Opposition to such plans are widespread, but until recently, public opinion hadn’t been tested in a measurable way. Today we have a much clearer idea, as results from a YouGov poll commissioned by the Open Rights Group have been released.

A significant 68% of those surveyed felt that individuals accused of illicit file-sharing should have the right to a fair trial before their accounts were disconnected or otherwise interfered with as punishment.

Just 16% of respondents said they would be happy for Internet users to have their accounts automatically suspended once their ISP had received “a number of accusations.”

While 44% said the proposals would not influence their vote, just under a third of respondents (31%) said they would be “much less likely” to vote for a political party that endorsed disconnection from the Internet without a trial. Just 7% said they were more likely to support a party bringing in such sanctions.

In this digital age, Internet connectivity is becoming more and more important for us to carry out everyday tasks, and as time presses on we all becoming more and more reliant on our gateway to the online world. So just how would disconnection affect the respondents ability to carry out various tasks?

19% of respondents said their ability to work and conduct their education would be completely disrupted following disconnection, with 23% labeling the disruption as “fair”.

When the focus is placed on processes such as online shopping or home banking, 30% said disconnection would completely disrupt their activities, with an additional 43% calling the problem caused as “fair”.

Jim Killock, executive director at the Open Rights Group, feels that the government is out of step.

“Our conclusion must be that this is a politically unwise move, that will be unpopular and a vote loser for its architects,” he said, noting that such measures will fail to meet their objectives. “[They] won’t make a single penny for artists, or help online music businesses get off the ground,” he added.

While the Open Rights Group is aware why the government has gone down this “disastrous” route, Killock says they are not prepared to watch the rights of the people being taken away.

“The right to freedom of expression, a fair trial, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty: and for proportionate punishments, these are basic principles on which democratic societies are built,” he said.

Finally Killock is calling for citizens to write to their MPs to support Tom Watson’s cross-party Early Day Motion on file sharing, which was featured here last week on TorrentFreak.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The Directive, due to be voted on some time in the near future, will mainly be to the benefit of large record label, and not small artists and session players, as proponents claim. In a speech last month, though, Commissioner McCreevy countered that argument, saying “To that criticism can I say that the average annual pay-out might not appear significant to academic critics, but €2,000 (£1,760) extra per year is significant to an average session player.”

The reality though, is very different. Even EU backed studies have found significant downsides to any extension, with the only study supporting an extension coming from the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) – the British music lobby group. Even Andrew Gowers, author of the independent Gowers Report into ‘intellectual property’ has recommended against an extension.

Thus the Open Rights Group has decided to try and educate MEPs. It will be holding a meeting with them, to try and bring attention to the problems and negative aspects of the directive. It has also created the following video to explain to those that can’t be there.

The meeting is free to attend, and will include people with experience in the industry. If you’re interested in attending, details are available here

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The proposal is supposed to secure the pensions of long forgotten artists. In a statement, McCreevy said “I am not talking about featured artists like Cliff Richard or Charles Aznavour. I am talking about the thousands of anonymous session musicians who contributed to sound recordings in the late fifties and sixties. They will no longer get airplay royalties from their recordings. But these royalties are often their sole pension.”

According to the Financial Times, the proposal could come up to vote as early as this Wednesday, July 16th. Also up for discussion would be a plan to split up rights societies by the antitrust arm of the commission, potentially making rights societies compete against each other for the rights to collect royalties from artists.

While this would certainly be a better way to curb their less than philanthropic actions, if it comes at the cost of greater copyright, is it that beneficial to the 500 million citizens of Europe? There is a glimmer of hope though. Two commissioners are opposed to the extension plan; telecoms commissioner Viviane Reding and commissioner Antonio Tajan.

The copyright extension plans met initial scorn back when they were first announced in February, with groups like the Open Rights Group and the EFF launching a petition to have it blocked, as well as a website to deal with the issue. Nevertheless, McCreevy kept on going, and the proposal is now ready to be voted on.

McCreevy himself has his pension already planned from a former partnership in a chartered accountancy firm (and he has been in politics since 1977, so he clearly planned early). It is left to wonder then why he feels the need to legislate some sort of speciality pension for artists. If they decide to stop work at 25, why should they be paid for it past 75? If that has been their only source of income, why could they not have done as the hundreds of millions of other EU citizens, myself included, and planned for their retirement?

Commissioner McCreevy had not replied to a request for comment at the time of publication.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.