Proposed mandatory ISP infringer disconnects makes me glad I don't live in the UK

Proposed mandatory ISP infringer disconnects makes me glad I don't live in the UK

Summary: From the U.K. Times of London come reports that new legislative proposals set to be introduced in the House of Commons next week will call for Internet disconnects for what we would call in the states, "three strikes and you're out" infringing downloaders of copyrighted films and music.

SHARE:

From the U.K. Times of London come reports that new legislative proposals set to be introduced in the House of Commons next week will call for Internet disconnects for what we would call in the states, "three strikes and you're out" infringing downloaders of copyrighted films and music.

The teeth of this proposal will be a requirement for ISPs to disconnect these violators.

For those doing such evil deeds, a warning e-mail will come first, followed by a suspension for the next infringement and Internet contract termination for the third violation.

Now here's the heavy-handed element that I object to.

Broadband Internet providers who fall lax on this enforcement regimen could be prosecuted.

While I am in favor of prosecution for copyright infringers, I don't think it is any damn business of any government about what type of content is being pushed through an ISP's pipes.

And I wouldn't want to live in a nation where the full force of government comes down on the passive distributors of any content. That would include newsstands, bookstores, postal services, libraries and most certainly, ISPs.

Do you?

Topics: Browser, Government, Government US, Telcos

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

9 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • You can't have it both ways

    Do ZDNet's bloggers bother to read what they write? How can you say you favor prosecuting downloaders but not the government knowing what's in an ISP's pipe? Follow the logic here: If downloaders can be prosecuted, that means that what they're doing is illegal. If it's illegal, it's the government's business. Heck, it's the government who made it illegal. So how can illegal content flowing through an ISP's pipe not be the government's business? Are you claiming that ISPs now have the sanctuary privileges traditionally accorded to churches?
    Vesicant
    • ISP Guilty Too

      If the ISP allows users to routinely download licensed or copyrighted material, then isnt the ISP an accomplice to the crime. The ISP is making money from a criminal act, so they have to have some responsibility to monitor for such activity.

      I think if I was a big time civil rights lawyer, I might try this kind of defense and say that I was not really guilty of downloading the material because my ISP let me do it.

      I think you cant blame the user for everything. It is not like an ISP with high volumes of Download Traffic, is completely innocent if they dont at least monitor what is going on. They know this kind of activity may be illegal, so they are an accomplice, because they accept peoples money who are doing this kind of activity. I dont think you can keep blaming only the User. ISP's are required to keep track of everything users do for a certain number of days, so there is evidence against them.
      ceh4702
      • I agree

        and while we're at it, why not punish Ford, GM, Toyota etc. for making cars that they KNOW can break the speed limit. Clearly you can't blame the driver for speeding if the vehicle is capable of going ten over the limit. It's not his responsibility, it's the fault of the manufacturer. While we're at it, maybe we can sue Microsoft for distributing an operating system capable of storing files, which could hypothetically contain unlawfully copied material :O. Or, perhaps we can fine breweries for all acts of impaired driving.
        The ISP's only responsibility is to facilitate the transmission of packets from point A to point B. Monitoring this traffic only a) interferes with/degrades this service, and b) feels like a huge violation of privacy (today they stop you from sending Britney Spears [gross], tomorrow any critic of the government).
        ustolemyname
      • Re: ISP Guilty Too

        [i]The ISP is making money from a criminal act, so they have to have some responsibility to monitor for such activity.[/i]

        You just know every criminal who commits conspiracy or fraud using the phone has paid his bill, so include the phone companies, too. I guess you won't mind when Verizon listens in on your call. It's just making sure you're not doing anything illegal on its network!





        :)
        none none
    • I DO live in the UK

      but will be joining the thousands of expats who desire a standard of living. It will be nice to watch the "Orwellian dream" played out from afar.

      If the greedy idiots that control these industries cared about what they did, they'd produce stuff of enough quality that people would be delighted to support them.

      Microsoft is just one example of this protectionist greed and control freakery. That it is taking control of our food is too much.

      Oh look, general election time again. Is your favourite colour blue, light blue, or medium blue? Gotta love it.
      fr0thy
  • They'd uninvent the internet if they could ....

    ... how dare our subjects do other than dance to our every whim!
    fr0thy
  • Accomplices are guilty also.

    Including those who stand by and watch a crime in progress. Law has consistently upheld this principle for centuries.
    Techboy_z
    • Re: Accomplices are guilty also.

      [i]Including those who stand by and watch a crime in progress. Law has consistently upheld this principle for centuries.[/i]

      What are you talking about? If you happen to witness a crime you're guilty, too?? I don't think so.




      :)
      none none
  • RE: Damn I'm glad I don't live in the UK

    There are lots of reasons not to want to live in the UK. It's a surveillance state, for one. And they don't have a fifth amendment. It's against the law to refuse incriminating yourself. I don't think they have any amendment for that matter.




    :)
    none none