Digital Britain: UK Music proposes five measures for persistent file-sharers
UK music industry body UK Music was notably less combative than the BPI in its response to today’s Digital Britain report, even if it shared Geoff Taylor’s concern that the initial warning-letters system won’t be effective in fighting piracy.
In fact, UK Music’s statement also thinks the planned technical measures to slow down or cap persistent file-sharers’ internet connections won’t be enough to reduce illegal file-sharing by 70-80% within 2-3 years, as the government hopes.
“We would like to see action now,” says UK Music’s Feargal Sharkey. “Over the past 12 months, UK music companies have exceeded themselves in terms of innovation and experimentation, offering unprecedented access and choice to music fans. Yesterday’s announcement by Virgin Media and Universal Music of their all-you-can-eat MP3 service comes on the back of free-to-consumer offerings from Spotify and We7 and the removal of Digital Rights Management from the download market. There are more licensed download services in the UK than any country in Europe. I am certain there will be even more in the coming weeks, months and years.”
UK Music says it’s keen to begin the consultation process as soon as possible, and has today proposed “a series of proportionate measures, targeted specifically towards persistent file sharers, which we believe would help take forward the debate even further.”
They are:
1. Warning notice. The ISP will send a letter to the account holder illegally file sharing copyright material
2. Interactive Notification & Web Redirection. The ISP will redirect the account’s web browser to a website which will require the account holder to identify themselves and their responsibility for the account.
3. Should an ISP receive evidence of illegal file sharing on an account for a third occasion, it will send a notification to the account holder that their internet service will be immediately suspended for 72 hours.
4. Evidence of illegal file sharing on an account on a fourth occasion, the ISP will send a notification to the account holder that their internet service will be immediately suspended for one month.
5. With evidence of illegal file sharing for a fifth occasion, the ISP will suspend the account for a period of two months and that a further two month suspension will be implemented if a further infringement occurs
Tags: Digital Britain, UK Music
June 16th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
What does this really mean? I won’t get sued but I will get cut off? I will get cut off AND sued? or that the ISPs have the final say and they won’t do anything because I’m their customer, not the record labels. This doesn’t make anything clearer. It’s just a desparate government trying to cosy up to a desparate industry.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
As the French case demonstrates, if the Government wants to argue that internet access is effectively a universal right, and a fundamental utility, then chopping someone’s service for file-sharing is a basic breach of human rights …
No-one thinks letters will be effective, but it’s rapidly getting to the stage when we should be asking why anyone would bother downloading illegally. I can get pretty much what I want, when I want, on Spotify or all sorts of other services.
Of course, we haven’t been telling the industry this for more than five years. Bah.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
[...] Music Ally blog features a more detailed breakdown of the proposed anti-piracy measures. [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
[...] Music Ally blog features a more detailed breakdown of the proposed anti-piracy measures. [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
[...] Music Ally blog features a more detailed breakdown of the proposed anti-piracy measures. [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Frankly, I find this entire article, and the whole Digital Britain piece abhorant.
“UK music companies have exceeded themselves in terms of innovation and experimentation, offering unprecedented access and choice to music fans” WHAT?! WHEN!? The only fair part of this statement is that they have ‘exceeded themselves’, which is obviously true given that they have stagnated the marketplace for decades.
The five proposals are laughable, and the reason for their existance, terrifying. The proposals themselves sound far more like good conduct rules on a forum or online game. The reason for their existance is what really troubles me though:
Not mentioned here is that in the Digital Britain article, the government outlines its plan to reduce file sharing by 70% (arbitrary number much??) in 1 year. How? By telling the ISPs to do it for them. What happens if they don’t? Well, if they can’t reduce it by 70% in 12 months, the government is giving themselves the power to up the anti. How?
Filtering.
As far as I’m aware, there are no illegal file sharing websites. It’s incredulous to suggest that banning sites such as bittorrent and thepiratebay is a justified step in the fight against copyright infringement.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I agree with Anon!! Dead right
June 17th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Make no mistake, ‘UK music companies have exceeded themselves’ DESPITE the music industry. The industry has consistently put barriers in front of online music companies. Unrealistic royalty rates anyone?
I find it funny that UK Music can now come up with a statement like this bearing in mind their thoughts with regard to YouTube and other online music delivery companies.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am
[...] Music Ally blog features a more detailed breakdown of the proposed anti-piracy [...]
June 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Thanks so much for sharing the precious information.
August 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
[...] Music Ally blog features a more detailed breakdown of the proposed anti-piracy [...]