a2f2a

The bitter war between online communities and the entertainment cartels  has just been escalated.

With the EU parliament scheduled to vote on a controversial EU telecom reform package, member states agreed to add a new paragraph, “prohibiting national authorities from excluding users from the internet without a court order”.

However, at the 11th hour, the clause has been drastically watered down.

Now, the package will “entitle users in all 27 EU states to be put through a ‘fair and impartial procedure’ before being disconnected,” says the BBC, going on >>>

The outcome is a compromise agreed during all night negotiations.

Some members of the European Parliament felt nobody should lose their connection until after they had been prosecuted in a court for illegally downloading content.

“The new rules take the form of an amendment to a much wider revision of all Europe’s telecoms regulations,” says the story, continuing:

“But they also represent a compromise between those who want greater protection for consumers and those who argue that copyright law is still being flagrantly disregarded by millions of computer users.

“So far it is also less than clear exactly what will constitute a ‘fair and impartial’ procedure.”

A ‘very last resort’

Britain and France have been the focal points of the corporate Three Strikes and You’re Off The Net scheme under which governments would act as a taxpayer funded copyright agencies on behalf of the corporate entertainment industry, and local ISPs would enforce disconnection of ‘illegal file sharers’.

In an interview with culture secretary Ben Bradshaw, “do you think that those people [file sharers] deserve to prove their innocence in a court of law?” – asked Labour MP Tom Watson.

Bradshaw responded >>>

Yes, absolutely. The suspension to which you refer – which would be as a very last resort for serial and serious infringement – would be subject to a strict two-stage process. It would not just happen on the basis of an accusation as you seem to suggest in your question. Firstly there would need to be court order for any of the technical measures that we are discussing in the consultation document to be implemented. Secondly, there would be a right of appeal to a tier one tribunal. I hope that you would not go away with the impression that innocent teenagers are going to be cut off willy-nilly on the basis of an accusation; that is not our intention or is not the effect of what we will propose when we come to publish the bill.

Q23 Mr Watson: I think that is actually new.

Mr Bradshaw: It is new; I have announced it to you today, Mr Watson.

‘3 strikes rule could harm the music industry’

The BEUC, the European Consumers’ Organisation, “is calling for a ‘fundamental re-examination and overall assessment’ about what constitutes illegal downloading — “and an evaluation of the economic harm to the music and film industry,” says the BBC.

”People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else,” said a new study recently.

Those who “admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly,” the Independent.

This suggests “plans by the Secretary of State for Business, Peter Mandelson, to crack down on illegal downloaders by threatening to cut their internet connections with a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ rule could harm the music industry by punishing its core customers”.

However, the war between the cartels and the people who keep them alive  isn’t about money.

It’s about dominance.

Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, believe they, and only they, must have complete control of the Internet as their exclusive marketing, sales and distribution channel.