BT, Google, Orange, say No! to 3 strikes plan
p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- “If someone is accused, a fine can be issued, a bit like a speeding offence. They can appeal it. If they don’t appeal it, then they pay a fine.”
The words belong to Ian Livingston (right), chief executive at BT, Britain’s largest provider, and they were spoken in answer to the corporate entertainment industry three strikes and you’re off the net business plan that’s close to being adopted as law of the land in the UK.
Quoted in the Telegraph, he “argued that revenue generated from fines could be used to compensate the creative industries or finance the roll-out of next-generation broadband, and would also ensure that entire families or small businesses were not penalised for the illegal behaviour of an individual”, says the story.
BT is among a powerful group of major technology companies which in an open letter have come out strongly against the Hollywood and Big Music Three Strikes plan which would turn the UK government into a corporate copyright protection agency and force ISPs to act as copyright cops against customers alleged by the cartels to be ‘illegal’ file sharers.
Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, have no qualms about making enemies of their own customers by accusing them of being criminals and thieves. But companies such Google, Facebook and eBay look askance at the idea.
“Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended”, they and others say in the letter, published in the Financial Times.
States the letter >>>
Sir, We regret that the House of Lords adopted amendment 120A to the digital economy bill (“Bill will censor internet, providers claim”, March 6). This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it could bring.
Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take. There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option. In some cases, these may never be reconciled. These issues have not even been considered in this case.
The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the bill to date. It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences. Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor lawmaking.
We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain. This debate has created tension between specific interest groups and the bigger prize of promoting a policy framework that supports our digital economy and appropriately balances rights and responsibilities. All parties should take steps to safeguard this prize and place it at the heart of public policy in this area.
Hard-core supporters of the bill include the likes of American Idol judge Simon Cowell and the Featured Artists Coalition.
Signatories include:
- Tom Alexander,
Chief Executive, Orange - Richard Allan,
Director of Policy EU, Facebook - Neil Berkett,
Chief Executive, Virgin Media - Matt Brittin,
Managing Director, Google UK and Ireland - Charles Dunstone,
Chairman, Talk Talk Group - Stephen Fry
- Jessica Hendrie-Liaño,
Chair, Internet Services Providers Association - Jill Johnstone,
International Director, Consumer Focus - Jim Killock,
Executive Director, Open Rights Group - Mark Lewis,
Managing Director, eBay UK - Ian Livingston,
Chief Executive, BT Group - Sarah Oates,
University of Glasgow - Jenny Pickerill,
University of Leicester - Mark Rabe,
Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland - Paul Reilly,
University of Leicester - Jess Search,
Founder, Shooting People independent film makers - Ian Walden,
Queen Mary, University of London - Tom Watson MP
Stay tuned.
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
law of the land – Corporate 3 Strikes scam to be law in UK, March 8, 2010
Telegraph – BT boss criticises Digital Economy Bill, March 10, 2010
Financial Times – Bill threatens UK’s reputation, March 9, 2010
Simon Cowell – Make 3 strikes bill law, says Simon Cowell, February 22, 2010
Featured Artists Coalition – Dear Ed O’Brien …, January 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. Click here to learn what technologies might help you bypass censorshiop in your area.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Good for British Telecom.
It’s nice to see that some people and corporations are starting to actually look past the surface of the copyright lobby propaganda and ree how insane the whole #DEBill is.
Good article.
March 10th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Here’s how the fine is likely to work:
1) You are accused of copyright infringement (based on the suspicion of one or more copyright holders)
2) You are required to pay a fine of £500 (a statutory settlement).
3)
a) You can refuse to pay the fine and get taken to court (by definition guilty of non-payment, facing a few extra zeroes)
b) You can appeal the fine (a fee is charged to convene a tribunal, e.g. £1,000, half of which is refunded in the event you win, otherwise you pay a total of £1,500)
c) You pay the £500 fine (and wait for the next accusation to materialise)
It’s what is known as a win-win-win scenario for the copyright holders, and a lose-lose-lose scenario for suckers (aka consumers).
Is anyone really sure a fine is much better than disconnection?
March 10th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
@Crosbie:
To the individual, the fine could be said to be worse.
But, I’d say the effect of the disconnection option would be far worse for the masses in the bigger picture. Money is not the only “consequence” we’re being forced to worry about.
March 10th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
DA, disconnection means the victim has hassle of finding alternative access, e.g. Mobile, WiMax, satellite, muniWiFi, neighbour, library, or cybercafe, moving house, etc.
Fines cannot be evaded.
Moreover, fines are worse than disconnection because anyone who can’t afford the prospect of a fine cannot afford to use the Internet.
Anyway, it’s much of a muchness. Any penalty based on the infringement of a privilege is unethical (privileges are unethical, copyright is unethical). But to have a penalty based purely upon accusation is diafuckingbolical! At least some people recognise that much, even if they still have a soft spot for ye olde copyright.
March 10th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
@Crosbie:
I understand where you’re going.
I’m not trying to take away from the obvious.
There’s nothing good about the fines, or the “prosecution by default”.
I still think the overall effects of a disconnection penalty would be felt by all society, as it would cause a number of human rights to fall in a domino effect, rippling deeper into our lives as time progresses. This, I believe would be much worse than being bilked out of a chunk of cash (whether payable or not).
First, you’d get your “penalty by pure accusation”, right off the top.
This will be used by the MAFIAA and all its henchmen to not only have bittorrent sites rendered “illegal by pure accusation” (and all that action encompasses), but to give the MAFIAA a good incentive to go back to suing customers. The IP holders would have more ammunition to work with, and the nasty letters would start flowing again, as they could then extort the fear of disconnection into more automatic cash in the hand from the public, before even applying for their disconnection.
Along with this newly-enjoyed “guilty by default” condition would come censorship and the ability to have competitors shut down. Torrent trackers, blogging sites, and anything else that could be spun to be in violation of IP laws, could be forced to shut down.
ISPs certainly don’t like the prospect of having to shut out a paying customer, but you know they’d turn the new situation into a 2-tiered subscription system – those who pay more could be given “immunity” from disconnection, with a percentage of this “protection money” going to the MAFIAA (to keep the provider also “immune”). That way, they’d get more money, both to “compensate” the provider for customers lost, and higher fees from the ones that buy in. In no time at all, that “2-tiered” system would have several tiers of “interested parties” with their hands in it.
Granted, this next one is shared by both the “fine” and “disconnection” options…
If the People are to be actively and individually “penalized”, by law, for copyright infringement, there will be the need to also mandate and legalize the surveillance that would gather the evidence with which to charge the users. Since it would be a severe conflict of interest to expect the ISPs to do this surveillance (from both the provider and IP holder view), we would see either police being forced to be involved, or more likely, an explosion of “licensed” 3rd parties building a business model from providing this surveillance for IP holders.
The question going through my mind is, who is expecting who to pay for this process?? IP holders are going to use the legal position they would have to force everyone else to pay for it, “to uphold the law”. ISPs would insist “rightly” on not absorbing any costs incurred by their newly-created “abusers”. All arms of government would insist that “unlawful actions” of the People need to be paid for by the People. So, additional costs would be diffused to the public, either in the form of taxes, or higher internet charges, or most likely, both.
What about people who might actually get their day in court? Well, we already agree the lawyers’ fees are disproportional to the infraction being defended against. What happens if the user loses? The IP holders will insist they have an avenue of recompense for their legal costs, and demand the right to recoup them from the users.
If it were only a fine they could get for their troubles, there would be a limit on how much they could reasonably expect to recoup. But, with disconnection as the penalty, the IP holders would still want to be reimbursed for a victory. They wouldn’t stop lobbying for this until they got it. So we’d stand a good chance of seeing both disconnection and liability for court costs as being the final judgment down the road, successfully making “disconnection” the real “guilty by default”, as the cost to defend is far out of proportion to even the penalty.
With a fine, there is either a wait for the payment, or a court case to try and collect it. With disconnection, the user will most likely lose the connection on someone’s mere accusation, and have to fight to get it back. And there won’t be a home internet connection to research for defense or earn an income (if applicable) in the duration, which can result in a huge loss for many.
As I said, surveillance will be deemed necessary and lawful.
And, we know when the privilege of surveillance is given, it will be abused by everyone who has it. Once these corporates have their foot in the door with “lawful surveillance”, they will use it as a weapon against anyone they choose. Since they will be “expected” to be engaging in it, how will we control what they do with it?? So, I guess privacy and fair competition get blown away here, too.
And, with the surveillance angle, the “disconnection” option becomes more dangerous. Think about it. Free Speech (and therefore, “dissent”) could easily be stifled by those who “fill out the paperwork correctly”. Everyone that gets shut out in the process will not have that resource to work with. That has the potential to divide society, grind some incomes to a halt, while gradually turning the Constitution into toilet paper, as virtually every right found in it dissolves in the name of copyright.
Disconnection would also open the door to other “legal reforms”.
I could go on.
Bottom line, this would make an interesting episode of Lewis Black’s “Root of All Evil”. (Both sides could end up winning.)
March 10th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
DA, don’t forget that if you only need to make an accusation you don’t need to collect evidence, you can toss a coin or do anything else that helps you persecute fundamentally innocent people.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:02 am
@Crosbie:
Not forgetting.
Disconnection would likely happen without just cause, and force the user to challenge to get back online. That part doesn’t appear to require evidence at that point (and was part of my reasoning for saying disconnection is more evil). But, when a user challenges either a fine or disconnection, evidence would be needed to defend the charge. What am I missing?
Incidentally, the disconnection that is generally being proposed includes blacklisting you from all available providers. (No alternative access.)
March 11th, 2010 at 6:22 am
What surprises me is that Virgin Media signed this letter.
Isn’t that hypocritical? This is the same Virgin Media that supports Three Strikes and uses DPI to spy on their customers?
March 11th, 2010 at 6:29 am
If someone accused wishes to take things to appeal I expect it would be entirely up to them to provide evidence that they couldn’t have infringed, e.g. they were in a coma for six months, or the house was vacant, etc.
If the cartel are so nasty as to require blacklisting, what makes you think they’d be so nice as to stipulate that the accuser needs to provide evidence of infringement during an appeal tribunal?
I’m not really into over-analysing hypothetical, draconian legislation. One simply needs to recognise that it would be particularly nasty and irremediable by any sugar coating, let alone by making it a fine instead of disconnection. Let’s not get into the ridiculous situation of arguing which of exile or incarceration is a better penalty for heresy.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
@Crosbie:
“Let’s not get into the ridiculous situation of arguing which of exile or incarceration is a better penalty for heresy.”
No argument from me on that one!
My dominant thought is that we should do everything we can to prevent either from becoming a reality.
March 12th, 2010 at 7:18 am
Yes, DA.
We could start by recognising the elephants in the room:
1) There are 18th century privileges still on the statute books that should have been abolished along with slavery and segregation.
2) People are being persecuted (with a few martyrs submitting to prosecution) for (allegedly) infringing these unethical anachronisms.
3) It is now proposed that penalties be exacted against mortal individuals on behalf of immortal corporations – ON ACCUSATION.
Sometimes, like torture, I think these elephants are so large, people don’t recognise them as open to question. They are too fricking huge and unreachable. Focus instead on avoiding the elephant dung and pray one doesn’t get trampled.
March 12th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
@Crosbie:
Some choices are elementary…
http://www.nvwe.com/images/ElephantGun.jpg