ISP WIN for United Kingdom!

[IOWA]

As anger towards the Digital Economy Bill grows, some are fighting back against the bill in a variety of ways. ISP Talk Talk, who had been vocally against the bill ever since it was first proposed, has apparently now announced that it will not follow the more draconian aspects of the law. In an official blog post by the company, it says that it will fight in court any attempt to force it to do things it feels are unwise, and will continue to fight against the law politically:
After the election we will resume highlighting the substantial dangers inherent in the proposals and that the hoped for benefits in legitimate sales will not materialise as filesharers will simply switch to other undetectable methods to get content for free.

In the meantime we stand by our pledges to our customers:
Unless we are served with a court order we will never surrender a customer's details to rightsholders. We are the only major ISP to have taken this stance and we will maintain it.
If we are instructed to disconnect an account due to alleged copyright infringement we will refuse to do so and tell the rightsholders we'll see them in court.
Who knows if it will actually help, but it is nice to see an ISP willing to not just give in at this point.

UK ISP Says It Will Not Follow Digital Economy Bill Rules | Techdirt

 

[TheBrit]

If the rest of the ISP community follow this lead then the Digital Economy Bill will have to be repealed because enforcement will become impossible.

Here's hoping....

 

[3devious]

I got your back, people of the UK. I'd buy service from one of those companies even though I don't live there in support of that.

 

[IOWA]

Lets hope this sets a precendent...

 

[Caloy]

Comcast should take notice and follow suit.

 

[IOWA]

Comcast should take notice and follow suit.

Comcast, Afee&fee, VZW... I wish fios would hit the area. Comcost is ok here, but for the same price I can get more upstream bandwidth.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[TheBrit]

...I think it's entirely reasonable for ISP account details to be made available to the proper investigating authorities...

Yes...but it should only be with a warrant or court order. There are cases in the UK of power-mad officials using anti-terrorism legislation to snoop on people putting their bins out on the wrong day. It's not about having nothing to hide if you are innocent blah blah blah put is IS about keeping these idiots in check.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[Pryomancer]

Yay, you always bring good news about the DE Bill, IOWA.

 

[gordon green]

the general public have been paying more attenetion to the election than the Digital Economy Bill and so they have been tryign to get it in on the low key but its in a state and should be properly sorted out

 

[Snow_Fox]

I do think it's right that rights holders can't oblige the ISPs to act against those customers suspected of illegal file-sharing, but I think that stronger action needs to be taken against those that steal from artists etc.

I think it's entirely reasonable for ISP account details to be made available to the proper investigating authorities, and the courts to order an account disabled where it is being used illegally.

Erm.. I am not saying I want artist to be stolen from here.. but, the only reason this is an issue is not because of the artist.. its because of people like the RIAA..

If people (besides the artist) didn't stand to make money off these laws.. it wouldn't even be an issue..

The only reason this bothers me as much as it does is because, child porn seems like a much better target for these kinda laws.. and people are worried over the 9 cents a song artist lose.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[TheBrit]

As far as I'm concerned if they want to lock away somebody peddling child porn because he breached a law regarding the copyright on the pictures then they can go right ahead if that's more efficient than trying to get a conviction on abuse charges.

I would certainly agree with that.

 

[3devious]

I would certainly agree with that.

What kind of sentences do pirates vs. child abusers get over there?

 

[TheBrit]

What kind of sentences do pirates vs. child abusers get over there?

Pirates not much - usually a fine. Child abusers: anything from a slap on the wrist to 10 years...depends on the sentencing judge.

It turned out my daughters piano teacher was a pedo - but he preferred boys so lucky escape for my daughter. He got 6 years.

 

[3devious]

More like lucky for him... what would have happened to him had it been your daughter?

 

[Snow_Fox]

Who represent the whole industry in which the artists work.


I'm not quite sure why you bother to put the artist in there separately in brackets; are you somehow suggesting that he does deserve having his income protected, but the labels and studios don't?

All I am going to say on this issue is that it annoys me people highlight how the artist suffer when you pirate, yet the honest truth of the matter is, if artist were the only ones suffering the riaa wouldn't give two ****s..

I think people are more worried about child porn than any danger to the income of the rights holders, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws for both, either separate or combined.

I do realize they are two entirely different sets of laws however, it bothers me how the media always warns parents about "online child predators".. yet the media always covers laws "fighting piracy". My point is the same. If the RIAA wasn't making money itself off of this issue, they wouldn't care at all about the artist, the industry or anything else.

As far as I'm concerned if they want to lock away somebody peddling child porn because he breached a law regarding the copyright on the pictures then they can go right ahead if that's more efficient than trying to get a conviction on abuse charges.

Great idea! lets let child predators get lesser charges for copy right infringement!...

Or even worse..

The charges for internet piracy can be worse than pedophilia and we can catch all pedophiles in a copyright infringement ordeal.

Either way its horribly backwards :/.

If you disagree with me feel free to ignore my post altogether.. However, my current view of the RIAA is more or less like the mafia.. artist pay "protection money".

 

[mpw]

.

 

[mrqs]

if i lived in the uk, i'd switch to this "talk talk" isp in a heartbeat, being sure to let my previous isp know why i'm changing providers - enough of these reports would probably make them consider joining in on the "rebellion"

 

[mpw]

.

 

[Anthony1]

And what is your reasoning? How would this law actually effect you?

Do you download illegal material? are you looking simply to evade prosecution for your illegal actions?

Or maybe it's just a principled stand against an organisation that's nothing more than a legalised protection racket.

If publishing companies were using the same logic as RIAA, they'd be hanging around outside school gates to prosecute kids swapping comic books in the playground.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[mrqs]

How would this law actually effect you?

probably in no practical way, but it is an invasion of privacy none the less

yes, i agree that proper authorities should have access to the usage data when appropriate, but this law seems to be about rightsholders having access to that data at their every whim

pay attention to this part of the statement:

Unless we are served with a court order we will never surrender a customer's details to rightsholders.

this is not a license to do what ever the hell you want without consequences