UK Federation Against Software Theft and Investors in Software react to govt’s assertion that Internet connections of accused file-sharers will face “technical measures” rather than disconnection, adding there needs to be a “fear factor.”
Several times now the UK govt has revealed that it will not seek to disconnect those repeatedly accused of file-sharing via a “three-strikes” graduated response system to piracy, and will use “technical measures” to deal with the problem instead.
Well, some copyright holder groups are apparently not happy with that position, the UK’s Federation Against Software Theft and Investors in Software (FAST IiS) being two of those groups.
FAST IiS Chief Executive John Lovelock wonders why there is no punitive response to alleged copyright infringement.
He says in a press release:
“Online piracy is the greatest threat there is to the business software, video games, music, TV and film industries. FAST IiS has lobbied the Government for increased penalties for serious copyright infringers, digital copiers and ‘pirates’. We believe the most effective way to demonstrate the seriousness these infractions have to the creative industries is to cut off the tool that enables them to take place. In the same way that dangerous drivers are banned from their vehicles, why should persistent content thieves harm this important UK sector, risking jobs and cutting taxable revenue? The issue is that we the industry are having to take second best because the Government doesn’t have the will to impose stringent penalties on what is no different to shoplifting in effect.”
Lovelock even laments that current laws treat online copyright infringement offenses more leniently than physical offences, repeating the same nonsensical 1:1 loss theory.
“A lost sale hurts the creative industries just the same whether a physical disk is copied or the offence happens online,” he says.
FAST IiS is therefore lobbying the UK govt to treat all copyright infringement offenses the same, where they happen physically or digitally, and to treat the creative industries in a coherent and joined-up manner by considering all industries when finalizing the Digital Britain report.
The anti-piracy group says there ultimately “must be a fear factor together with a significant likelihood of being caught.”
“Over the past two weeks we have seen government minister flag up ideas like reducing the speed of broadband,” adds Lovelock. “What a waste of time and a technical absurdity otherwise, technology will more than likely, progress to neatly side step such barriers.”
Now FAST IiS is correct to call throttling a “technical absurdity,” but even more absurd is the notion of disconnecting individuals from what France’s top court has called a “prerequisite for democracy.” The Internet is vital for full civic participation and the expression of ideas and opinions, and thus disconnecting individuals from it should never be taken so lightly.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related
- Anti-P2P Group: ‘Online Piracy Must Equal Physical Piracy’
- Euro Anti-Piracy Group Calls Pirate Party Message “Criminal”
- Software Anti-P2P Group Backs “Three-Strikes,” Content Filtering
- Schools targeted with anti-piracy message
- Anti-Piracy Group Says UK Pirates Should be Banned From the Internet
Hmmm If you was to shop lift you would get the nicely packaged and colorfull products.
As it stands its all samples and if you like what you have then you wont be wasting your mony it should be called try before you buy.
It is laghable that they are going to threten downloaders with “technical measures” First of all the isp’s will need to give the speeds they advertise so they can take some back.
If you are on B.T and other’s you will notice they already give “technical measures” to limmit your speeds but this will be a nice way for them to continue the limitation of band width in a legal way for them to get away with.
FAST IiS is laughable.
“Online piracy is the greatest threat there is to the business software, video games, music, TV and film industries …”
Well it’s obvious that the last three items are false inclusions.
Now for “business software”, it’s not impossible, but it’s unlikely that companies, schools, hospitals, or even shops would “pirate” software. It is even almost zero-likely that an ordinary person could buy business software (~$100x) anyway.
Do they even create and sell these things themselves?
“… FAST IiS has lobbied the Government for increased penalties for serious copyright infringers, digital copiers and ‘pirates’. We believe the most effective way to demonstrate the seriousness these infractions have to the creative industries is to cut off the tool that enables them to take place …”
But how do they characterize “serious copyright infringers, digital copiers and ‘pirates’”? This could be quite misleading.
The strange thing I’m noticing is that cutting off access by their logic would assume that the “infractions” would be quite serious; I would highly doubt that by all means. If these guys were tech-savvy enough, it would be obvious that what they are thinking is ludicrous and absurd.
“… In the same way that dangerous drivers are banned from their vehicles, why should persistent content thieves harm this important UK sector, risking jobs and cutting taxable revenue? …”
Why are they comparing drivers that may harm others and have generally no direct influence to the economy other than possible public damage (not necessarily car thieves), and thieves who rob businesses (ordinarily unexpected/undetected, usually familiar with the businesses), to ordinary people who do not actually harm anyone and have commercially nothing to gain?
“… The issue is that we the industry are having to take second best because the Government doesn’t have the will to impose stringent penalties on what is no different to shoplifting in effect.”
Is that just an assumption? Is such a thing as ‘copying’ (i.e. not plagiarizing, robbing, selling, and other related acts) a piece of software going to actually harm the economy that seriously? Can they not distinguish the difference between that and physical shop lifting? Well of course not: they don’t see the Internet anything other than a “vehicle”. As well, the following claim
“A lost sale hurts the creative industries just the same whether a physical disk is copied or the offence happens online”
has been discussed thoroughly enough: a downloaded ‘copy’ does not indicate a lost sale; a copy of a physical disc does not indicate a lost sale; yet they compare these to a lost sale.
Regarding “copyright infringement offenses more leniently than physical offences,” their brains must be messed from lack of oxygen, and I mean that quite literally. The physical actions of a person in physical offenses (e.g. assault and maiming) hurt people physically; how copyright infringement offenses to them are not any different is ridiculous and nonsensical.
“… must be a fear factor together with a significant likelihood of being caught.”
That will get citizens to side with you, huh…. Incidentally, this is exactly what petty thieves would normally feel when they steal something via physical action; this is just more proof that they do not distinguish differences between physical offenses and “copyright infringement offenses”.
“What a waste of time and a technical absurdity otherwise, technology will more than likely, progress to neatly side step such barriers.”
Apparently he can see the obvious flaws in others’ ideas, but can’t he detect the flaws in the views of his own.