AfterDawn: Tech news

BT chief executive says filesharers should be fined, not suspended

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 10 Mar 2010 20:00 User comments (13)

BT chief executive says filesharers should be fined, not suspended In a letter to the Financial Times, BT Group Chief Executive Ian Livingston suggested that persistent file sharers caught breaking copyright laws should face fines instead of technical sanctions proposed by the UK government. He said that suspending service for persistent infringers as spelled out in the Digital Economy Bill could deny a fair hearing for the accused.
Instead of the technical sanctions outlined in the DEB, Livingston said people could choose to pay a penalty or fight the accusation. Those who dispute accusations could take their case to a new tribunal instead of the courts. The suggestion brings BT in line with the Open Rights Group, which believes such a system would be fairer and less risky than the proposed suspensions and other sanctions.

In the letter - which was also signed by the bosses of TalkTalk, Virgin Media and Orange, as well as Facebook, Google, eBay and Yahoo! - a recent amendment to the Digital Economy Bill faced considerable criticism. The amendment made last week would allow copyright holders to injunct ISPs and force the blocking of specific web addresses.

The measure would be used to fight against files posted on "locker services", such as Rapidshare. "Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take," the letter reads.

"Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended."

The peers behind the amendment have argued that all major ISPs already block access to URLs that are known to carry images of child abuse, and therefore have the technical means to block links to pirated material.

Previous Next  

13 user comments

111.3.2010 7:43
reuven25
Inactive

If I make a request to buy a recording of music or video (still under copyright) and I am told it is no longer available,perhaps classical music with a certain orchestra, or conductor. Only recordings with a different conductor and orchestra are available. Are the recording companies obliged to sell me the old recordings, even if they have to produce a single record or video, or alternatively state the the old recordings are no longer under copyright, which means any one can produce them? In other words is the copyright owner under any legal publication to sell a copyrighted recording?

211.3.2010 8:34

Originally posted by reuven25:
If I make a request to buy a recording of music or video (still under copyright) and I am told it is no longer available,perhaps classical music with a certain orchestra, or conductor. Only recordings with a different conductor and orchestra are available. Are the recording companies obliged to sell me the old recordings, even if they have to produce a single record or video, or alternatively state the the old recordings are no longer under copyright, which means any one can produce them? In other words is the copyright owner under any legal publication to sell a copyrighted recording?
Well with music after 50 years a song becomes public domain as they call it. So in the situation you speak of, it is legal to download it since these recordings have been available for over 50 years. Same concept applies with software. After 15 years software is considered "abandonware" and it is also legal to obtain. This is just in the U.S. and I am no lawyer so what I said might not be entirely accurate. A musician informed me of the law about music, and I read somewhere about ababdonware.

311.3.2010 9:26

Ian, good why don't YOU go after them! They did that in the US and have stopped. Cause it cost too much money and they cyber police bounty hunters broke laws to get enough proof. I bet they are still being sued. The sleezbag wants someone else to do the dirty work.

411.3.2010 15:13

AS long as when he industry abuses copy right they can be fiend for trillions I am all for it.

511.3.2010 18:15

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
AS long as when The industry abuses copy right they can be finEd for trillions I am all for it.

Zippy do you really think that's going to happen? The corporations rule with an iron fist and if anything 'untowards' happens they just look for a loophole or they'll MAKE one and walk away scot-free while the common folk get 'pegged' by the corporations, RIAA and MPAA and every other copyright gestapo.

611.3.2010 18:41

Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
AS long as when The industry abuses copy right they can be finEd for trillions I am all for it.

Zippy do you really think that's going to happen? The corporations rule with an iron fist and if anything 'untowards' happens they just look for a loophole or they'll MAKE one and walk away scot-free while the common folk get 'pegged' by the corporations, RIAA and MPAA and every other copyright gestapo.
Of course not if they had to play by the same rules or tougher rules because you know it deals with millions or more on a yearly basis. Because it will never happen I will ignore whatever made up rule they have made to bully the masses into paying out more for less.

711.3.2010 18:48

lol exactly Zippy!

812.3.2010 5:25

If you read between the lines you can see what he is really saying is that they don't want to have to take any action against any of their customers.
By suggesting fines etc then they pass the buck back to the courts and law officials and leave the ISPs free from having to place filters and throttles etc on some of their customers.
That's why all the ISP bosses have signed up to this letter.

913.3.2010 14:55

domie i think you missed a trick there, its far more likely so they can send out all the fines, take their cut if they pay and pass it onto the goverment, if they dont pay they just pass it to the goverment.

Less work for the goverment, more money for the isp, for the goverment and more ass shafting of the public.

1013.3.2010 15:21
reuven25
Inactive

Going back to my original posting, if the copyright is still valid, within the time limit, is there any legal provision that the copyright owners must sell on demand, the copyrighted material? And not use the excuse that it is out of stock, and not being produced any longer. Should not a list be published giving anybody the right to download and upload such material?

1113.3.2010 17:53

Originally posted by reuven25:
Going back to my original posting, if the copyright is still valid, within the time limit, is there any legal provision that the copyright owners must sell on demand, the copyrighted material? And not use the excuse that it is out of stock, and not being produced any longer. Should not a list be published giving anybody the right to download and upload such material?
There are some things in fir use that allow you to gain it without buying it if its hard to find after 5ish years.

1217.3.2010 9:10

Suspention come out of THEIR pocket from lost business. The fines add another layer of complexity to the process. Probably more than half of the ISPs think this movement will be bad for their business. They are trying to slow the process down.

1318.3.2010 13:53
malh
Unverified new user

If software companies can check computers for illegal programs, then in their time off, Can it be checked for your ID, Credit Card and other useful information that a criminal will pay for? Makes one think when so many wants to check up on what every one does on the PC. There are sone who loves dipping their mitts into our money. Now they are thinking of an excuse to get it another way. ..Checking for piracy? Who are the real benefit thieves? You should know.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive