Net Firms In Music Pirates Deal

[Dukesy 0]

Six of the UK's biggest net providers are believed to be backing a government plan to tackle music piracy online.

The plan commits the firms to working towards a "significant reduction" in the illegal sharing of music.

The first stage of the campaign will involve hundreds of thousands of letters being sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music.

The BBC has been told that the memorandum commits the net firms to develop legal music services.

Official confirmation of the deal is expected later.

 

Read More Here

 

 

Internet service providers must take concrete steps to curb illegal downloads or face legal sanctions, the government has said.

The proposal is aimed at tackling the estimated 6m UK broadband users who download files illegally every year.

The culture secretary said consultation would begin in spring and legislation could be implemented "by April 2009".

Representatives of the recording industry, who blame piracy for a slump in sales, welcomed the proposals.

 

"ISPs are in a unique position to make a difference and in doing so to reverse a culture of creation-without-reward that has proved so damaging to the whole music community over the last few years," said John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI).

 

A spokesperson for the Internet Service Provider's Association (ISPA) said that creating appropriate legislation would be very difficult.

 

"Any scheme has got to be legal, workable and economically sustainable," the spokesperson told BBC News.

 

He also said that ISPs were already pursuing self-regulation, which was the government's preferred route.

 

 

"The government has no burning desire to legislate," Andy Burnham, culture secretary, told the Financial Times.

However, he said that the proposals signalled "a change of tone from the government".

Its intentions are outlined in a creative industries strategy paper called Creative Britain: New Talents for the New Economy.

The document is a broad ranging paper that sets out government support for the creative industries.

The document commits the government to consulting on anti-piracy legislation this spring "with a view to implementing it by April 2009", according to the FT.

 

"We're saying we'll consult on legislation, recognising there are practical questions and legitimate issues," Mr Burnham told the paper.

In particular, any legislation would have to take account of the 2002 E-Commerce Regulations that define net firms as "conduits" which are not responsible for the contents of the traffic flowing across their networks.

 

European laws on online privacy could also create problems for any new legislation.

 

Earlier this year it was reported that the government was considering a "three strikes" approach to tackling persistent offenders in the report.

But Mr Burnham denied this was the case and told the FT that the strategy had "never been in the paper".

 

If the government goes ahead, the UK would be one of the first countries to impose sanctions.

"This is a sea-change in attitude and I believe it is now up to governments elsewhere in Europe and further afield to follow their example," said Mr Kennedy.

 

The head of one of Britain's biggest internet providers has criticised the music industry for demanding that he act against pirates.

 

The trade body for UK music, the BPI, asked internet service providers to disconnect people who ignore requests to stop sharing music.

 

But Charles Dunstone of Carphone Warehouse, which runs the TalkTalk broadband service, is refusing.

 

He said it is not his job to be an internet policeman.

 

BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones said that the music industry has been fighting a losing battle to prevent people from swapping songs for nothing on the internet.

 

Mr Dunstone, whose TalkTalk broadband is Britain's third biggest internet provider, said the demands are unreasonable and unworkable.

 

'No control'

 

He said: "Our position is very clear. We are the conduit that gives users access to the internet. We do not control the internet, nor do we control what our users do on the internet.

 

"I cannot foresee any circumstances in which we would voluntarily disconnect a customer's account on the basis of a third party alleging a wrongdoing."

 

He added the company would fight to protect the rights of its users using the law.

Carphone Warehouse's Charles Dunstone says it is not his job to be an 'internet policeman'.

 

 

The BPI denied it is asking ISPs to become internet police, saying the firms need to educate their customers not to steal music.

It also says that if they do not help with the fight against music piracy, then the government will bring in legislation to make them cooperate.

 

BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor said: "At the heart of this issue is ensuring that creators are fairly rewarded in the digital age, and we passionately believe that working in partnership with ISPs to develop first-class, safe, legal, digital music services is the way forward.

 

"But such a partnership can't succeed if an ISP refuses to do anything to address the problem of illegal downloading on its network."

 

He added: "We believe that any socially responsible ISP should, as a core part of its business, put in place steps to help their customers avoid engaging in illegal activity, and deter those who knowingly break the law."

 

BBC interview with Fergal Sharkey, of British Music Rights (audio only) here

 

[supersound dj 0]

About time this happened,but what about if your son/daughter was dl illegally and your isp cut you off?

 

I know there are blatant ppl out there who dl and sell albums for gain but the above scenario needs to be addressed.

 

Paul

[Dream Catchers 0]

I agree something needs to be done but I think they are aiming at the wrong people.

Surely they would be better closing down the offending sites or somehow blocking access to the ones abroad.

 

I also think that before they start bringing in new measures they should be doing something to protect the end user rather than penalise them.

On average in my junk mail folder I get approx 150 emails EVERY DAY for drugs, xxx videos and rolex watches, none of these are addressed directly to me so it isn't me giving out my email address and I certainly don't go on any sites like that for them to have installed spyware :rant:

 

Jim

[DJ JENX 0]

I agree something needs to be done but I think they are aiming at the wrong people.

Surely they would be better closing down the offending sites or somehow blocking access to the ones abroad.

 

I also think that before they start bringing in new measures they should be doing something to protect the end user rather than penalise them.

On average in my junk mail folder I get approx 150 emails EVERY DAY for drugs, xxx videos and rolex watches, none of these are addressed directly to me so it isn't me giving out my email address and I certainly don't go on any sites like that for them to have installed spyware :rant:

 

Jim

 

I dont actually understand how they are going to "catch" people. Surely many people use I-tunes or similar products and buy songs, thus that rules out using bandwith to catch people, I assume also some people who do use itunes like me, use a ps3, and also upload websites and files to the net via FTP etc. Therefore Bandwith.

 

Im confused, will i get a letter because I legally do stuff?!

[Gary 0]

This has been rattling around for quite some time, well a few months maybe.

 

An important thing to note is that the ISP can obviously tell the difference between an UPloaded MP3 track, and a DOWNloaded MP3 track (as it wanders through the internet cloud).

 

So...miss T smith, aged 6...DOWNloading a track by following some dodgy link that she's either been sent or somehow stumbled across, is one thing....whereas Mr L J Silver or Mr R R Jimlad UPloading MP3 tracks out of their PC onto a filesharing site would show itself differently to the Internet Service Provider (ISP), as its an UPload to a filesharing service, rather than a DOWNload from a filesharing service.

 

OK, it could be discussed that both actions are wrong, but if the UPloaders are kicked off of the 'net, or have their home phone numbers "blackmarked" so that they can only get such a slow broadband that filesharing would be soooooooo tedious, then it would mean less music is in place to interest so many wouldbe downloaders.

 

And that's good news in my book.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Gary

[McCardle 1]

all of this extra policing will come at a price and i can't imagine most service providers just absorbing the cost, so expect price increases on your monthly subscription very soon. It would be far easier to close down the sources of the material rather than passing the buck, but then again that would require more work. Besides if the additional requirements are needed to be introduced then surely those whose interests it is protecting should be footing the bill?

[Robster 0]

Most illegal tracks are downloaded as torrents where they do not get the file from one person but many so they don't get the whole file from one individual just parts of the file..

BBC I player uses this technology P2P so isp's cant see the difference between a legal and illegal activity and as they are stealing only parts of the file its hard to see what they are downloading anyway.

Sites like pirate bay etc do not host the material they just basically have a link so the torrents work , its hard for authorities to shut down a site that doesn't actually distribute files or hosts the whole file it just "points people in the right direction"

 

There is software like peer guardian that stops companies from tracking torrents , the thieves are always one step ahead in the digital theft wars unfortunately

 

 

Edited July 24, 2008 by enquirer

[Andy Westcott 0]

I'd like to tender a scenario whereby people could be wrongly targetted:

 

I create and edit a lot of sound effects (mainly explosions) and make a fair few recordings of 'nature'. (thunderstorms, etc).

 

I am happy to share some of my creations and make some of these sounds available via a certain file sharing network and a couple of audio sharing websites in mp3 format, and am completely entitled to do so as the recordings are my own work and no third party copyright is involved.

 

How the heck are the ISPs, or anyone else for that matter, going to distinguish between the upload of a copyright-free mp3, and a copyrighted one?

 

Admittedly this won't affect a lot of people, but why should I have to look over my shoulder when what I'm doing is totally legal?

 

Unfortunately, it's the wrong approach once again - tackling the soft target.