Slashdot Mirror


Proposed UK File-Sharing Laws May Be Illegal, ISPs Upset

mindbrane writes "Once in a while, a sidebar will throw a lot of light on a difficult problem. The BBC has a short piece on British ISPs' anger over proposed new laws governing file sharing in the UK. The new laws would include cutting repeat offenders off from the Internet. Early response suggests such tactics would fail: 'UK ISP Talk Talk said the recommendations were likely to "breach fundamental rights" and would not work. ... Virgin said that "persuasion not coercion" was key in the fight to crack down on the estimated six million file-sharers in the UK. ... Talk Talk's director of regulation Andrew Heaney told the BBC News the ISP was as keen as anyone to clamp down on illegal file-sharers. ... "This is best done by making sure there are legal alternatives and educating people, writing letters to alleged file-sharers and, if necessary, taking them to court."' The article also mentions a statement issued by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills which 'proposes that internet service providers are obliged to take action against repeat infringers and suggests that the cost of tracking down persistent pirates be shared 50:50 between ISPs and rights holders.' Unsurprisingly, said rights holders are in favor of the idea."

16 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Sith Mandelson by duguk · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's weird is the Digital Britain report said they should NOT cut people off, and European Parliament said it might be against human rights.

    It's Sith Mandelson that's trying to introduce this. Strangely it was reported in some newspapers that he was caught having a meeting last week with some Record companies. Wonder if they bought him a iPod or something?

    1. Re:Sith Mandelson by damburger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is an infrastructure tax anything to do with filesharers? Record companies better not get one penny of that tax if it is levied; it should all be going towards bringing us at least up to the standard of our European neighbours in terms of broadband connectivity. At the moment BT is using circuit-switching trained hamsters instead of routers.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  2. 50:50 cost? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should ISPs foot the bill to protect rights holders IP? Honestly, the idea of making ISPs liable is ridiculous. They should provide a service and be blind to anything on their networks.

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:50:50 cost? by DamonHD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This sort of lopsided silliness (and the RIP Act) was why I walked away from being a ISP (one of the very first in the UK, with sensible notions of who owned the data passing over our wires).

      So glad that I'm out of it, and still not really believing anyone makes money being an ISP.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:50:50 cost? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should ISPs foot the bill to protect rights holders IP?

      Because ISPs have a sparkly magic wand that will simply make this dreadful internet business and its calamitous effects on the entertainment industry disappear in a puff in punitive smoke.

      I mean, really. There was a time in this country when a 5 minute pop song meant something. It was a sacred institution, protected by copyright and ensuring the livelihoods of distributors across the land. Now any old miscreant feels he can whisk his songs backwards and forwards over those ghastly green tubes just like one sends emails or spreadsheets or power-point slides. Well you can't! Music is not supposed to be treated like that. There are proper channels for its distribution and the ISPs know they they aren't it!

      It's clear that they're being malicious. I remember meeting their representative. Frightful man. He accosted me with technical clap-trap; data, broadband, packet inspection, encryption, legitimate uses, feasibility studies. I told him what I'm telling you now. If the Chinese government can block off their entire internet from the BBC, then surely you can stop young scruffs from downloading things they're not supposed to. And if you can't stop them then you should cut them off! He threw his hands up in the air and left, but I sensed defeat.

      It's only a matter of time. We have petitioned the Her Majesty's Government, and they have responded favorably. Soon we will make these ISPs bring their customers to heel, and we will do it with the full force of the Law. Honestly, the attitudes and doomsdaying of some people on this never cease to amaze me. Just last week I was in conversation with a chap who felt too much restriction on the Internet was dangerous or some such rot.

      As I said to him at the time: "My dear Norfolk, this isn't Iran. This is England."

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:50:50 cost? by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I do think they should all be immune. The PS shouldn't be "inspecting" my packages. They're private. They aren't paid to snoop. The bus service isn't paid to look in back packs and conduct background checks. The phone company isn't paid to check the ages of people on the handset. The gun company isn't paid to parent people's kids. You know who is? The police. In every single case it's the legal authorities who should be doing something (well, apart from parenting, that should be the parents). A private citizen could call them and say "hey, there's a package labelled "meth" that was just delivered to a kid," or "there's a guy wearing a sign saying 'I'm on my way to blow up kids and all I'm getting is entry to heaven'" or "Hey, there's this kid on a public phone talking dirty," or "There's a kid on the playground with a glock." So, yeah, private industries should be blind and immune to abuse of their services.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  3. The gap between politicians and reality by damburger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lord Mandelson of Sith went to dinner with a corporate interest, and came back with a policy that suited that interest without regard to either citizens rights or even practicality.

    How do you stop illegal torrents without crippling the UK Internet? I mean, more than BT has managed to do?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  4. Meddling Mandy by segedunum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Once again we've got a totally unelected, dictatorial government 'minister' who starts rattling his saber over file sharing, *conincidentally* after meeting with David Geffen and being wined and dined, and then lies barface to us - again - that this unprecendented personal poking of his nose in policy that has nothing to do with him wasn't connected to that in any way.

  5. Why are the UK government getting into this? by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is entirely a problem for the music and movie industry. Why are the government acting as their bitches against the will an freedom of the people who elected them?

  6. Sith Lord Mandelson by hattig · · Score: 5, Informative

    This evil man, who somehow reappears in UK politics despite having been thrown out twice for being scum, has now become a Lord (!!!) and basically cares only for himself and his rich friends. He recently had chats with media companies, and suddenly he is espousing this hard line response. Coincidence ... hmm ...

    I don't think that many people will be sad to see Labour lose in the next election. We might not be too happy with who will come in though.

    Anyway, if 1 in 10 people is doing the same illegal thing, then what needs assessing? Surely the law itself!

  7. Britain on the edge by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Too bad the Labour Party has been taken over by a bunch of neo-conservative autocrats. The people of the UK now really have no choice except that between far right and even further right. Personal rights and due process are becoming a thing of the past, surveillance cameras proliferate like rats on Viagra, and the state is pushing its way into every area of one's private life...all in the name of security.

    I'm entirely unsurprised that this latest assault on individual freedom and dignity is gaining currency with the UK government. Who cares whether the person whose connection is cut was actually responsible for the alleged piracy? Who cares whether they were even breaking the law? And how much more efficient it will be when the notoriously greedy and dishonest entertainment industry can inflict its will on average people without even having to prove its case in court!

    All the fascists we fought during WWII would be laughing their asses off, because the current pack of neocon thugs are bringing about everything they wanted with the stroke of a pen. This latest offense against due process and the rule of law is just the cherry on an excrement sundae.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  8. What annoys me is business... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What annoys me is that business chronically shrieks that the consumer should be ever more regulated and that the penalties for breaking those regulations should be ever harsher.

    But when it comes to their own behavior, what I hear from Business is that they should be ever less regulated and the penalties for their noncompliance should range from weak to non-existent!

    Now that kid over at the university who swiped 10 songs is costing me little or nothing...pennies, at most. But, at least here in America, the Businesses who have so successfully bought deregulation have cost my country, me, and my children trillions of dollars.

    The system is whacked!

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  9. Proposed-UK-File-Sharing-Laws-May-Be-Illegal by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course it's illegal. It has always been illegal for a special interest group to attempt to run the country. That's true in every society that makes any claim to be "democratic". The question is not whether these attempts to control society are legal or not. The question is, when are people going to get pissed off enough to tell the government that these attempts will no longer be tolerated?

    All of the lobbyists should be tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail. When that's finished, go back and grab the paid off politicians for the same treatment.

    One round of that, and we'll see all lobbyists reconsidering their strategies.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  10. Re:Forego Copyrighted Material by jimicus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even that doesn't work very well.

    In order for it to work well, you'd need to cut the money off suddenly and more-or-less entirely. In other words, almost everyone on the planet starts a boycott simultaneously while loudly explaining exactly what they are doing and why. This would force them to re-think their business pretty well.

    Unfortunately, what's happening is a few people here and there are starting a boycott and the industry doesn't know what's happening - all they know is they're making fewer sales. They've been blaming this on piracy for years, what makes you think they'll stop now?

  11. ISPs pay for something irrelevant? by improfane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is not the ISP's jurisdiction to protect the rights of content holders. This is ridiculous.

    It's like a telephone company being legally responsible for checking if I am reading copyrighted material. They're just trying to reduce they're own costs.

    Media companies need to get with the times and compete.

    --
    Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
  12. Re:If it makes you feel better by TheMuon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    After the bit about the post office I strongly suspected sarcasm. After the second line about the bus-lines I was certain this was sarcasm. By the time I got to "Woosh hammer" I thought this was such well written sarcasm making such a good point that your average sixth grader would fully comprehend this comment.

    After reading the comments I realize I've either severely overestimated the reading comprehension of your average sixth grader or severely underestimated the reading comprehension of your average slashdot reader.

    PS, that "or" is inclusive.