What others say

Everyone has their view on filesharing and to ensure an informed debate on both sides, here’s what a few organisations have to say on the subject.

The creative industry’s view

• The BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) – Filesharing FAQ
• The Featured Artists Association – Manifesto for Fair Play and FAC position on filesharing
• Musician’s Union – illegal downloading
• PPL – statement on filesharing

Consumer groups commenting about filesharing

• BEUC (The European Consumers Association) – statement on dropping amendment 138
• Consumer Focus – illegal filesharing response
• Open Rights Group – Consultation on Leglislation to address illicit P2P filesharing
• Which? – response to filesharing plans

“Appeals are not the same thing as ‘due process’. They circumvent a priori requirements to test the evidence. Given that severe punishments are being suggested – and the evidence may be flawed – there is a fundamental obligation to presume innocence and test the case. Due process is more important when dealing with new fields of evidence and misdemeanour, not less.”  (Open Rights Group)

“Punitive sanctions, based on the mere suspicion of wrong doing, is wholly unacceptable. Consumers who are suspected of breaking the law should be able to exercise their right to defend themselves in court.  Disconnection can not even be considered as a serious option without the presumption that consumers are innocent until proven guilty and that rights holders’ must produce evidence which can be tested in court.”  (Consumer Focus)

“There should be a test – or some set of standards laid down – to identify the robustness and effectiveness of the identification systems used by rights holders.  This is crucial because the capability of the rights holders to identify genuine illegal file sharers lies at the heart of the issue.  If the system used is to conduct the identification of infringers is not effective then many false accusations will clog up the system leading not only to genuine illegal file sharers getting away with illegal acts but also unnecessarily anguish for the falsely accused.” (Which?)

In order to try and justify that ISPs disconnect people and also that they bear some of the costs, rightsholders have been peddling the idea that ISPs are in some way profiting from illegal filesharing, causing it or have some form of particular responsibility to stop it.

This is simply absurd. For example:

“Network operators, in particular, have for too long had a free ride on music — on our clients’ content. It’s time for a new approach — time for ISPs to start taking responsibility for the content they’ve profited from for years … as it turned, the “Safe Harbour” concept was really a Thieves’ Charter” (Paul McGuiness, Manager U2 – Altogether Digital)

“Internet service providers who, in my opinion, handle stolen goods, and should take much more responsibility” (James Blunt, in The Times)

“If internet service providers continually attract people to illegal sites, as they do now, and not to legitimate sources of content, then they are part of the problem, not part of the solution” (Lord Lloyd Webber in the House of Lords)

“These companies contribute nothing to the creative economies that they feed off and undermine” (Lord Lloyd Webber in the House of Lords)

“This [BT not taking action] is just about BT protecting profits” (Geoff Taylor, BPI in the Daily Mirror)

“We’re the post office, they [the ISPs] tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content. Perhaps movie moguls will succeed where musicians and their moguls have failed so far, and rally America to defend the most creative economy in the world, where music, film, TV and video games help to account for nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product.” (Bono writing for NY Times)