What’s wrong with banning file sharers?

I thought this comment on The Guardian website was a pretty good explanation of why the proposed three-strikes rule is a bad one:

The specific problem with FAC, FACT and this government is that they are colluding to (1) turn a civil allegation into a crime, (2) make the taxpayer foot the bill for prosecuting it, (3) impose a summary punishment without an opportunity to argue the case in court, (4) licenses yet more intrusion and snooping on personal internet usage

There’s a fifth point, but I don’t agree with it, heh. There’s also the fact that connections are per-household, not per-person…






0 responses to “What’s wrong with banning file sharers?”

  1. I have many problems with the music industry manoeuvring, through political and ‘popular’ pressure, ISPs in to the role of judge, jury and (bandwidth) executioner.

    But my keenest question remains unanswered by my ISP or by FAC: in my spare time I produce and co-present a music-based podcast. It could be described as successful, with just over 100,000 subscribers to each show.

    As a result, my download stats are astronomical because artists and their PR agents send me an enormous amount of material. Given the nature of this ‘industry’ (and I don’t like the word in this context because podcasting is anarchic by its very nature), how are the ISPs to know who is a ‘good’ filesharer and who is a ‘bad’ one?

    Would FAC expect me to produce every single email from every single artist/PR/management company to prove that every single track is ‘legitimately’ shared? And if so, who would I produce this validation to? My ISP certainly wouldn’t want the administrative task! I’m sure that FAC wouldn’t want to own that role either – especially because music comes in to us from all over the world.

    FAC needs to get its head around what it wants and lobby to have the measures it wants put in to law. During the lawmaking process every single detail can be extracted, examined, debated and either agreed, enhanced or rejected. Also, where exceptions to the law (me!) can be identified and agreed.

    FAC should not be trying to get action taken against individuals in an ad hoc manner where the action is not legally backed and, as a consequence, the people who have action taken against them have no legal recourse except through private action.