“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.

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.