Lord Mandelson has clarified plans regarding the "three-strike policy" today, created in an effort to reduce piracy, according to the BBC. Whilst the plans were initially opposed by many, Lord Mandelson also mentioned some benefits the new plans will provide, such as relaxed copyright laws in regards to sharing.Lord Mandelson was speaking at the government's digital creative industries conference where he talked about the plans. He emphasised that cutting off users would be a last resort, and, addressing the fears of some, stated that users would be able to appeal any decisions to cut off their Internet access, if for instance, the disconnected user believed someone else was using their Internet connection.
"If we reach the point of suspension for an individual, they will be informed in advance, having previously received two notifications – and will have the opportunity to appeal," Mandelson said.
Although the finer details would have to be discussed at European level, Lord Mandelson also discussed the possibility of relaxing copyrighting laws "at home and between friends," meaning that users could legally copy their music from their CD to their iPod, or potentially share their music with family or friends without fear of breaking the law.
The discussion may have eased many consumer concerns about being disconnected, and the relaxed copyright laws at home is likely to be a welcome move, assuming that it goes ahead after being discussed at European level. The cost of the process would be shared between right holders and ISPs, Lord Mandelson added later.
Thanks to Neowin.net member thealexweb for the news tip.
;p
He should be un-Lorded for that!
Being a Lord might once have had a notion of respectability but not for the past 30 or 40 years. It now mean you're a complete ****!
I'm actually not commenting because of this file-sharing busienss but purely because I can't stand this man.
What a fail on Neowin's part.
Thank you all the same.
Ah its my usual luck, get mentioned on the front page but somethings bound to go wrong
Edit: thanks Sazz181 :-)
The only message I'm getting from this ruling is that you get a slap on the wrist for breaking copyright laws.
How do they intend on catching people before or after this rule comes in, as there's only been a handful of prosecutions in the UK. And I don't think any have ended in a conviction unless they are mass bootlegging down markets. (But then that's not really anything to do with sharing online)
The "offending user's" will be identified by right holders, presumably, who then contact the ISP with their IP address.
Obviously, with no Internet, the user cannot re-offend (through their broadband at home anyway. The duration of the cut off was not specified).
Sellers and those originating the material through recording etc. have been prosecuted though.
I guess this is an attempt at trying to come up with a realistic and workable solution is stopping personal downloading, which is a reasonable idea in itself - but there's so many issues with this scheme. I fail to see how they can cut you off on suspicion - Isn't the law or the land clear that you are innocent until proven guilty, and there has to be reasonable grounds to act upon someone who is only a suspect (such as a suspected murderer can be detained if it is deemed unsafe to let them go).
You are right about it being a suspicion though, as IP addresses have been proven to be unreliable as a source of evidence, and it is for this reason that users will be given the chance to appeal warnings or decisions to disconnect, so that cases where things aren't so simple can be resolved.
The "offending user's" will be identified by right holders, presumably, who then contact the ISP with their IP address.
Obviously, with no Internet, the user cannot re-offend (through their broadband at home anyway. The duration of the cut off was not specified).
ISP = not police don't have authority to judge who can and cannot have internet. ISP can't turn off your power or water cause you use too much of that so they shouldn't be able to do it for internet which is now being seen as a legal right to access it no matter the content.
You're right. They are about as vague as giving the street/road name of an offender then telling authority's to catch them.
ehh...not really. They aren't cutting it off because your using too much of it, it's because you are using it illegally. For your water analogy to work the person would have to be using the water to drown kittens or something. Your isp doesn't have any authority over your water or power anyway.
Thing is, this copyright issue will eventually be solved and chances are, if is not the ISP that is going to determine, it is a watchdog group with governmental backing or the police/law enforcement. And breach of contracts meant you could be turned off. If you don't pay your bills, your power can go off.
I doubt a mere ISP could keep track every time someone does anything illegally. Probably, chances are if you get caught 3 times, you really deserved to have your connection cut.
I find it awful they see the need to change a law/regulation/whatever to allow th above...
Exactly, ISP provide internet service. That's it. Nothing more no policing or anything.
They don't seem to be doing a good job of prosecuting people at the moment anyway.
They don't seem to be doing a good job of prosecuting people at the moment anyway.
lol you got that right! All talk, no action.
Copyright is an issue covered by the World Trade Organisation and I'm afraid Lord Mandelbum has no control over it much as he'd like to think he does.
How would he deal with a British citizen who use a torrent tracker running on a server in Guatemala to retrieve portions of files from computers in 112 different countries? He can't. He obviously doesn't have a clue about the technology or its legal implications. Moreove, under copyright law it is NOT illegal to download copyrighted material, only to upload it. Uploading is legally considered to be a legal transaction or sale where the uploader is exchanging the material for 'goodwill'.
How would he handle a British citizen who placed a music file for share by a torrent with a tracker on a server in Guatemala? The tracker would link to portions of the files stored on computers in many different countries. All the bit-torrent client software companies have to do is add a filter to exclude IP addresses in the UK or EU. No content would be transferred from a UK/EU sender to a UK/EU receiver. No UK/EU laws broken and not in Mandelbum's jurisdiction.
This is not a realistic solution to what is a real problem. Back to the drawing board m'Lord.
I refuse to address anyone as lord (or your highness for that matter.)
A would-be politician, thrice ejected from the uk government for corruption. The only way he could get back in a fourth time was to be given a honorary peer title. Hence the surreptitious meeting with the rothchilds and david geffen (billionaire music and movie mogul) in corfu, and his subsequent heightened interest in the digital britain report. This guy is corruption exemplified.
Last edited by LoveThePenguin on 29 Oct 2009 - 09:40
Last edited by davepeanuts on 29 Oct 2009 - 16:18
I would think that whose who want to already do -- I mean how are you going to catch someone who copies a CD or DVD for their sister or brother? If you can't prosecute something, making it legal has zero practical effect.
"The cost of the process would be shared between right holders and ISPs..."
Appeal before or after cutoff? If after, if the people who want you cut off have to pay for your appeal, delaying/limiting that process would be in their best interests.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.