Emphasizes Internet disconnection is essentially a restriction on the freedom of expression, which is normally limited to the result of things like incarceration, slander, libel, or hate speech.
It was about 3 weeks ago now that UK Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, head of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and whom ultimately is tasked with implementing the recommendations for dealing with illegal file-sharing as outlined in the Digital Britain report, reportedly ordered his staff to come up with plans for a crackdown on illegal file-sharers that includes giving ISPs the power to disconnect repeat offenders ala a “three-strikes” graduated response system.
After first denying the proposal, the BIS later confirmed it, saying that its “thinking has evolved” on the use of “further technical measures” that includes “as a last resort” the power “to suspend a subscriber’s account.”
It feels that the current timetable, which stands at 2-3 yrs for a 70% reduction using a combination of notifications and technical measures, would take an “unacceptable amount of time to complete in a situation that calls for urgent action.”
UK ISP Talk Talk was among the first to speak out against the plan. It said it was “dismayed” by the govt’s “futile u-turn on illegal file-sharing” and that it “will sidestep proper scrutiny, likely breach fundamental human rights and result in innocent people being disconnected or, worse, prosecuted.”
Other UK ISPs and the Open Rights Group, UK-based organization that works to preserve digital rights and freedoms, have now united in their opposition to the new “three-strikes” proposal in an open letter published on the TimesOnline.
It reads:
Sir, We agree that the creative industries play an important role in the UK and understand the challenge that illegal file-sharing presents (letter, Sept 1). We do not condone or encourage such activity, but we are concerned that the Government’s latest proposals on the “how” to reduce illegal file-sharing are misconceived and threaten broadband consumers’ rights and the development of new attractive services. Experience in other countries suggests that pursuing such an approach can result in significant consumer resistance. Any new policy must be considered very carefully.
Any decision to move to harsh and punitive measures such as disconnection must be genuinely underpinned by rigorous and objective assessment by Ofcom. Consumers must be presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. We must avoid an extrajudicial “kangaroo court” process where evidence is not tested properly and accused broadband users are denied the right to defend themselves against false accusations. Without these protections innocent customers will suffer. Any penalty must be proportionate. Disconnecting users from the internet would place serious limits on their freedom of expression. Usually, constraints to freedom of expression are imposed only as the result of custodial sentences, or incitement to racial hatred, or libel. The proposal that internet service providers — and by implication broadband customers — should pay most of the cost of these measures to support the creative industries is grossly unfair since the vast majority of consumers do not file-share illegally. Further, this payment approach would discourage content industries from developing new services.
We hope that the Government will consider genuinely consumers’ rights in its endeavours to protect the creative industries.
Charles Dunstone, talktalk
Ian Livingston, BTJim Killock, Open Rights Group
Ed Mayo, Consumer Focus
Deborah Prince, Which?
Tom Alexander, Orange UK
The most important point is that Internet disconnection is essentially a restriction on the freedom of expression, and never has it been curtailed as the result of anything other than incarceration, slander, libel, or hate speech.
France’s Constitutional Council, that country’s top judicial body, ruled that a similar proposal to disconnect users per a “three-strikes” graduated response system could only be done with a court order. It said that Internet service is essential for the “free communication of thoughts” and “participation in democratic life,” and therefore access to it cannot so easily be curtailed.
Worse still is that the plan would really disconnect an entire household since some individuals share an IP address, and therefore curtail the freedoms of more than just file-sharers.
The BIS would restrict an individual’s fundamental rights for the financial benefit of others where there isn’t even any proof of them causing either direct or indirect harm. In fact, the music industry’s OWN ECONOMIST recently found that overall music revenue is up 4.7% since 2007!
Lord Mandelson’s calls for “urgent action” just doesn’t make sense.
The aforementioned ISPs and the Open Rights groups know this and are thankfully taking a stand. Join them by singing the online petition at 38 Degrees to let Lord Mandelson know how you feel.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- UK Musicians Denounce “Three-Strikes” Proposal
- UK Cops, Spies Blast “3-Strikes”
- British IP Minister Shoots Down Three Strikes Law Proposal
- UK Govt Plans “2-Strikes” for File-Sharers Instead of 3
- France’s Top Court Rules “Three-Strikes” Unconstitutional
Loading ...
3-strikes? Is this a bad dream? How can this be technologically undertaken exactly?
To use an example from a few years ago, how in the hell can an mp3 by R&B artist Usher be differentiated from a college lecture mp3 by Peter Usher?
What about dynamic IP addresses? We already have problems with Wikipedia saying “you can’t edit, because the person before you was a vandal”. I can see it now: “You can’t actually access the Internet, because the person before you downloaded Flo Rida off of Limewire. Sorry.”
I would be a happy man if I could travel into the future and read the chapters in the history books to find out how this garbage turns out. Please tell me these people are reduced to a footnote, with the real innovators prevailing.
What (still) confuses and frightens me the most though is the continual failure to distinguish between for-profit piracy and home ripping and burning. Why are the authorities so lax on organised DVD/music piracy and so hellbent on disconnecting consumers from **the Internet**? “Oh dear, I’ve been busted, its back to the $1 DVDs at the local market?” Wtf?