The Open Rights Group and Consumer Focus have warned that the cost of tackling unlawful internet copyright file sharing (p2p) by UK ISP users could force the price we all pay for our broadband services to rise. The Digital Economy Act (DEA) requires internet providers to shoulder "a substantial part of the cost" for notifying customers suspected of breaking the law, which could be passed on to end-users.The new powers also mean consumers will be presumed guilty of breaking the law if a rights holder believes that they have infringed their copyright. People would even have to pay part of the cost of defending themselves against potentially inaccurate accusations of copyright infringement.
In its response to the Department for Business’ (BIS) consultation (closes today) on how the new laws will be paid for, Consumer Focus says that it should be copyright owners, such as film and music producers, who pay the bulk of the cost towards enforcing the laws and consumer appeals.
Robert Hammond, Head of Post and Digital Communications for Consumer Focus, said:
"New laws to crack down on online copyright infringement are already unfairly weighted against consumers, yet customers are also likely to be expected to foot the bill for enforcing them. The last government admitted that any extra cost for broadband may price thousands of vulnerable consumers out of the market at a time when the internet is becoming vitally important for people to access vital services and get the best deals.
It should be copyright holders, who stand to make hundreds of millions of pounds from these laws, who pick up the tab for enforcing the new laws. If people want to contest the accusations made against them, copyright owners should also pay the cost."
"New laws to crack down on online copyright infringement are already unfairly weighted against consumers, yet customers are also likely to be expected to foot the bill for enforcing them. The last government admitted that any extra cost for broadband may price thousands of vulnerable consumers out of the market at a time when the internet is becoming vitally important for people to access vital services and get the best deals.
It should be copyright holders, who stand to make hundreds of millions of pounds from these laws, who pick up the tab for enforcing the new laws. If people want to contest the accusations made against them, copyright owners should also pay the cost."
Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open rights Group added:
"The consequences of this horrendous legislation are being felt barely weeks after it became law. The idea of having to pay before accessing justice is extraordinary, like something out of Dickens. The government must absolutely guarantee everyone's right to a hearing, and that means not placing payment barriers in front of the innocent."
"The consequences of this horrendous legislation are being felt barely weeks after it became law. The idea of having to pay before accessing justice is extraordinary, like something out of Dickens. The government must absolutely guarantee everyone's right to a hearing, and that means not placing payment barriers in front of the innocent."
The precise details of how any costs will be apportioned is currently still being thrashed out, although we should know more within the next few days or weeks. Rights Holders have frequently attempted to portray ISPs as getting rich off copyright infringement, though anybody familiar with the industry knows that this is simply untrue and not how ISPs work.
Tweet
Comments: 6
timelessPosted: 25 May, 2010 - 3:36 PM
Link to comment
what the hell?!?! so firstly we have to pay more for our connections eventually so letters and new technology can be installed to slow us down or whatever.
then we have to pay to defend ourselves? granted l could understand it if there was positive proof but finding such proof should be the media industries job and their wallet, however IPs are not enough, yet they again expect the ISP to foot the bill passing on costs to consumers who pass money onto the media industries, this leaves me asking one question, "when the media industry is wrong and an innocent user proves as such who foots the bill? do we even get our hard earned money back?"
AzPosted: 25 May, 2010 - 3:49 PM
Link to comment
Nope
It's like all that extra money spent on copy protecting blurays (hence the horribly inflated prices/poor sales) which doesn't work.I'd like to see this in a Scottish court though, or any for that matter. Can't imagine any judge will be pleased with any law that countermands the founding principle of our legal system.
Stealth_WormPosted: 25 May, 2010 - 4:34 PM
Link to comment
A comment I found absurd was by the organisation that oversees the music and film industry. So many acronyms, it gets confusing. Basically it's what the article said at the end, that ISP's are making a tidy profit from their customers, and they should pay for these new guidelines to be carried out to monitor what people are downloading, and warn them accordingly. Also, to imply ISP's are making a profit from illegal file sharing, I'm sorry but is just unbelievable. The media giants are making an obscene amount of money, and they want ISP's to foot the bill, when their actually profit margin is nowhere near what these greedy media fools claim.
trefPosted: 25 May, 2010 - 7:48 PM
Link to comment
There is a meeting between Ofcom and stakeholders on Monday 1st June to discuss apportioning of costs. ISPs say rightsholders should pay. RHs say it should be 50/50.
It would be pretty outrageous if Ofcom just split the difference.
CommanderZendoPosted: 25 May, 2010 - 9:32 PM
Link to comment
It should be the responsibility of the rights holder to foot the costs of any request to an ISP in its entirety as they are the ones claiming infringement not the ISP. I wonder how the Rights holders would feel if we said okay before we'll answer the phone to you we want you to pay all our costs up front to do so. Yeah we all know the answer to that don't we. I certainly won’t support any suggestions that cost be apportioned to the ISP in this instance.
Leon WolfesonPosted: 26 May, 2010 - 9:57 PM
Link to comment
If the market has failed, then we need a market-failure solution: Blanket licensing. Watch as companies scrabble and back peddle and say the market is working fine as soon as that is seriously proposed.
Raising ISP's costs and hence prices and lowering the number of customers and the connection speeds of many more will simply reduce the number of customers, and hence actually hurt the legal market. This is not helping the content providers *or* ISP's.
Generated in 0.62982 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).