Government to consult on legislation to curb illicit filesharing as industry agrees voluntary scheme
Only 3 months late, the Government has finally released a consultation into potential legislation aimed at curbing illicit filesharing on the net. Several of the legislative options on the table are worrying, and mirror schemes being discussed in various national and international fora. They include streamlining the legal process to require ISPs to provide personal data relating to an IP address, handing responsibility for taking action against illicit filesharers to a third party body, or requiring ISPs to take action against users themselves or to install filtering equipment to block infringing content.
At the same time, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) have also announced a “landmark industry agreement” to address unlawful filesharing, signed by the UK’s six major ISPs - Virgin Media, Sky, Carphone Warehouse, BT, Orange and Tiscali - as well as the British Phonographic Industry and the Motion Picture Association.
This “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU), negotiated behind-the-scenes with strong influence from the Government, is appended to the consultation (Annex D). Its stated objective is to achieve a significant reduction in illicit filesharing and a change in popular attitudes towards copyright infringement, within 2 to 3 years.
Signatories endorse five principles in the MoU:
- That a joint industry solution is the best way forward
- That they will work together to educate consumers about why illicit filesharing is wrong
- That making content available in a wide range of user-friendly formats is important
- That they will engage in a 3 month trial to send letters to 1,000 subscribers per week suspected of downloading or uploading unlicensed, copyrighted material
- That they will work with OfCom to identify effective measures to deal with repeat offenders
A BERR press release out this morning describes how the MoU and legislation arising from the consultation will work together:
“The approach will pilot letters to be sent to the registered user of an internet account when their account has been identified as having been used to unlawfully share copyrighted material. The letters could point consumers to other sources of material available legally and in a variety of formats.
“ISPs and rights holders will produce a Code of Practice together on how they will deal with alleged repeat infringers. Government will consult to give this Code legislative underpinning.
“Ofcom will facilitate discussion between the parties and approve the final Code of Practice. Ofcom will also ensure that the self-regulatory mechanism is effective, proportionate and fair to consumers.”
For dealing with repeat infringers, the MoU mentions “technical measures such as traffic management or filtering, and marking of content to facilitate its identification”. Although there is no mention of disconnecting users, such a course of action is not ruled out. More worryingly, negotiations around the code of practice to deal with repeat infringers will not involve direct consumer participation, relying instead on Ofcom to ensure consumers get a fair deal.
As the Open Rights Group has set out exhaustively on this site and in the media (also see our appearance on Channel 4 News below), disconnection is not a good option – either for internet users or for the artists whose livelihoods are harmed by illicit filesharing. Not only is the punishment disproportionate to the crime, in most households, an internet connection is shared by a number of people. What’s more, as soon as law enforcers start snooping for IP addresses to pass on to ISPs for disconnection, hardcore filesharers will simply start using encryption and IP-masking to obfuscate their identities. Then they’ll develop software that makes it easy for non-technical people to do the same. Driving illicit filesharers further underground isn’t going to earn artists a penny, and will further irritate their fans.
Instead, offering consumers legal, attractive and competitive alternatives to illicit filesharing is the vital component in any programme to curb illicit filesharing. The MoU mentions that such alternatives might include subscription, on demand or sharing services. But unlike with the proposed enforcement measures, no timetable for providing legal alternatives is mandated. In this way, today’s announcement has its priorities wrong – preferring criminalising consumers over catering to them.
ORG will be responding in detail to BERR’s 60+ page consultation on a legislative approach over the coming weeks. The consultation will be up on our interactive consultation tool soon – and you’ll be able to help us respond by leaving your views. The consultation closes on 30 October 2008.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Please impress the importance of non-windows OS’ on them if/when they start to look at a “legal” alternative..
July 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
@Tonym
Exactly how I feel, it’s all good an well having ‘legal’ services but who the hell wants DRM getting in the way of there entertainment.
Anyways another rant at Anti-Piracy bigshots…
Feargal Sharkey at 1 minute into the news report mentions that anyone can look at the IP address “it’s that simple”. An IP address means nothing it’s even less informative than a car’s number plate. It doesn’t say who’s doing it or if the information has been cloned. To accuse through this method is disturbing at best.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
[...] termos do memorando (via Open RIghts Group) As notificações serão enviadas durante um período experimental de três meses a cerca de mil [...]
July 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“Driving illicit filesharers further underground isn’t going to earn artists a penny, and will further irritate their fans.”
To comment on this point. A person is hardly a fan if they don’t pay, just thieves. To add at one point the companies/artists earned a lot more money before mass internet piracy began, so what is to say if they managed to stop mass piracy that their profits would not increase, that is their aim, even if it is impossible.
“preferring criminalising consumers over catering to them.”
Also one is not a consumer (in a companies perspective rather than a literal translation of the word) if one does not purchase a product or watch/listen etc in a legal way.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
@ Anon
There’s an old saying that doesn’t get used much now… ‘The Customer is always right’. If the consumers (paying or otherwise) believe the price for music is to high or the content is riddled with DRM then surely that’s the way forward?
The music industry has gain greatly from the Internet, it gets alot from the 0% cost of internet advertising. How many artists have made it big through ‘viral’ advertising and such?
From my perspective, the music industry is gaining from the internet but not giving back in any real form. There only crying foul as if someone broke into there warehouse and stole thousands of CDs, They don’t lose from ‘illegal’ filesharing they just don’t gain in the short term at the moment.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
“To add at one point the companies/artists earned a lot more money before mass internet piracy began”
Do you have any hard numbers to back this up? How do the cut of the profits that artists receive now compare to the cut they received pre-internet? What about shift of revenue from records to performances? What about artists that eschew recording companies entirely and receive all profit themselves?
I don’t doubt that recording companies have been hurt by the distribution model the internet has opened up. I doubt very much that artists haven’t benefited from the same shift.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
This has to be a Joke right ..
quote..Households that ignore warnings will be subjected to online surveillance and their internet speeds will be reduced, making it very difficult for them to download large files.
well thats gonna be fun, I just had to format my ps3 then I had to re download the full 15 gigs back to my hd DOES the 15 gigs means I could get banned for legal d/ling.
Anyways I found 14 unprotected wifi connections in a small area of my town. I guess this will drive some ppl to sit in car parks late at night or force ppl to use their psp’s to find open connections.
does Large Downloads mean I can`t download LUNUX no more.
I guess rapidshare will do ok with their small rar files…
maybe everyone will just rar things up making them smaller and eay to pass . who knows ? wasnt their a prog called FILE TO MAIL ?
July 24th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
This is simply perverse when viewed against the backdrop of the EU wanting to hand music right holders an almost doubling of their copyright term for *gratis*, while giving zero to the consumers in return.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
DRM - was cracked ages ago
Remove DRM protection
Audio/video capturing software tailored to removing DRM
Program like XXXXXX and XXXXXXXX are able to re-record any media file into an unprotected format.
xxxxxx prog names remnoved. I do not condone this type of activity ..
July 24th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
This wasn’t why I switched away from Virgin as an ISP, but it makes me very glad that I did. And if I received such a letter, my immediate response would be to switch to an ISP not signed up to this idiotic scheme. I was wondering why they’d signed up to this, but actually it would seem a great way to get rid of all the people who actually *use* a significant amount of your so-called ‘unlimited’ bandwidth. It’s a win-win situation for cheap-deal, poor-service ISP’s.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I still find it amazing that the media companies and FACT, RIAA MPAA etc would prefer to chase through the courts, criminalising people rather than provide them with the means and ability to get media online in a legitimate means. The use of crippleware, DRM, rootkits and other disasterous means to limit the use of a legitimate purchase is driving people to illegal filesharing and piracy. I for one, would much rather download illegally that be forced to pay an extortionate sum of money for a digital file that I am then restricted in how I use it. I can think of no other industry that uses such monstrous business practices. General Motors doesnt sell cars that you can only drive once then have to renew every week, so why on earth should sony sell music that can only be played on one specific machine. If I buy a cd I can play it in my stereo at home, in my cd player at work, in my car, whereever I have a cd. Yet if I download that same album from a legitimate source then I am restricted to how I can use it. Thats just wrong.
Perhaps if the media companies spend a fraction of the money that they spend on legal teams to pursue piracy on working out the means of providing what the fans want then perhaps there would be a reduction in illegal filesharing.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:13 am
[...] is already some online commentary: see Pangloss and the Open Rights Group. Some thoughts of my own over the [...]
July 25th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
[...] Die britische OpenRightsGroup kommentiert die Pläne: Government to consult on legislation to curb illicit filesharing as industry agrees voluntary scheme… [...]
July 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
It is little wonder why more and more of the public are saying ‘NO’ to being ripped off by greedy music companies, and are instead using peer-to-peer file sharing technology to download for FREE!!
With many P2P clients allowing the user to;
1) Randomize the port used for incoming connections, each time the software is used.
2)Either Enable or Force Protocol Encryption, to make it difficult for ISP’s to track P2P traffic.
3)Use ‘Blocklists’, most P2P clients can download and use one. A decent one can be found here: http://www.bluetack.co.uk/. Alternatively free software like PeerGuardian can be used. http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/
How would ISP’s and the music industry implement such a scheme?
How would they cope with P2P using TOR to connect to the trackers to give a limited measure of anonymity. Or even using a matured I2P protocol in the future?
Or even 3rd Generation networks such as ANtsP2P? http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/
The latest version (beta1.6.0) was released on 26 January 2008.
Not to mention commercial VPN solutions ie Swedish based https://www.relakks.com/ !!
July 25th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
[...] http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/24/government-to-consult-on-legislation-to-curb-illicit-files... The Government has released a consultation into potential legislation aimed at curbing illicit filesharing on the net. Several of the legislative options on the table are worrying, and mirror schemes being discussed in various national and international fora. They include streamlining the legal process to require ISPs to provide personal data relating to an IP address, handing responsibility for taking action against illicit filesharers to a third party body, or requiring ISPs to take action against users themselves or to install filtering equipment to block infringing content… Permalink | Reply | [...]
July 25th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I’m just a normal user of uTorrent. I use it to download different files, mostly legal and free software that can be shared. Downloading a copy of Linux using bitTorrent is a lot more effective that downloading it from a website. As far as I know, (and correct me if I’m wrong) that if I encrypt my BitTorrenting, then all my ISP can see is the amount of data I’ve downloaded. Legal or not, even if it’s not music, I’m sure I still face one of these letters in the mail in the next few days.
I’m currently under age to get a job in the UK. I know that a big group of people that torrent music along with other files is under age too. It’s not always a case of not wanting to pay, it’s that most of the people I know in the community cant. Just because you don’t have any money, dose that really mean you’re not allowed to be a fan? I wish musicians now actually cared about their music more than making money. I understand that everyone in the chain needs to be paid, but if the band is good, people will still pay to see them live.
Instead of the UK going down the path the Americans are being forced to go down, which is where the MPAA (I think that’s what they are called) no longer need proof you are downloading music to sue you. What about a service like YouTube gives but using ads to pay for music download. The music industry needs to realise that things are changing; they need to keep up instead of just trying to throw their weight around.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
1. Let ISPs and MAFIAA implement their evil plan.
2. Wait for the general public to get annoyed.
3. Found Pirate Party UK
4. ???
5. Profit!
July 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
…The fact that the government wants to stop file sharing means that they clearly regard these industry trade groups as ‘more equal’ than the general public. They need to recognise the rights of the middle class!
July 26th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Beyond all this, many people buy copies of CD’s, etc. just to rip and remix to their satisfaction. There have been assaults on this activity as well. So beyond distribution, they want total control.
July 26th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
@Sp3c3d
“if I encrypt my BitTorrenting, then all my ISP can see is the amount of data I’ve downloaded. Legal or not, even if it’s not music, I’m sure I still face one of these letters in the mail in the next few days.”
not necessary, ISPs don’t “sniff” your traffic ( yet? ), they will just receive a information from outside organisation ( BPI, MPAA etc. ) stating that for example your IP is using to download “illegal” materials. Fact that You are using a encryption in BT client is not important - they still can connect to You using same way as You do, and get IP. If You are using BT only for legal files - You are safe ( in theory
.
sorry for bad English
regards
July 27th, 2008 at 2:40 am
@ m4dm3n
Very well pointed, which highlights the main issue involved, the process of ‘investigation’ they use is no way near air tight. As torrent trackers use http protocals to bridge peers this means anyone that happens to click on a link relating to the tracker could be accused of fraud.
As have been seen by tests in America when using a printer to contact a tracker. The only real bypass is via a VPN solution provided in another country, to which my feelings are… ‘Why should we?’.
Plus on the side of legality… With the BPI choosing what is infringement and what isn’t they’re playing by their own rules. I doubt they check all the content there looking for if it’s an automated process meaning if an ‘illegal’ site has a legal torrent for say, Fedora 9, it might be picked up with the rest of the content and checked for UK IPs from the tracker.
This is why we need a detailed report of how the BPI are getting there data and this is ultimately why they probably won’t ever tell us.
July 27th, 2008 at 2:42 am
[...] ~ Parents to Be Punished for Children’s Net Piracy Households that are suspected of illegal downloads will be blacklisted and have Internet access curbed under new rules in the UK. http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2008/07/24/government-to-consult-on-legislation-to-curb-illicit-files... [...]
July 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Everyone seems to missing a major point. Its irrelevent whether the music companies loose money, go bankrupt even. Legal alternatives to illegal filesharing are also irrelevent. Surely the most important point is that legislation should not be introduced just because someone is loosing money. We’d never have roof tiles, double glazing, ‘new’ music, electric guitars, different brand toothpastes etc. Every new thing looses money for someone. Thats just capitalism (its sad world when profit is all that counts). Should we ban roof tiles because they are putting Thatchers out of business? There are currently NO laws about filesharing over the internet. It is illegal to breach copyright but that does not include any details about the internet and how this really works. If we are all connected then potentially (as we know happens ) people can access anyones files without the owner knowing, isn’t the owner breaking the law simply because they connected to the internet also? we are all potential illegal file sharers just by being connected to the net. Who is going to monitor Utube etc? How can you put a video up without music or a simpsons poster or advert in the background. The internet simply exposes the idiocy of copyright law and it needs to be banned altogether. You can’t and shouldn’t be able to profit from copying, thats what the music industry does not file sharers. Information should be free for all. Thats why the human race evolved to be what it is today.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am
What seems to have been missed in all the discussions I have read thus far is the legality of logging IPs by a commercial entity.
Under recent european directives an IP address is classed as personal information and thus cannot be harvested into a database without the knowledge of the data protection commisioner, how does this square with the BPI gathering intelligence, and bt extension, your rights to amend incorrect information ?
Have the BPI registered their activities and if so is there the potential of a case under human rights and data protection laws to head of this unchecked abuse of the masses ?
Its technically possible to deliver a whole phallanx of headaches to those logging IP,s is this the way ahead, do they really want a war of attrition ?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
[...] month, the Government announced it would be consulting with the public on ways to curb illicit filesharing. ORG will be developing a response to the consultation over the next two months and we’d like [...]