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."

Love the guilt laden language they use...

[Shivetya]

basically the only thing the recording industry didn't toss out there was "its for the children"

My question about ISPs in Britain is, how much say does the EU have over them? How does the EU versus the law of England stack up in regards to this situation?

They make it sound like a natural thing

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The spokesman for the BPI makes it sound like the relationship between ISPs and the music industry is symbiotic. They dress up the "responsibilities" of the ISP in pretty words that make it sound like shutting down users is the greatest thing in the world.

If you read the article, you'll find Geoff Taylor's doublespeak amazing.

At the heart of this issue is ensuring that creators are fairly rewarded in the digital age

Okay so far...

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

Uh...

Here's the appropriate response to that idiocy from Charles Dunstone, TalkTalk head.

We are the conduit that gives users access to the internet. We do not control the internet, nor do we control what our users do on the internet.

Good job, Charles.

Amazed

[CmdrGravy]

I'm amazed it's taken this long before any of the ISPs have spoken out, any sort of policing at all is quite clearly not their job and the very second they begin to take an interest in the content they are transmitting, the second that happens they are going to monitoring and reporting everything to everyone and responsible for all manner of disasters and tragedies when the overwhelming technical impossibility of what they're being asked to do causes something to go wrong.

Any special interest group worried about a particular activity on the internet will want the ISP to ban it, ever media craze will lead to more things being banned and the ISP carrying the can for policing it, any government dept looking for some quick headlines will get them to report ( for example ) anyone talking about benefit fraud in chat rooms to the benefit agency.

Today Jaqui Smith, some brainless minister in the British government, is suggesting ( yet again ) that all paedophiles should register their e-mail addresses with the police and not be allowed to register on chat rooms with those addresses. She says she is in discussions with ISPs to police this. She is too stupid to realise what she is asking for and too moronic to understand palming her inability to convict people and lock them up should not be palmed off onto commercial entities who have no business whatsover doing her policing for her.

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

[daveime]

Yes, and in a perfect world the sellers of handguns should "educate" gangs not to shoot people, and the cigarette companies should "educate" smokers that they're probably going to die prematurely.

Just because someone supplies a service doesn't make them responsible for what the masses decide to do with that service, especially not in terms of protecting the interests of a group of sharks in business suits.

Re:They make it sound like a natural thing

[CogDissident]

And BPI is saying that ISPs should disconnect users, which hurts their revenue directly. So, co-operate with BPI: lose money and customers. Fight BPI: keep customers, and free publicity and good will.

Easy business decision if you ask me.

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

[adpsimpson]

Well over here in the UK, they do just that. Granted they've been forced to by government legislation, but nevertheless, you can't buy a packet of cigarettes with a message on it saying you're going to die horribly, or something similar.

Cigarettes aren't really a valid comparison, as they only have one purpose - to smoke. And that gives you the nasties.

No, what we need is a good, solid car analogy.

It's more like every car seller being forced to monitor all future use of cars they sell in question to prevent a minor crime (like, say, dropping litter out of the window) which may be committed with that car.

Of course, once the CCTV, GPS and other instrumentation was in place, then it becomes a legal quagmire once the car is used for other crimes - couldn't the Litter Prevention Society see the bank being robbed? Is that your daughter? Does your wife know about the lifts you've been giving your secretary?