While I will be linking to the full and comprehensive article Slyck has written on the matter, it appears that ACS:Law, the firm known for accusing game pirates in the UK has threatened to sue the file sharing information forum Slyck.com.
The threat demands that Slyck remove three forum threads that exist for members to discuss their ongoing litigation with ACS: Law and just generally go over the current UK laws against alleged file sharers. The three forum threads have a total of 10,000 posts.
ACS: Law gave Slyck three days to take down the threads or face a lawsuit in the UK. However, because the site is based in the U.S. and is protected from defamation verdicts in other nations, they have refused to remove any content.
Slyck’s article is very long but worth a read, especially if you are an in the UK: Wank Plan Goes Wrong: ACS:Law Threatens Slyck.com With a Lawsuit
Result for: file sharer
In a letter to the Financial Times, BT Group Chief Executive Ian Livingston suggested that persistent file sharers caught breaking copyright laws should face fines instead of technical sanctions proposed by the UK government. He said that suspending service for persistent infringers as spelled out in the Digital Economy Bill could deny a fair hearing for the accused.
Instead of the technical sanctions outlined in the DEB, Livingston said people could choose to pay a penalty or fight the accusation. Those who dispute accusations could take their case to a new tribunal instead of the courts. The suggestion brings BT in line with the Open Rights Group, which believes such a system would be fairer and less risky than the proposed suspensions and other sanctions.
In the letter - which was also signed by the bosses of TalkTalk, Virgin Media and Orange, as well as Facebook, Google, eBay and Yahoo! - a recent amendment to the Digital Economy Bill faced considerable criticism. The amendment made last week would allow copyright holders to injunct ISPs and force the blocking of specific web addresses.
The measure would be used to fight against files posted on “locker services”, such as Rapidshare. “Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take,” the letter reads.
“Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the internet in the UK and elsewhere and threaten freedom of speech and the open internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended.”
[More]>>
Result for: file sharer
The All Party Communications Group (apComms), an independent group of Members of Parliament and Lords in the UK, has released a report blaming record labels for their own losses from illegal file sharing.
In their report, the group wrote “We conclude that much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available.”
The report specifically addressed Business Secretary Peter Mandelson’s proposal to kick accused file sharers off the internet.
Lord Mandelson’s 3 strikes approach would make ISPs responsible for tracking their customers’ communications to identify people who may be engaged in copyright infringement.
“We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered,” reads the apComms report titled “Can we keep our hands off the net?.”
It also criticizes lawmakers for not waiting to act until EU officials have had the chance to complete work on changes to the Telecoms Package.
We think that it is inappropriate to make policy choices in the UK when policy options are still to be agreed by the EU Commission and EU Parliament in their negotiations over the “Telecoms Package,” says the report. “We recommend that the Government terminate their current policy-making process, and restart it with a new consultation once the EU has made its decisions.
[More]>>
