Policing internet 'not ISP's job'
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. 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."
:source: Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7329801.stm
:view: TorrentFreak: Virgin Media Denies Doing a Deal to Disconnect Pirates; ISP Will Protect File-Sharers From Music Industry Disconnection Threat
Re: Policing internet 'not ISP's job'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
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.
So, how do the BPI know that the government will bring in legislation to make them cooperate? Is it because the BPI will pay ministers to propose such a Bill?
Laws are made to protect the interests of everyone, and no law should be passed that alienates the interests of the majority.
I'm sure that a few backhanders will ensure that the laws the BPI require make it through the House of Commons (or maybe a few anonymous donations, as seems to be the case these days).
If we allow such laws, then conduits would also cover our landline and mobile usage, as well as any other means of communication (the internet is just a feature rich communications device).
I would also be interested in how anyone can legislate something that is considered a global entity. How do we decide whether a crime is being committed, and in what country is a crime being committed? How can I tell what is free content and what should be paid for?
Re: Policing internet 'not ISP's job'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
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.
The BPI would not lobby to legitimize their allegations and give them jurisdiction, which is what the article implied. They would instead lobby to get the government on its toes and start doing what they're supposed to do - enforce. Just as other companies are regulated, so does the internet, or more specifically the ISPs, need to be regulated to ensure that proper... 'sanitary' conditions are met.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheFoX
Laws are made to protect the interests of everyone, and no law should be passed that alienates the interests of the majority.
There are fundamental rights that even the majority cannot eschew with the hammer of the government. I'm talking about the Music Industry's right to their property and, by extension, their distribution of that property. The government has a responsibility to ensure them, so governmentmental intervention would be apt. To oppose this is to oppose the very concept of intellectual property rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheFoX
If we allow such laws, then conduits would also cover our landline and mobile usage, as well as any other means of communication (the internet is just a feature rich communications device).
That's a false dichotomy. We do not have two extremities to choose from, that being no regulation and complete regulation. There obviously can be a common ground that will equally guarantee the citizen's right to privacy and the musician's right to their property.
Re: Policing internet 'not ISP's job'
Quote:
Originally Posted by
$we
The BPI would not lobby to legitimize their allegations and give them jurisdiction, which is what the article implied. They would instead lobby to get the government on its toes and start doing what they're supposed to do - enforce. Just as other companies are regulated, so does the internet, or more specifically the ISPs, need to be regulated to ensure that proper... 'sanitary' conditions are met.
There are fundamental rights that even the majority cannot eschew with the hammer of the government. I'm talking about the Music Industry's right to their property and, by extension, their distribution of that property. The government has a responsibility to ensure them, so governmentmental intervention would be apt. To oppose this is to oppose the very concept of intellectual property rights.
That's a false dichotomy. We do not have two extremities to choose from, that being no regulation and complete regulation. There obviously can be a common ground that will equally guarantee the citizen's right to privacy and the musician's right to their property.
And how do you propose the government of this country should enforce actions against people from other countries ? I suppose you support the FBI kicking in doors in a foreign country to enforce American legislation on non Americans do you ?
The government has ensured the rights of the Music industry, they have enacted laws to protect IP. If the IP holder has a problem with someone breaking those laws they are entitled to use those laws to seek reparations. They should seek their reparations through the courts. The right to control distribution is a very debatable point anyway.
We already have laws to regulate IP, and copyright. So the common ground already exists. This is an attempt to shift that 'common ground' in favour of a specific industry sector (a specific grouping of people), and consequently against the common people.
Industry only ever lobbies to protect itself, never the consumer. The Governments (of this world today) only ever act to protect industry, never the people.
