Government gets tough on pirates after Mandy dines with Geffen

happygeek 0 560 Views

I'm not a great fan of the phrase 'total coincidence' and nor am I a fan of The Rt Hon Lord Mandelson, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills and Lord President of the Council to be formal.

While I'm on the small matter of things I don't like, I'm not exactly standing cheering on the sidelines when a recording or movie industry executive bemoans modern technology for stripping them of some of their profit from the sale of music or film.

So you can probably guess I was none too pleased to learn that the UK Government has done something of a 180 degree about turn of thinking when it comes to dealing with entertainment industry piracy on the Internet. The proposed draconian new powers include forcing Internet Service Providers to suspend or block the accounts of persistent downloaders. Oddly enough, this exact same suggestion was rejected just a couple of months ago in the much awaited Digital Britain report, which was published by none other than the UK Government itself.

Of course, the turnaround could have nothing to do with Peter Mandelson having dinner with David Geffen, a well known Hollywood media mogul, at a villa in Corfu belong to Nat Rothschild could it? Absolutely not, according to a who said "I believe they had dinner, but they absolutely didn't discuss any peer-to-peer file-sharing."

Believe what you will, but understand this: many Internet Service Providers are not happy. One major ISP, TalkTalk, has gone on record to state "Introducing measures such as disconnection at the instigation of the Secretary of State will sidestep proper scrutiny, likely breach fundamental human rights and result in innocent people being disconnected or, worse, prosecuted" adding "What’s more, they will not work" and concluding that the plans would be strongly resisted. Even the Internet Services Providers' Association has said that it was disappointed by the announcement regarding disconnection which it considered to be "a disproportionate response."

Here's what the Government has to say about ISP account suspension:

"The original proposal lists six technical measures that Ofcom might require ISPs to impose on repeat infringers. Since the issue of the consultation some stakeholders have argued strongly that none of those technical measures is powerful enough to have a significant deterrent effect on infringing behaviour. Also we cannot know how P2P technology might develop in the short to medium term, and we want to ensure that Ofcom has a full tool-kit from which to select the most appropriate measure should technical measures be deemed necessary. Taking those points into account, although we continue to regard the uptake and use of Internet services as essential to a digital Britain, we are considering the case for adding suspension of accounts into the list of measures that could be imposed. This does not necessarily mean that suspension would be used - this step would obviously be a very serious sanction as it would affect all members of a household equally, and might disrupt access to other communications, so it should be regarded as very much a last resort. Accordingly a thorough examination of the proportionality and effectiveness of the measure (as with any of the other measures) would have to be undertaken before ISPs would be required to implement it, even if the decision to move to technical measures is taken. As ever we would need to ensure any such measure fully complied with both UK and EU legislation."

Dani AI

Generated

made the key points: the 2009 shift from the earlier Digital Britain stance to a proposal that would let ISPs take stronger technical steps against alleged file-sharers looks sudden, and it raised predictable worries about conflicts of interest and heavy-handed sanctions. The concern from ISPs and civil-rights groups is not just political theatre — it’s about how any scheme would actually work, who decides guilt, and what happens to households and innocent users when an account is targeted.

Three practical gaps demand attention. First, evidence and attribution: an IP address is noisy — dynamic addresses, shared connections and open Wi‑Fi make personal blame unreliable unless procedures for verification are robust. Second, due process: there must be clear notice, an independent review or appeal step, and a defined legal test before penalties like suspension are applied. Third, proportionality and collateral harm: disconnecting a line cuts access to more than entertainment (work, education, services) so safeguards, narrow scope and minimal-impact options should be mandatory.

On the technical and policy side: enforcement is costly for ISPs and easy to evade as technologies evolve, so blanket suspension is unlikely to be the most effective tool. Less intrusive alternatives include targeted legal action against commercial facilitators, court-ordered site-blocking or injunctive remedies, properly resourced criminal enforcement where appropriate, and industry measures that improve legal content availability and pricing. Transparency about decision-making and a published impact assessment are essential if public trust is to be preserved.

For consumers and campaigners: check your ISP terms, insist on transparent complaint and appeal routes, and ask MPs for statutory protections (independent adjudication, evidentiary standards, limited scope and cost-sharing). This thread rightly flags both the politics and the practical problems — any durable policy needs legal safeguards, clear evidence standards and public scrutiny rather than secret deals or rushed directives.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

Edit Preview