UK ISP Spots a File-Sharing Loophole, Implements It

An anonymous reader writes "As well as taking an active part in OFCOM's code of obligations in regards to the ill-conceived Digital Economy Act (the UK three-strikes law for filesharers), niche ISP Andrews & Arnold have identified various loopholes in the law, the main one being that a customer can be classified as a communications provider. They have now implemented measures so in your control panel you may register your legal status and be classed as such." Another of the loopholes this inventive ISP sussed out: "Operating more than one retail arm selling to customers and allowing customers to migrate freely with no change to service between those retail arms, thus bypassing copyright notice counting and any blocking orders."

Comments

Re:I can't believe.....

[Tony Hoyle]

It was voted in by about 200 pissed up MPs who had been dragged out of the pub to make sure it passed. Only about 40 actually attended the debate.

Watching it happen was an eye opener to say the least. Any illusions that we have actual representation died that day.

Impractical and/or illegal?

[Grumbleduke]

Just looking through the list, I'm not particularly excited by their loop-holes.

• Ok, I'll accept that this is quite cunning; however, it is basically just shifting the burden. It means that rather than needing n strikes, you'll need 2n-1 strikes (assuming two people capable of signing the subscriber agreement). They will all still go on the list of alleged infringements and any allegations (from what I remember of the debates; can't find the Hansard quote) stay with you for some time, even if you switch ISP. - Ineffective
• I'm a little worried by becoming a "communications provider". There are over 400 sections of the Communications Act 2003 most of which seems to be aimed at laying down rules and laws for communications providers. I haven't read this Act thoroughly, but I think this will just end up placing a huge burden on the unsubscriber (like the provisions on Data Retention, or registering with the Information Commissioner - that sort of thing). Even then, it could be argued that if you are a communications provider, then you must provide the service to some sort of subscriber (even if it is just you) so then you become the target of all the initial obligations and liable for carrying them out. - Could cause a lot of trouble
• This hinges on the definition of "allocation". Not sure how well this would hold up in Court (when the ISP is taken to court for not carrying out its obligations). However, it is a good example of what happens when you have an Act "debated" only briefly by people who mostly don't understand the context. - Possible, but might not hold up.
• Comments to the second point apply here as well. Could work, but will likely be highly problematic for the unsubscriber. Also, this would only apply to some users, not all. - Problematic and limited
• This was discussed in the Lords (should be quotes somewhere in Hansard) and there was an idea that the copyright notice count should follow you from one ISP to another. It's not explicit in the Act (from what I can see), but could be in the Code. It probably will be now. - Probably covered
• This seems to hinge on the definition of an ISP. The definition is quite loose, and the three criteria are that they have subscribers (also defined quite loosely), they mainly or entirely provide access to the Internet and allocate IP addresses. The first and third have already been discussed, but the second might work; you'd need to find another primary business for the ISP - i.e. they sell invisible pink unicorns, but you get an Internet connection free with every monthly sale. - Could work
• Well, this one should be a given. If they receive an invalid notice, they should delete it (or if I get my way, take action against whoever sent it). Of course, what makes it valid will be in the Code. The main criteria would be ensuring the evidence of infringement was up to standards (standards that aren't defined yet) and that whoever sent the notice actually owns the copyright. Both of these could require a lot of effort from the ISP to check. Also, if the ISP doesn't comply with the DEA, under Section 14 (2) they can be fined up to £250,000. This isn't something small ISPs are likely to mess with. Not really a loop-hole

So, while I am impressed that at least one ISP has thoroughly read through the Act and is trying to work against it, I think their loop-holes aren't going to be that good in practice (with the one exception). Still, their draft Code seems to have highlighted many of the key points, and I hope that they will get heavily involved with the Code-drafting process.

The best way to get around this sort of thing is to either fight for repealing the Act (so vote Pirate or Green - while the Lib Dems have said they want to repeal it, that's due to the process by which it was passed, they still seem mostly in favour of the content) or making sure that the Code approved