AfterDawn: Tech news

Carphone Warehouse will not comply with 'three strikes' copyright plan

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 06 Apr 2008 22:03 User comments (15)

Carphone Warehouse will not comply with 'three strikes' copyright plan Carphone Warehouse has revealed that it has no intention of cooperating with the record industry's BPI or the UK Government in a plan to disconnect users who are caught engaging in illegal file sharing activities. "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," CPW CEO Charles Dunstone said in a statement.
The UK Government has been putting pressure on Internet Service Providers (ISP) to co-operate with rights holders to clamp down on illegal file sharing. "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. We believe that a fundamental part of our role as an ISP is to protect the rights of our users to use the Internet as they choose. We will fight any challenge to the sanctity of this relationship with every legal option available to us," Dunstone said.

The Register contacted a spokesman for Carphone Warehouse, who said the company is not going to be bullied by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) trade organization, which sent it a letter demanding a written agreement within 14 days. The letter allegedly threatens court action if the ISP fails to respond. "There's a difference between that and the BPI's public statements on cooperation," the spokesman said.

The BPI did respond to the statement issued by Carphone Warehouse. "Talk Talk claims it is their role to 'protect the rights of their customers to use the internet as they choose'. We strongly disagree on this point when that usage is illegal," the BPI said. "Contrary to Talk Talk's claims, passing advice on to their customers is not 'unreasonable' or 'unworkable'. We are not asking ISPs to act as the police. We are asking them to act on information we provide to them."

CPW is the first major ISP to challenge the proposed scheme publicly.


Get regular news updates from AfterDawn.com by subscribing to our RSS feeds using the Subscribe button below. If you have been living in a cave for a few years now and don't know how to use RSS feeds, then Click Here to read a Guide on how to use RSS (and other) feeds.

Previous Next  

15 user comments

16.4.2008 22:07

Good for carphone wharehouse. At least they believe in habeas corpus.

26.4.2008 22:29

Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.

37.4.2008 3:23

Quote:
We are not asking ISPs to act as the police
That's right, the BPI is doing all the policing here, ISP need not trouble themselves with that sort of extra work.

47.4.2008 11:46

"We are asking them to act on information we provide to them."
There are many problems with this, I believe above is one of the largest.

57.4.2008 14:38

Originally posted by sgriesch:
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
Absolutely correct. Goverments are at fault on the account of drunk drivers too by the same faulty logic. Get real !!!

"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition


67.4.2008 16:24
fgamer
Inactive

Ok, don't they realize this takes time and money to police all their customers the way they want it done? I think it's crazy how these 3rd party companys can dictate what an ISP should have to do to protect the music industrys rights when they should be responsible for DRM'ing their own music more securely themselfs. What they want these ISP's to do is on the same lines as the Cable company demanding TV makers to disable someones television if they're caught stealing cable 3 times. It makes no senes and should not be legal/allowed!! Government seems to neglect protecting it's citizens from all this bullS**t!! Perhaps because they're in the pockets of some of these anti-consumer companys!

77.4.2008 17:05

Originally posted by sgriesch:
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
Commit enough offences and you're banned from the roads.
Crap analogy mate.

87.4.2008 17:57

Quote:
Originally posted by sgriesch:
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
Quote:
Commit enough offences and you're banned from the roads.
Crap analogy mate
.

No, I disagree with your conclusion as there are (a whole bunch of) unlicensed drivers, or am I incorrect ? Now how do you get rid of all of them ?

97.4.2008 19:39

sgriesch provided a good point. With the drunk drivers do the liquor/beer sellers stop them, no. Can we sue the govt/liquor stores/makers for providing the items to the wrong hands, no. These analogies can be used many different ways. DjDanio, they attempt to ban people from the road but their are people who will drive. If they want all of the downloading to stop send us back to the 80's where the internet was an unknown process to the basic consumer.

108.4.2008 5:51

Looks like ill be joining the car phone warehouse virgin media wont need to give me 3 strikes as soon as they send me the first letter ill be off take my hard earned £25 a month somewhere else somewhere were my provider isn’t telling me what and not I cant do

118.4.2008 14:20
hobo155
Inactive

So the ISP's should disconnect user and warn users based upon the evidence provided by the BPI? The ISP's are supposed to take the word of the BPI, and to just assume that the BPI is providing the information correctly. Who polices the BPI to make sure that they are doing their jobs properly? What if an ISP suspends or kicks a user from it's services based on incorrect info from the BPI? The only evidence the BPI and other such groups rely on is an IP address and mostly the name of a file, and in the case of torrents, only the name of a .torrent file. What if you were a member of the tor network or were offering a proxy service and your IP address just happened to route through p2p traffic? You would end up getting a warning or kicked from your ISP just because of your IP address!

I am glad to see an ISP standing up for the users for a change. They should not be held accountable for illegal files the same way that cell phone companies are not responsible for monitoring for illegal chatter on their phone networks. The next thing you know the BPI will be after the internet cafes to monitor users activities and make sure they don't download something illegal. The BPI should do something useful with their organization, rather than going after teenagers who just want to hear their favorite groups latest album, or people like you and me that just find it easier to have DRM free music rather than the likes of iTunes telling me how and from what I am allowed to listen to music.

128.4.2008 14:34

Originally posted by killalot:
Looks like ill be joining the car phone warehouse virgin media wont need to give me 3 strikes as soon as they send me the first letter ill be off take my hard earned £25 a month somewhere else somewhere were my provider isn’t telling me what and not I cant do

that makes two of us.

138.4.2008 23:23

Originally posted by DjDanio:
Originally posted by sgriesch:
Carphone Warehouse is exactly right. They are not responsible for the traffic on their servers. My analogy is that the government provides the roads that we drive on. If I have an accident is it the governments fault because it happened on their road? I don't think so.
Commit enough offences and you're banned from the roads.
Crap analogy mate.
Not if it's another person's fault, or if I hit a deer, or if I slide on a patch of ice. Still the governments fault?
It's offenses not "of fences".
Crap spelling mate.

148.4.2008 23:31

Originally posted by sssharp:
sgriesch provided a good point. With the drunk drivers do the liquor/beer sellers stop them, no. Can we sue the govt/liquor stores/makers for providing the items to the wrong hands, no. These analogies can be used many different ways. DjDanio, they attempt to ban people from the road but their are people who will drive. If they want all of the downloading to stop send us back to the 80's where the internet was an unknown process to the basic consumer.
That's exactly right. What if someone piggy-backs off another person's connection? Even if something is encrypted it's still not full-proof. Innocent until proven guilty in this country (in theory).

159.6.2008 19:24
mav2k5
Inactive

I'm not with virgin media anymore but if i were and I received one of these warning letters, I would simply do the following:-

Contact my solicitor (if the letter comes from yourself no matter how valid the points, it does not carry any force unlike a solicitors letter will) and have these questions asked :-

1. Provide to myself the evidence on which you make these claims.

2. How did you acquire this information about myself?

I doubt anyone would receive a reply, as in the vast majority of cases the evidence is either very weak or none existent in terms of standing up in a court of law, and most importantly they will have had to spy on your personal usage which most definitely includes accessing your pc in some fashion without your prior consent, this is in my country, ILLEGAL!!

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive