ISP Chief Executives Attack Mandelson’s Filesharing Plans
Peter Mandelson’s sudden conversion to disconnecting filesharers from the internet to get the ‘problem’ of p2p under control has been attacked by chief executives of Britain’s internet service providers (ISP):
In a letter to The Times, Charles Dunstone of TalkTalk, Ian Livingston of BT and Tom Alexander of Orange UK criticised the proposals on how to reduce illegal filesharing announced last month, which include the possibility of disconnecting accounts.
The letter, also signed by Deborah Prince of Which?, Ed Mayo of Consumer Focus and Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group, said innocent consumers would suffer.
The letter itself reads as follows:
Consumers must be presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. We must avoid an extrajudicial “kangaroo court” process where evidence is not tested properly and accused broadband users are denied the right to defend themselves against false accusations. Without these protections innocent customers will suffer. Any penalty must be proportionate. Disconnecting users from the internet would place serious limits on their freedom of expression. Usually, constraints to freedom of expression are imposed only as the result of custodial sentences, or incitement to racial hatred, or libel.
A point very nicely put. Mandelson’s plans represent the same problem posed by the Independent Safeguarding Authority – they are the equivalent of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, benefit entirely the wrong people, and would have side effects – most notably (in both cases) of undermining the rule of law. It’s heartening to see these people bringing the issue back to that, because ahead of any other transgression, it’s the undermining of the rule of law which remains this government’s most appalling achievement. Join us in fighting to stop it, and join me at the Pirate Party UK’s first public meeting this Saturday at 5.30pm in London.
The Pirates are Just Rebels?
John Harris makes a curious case in support of Peter Mandelson’s proposals on filesharing:
In the backstory to all this lurk arguments that will not go away: artists, writers and inventors should be paid; the traditional creative industries have their uses; and the great chaotic utopia envisaged by some online evangelists would be culturally impoverished – a world that would create millions of buskers, but no Beatles.
This kind of libertarianism gives off the same whiff as the pro-freedom politics once espoused by acid house party organisers – not just politically empty, but off-puttingly spivvy.
Pirate Party UK leader Andrew Robinson says in response:
The party does not want to abolish copyright but it needs to be balanced and fair, Robinson claims.
“At the moment, big businesses is saying that we steal handbags, and we say let’s talk about what copyright is about,” he says. The original purpose of copyright, created by the Statute of Anne of 1709, was to encourage the creation of artistic works by granting a right to copy for 14 years. Copyright for written works now stands at life plus 70 years, and copyright for sound recordings is 50 years after the recording is made, or 50 years after publication. The EU has extended copyright to 95 years for performers and sound recordings.
The term of copyright has been marching forward but along the way, the purpose of it has been lost, according to Robinson. Instead of encouraging artistic creation, modern copyright has made certain companies cultural gatekeepers, he argues, adding, “copyright is serving the needs of music labels, not the needs of the public, the public domain or even the artists“.
In other words the argument isn’t about whether or not to pay, but who benefits from it. And look at those statistics. Harris is being disingenuous when he uses the term ‘pirates’ pejoratively – the European Pirate parties’ popularity isn’t politically empty and ‘spivvy’. The large number of young people joining them in enormous numbers understand the arguments, and have the technology to do something about it. Politicians like Mandelson should be wary of patronising young voters – they don’t have enough of their own as it is!
The Government Plans to Cut Your Internet Off
The battle lines are being drawn. In June the government’s ‘Digital Britain’ report ruled out cutting people off from the internet for filesharing, but Peter Mandelson has decided to overrule its findings:
Under the tougher proposals, internet service providers would be obliged to block access to download sites, throttle broadband connections or even temporarily cut off access for repeat offenders.
Communications regulator Ofcom would report regularly to the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, providing evidence of whether such action is required against illegal filesharers.
The consultation document from Mandelson’s Department for Business Innovation and Skills proposes that the secretary of state could then direct Ofcom to implement a raft of new technical measures.
The Pirate Party UK’s responded by saying:
This is a massive announcement that threatens far more people than before, yet it has been hidden away in an update to a consultation document. We are only to be given 5 weeks to respond to this major announcement and defend our right to justice, a fair trial, and to defend the principle that collective punishments are wrong, despite the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills having a commitment to 12 week minimum consultation periods.
The other new announcement is that ISPs will be expected to share the cost of enforcement 50:50 with ‘rights holders’, a move which may well price independent artists and film-makers out of the process, and places an unjustifiable burden on ISPs who are a third party in disputes between file sharers and rights holders.
Yet again the Government have done exactly what the big media cartel have told them.
It does seem awfully convenient that the government is more interested in listening to David Geffen than coming up with a workable solution to the problem of filesharing. The government should be forced to answer the question of whose rights they’re most interested in protecting: the rights of powerful rights holders? The rights of the artists themselves? The rights of users? Again however we are in the situation where the government has bought into an international, corporate agenda at the expense of those whose interests it’s really supposed to be protecting.
Former minister Tom Watson offers a thoughtful response to the controversy:
A much more fruitful path – economically, politically and socially – would be to ask why current economic and regulatory conditions are not bringing about enough legal alternatives to draw UK consumers away from illicit p2p. Working on the fairly safe assumptions that (a) people like downloading music from the internet, and (b) most people, given a choice, would prefer not to break the law, we should aim to map a way forward for businesses old and new to take advantage of the digital market in a way that allows them sufficient profits to invest in the creative talent of the future.
I couldn’t agree more – it seems like such common sense. Why criminalise 6-7 million people when they’re responding to technological change, and to a widely-shared perception that the artists whose product is being shared aren’t losing out through filesharing? If the potential losers in the p2p future are corporate, what’s government doing siding arbitrarily (and disproportionately) with them, and entirely against users (which is quite possibly illegal)?
If you’re against Mandelson’s kowtowing to Big Media join the Pirate Party UK here. You’ve seen how successful they were in Sweden. Join them here and send a message to New Labour.
