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.