Proposed UK File-Sharing Laws May Be Illegal, ISPs Upset 198
mindbrane writes "Once in a while, a sidebar will throw a lot of light on a difficult problem. The BBC has a short piece on British ISPs' anger over proposed new laws governing file sharing in the UK. The new laws would include cutting repeat offenders off from the Internet. Early response suggests such tactics would fail: 'UK ISP Talk Talk said the recommendations were likely to "breach fundamental rights" and would not work. ... Virgin said that "persuasion not coercion" was key in the fight to crack down on the estimated six million file-sharers in the UK. ... Talk Talk's director of regulation Andrew Heaney told the BBC News the ISP was as keen as anyone to clamp down on illegal file-sharers. ... "This is best done by making sure there are legal alternatives and educating people, writing letters to alleged file-sharers and, if necessary, taking them to court."' The article also mentions a statement issued by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills which 'proposes that internet service providers are obliged to take action against repeat infringers and suggests that the cost of tracking down persistent pirates be shared 50:50 between ISPs and rights holders.' Unsurprisingly, said rights holders are in favor of the idea."
1984! (Score:0, Insightful)
50:50 cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are the UK government getting into this? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is entirely a problem for the music and movie industry. Why are the government acting as their bitches against the will an freedom of the people who elected them?
You know what is next.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:50:50 cost? (Score:2, Insightful)
They should provide a service and be blind to anything on their networks.
OK - take that argument into some other industries:
Do you really think that the postal service should be immune if they carry a package containing methamphetamine? Even if they deliver it to a 13-year-old child?
Do you really think that a bus-line should be immune if they give a ride to a terrorist with a bomb in his back-pack on his way to blow up a kindergarten?
Do you really think that the phone company should be immune if they allow a 6 year old child to call a fetish phone-sex line?
Do you really think that a gun-company should be immune if they manufacture a weapon and a child accidentally shoots his friend while showing it off?
Please think about what you're suggesting before just blurting it out. Prosecute them all, let the gods sort them out.
P.S. - The first mod that hits me with a Troll will get a mighty pounding from my Whoosh hammer.
Re:Sith Mandelson (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:50:50 cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because ISPs have a sparkly magic wand that will simply make this dreadful internet business and its calamitous effects on the entertainment industry disappear in a puff in punitive smoke.
I mean, really. There was a time in this country when a 5 minute pop song meant something. It was a sacred institution, protected by copyright and ensuring the livelihoods of distributors across the land. Now any old miscreant feels he can whisk his songs backwards and forwards over those ghastly green tubes just like one sends emails or spreadsheets or power-point slides. Well you can't! Music is not supposed to be treated like that. There are proper channels for its distribution and the ISPs know they they aren't it!
It's clear that they're being malicious. I remember meeting their representative. Frightful man. He accosted me with technical clap-trap; data, broadband, packet inspection, encryption, legitimate uses, feasibility studies. I told him what I'm telling you now. If the Chinese government can block off their entire internet from the BBC, then surely you can stop young scruffs from downloading things they're not supposed to. And if you can't stop them then you should cut them off! He threw his hands up in the air and left, but I sensed defeat.
It's only a matter of time. We have petitioned the Her Majesty's Government, and they have responded favorably. Soon we will make these ISPs bring their customers to heel, and we will do it with the full force of the Law. Honestly, the attitudes and doomsdaying of some people on this never cease to amaze me. Just last week I was in conversation with a chap who felt too much restriction on the Internet was dangerous or some such rot.
As I said to him at the time: "My dear Norfolk, this isn't Iran. This is England."
Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:50:50 cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I do think they should all be immune. The PS shouldn't be "inspecting" my packages. They're private. They aren't paid to snoop. The bus service isn't paid to look in back packs and conduct background checks. The phone company isn't paid to check the ages of people on the handset. The gun company isn't paid to parent people's kids. You know who is? The police. In every single case it's the legal authorities who should be doing something (well, apart from parenting, that should be the parents). A private citizen could call them and say "hey, there's a package labelled "meth" that was just delivered to a kid," or "there's a guy wearing a sign saying 'I'm on my way to blow up kids and all I'm getting is entry to heaven'" or "Hey, there's this kid on a public phone talking dirty," or "There's a kid on the playground with a glock." So, yeah, private industries should be blind and immune to abuse of their services.
Re:50:50 cost? (Score:2, Insightful)
OK - take that argument into some other industries:
Do you really think that the postal service should be immune if they carry a package containing methamphetamine? Even if they deliver it to a 13-year-old child?
Yes. Are you suggesting that the post office be held liable for something that could not have known about unless they opened and inspected EVERY package? Are you suggesting that the post office in fact DOES inspect every package?
Do you really think that a bus-line should be immune if they give a ride to a terrorist with a bomb in his back-pack on his way to blow up a kindergarten?
Yes, they should be immune. Or again, should they inspect every backpack of every bus rider? Should every bus driver be an expert on detecting bombs?
The rest of your examples are equally invasive. You seem to want people to be responsible for things they can't possibly be responsible for without violating your rights and spending a lot to do it (which will increase your costs by a lot), lowering service, and treating every customer like a criminal. And in this case, for something that is difficult to put a value on, or know if it's even harmful to anyone.
Forego Copyrighted Material (Score:3, Insightful)
If a copyrighted work doesn't come with a fair license, don't consume it.
Simple fact is, as long as we keep feeding these trolls, they will keep biting our hands. It's not hard to give it up, particularly if you allow yourself the occasional dalliance. Prior to the Metallica/Napster debacle, I had built up a collection of more than 1,000 CDs. Since then, I have bought maybe two dozen CDs and one downloaded album. I think all the CDs were used.
Meanwhile I have more than 30 gigs of podcasts on my iPod, and another 30 gigs on my hard drive. All downloaded perfectly legally, and most of it is an excellent replacement for the lackluster material coming from the gated cloisters.
As an added advantage, I'm spending a helluva lot more time listening to educational material about hobbies I am interested in, and a lot less time sucking on candy-media.
Give 'em what they want. They don't want us to use their media the way we want to use it? Fuck 'em.
Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it's illegal. It has always been illegal for a special interest group to attempt to run the country. That's true in every society that makes any claim to be "democratic". The question is not whether these attempts to control society are legal or not. The question is, when are people going to get pissed off enough to tell the government that these attempts will no longer be tolerated?
All of the lobbyists should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail. When that's finished, go back and grab the paid off politicians for the same treatment.
One round of that, and we'll see all lobbyists reconsidering their strategies.
Re:Forego Copyrighted Material (Score:4, Insightful)
Even that doesn't work very well.
In order for it to work well, you'd need to cut the money off suddenly and more-or-less entirely. In other words, almost everyone on the planet starts a boycott simultaneously while loudly explaining exactly what they are doing and why. This would force them to re-think their business pretty well.
Unfortunately, what's happening is a few people here and there are starting a boycott and the industry doesn't know what's happening - all they know is they're making fewer sales. They've been blaming this on piracy for years, what makes you think they'll stop now?
ISPs pay for something irrelevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not the ISP's jurisdiction to protect the rights of content holders. This is ridiculous.
It's like a telephone company being legally responsible for checking if I am reading copyrighted material. They're just trying to reduce they're own costs.
Media companies need to get with the times and compete.
Re:Why have a special provision? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because following due process requires money.
Not to mention evidence. It's more difficult to conduct a reign of terror if you actually have to start proving things.
Re:Conflict of laws VS "Primacy of Parlement" (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be political suicide to try to curtail the HRA
Given the number of other rights willingly surrendered by the good people of the British Isles I'm not sure that I believe it would be political suicide to go after the HRA. They've willingly surrendered the right to remain silent, the right against self incrimination and the right to keep and bear arms. Why is the HRA sacrosanct if those rights aren't?
Mandelson fights back Internet pirate hordes (Score:2, Insightful)
Seven million Britons face having their internet connection cut off and fines of up to GBP50,000 as Steampunk Britain [today.com]
is implemented.
Lord Carter, the report's author, has now left the Government for consultancies unknown. Lord Mandelson, who has taken over responsibility for digital policy, has been persuaded of the need for a tougher approach after entreaties from starving music mogul David Geffen, who was introduced to him by the Rothschild family. "He warned me in 2001 that these 'MP3 players' would lead to the downfall of civilisation. I understand iPods were popular in the City just before the Great Recession, you know."
Internet piracy is estimated by the movie and music industries to cost them around GBP1.4 million billion squillion a year, ripped untimely from their generous artist-supporting pockets.
Critics have compared the proposals to King Canute, failing to turn back the tide. "So it's up to the Government to supply the sandbags. We have an industry to defend!"
Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, will require Internet providers to record users downloading illegal content. The magical copyright detector, which the music industry just knows the ISPs are being obstructive in not enabling immediately, will be used to send a massive voltage up through serious repeat offenders' Internet connections and into their chairs.
Labour backbencher Tom Watson said the sanctions would attach an "unbearable burden" on an emerging technology with the power to transform society. "Sounds just fine to me," said Lord Mandelson.
Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, will be in charge of the party's Internet campaigning ahead of the general election. "Voters will increasingly be searching the web to find out what we think about the issues. If we haven't cut them off."
In other news, membership of the Pirate Party UK, launched earlier in the week, has been increasing at 100 new members per hour.
Re:50:50 cost? (Score:2, Insightful)
The rest of your examples are equally invasive. You seem to want people to be responsible for things they can't possibly be responsible for without violating your rights and spending a lot to do it (which will increase your costs by a lot), lowering service, and treating every customer like a criminal. And in this case, for something that is difficult to put a value on, or know if it's even harmful to anyone.
Truth. Most people are not criminals. By treating everyone like they are, you alienate them and drive prices up at the same time.
Re:Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Now think about why you only wrote "should" instead of "will" and actually doing it.
Long and hard. For at least a hour a day for a week.
Then you might come to the root of the problem. :)