UK ISP Association Criticizes “Three-Strikes” Plan – Again

[DaBees-Knees]

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87327/uk-isp-association-criticizes-three-strikes-plan-again/

The UK Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA) is reiterating its position that “evolved” plans by UK Business Secretary Lord Mandelson and his Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to disconnect accused file-sharers from the Internet improperly favors copyright holders over both consumers and the ISPs that provide them online services.

The govt has said the plan will be a two-stage process with letters sent warning suspected file-sharers at first, but if it proves insufficient will begin implementing technical measures that include Internet disconnection in the spring of 2011.

We all know letters won’t be enough and that it may as well skip to the latter “solution.”

Nicholas Lansman, ISPA’s secretary general, says the real focus, once again, should be on providing legal alternatives rather than on ineffective, expensive, and difficult to implement technical measures that could have unintended consequences and restrict access to legitimate services.

“It is all very well beating consumers over the head with a stick but they need to be offered a carrot as well,” said Lansman.

James Blessing, a senior ISPA Council Member, adds that the problem will persist so long as copyright holders fail to give consumers with what they want, that piracy is only an answer to their shortcomings, and that file-sharers will always bypass any technical measures they devise.

“What is needed is for business models in the creative content industries to change to the new environment and provide end users with access to the content they want, in the way that they desire and for a price that is acceptable,” he says. “Until that happens people will find ways of getting round whatever is brought forward to ‘crack down’ on the problem.”

The ISPA also points out that it’s unfair it pay any of the costs to implement the proposed technical measures being that it’s solely for the benefit of other parties – copyright holders.

The govt believes the costs should be split between the two.

Blessing adds that the file-sharing needs a bit of clarification, that it’s not as clear cut as copyright holders make it out to be.

“Let’s start with a clearing up, downloading copyrighted files from the internet isn’t illegal,” he says. “Distribution of copyrighted  files on the internet for no reward isn’t illegal, it’s a civil offence and as such they will have to sue the end user directly rather than just report the offence to the police. The net effect of this is to move the argument from being ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘balance of probability’ (and how much you can influence a judge using your charm skills).”

He points out that an accused IP address may be accurate, but it doesn’t take into consideration services that may have been “stolen” (i.e. Wi-Fi hijacking).

All of this doesn’t seem to matter. The UK govt has managed to become mesmerized by copyright holders and their elusive claims of job losses and starving content creators. Too bad the Internet and digital culture will suffer to satisfy their selfish concerns.

“Distribution of copyrighted  files on the internet for no reward isn’t illegal, it’s a civil offence and as such they will have to sue the end user directly rather than just report the offence to the police. The net effect of this is to move the argument from being ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘balance of probability’ (and how much you can influence a judge using your charm skills).”

Possibly how much money you have available to spend on fighting your case also comes in to the equation.