Ofcom unveils anti-piracy policy in the UK(news.bbc.co.uk)
news.bbc.co.uk
Ofcom unveils anti-piracy policy in the UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10183820.stm
4 comments
I find it disturbing that you're presumed guilty: we think you're doing something bad, we put you on the list, and we can then sue you if we feel like it, meaning that consumers have to prove their innocence instead of the ISPs and copyright holders proving guilt.
That report doesn't mention how you'd get labelled as a copyright infringer.
Direct link to what Ofcom has to say --- http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consumer/2010/05/draft-code-of-pract...
Consultation on this draft policy closes on 30th July.
Direct link to what Ofcom has to say --- http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consumer/2010/05/draft-code-of-pract...
Consultation on this draft policy closes on 30th July.
One of the subtler and nastier parts of this is that, while currently the state doesn't impose any sanctions for infringement, sanctions (including disconnection) are planned if the piracy numbers don't go down a lot in the next year or so; but both Ofcom and the Government refuse to say whether being on this list of (alleged?) infringers will be used as evidence once those sanctions are enabled.
In other words, this is retroactive punishment.
The list is a bit like a criminal record (but with a much lower standard of evidence - mere accusation may be enough), but right now being on it carries no disadvantages, so people may decide not to bother appealing being placed on the list (especially since they shouldn't have to - presumption of innocence and all that). Then a year down the line the Secretary of State for Business has lunch with the IFPI chairman who says, "Remember how we said two years ago how piracy was going to ruin us imminently? Well ignore the fact that it's two years later and not only are we still here but our profits have actually gone up; piracy is still going to ruin us imminently, so you need to start disconnecting people pour encourager les autres." Now suddenly people who were already on the list before said lunch can lose their internet access.
In other words, this is retroactive punishment.
The list is a bit like a criminal record (but with a much lower standard of evidence - mere accusation may be enough), but right now being on it carries no disadvantages, so people may decide not to bother appealing being placed on the list (especially since they shouldn't have to - presumption of innocence and all that). Then a year down the line the Secretary of State for Business has lunch with the IFPI chairman who says, "Remember how we said two years ago how piracy was going to ruin us imminently? Well ignore the fact that it's two years later and not only are we still here but our profits have actually gone up; piracy is still going to ruin us imminently, so you need to start disconnecting people pour encourager les autres." Now suddenly people who were already on the list before said lunch can lose their internet access.
This doesn't say what constitutes a copyright infringement. For example I'm viewing the BBC web site, and by doing so I'm downloading images that I certainly don't own the copyright on.
Also, secret blacklists and the ability of politicians to unplug people from the internet doesn't bode well for the future. It will end badly, mark my words.
Also, secret blacklists and the ability of politicians to unplug people from the internet doesn't bode well for the future. It will end badly, mark my words.