UK ISP Says No To Music Industry Pressure

siloko sends us to the BBC for the story of one ISP standing up to the music industry. (But note that this ISP is one of the ones said to have worked with Phorm on plans to track customers' surfing.) "The head of one of Britain's biggest internet providers has criticized the music industry for demanding that he act against pirates. Charles Dunstone of Carphone Warehouse, which runs the TalkTalk broadband service, is refusing. He said it is not his job to be an internet policeman."

Eh, whatever.

[Futile Rhetoric]

It's a matter of money, not principle. Why the hell would a provider invest in the required infrastructure upgrades? Now, if the record industry agrees to pay for it, perhaps with a small bonus on top for lubrication purposes, they'll switch to a different tune just like that.

A difference...

[Stanistani]

He's not an Internet policeman, just an Internet marketer.

I can live with that.

Re:Love the guilt laden language they use...

[Anonymous Coward]

I particularly liked

The BPI denied it is asking ISPs to become internet police, saying the firms need to educate their customers not to steal music.

Er well no, actually they don't need to do any such thing. As a trade body who apparently represents the interests of the recording industry it's your responsibility to "educate" the public. It's nothing to do with the ISP.

presumptuous much?

[lysse]

FTFA:

[The BPI] also says that if [ISPs] do not help with the fight against music piracy, then the government will bring in legislation to make them cooperate.

(Sadly, they're probably on safe ground.)

Re:They make it sound like a natural thing

[CmdrGravy]

Also his smug assumption that if the ISPs don't reach a voluntary agreement that he'll simply have laws drawn up to compel them is quite sickening. Why should the trials of a group of music publicists be afforded so much attention and deference ?

Re:Eh, whatever.

[Stripe7]

If they are forced to police P2P for copyright violations, then they have to police for child pr0n, then sexual predators, then for pr0n filtering, then the lawsuits show up for filtering breast cancer sites, drug rehab support sites, etc.. It opens up a can of worms no ISP wanting to avoid legal headaches would want to stick their toes into.

Is it not also a matter of privacy?

[ewrong]

It's a bit like asking the post office to open every single letter they deliver to check whether they have any illegally copied DVDs or CDs in there.

Re:Eh, whatever.

[The Incomplete Lemon]

Although possibly not, if the ISPs are declared responsible for policing the 'net then they become the next target for the recording industry lawsuits.

Re:Amazed

[Tony Hoyle]

My first thought when I heard that this morning was

(a) how does she know all the emails and aliases of every paedophile. Ask them? Like they're likely to tell her... More likely she only has one on record.
(b) does she *realize* how quickly you can create a gmail or hotmail account?
(c) good luck getting myspace/facebook/etc. to do this.. they're not UK companies and are just as likely to tell her to sod off.

Re:They make it sound like a natural thing

[e6003]

Also reading between the lines can be amusing.

"...and we passionately believe that working in partnership with ISPs to develop first-class, safe, legal, digital music services is the way forward."

Digital music services that are controlled by BPI members that is. Not music services controlled by "new media" companies or independent record labels.

"the [ISPs] need to educate their customers not to steal music..."

The ISPs need to educate their users not to take advantage of the fact that modern packet-switched networks make it very easy to transfer information and that ultimately music is just information. The ISPs need to educate their users that only the big, 20th century media companies that grew big by distributing music on plastic discs of various sorts (when that was the most technologically cutting edge way of distributing music) can distribute music in the 21st century, even when music consumers are voting in droves with their wallets and saying that they aren't so interested in plastic discs of finite capacity containing semi-arbitrary selections of tracks any more. The ISPs need to educate their customers not to circumvent these old business models. Also the ISPs need to educate their users that the copyright laws of the printing press era are rigid and unchangeable, even when they are spectacularly unsuited to and incapable of dealing with "mass piracy" brought on by the aforementioned ease of transferring information.

Yes, that's what ISPs need to educate their users about in the eyes of Big Media.

Re:Eh, whatever.

[janrinok]

Yes and No.

Firstly, this is possible because the IWF have passed the URLs of sites which 'they' consider to be unsuitable to BT who have blocked them. It is NOT because anyone is monitoring all internet traffic. If a site is not reported then it cannot be blocked

Secondly, this may be the case for BT, but it is not a legal directive, or even a request, from the Government to all ISPs. If you dislike the fact that a particular ISP is doing something that you disagree with then you are free to use a different ISP. So I still cannot agree that

[a]ll UK ISPs already filter for child porn....

They don't. They only block those sites which the IWF is aware of, and it is only those ISPs who choose to do so that are playing this game.

However, of great concern is what yardstick does the IWF use for deciding that a site is terrorism or child pornography? If I show a picture of a molotov cocktail, i.e. a bottle containing some inflammable fluid with a burning wick, am I now guilty of terrorism? After all, someone might get an idea from my picture and manufacture a similar device. But what if I am describing a weapon used by the Home Guard while training to defend the UK from Hitler's army? Am I still a terrorist, and were members of the Home Guard terrorists? A similar argument can be stated against 'child pornography'. If I place a photo of my grandchild on a web site is that child pornography? What if she is wearing a swimming costume? Hell, what if she is naked? Nudity is not an offence. Unfortunately, the best legal minds find it very difficult to define pornography in hard, legal terms. It is often a very subjective decision. What gives the IWF the right - and inherent infallibility - to judge such matters?