BPI repeats call for graduated response in UK
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 16 February 2009
Unhappy with the UK government's proposals for "persistent letter sending", the UK music industry re-records it calls for graduated response. The comments give meaning to the "cooperation" amendment in the EU Telecoms Package.
Graduated response won't go away easily. The British music industry made it clear that it isn't happy with the UK government's decision not to cut people off the Internet as a sanction against copyright infringement. It wants to see more action from the UK government on copyright enforcement and its repeated its call for graduated response at a UK Parliament seminar this week.
Speaking at the Westminster eForum on Taming the Wild Web, Richard Mollet, director of public affairs for the BPI (the UK's IFPI member) said:
"Legislation requiring ISPs to act is a welcome step, but we need a bold stride. What we need is ISPs to take more responsibility, to work with industry on a system of graduated response, so that the infringer not only gets a letter, but gets a warning, and yes, he or she might even have their account suspended."
He continued: "Graduated response is
a fair and proportionate way of dealing with copyright infringement ane ensuring that it doesn't continue"
Further, in response to a comment from the chair (Roger Darlington, from the Ofcom consumer panel) that "things are going well", Mollet said " I apologise unreservedly if I gave the impression that things are going well. The situation is unsustainable, especially in respect of copyright".
He also stressed that "self-regulation isn't going to work in terms of copyright infringement, which is why we have to legislate to make ISPs do something". Purely voluntary measures won't work, he said.
Mollet's comments are interesting in respect of the bigger picture and the international drive by content industries for online copyright enforcement. For example, the EU Telecoms Package, where the British music industry has supported the French lobby in trying to get in amendments related to copyright. Although some changes have been removed by the Council, Amendment 112 to the Universal Services directive, [Article 33(2a)] which calls for "cooperation" between the ISPs and the content industries for copyright protection, remains in there.
- Article Views: 7873
IPtegrity politics
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?