Colombian Law Sets Dangerous Precedent

Colombian lawmakers are studying the "Lleras law", the latest effort by that country to secure a free trade agreement with the United States by submitting to U.S. demands to comply with U.S. intellectual property laws.

The bill is currently being fast tracked with little input or consultation from Colombian citizens.

Under this proposed law, known by the name of his main author, minister of interior and justice Germán Vargas Lleras, anyone who uses the Internet "to share or download music, movies, books, articles, etc. without paying copyright fees could be penalised, even with jail."

This extends also to Internet service providers (ISPs) who facilitate media piracy, requiring them to "to block pages, P2P ports, suspend access to users and even cut off the service."

Critics of the bill, which was introduced in Congress on Aug. 4, consider it a draconian measure and say it will do little to curb piracy.

According to Geraldine Juarez of Global Voices, an international blogger network, the problem of copyright infringement "is not fixed with laws that prosecute pirates, it is fixed by adjusting prices, as well as patterns of production and distribution."

Similar kinds of copyright laws introduced in France, New Zealand and Mexico have rightly been met with public outrage.

They are more than just inefficient; they set a dangerous precedent.

The lack of public debate means that only the interests of copyright owners including big business are being considered.

While some would like to portray file sharing as mere theft, research by my own organisation, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), on media piracy reveals a much more complex environment where high prices often preclude many from accessing culture, making piracy not just attractive but necessary.

Worse, blocking file-sharing sites and suspending citizens’ access to the Internet run contrary to human rights principles. Restricting free access without due cause violates Colombian citizens' rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association.

According to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, governments have a responsibility not to interfere with access to the Internet.

Suspending the connections of file sharers or worse, putting them in jail should be a last resort and is an entirely disproportionate punishment for such a minor offence.

Most troubling is the law's reliance on Internet intermediaries for restricting access to file-sharing sites.

APC is strongly opposed to holding intermediaries liable in this way for what users do on their network.

Intermediaries are neither appropriate nor qualified actors to enforce copyright policy.

There are many legitimate uses of copyright material such as fair use for news reporting, political satire, and research.

Intermediaries should not be forced to block lawful content.

These sorts of laws and legal threats have created a chilling effect on freedom of expression in other countries, such as public Wi-Fi operators shutting down free access for fear of being sued by copyright holders under these kinds of laws.

Content blocking and suspending access should be a last resort and should only be enforced by court order.

Julián Casasbuenas, director of a progressive Internet rights organisation, Colnodo, confirms that like ISPs everywhere Colombia's ISPs will "not necessarily have the ability to assess whether an injunction blocking legal content is valid, because their role is not and should not be to verify whether the content posted by their clients complies with intellectual property rights."

Such punitive approaches to media piracy are not the answer.

We must have an inclusive debate, one that considers all stakeholders and is informed by rigorous research.

It is not sufficient to merely transplant traditional copyright laws to the online sphere; there are fundamental differences that must be considered.

Restricting freedom of expression and association are not acceptable means for combating piracy, and intermediaries should never be tasked as the arbiters of our rights.

Rather than commit significant resources towards the enforcement of inappropriate and outdated copyright laws, we need a new paradigm with which to understand and address this complex issue.

* Joy Liddicoat is a lawyer, former New Zealand Human Rights Commissioner and coordinator of the APC Connect Your Rights! campaign to protect and promote human rights on the Internet.

The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1.990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open Internet to improve lives and create a more just world.