Slashdot Mirror


UK Government Abandons Piracy Legislation

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.'"

27 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. First by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government? Pinch me!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:First by Blue+Stone · · Score: 3, Funny

      >First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government? Pinch me!

      Don't worry, our error will be corrected and normal service will resume shortly.
      Thank you for your patience, loyal citizen (your lack of faith has been noted).
      - Zanu Labour.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:First by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, that's not possible, because pinching is considered harassment under UK law. Sorry about that.

    3. Re:First by meist3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now we can download stoner movies, but can't smoke a reefer whilst watching them.

      Stoner movies don't actually make you think about stuff that much, granted, pot does make you think incoherent stuff at times but it makes you think nonetheless. The last thing the UK government needs now is people thinking stuff about their incoherent policies.

  2. Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'.

    Call me stupid but I was kind of hoping they would pass legislation and attempt to arrest a 100,000 people--flooding their legal system with 'guilty' file sharers and stealing valuable time from police officers who should be focusing on real threats to society.

    You know, it's not until they actually try to rigidly enforce this that they'll realize that the premise of "stealing from the IFPI/MPAA/RIAA" is utter bullshit. They'll be arresting (hopefully Brazil style) large numbers of students that have no money and finding that the file sharing they were doing did not supplant an imaginary source of spending. They'll also cripple their legal system to try to reprimand people from "stealing" something that isn't physical.

    I'm not supporting illegal file sharing, I'm not condoning it, I am just hoping that they try to enforce something this stupid so they realize they are in no way providing a solution to a fix an archaic business model threatened by amazing new communications technology.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's likely not economic for them to enforce, either. In a recent story on catching Internet Criminals, it was brought up that the UK Government has to pay something like $300 per request when requesting user data from ISPs. That -can't- be worth it, given the number of people and likely few convictions that this would actually result in.

    2. Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Funny

      In a recent story on catching Internet Criminals, it was brought up that the UK Government has to pay something like $300 per request when requesting user data from ISPs.

      It seems kind of surprising to me that an ISP would try to charge the government anything for access to investigatory data. I'd think the government would just respond with an "OK, if that's the way you want to play it. Allow us to introduce you to our little regulatory friend; the "Federal Undernet Cooperative Knowledge and Unification Act" (aka: FUCK-U) that states you will give us this data for free, whenever we ask, and in whatever condition we desire."

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    3. 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*.

    4. Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It by carrier+lost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Call me stupid but I was kind of hoping they would pass legislation and attempt to arrest a 100,000 people--flooding their legal system with 'guilty' file sharers and stealing valuable time from police officers who should be focusing on real threats to society.

      See, "Drug War"

    5. Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It by Subm · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Call me stupid...

      You're stupid.

    6. 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...

    7. Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It wasn't the government, it was the IWF (www.iwf.org.uk) who are actually an independant charity.

      Except it was the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre who are a Government agency headed by a senior police officer.

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

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

  4. Why not? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "'we can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms."

    Why not? We do it here daily in the USA.

    we also financially ruin their families just for good measure as well.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Why not? We do it here daily in the USA.

      In Europe, we forgive and turn the other cheek ;)

      I take it the devout christian states in the US have less severe sentences than the evil athiest states?

    2. Re:Why not? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a big difference between stealing a bar of soap and stealing a television. There's also a big difference between stealing a television and maliciously burning down the hotel. In the USA, the potential penalties for sharing a few albums are up there with the penalties for arson.

  5. Uk government, "if at first you don't succeed" ... by MindKata · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... "then try try again", as the old saying goes.

    So, "First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government". Its not common sense. They just plan to use a bigger net to catch people with.

    In other words, Jacqui Smith's team of control freaks will be able to watch everyone (and then punish) via their much bigger plans to monitor all Internet communications, i.e ...
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18/imp_tim_hayward/

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
  6. Problem always was standards of proof by Budenny · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem always was, Company A complaining about person P to Company B, who then has to refuse P service. If you think about it from B's point of view, do they check or not? If not, what if they get it wrong and get sued - does A indemnify them? Further, from the Government's point of view. There are some services which are reasonably considered essential, and which, if you are denied them, may be more damaging to your quality of life than some criminal sentences. Yet in the case of the criminal law sanctions, the Human Rights legislation (entered into by this Government) demands due process and open hearings of the evidence. Where would that be in the present case?

    To see the absurdity of it, and why it would not fly, consider the following case. The country is in the grip of smoking hysteria. Suppose we pass a law that on three accusations of buying tobacco for minors, a person must be denied access to his local supermarket. Suppose there is only one. His ability to buy food at a reasonable price and selection is being abridged solely on an unsupported allegation, the evidence for which does not even to have to be presented to him. No judge is involved.

    In the UK we have anti social behaviour orders. These enable magistrates to order almost anything - like barring people from certain streets, certain associations or meetings, some behaviour. But even these, you do have to get an order from a magistrate. When you think about it, the proposal would be giving the record industry the power to disconnect anyone they chose from the internet with no reason given, no hearing, no comeback, not even a magistrate being informed.

    It was never going to fly. The EC Charter guarantees access to information. This sort of measure is totally incompatible with it. It is going to be down to old fashioned policing and prosecution if they want to stamp out file sharing in violation of copyright. Yes, it will be expensive and time consuming. And yes, it may not work, or may not be worth working. And yes, maybe they would be better off revising their business model. But if they don't want to revise, that's the only way. Very glad the government has seen the cliff in time, and stopped. Not that you could really miss it, it was pretty obvious. The only people who would have enjoyed it would have been the lawyers, blowing up case after case with unconcealed glee!

  7. Wow. by Xest · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm left speechless. It's as if someone with an ounce of intelligence has cunningly infiltrated their way in.

    Someone in British government with a clue, this really should be headline news in every paper.

    No doubt Jacqui Smith will implement emergency legislation and have him shot by firing squad ASAP on terrorism charges now however.

  8. Just means someone else will do it. by Brad_McBad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The law, as I understand it was proposed, would have made ISPs responsible for monitoring their networks and enforcing the law, which ain't their job.

    All this does is open the way for a properly appointed government body to do it.

    Bugger.

  9. In other words... by Spad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap â" there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television

    In other words, it's fine to steal things as long as they're of low value. I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.

    1. Re:In other words... by Rayban · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's why it's such a perfect analogy. Crime isn't binary - there are decent people that would take soap from a hotel room, but wouldn't consider stealing gum from a shop.

      Society is better off if we don't prosecute crimes of low value or low impact, but rather leave it to citizens to work out between themselves.

      --
      æeee!
    2. Re:In other words... by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.

      Can they actually use the soap after you leave? All the ones I've seen have (unopened) individually wrapped soap, which I assume is meant to be disposable for hygiene reasons (can't have people using the previous guest's dirty soap).

    3. Re:In other words... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Haha - you're entirely wrong.

      Complimentary = with our compliments.

      Complementary = making complete.

      Unless you are trying to claim that the meaning of 'complementary' is that the bathroom sans soap is somewhat less than whole, you've just made a complete arse of yourself.

      Thankyou for playing the pedantry game - please feel free to come back when you are better at it.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    4. Re:In other words... by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can they actually use the soap after you leave? All the ones I've seen have (unopened) individually wrapped soap, which I assume is meant to be disposable for hygiene reasons (can't have people using the previous guest's dirty soap).

      Under Australian health regulations, they have to. Those little packets of soap are covered under the same regulations as the little packets of butter and jam, Anything that is touched by a customer must be disposed of and not reused regardless of weather it is opened or not. Of course this little regulation is sometimes ignored in private with unopened packets.

      But when it comes to taking soap from a hotel room, is it really stealing? The cost of replacing that bar of soap and the little bottles of shampoo are factored into the price you paid to stay there. It's not like taking the towels or replacing vodka in the minibar with water (not that I've done this, walks away whistling). Shrinkage is also factored into a hotel's operating costs but it still doesn't make stealing towels right.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  10. Don't get too excited yet. by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bear in mind the Gower's report on copyright terms that was an independent review on what was best for the country. The report fed back that 50 years as is is fine, but less would be better.

    Both the Conservatives and Labour outright ignored this independent report that they commissioned in the first place and still decided to push for 70 years.

    This could just as well end up the same. Unfortunately common sense holds no place in the corrupt halls of British parliament. Why follow the recommended route and gain nothing when you can just vote for harsh punishments and get all sorts of goodies and incentives from the music and movie industry? That's how most of them see it. It aint just the Lords that's corrupt, I felt David Cameron's comment the other day that he'd put someone from the creative industries (music, movies, books, advertising) in charge of Britain's broadband future quite telling- I mean really, what the hell qualifications do the creative industries have for solving what are basically technological problems?

  11. It really is! by Nabeel_co · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow it really is a sudden outbreak of common sense... I am shocked. Then again, it would be 10x more amazing if it were the US dropping the DMCA...