Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK ISP Says No To Music Industry Pressure

Posted by kdawson on from the police-it-yourself dept.

siloko sends us to the BBC for the story of one ISP standing up to the music industry. (But note that this ISP is one of the ones said to have worked with Phorm on plans to track customers' surfing.) "The head of one of Britain's biggest internet providers has criticized the music industry for demanding that he act against pirates. Charles Dunstone of Carphone Warehouse, which runs the TalkTalk broadband service, is refusing. He said it is not his job to be an internet policeman."

30 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Eh, whatever. by Futile+Rhetoric · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a matter of money, not principle. Why the hell would a provider invest in the required infrastructure upgrades? Now, if the record industry agrees to pay for it, perhaps with a small bonus on top for lubrication purposes, they'll switch to a different tune just like that.

    1. Re:Eh, whatever. by Stripe7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they are forced to police P2P for copyright violations, then they have to police for child pr0n, then sexual predators, then for pr0n filtering, then the lawsuits show up for filtering breast cancer sites, drug rehab support sites, etc.. It opens up a can of worms no ISP wanting to avoid legal headaches would want to stick their toes into.

    2. Re:Eh, whatever. by The+Incomplete+Lemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although possibly not, if the ISPs are declared responsible for policing the 'net then they become the next target for the recording industry lawsuits.

      --
      Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. - H. L. Mencken
    3. Re:Eh, whatever. by peterbye · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you have a reference for that?
      My isp http://www.aaisp.net.uk/ has not been forced by the government to do any such thing.

    4. Re:Eh, whatever. by janrinok · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm afraid I must disagree. If what you say is true, then it would be impossible for any individual to access banned sites and then to download the material which they contain. The number of cases in the UK where individuals have been taken to court for having material that contravenes some law or other (e.g. terrorist material, child pornography etc) which has been downloaded from the internet suggests that such blocking is not taking place. I admit that the government would probably carry out such blocking if it could but there is nothing to suggest that it is currently taking place on a widespread scale.

      The link that you gave does not state that any blocking is taking place, it simply serves as a focus where complaints can be sent. In fact, the page showing the 'relationship' between the IWF and the police is blank! Similarly, the page showing the relationship with the Government simply gives information on those politicians who support the IWF. As far as I understand it, there is no legal remit for ISPs to monitor the content of your internet traffic in the UK. It can be done for individual cases where the police or relevant agency can obtain a warrant suitably authorised under current legal and judicial rules.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    5. Re:Eh, whatever. by janrinok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes and No.

      Firstly, this is possible because the IWF have passed the URLs of sites which 'they' consider to be unsuitable to BT who have blocked them. It is NOT because anyone is monitoring all internet traffic. If a site is not reported then it cannot be blocked

      Secondly, this may be the case for BT, but it is not a legal directive, or even a request, from the Government to all ISPs. If you dislike the fact that a particular ISP is doing something that you disagree with then you are free to use a different ISP. So I still cannot agree that

      [a]ll UK ISPs already filter for child porn.... They don't. They only block those sites which the IWF is aware of, and it is only those ISPs who choose to do so that are playing this game.

      However, of great concern is what yardstick does the IWF use for deciding that a site is terrorism or child pornography? If I show a picture of a molotov cocktail, i.e. a bottle containing some inflammable fluid with a burning wick, am I now guilty of terrorism? After all, someone might get an idea from my picture and manufacture a similar device. But what if I am describing a weapon used by the Home Guard while training to defend the UK from Hitler's army? Am I still a terrorist, and were members of the Home Guard terrorists? A similar argument can be stated against 'child pornography'. If I place a photo of my grandchild on a web site is that child pornography? What if she is wearing a swimming costume? Hell, what if she is naked? Nudity is not an offence. Unfortunately, the best legal minds find it very difficult to define pornography in hard, legal terms. It is often a very subjective decision. What gives the IWF the right - and inherent infallibility - to judge such matters?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  2. A difference... by Stanistani · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's not an Internet policeman, just an Internet marketer.

    I can live with that.

    --
    You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
  3. Love the guilt laden language they use... by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    basically the only thing the recording industry didn't toss out there was "its for the children"

    My question about ISPs in Britain is, how much say does the EU have over them? How does the EU versus the law of England stack up in regards to this situation?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I particularly liked

      The BPI denied it is asking ISPs to become internet police, saying the firms need to educate their customers not to steal music.
      Er well no, actually they don't need to do any such thing. As a trade body who apparently represents the interests of the recording industry it's your responsibility to "educate" the public. It's nothing to do with the ISP.
    2. Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... by daveime · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, and in a perfect world the sellers of handguns should "educate" gangs not to shoot people, and the cigarette companies should "educate" smokers that they're probably going to die prematurely.

      Just because someone supplies a service doesn't make them responsible for what the masses decide to do with that service, especially not in terms of protecting the interests of a group of sharks in business suits.

    3. Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... by Psiren · · Score: 2, Informative

      and the cigarette companies should "educate" smokers that they're probably going to die prematurely. Well over here in the UK, they do just that. Granted they've been forced to by government legislation, but nevertheless, you can't buy a packet of cigarettes with a message on it saying you're going to die horribly, or something similar.
    4. Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... by adpsimpson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well over here in the UK, they do just that. Granted they've been forced to by government legislation, but nevertheless, you can't buy a packet of cigarettes with a message on it saying you're going to die horribly, or something similar.

      Cigarettes aren't really a valid comparison, as they only have one purpose - to smoke. And that gives you the nasties.

      No, what we need is a good, solid car analogy.

      It's more like every car seller being forced to monitor all future use of cars they sell in question to prevent a minor crime (like, say, dropping litter out of the window) which may be committed with that car.

      Of course, once the CCTV, GPS and other instrumentation was in place, then it becomes a legal quagmire once the car is used for other crimes - couldn't the Litter Prevention Society see the bank being robbed? Is that your daughter? Does your wife know about the lifts you've been giving your secretary?

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
    5. Re:Love the guilt laden language they use... by Laukei · · Score: 2, Informative

      EU law overrides any laws of the country. It's the priniciple of supremacy of the EU. If a member state contravenes EU law it can be punished with fines.

      Oh, and IANAL.

  4. Innocence by phorm · · Score: 5, Funny

    But note that this ISP is one of the ones said to have worked with Phorm on plans to track customers' surfing

    I know nothing of this, honestly!

  5. Neutrality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    mod ISP +1 for standing up to gov lobbyists.
    mod ISP -1 for cosying with phorm.
    Net result: 0 points.

    Is this what they mean by net neutrality?

    1. Re:Neutrality? by makomk · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair, at least they were pretty quick to say they'd be including an opt-out that didn't send all your traffic through Phorm's equipment after it became clear how controversial it would be (unlike the other two ISPs). I don't think they're exactly going to be making any lists of P2P-friendly ISPs any time soon either, though.

  6. They make it sound like a natural thing by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The spokesman for the BPI makes it sound like the relationship between ISPs and the music industry is symbiotic. They dress up the "responsibilities" of the ISP in pretty words that make it sound like shutting down users is the greatest thing in the world.

    If you read the article, you'll find Geoff Taylor's doublespeak amazing.

    At the heart of this issue is ensuring that creators are fairly rewarded in the digital age

    Okay so far...

    and we passionately believe that working in partnership with ISPs to develop first-class, safe, legal, digital music services is the way forward.

    Uh...

    Here's the appropriate response to that idiocy from Charles Dunstone, TalkTalk head.

    We are the conduit that gives users access to the internet. We do not control the internet, nor do we control what our users do on the internet.

    Good job, Charles.

    1. Re:They make it sound like a natural thing by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also his smug assumption that if the ISPs don't reach a voluntary agreement that he'll simply have laws drawn up to compel them is quite sickening. Why should the trials of a group of music publicists be afforded so much attention and deference ?

    2. Re:They make it sound like a natural thing by CogDissident · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And BPI is saying that ISPs should disconnect users, which hurts their revenue directly. So, co-operate with BPI: lose money and customers. Fight BPI: keep customers, and free publicity and good will.

      Easy business decision if you ask me.

    3. Re:They make it sound like a natural thing by e6003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also reading between the lines can be amusing.

      "...and we passionately believe that working in partnership with ISPs to develop first-class, safe, legal, digital music services is the way forward."

      Digital music services that are controlled by BPI members that is. Not music services controlled by "new media" companies or independent record labels.

      "the [ISPs] need to educate their customers not to steal music..."

      The ISPs need to educate their users not to take advantage of the fact that modern packet-switched networks make it very easy to transfer information and that ultimately music is just information. The ISPs need to educate their users that only the big, 20th century media companies that grew big by distributing music on plastic discs of various sorts (when that was the most technologically cutting edge way of distributing music) can distribute music in the 21st century, even when music consumers are voting in droves with their wallets and saying that they aren't so interested in plastic discs of finite capacity containing semi-arbitrary selections of tracks any more. The ISPs need to educate their customers not to circumvent these old business models. Also the ISPs need to educate their users that the copyright laws of the printing press era are rigid and unchangeable, even when they are spectacularly unsuited to and incapable of dealing with "mass piracy" brought on by the aforementioned ease of transferring information.

      Yes, that's what ISPs need to educate their users about in the eyes of Big Media.

  7. conduit by esocid · · Score: 4, Funny

    He said: "Our position is very clear. We are the conduit that gives users access to the internet. We do not control the internet, nor do we control what our users do on the internet.
    Again with this british slang for tubes?
    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  8. presumptuous much? by lysse · · Score: 2, Insightful
    FTFA:

    [The BPI] also says that if [ISPs] do not help with the fight against music piracy, then the government will bring in legislation to make them cooperate.

    (Sadly, they're probably on safe ground.)
  9. Amazed by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm amazed it's taken this long before any of the ISPs have spoken out, any sort of policing at all is quite clearly not their job and the very second they begin to take an interest in the content they are transmitting, the second that happens they are going to monitoring and reporting everything to everyone and responsible for all manner of disasters and tragedies when the overwhelming technical impossibility of what they're being asked to do causes something to go wrong.

    Any special interest group worried about a particular activity on the internet will want the ISP to ban it, ever media craze will lead to more things being banned and the ISP carrying the can for policing it, any government dept looking for some quick headlines will get them to report ( for example ) anyone talking about benefit fraud in chat rooms to the benefit agency.

    Today Jaqui Smith, some brainless minister in the British government, is suggesting ( yet again ) that all paedophiles should register their e-mail addresses with the police and not be allowed to register on chat rooms with those addresses. She says she is in discussions with ISPs to police this. She is too stupid to realise what she is asking for and too moronic to understand palming her inability to convict people and lock them up should not be palmed off onto commercial entities who have no business whatsover doing her policing for her.

    1. Re:Amazed by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My first thought when I heard that this morning was

      (a) how does she know all the emails and aliases of every paedophile. Ask them? Like they're likely to tell her... More likely she only has one on record.
      (b) does she *realize* how quickly you can create a gmail or hotmail account?
      (c) good luck getting myspace/facebook/etc. to do this.. they're not UK companies and are just as likely to tell her to sod off.

    2. Re:Amazed by timftbf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, credit where credit's due, she asked the people operating the social-networking sites popular with children what could be done to keep paedophiles off those sites. They offered the facility to ban people from registering with black-listed email addresses. ISPs are simply not in the loop.

      The weaker part is getting the paedophiles[0] to register their email addresses, in the same way as they have to register their physical address. We all know it's easy to create new email addresses, but the point here is that for said paedophile, creating / using a new email address becomes an offense (or at least a cause for investigation) in itself, in the same way that registering one postal address and being found to be living at another would be. The assumption is that they wouldn't need a new non-registered address unless they were planning to do something wrong.

      It's not a perfect analogy, but it seems to me a pretty reasonable attempt to do something, involving the right people - users of web sites and admins of web sites - without stomping all over everyone else's use of the Internet.

      [0] For whatever definition of that is in the measures. Not all paedophiles are on the Sex Offenders Register, and not everyone on the Sex Offenders Register is a paedophile.

    3. Re:Amazed by Tim+Browse · · Score: 5, Funny

      and viola - he now has a myspace/facebook/whatever account...

      Not to mention a stringed instrument!

  10. Talk Talk: bit torrent throttlers by sjwest · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you read the customers of talk talk tales of woe site http://talktalkhell.wordpress.com/ you will note that wow players (uses b/t) are penalised since they use b/t and are so deemed bit bandwidth eaters and bad for his business. Dunstones attempts at running an isp mean that most consider his first enterprise talk talk a failure, his next venture was to buy aol in the uk.

    1. Re:Talk Talk: bit torrent throttlers by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're a bottom end ISP. The kind of people who are their target customers surf a couple of times a week and maybe send email... hence they're extremely cheap, but their service is crap when compared to others.

      They're going for publicity here - good for them. I don't think they're really standing up to anything.. ISPs are reluctant to do the kind of thing the BPI is asking without a court order anyway, so it's all noise right now.

      If the government tried to legislate that ISPs are effectively censors of the internet there would be a bit of a stink. Not least from the ISPs themselves who could suddenly become liable if illegal downloads/kiddie porn/etc. were found on their networks.. at the moment they're no more liable than the post office or british telecom are for these things.

  11. Phorm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's worth noting that Carphone warehouse/ Talk Talk are the only ISP to confirm a true opt-out from Phorms profiling. Phorm claim that the cookie based opt-out is sufficient but that prevents users receiving targeted ads, it doesn't affect the **cough** unlawful interception **cough** profiling. As for their position on disconnecting P2P users, kudos.

    Perhaps if the BPI and friends weren't so stupid and greedy, this situation would have never arisen? There is a discussion to be had concerning renumeration for "artists" or anyone who traditionally relies on royalties as a major part of their income. I see no reason middlemen like the BPI, RIAA and friends should be relevant to that discussion.

  12. Is it not also a matter of privacy? by ewrong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a bit like asking the post office to open every single letter they deliver to check whether they have any illegally copied DVDs or CDs in there.