“Canada isn’t under a Three Strikes threat. Yet. But if Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, are given same kind of free rein they’re enjoying in France and Britain, it won’t be long in coming.”
The quote is from my post on the fact the “UK version of the entertainment industry’s Three Strikes business plan, touted as an independent proposal under the UK Digital Economy Bill, enters the committee stage in the House of Lords …”
Hopefully, I went on, whatever it is will align more with the views of Lord Ralph Lucas (right), who recently said, “We are talking about powerful, monopolistic industries and giving them power over our citizens is something we ought to be careful of”, than those of Lord Peter Mandelson, who’s fronting the bill on behalf of the cartels.
Now, “an amendment proposed by Lord Lucas says ‘copyright infringement reports’ — which record labels and movie studios would send to to ISPs, detailing instances of alleged abuse by a customer — must also ’set out the value of the infringement on the basis described in the initial obligations’,” says paidContent UK, noting:
“That could, for example, force record labels to equate one pirated track with one lost sale — a conclusion that some would dispute.”
The story has Lucas saying warnings should include “full details of a subscriber’s right to appeal, and of where information on how to appeal may be found,” also pointing out Lord Clement-Jones wants included “advice about how to respond to the notification if the subscriber believes it to be based on an error of fact, wrong in law or unreasonable”.
paidContent UK goes on >>>
Lords Razall and Clement-Jones wanted victims to be told about “appropriately balances the interest of rights holders and the interests of the public in due process, privacy, freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights guaranteed by inter alia the European Convention of Human Rights and the EC Charter (NSDQ: CHTR) of Rights”.
– Whitty also wants to scrap a clause that “the number and nature of copyright infringement reports relating to the subscriber may be taken into account for the purposes of any technical measures” (ie. bandwidth throttling or disconnections) – that could make “three strikes” unworkable, since ISPs would apparently not be allowed to count from one to three.
– Clement-Jones also wants complaining copyright holders to send along “a sworn statement … that the information collected has been obtained in compliance with all relevant laws, including data protection and privacy laws, and by persons entitled to gather such information”.
Not only but also, Whitty and Lucas want ‘copyright infringement’ altered to include that which “appears to have taken place through peer-to-peer filesharing networks on a subscriber’s IP address” and that’s sure “to rile campaigners who protest that IP numbers do not correspond to identity”, says the post, adding:
“But Lords Razzall and Clement-Jones want to stop copyright holders from referring to IP addresses in their reports to ISPs. Another would remove a clause allowing action to be taken against even individuals who have allowed their connection to be used by an infringing user.”
Definitely stay tuned.
Jon Newton