It’s been talked about and debated in the UK for months, but today the Irish have manned up and got down to business; Ireland has become the first country in the world to terminate the broadband accounts of customers found to be sharing music online unlawfully.

The scheme is only a pilot and will be reviewed after six months, but has been introduced after Eircom, Ireland’s leading broadband provider with nearly half a million customers, settled out of court with The Irish Recorded Music Association last year.

Eircom agreed to begin taking action against their own customers as part of that deal, which will see users receive three warnings before having their service is terminated for a week. If they are found to share music unlawfully for a fourth time, their connection will be cut off for a year.

While thousands of accounts could potentially be targetted, Eircom has agreed to process about 50 IP addresses a week while capacity to manage the new system is assessed. The Director General of The Irish Recorded Music Association believes 80 per cent of customers will stop file-sharing once contacted. Hooray for the music industry dictating how laws are enforced.

[Irish Times]

The worst thing about music piracy is the people who look at their online thievery as a political gesture… as striking a blow to an imagined man. If they just said “Everyone likes a freebie don’t they?”, it wouldn’t be half as bad.

However, it has become something of a political hot-potato thanks to governments wading in to try and stop people robbing music. They’re doing this by waving a bit of paper around with DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL IS GONNA GETCHA written on it in permanent marker.

The debate over illegal file-sharing and how to combat it has seen sensible people stood in the middle, abuse and red tape flying over their heads. They must be wishing both parties would just piss-off and die in a bus-shelter or something.

One thing that the majority agree on is that the Digital Economy Bill is a steaming dung-pile which is neither use nor ornament. The latest person to say so is the boss of British Telecom (who isn’t exactly a nice guy, let’s be honest).

BT chief executive, Ian Livingston, says illegal file-sharers should be fined rather than having their accounts cut off. He and other industry figures have written to the Financial Times asking for changes to the bill.

Livingston says plans to suspend internet access for file-sharers goes against natural justice and that, instead, fines or a scrap in court would be much fairer.

He said this alternative approach would “create a fund” and “you get some good, rather than getting some hurt out of people infringing copyright”.

Feel free to point out BT shortcomings in the comments.

[BBC]

Now this is a little scary. TorrentFreak is tonight reporting that lawyers in the UK have been granted court orders which “force ISPs to hand over the details of individuals who they say have been monitored sharing hardcore pornography”. According to the site, up to 30,000 individuals – as many as 25,000 BT and 5,000 customers of other ISPs – will be receiving “shock letters demanding big payments” during the coming weeks.

Last week at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, a firm called ACS:Law made applications for orders that force ISPs to hand over the names and addresses of subscribers that are claimed to have infringed their client’s rights. TorrentFreak states the orders related to around 30,000 IP addresses in relation to nearly 300 movie titles.

These aren’t the first such orders to be published – there’s plenty more reading on the topic at TorrentFreak and the website BeingThreatened (which provides advice to innocent parties receiving letters from ACS:Law).

File-sharing has prompted one of the most hotly contested debates in modern history. Everyone seems to have an opinion on it (except for 99% of musicians who don’t want to appear uncool by moaning about their bills or appearing to side with their record companies as opposed to the fans).

On both sides of the fence, the arguments are based on flimsy theories. Pro file-sharers think that it is saving music from the evil clutches of commerce and point toward the middle ages when music was passed around freely. However, not one of these people have looked at how penniless these middle ages musicians died.

By the same token, the music industry is happy to assume that this Grand Theft Audio is ruining everything for everyone without actually knowing if this is true.

As such, everyone is looking at Sweden like it’s a peer (to peer, arf!)  into the future. The Music Industry is being intensely scrutinised because not only was where Spotify was founded, but it was also one of the first European countries to introduce an anti-piracy law, IPRED.

Recently reported figures are certainly worth mulling over, especially in countries that are preparing their own anti-piracy legislation. It appears that recorded music trade revenues in Sweden have increased by 18% in the first nine months of 2009, following the majors’ high-profile court victory over the Pirate Bay and the introduction of a new copyright law. There was also an 80% increase in trade revenue in the digital market while physical sales increased 9% by trade value, according to figures from IFPI Sweden.

This increase in revenue is being attributed to new digital and physical offerings and the actions taken against piracy in 2009. Four new physical music retailers opened in Stockholm in 2009, while the Spotify streaming service claims 17% have signed up to the free ad-funded version in Sweden.

You’re probably aware that the record labels scored something of a victory in a Stockholm court when those that co-founded the file-sharing BitTorrent tracker were found guilty of facilitating copyright infringement. They’re currently appealing and trying to sell the site, which has thus far proved unsuccessful.

This new copyright legislation received a lot of media attention when it was introduced. It hasn’t gone in as hard as any proposed ‘three-strikes law’, but it did allow copyright holders the chance (and the right) to obtain the IP addresses of those suspected of copyright violations from ISPs.

Since the IPRED law was introduced, reports show that 60% of file-sharers had stopped or reduced their P2P activity. How will it work in this country? And will we see people returning to illegal file-sharing once the fuss has died down in Sweden?

[Billboard]

You might be aware of Peter ‘Lord’ Mandelson’s utterly dickish plans for kicking filesharers off the internet after they’ve been caught out three times. Basically, the scheme has got more stinking holes in it than Rab C Nesbitt’s string vest and now you can look Lord Peter in the eye and tell him what exactly you think about his cack-headed idea.

The Open Rights Group have created an online wall where opponents to the ‘three strikes’ plan can show their faces and explain just why it’s a vast vat of old bollocks.

So far, among others, contributions have come from a man with a pan on his head, a dog and the late Brian Clough. It’s an admirable attempt at rallying the troops against a brain-numbingly stupid idea but what are the chances of Mandelson paying any attention to it at all? Slim to probably none.

Lord Peter is happy to shape British law to favour his dinner party chums like Dreamworks co-founder David Geffen, so he’s hardly likely to pay any attention to what a man with a pan on his head thinks…

[via Boing Boing]

"I'm going to cut off your bloody interwebs!"

The government are heading for a u-turn on their policy against file sharers – and it’s possibly all thanks to a slap-up dinner involving Peter Mandelson and an American media mogul.

New laws will be announced later today under which people who persistently download copyrighted material will have their Internet connections cut off, something which the government’s recent Digital Britain report judged to be too harsh.

However earlier this month, Lord Mandelson pitched up at a dinner party in Corfu where David Geffen, co-founder of Dreamworks, was one of the guests. Naturally, Geffen is a long-standing critic of online piracy, and rumours have persisted that following the meeting, Mandelson started to put his tough new plan into action.

Under the new proposals, regular offenders could have their connection more or less shut off, leaving them with access to the most basic of online public services. A similar plan was hatched in France recently, but was scrapped after it was ruled to be unconstitutional.

The number of holes that could potentially appear in a law such as this are astronomical, so will it work? And is UK law really being dictated by non-UK businessmen at swanky dinner parties in foreign climes? Well, almost certainly yes – if not in this case then almost definitely in many others. It makes you want to eat your own vest.

80's campaign

In another attempt by the entertainment industry to turn your computer into a television,  it was announced yesterday that the Creative Alliance, made up of representatives from the Federation Against Copyright Theft, (FACT) the Publishers’ Association, the UK Film Council, BPI and more, are going to ask ISPs to ban people who use file sharing programs after three warnings.

This amounts to a tacit endorsement of the idea that all internet traffic should be monitored for content. Currently the ISPA (association of ISPs) claims that it would be impossible to identify who is doing what and with the advent of streaming, many internet users use a large amount of bandwidth and not just file sharers.

UK Film Council head, John Woodward counters that file sharing hurts the industry and threatens jobs. All in all it sounds like the same argument: throw in the magic words “threatens jobs” so it can get some press. At least they aren’t claiming that when we share files, the terrorists win. This time.

[Webuser]