By: MarkJ - 1 February, 2010 (2:49 AM) - Views: 845 - Categories: Fixed Line Broadband, Illegal Downloads
The Labour governments controversial Business Secretary, Lord Peter Mandelson, has tabled a new UK Digital Economy Bill amendment (200A) that could force those "suspected" of illegal P2P file sharing to pay for their own appeal.The amendment, as spotted by Friday's Telegraph newspaper, is just one of many changes that make the bill look even worse than when it was originally announced. Interestingly the Telegraph claims that Lord Faulkner was "concerned" by the change, though the nature of his words seem supportive.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester, speaking in the House of Lords on 20th January, said:
"I turn finally to Amendments 200A and 206A, which have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Mandelson. Amendment 200A is intended to clarify the candidates for making contributions towards the costs of the online infringement of copyright provisions. It makes it clear that this applies only to copyright owners and internet service providers, ensuring that the power is no broader than it needs to be. It also allows for the possibility that subscribers may be asked for a contribution towards the costs of the appeals process."
"I turn finally to Amendments 200A and 206A, which have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Mandelson. Amendment 200A is intended to clarify the candidates for making contributions towards the costs of the online infringement of copyright provisions. It makes it clear that this applies only to copyright owners and internet service providers, ensuring that the power is no broader than it needs to be. It also allows for the possibility that subscribers may be asked for a contribution towards the costs of the appeals process."
Sadly amendment 200A has already been "agreed" as part of last week’s House of Lords debate (26th January). However it is not known how much "suspects" will be charged to appeal their innocence, which is currently subject to further consultation.
200A: Clause 15, page 16, line 34, at end insert-
"( ) Any provision specified under subsection (1) must relate to payment of contributions by one or more of the following only-
(a) copyright owners;
(b) internet service providers;
(c) in relation to copyright infringement disputes or subscriber appeals within the meaning of section 124E or 124J, subscribers."
Amendment 200A agreed.
"( ) Any provision specified under subsection (1) must relate to payment of contributions by one or more of the following only-
(a) copyright owners;
(b) internet service providers;
(c) in relation to copyright infringement disputes or subscriber appeals within the meaning of section 124E or 124J, subscribers."
Amendment 200A agreed.
Those choosing to view politicians as self-serving bureaucrats, the type who only care about their own wealth and appear to be utterly detached from reality, now have yet another reason to support that perspective. Many of the lords also seem ignorant to both the technical and economic problems inherent within the bill itself.
IP's cannot reliably be used to identify an offending individual and it is surely wrong to charge people for trying to defend their own implied innocence (this assumes that the guilty won't use an appeals process) against unreliable data. Likewise there is a perception that ISPs are cash rich. Here's one case in point example from the same House of Lords session (26th Jan).
Labour Lord Young of Norwood Green:
"We are saying that there should be an incentive on internet service providers to ensure that their part of the bargain should be to have the most efficient and cost-effective process. Which way this will go is an even bet. It is reasonable to say that we do not think that these costs will be passed on, although we do not think that we could find a way of prohibiting that. Our view is that, in a competitive environment, ISPs are capable of absorbing those costs, although I confess that in reality only time will tell."
"We are saying that there should be an incentive on internet service providers to ensure that their part of the bargain should be to have the most efficient and cost-effective process. Which way this will go is an even bet. It is reasonable to say that we do not think that these costs will be passed on, although we do not think that we could find a way of prohibiting that. Our view is that, in a competitive environment, ISPs are capable of absorbing those costs, although I confess that in reality only time will tell."
The structure of an Internet access market is clearly not one that Lord Young and others have bothered to research. A typical broadband ISP has to invest colossal amounts of cash to build its network and, in order to remain competitive, its profit margin per customer will be tiny (just a few pounds or less in the case of some larger players; economics of scale). Hence any rise, even in the order of only a few pence, is damaging and likely to be passed on.
Some of the largest providers have also had to subsidise their service from other profit making (non-ISP) parts of the business purely to stay competitive. This is not a cash rich industry; one quick glance at a few quarterly financial reports will tell you that.
Share Links:
Slashdot,
Stumble,
Facebook,
Digg!,
Blink,
Del.icio.us,
Reddit,
Yahoo,
Mixx,
Propeller,
Diigo
Options:
Link | Search News
Comments: 3
Carrot63Posted: 1 February, 2010 - 9:33 AM
Link to comment
How very New Labour of them - on the one hand it deters people from even appealing if accused, on the other it raises revenue should they have the temerity to contest the sketchily evidenced accusation. I rather doubt the payment would be refunded should the appeal succeed; the record of some Labours more sinister legislation suggests that the lingering sense of "where there's smoke.." will see to that.
None of this should be done out of court in any case, and they should rather be debating the amount those who are wrongly accused will receive in automatic compensation paid for the inconvenience, distress and stigma arising from the accusation.
Parliament merely adds to the sense it is arrogant, out of touch and has no sense of proportion.
timelessPosted: 1 February, 2010 - 10:02 AM
Link to comment
heh, regardless of innocence they are pretty much trying to imply guilt onto everyone.. either way they get money to fill the pockets of the companies that already have enough already.
as for the government, l dont fancy giving yet more money to the government that they can just flutter away on laws that make no sense because they havent bothered investigating correct information, all it boils down to is places like the BPI have told them what they believe and the government has inserted wool into its ears unwilling to listen to the truth from ISPs who actually know the technology!!
CCPosted: 1 February, 2010 - 12:36 PM
Link to comment
Sign the petition
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/dontdisconnectus/
Generated in 0.4036 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).