cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

Moose666
Grafter
Posts: 41
Registered: 07-12-2008

BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17270817
"ISPs will have to send warning letters to alleged illegal file downloaders, as well as potentially cutting users off" (my italics)
BT own PlusNet so this may affect PlusNet customers.
8 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,239
Thanks: 932
Fixes: 54
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

Not yet as this applies to BT Retail and Plusnet are classed as a separate company
There is a possibility that this will be appealed to the Supreme Court and eventually to Brussels as it may conflict with the present EC law
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,905
Thanks: 588
Fixes: 8
Registered: 02-08-2007

Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

Quote from: Moose666
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17270817
"ISPs will have to send warning letters to alleged illegal file downloaders, as well as potentially cutting users off" (my italics)
BT own PlusNet so this may affect PlusNet customers.
And how will Plusnet know the file that has been downloaded is illegal ?
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,578
Thanks: 190
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

BT argues that the UK’s Digital Economy Act is incompatible with EU law

Quote
BT and Talk Talk have lost an appeal over measures to tackle copyright infringement online. All the ISPs argued that the UK’s Digital Economy Act was incompatible with EU law, which says that they’ll have to be the ones to send warning letters to illegal downloaders as well as cutting users off.
The firms’ lawyers said that stricter measures could result in an invasion of privacy and create disproportionate costs for both ISPs and consumers.
In a statement, Talk Talk said it was now “considering our options”. They added: ”We’re disappointed that our appeal was unsuccessful though we welcome the additional legal clarity that has been provided for all parties. Though we have lost this appeal, we will continue fighting to defend our customers’ rights against this ill-judged legislation.”
A spokesman for BT said: “We have been seeking clarification from the courts that the DEA is consistent with European law, and legally robust in the UK, so that everyone can be confident in how it is implemented. Now that the court has made its decision, we will look at the judgment carefully to understand its implications and consider our next steps.”
Of course, the ISPs have been long chided by the creative industries. Christine Payne, general secretary of the Actors’ union Equity, called on the ISPs to “stop fighting and start obeying the law”. Through the medium of dance, she continued: ”Once again the court is on the side of the almost two million workers in the creative industries whose livelihoods are put at risk because creative content is stolen on a daily basis.”
Adam Rendle, a copyright specialist at international law firm Taylor Wessing, expects BT and Talk Talk to take this to the Supreme Court, saying: ”We know how keen internet users are to protect what they see as freedom of speech. When the Digital Economy Act itself was passed in the dying stages of the Labour government, there was a huge amount of disquiet that this kind of important legislation was being introduced without proper scrutiny.”
“That kind of disquiet didn’t result in the kind of action we’ve seen against Acta and Sopa. It wouldn’t be surprising to see a lot more public outcry than there was when the Act was first passed.”

Community Veteran
Posts: 38,239
Thanks: 932
Fixes: 54
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

Merged with existing thread
kjpetrie
Rising Star
Posts: 105
Thanks: 9
Fixes: 1
Registered: 19-12-2010

Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

Quote from: gleneagles
And how will Plusnet know the file that has been downloaded is illegal ?

More to the point, how will you and I? When I visit a website and click on a link or see a picture on the page or hear some background music playing, how am I supposed to know what contractual arrangements the site owner has entered into?
Making the recipient responsible for the misdemeanours of the provider seams somewhat absurd. There are going to be some serious problems here, I think.
There is a principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard, How much of a hearing will people get when they are accused?
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 25,754
Thanks: 1,116
Fixes: 47
Registered: 14-04-2007

Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

Quote from: kjpetrie
Making the recipient responsible for the misdemeanour's of the provider seams somewhat absurd.

The phrase 'receiving stolen goods' comes to mind Lips are sealed
Customer and Forum Moderator.
Product of the Tyrell Corporation
VileReynard
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 10,578
Thanks: 190
Fixes: 9
Registered: 01-09-2007

Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

So we have to access the value of a file without downloading it.  Cheesy
If I was receiving stolen goods I would want to look at them first.
But apparently just looking is theft!

kjpetrie
Rising Star
Posts: 105
Thanks: 9
Fixes: 1
Registered: 19-12-2010

Re: BT and Talk Talk lose file-sharing appeal

Receiving stolen goods is an offence if you "know or believe them to be stolen". That may well be the case if you go to a site which hosts hundreds of well-known commercial items and offers them to you for next to nothing, and has a name suggesting it's a source of something dodgy.
I was thinking more of the case of someone putting, say, some background music on their home page or including a video clip there, which might not be familiar to me. How am I supposed to know whether it's likely to be OK or not?.
If I bought something in a pub from someone who looked shady I'd probably suspect it was stolen (and I wouldn't buy). If I go to a car boot sale or a second-hand shop, how would I know? If I bought in the first case I would have committed an offence because all the signs were there. In the second, I wouldn't have, because I had no reason to suspect, even if the goods turned out to be stolen. At most, I would simply have to hand them back to the owner in that case.
What concerns me here is whether there are similar common-sense provisions. Remember there's another side to copyright - that content providers wishing to distribute their works should not be hindered by suspicion. A climate of suspicion could interfere with the positive side of copyright - the right to make or authorise others to make copies..
The only person who knows enough to police copyright is the holder. Only they have the necessary knowledge to determine what was authorised and what infringes. If third parties are expected to make judgements there will be injustice from legitimate content being blocked. If people have to prove they own something they've just created before they will be permitted to distribute it one of the key features of the Internet - the ability of ordinary people to distribute their views at little cost - will be lost.
The Internet is unique among mass media- everyone is equal in a genuine two-way medium. Let's keep it that way..