KatsBits Community

General Category => Blog => Topic started by: kat on March 08, 2012, 09:17:44 AM

Title: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal (cf. Digital Economy Act)
Post by: kat on March 08, 2012, 09:17:44 AM
OK. There's something not quite right with this picture. First... BT and Talk Talk lost their appeal against the "three strikes" rule of the Digital Economy Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents), as noted here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17270817) (BBC) and here (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/373354/isps-lose-appeal-against-cutting-off-file-sharers) (PCPro) amongst others. This basically means that they technically can be held liable for the 'prosecution' of 'penalties' associated with that act (as in 'carrying out a judgement'). Lobbyists are naturally 'rejoicing' the fact that the "law" as been upheld.

Here's the problem. According to the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/business-innovation-and-skills/news/oral-ev-hargreaves3/) (which was posted about previously here (http://www.katsbits.com/smforum/index.php?topic=32.msg1947#msg1947)), the "decision to implement a “three strikes” rule and demand that ISP's play a role in internet censorship was based only on information supplied by copyright holder lobbyists" (the report actually says the following "Much of the data needed to develop empirical evidence on copyright and designs is privately held. It enters the public domain chiefly in the form of “evidence” supporting the arguments of lobbyists (“lobbynomics”) rather than as independently verified research conclusions." [ pg18: sec2.13, point 3]). So irrespective as to the position ISP's are now being put in, the basic premise of the entire Act is biased towards those supplying the evidence in support of it. One then has to ask the question as to wither those in opposition had a 'fair crack of the whip'.

By the way, I don't advise reading the report unless you want to make your blood boil, the Governments attitude to this whole affair can be summed up with the word "meh" whilst cashing-up the till.

Additional Reading
Title: Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal (cf. Digital Economy Act)
Post by: kat on March 27, 2012, 04:49:48 PM
Interesting followup article on the Digital Economy Act from PCPro (http://www.itpro.co.uk/639745/have-isps-finally-lost-the-dea-fight), looks like both Talk Talk and BT are still trying to find ways to fight the legislation.
Quote
Earlier this month, this case [BT/Talk Talk's case stated that asking them to police their customers was in contravention of European Union law] finally made it to the Court Of Appeal. Unfortunately for BT and TalkTalk, their appeal was dismissed, and that’s certainly cleared the path a little more to the implementation of the [Digital Economy] act

This should sound familiar.
Title: Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal (cf. Digital Economy Act)
Post by: kat on July 24, 2012, 05:00:26 PM
The blockade of PirateBay has begun as a direct consequence of the High Court ruling the other month (http://www.develop-online.net/news/41499/UK-ISPs-expand-internet-piracy-blockade), with Sky, Virgin and Talk Talk (so much for *their* 'talk' about defending peoples rights to access what they want) blacklisting servers and IP addresses associated with the Peer-to-Peer network.
Title: Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal (cf. Digital Economy Act)
Post by: kat on February 07, 2013, 08:07:39 PM
Quote from: PCPro
"Government plans to send letters to file-sharers who download copyright material could be delayed after a key document outlining who should pay for the anti-piracy measures was withdrawn (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/379735/anti-piracy-letter-plans-face-delay-over-costs)..."
Keep in mind two things with the above with respect to 'public funding', 1) Internet Tax (http://www.katsbits.com/smforum/index.php?topic=106.0), and data gathering/retention/origination associated with, 2) Internet Black Boxes (http://www.katsbits.com/smforum/index.php?topic=53.msg2652#msg2652) being proposed for 'deep packet sniffing'.