Britain to crack down on file sharing
Published: 31 August, 2009, 09:31
Edited: 03 January, 2010, 07:32
TAGS: Conflict, Politics, Law, Internet
File sharers beware! The British government's proposing a radical new way to punish those who freely swap music and films over the web: cutting off their internet access.
It's a startling turnaround from just two months ago, when the government’s own Digital Britain report ruled out the measure as going too far. Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group feels the new proposals are draconian, because media companies themselves have at last started responding to the threat.
“Actually, piracy is reducing online and the reason for this is that the content industries have finally got the services in place so people can choose legal alternatives which are better than peer-to-peer file sharing,” he told RT.
“Now they are available, piracy is reducing and online revenues are going up. So at the moment the market is solving the problems, suddenly, the government wants to get all heavy handed”.
The move comes hot on the heels of a meeting between the business secretary Lord Mandelson and Hollywood mogul David Geffen, during a recent holiday in Corfu.
That’s intensified speculation the pair reached a secret deal to protect the film and music industries, an allegation denied by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. As the saying goes, “if you can't beat them, join them”, and that's exactly what the Pirate Bay file sharing website has done by launching a political party in the UK, in the hope of changing things from within.
“Our copyright laws were written over a hundred years ago,” Andrew Robinson, the leader of the Pirate Party explained.
“So naturally they don't have anything useful to say about the current situation with computers and file sharing. They're all based around the idea that copyright works are always traded for profit. File sharing is a new kind of experience where people trade because they want to share our culture.”
Internet service providers are also on the offensive: they would be the ones forced to foot the bill for the technical aspects of these measures. They’ve also made it plain they don’t want to police the web on behalf of the media sector.
The introduction of this law would undoubtedly constitute a crackdown on illegal file sharing, and potentially act as a deterrent. But the wide range of opinions both in parliament and in the various industries involved mean a consensus will be very hard to reach.
Ironically, this suggests that illegal file sharing will continue unchecked in Britain for the time being – something the government, and Lord Mandelson, want to avoid.
30.08.2009, 20:29
1 comment
Belarusian fighter jet crashes in PolandTwo pilots were killed when a Belarusian SU-27 fighter jet crashed at an air show in Poland, the Belarus Defense Ministry reports. |
31.08.2009, 12:02
Riding the storm: unique horse theater’s mounting costsA unique horse theater in North Ossetia is the only theater in Russia where horses act as part of the performance. But a series of tragedies has put this artistic endeavor in danger. |
The unelected politician, who was previously sacked on two separate occasions, may be keen to help out another rich guy who bought him lunch but this concept is doomed to failure. The EU has already made it clear that removing someone's Internet connection without due process (i.e. a day in court and a chance for the victim to defend themself) would represent a serious breach of their human rights. The next problem is that, when cutting off an Internet connection, several family members may be affected despite only one being responsible. Such group punishment is also not legal. The reason this idea has been floated is precisely because the copyright holders have failed miserably when they have had to take these issues before a court. The biggest mistake has been to identify and accuse the wrong people as illegal file sharers. Now, because they know they cannot win in court, they would like a method which forgoes the legal niceties of a court and the right of individuals to defend themselves.
Well said JG.