Will Idnet escape the clutches of The Digital Economy Act ?

[kinmel]

The Register suggests the new Digital Economy Act may be even more useless than first thought.

It seems consideration is being given to exempting small ISPs from the Act.

If so will Idnet escape the draconian Law and what affect will these possibilities have when the file sharers can simply move to the exempted ISPs ?

Is it possible that NuLabs last bit of legislation will be the most useless that even it achieved ?

* Simon edited to fix link.

[Simon]

In one way, wouldn't that be a bad thing?  I could see a flood of habitual illegal downloaders seeking out 'exempt' ISPs, and maxing out the bandwidth.   

[adamr8965]

 

[Rik]

Curious thought. If Ofcom decide to go down this road, smaller ISPs could become larger ISPs quite quickly, then find those who moved to them moving away again, leaving them with extra overheads but not the revenue stream to support it. This really is yet another piece of terrible legislation.

[Inkblot]

If it does happen that serial downloaders shift away from the large ISPs and towards the smaller ones I guess the introduction of fixed-term contracts (For new clients, not existing ones) will help - either that or offer a choice of fixed term contract at lower price or rolling month at a higher price.

[Rik]

Good idea, Inky.

[Gary]

I wonder if this means we will see smaller ISP's appear on a community sized basis, set up to get around this draconian law?

[Niall]

I suppose you could also see ISPs creating separate companies to artificially reduce the size of their user base, in a similar way that companies create a branch off from the standard company for tax purposes. If there's a financial gain to be had, that is.

[Rik]

I wonder if this means we will see smaller ISP's appear on a community sized basis, set up to get around this draconian law?

Well, possibly we could all form small units of 10-20 subscribers and become IDNet partners?

[Gary]

Well, possibly we could all form small units of 10-20 subscribers and become IDNet partners?

Thats what I was thinking Rik, then you avoid being hit by the Digital rights bill, I bet its something AAISP would actively pursue somehow, from what I can tell about them.

[Rik]

I'd agree, Gary.

[Gary]

I'd agree, Gary.

Or course that loop hole would get changed by whoever is in power I am sure 

[Rik]

Or just by Ofcom...

[Gary]

Or just by Ofcom...

True, they would get involved, but upholding something unfair seems the only time they have any teeth to bare.

[Rik]

Exactly.

[dujas]

AAISP seem to be exploiting a loophole so big it makes the Act a joke:

Legal status of customers

On our control pages for your login you can select your legal status in the way you are purchasing the internet access service from us. There are three options with subscriber being the default. Your choice does not affect the cost of the service in any way.

Subscriber

A subscriber is someone that has an agreement with us to use an internet access service and is not buying that service as a communications provider. This is the default.

Communications provider

A communications provider is anyone that is providing a communications service to anyone else, whether other people in their house or office, visitors wanting to check their email, neighbours or public access wifi, etc. Many people could qualify as a communications provider. The important thing is you can select this to buy service from us as a communications provider which is all that is needed to stop you being a subscriber.

Service provider

A service provider is anyone that is a communications provider and is providing services to subscribers. These have to be people that have an agreement with you to provide an internet access service (so public wifi does not count) and they must themselves not be a communications provider. It is also necessary for you to allocate IP addresses to be a service provider (e.g. providing email does not count). If you have anyone else using the service but they do not meet these criteria (an agreement, allocating IPs and them not being a communications provider) then you are just a communications provider yourself.

What are the implications of the choice?

This is not formal legal advice. The choice you make affects the way we act in certain cases. We rely on you to make the choice, and you can change your selection any time.

If you are a subscriber then the Digital Economy Act means we will have to pass on copyright infringement reports we get about your IP addresses; count those reports; and maybe take measures to block or restrict your internet service. If you are a communications provider or service provider we do not have to do any of those things as they only apply to subscribers.

If you are a service provider you may have to take some actions if you get copyright infringement notices, passing them on to your subscribers. However, if we get such notices about your IP addresses we do not have to pass them on to you, or tell the copyright owner who you are, or any contact details for you (unless they have a court order).

[Rik]

As a piece  of legislation it is a poor, but large, joke.

[zappaDPJ]

Hmmm, while I applaud any organisation standing up against this travesty of an act I don't think those options are anything other than a statement of belligerence. If a copyright holder or their agents knock on you door requesting customer names and addresses you can already tell them to sling their hook. However if they come armed with a court order which ACS:LAW and the like will surely do it's game over?

[Simon]

Hmmm, while I applaud any organisation standing up against this travesty of an act I don't think those options are anything other than a statement of belligerence. If a copyright holder or their agents knock on you door requesting customer names and addresses you can already tell them to sling their hook. However if they come armed with a court order which ACS:LAW and the like will surely do it's game over?

If you are a subscriber then the Digital Economy Act means we will have to pass on copyright infringement reports we get about your IP addresses; count those reports; and maybe take measures to block or restrict your internet service. If you are a communications provider or service provider we do not have to do any of those things as they only apply to subscribers.

They seem to be saying that if you are a 'communications provider', they don't have to provide your details, so effectively, they're not legally bound to give out details.  However, I was under the impression that the courts could force any ISP, under any circumstances, to hand over customer details, if said customer was using the service for illegal purposes. 

[dujas]

The Courts still can, but that's a totally different mechanism to what's going to be setup as part of the Digital Economy Act.

It's designed to reduce the cost burden on the copyright holder when pursing file sharers. The details of how the procedure will work have yet to be decided, but basically copyright infringement complaints made by the copyright holders or their agents, will be logged against your account by your ISP. Persistent offenders will trigger written warnings, connection throttling and ultimately disconnection.

The copyright holder doesn't get to see the name and home address details of the IP address they are making the complaint against (unless they get a Court order).

[zappaDPJ]

Interesting, I think I'd better go reread the act. I can't see how that could possibly be enforceable.

[Simon]

Me neither, Zap.  I think they are probably trying to scare average users into not downloading illegally, but in reality, will only go after extreme offenders, such as mass uploaders.  Just my opinion, though. 

[kinmel]

but basically copyright infringement complaints made by the copyright holders or their agents, will be logged against your account by your ISP.

AAISP would not be your ISP under their plans.

[Rik]

OTOH, their service/communications provider customer, eg me, would be, presumably?

[Gary]

Just reading the AAISP loophole idea, I wonder how much this act is to appease, rather than truly enforce, and when it is inforced its by intimidation rather than by true letter of law? The who act seems a mess and rushing it through may have been a very bad idea (it is anyway) without a little more stitching around the seams.

[dujas]

Adrian Kennard has two more opinion based articles on his blog about the Act, here and here.

[Rik]

I'd like a legal option myself.

[kinmel]

OTOH, their service/communications provider customer, eg me, would be, presumably?

Yes, but under the ACT AAISP can simply ignore any letters regarding people to whom they are not an ISP, which is you !

How can they find you if the Act means every letter is ignored, especially once it gets silly and you resell to me and I resell to you and you resell to AAISP all at a notional 1p a month.

"Round and round" said Zebedee,"round and round" 

[Rik]

Papertrails, eh?

Actually, if the RevK is right, all we need do is set up a company in the Isle of Man, because the legislation only applies to the UK

[dujas]

End result the cost of Internet access in the UK goes up to cover the ISP's extra administrative burden in enforcing this Act. The copyright holders go back to the legal process of court orders, as any ISP if they want to be awkward, can easily side-step the legislation by quibbling over what the Act's definition of a subscriber means 

[zappaDPJ]

I think you are right.

I've spent some time rereading the act and I still maintain that without a court order it's all smoke and mirrors. There does however appear to be some provision within the Act, or rather an amendment to the Communications Act, that implies a disclosure can be demanded without the need for a court order, that can't possibly be right can it?

The parts that pertains to a graduated response scheme are just a big How on earth can it be constitutionally correct to require ISPs to act as judge and jury on file sharing? Send me a letter telling my I've downloaded data subject to copyright law illegally and I'll see you in court. I'll be the one applying for disclosure and anything else I think I can get out of it. It's a potential minefield for ISPs.

[Rik]

I've spent some time rereading the act and I still maintain that without a court order it's all smoke and mirrors.

That's how Mandy works, of course.

[pdu]

I still find it utterly hilarious how a crook who isn't an MP because no moron in their right mind would vote for him at a local election can be given the power to decide over the digital fate of many.

[Rik]

I wish it was hilarious, but Mandy's appointment is about the most damaging thing to happen to democracy in my lifetime.

[Gary]

I wish it was hilarious, but Mandy's appointment is about the most damaging thing to happen to democracy in my lifetime.

He may be gone soon, but I bet he defects to whoever wins by having one over on any leader at any time, he is a dangerous man.

[Rik]

Very, Gary. He not only knows where the bodies are buried, he often helped to bury them.

[pdu]

You mean other than Alan Sugar? I can't believe they had the balls to use the title Tsar, I knew Brown was a communist lowlife, but that was just taking the biscuit!

[Gary]

Very, Gary. He not only knows where the bodies are buried, he often helped to bury them.

He reminds me of a slimy Francis Urquhart character, but without the sincere evil that character possessed

[Rik]

No, I grant you that, he's totally insincere, but just as evil.

[Rik]

You mean other than Alan Sugar? I can't believe they had the balls to use the title Tsar, I knew Brown was a communist lowlife, but that was just taking the biscuit!

They do like that title, don't they.

[Gary]

No, I grant you that, he's totally insincere, but just as evil.

True re-thinking that show made me think yup he is that evil 

[Rik]

Though you could, sneakily, like Urquhart.

[Gary]

You mean other than Alan Sugar? I can't believe they had the balls to use the title Tsar, I knew Brown was a communist lowlife, but that was just taking the biscuit!

Brown is as far removed from Communism as he is from real life.

[Gary]

Though you could, sneakily, like Urquhart.

Thats true, there was something to admire about his manner and the way he orchestrated his deeds, I loved that programme...

[Rik]

Brown is as far removed from Communism as he is from real life.

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong

[Rik]

Thats true, there was something to admire about his manner and the way he orchestrated his deeds, I loved that programme...

It was brilliant, wasn't it.

[Gary]

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong

[Gary]

It was brilliant, wasn't it.

Indeed it was Rik, although I fear Mandy has watched it too

[Rik]

I suspect he supplied the inside information.

[zappaDPJ]

You mean other than Alan Sugar? I can't believe they had the balls to use the title Tsar, I knew Brown was a communist lowlife, but that was just taking the biscuit!

I suppose they felt 'Tsar' had more of a ring to it than than 'Obnoxious East End Barrow Boy Purveyor of Tat'  

[Gary]

I suspect he supplied the inside information.

True but how much of "To Play the King" has he in mind  

[zappaDPJ]

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong

[Rik]

So does Big Ben.

[pctech]

As others have said I have a dreadful feeling Mandy will make a comeback in some form or another even if its just as a Government advisor.

Legislation like this shows that those in power have absolutely no knowledge of the technicalities of networking and the Internet.

I'd like to see filesharing in its current form at least banished because of the load it places on networks but the problem with that is that encrypted streams cannot be classified.

As for the music industry they have the answer to the problem, reduce the ridiculous prices of CDs.

[Rik]

Especially, abolish charging different prices in different markets.

[Technical Ben]

As others have said I have a dreadful feeling Mandy will make a comeback in some form or another even if its just as a Government advisor.

Legislation like this shows that those in power have absolutely no knowledge of the technicalities of networking and the Internet.

I'd like to see filesharing in its current form at least banished because of the load it places on networks but the problem with that is that encrypted streams cannot be classified.

As for the music industry they have the answer to the problem, reduce the ridiculous prices of CDs.

Legal file sharing seems to help the net, at least by providing part of the infrastructure. In that it provides free servers (in the form of users PCs) for file downloads. If the backbone of the internet cannot cope with demand, it's not the users fault (just as with traffic on roads). Google and MS get great speeds and service, because they can afford the servers, and the internet connection backbone to go. Illegal file sharing however...

[pctech]

The backbone is the problem.

You cant really compare Google to your average ISP.

Google has built and maintains its own transatlantic gigabit backbone dedicated to its traffic and MS uses a combination of having its own backbone and using Content Delivery Networks such as Akamai to cache content closer to the user and reduce the workload on its core servers in Redmond.

In both cases these companies know what they are serving and can more accurately forecast their bandwidth needs.

An ISP on the other hand may combine broadband with the sale of hosting, both of which can be unpredictable, thus making capacity planning difficult.