Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Government Abandons Piracy Legislation

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the abandon-all-hope-ye-who-enter-here dept.

arcticstoat writes "Following last year's reports of a scheme to 'ban' pirates from the Internet via ISPs in the UK, it looks as though the UK government has now decided to back down on the plan, saying that it hopes it won't have to apply 'the heavy hand of legislation'. The UK's Intellectual Property Minister, David Lammy, said that 'I'm not sure it's actually going to be possible,' as a result of the complexities of enforcing such legislation. Lammy also revealed that he had a different opinion on file sharers than many people in the music industry. He pointed out that there's a big difference between organized counterfeiting gangs and 'younger people not quite buying into the system'. He added that 'we can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap — there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television.'"

3 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Not common sense by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Informative

    They just ran out of money, that's all.

  2. Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It by carou · · Score: 4, Informative

    First the average payment was £18 (about $25), which is hardly unreasonable. Secondly the law explicitly allows for ISPs to make a charge covering the costs of data retrieval. If it wasn't for that, you'd get police forces on fishing expeditions requesting information on just about *everybody*.

  3. Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It by kaiidth · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, an independent charity whose CEO is an ex-police officer.

    http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/page.66.200.htm

    Peter joined the Metropolitan Police Service in 1971 and completed his police career in 2002 as the Borough Commander for Hackney. During his service he worked in the Obscene Publications Branch at Scotland Yard and liaised regularly with Child Protection Units. He specialised in inner city policing and public disorder events and acted as an independent police advisor to the Independent Electoral Commission in South Africa in 1994.

    He was awarded the Queens Police Medal in 2001 for distinguished police service.

    Peter was appointed Chief Executive of the IWF in April 2002 and has led the organisation's expansion from a membership base of just fifteen companies to over ninety, a tripling of its income and the conversion from not-for-profit to charitable status. He has overseen major governance and role and remit reviews and a recent modernisation of the IWF's Board, stakeholder and consultation structures. He continues to foster the extensive partnerships and organisational integrity on which the success of the IWF relies and is presently engaged in developing the IWF's new three-year strategic plan.

    He is a member of the Executive Board of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety and a National Internet Crime Forum. He was a member of the Home Secretary's Task Force on the Protection of Children on the Internet until it was replaced by the new UK Council for Child Internet Safety. He chaired a national Search Engine Working Group on behalf of the Government which culminated in the publication of a good practice guide for search providers and consumers. He regularly presents at events relating to illegal online content and frequently speaks to the media at home and abroad.

    Peter was awarded the OBE in the Queen's 2008 New Years Honour's list for services to Children and Families.

    No offence to them but at best it's a quango. Robbins joined fresh from his police career the year that Malcolm Hutty, executive director of the Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet, and two other members resigned. At the same time that the IWF came up with its 'Tough New Approach', in fact, curiously enough.

    Whether or not it is funded as an independent charity, the Powers That Be very definitely have a hand in IWF sockpuppetry. As far as I can see the only differences between this approach to the IWF and the directly govt funded approach are a) the govt don't have to pay for it, because they can just lean on the ISPs to get 'donations', and b) a complete, total lack of accountability. The govt pretty much forced the creation of the IWF in the first place by threatening to raid ISPs...