// March 10th, 2010 // No Comments » // p2p
p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- “If someone is accused, a fine can be issued, a bit like a speeding offence. They can appeal it. If they don’t appeal it, then they pay a fine.” The words belong to Ian Livingston (right), chief executive at BT, Britain’s largest provider, and they were spoken in answer to the corporate entertainment industry three strikes and you’re off the net business plan that’s close to being adopted as law of the land in the UK. Quoted in the Telegraph , he “argued that revenue generated from fines could be used to compensate the creative industries or finance the roll-out of next-generation broadband, and would also ensure that entire families or small businesses were not penalised for the illegal behaviour of an individual”, says the story. BT is among a powerful group of major technology companies which in an open letter have come out strongly against the Hollywood and Big Music Three Strikes plan which would turn the UK government into a corporate copyright protection agency and force ISPs to act as copyright cops against customers alleged by the cartels to be ‘illegal’ file sharers. Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, have no qualms about making enemies of their own customers by accusing them of being criminals and thieves. But companies such Google, Facebook and eBay look askance at the idea. “Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended”, they and others say in the letter, published in the Financial Times . States the letter > > > Sir, We regret that the House of Lords adopted amendment 120A to the digital economy bill (“Bill will censor internet, providers claim”, March 6). This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits it could bring. Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take. There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option. In some cases, these may never be reconciled. These issues have not even been considered in this case. The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the bill to date. It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences. Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor lawmaking. We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain. This debate has created tension between specific interest groups and the bigger prize of promoting a policy framework that supports our digital economy and appropriately balances rights and responsibilities. All parties should take steps to safeguard this prize and place it at the heart of public policy in this area . Hard-core supporters of the bill include the likes of American Idol judge Simon Cowell and the Featured Artists Coalition . Signatories include: Tom Alexander, Chief Executive, Orange Richard Allan, Director of Policy EU, Facebook Neil Berkett, Chief Executive, Virgin Media Matt Brittin, Managing Director, Google UK and Ireland Charles Dunstone, Chairman, Talk Talk Group Stephen Fry Jessica Hendrie-Liaño, Chair, Internet Services Providers Association Jill Johnstone, International Director, Consumer Focus Jim Killock, Executive Director, Open Rights Group Mark Lewis, Managing Director, eBay UK Ian Livingston, Chief Executive, BT Group Sarah Oates, University of Glasgow Jenny Pickerill, University of Leicester Mark Rabe, Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland Paul Reilly, University of Leicester Jess Search, Founder, Shooting People independent film makers Ian Walden, Queen Mary, University of London Tom Watson MP Stay tuned. - … .. … and identi.ca More First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi law of the land – Corporate 3 Strikes scam to be law in UK, March 8, 2010 Telegraph – BT boss criticises Digital Economy Bill, March 10, 2010 Financial Times – Bill threatens UK’s reputation, March 9, 2010 Simon Cowell – Make 3 strikes bill law, says Simon Cowell, February 22, 2010 Featured Artists Coalition – Dear Ed O’Brien …, January 23, 2010 Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to - | | rss feed: http://-/feed -? - Click here to learn what technologies might help you bypass censorshiop in your area.
