UK ISPs Want Copyright Holders to Pay if Users Sue

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "After the recent draft legislation in the UK, which would create a 'three strikes' policy to cut off anyone accused of online piracy, the ISPs are asking for liability protection when users are wrongly identified. They're worried that when users are wrongly blamed for piracy, as has happened in several widely-reported investigations already, they will turn around and sue their ISP. The ISPs, of course, think that the record companies — or whoever else wrongly identified the file sharers — should be the ones to pay out any such judgments. The British Phonographic Industry, however, disagrees and wants the ISPs to simply use their Terms of Service to disconnect people. Apparently, that means they think that the ToS should be able to remove any legal recourse people might otherwise have against being misidentified."

Comments

Simple enough solution

[KublaiKhan]

If that's the way they want to play it, then it's quite simple.

Find out what ISP the Phonographic Institute uses, and file a complaint that they're violating my copyright. According to that logic, the ISP must then disconnect them.

Continue until they figure out why that's not such a good idea.

Re:Simple enough solution

[jhantin]

Find out what ISP the Phonographic Institute uses, and file a complaint that they're violating my copyright. According to that logic, the ISP must then disconnect them.

You really expect that to work? Individuals will be presumed guilty, while corporations will be presumed innocent because unlike those pesky humans they have Policies and Procedures to Prevent This Sort of Thing.

Re:Simple enough solution

[KublaiKhan]

Oh, easy enough to fix that as well. File a DBA as, say..."The Copyright Association Foundation For English and International Network Egress" or something official-sounding. File the complaint as your company.

If it's incorporated (a trifle expensive, but worth it, potentially) then even if they countersue it won't do anything to you.

There you go, you're playing at the same level they are, and you can have official CAFFEINE letterhead to play with to boot.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Jaysyn]

That's awesome. I didn't even notice the acronym at 1st. :D

Re:Simple enough solution

[Telvin_3d]

Actually, it would be easy enough to do. Just keep track of everything they post or host as well as the source code of all their web pages. Three strikes right? I suspect it would take all of 6 months to find three instances where an intern has used a chunk of code from someone else's template or a designer uses a bit of a CC image in an advertisement.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Mr. Underbridge]

Find out what ISP the Phonographic Institute uses, and file a complaint that they're violating my copyright. According to that logic, the ISP must then disconnect them.

Not quite. The ability to disconnect is still up to the discretion of the ISP. However, the ISP rightly fears that the record companies won't be doing a whole lot of due diligence in eliminating false alarms, and that with the crapflood of requests the ISP won't be able to either. But I don't think you'll have success in calling the Phono group's ISP and getting them disconnected, as satisfying as it may be.

The ISPs' request is a fair one. Basicaly, they're saying that if you want us to do your dirty work, you better indemnify us against the results. Otherwise, you assholes can get a court order before we do anything.

Re:Simple enough solution

[KublaiKhan]

Oh, true enough--I was just finding the logical way to go about things should the Phonographic Institute (is it an "Institute" because they're all a bunch of nutters?) get their way in this.

And I think the ISPs would be very happy to do that, too--after all, if the Phonographers have no internet connection, they can't go searching for people to cut the connections of--and if they can't find anyone to cut off, the ISP can't be sued if the Phonographers are wrong.

Re:Simple enough solution

[nickj6282]

I think you're missing the point. The IFPI need only be accused of piracy instead of actually having committed it. That's kind of the point of this article: wrongfully disconnecting users who are only accused of piracy, regardless if the accusation is valid or not.

Re:Simple enough solution

[russ1337]

Just keep track of everything they post or host as well as the source code of all their web pages.

Excuse my asking, but how do you do that without copying their webpage and thus breaking their copyright, (and having your internet cut-off?)

Re:Simple enough solution

[sm62704]

For a better acronym, considering the industry we're talking about and its insane policy of suing customers, would be the Copy Right Association Cartel of Kalamazoo.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Stanislav_J]

I suspect it would take all of 6 months to find three instances where an intern has used a chunk of code from someone else's template or a designer uses a bit of a CC image in an advertisement.

More like six minutes...

Re:Simple enough solution

[KublaiKhan]

Shoot first, ask questions later.

That is, get 'em cut off, then file a discovery motion. Then, they have to give you the source as evidence, so you can look through at your leisure.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Nushio]

Copying the webpage? All you have to do is read the HTML code.

Are you suggesting that visiting Slashdot and viewing the html source is breaking their copyright?

Re:Simple enough solution

[Mr. Underbridge]

And I think the ISPs would be very happy to do that, too--after all, if the Phonographers have no internet connection, they can't go searching for people to cut the connections of--and if they can't find anyone to cut off, the ISP can't be sued if the Phonographers are wrong.

Now that's funny. You know, there's always the possibility that you call up there and get a BOFH that's just *really* pissed at his client at that particular time. ;)

I'd love to read a "BOFH works at the record company's ISP" entry.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's incorporated (a trifle expensive, but worth it, potentially) then even if they countersue it won't do anything to you.

Wrong on all accounts. It's very cheap to create a corp in the UK, or you can just buy one off the shelf for a few quid. Once done, you'll have no protection from getting sued. UK law doesn't allow people to hide behind the corporate veil.

Re:Simple enough solution

[russ1337]

Are you suggesting that visiting Slashdot and viewing the html source is breaking their copyright?

not at all. But copying all of slashdot to keep a record, is that not bordering on it? - well at least they'd try and accuse you of it....

either way, the other reply to my post (GP) answered it. - you don't need to. You just accuse them, and file for discovery afterward. .. or somesuch. (IANAL-AIDEPOOTV)

Re:Simple enough solution

[KublaiKhan]

You don't already know the secret BOFH extension?

Or are you not of the Brotherhood? ;-p

Re:Simple enough solution

[jasen666]

It's not copyright infringement to download a copy of a public website.
It would be infringement to host that copy as your own.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Idiomatick]

Offtopic but the current canadian government used to be called "Conservative Reform Alliance Party".

Re:Simple enough solution

[arivanov]

Yessshhh my precioussssssshhh...

But that is likely to be treated as one offence...

So 6 months sound about right... My precioussshhh... web sources... Nasty hobbitsessssss

Re:Simple enough solution

[sm62704]

That acronym would apply to both major US parties.

Re:Simple enough solution

[SpiderClan]

No reason it needs to be incorporated in the UK. Global economy and all that. You know it isn't all UK content holders that caused this in the first place.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Gordonjcp]

Just google for "off the shelf company". Going rate seems to be about 20 quid these days. It's gone up since I bought one last.

Re:Simple enough solution

[AHuxley]

"court order before we do anything"
This has changed in the UK or will change?
Thanks

Re:Simple enough solution

[digitrev]

Amusing, yes, but not official. Just an old joke the Canadian pundits threw around a decade ago (when we actually had a Reform party, before they became the Canadian Alliance).

Re:Simple enough solution

[unlametheweak]

Excuse my asking, but how do you do that without copying their webpage and thus breaking their copyright, (and having your internet cut-off?) Every time a person looks at a Web page they are looking at a copy of it that is loaded onto their own computer. The copyright issue here is appropriating that Web page for one's own use and hosting it on a server for use by the public. There is "fair use" that is already implicit in the mere act of using the WWW. It's very different from television where you have to make the effort to copy; copying is an inherent part of the way the Internet works, even for streaming.

Yes one could make laws on how to actually use this already copied material (if these laws don't already exist). Unless the content were DRMed in some way, and you break the DRM, then you are probably not breaking a law. Of course there could always be some Draconian (and probably unenforceable) TOS on the Web site, like stating you can't cache content.

Re:Simple enough solution

[ELProphet]

All the better. They are wrongfully accusing people of piracy, and we are correctly accusing them of piracy. They look really bad, and get "a taste of their own medicine."

Re:Simple enough solution

[LocalH]

ObPhonoPorn:

Oh, true enough--I was just finding the logical way to go about things should the Pornographic Institute (is it an "Institute" because they're all a bunch of nutters?) get their way in this.

And I think the ISPs would be very happy to do that, too--after all, if the Pornographers have no internet connection, they can't go searching for people to cut the connections of--and if they can't find anyone to cut off, the ISP can't be sued if the Pornographers are wrong.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Idiomatick]

Nope. It was called "Conservative Reform Alliance Party" until the jokes started coming out. They said the name was a misunderstanding and changed it. I believe it was only called the ccrap for a few weeks though

Checks and Balances

[A Pancake]

I'm not sure I like the implementation entirely, but there should definitely be checks and balances to stop the run away shotgun blast method of lawsuits that the RIAA and friends are using.

Sounds like a great idea

[dingbatdr]

A nice old-fashioned three-way Mexican standoff. Reminds me of the gunfight scene in "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly."

This idea might have two very nice consequences. First, it might make the RIAA et al much more careful about throwing lawsuits around. Second, it might protect ISP for paying the price for their lawlessness.

Re:Sounds like a great idea

[explosivejared]

I don't know. I'm a bit skeptical. I remember a story about how the RIAA is afraid to take on Harvard and the like, you know entities that could actually litigate and fight back. For a defendant to be able to countersue they would have to understand what legal recourse was available and be able to act on it. So, this doesn't alleviate the practice of railroading, where the RIAA sues someone who a) doesn't know how to fight back, b) doesn't have the economic means to fight back, or c) both.

It seems a no-brainer that someone would be able to sue back for damages from a punishment dealt out unjustly, but I still don't thank that's going to change things.

Wow...

[SuperStretchy]

So now they're getting the ISP's to do their dirty work? Thats pretty low, even for anti-piracy organizations.

how do you join?

[SoupGuru]

How does one join the British Pornographic Industry? Because that sounds like a pretty awesome industry to be a part of.

Re:how do you join?

[KublaiKhan]

Phonographic. Not pornographic.

There was this piece of machinery, once upon a time, called a "phono-graph", or "sound writer". It used cylinders--and later, vinyl discs--scratched with a groove to hold analogue sound representations. Upon rotating said cylinder or disc against a needle connected to a diaphragm, the sound could be reproduced.

Of course, it should be apparent that an organization named after that old piece of machinery would have last century's ideas on how to protect their intellectual property...

Re:how do you join?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phonographic. Not pornographic. I don't know about that. Some of those covers are pretty suggestive. And the "music" artists are clearly judged more on looks than on talent.

Question

[Izabael_DaJinn]

"The music business wants to partner with internet service providers to create new services that would deliver even greater value for music lovers, artists, labels and ISPs." A hint perhaps at blanket licensing of file-sharing at ISP level - the other end of the internet music equation, which the record business must resolve to survive."

Is something like this really viable? I've not really heard of such an idea getting any serious credence here in the United States, but I find it an interesting idea.

Re:Question

[poetmatt]

I don't think blanket licensing will work. For one, the original problem comes into place in doing so: you're saying that every single person who is put into blanket licensing is an illegal file sharer. That is not ever necessarily the case. Additionally, they don't deserve money for that either.

It is for this reason if they ever tried to do that blanket licensing in the US, people would sue pretty quickly. Just being put into a "Blanket license" doesn't imply legal indemnification. In fact, its literally like saying "you're doing an illegal act and this is compensation" on some levels. I'm sure they'd have a clause like "You agree to arbitration" or "you waive all rights to sue" just by a consumer being put into that blanket too.

People need to watch for these kinds of shady legal issues going on, I'm glad a light is being shined on this work from the ISP side....the ISP is 100% right in asking for not being forced to be responsible. I don't know how the UK treats a situation where someone tries to prevent legal recourse, though, and IANAL.

As someone said above, if you have a VOIP phone and they cancelled the internet DMCA style due to RIAA saying what you're doing is illegal, guess who would be sued? ISP. Is there any way for the RIAA to offer indemnification from this? Surely they can maybe offer the ISP's compensation, but there is no way to accept indemnification without allowing thesmeves to be held responsible.

Re:Question

[mindstrm]

Your argument is common, but I don't think it's the correct point of view.

You are looking at it as some kind of punishment.

Right now, the problem is the industry's business model doesn't fit what the public at-large wants to do. The laws support the industry, but enforcement is not practical. The rules of the game have to change, or we're just wasting resources on all sides.

Blanket licensing is one solution to the problem - it makes what the public is doing expressly legal. Those of you who say "Why should I pay, I don't steal music?".. well, after this, a whole new market would pop up for you to *legally* get music from, and stop buying cds.

Re:Question

[poetmatt]

I do understand what you mean, but what else can you call charging people extra money? (not really intending to argue that, merely as a loose statement).

However, if I remember what has been said in many situations, I believe someone said that "what the public at large does, can define the law itself". AKA no matter what you do people are going to get their music from downloads that they don't pay for, whether thats supported by the artists themselves or not. Old rule of "1 copy hits the internet and now everyone can get it". This is not a new argument, I believe the same was the issue when decisions were made to broadcast radio at a lower quality than CD so that it wouldn't be "as good as a cd", which before that was the whole "we're not going to build radios with recording capability"....I remember reading about that argument when that came around too.

Now, there are already legal options, and they themselves are acceptable to some people (Itunes, amazon music, etc.) However, people should have control of their own money. I have vowed for a long time to never support an artist except directly. Regardless of my personal views. what do you do if the public at large refuses the blanket licensing idea? What do you do if a portion of the public at large refuses the idea (significant enough)? If I recall even now the only person getting the cash cow of the blanket idea which is done in canada IIRC is being part of the big music labels. Do non-corporate artists get a share of this money from blanket licensing?

Another concern is

[Z00L00K]

that more and more people are using IP telephony as their landline.

What will happen if that service is unavailable for an innocent that needs emergency service? Who is to blame then?

I for sure would want to hold someone personally responsible. The internet connection is more than just an amusement that can be turned off today - it has changed into something much more important.

So cutting off people shall be an alternative that really has to be considered a last resort.

Re:Another concern is

[asuffield]

So cutting off people shall be an alternative that really has to be considered a last resort.

It should be something that only happens if (a) you don't pay, or (b) a court orders it - exactly the same as with a telephone line.

This is all about the media cartel trying to get out of having to prove their cases in court, because their little scam doesn't make a profit when they have to do that.

Re:Another concern is

[lysse]

Pretty much every VoIP service comes with a great big disclaimer that it's unsuitable for emergency use. Not because of the risk of disconnection - just for the simple fact that it goes away in a power outage, unlike a traditional phone. (The same disclaimers can be found on cordless phones, which can't work without their base station being plugged into the mains.) Nonetheless, the ISPs (well, the phone companies) are covered.

Re:Another concern is

[xilmaril]

So we'll just have to do what we do with cellphones.

If you stop paying your cellphone bill, you can't make phone calls. Except to the phone company (to give them your credit card number), and to emergency services, because it's mandated by Canadian law. I think it's the same in the states. I have no idea about anywhere else.

Re:Another concern is

[Maow]

So cutting off people shall be an alternative that really has to be considered a last resort.

It should be something that only happens if (a) you don't pay, or (b) a court orders it - exactly the same as with a telephone line.

I propose another reason: (c), you abuse your connection by crap-flooding the net with spam.

Re:Another concern is

[etu]

I have thought this in Finland where I live - I am sure that this applies to UK as well:

In the criminal law it states (section 38 paragraph 5 and 6) that disturbing communications is a criminal offense.

If you disturb communications and either you work for an operator (ISP) OR if the communications is an emergency call, you will go to jail for at least (!) 4 months but up to 4 years!

If I would work for an ISP, I'd think twice.

Re:Another concern is

[ray-auch]

seems to be same in uk, and I think it applies to landlines too (although at some point they will physically disconnect the wires, I believe that initially in the event of non-payment they will just stop outgoing calls but you can still call emergency services.

Re:Another concern is

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet connection is more than just an amusement that can be turned off today - it has changed into something much more important.

I think that's actually what the media companies are counting on. They want to use this to terrify people into not pirating stuff because they need their internet connections these days.

Of course, this doesn't make it any less retarded an idea.

Re:Another concern is

[digitrev]

Your c is merely a subset of his b. That is to say, if you're crap-flooding the net with spam, then you should be taken to court, where they will then order you to cut off your connection (assuming it can be shown that you were in fact spamming). And that's only if it's illegal or against the ToS.

Re:Another concern is

[rastan]

In all ToS of IP telephony that I have seen, it is explicitly stated that they are not to be used as emergency service. There are no guarantees and everyone should know it. Guarantees cost real money. IP telephony is cheap.

On One Condition:

[Penguinisto]

So long as you do not filter, monitor, or read any of your customer's packets, provide due diligence in identification of a customer by records, and only provide info the industry cartels under subpoena (and not just because they ask), then okay - you can be free from liability.

Otherwise, you're rightfully just as culpable and should eat the consequences.

/P

Re:On One Condition:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a might fine point, sir.

Re:On One Condition:

[gstoddart]

So long as you do not filter, monitor, or read any of your customer's packets, provide due diligence in identification of a customer by records, and only provide info the industry cartels under subpoena (and not just because they ask), then okay - you can be free from liability.

That's at least 3 conditions ... =)

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Cheers

What British Pornography Association needs is

[unity100]

a good whipping in the ass

Re:What British Pornography Association needs is

[Rolgar]

Insiteful? He didn't get the group name right. Funny I suppose since Pornography and Phonographic look similar, and spanking can be a fetish and Pornographic . . .

AWW screw it.

Re:What British Pornography Association needs is

[Anonymous Coward]

But they're Britons, guv... if anything, they need a good whipping in the arse!

Re:What British Pornography Association needs is

[BeerCur]

Sorry, I'm sure that has been trademarked by someone the "internet" porn industry.

Re:What British Pornography Association needs is

[DrSkwid]

From the guy that typed "Insiteful".

Poetic...

[TripMaster Monkey]

The ISPs, of course, think that the record companies -- or whoever else wrongly identified the file sharers -- should be the ones to pay out any such judgments. The British Phonographic Industry, however, disagrees and wants the ISPs to simply use their Terms of Service to disconnect people. Apparently, that means they think that the ToS should be able to remove any legal recourse people might otherwise have against being misidentified."

The BPI MIght think that, but that does not make it true. The ISPs have their collective asses hanging out in the wind, and they know it. It's too bad they didn't see this coming, when they started agreeing to take sides in this mess in the first place.

If you exercise authority, you incur liability. Pure and simple.

Re:Poetic...

[Firehed]

What's really intriguing here is that the ISPs took sides against their customers. I'm not sure about in the UK, but I'd assume they have some sort of Common Carrier equivalent that already gets them out of being liable for what their customers do. Assuming this is the case, how on earth is it in their best interest to get their customers sued?

Re:Poetic...

[arivanov]

Blighty legal system does not have the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" (it is really true, do not jump, ask a lawyer). None the less, it has some residual integrity checks and as with most legal systems you cannot sign-off your fundamental rights. T&C are governed by contractual law. Contractual law cannot override a fundamental right like the right not to incriminate yourself in most legislations. So the moment T&Cs go beyond T&C and become a law enforcement tool the ISPs will find themselves in a very sticky situation. Even additional UK legislation will not help here. It will be escalated straight to EU Courts and they will happily bitch slap the UK government the way they usually do on such occasions. It will be truly deserved as well.

Re:Poetic...

[Firefalcon]

Indeed. Up till now, by not interfering with the content they carry (well, apart from traffic shaping), they have been classed as telecom carriers, and so not responsible for the content passing over their network. If they actively check and block content on their networks, they would be considered publishers (odd yes, but that's based on old laws), and liable for their customers content and use.

I'm not quite sure how the BPI has pushed them into the corner, but they are within their rights to kick off anyone who has broken the law using their internet connection (e.g. anything from distributing kiddy porn to illegal copying, although in the case of the former, I'd think they wouldn't have any further use for the internet sitting in a cell), however * alleged * or * suspected * copyright infringement? That goes against the presumption of innocence (then again, so do many recent anti-terror laws), and is potentially a breach of the ISPs contract to provide the customer the service they have paid for, if there is not strong evidence that you did commit an offence.

Re:Poetic...

[Anonymous Coward]

No we have the concept of Innocent UNLESS proven guilty...

Re:Poetic...

[arivanov]

No we have the concept of Innocent UNLESS proven guilty...

Nope. Concept has been revoked. For example teachers are currently considered automatically guilty if something happens to a pupil and so on (last amendments to the HS Act and so on). The presumption of innocence no longer exists in UK law. Thank el presidente Antonio Bliar and his various cronies for that. Actually that should be Generalissimus Josef Vissarionovich Blair.

How is this already not covered

[alan_dershowitz]

I don't see how there isn't already some kind of law covering this. The ISP is being deputized as an agent of the Phonographic Industry when it comes to identifying and cutting off file-sharers. While it may be disputable that the ISP is not liable, I definitely don't see how the Phonographic Industry can absolve liability when its them doing the accusation. The ISP at least initially has to take it on face value that their accusation has some merit, which in my mind at least, absolves them of liability. It would seem to me to be a really bad precedent if you can accuse someone of something, legally force a third-party to take action against the accused, and then use that third-party as a shield against liability for your false accusation.

Re:How is this already not covered

[marcosdumay]

That is at EU. I think (not sure) they homogenized their law in a way that all involved parts are to blame, and you can sue any of them. If there is anything that makes one party not to blame, it can later sue the others to recouple the lost money.

At least, Brazil copyied them that way. Maybe we missinterpreted something :)

Re:How is this already not covered

[ray-auch]

The BPI may indeed be eventually (jointly) liable, however there is the question as to how you would sue them. The user has a contract with the ISP, and not with the BPI, and in addition the ISPs relationship with the user is under all the consumer protection legislation etc.

So the user has plenty of (relatively easy) ways to take action against the ISP, but not against the BPI. You would probably have to sue the BPI for libel or malicious falsehood - and in the UK that is much _much_ more expensive - requiring you to sue in the high court and with no prospect of legal aid.

Suing the ISP for breach of contract could be done in small claims court, for a _lot_ less money. And they know it. Costs are not awardable in small claims so it would cost the ISP in legal fees to fight any claim (win or lose), and they know they might be advised to just pay up instead. The ISPs may also not want the courts to start examining their TOSs too hard - in case they get ruled unfair. UK banks have been being sued a lot recently over penalty charges and settling many cases - totalling many millions - for just these sort of reasons (that one is now all on-hold pending a high-court test case). The ISPs don't have the deep pockets of the banks and they, quite rightly, don't trust that the BPI will be there to help when the crap hits the fan. They want a back-to-back contract to ensure they get reimbursed, before they take any action. So would I if I was in their position.

Re:How is this already not covered

[alan_dershowitz]

This is a great explanation, thank you. It's clear to me that the BPI does want to use the ISPs as a shield, it makes perfect sense.

So....

[whisper_jeff]

So, let's see. Record company accuses user of copyright infringement and their ISP is required to terminate their service. It turns out the accusation was "in error". The user has not recourse against their accuser for the false accusation _AND_ no internet service because their ISP cut them off. Yeah, that sounds like a recipe for a ton of frivolous accusations by the copyright holders. Heck, if they could accuse the entire country and force ISPs to cut them off, that would get all the pirates, even though it would be throwing a bunch of babies out with the bath water. And, hey, there's virtually no downside because they can't be counter-sued for the false accusations!

It seriously boggles my mind that people think garbage like this up and think that it makes a hint of sense. If you accuse someone of a crime and are proven wrong, the accused should have every right under the sun to come back at you. Hard.

Bah!

Re:So....

[KublaiKhan]

Oh, but you see, it's a civil offense. It's not a criminal offense. So it's all OK, really.

(At least, I -think- that's what's going through their heads...that was the first thing that went through my head after I hit it with a heavy book a few times)

Re:So....

[freedom_india]

Put music for illegal downloading under BPI servers.
Complain to their ISP that server_xxx.yzb.hyw.ghu is storing pirated music.

That's it! BPI gets disconnected from internet permanently!
Profit!

Re:So....

[KublaiKhan]

Even simpler than that.

Just accuse 'em. That's the standard of proof that they want to be held to--what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Doubtless they have some kind of encrypted webmail interface, so who knows what kind of nefarious filesharing was going on behind that?

Y'know....I wonder if that could be done to the RIAA....

Re:So....

[wall0159]

...although it might slow the adoption of music downloads. ;-)

Digital fascism

[koan]

That's all it is, the prosecution, investigation should all be on the media owners desk not the ISP's, because it is being set this way it opens the door (already open actually) to completely monitor and prosecute all traffic and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a move to make it retroactive....so those mp3's you got in your college years catch up with you down the road whiel you're working.
It's getting to the point where it isn't worth leaving *any* trails on the Inet.
Scary stuff.

Re:Digital fascism

[Stanislav_J]

It's getting to the point where it isn't worth leaving *any* trails on the Inet.

More like getting to the point where I don't want to be on the Net at all. Thinking of living the simple life.....move to a little cabin in Montana....I'd have plenty of time and quiet to start writing my manifesto.....

Re:Digital fascism

[koan]

I'm there with you, except I have a few dogs.

They could learn from the Canadians

[Midnight Thunder]

I am not sure whether I should be more scared of US or UK Canadian copyright laws. Canada on the other hand, while peeving off some US senators about our independent thinking, is actually thinking about something more reasonable: see here

Re:They could learn from the Canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK is simply being a good USA lapdog and doing what we already did.

how about you Brits get control over your government and kick their asses into line instead of doing whatever the Insane Idiots in our government over here are telling them what to do.

Re:They could learn from the Canadians

[Doug Neal]

I am not sure whether I should be more scared of US or UK Canadian copyright laws. Well that's an easy one. Do you live in the UK, or Canada?

Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[neverutterwhen]

Please write to your MP if you disagree with these proposals. There are a lot of us, and it might just make them think twice before blindly pushing this legislation through.

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[alva_edison]

Please keep this in mind as it is good advice for any letter-writing campaign:
Most politicians are busy people (or at least consider themsleves to be), so they will generally only make time for those that put in an effort.

In general, a form email is least effort and will generally be ignored.
A non-form email is still low effort and will also be ignored.
A phone call is moderate effort, but will usually be intercepeted.
A form letter (paper, envelope, stamp) without a signature is also somewhat moderate, but will still be ignored.
A form letter with a signature will usually get a response, but along the lines that they don't listen to from letters.
An original typed letter will usually get a somewhat favorable response; although you may just receive a lecture on policy ppositions.
An original hand-written letter will get you attention -- assuming you have neat and legible hand-writing.
A personal visit as a constituent will also get you attention, but should be followed up by some form of traceable communication.

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

and a large campaign contribution will get you a stay in the Lincoln bedroom.

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[Mikkeles]

'...but should be followed up by some form of traceable communication.'

Like these?

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, I'm surprised there isn't an online petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ yet (or at least one that I could find).

I would make one, but I'm not really too bothered by this new regulation.

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[Bob The Magic Camel]

Don't be silly, this is the UK. A large Campaign contribution gets you a Peerage.

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[jb523]

What exactly is this advice based on?

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[I confirm I'm not a]

When writing to your MP, ask that they raise the matter with "the relevant Minister". Your MP is obliged to do so, just as they're obliged to respond to constituents' correspondence. If you live in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland be sure to point out that this issue affects citizens throughout the UK, otherwise your MP may just refer the issue to a Minister at Holyrood, Cardiff or Stormont. Your MP may find it helpful if you specify the relevant Minister, just so as there's no misunderstanding.

It may also be worth casually mentioning that, in addition to writing to your MP, you've also written to ${THEIR_BIGGEST_POLITICAL_LOCAL_THREAT} asking what their view is about British businesses (ISPs) being sued by their customers because of daft laws passed by your MP. Careerist MPs hate the idea they may lose their jobs to someone who appears to give slightly more of a shit about their constituents.

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[chriseyre2000]

There is the simple solution: http://www.writetothem.com/ MP's do reply (and if you ask all of your MEP's then you get about 6 people hassling the relevant person.

But can the ISPs sue the copyright holders?

[oneiros27]

I don't work for an ISP currently (I did in the past), but let's consider the situation --

Someone sends a list of 100+ users to the ISP. Those customers pay $20-100 per month for connectivity, depending on the service and area. It might take 2 years before the trials find if the customer is or isn't guilty.

So, if we assume 2 years, $20/month -- that's $480 per user ... at 100 users, that's $48k. Can the ISPs sue for lost revenue?

For big ticket users, it might be even more ... and that doesn't even run into the issues of loss of reputation for disconnecting an innocent party, which might impact other people's decision to use them or not.

Re:But can the ISPs sue the copyright holders?

[Cathoderoytube]

On top of that what would happen if an ISP wrongfully disconnect an entire company from the internet? Are they going to be immune to the wrath of a company that loses $10 000 a day from being offline?

Reader's Digest version of BPI position

[magus_melchior]

"We're always right. Do as we say, or we will sue and lobby you into financial oblivion."

Let's get this straight

[esocid]

Customer X is identified as a copyright violator. The British Phonographic Industry attempts to sue customer X but finds out mid-course that customer X is innocent, but has since been disconnected by their ISP for violating its TOS. Customer wants ISP held accountable for violating their own TOS. ISP says "I'm sorry but if you read our TOS we aren't responsible for anything that we do to you." BPI points at ISP. ISP points at BPI.
/head asplodes

Re:Let's get this straight

[penguin_dance]

That's pretty much what Microsoft does in its EULA, isn't it? IOW, it doesn't matter what damage this OS causes your files, we're not responsible. Don't be surprised if the ISP comes out with similar language.

Re:Let's get this straight

[darthflo]

Also, it's usually one of the few CAPS'd points in any open source license, including but not limited to the GPL, the MIT license or the BSD license.

Unfair contracts?

[M-RES]

I'm sure under UK law there are provisions to fight 'unfair contracts'. So even if you do sign an agreement to a company's T's & C's you can later take that company to court to overturn the contract if it's patently unfair (and the ISP would then be liable for all legal costs and possibly compensation to the tune of the cost of your service for the whole contractual term plus any losses you may have incurred if, for instance, you use the service for business purposes). In a situation where you have been disconnected for no legal infraction, I'm sure a court would agree that the Terms and Conditions of the contract were unfair (you have no way of knowing what legally downloadable material might be misconstrued as a breach of copyright beforehand) and you'd win the case. I'm not a legal expert in this field, but if anyone knows someone who is it might be interesting to hear their point of view.

Re:Unfair contracts?

[ray-auch]

I'm sure under UK law there are provisions to fight 'unfair contracts'.

There are, and there is specific consumer protection legislation that could apply also. Moreover, it can be done in small claims court for little risk/cost to the user.

If a lot of people are cut off, there is the possibility of a lot of cases and a consumer action campaign. You don't need to be a UK legal expert - This has already happened in the UK with the banks - just google something like uk bank charges small claims for loads of info, or see summaries like: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/jul/27/accounts.business.

Who would you think was the easier target to sue, a _bank_ or an ISP ? Now realise that ordinary people have been suing the banks, citing unfair T&Cs, and winning. The ISPs know this, they haven't got the resources of the banks, and they don't want to be in the same position.

Re:Unfair contracts?

[I confirm I'm not a]

> I'm sure under UK law there are provisions to fight 'unfair contracts'.

There are indeed - The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

It's one of the things[1] I cite when I'm getting the Student Loans Company to repay the unlawful charges it periodically decides it can charge me. Other people have used it successfully against banks. You can bet that smart ISPs just know their customers are aware of their rights.

[1] The other being a House of Lords ruling from the early 20th century that penalty charges are unlawful except to recover actual or liquidated losses. But I digress.

Termination at will

[shentino]

Actually, there's a thing called "probable cause"

While "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is required for a conviction, it is not required for an arrest, where the standard is merely "probable cause".

If the cop has probable cause, you cannot sue the police for false arrest. If the "probable cause" was based on evidence that turned out to be false, you can only sue the guy who gave it if it was known to be false.

Witness honestly believes you've done something wrong, and tells the cops. They arrest you on probable cause, but since they don't actually have enough to convict, you get let go. Since both the police and the witness acted in good faith, nobody is liable for false arrest. All you can do is pick up your marbles and go back to your life. Nobody screwed up, so tough shit no soup for you.

Witness has grudge against you, and makes up a vicious lie to get you arrested by the police, who as far as *they* know, have reason to believe you are guilty. You spend time in jail, but since you aren't guilty, you get let go once the evidence fails to pile up. The police are faultless and were simply doing their jobs. However, it is foreseeable that the arrest would be made, so you get to sue the witness for false arrest.

Honest witness tells the cops something's fishy about you, and the cops, looking for an excuse to cause trouble for you, pounce on you with cuffs, and you spend the night in jail. Your PD bails you out after showing the lack of probable cause, and you get out. The cops were way out of line to arrest you, so you can sue the police for false arrest. The witness, however, is innocent, because they could not reasonably foresee an arrest based on their mere "suspicions".

Of course, if you get a witness with an axe to grid with a police department waiting for an excuse to pounce, then you can sue both of them.

Thank god for habeas corpus.

However, since ISP's these days usually have "termination at will" clauses in their TOS, it probably doesn't apply. Simply screaming "copyright infringement" could merely provoke such an "at will" termination (against which no user has recourse), and even if the termination was erroneous, if the ISP simply doesn't want the hassle of reinstating your account, they can squat and tell you to go screw yourself. "It's our network and we'll terminate whoever we damn please" is quite relevant when it comes to proprietary hardware and a dictatorial TOS.

Unlike labor law, AFAIK there is legally nothing that will stop an ISP from going texas sharpshooter and unplugging whoever they feel like. You're only "due process" is whatever the ISP felt like including in your service agreement, which is likely to be entirely in their favor.

Re:Termination at will

[RingDev]

Mmmmm deregulation and privatization in action! Screwed with no recourse. But there's competition, right?

-Rick

Re:Termination at will

[shentino]

Depends on the market.

If you have a monopoly, you're screwed. Otherwise, if a company pisses you off, you are free to switch.

Of course, internet access isn't mandated by law, so you could always go on strike and do without.

Re:Termination at will

[DrSkwid]

UK Law != US law

Re:Termination at will

[Mister Whirly]

The RIAA != law enforcement. Cops have all those rights legally. The RIAA lawyers have no more rights than you or I do. If I brought hundreds of false or frivolous lawsuits against people, I would expect those same people to come after me for compensation. Why should the RIAA be any different?

Re:Termination at will

[myowntrueself]

Is it true that, in the USA, being arrested for *any* reason whether probable cause was present or not, whether you were being victimised by someone bearing false witness -- *any* reason -- the fact that there is now a record of you being arrested means that you will have a VERY hard time ever getting a decent job again?

Re:Termination at will

[shentino]

Having a record of being arrested should ideally not be a problem.

It's thanks to idiots and bigoted assholes who turn up their nose at arrest records that it becomes a problem.

It's just another thing, like black skin, homosexuality, or being female, that people can use to discriminate with. Ideally, prospective employers would not use arrest records except by relevancy, owing to illegality, but unfortunately in the real world, it does slip by.

In general, Murphy will stop at nothing to make things miserable for you. Just recently my cat was senselessly confiscated because my assinine neighbor called the pound for no good reason.

Bad things happen just for the hell of it. There isn't always a reason for everything that goes screwy. Sometimes, the universe is just in a bad mood, and you can't do shit about it.

Which brings me to my main point:

Life isn't fair, get used to it.

Re:Termination at will

[myowntrueself]

Having a record of being arrested should ideally not be a problem.

It's thanks to idiots and bigoted assholes who turn up their nose at arrest records that it becomes a problem.

I'm not sure that I understand why an arrest with no conviction would be a matter of public record anyway? How are they going to find out? Do the authorities tell you, if asked, whether a given person has ever been arrested?

That would be the problem in my opinion... its just not something that should be on record for potential employers to even find out.

Re:Termination at will

[shentino]

Which is why it's usually illegal to even ask about an arrest record unless it's relevant to the hiring decision.

Of course, you dig deep and snoop hard, you can find out almost anything.

The British government example

[erroneus]

In far more ways than this, it is clear to see how ridiculously unbalanced British legislators are when it comes to creating laws against its citizenry and for industry and commercial interests. This imbalance has cursed the British empire for a very long time and they never learn their lesson. So every time the U.S. takes another step in the wrong direction, it's really VERY easy to see where it leads because it seems the British are a step or two ahead of us.

Shut down the UK Internets

[Anonymous Coward]

This is hilarious. All I have to do is connect to a tracker and register say Buckingham Palace's IP and no more Christmas Message from the Queen. What about a British Labour Party IP? I'd love to see Gordon Brown being dragged out in cuffs crying he's innocent he tell you.

I say we let them do it! Lulz for the rest of the world, and Britain doesn't really have an IT Industry anyway.

Re:Shut down the UK Internets

[darthflo]

Nah. All you have to do is fire off an email to the Buckingham Palace's ISP (though a signed letter may be necessary), repeat twice and the Queen's offline. Won't work 'cause the royal ISP won't kill the connection, but it'd be funny as hell anyways.

The law of unintended consequences;

[ACMENEWSLLC]

The law of unintended consequences;

If I was a pirate (I am not, and have the invoices to prove it.) then;

#1) I will not P2P from my own connection, but from that of a Internet Cafe (shut them down too?) or a so called friends home.
#2) I will do this from open WIFI networks, such as my neighbors. They will get shut down, not me.
#3) I will put TOR, Apache with Proxy module, Wingate, or some other program onto many computers so the P2P traffic is coming from their computers, even though I'm at home.

What will be next? Microsoft will include an antipirate service in Vista? Then the law will be made so that only Vista is a legal OS for home use?

Come on folks, get a clue - vote these suckers out. Makes me not want to visit the UK.

Re:The law of unintended consequences;

[CSMatt]

#1) What makes you think that the Internet Cafe service allows P2P on their network? "Allows" of course meaning in the technical sense. You would probably want to spoof your MAC address and pay in cash only so they won't ban you from the cafe if/when the MAFIAA comes knocking.
#2) One word: Wireshark.
#3) Tor=slow.

Re:The law of unintended consequences;

[alphamugwump]

Downloading from an internet cafe sucks, as many torrents take a few days to download. Serious pirates buy hosting in Korea. And Tor is too slow for web browsing, let alone hundred gigabyte torrents.

Have Their Cake and Eat it Too?

[jdjbuffalo]

So let me see if I've got this straight...

They want to have all the benefits (decreasing piracy) with none of risk (lawsuits)...

*Knock* *Knock*
Hello???
Yes, this is reality calling!

In the real world, there are no rewards/benefits without risk. Everything has risks, if you're not willing to take them then STOP YOUR BITCHING RIAA et al!

An Analogy

[labnet]

An ISP should be given common carrier rights.
For example, if you order illegal items through the postal service, (lets say pirated DVD's), then there is no way your postal service will be cut off. Its up to either the Police, or copyright holder to form a case against you. The ISP is merely the conduit, not an interested party.

Re:An Analogy

[ritesonline]

This is probably the best analogy there is (especially when we think of packets and inspecting/privacy). Probably too simple for the legal bods to get their brains round, though!

Fees.

[rtechie]

Since BPI is insisting that ISPs act as their agents AND expect the ISPs to soak up all the liability and other costs for doing so it seems reasonable for the ISPs to simply insist on "processing fees" for each copyright violation and cutoff request from BPI. Somehow I think BPI would be a lot more reluctant to send out bogus cutoff requests if they knew each one cost them $1000.

If I were the ISPs I would just patiently wait for the the law to get passed, make sure there are no provisions against charging fees, and then charge BPI up the ass.

As was pointed out in the other discussion...

[Xest]

The follow scenarios exist:

- Many pensioners to do their shopping online since removing funding to schemes where people would fetch shopping for them

- The internet has become essential for homework in some schools

- Tax returns are due to be filled in online only

- Home workers depend on the internet, many local goverment departments have been forced to cut costs of having so many facilities and hence force people to work from home this includes social workers, educational phsycologists, goverment IT workers and so forth.

Thanks to pbhj for the latter two in a reply to my post in response to the other article.

You're spot on, the internet isn't just a toy anymore, it's essential to many people's lives both current and future and in all the cases above, these situations where the internet is essential to some people have been created by the goverment. On one hand they're creating a situation whereby the internet is outright essential to people just as telephones, water, gas, electricity are and on the other they're suggesting it's something that should be cut off at the whim of the recording industry with absolutely no burden of proof.

Essentially, the potential damage a law like this could do to the day to day lives of the British people as well as the economy as a whole could be massive when you take into account that over 10% of the UK's population engage in file sharing and all for what? So mostly foreign (US) corporations can get their money from an out of date business model that they refuse to change to keep up with the times? Some pensioners unable to get their shopping, kids unable to compete in their education, people forced to quit or lose their jobs. Now we have the argument of course that people deserve what they get for file sharing from some, but that ignores the fact that people can lose internet if they're not even guilty as a result of bad investigation by the recording industry or hijacked wireless for example, hence why the ISPs want protection from such scenarios in the first place. Is it really worth it Gordon/David?

Re:Please spam me: massjunk@gmail.com

[shentino]

Alas, the begging us to send you spam is the fly in your pot of honey.

Indeed.

[Xest]

It's only because of the recent use of packet shaping that the goverment and BPI have woken up and said "Hey look they CAN treat different traffic differently, they CAN control things!" and taken the opportunity to chime in and get them to shape in the way that suits them as well as the ISPs who oversold their service in the first place.

Whilst I support the ISPs here, it's partly a problem of their own creation. If they hadn't continued to sell "unlimited" internet access, something they do to this day on one hand whilst packet shaping and limiting the hell out of it on the other we almost certainly wouldn't be in this situation now.

The best thing they could've done would be to either:

a) invest in better infrastructure I'm still not convinced by their argument that bandwidth is too expensive - how do other countries like Sweden and Japan cope? Investment in infrastructure is key, but of course that's a cost they don't want.

or

b) Throttle bandwidth as a whole and not just applications that they've decided don't deserve priority. For example, they decided that P2P isn't a time critical application - Sorry? how do they know I don't need that Linux ISO ASAP? or that documentary via some P2P service for my homework? Who are they to decide that some kid browsing Youtube is more important than me grabbing that Linux ISO or whatever?

We can't turn back time now, so the best we can do is try and fight this current battle and hope afterwards the ISPs stop and think a bit and look at getting a common-carrier status type situation where traffic management isn't their job.

Wrongly accused but no recourse

[nurb432]

Ya, that sounds fair.

its like in a car accident

[Anonymous Coward]

in a multi-car accident you (generally) only have standing to sue the person whose car hit yours and if they think the reason they hit your car wasn't their fault they have to sue whomever they think caused them to hit you (such as the person whose car hit theirs and pushed it into yours).

Its not always going to be true that they are completely blameless as part of the cause of their car hitting yours may be that they were not staying a proper distance behind

(yay for apt car analogies; now for the *really* fun analogy)

or its like if your phone company handed over recordings of your phone conversations to the FBI/CIA in violation of your civil rights or Terms Of Service. You'll generally only have standing to sue the phone company for their actions and if they believe they're entirely blameless because the FBI/CIA asked them to do it even without a warrant the phone company would be the only ones "able" to sue the government.

Re:its like in a car accident

[marcosdumay]

"in a multi-car accident you..."

Wrong from the beginning. I was talking about consumer laws, not transit ones.

Everyone Can Play

[thomas.galvin]

The ISPs, of course, think that the record companies -- or whoever else wrongly identified the file sharers -- should be the ones to pay out any such judgments. The British Phonographic Industry, however, disagrees and wants the ISPs to simply use their Terms of Service to disconnect people. Apparently, that means they think that the ToS should be able to remove any legal recourse people might otherwise have against being misidentified. Oh, come on now. There's more than enough liability for both of them to be sued.

Re:Everyone Can Play

[ray-auch]

Oh, come on now. There's more than enough liability for both of them to be sued.

There is, but the user has a _contract_ with the ISP, what contract are they going to sue BPI under ? BPI would have to be libel = high-court = high costs, high risk. ISP would be breach of contract / unfair contract terms = small claims court = low cost, low risk. Users are going to sue the ISPs.

Geeks of the world: unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

People insists on thinking that the only connection you may have is thru an ISP, where they get ALL the traffic to/from your node.
It is nor very hard neither very expensive (less than 100 pounds per user) to build a totally private wireless WiFi connection with people up to 1Km away using off the shelf available hardware.
Let's go ahead and build a private mesh of house-to-house connections, then use the normal Internet for email, banking and casual harmless browsing.
With high-gain, roof-mounted antennas and Linux-capable WiFi routers, we'd be able to deploy IPv6, OSPF, encrypted wireless links and a whole bunch of other services on a city-wide private network. The possibilities are endless.
Even if it gets infiltrated, the spy would only catch the traffic passing thru his/her node. And that could be further obfuscated by end-to-end encryption and/or really smart use of alternative routes in real time.
The real catch here would be to implement ALL services in a distributed way (try that with DNS).

Re:Geeks of the world: unite!

[KDR_11k]

Now try that for areas that don't have houses every 1km, like the Atlantic Ocean.

Horrific

[buck19]

I think this three strikes thing UK is supposedly planning for is extremely dangerous. It would allow virtually unchecked and blanket surveillance of anyone. It would be fighting to me what is a very minor crime by creating a very major crime on the part of the state. I would most definitely boycott the UK in all it's glory if this should be enacted. It is extremely dangerous for many reasons if you just sit and think about it for a minute. But this brown guy came in office saying he's going to work against the reductions in freedoms and such resulting from 9/11 and 7/7 only to have what I think was a staged car bombing day the very day after he enters office and he suddenly conveniently uses it as a stage for virtually unending reductions in civil rights and vast increases in police powers. This is just one more example of Neocon Labour.

Re:Horrific

[jhantin]

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- Louis Brandeis

A lot of these pro-surveillance types really believe they're helping make the world safer by trading away civil rights for police powers. They just don't realize that every concentration of power (and vast stores of surveillance data are just that) attracts abuse, whether or not it's officially "in the right hands".

Not legal

[EEPROMS]

You can put whatever you want in a contract but it doesn't over ride legislated law ie consumer law. Im not sure about the UK but here in Australia having contract that lies about a consumers rights (or infers a consumer has no rights) can leave you open to a hefty fine of $10k per case.

Re:Not legal

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) would probably prevent ISPs inserting a clause into their ToS that prevents them being sued.

I'm gonna sue MI6

[r_jensen11]

Odds are, MI6 has something that belongs to me that I have not given them permission to have. If I sue them 3 times, I can make England weaker? Hmm, sounds tempting after they had the indecency to spread all of their "reality TV" bullshit over here after they stunk up their own island.

On the downside, I do appreciate episodes of Peep Show, Spooks, Doctor Who, and Torchwood. Decisions, decisions.... Damn, being an adult is hard!

We've got a reasonable point...

[91degrees]

And we're not afraid to use it!

Although the BPI is probably a little wary about excessive legal measures against piracy. The RIAA's legal assaults have probably cost more in lost sales through poor customer relations then they have gained in sales displaced by piracy. They are no doubt being closely watched by their associates in other nations. The British ISPs have the backing of their customers - who are either ambivalent or pro-piracy - and are pretty well organised to influence Parliament just as well as the BPI.

Who runs who?

[annex1]

(Long comment discarded) Let's just call everyone we know on the telephone and play our free downloaded music through it.

Streisand Effect

[unlametheweak]

There should be a movement where all Britians download p2p software and break the law. ISPs would go out of business for lack of customers, the British economy would collapse, and the government would be kicked out of office and the laws changed to something more reasonable. It would be the Streisand Effect at its best.

Or if there are more Sheeple than people in Britian, then White Hats can install proxy servers on the computers of Britians and pass P2P traffic on it. The same effect in the end, but not quite as ideal as this time there would be unwanted collateral damage. But ultimately the damage would be the result of these Draconian laws.

Yes it's extreme, but even politicians have to realize that there is consequences for their actions.

Re:Streisand Effect

[darthflo]

Lemme get this straight. The British economy ($2.4t p.a.) would collapse because a few million Britons' home internet access gets cut off (say $30/mo on average for 20m (33%) people -- 7.2b p.a.; 0.3% of the total GDP)?
Most cutoff victims would probably just do whatever online business they have online (that's e-banking, shopping, eBay) at their workplace. Caused by this, they might work for an additional 90 seconds per day, totally compensating the 0.3% GDP loss from ISPs. Also, the $30/mo saved on internet access might be spent on a nice dinner, thus not leaving the country to multinational backbone providers and boosting the economy some more.

In a later step, the BPI would claim to have caused all this economic growth and take over the leadership of the UK. They'd introduce new anti-thought-piracy legislation with huge fines for everyone who'd dare to even think of a copyrighted song. The UK national debt would vanish in but hours by citizens being fined for hearing, thinking of and in some cases even humming songs.
Along with tax income and anything else they'd get their greedy hands on, all of those fines would be gobbled up by BPI execs. The infrastructure would start to crumble because nobody'd be maintaining it, but the cameras would be fine.
In the end, after the BPI had sucked everything out of the UK, citizens would move back into caves and watch their cities fall apart, fight-club style. Only weeks after being put into office, the BPI would have completed it's quest and move on to destroy other civilizations.

Re:Streisand Effect

[unlametheweak]

In the end, after the BPI had sucked everything out of the UK, citizens would move back into caves and watch their cities fall apart, fight-club style. Only weeks after being put into office, the BPI would have completed it's quest and move on to destroy other civilizations. Perhaps I should reconsider my proposal.

Hear hear

[Murrquan]

How's that for Net Neutrality?

I'd like to read more stories like this...

[xLittleP]

Why aren't there more stories tagged suddenoutbreakofcommmonsense? It seems that just today there was another story with a somewhat similar tag... Hmmm, maybe I just don't have any commmon sense. Common sense, on the other hand, well, everyone's got that.

The Real Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

What the BPI really wants to do is to get everyone disconnected from the internet. Then there will be no more electronic file sharing, and people go back to buying CDs. Business as usual...

Slander or Libel?

[mckellar75238]

Maybe this is too simplistic a viewpoint, but it seems to me that anyone unjustly cut off in this manner could then sue the record company and/or the ISp for having injured his or her reputation falsely, and claim damages based on any number of things. It probably wouldn't too many such suits to make this problem go away.

Re:Slander or Libel?

[Kryptic Knight]

Interesting and valid point.

Technically speaking (from a non-legal standpoint) could a false accusation of being a P2P/Download-Copyright-Breacher leading to loss of ISP connection, be considered libellous?

They would have to send you a "First warning" which would be in written (or email - which makes for interesting debate in itself over the legal validity of email).

If false then this is clearly libellous

(from wikipedia)
In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.

So if organisation X (the record companies) make an false allegation of P2P/copyright-breach then you could take them to the cleaners.

And lets face it, UK libel/slander laws are geared up protect the PERSON who has BEEN LIBELLED.

Roll on the first case.

Enough is enough.

[Kashgarinn]

Copyright should be restricted to civil courts, thus negating any and all need for the government, or any other firm to _do_their_work_for_them_

The copyright argument aside, why the hell are we letting them avoid doing the work of protecting their own crap?

Just my opinion really. If the government would refuse to waste money on the **AA plight to save their failing business model, then they'd have to change their business model, or shrivel to the size that the current business model allows. Both options are fine enough for me.

K.

Petition

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like they are caving in to Political lobbying. Given the modern governments tendency to follow what focus groups say we need to counter that pressure. Somebody needs to create a petition.

ToS cannot remove legal recourse

[AmiMoJo]

Under UK law, you cannot sign away certain rights no matter what, including the right to legal recourse. A contract that tries to remove statutory rights is at least partially invalid, even if you signed it.

That's why "sold as seen" is actually largely meaningless. You can't agree to wave the stuff about goods being fit for purpose, i.e. working.

Differentiating

[AIFEX]

I haven't delved into this too much of late, but I would love to know how they are going to tell the difference between me using P2P to download the latest Placebo album and downloading free content that say, my friend, is making and putting out. After all, P2P is billed as the file sharing product for agent free, individuals to share their content.