Ofcom has confirmed that it will be looking at a 'three strikes' process to clamp down on illegal file sharing in the UK.
In its 'initial obligations code', Ofcom has highlighted what it wants to happen to illegal file-sharers in the UK, including the sending of notifications to infringers which will come with "easy to understand information on the nature of the allegations made against the subscriber and on what actions a subscriber can take, both to challenge the allegation and to protect their network from being hijacked for the purposes of infringement."
Large ISPs targeted
Ofcom has also suggested that it will not be targeting small and medium-sized ISPs with its new code. But if there is persistent file sharing going on, then these consideration will be given to "bringing these providers within the scope of the Code".
For an ISP to adhere to the proposed code, it will have to have 400,000 subscribers or more.
Ofcom has pointed out, though, that big ISPs make up 96 per cent of the UK market. Essentially this means that the copyright code will affect 96 per cent of the population with an internet connection.
Another set of ISPs which are excluded are mobile providers, with Ofcom noting: "Mobile operators are initially excluded, due in part to current mobile technologies being less conducive than fixed for copyright infringement. However, we will review, on a regular basis, whether to extend coverage of the code."
Making a list
At the heart of this code is similar to what is happening in Ireland at the moment – it's the dreaded three-strikes rule.
As Ofcom states: "We set out a three-stage notification process for informing subscribers of infringements through notifications and propose that subscribers, following receipt of a third notification, may be included in a copyright infringement list requested by a Copyright Owner.
In short: if you get caught three times, your information, including IP address, the number of times an infringement has been logged and your name, will be shipped over to the companies you are stealing the music from.
Interestingly, nowhere on the document does it talk of banning infringers from the web. It's more a case of turning their information over to the relevant people and then legal action will take place.
As with everything Ofcom does, a consultation is taking place and will be running until 30 July. for more information, go to: www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/copyright-infringement.
Your comments (6) Click to add a new comment
shm1ck
May 30th 2010
6. Here's the point that I want to make, before DVD were out and everyone had a DVD player, VHS was the thing, now they were priced at $29.95(AUS) when new, this was the set price for years, and you had no choice but to buy it if you wanted it.
Then came along DVDs, they price of VHS went down by an average of $10 and the DVD took the original VHS price, it still cost the same amount to manufacture the VHS but they took $10 off every sale, and as not everyone had a DVD player at that time the manufactures could still afford to cut the price.
The way I see it is that they were ripping us off for years and now that DVD is the thing now, which Hollywood would of had their finger in the development of the DVD, they now complain that they are getting ripped off by illegal copies, either by downloading or burning.
I will continue to purchase DVDs and if I get offered a pirate copy I will probably say yes.
This goes the same for cd's, brand new they were $24.95(AUS) but when DVD were released they came down to around $18.00. So what happened to that $6 I used to be paying for, it went into someones pocket and now they want to winge.
I buy cd's and dvd's because I like to have the real covers in my collection, but I still say we have all been ripped of for years, and now those companies want to say we rip them off, gimmie a break!
Please tell me if u agree or if you have a different opinion, I don't want to a argument, I just want to know other ppl's thoughts on this issue
Alert a moderator
wjpalmer
May 30th 2010
5. @ tech89
"My message to the hollywood *** wipes, I can'buy more because I would need to be paid more!
I like film and buy more than I should on DVD, so the rest will be downloaded until my next spending spree."
That is a bad argument. I like Ferraris, but I can't buy one until I am paid more, so according to you it would be fine for me to go out and steal one.
Piracy is not needed to fill any gap, it is a method for people who live the 'I want it, I deserve it, so I will just take it' style of life.
Alert a moderator
gavrielo
May 29th 2010
4. They are scaremongering. With every new act to enforce firesharing there will be newer ways for people to get what they want for free. E.g streaming and usenet
Alert a moderator
tech89
May 29th 2010
3. If my ISP turned its back on me and handed over my details that would be the last time they ever had me as a customer.
Piracy reasons:
- lack of dvd rental shops in towns and cities (you have to sign up monthly for some services and they're not instant but postal).
- small variety of films shown on tv
- the unfairness in having to buy another copy for mobile devices (ipods, etc).
Piracy is a safeguard in stopping me buy any awful movies which would be an injustice to myself (and myself comes before hollywood!). The good ones I buy on dvd.
What if I'm buying more than my fair share of films on dvd and downloading pirate films as well?
I've paid somewhere in the region of £200 or more on dvds in the last 6 months. My message to the hollywood *** wipes, I can'buy more because I would need to be paid more!
I like film and buy more than I should on DVD, so the rest will be downloaded until my next spending spree.
It's always a pleasure to see a government institution like Ofcom breaching our privacy and handing it over to individuals who wish to profiteer by making unreasonable demands for unreasonable sums of money in court cases. Example of the woman in America who download 12 songs and was being sued for $2 million - this is the absurdity of court cases.
The movie industry is bullying ISPs to conform to its views and ideals and that is WRONG!
I am not going to buy chart dvds until they are no longer chart dvds and come down to a sensible pricing level.
I have suffered the misfortune of buying awful films because of apparently good reviews from imdb, film magazines, newspapers, and friends only to find out I made a god awful mistake.
So I will continue to download films unless the movie industry decides to reimburse me for the awful films I've been conned into buying.
And another thing, shops do not always have stock of the films you like/require. This has happened with replies of 'it will be in stock next shipment in weeks/months'. Well that pushed me into downloading these films until I can get a damn hold of them.
I'm a sensible person and do like to support the films that leave a good impression, just when they're not in the charts. When they're out and down to a fair price I buy them.
I bet Ofcom or the movie industry don't even consider the ratio of legitimate purchases to illegal downloads because if they did, I'd be an Angel. Where's the justice in someone who gets sued for downloading a dozen songs when they've bought hundreds of songs or albums over the years?
If anyone does get sued, try and use the defence of legitimate purchases to illegal downloads. Give the film industry's lawyers hell, take them to the grave!
My apologies for my ranting but piracy is needed to fill the gaps and flaws that the movie industry and retail sector have left behind.
Alert a moderator
dessembrae
May 28th 2010
2. Whatever happened to Justice?
The government sold it to the record/film companies.
Alert a moderator
caimbeul
May 28th 2010
1. The important question is whether or not these accusations must have any solid evidence before they breach the Data Protection Act and provide personal information to companies without the consent of the user and this may to companies based in countries where Data Protection is poor, non-existent or suited to big corporations rather than individuals. And who is to be making the accusations? We all know that there are many cases of wrongful accusation that have and are continuing to happen. Surely no action can be taken on suspicion alone? what about the fact that an IP address only identifis an address and not an individual? These are worrying times as just like the Digital Economy Joke - ahem, I mean farce, I mean Act! there seems to be no solid ground for many accusations without physical evidence. Whatever happened to Justice?
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments