The government’s business secretary, Lord Peter Mandelson, has confirmed that the UK will begin adopting the controversial "Three-Strikes" system to tackle illegal file sharing downloads from April next year. Sadly account suspension, where a "suspected" abuser is removed from their broadband ISP following several warning notices, will indeed be part of the system for repeat offenders.Mandelson informed the c&binet conference that if the amount of illegal downloading had not dropped by 70% come April 2011 then measures to cut-off file sharers would be imposed from July 2011 onwards. Those suspected of such activity could expect to receive several warning letters prior to such an action taking place and also have their details passed to Rights Holders for their own legal pursuits.
The Government expects that warning notifications, followed up with targeted legal action by rights holders, should be the only enforcement action required to significantly reduce the level of unlawful file-sharing. Technical measures, such as disconnection and speed restrictions etc., would be kept in reserve as a "last resort".
Lord Mandelson said:
“It’s clear that whilst unlawful file-sharing excites a strong response from all sides, it is not a victimless act. It is a genuine threat to our creative industries. The creative sector has faced challenges to protected formats before. But the threat faced today from online infringement, particularly unlawful file-sharing, is of a different scale altogether. We cannot sit back and do nothing.
“We will put in place a fair, thorough process, involving clear warnings to people suspected of unlawful file-sharing, with technical measures such as account suspension only used as a very last resort. Only persistent rule breakers would be affected - and there would be an independent, clear and easy appeals process to ensure that the correct infringer is penalised.”
“It’s clear that whilst unlawful file-sharing excites a strong response from all sides, it is not a victimless act. It is a genuine threat to our creative industries. The creative sector has faced challenges to protected formats before. But the threat faced today from online infringement, particularly unlawful file-sharing, is of a different scale altogether. We cannot sit back and do nothing.
“We will put in place a fair, thorough process, involving clear warnings to people suspected of unlawful file-sharing, with technical measures such as account suspension only used as a very last resort. Only persistent rule breakers would be affected - and there would be an independent, clear and easy appeals process to ensure that the correct infringer is penalised.”
ISPreview waits to see precisely how this "clear and easy appeals process" is structured; we can't help but wonder how somebody who has had a WEP secured Wi-Fi connection hijacked would be able to defend themselves. It is after all somewhat of an evidence less crime. Similarly the precise details of how long a disconnection would last have not been revealed, though we suspect most people could probably just sign-up with a different ISP. Speaking of which..
UK ISP TalkTalk Statement:
"TalkTalk is dismayed to learn that Lord Mandelson is to press ahead with his ill-conceived plans to allow content providers to force ISPs to disconnect people suspected of illegal filesharing. The approach is based on the principle of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court.
What is being proposed is wrong in principle and it won’t work in practice. We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations. The unintended consequence of Lord Mandelson’s plan will be to encourage more wi-fi and PC hi-jacking and expose more innocent people to being penalised.
TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal. In the event we are instructed to impose extra judicial technical measures we will challenge the instruction in the courts."
"TalkTalk is dismayed to learn that Lord Mandelson is to press ahead with his ill-conceived plans to allow content providers to force ISPs to disconnect people suspected of illegal filesharing. The approach is based on the principle of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court.
What is being proposed is wrong in principle and it won’t work in practice. We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations. The unintended consequence of Lord Mandelson’s plan will be to encourage more wi-fi and PC hi-jacking and expose more innocent people to being penalised.
TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal. In the event we are instructed to impose extra judicial technical measures we will challenge the instruction in the courts."
Other ISPs will probably not go as far as TalkTalk in defending their stance, with most choosing to quietly go along with the government line. However there is still strong underlying opposition to the disconnection method and you can expect to see more of that coming out soon.
Mandelson did agree that more education and new business models were also needed to help combat the attractiveness of illegal downloading. We suspect that such calls will fall on deaf ears since so far Rights Holders have proven themselves somewhat unwilling to support innovative new distribution methods.
In other areas, Lord Mandelson said there was a case for copyright laws to be modernised to reflect reasonable consumer behaviour which did not damage the sustainability of the creative industries. This would mean that, for example, someone who has bought a CD would be able to copy it to their iPod or share it with family members without acting unlawfully.
UK ISPs will also be pleased to learn that they would not be expected to bear the full cost of implementing and delivering the notifications to suspected infringers. A flat fee per notification will be set, payable by the rights holder, in a way that incentivises both rights holders and ISPs to keep the process efficient and cost effective. The Government will publish its response to the consultation on unlawful peer-to-peer file-sharing in parallel with the Digital Economy Bill, in late November.
UPDATE - 3:57pm
Comment from the Which? consumer magazine.
Which? campaigner, Clare Corbett says:
"Introducing a tiered response to illegal filesharing is a good idea in theory, but only if the right people are targeted.
While Which? does not condone illegal filesharing, innocent people are receiving what they feel are threatening letters demanding immediate payment for supposed illegal downloading. For many people, fighting an accusation is far too costly and stressful, leaving them no option but to pay up.
The government must ensure that people who have been wrongly accused of illegal filesharing have access to a fair, free and quick independent adjudication system and that any penalties are proportionate."
"Introducing a tiered response to illegal filesharing is a good idea in theory, but only if the right people are targeted.
While Which? does not condone illegal filesharing, innocent people are receiving what they feel are threatening letters demanding immediate payment for supposed illegal downloading. For many people, fighting an accusation is far too costly and stressful, leaving them no option but to pay up.
The government must ensure that people who have been wrongly accused of illegal filesharing have access to a fair, free and quick independent adjudication system and that any penalties are proportionate."
UPDATE - 29th October 09:58am
Reaction from Entanet.
UK ISP Entanet said:
"Like most communications and Internet service providers, Entanet strongly believes that simply providing access to the Internet and managing web traffic should not mean that providers are responsible for what that connection is used for. ISPs are not the Internet police!
Asking ISPs to police the Internet is like asking the Highways Agency to take responsibility for all of the accidents that happen on the roads. We are no more able to control how people use their connectivity than someone who builds and maintains roads can control the way in which people drive. All we can do is make sure that the highway is in working order, put reasonable usage policies in place and take appropriate action when it is necessary, merited and most importantly proven. Enforcement of the rules should be the responsibility of an overall governing authority and last resort actions such as disconnection should only be executed once they have been proven in court, with full access to all available evidence.
Of course we can monitor traffic, but doing this takes time, costs money and can potentially impact performance. There is already talk of the introduction of a broadband tax, so any added responsibility for monitoring is ultimately going to hurt ISPs’ and Internet users’ pockets. At a time when the UK needs considerable and continued investment in its network infrastructure, this is unwelcome to say the least.
...
The Internet is not going to go away and, in fact, if the UK is to remain competitive and efficient as an economy, its development and enhancement needs to be supported and driven forward by all industries.
"Like most communications and Internet service providers, Entanet strongly believes that simply providing access to the Internet and managing web traffic should not mean that providers are responsible for what that connection is used for. ISPs are not the Internet police!
Asking ISPs to police the Internet is like asking the Highways Agency to take responsibility for all of the accidents that happen on the roads. We are no more able to control how people use their connectivity than someone who builds and maintains roads can control the way in which people drive. All we can do is make sure that the highway is in working order, put reasonable usage policies in place and take appropriate action when it is necessary, merited and most importantly proven. Enforcement of the rules should be the responsibility of an overall governing authority and last resort actions such as disconnection should only be executed once they have been proven in court, with full access to all available evidence.
Of course we can monitor traffic, but doing this takes time, costs money and can potentially impact performance. There is already talk of the introduction of a broadband tax, so any added responsibility for monitoring is ultimately going to hurt ISPs’ and Internet users’ pockets. At a time when the UK needs considerable and continued investment in its network infrastructure, this is unwelcome to say the least.
...
The Internet is not going to go away and, in fact, if the UK is to remain competitive and efficient as an economy, its development and enhancement needs to be supported and driven forward by all industries.
Entanet continues on to say that the problem is not the Internet and ISPs but is actually a lack of available legal and affordable methods of download.
Tweet
Comments: 5
AgrajagPosted: 28 October, 2009 - 2:13 PM
Link to comment
Late November eh?
Maybe it can be delayed just until this shambles of a Government is voted out (which they almost certainly will be).
TRIaXOR™Posted: 28 October, 2009 - 7:28 PM
Link to comment
Congratulations Mr Mandleson, you have now successfully cost NuLabour the election..
And will piracy fall because of this?!? NOPE, you will just have it driven underground.
my thoughts are for the poor sods who are gonna have their WiFi hijacked or thier IP's spoofed and get cut off.. 
Your so called advisors/experts should be sacked.
timelessPosted: 28 October, 2009 - 10:52 PM
Link to comment
well said TRIaXOR™, well said! then again given this knowledge my opinion is that all new routers should now be sent out with WPA or higher encryption as standard, with better instructions on how to set up proper passwords...
wep is so damn insecure it shouldnt be even allowed to be shipped on a router!
MarkJPosted: 29 October, 2009 - 8:02 AM
Link to comment
True but there is a reason for that, WPA came out after Wi-Fi had already become quite popular and now even routers that support WPA2 often default to WEP for compatibility.
James SmithPosted: 29 October, 2009 - 12:25 PM
Link to comment
1st of all, the internet cannot be "policed".
The vast amount of capabilites online are so immense if cant stop some viruses, spyware and trojan horses (ETC) getting onto computers, how do they expect to stop people using the internet all together never mind downloading music and software.
Idenity theift and similar computer crimes should be delt with before anything else.
Previous News Stories
2 September, 2010
1 September, 2010
28 August, 2010
26 August, 2010
1 September, 2010
12:10 PM - Top 9 Fastest UK Broadband ISPs Ranked by Speed for August 2010 - (0)
31 August, 201028 August, 2010
1:00 AM - YouTube UK Launch FREE Broadband Movie Streaming Service - (0)
27 August, 201026 August, 2010
7:19 AM - T-Mobile UK Slashes Pay Per Day Mobile Broadband Price - (0)
1:44 AM - UK ISP TalkTalk Launches 2010 Digital Heroes Awards - (0)
25 August, 201012:35 PM - UK ISP PlusNet CEO Departs and is Replaced by Jamie Ford - (2)
9:38 AM - Virgin Media UK Extends 2 MONTHS FREE Broadband Service Bundles - (0)
9:12 AM - WARNING New Phone SCAM Targeting UK Broadband ISP Customers - (1)
24 August, 201012:41 PM - Channel Five Rejoins UK Open Broadband TV Standard Project Canvas - (0)
9:01 AM - PCCW Backed UK Broadband Group Gives Hope to WiMAX Wireless - (7)
8:48 AM - BSkyB Mulling the Closure of Broadband ISP Sibling UK Online - (0)
Generated in 0.56448 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).