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."
The gap between politicians and reality (Score:5, Interesting)
Lord Mandelson of Sith went to dinner with a corporate interest, and came back with a policy that suited that interest without regard to either citizens rights or even practicality.
How do you stop illegal torrents without crippling the UK Internet? I mean, more than BT has managed to do?
Meddling Mandy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:50:50 cost? (Score:4, Interesting)
This sort of lopsided silliness (and the RIP Act) was why I walked away from being a ISP (one of the very first in the UK, with sensible notions of who owned the data passing over our wires).
So glad that I'm out of it, and still not really believing anyone makes money being an ISP.
Rgds
Damon
Re:50:50 cost? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should ISPs foot the bill to protect rights holders IP?
Because they want to keeping getting the profits from raping people with their licensing agreements, but don't want to lose those profits in legal proceedings they are obligated to undertake in order to continue to have a valid claim on the copyrighted work. If they don't do something about this, a lot of copyrighted works could fall into the public domain because the derived income is less than the cost of legal proceedings to protect it. So all these manipulations of the copyright law will be for nothing. They've already increased penalties to the point of insanity, but the problem is the average file sharer can't compensate them for a fraction of even just the legal costs -- so it's a net loss for them.
So they've done the only thing left to them: Coerce other businesses. ISPs typically operate on narrow margins and don't have a lot of spare funds to combat these coersive attempts, and the Recording Industry is hoping for a few quick victories and the rest will fall into line -- and of course, it won't be long before they add in the disclaimer "We won't ask for the money as long as you install XYZZY Anti-Everything Appliance."
The Recording Industry has a tried and true formula for winning -- they pick on the weak, build legal precidents, and then go after larger targets where the real profits lay -- relying on previous legal precidents to force a settlement. They know they can't win in a full-on fight, but they make sure before they file it won't be in the other parties financial best interests to test them. Slimy, unethical, and it corrupts the entire justice system -- but it's very effective.
What annoys me is business... (Score:3, Interesting)
What annoys me is that business chronically shrieks that the consumer should be ever more regulated and that the penalties for breaking those regulations should be ever harsher.
But when it comes to their own behavior, what I hear from Business is that they should be ever less regulated and the penalties for their noncompliance should range from weak to non-existent!
Now that kid over at the university who swiped 10 songs is costing me little or nothing...pennies, at most. But, at least here in America, the Businesses who have so successfully bought deregulation have cost my country, me, and my children trillions of dollars.
The system is whacked!
Re:What annoys me is business... (Score:3, Interesting)
It reminds me of when Adam Smith rallied against the mercantile system: "It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it." (Chapter VIII, Book IV, The Wealth of Nations)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I live in Britain and I welcome this.. (Score:1, Interesting)
I own a house and after hearing about U.S. file sharers getting fines of over a million dollars for downloading some music I've been nervous that if the same happened here I could lose my house. This way the worse case scenario is I get warned and then if I persist I lose my connection. My connection isn't worth £200,000+ to me.
Re:If it makes you feel better (Score:3, Interesting)
After the bit about the post office I strongly suspected sarcasm. After the second line about the bus-lines I was certain this was sarcasm. By the time I got to "Woosh hammer" I thought this was such well written sarcasm making such a good point that your average sixth grader would fully comprehend this comment.
After reading the comments I realize I've either severely overestimated the reading comprehension of your average sixth grader or severely underestimated the reading comprehension of your average slashdot reader.
PS, that "or" is inclusive.