Call for formal debate in the House Commons to discuss what they call a futile effort to disconnect accused file-sharers being that it’s relatively easy to avoid detection.
Tom Watson, UK Labour MP for West Bromwich East, has tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) calling for a debate on “illicit file-sharing.” It calls into question the proposal by Business Secretary Lord Mandelson to disconnect offenders ala a “three-strikes” graduated response system.
If you recall, Lord Mandelson 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” and has asked that ISPs be given the power to disconnect repeat offenders.
The EDM reads:
1997 – ILLICIT FILE SHARING
That this House notes with concern the Government’s proposals on file sharing which would allow rights holders to request internet service providers to disconnect for a period of time, or throttle, the internet connection of people who may be accused of copyright infringement via peer to peer networks; believes that disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection; acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it; further notes that identifying offenders using the Internet Protocol address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection; and calls on the Government to ensure that any citizen accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed.
Note that Watson understands the ease with which an IP address can be changed. It’s something myself and countless others have repeatedly argued over the years. It’s never been nor will it ever be an accurate method of identification, and the risk of disconnection makes using it as such a dangerous proposition for the rights of the innocent.
He also takes to task the notion that one illegal download equals one lost sale. There’s no data to support it, and every file-sharer will certainly that most of the stuff download they wouldn’t have purchased or seen otherwise (the recently leaked Jennifer’s Body screener comes to mind).
So far some 21 MPs have signed the EDM, but unfortunately they are very rarely debated and used more to draw attention to a given topic. Examples include EDM 1984, which seeks to highlight the plight of 1.02 billion hungry worldwide, and EDM 1964, which expresses concern for the killing of Christians Mosul, Iraq.
Either way, it’s nice to know that some MPs find the effort to fight illegal P2P “futile.”
Stay tuned.
I've been interested in P2P since the early, high-flying days of Napster and KaZaA. I believe that analog copyright laws are ill-suited to the digital age, and that art and culture shouldn't be subject to the whims of international entertainment industry conglomerates. Twitter | Google Plus
