UK rings the changes on 3 Strikes plan
p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- The British government is continuing to put the interests of the corporate entertainment industry before those of British citizens.
It’s among countries baldly fronting the Three Strikes element of ACTA, the so-called the ACTA project which, as p2pnet said recently, is currently “being introduced as locally proposed legislation by governments in countries such as the UK and France”, going on:
“Under it, governments would act as entertainment industry copyright agents, and ISPs would become industry enforcers against their own customers.”
Among ardent supporters of the bill are Terry Pratchet (right) and Simon Cowell.
An online petition the effect of galvanising Britons into action and “The government has backed away from its proposals in the Digital Economy Bill to cut off people who have illegally shared files online”, says the Guardian, going on”
“In a response to a petition on the Number 10 website that petitioned Gordon Brown ‘to abandon Lord Mandelson’s plans to ban individuals from the internet based on their use of ‘peer to peer’ file sharing”, the government says: ‘We will not terminate the accounts of infringers – it is very hard to see how this could be deemed proportionate except in the most extreme – and therefore probably criminal – cases’.”
As p2pnet has often pointed out, Mandelson is actually no more than the UK front man front for Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures.
Nevertheless, with the announcement the UK government is changing certain parts of the three strikes bill, it appeared Hollywood and Big Music had suffered a ringing blow to using Britain as a hammer against people they claim have been illegally sharing files online.
Fittingly, most of the pressure has come from online protesters.
However, “If the warnings fail to act as a sufficient deterrent, and illegal file sharing is not cut by 70 per cent, the the government plans to restrict the account user’s internet access using ‘technical measures’,” observes V3.co.uk.
Tthe government “has now attempted to further clarify its position in response to the petition, and to answer criticism from privacy groups and the Joint Committee on Human Rights”, it says, going on >>>
It argued in its response to the petition that the rights holders of the content will be burdened with the job of identifying alleged copyright infringement, not the ISPs. It has also said that the process will involve identifying the IP addresses of uploaders and will not look at what individuals download.
The government also promised not to terminate the accounts of infringers. ” It is very hard to see how this could be deemed proportionate except in the most extreme, and therefore probably criminal, cases,” it said.
“We added account suspension to the list of possible technical measures which might be considered if our measures to tackle unlawful file sharing through notifications and legal action are not as successful as we hope.
Response dismissed as ‘spin’,
The phrase ‘technical measures’ is the used as euphemism ways stop people ongoing online and “might be a bandwidth restriction, a daily downloading limit or, as a last resort, temporary account suspension”, says the government.
However, “The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for consumers’ digital rights, dismissed the response as ‘spin’, arguing that families could be denied access to the internet if their connection is hijacked by illegal file sharers”, says V3, quoting Jim Killock, Open Rights Group executive director, as saying:
“The government has chosen the term ‘temporary account suspension’ because it sounds boring and reasonable. But it’s just spin.
“What journalist would report a story about ‘temporary account suspension’? The fact is that families will not be able to connect to the internet. That sounds like disconnection to us.”
New Zealand has also ‘updated’ its proposed three strikes legislation.
It, too, is dressed up as an answer to criticisms but it, too, leaves the door wide open to the entertainment industry cartels.
It “extends the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal, enabling it to hear complaints and award penalties of up to $15,000 based on the amount of damage sustained by the copyright owner” and “will also enable copyright owners to seek the suspension of internet accounts through the District Court for up to six months”.
Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil.
Stay tuned.
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
baldly fronting – Make 3 strikes bill law, says Simon Cowell, February 22, 2010
self-serving petition – TalkTalk: fighting the Three Strikes bill, January 29, 2010
Guardian – Plans to cut off internet connections of illegal filesharers dumped, February 22, 2010
V3.co.uk – Government rejects calls to axe ‘three strikes’ rule, February 23, 2010
‘updated’ – New Zealand ‘three-notice regime’, February 23, 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.
The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill repeals Section 92A and replaces it with a three-notice regime which is intended to deter illegal file sharing.
“This amendment puts in place a fair and balanced process to deal with online copyright infringements occurring via file sharing,” Mr Power says.
“The major feature is the three-notice process, which educates the public about illegal file sharing and provides effective methods for copyright owners to enforce their copyright.
“It ensures that file sharers are given adequate warnings that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal.”
The bill also extends the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal, enabling it to hear complaints and award penalties of up to $15,000 based on the amount of damage sustained by the copyright owner.
Mr Power says the bill will also enable copyright owners to seek the suspension of internet accounts through the District Court for up to six months.
