Cut-off threat for UK illegal file-sharers
The UK government has proposed stricter technical measures in the fight against internet pirates.
The government has proposed new measures today (25 August) outlining stricter penalties for persistent illegal file-sharers in the UK, including temporary suspension from the internet.
The new, harsher methods come as a surprise as the Digital Britain report, published in June after being commissioned by the government, originally gave Ofcom until 2012 to consider technical measures of halting internet piracy.
The suspension of a user’s internet account would be a last resort according to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), which published the government statement today. Some of the lesser technical measures being proposed include reducing broadband speeds and blocking access to download sites.
This 2012 timeframe has now been deemed “too long to wait” and the government are proposing the stricter measures to be enforced earlier.
Stephen Timms, Minister for Digital Britain, said: “We’ve been listening carefully to responses to the consultation this far, and it’s become clear there are widespread concerns that the plans as they stand could delay action, impacting unfairly upon rights holders.”
The measures are likely to be welcomed by the creative industries, as a rising number of people are illegally downloading films and music for free.
However, internet service providers (ISPs) are unhappy about the announcement. In order to penalise persistent file-sharers, ISPs would have to police customer usage, requiring far more manpower and incurring more costs, which would be paid for jointly by the ISPs and rights holders.
The idea of suspending net accounts is also unpopular with ISPs as income through the account would also stop.
Those caught downloading material illegally will receive warning letters. If the user persists with illegal file-sharing activity, temporary suspension of access to the web may be enforced.
Unsurprisingly the UK online community is already up in arms about the potential strict measures, with concerns about privacy and constitutional right. European politicians recently deemed broadband as a human right and restricting someone’s access to it would be considered a breach of those rights.
Andrew Ferguson, Editor of ThinkBroadband, commented: “Suspension of an account, even temporarily, is going to be very difficult.
“In many households the internet will be used by many people, and cutting someone off could lead to increased costs for banking or worse for people who also work from home.”
Privacy is also a sore point when discussing the new measures as ISPs would have to closely monitor consumer internet usage to catch pirates.
In the age of Wi-Fi and open wireless networks, concern has been raised over secure networks and the correct identification of pirates. Hypothetically, a pirate could download content through somebody else’s network and the owner of the network may find themselves being penalised.
The sheer amount of effort required to monitor and police illegal file-sharing activity is another cause for concern as not all file-sharing is illegal, only the sharing of copyrighted content. Some analysts are already claiming that the work required to successfully reduce the illegal file-sharing by at least 70% would be insurmountable.
Mr Ferguson added: “Policing the internet is an almost impossible task. Witness the amount of information that gets out of countries that try and lock it down and one can see how difficult it will be to implement technical measures and the amount of work that will be required to keep things up to date.”
There has also been news in the British media stating that Lord Mandelson personally intervened on this issue after meeting David Geffen, a Hollywood mogul and record label founder, while on holiday in Corfu. The meeting between the Secretary of State and Mr Geffen shortly before the new technical measures were proposed is sparking some controversy among the British public.
BIS, who published the new government statement, say that the recommendations are currently only proposals and have not yet been set in stone.
