More questions loom on stopping illegal filesharing
Since the campaign against illegal filesharing started years ago, it has not waned at all as seen recently by an increase of artists supporting the move.
Now, there is a plan to give three chances to users who engage in illegal file sharing. This means that once they are warned about illegally sharing files three times, then they could have their internet connection cut. It’s like in baseball … strike three keeps you out of the scene. Or is it just for the moment? And could there be another chance to go to the bat?
The debate continues while artists like Radiohead and Keane openly expressed their support to the three – strike ruling. Obviously dismayed at the continuing illegal filesharing, the two music greats wish for users to stop the activity of distributing their music. They recently joined the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), avid campaigners against piracy where George Michael, Patrick Wolf and other UK music industry personalities also belong.
The three – strike rule would mean that a series of sanctions will be issued to users who take part in the illegal distribution of music online. It asks that broadband service providers will issue two warning letters to users repeatedly violating copyright laws, particularly music; and the final sanction will be that the providers cut the offender’s connection from the service.
BT, while emphatic with the artists’ concern, said this move would mean they will increase their service costs. The leading provider in UK explained that the measure would mean additional operational and management expense, which in turn could be tolled on their subscribers.
Such a move has been analyzed by internet service providers, saying the annual bills of each consumer will most likely increase with additional £2 each month.
Illegal download plan threatens rights of broadband users
Plans by the Government to suspend internet access of people who pirate music and movies will ‘threaten broadband consumers’ rights’ and are ‘misconceived’, according to Britain’s biggest internet providers’ chief executives.
A joint letter written to The Times by Ian Livingston of BT, Charles Dunstone of TalkTalk and Tom Alexander of Orange UK were critical of the proposals to reduce unauthorised filesharing, which included possibly disconnecting internet access of violators.
The letter, which was also signed by Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group, Ed Mayo of Consumer Focus and Deborah Prince of Which? said that it was innocent customers who stand to suffer.
They mentioned that all consumers should be considered as innocent unless they are proven to be guilty. A ‘kangaroo court’ process should be avoided, the letter said, where the evidence has not been properly gathered and broadband users accused are unable to defend themselves against possible false accusations.
In the absence of these protections, they will suffer. The penalty should be proportionate and that disconnecting their connection would result in a threat to freedom of expression, the letter said.
The letter was also critical of the proposal that ISPs and customers should pay for these measures, saying that this would be extremely unfair as most of the customers do not indulge in illegal filesharing.
These measures would threaten their rights and any new services provided by ISPs would be met with hostility, the letter said.
These proposals were defended by Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, after they were introduced last month.
The total loss to the media industry due to illegal filesharing and other related activities was nearly 486 million pounds in 2007, according to a IPSOS survey, and more than 6.5 million people downloaded movies and music illegally during the last 12 months upto July last year.
Virgin Media, which did not sign the letter, said that ‘persuasion, not coercion’ was the key.
Source - The Telegraph
