if we are going to make any changes at all to the ISP status, it must be properly and
publicly debated and go through the full legislative scrutiny in a transparent manner, so that
all stakeholders, including civil society, can input to it.

Why this attempt to change the ISP legal status?

Until now, the ISPs in Europe have been able to ignore content industry requests to chase and
sanction their customers who allegedly infringe copyright because they could always point to
the E-commerce directive articles 12 and 14. They could argue that they enjoy `mere conduit'
status ( technical neutrality ), and that they have no legal liability for content, and (in the case
of hosting companies and user-generated content sites) that they have no actual knowledge of
the content. And they could argue that governments could not ask them to monitor content,
under Article 15 of the E-commerce directive.

ISPs could also argue that data protection law prevents them from giving out users' personal
data, and similarly under data retention law. They explicitly had, under the law, no
responsibilty for content. They were conveyors of electronic signals only.

This esoteric legal argument has importantly protected the rights and freedoms of millions of
European Internet users. It has meant that the Internet was an environment in which people
were free to do what they wanted, try out new things and experiment. The Information
Society was able to grow, with consequent growth in jobs and employment, and cultural
diversity.

"Mere conduit" can be thought of in the sense of a road system � the ISPs control the roads �
manage the signals, signs, traffic flows, speeds, etc � but they don't care about the vehicles or
what's inside them. People are free to drive cars wherever they wish. The Telecoms Package
amendments � which typically take the form of a subtle alteration in the wording of a clause �

will effectively reverse that status. ISPs will be forced to care what colour cars are on the
roads, to stop cars at random and see whether there's any copyrighted content inside.

Nor will they be able to claim `no actual knowledge' of content. They will be forced to give
away personal data, and contractually obliged to tell their customers that content is being
restricted.

But the ISPs `mere conduit' status has annoyed the rights-holders � the entertainment and
music industries - who have been campaigning to get rid of it for at least two years. Their
campaign has been in the public domain, but strangely gone unnoticed.

If the copyright amendments are passed, the ISPs ability to argue against doing the bidding of
the rights-holders, is weakened, and indeed, it is removed. The "neutral " carrier status of the
ISPs, legally known as "mere conduit"ii will be effectively over-ridden, and the entire
telecoms framework law altered to support copyright enforcement.

Taken together with a weakening of privacy laws, this would result in a legal infrastructure
which supports censorship by the rights-holder industries, in direct contraction to European
Human Rights Law (ECHRiii).

Further, the current legal frameworkiv prevents governments from asking ISPs to monitor
traffic and protects their status as carriers or "mere conduits". This provision in EU law
which prevents governments from asking ISPs to monitor traffic, will also effectively be
over-ridden. This provision is in the E-commerce directivev, which is why governments are
having to co-erce the content and ISP industries into `voluntary' agreements. Until and unless,
the framework law is altered at European level, they cannot mandate monitoring of the sort
that is proposed under the `3 strikes' measures. If the copyright amendments in the Telecom
Package are passed, governments will have the legal framework they need to mandate such
measures.

This is why the French government had to get ISPs to sign an agreement, and why the UK
government's position � asking for a voluntary agreement otherwise they will legislate in
spring 2009 - looks rather hollow. The UK government is simply sitting quiet until the
European legal mechanisms are in place, whereas the French are pressing ahead.

In other words, the law which has protected the ISPs, has also protected us. The copyright
amendments which will alter the legal status of the ISPs will also cause citizens to lose
fundamental rights and freedoms to access and distribute data, and to have our privacy
protected.

How the copyright amendments shift the emphasis from `mere conduit'
An important amendment that sets up this shift emphasis are the addition of Point 19, in
Annexe 1 of the Authorisation directive, which will create a statutory obligation for ISPs to
enforce copyright. Other amendments will create an obligation for regulators to oversee ISP
enforcement of copyright and to restrict access to contentvi. When put together, it becomes
clear how the overall framework of law for telecoms operators and ISPs will shift away from
`mere conduit' and impose a liability for content on ISPs � how can they determine what
content meets the rights-holders'criteria for restricting access, and what doesn't, without
having a means of knowing what content is travelling across their networks?

Further copyright amendments serve to restrict the user's freedom to access and distribute
Internet content. ISPs will be told to to include contract terms which will make it legal for
them to terminate services on the basis of allegations of copyright infringement. They will
also be told restrict the scope of service provision, with the implication that content may be
monitored or blocked, and permit the right-holder companies to gain access to personal data
� and specifically, amend the data retention provisions to permit access by rights-holders �
something which was rejected in the Data Retention Directivevii.

In addition, there is an amendment, understood to have come from the Information Society
Commissioner Viviane Reding herself, which specifies that ISPs must incorporate into their
contract with end-users an undertaking to inform users regular about copyright infringing
material (Article 1 (12) point 6 of the new directive viii ).

Why the entertainment industries wanted the copyright amendments
There is evidence that the copyright amendments have been lobbied for by the US and
French film industries, to support their copyright. This is validated by their submissions to
the Commission's Creative Content Online consultation and in documents sent to MEPs.

Since 2006, the Motion Picture Association and Walt Disney were calling on the European
commission to amend what they called the `outdated' nature of the telecoms regulatory
framework. The MPA asked the EU to "seize the opportunity of the Telecoms Package
review for setting the ground rules for stakeholder co-operation to be both encouraged and
facilitated at the EU level". Walt Disney complained of the `impediments to co-operation'
that were raised by the ISPs. They also complained that they were limited to going through
the courts and were limited in the possibility for civil action. They were concerned with the
question of how to enable ISPs `to address abuses' at the same time as defending Walt
Disney's own interests, through `civil and criminal means'.

The International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI) � representing the music
industry, made it clear what they intend by `addressing abuses through civil means'. Any
solution `which only allows for a limited number of cases to be addressed each month' ( ie the
courts) `will not have the necessary impact' they said. They called for the EU to implement
measures which will address `mass-scale piracy' in a way which is `not overly burdensome'ix.

And the SACD, in a letter to MEPS in March 2008, stated that `the ISPs hide behind the
significant exemptions from liability in the E-commerce directive and the strong protection of
personal data in privacy legislation" and this is the reason why "they are abstaining from any
action in the fight against piracy on electronic networks". The SACD use this as the rationale
for an amendment to the Telecoms Package which would oblige ISPs to co-operate in the
protection of copyright.

What is the `Telecoms Package' ?
The "Telecoms Package" comprises 5 new directives, but for the copyright issue there are
two which are important. Amendments to the telecoms framework law are contained in one
bundle or dossier, entitled The Electronic communications: common regulatory framework
for networks and services, access, interconnection and authorisation ( Directives 2002/19/EC
to 2002/21/EC]). This bundle amends three original directives which together set out the
ground rules under which telecoms companies and ISPs may operate. These directives cover
the overall framework for telecoms services, the rules for business issues such as access,
interconnection and radio spectrum, and the rights and obligations towards society and their
customers, of telecoms service providers.

An important point that is stated in the framework text, is that telcos and ISPs are conveyors
of electronic signals. Content services are not intended to be covered by these directives. The
Framework Directivex encompasses conveyance of signals, facilities, co-location, rights of
way, the regulator's role, rights of appeal against regulatory decisions, mobile masts,
spectrum, and the European internal market for these services. Then we have the Access and
Interconnection Directive, which sets out how telecoms operators deal with each other and
provide access to users; and the Authorisation Directivexi which sets out specific terms under
which they may operate, and what regulators may ask of them.

The lead committee dealing with the Framework directive review is the Trade and Industry
(ITRE) committee. The rapporteur's report is from Catherine Trautmann. The Culture
committee has also produced an Opinion report, by the MEP Ignasi Guardans Cambo
(Guardans).

These directives are complemented by the E-commerce directive, which is not amended here.
But the concern is that the copyright amendments as outlined above, will fundamentally alter
the telecoms framework law, such that they over-ride the protection of `carrier status' in the
Ecommerce directive by default.

Amendments to the law governing user's rights on telecoms services are covered under the
new directive called the Electronic communications: universal service, users' rights relating
to networks and services, processing of personal data, protection of privacy, consumer
protection cooperation (Directives 2002/22/EC, 2002/58/EC and Regulation (EC) No
2006/2004). This directive amends two existing directives which set the rules for what users
can expect from ISPs and telecoms service providers. The Universal Service directivexii
specifies the kinds of services that user's have a right to access, and how those services will
be provided to them. The Electronic Privacy directivexiii deals with personal data and how it
will be treated on electronic networks.

The lead committee dealing with the directives that concern users' rights is the Internal
Market committee (IMCO). The rapporteur's report is written by British MEP Malcolm
Harbour. The Culture committee (CULT) has also produced an Opinion report, by the MEP
Manolis Mavrommatis.

Liability for determining `lawful'content
Whilst the Telecoms Package ushers in this significant change to the Internet, and grants the
right to determine what we can and can't see to major corporations, it does not provide for
any form of oversight on the process of content blocking or censoring. There is no provision
for an authority who would establish the rules.

Determining what is `lawful' and `unlawful' online content, in the context of the 2001
Copyright Directive, is not a simple process.Thus, if a film studio alleges that you are
filesharing copyrighted content, your ISP has to go on their word that you are indeed file
sharing and that the content is copyrighted. Or the ISP has to develop its own criteria. And
there is nowhere for the user to go, in case of dispute. Thus, the lack of regulatory oversight
only serves further to impose a liabilty for content onto the ISPs, and further erode the mere
conduit principle.

And in this context, there are a number of questions to be answered. Top of the list is who
decides what content is to be blocked?'. Who decides if to block by type of traffic (protocol),
by URL, domain name, or IP address? Who arbitrates the interpretation of the 2001 Copyright
Directive to determine what is and is not fair dealing under the exceptions? And in which
countries does that interpretation apply (because in spite of harmonisation, it will be different
for each member state)? Do we have a single market in content blocking, or do we remain a
divided Europe for this purpose?

It is clear that these organisations representing the entertainment and music industries, have
lobbied for the removal of the `mere conduit' status, and along with it, the right to monitor
users and get access to personal data.

The copyright amendments and the ISP status � in detail

College of commissioners amendments: Two amendments were incorporated by the College
of Commissioners, (and according to an interview with Europolitique, they were put there by
the Commissioner, Viviane Reding herselfxiv) Annexe 1, point 19 of the Authorisation
directive, which sets the ground rules for ISPs to operate in Europe, mandates ISPs to
comply with the IPR Enforcement Directive.

This amendment, when connected with two amendments to the Framework Directive is the
one which creates the most fundamental change in the ISP status. As above, the Authorisation
Directive sets the rules for the ISP and telcoms operator business. Annexe 1 is a list of
conditions which regulators may attach � is what Member States may oblige ISPs to do.
Point 19 states compliance with the Copyright Directive and the IPR Enforcement Directive.
This means that governments may impose a special condition on ISPs to enforce copyright
infringement. In practice, we know that enforcing copyright infringement means monitoring
of user traffic, and that goes against the E-commerce directive. So either we have two
conflicting pieces of legislation, or one over-rides the other. We make the assumption that it is
intended to over-ride the E-commerce directive.

The other College of Commissioners amendment is Article 1 (12) point 6 of the new directive
xv
which specifies that ISPs must incorporate into their contract with end-users an undertaking
to inform users regularly about copyright infringing material. This Article is the focus of
attention for the ISPs and telecom operators, but their attention seems to be focussed on
making it less vague. It can be interpreted in such a way that they have to inform about every
infringing item on the web � an impossibility � and leading to endless liability claims against
them. However, it should not be there at all. It is a supporting Article, putting in place a key
part of the overall framework for copyright censorship.

The Framework amendments: There are two crucial amendments, originally proposed by the
the Guardans (Culture committee) report on the new Framework directivexvi and now being
incorporated into the text for the new directive:

- a requirement on the national regulator to protect copyright. This is a fundamental move,
which along with Annexe 1, Point 19, seems to sew up the telecoms framework to enforce
copyright � regulators, operators and ISPs (Culture committee - Guardans - Opinion,
Amendment 19) .

- reinforces the framework, putting it into law that ISPs and telecom operators should work
with content providers, using the euphemism "co-operate". This amendment was written by
the French collecting society, the SACDxvii (Culture committee - Guardans - Opinion
Amendment 20).
In practice, "co-operation" means that the ISPs will monitor user traffic, block certain traffic
flows and content on behalf of rights-holders, and they are being asked to sanction their own
customers on behalf of rights-holders.

And, following further secret discussions in the European Parliament lobbies, it appears that
the Guardans amendments (19 and 20) have been added to the Internal Market � report as a
new amendment to Article 33 of the Universal Access directive. If the Internal Market
committee passes them, they stand to get into law.

The users rights amendments: Crucial amendments which cement the altered legal framework
for telecoms operators and ISPs were originally proposed in the Mavrommatis Opinion
(Culture committee), and incorporated into the lead committee (Internal Market) report for
the 7th July vote. If they are passed in this report, they stand to get into law. However it is
understood that back-room negotiations are underway and it is uncertain where they will
lead.

Restricting access and blocking content: the service may be restricted to "lawful" services
and may be blocked if "unlawful". By implication, this means that monitoring may be put in
place � how else will an ISP distinguish between different types of services? But it also begs
the question, who will determine what is "lawful" and what is "unlawful"? There is no
provision for regulatory oversight or intermediation in cases where there is a dispute � indeed,
there is no provision for users to dispute filtering or blocking of their content or their access.
There does also appear to be an implication that ISPs and web host companies will have to
have actual knowledge of the content they are carrying or hosting � in direct contraction of
the E-commerce directive. (Culture committee - Mavrommatis � opinion, Amendments 1,
10 and 11). The same language has appeared in a new and secretly negotiated compromise
amendment for a recital in the Internal market committee � Harbour - report.)

Personal data: ISPs may be asked to divulge personal data of their customers to rights-
holders. It is a partial implementation of the ECJ judgement in the case of Promusicae vs
Telefonica. The interpretation that is intended here is disputed among legal experts. The
Promusicae judgement may also be interpreted to mean that ISPs may not be obliged to
divulge personal data. (Culture committee - Mavrommatis � opinion, Amendment 4)

Data retention: two amendments have the effect of permitting data retention in support of
rights-holders � something that was rejected in the Data Retention directive.xviii Amendment
11 was inserted by the SACD.xix (Culture committee - Mavrommatis � opinion, Amendments
14 and 15)

User contract terms: new terms and conditions that ISPs will be mandated to place in users'
contracts. They stipulate what the ISPs will do in a case where an infringement is committed
and that ISPs must inform users of limitations to the service. This may imply that content will
be restricted or that the types of protocol the user may employ are restricted, eg Bit Torrent.
(Culture committee - Mavrommatis � opinion, Amendments 7 and 8)

To discuss the issues raised in this paper, please contact the author. Monica Horten ia
carrying out PhD research in European communications policy at the University of
Westminster. Tel: +44 (0) 1628 672155 Website: www.iptegrity.com

References:
This document has been informed by written communications to the European Commission,
Consultation for Content Online 2006, and Consultation for Creative Content Online 2008,
including those from the following organisations: Motion Picture Association, IFPI, The Walt
Disney Company, SACD, Eurocinema, GESAC, SACEM, FERA, PPL-VPL, MCPS-PRS,
EuroISPA, ETNO, BT, France Telecom, AFA, 3Group, Intel, Edima, Yahoo, Google, GSMe,
BEUC.
All of the above documents are available on the European Commission website.

The SACD Mars 2008, Examen de la revision du � paquet telecom � par le parlement
europeen is available here:
www.laquadrature.net/files/note-sacd-paquet-telecom.doc

All of the European Parliament Opinions and Reports mentioned are available on the
European European Parliament website.

Industry, Research and Energy Committee report (Draftsman: Catherine Trautmann) on the
proposal related to a common regulatory framework for electronic communications, access,
interconnection and authorisation . Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/720/720897/720897en.pdf

Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee report electronic communications,
networks and services, universal service and privacy
(Draftsman: Malcolm Harbour) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-404.659+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

Culture and Education Committee opinion on electronic communications, networks and
services, universal service and privacy (PE404 �747.v02-00)
(Draftsman: Manolis Mavrommatis http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-404.747+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

Culture and Education Commitee opinion on the proposal related to a common regulatory
framework for electronic communications, access, interconnection and authorisation
(Draftsman: Ignasi Guardans Cambo (PE404 �775.v02-00)

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-404.775+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

i
IFPI submission to the DG Information Society Consultation for Creative Content Online 2008
ii
Directive 2000/31/EC, Article 12
iii
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 Privacy, Article 10 Right to access and distribute
information
iv
E-commerce Directive 2000/31/EC Article 12
v
Directive 2000/31/EC, Article 15 . See also Recital 40.

vi
Two amendments (12 and 13) in the report from MEP Guardans which amend the Framework
directive and the proposed re-write of these amendments in the IMCO committee report.
vii
Directive 2006/24/EC
viii
COM (2007) 0698-en
ix
MPA, Walt Disney and IFPI submissions to the DG Information Society Consultation for Content
Online 2006, and the Consultation for Creative Content Online 2008.
x
Directive 2002/21/EC
xi
Directive 2002/20/EC
xii
Directive 2002/22/EC
xiii
Directive 2002/58/EC
xiv
Europolitique, 14 Novembre 2007, T�l�communications :Le nouveau � paquet t�l�coms � suscite
de tr�s vives r�actions
xv
COM (2007) 0698-en
xvi
COM (2007) 0697
xvii
SACD, Mars 2008, EXAMEN DE LA REVISION DU � PAQUET TELECOM � PAR LE
PARLEMENT EUROPEEN
xviii
ibid iii
xix
ibid xi

Monica Horten www.iptegrity.com monica.horten@iptegrity.com 01628 672155