UK 3 strikes debate: ‘value of infringements’
p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics | Music:- “Canada isn’t under a Three Strikes threat. Yet. But if Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, are given same kind of free rein they’re enjoying in France and Britain, it won’t be long in coming.”
The quote is from my post on the fact the “UK version of the entertainment industry’s Three Strikes business plan, touted as an independent proposal under the UK Digital Economy Bill, enters the committee stage in the House of Lords …”
Hopefully, I went on, whatever it is will align more with the views of Lord Ralph Lucas (right), who recently said, “We are talking about powerful, monopolistic industries and giving them power over our citizens is something we ought to be careful of”, than those of Lord Peter Mandelson, who’s fronting the bill on behalf of the cartels.
Now, “an amendment proposed by Lord Lucas says ‘copyright infringement reports’ — which record labels and movie studios would send to to ISPs, detailing instances of alleged abuse by a customer — must also ’set out the value of the infringement on the basis described in the initial obligations’,” says paidContent UK, noting:
“That could, for example, force record labels to equate one pirated track with one lost sale — a conclusion that some would dispute.”
The story has Lucas saying warnings should include “full details of a subscriber’s right to appeal, and of where information on how to appeal may be found,” also pointing out Lord Clement-Jones wants included “advice about how to respond to the notification if the subscriber believes it to be based on an error of fact, wrong in law or unreasonable”.
paidContent UK goes on >>>
Lords Razall and Clement-Jones wanted victims to be told about “appropriately balances the interest of rights holders and the interests of the public in due process, privacy, freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights guaranteed by inter alia the European Convention of Human Rights and the EC Charter (NSDQ: CHTR) of Rights”.
– Whitty also wants to scrap a clause that “the number and nature of copyright infringement reports relating to the subscriber may be taken into account for the purposes of any technical measures” (ie. bandwidth throttling or disconnections) – that could make “three strikes” unworkable, since ISPs would apparently not be allowed to count from one to three.
– Clement-Jones also wants complaining copyright holders to send along “a sworn statement … that the information collected has been obtained in compliance with all relevant laws, including data protection and privacy laws, and by persons entitled to gather such information”.
Not only but also, Whitty and Lucas want ‘copyright infringement’ altered to include that which “appears to have taken place through peer-to-peer filesharing networks on a subscriber’s IP address” and that’s sure “to rile campaigners who protest that IP numbers do not correspond to identity”, says the post, adding:
“But Lords Razzall and Clement-Jones want to stop copyright holders from referring to IP addresses in their reports to ISPs. Another would remove a clause allowing action to be taken against even individuals who have allowed their connection to be used by an infringing user.”
Definitely stay tuned.
(Cheers, Marc)
Jon Newton – p2pnet / a2f2a.com
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
committee stage – UK Lords on Hollywood, Big Music, 3 strikes plan, January 5, 2010
paidContent UK – Digital Economy Bill: Copyright Holders May Have To State Income Lost To Piracy, January 6, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
US film giants appeal in file-sharing case
Published: 6 Jan 10 12:28 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/24230/20100106/
In a corporate David and Goliath-style case, a Stockholm-based internet operator is fighting a file-sharing lawsuit against a collective of large US film companies.
A list of 14 companies, including Disney Enterprises, Universal Studios and Paramount Pictures, have lodged an appeal to force Swedish broadband operator Portlane to shut-down a so-called tracker, a device they state is being used illegally to simplify file-sharing.
In early December, Stockholm District Court denied the film companies’ demands and concluded that Portlane’s main business activity, supplying internet access, could not be considered as a contribution to copyright infringement.
The movie moguls are now countering the court’s decision. They claim that by offering bandwidth along with the tracker it is simpler to find and download illegal files via the internet.
An appeal was consequently lodged before Christmas and the case will now be heard in Sweden’s Court of Appeal.
According to an article in Wednesday’s Svenska Dagbladet, Portlane’s tracker is suspected of replacing a device from the controversial Swedish file-sharing site The Pirate Bay.
The film companies state that Portlane has not done enough to put a stop to suspected file-sharing and the operator must therefore take responsibility.
For the less technologically-minded, the appeal document uses an analogy which compares Portlane’s actions to a landlord who turns a blind eye to a tenant performing illegal sexual acts for financial reward.
“An example of a similar type of contributory responsibility is a landlord embroiled in pimping,” the document states. “It is not enough that the landlord attempts to persuade the tenant to put an end to their actions if they do not then stop.”
Speaking to Swedish Radio after the District Court verdict, lawyer Jonas Forzelius, representing Portlane, was confident that the company would come out on top.
“What the court has said in this interim decision is that taking the side of the film companies in this matter would result in far-reaching consequences for any internet operator,” he said. “And that has been Portlane’s take on the case all along.”
Christine Demsteader (news@thelocal.se)
January 6th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Good find Lars!
“The film companies state that Portlane has not done enough to put a stop to suspected file-sharing and the operator must therefore take responsibility.”
Almost like what they said abut iiNet in AU.
It’s only a matter of time before they hit Canada with this rhetoric. I am betting they hit a certain small wholesaler, or two.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Imagine how many more lost sales they could recover if they reduced the price of the DVDs.