UK Government Abandons Piracy Legislation 155
arcticstoat writes "Following last year's reports of a scheme to 'ban' pirates from the Internet via ISPs in the UK, it looks as though the UK government has now decided to back down on the plan, saying that it hopes it won't have to apply 'the heavy hand of legislation'. The UK's Intellectual Property Minister, David Lammy, said that 'I'm not sure it's actually going to be possible,' as a result of the complexities of enforcing such legislation. Lammy also revealed that he had a different opinion on file sharers than many people in the music industry. He pointed out that there's a big difference between organized counterfeiting gangs and 'younger people not quite buying into the system'. He added that 'we can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap — there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television.'"
Re:Oh, I Was Kind of Looking Forward to It (Score:5, Interesting)
Uk government, "if at first you don't succeed" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, "First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government". Its not common sense. They just plan to use a bigger net to catch people with.
In other words, Jacqui Smith's team of control freaks will be able to watch everyone (and then punish) via their much bigger plans to monitor all Internet communications, i.e
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18/imp_tim_hayward/ [theregister.co.uk]
Problem always was standards of proof (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem always was, Company A complaining about person P to Company B, who then has to refuse P service. If you think about it from B's point of view, do they check or not? If not, what if they get it wrong and get sued - does A indemnify them? Further, from the Government's point of view. There are some services which are reasonably considered essential, and which, if you are denied them, may be more damaging to your quality of life than some criminal sentences. Yet in the case of the criminal law sanctions, the Human Rights legislation (entered into by this Government) demands due process and open hearings of the evidence. Where would that be in the present case?
To see the absurdity of it, and why it would not fly, consider the following case. The country is in the grip of smoking hysteria. Suppose we pass a law that on three accusations of buying tobacco for minors, a person must be denied access to his local supermarket. Suppose there is only one. His ability to buy food at a reasonable price and selection is being abridged solely on an unsupported allegation, the evidence for which does not even to have to be presented to him. No judge is involved.
In the UK we have anti social behaviour orders. These enable magistrates to order almost anything - like barring people from certain streets, certain associations or meetings, some behaviour. But even these, you do have to get an order from a magistrate. When you think about it, the proposal would be giving the record industry the power to disconnect anyone they chose from the internet with no reason given, no hearing, no comeback, not even a magistrate being informed.
It was never going to fly. The EC Charter guarantees access to information. This sort of measure is totally incompatible with it. It is going to be down to old fashioned policing and prosecution if they want to stamp out file sharing in violation of copyright. Yes, it will be expensive and time consuming. And yes, it may not work, or may not be worth working. And yes, maybe they would be better off revising their business model. But if they don't want to revise, that's the only way. Very glad the government has seen the cliff in time, and stopped. Not that you could really miss it, it was pretty obvious. The only people who would have enjoyed it would have been the lawyers, blowing up case after case with unconcealed glee!
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why it's such a perfect analogy. Crime isn't binary - there are decent people that would take soap from a hotel room, but wouldn't consider stealing gum from a shop.
Society is better off if we don't prosecute crimes of low value or low impact, but rather leave it to citizens to work out between themselves.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.
Can they actually use the soap after you leave? All the ones I've seen have (unopened) individually wrapped soap, which I assume is meant to be disposable for hygiene reasons (can't have people using the previous guest's dirty soap).
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a big difference between stealing a bar of soap and stealing a television. There's also a big difference between stealing a television and maliciously burning down the hotel. In the USA, the potential penalties for sharing a few albums are up there with the penalties for arson.