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 sharers
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 sharers
A provision which would require a judicial order before the government could have someone’s internet account shut off has been removed from the Telecoms Package being negotiated between European Parliament and the European Council.
The amendment, approved overwhelmingly earlier this year by MEPs, said “No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities … save when public security is threatened.”
It would have called into question the legality of laws promoted by the recording industry as the solution to illegal file sharing. Record labels favor laws which allow them to punish alleged copyright infringement without being required to prove their charges in court first.
So far France has followed the industry’s blueprint very closely. Their 3 strikes law, which has been approved by both legislators, and in a revised version by the country’s top court, does now require judicial approval of internet disconnection.
But that doesn’t mean a content owner would be required to prove the person whose account is being shut down actually did anything wrong.
Some officials in the UK are also in favor of 3 strikes style legislation. Lawmakers who oppose such a plan have spoken out about the idea, saying record label losses are the result of poor business decisions and the public shouldn’t be punished.
ISPs are opposed for more practical reasons. They complain that hackers and WiFi networks with easily broken encryption make reliably identifying illegal file sharers impossible.
