Techdirt. Stories about "talktalk"

UK's 3-Strikes Plan Continues To Grind Through The System; Still Not In Force, Still Awful

Glyn Moody — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:17:00 PDT

As Techdirt reported in 2010, the passage of the Digital Economy Act was one of the most disgraceful travesties of the UK parliamentary process in recent times; it was badly drafted, hardly revised and then pushed through with almost no debate in the dying moments of the previous government. Since then, two UK ISPs -- BT and TalkTalk -- have challenged the Act in the courts, but lost earlier this year.

This has cleared the way for the UK communications regulator Ofcom to spell out how the 3-strikes system would work by publishing

a draft code for consultation that would require large internet service providers (ISPs) to inform customers of allegations that their internet connection has been used to infringe copyright.

Here's the summary: The code will initially cover ISPs with more than 400,000 broadband-enabled fixed lines -- currently BT, Everything Everywhere, O2, Sky, TalkTalk Group and Virgin Media. Together these providers account for more than 93% of the retail broadband market in the UK.

The draft code requires ISPs to send letters to customers, at least a month apart, informing them when their account is connected to reports of suspected online copyright infringement.

If a customer receives three letters or more within a 12-month period, anonymous information may be provided on request to copyright owners showing them which infringement reports are linked to that customer’s account. The copyright owner may then seek a court order requiring the ISP to reveal the identity of the customer, with a view to taking legal action for infringement under the Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988.
A crucial aspect of this approach is how those allegedly infringing on copyright can appeal: Customers would have the right to challenge any allegation of infringement through an independent appeals body. Ofcom will appoint this body and require it to establish transparent, accessible appeal procedures. Copyright owners will need Ofcom approval of their procedures for gathering evidence of infringement before they can be used under the scheme.
That last point, that the evidence-gathering system employed by copyright owners must be approved by Ofcom, is one welcome change to the first draft of the code, which was put out for comments in May 2010. Indeed, Ofcom has announced that it plans to sponsor the development of a publicly-available standard to help promote "good practice in evidence gathering". This should ensure that at least the IP addresses of alleged infringers are obtained in a reasonably rigorous way.

However, an IP address on its own doesn't identify the person responsible for the alleged infringement -- the use of an open wifi network is an obvious reason why not. This touches on one of only four grounds allowed for appeal (in the original draft, other reasons were permitted, but Ofcom has now narrowed this down "following a direction from the [UK] Government"):

the act constituting the apparent infringement to which a copyright infringement report relates was not done by the subscriber and the subscriber took reasonable steps to prevent other persons infringing copyright by means of the internet access service;

The big question, of course, is what constitutes "reasonable steps": would, for example, WEP-encrypted wifi be enough, even though WEP is now easy to break? Ofcom passes the buck on this one: we believe it is for the appeals body, not Ofcom, to assess the evidence presented by subscribers and to determine the basis on which it will assess the reasonableness of any steps that the subscriber may have taken to secure its internet access service.
This means a crucial aspect of the Digital Economy Act -- on what grounds people can appeal against allegations of copyright infringement -- is still unclear. And remember that this current code is only about sending out warning letters: we still don't know what might happen after that. Ofcom merely says that any "technical measures" -- like throttling speeds or disconnection -- would require further legislation before they could be considered.

Although far from complete, the current code already imposes an unnecessary burden on ISPs that are merely providing the digital plumbing. Worse, it starts from the assumption that those accused of infringement are guilty, and must prove their innocence in an appeals process – but how on earth do you prove a negative: that you didn't download a file?

What makes this even more deplorable is that the copyright industries still haven't provided any credible, independent evidence that unauthorized file sharing is damaging them. In fact, as Techdirt has shown in its report The Sky is Rising, they are all flourishing. This means that fundamental rights are being harmed, and costs incurred, without justification and probably for no ultimate benefit, since determined downloaders will simply switch to using VPNs or other means. The longer the great Digital Economy Act farce drags on, the more absurd it becomes from every viewpoint.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK ISPs Are Already Planning To Offer Porn Filters -- So Who Needs New Legislation?

Glyn Moody — Tue, 15 May 2012 03:15:00 PDT

Last week Techdirt wrote about the possible introduction of an "opt-in" license to view porn online in the UK. As we noted then, there is nothing to stop parents from installing their own filters to block access to certain kinds of Web sites now. But it seems that soon, they won't even have to do that:

There’s a report in today’s Sunday Times that ISP TalkTalk is planning to offer an "adult" filter to all its customers. The "HomeSafe" system will, according to the report, block websites that are considered unsuitable for the under-18s. That isn’t just porn, but also includes self-harm, drugs and violence. Other major consumer ISPs, such as BT, are working on their own systems but don’t have them ready yet.

This is precisely how the market is supposed to work: if there is demand for something that is not currently on offer, then businesses will develop new products to meet that demand. What’s interesting about today’s report, though, is that a spokesman from TalkTalk is quoted as saying that offering filters to new customers has increased customer retention. It seems that their customers do want them, and are more likely to stay with TalkTalk if they’ve got them.
That means that rather than incurring costs for imposing censorship on everyone unless they opt out, as the UK government may require, ISPs could instead make money through reduced churn by giving customers something they want.

As the author of the article quoted above, Mark Goodge, points out:

It also gives the lie to two other common claims made by pro-compulsion campaigners: that ISPs are irresponsible and parents don’t care, and the only solution to both of those is legislation. In reality, a lot of parents do care about what their children are accessing on the Internet, and will choose to use a system which does screen out the worst of it if that option is available. And ISPs are responsive to consumer demand, so they’re choosing to offer that to their customers.

It's particularly ironic that it should be the UK's Conservative Party that is contemplating this move. It generally prides itself on promoting business and minimizing government interference in people's lives; here, it is doing the exact opposite.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK ISPs Lose Their Challenge To The Digital Economy Act; Entertainment Industry Responds Condescendingly

Mike Masnick — Wed, 7 Mar 2012 05:06:01 PST

UK ISPs BT and Talktalk challenged the Digital Economy Act soon after it was passed, complaining about how the law was approved, about the implementation details and how it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Unfortunately, the final appeal in that lawsuit has been rejected, and the ISPs may now be forced to start cutting off users and playing the role of copyright cops for the entertainment industry. The court's basically said that there's nothing against European law in the Digital Economy Act. Even worse, it found nothing wrong with putting a significant chunk of the costs (about 25%) on the ISPs themselves. In what world is it reasonably to force an industry to pay to protect another industry from innovation? The only point where the ISPs won was on not having to pay 25% of regulator Ofcom's costs in setting up an appeals body.

What's somewhat ridiculous, however, is to then watch the entertainment industry practically gloat about this result. Geoff Taylor from the BPI responded by claiming that:

"The ISPs' failed legal challenge has meant yet another year of harm to British musicians and creators from illegal filesharing."

That's ridiculous on multiple levels. First of all, prove the harm. We'll wait. And wait. Because BPI can't do it. But, second, that assumes that kicking people off the internet will actually solve "the problem." It won't. The problem is with the fact that the companies represented by BPI refuse to adapt in a significant way, and thus users move towards more convenient, more efficient and better priced offerings.

PACT -- a UK trade group representing "independent creative content producers," the kind of folks who rely on an open internet and who should be terrified about the impact of something like the DEA, again, was extremely condescending to the legitimate concerns of ISPs:

John McVay, CEO of Pact, said: "Rather than needlessly spending more time and money on further legal challenges, BT and TalkTalk now need to focus on working with rights holders and the Government in implementing the Digital Economy Act with immediate effect."

Immediate effect to raise costs and decrease access -- none of which will do a damn thing to get people to pay more for content. Others were equally condescending and obnoxious. There was Equity general secretary Christine Payne:

“Once again a judge has made it extremely clear that the Digital Economy Act is a fair, focused, proportionate and efficient system for consumers and the creative industry,” she added. “Rather than individuals being hauled into court, the DEA makes it possible to conduct a mass consumer education programme. BT and TalkTalk need to stop fighting and start obeying the law.”

Hint to Christine: no "education programme" involves legislation requiring one industry to police users to stop them from doing what they want because a different industry is too lazy or clueless to adapt.

The Film Distributors’ Association president Lord Puttnam CBE hoped the court decision would put an end to “a long chapter of uncertainty, and the DEA can now help in implementing a mass consumer education programme so that people, especially young people, can come to appreciate the damage piracy inflicts on the whole of the creative community”.

Kicking people offline and making ISPs copyright cops is not an education program, and the "problem" the industry faces is not an education problem. People know that copyright infringement is illegal. It's not because of ignorance that they're doing what they do. It's because the industry refuses to offer what they want in a convenient manner at a reasonable price.

The British Video Association’s director general Lavinia Carey added: “Several other countries are adopting this measure and it would be bad for Britain’s creative industries to be left behind more forward thinking nations who are supporting their creative economies at this difficult time of transition towards increased digital consumption during this period of recession.”

Not that many countries, actually, and there's widespread opposition where it's happening, as well as significant concerns about the collateral damage. Over in France, of course, there are efforts under way by opposition parties to dump Hadopi as soon as possible. Pretending that this is some sort of widespread, agreed upon strategy that other countries are adopting widely is simply false.

But, in the end, this reaction shows how the industry continues to have its collective head in the sand on this particular issue. They think that users just need "education." That's wrong. It's the industry that needs education. It needs innovation on how to adapt, on how to meet consumers needs and on how to actually embrace what the technology allows. Until it does that, no "education program" is going to help... and the collateral damage of the DEA's program is only going to make things worse, and make sure that another generation of young people have no respect at all for the entertainment industry.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK ISPs Already Taking The Digital Economy Act To Court

Mike Masnick — Thu, 8 Jul 2010 04:29:14 PDT

BT and TalkTalk, two UK ISPs who had been critics of the Digital Economy Act all along, are now going to court to find out if it's legal, before they go through the hassle of implementing any of the provisions. They're apparently claiming that the law was passed with "insufficient scrutiny," and that the implementation rules coming out of Ofcom put them at a disadvantage competitively. While both of those things are true, it's not clear that this makes the law invalid. It would certainly be nice if the courts ruled it invalid, but it also seems like a long shot.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK ISP Shows Why Kicking People Off The Internet Based On An IP Address Is Dumb

Mike Masnick — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:21:32 PDT

UK ISP TalkTalk has been a strong critic of the way the recording industry has tried to turn ISPs into copyright cops in the past. A year and a half ago it swore it would not be a copyright cop, and scolded BPI for suggesting it had any responsibility to enforce the entertainment industry's poor excuse for a business model -- while also complaining about "the most unbelievably rude letter" that BPI sent TalkTalk in demanding it do so. At the time, he told them:

"They're not just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted -- the horse has left town, got married, and started a family."

Well said. Then, earlier this year, TalkTalk's CEO also pointed out how naive it was to think that the industry could do anything to stop unauthorized file sharing, noting:

If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid....

If people want to share content they will find another way to do it....

TalkTalk is continuing to show how silly the recording industry's plans are, by doing a little demonstration. The company sent out a security expert on staff to an ordinary street in Stanmore, Middlesex. Then it had him find all the WiFi connections there -- noting that many were totally open, and many others used weak security. From a few open ones, he went and downloaded some songs including Barry Manilow's hit Mandy and the soundtrack to the 1992 film Peter's Friends -- those two choices in honor of Peter Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary who suddenly became a supporter of kicking file sharers off the internet using a three strikes provision after dining with entertainment industry mogul, David Geffen.

To be clear, in this case, the music downloads were both done legally -- and the company checked with the WiFi access point owners first to make sure they were okay with it -- but the point is still clear. Just because you have an IP address, it doesn't act as any sort of proof. TalkTalk's director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney made the point clear:

"The Mandelson scheme is every bit as wrong-headed as it is naive. The lack of presumption of innocence and the absence of judicial process combined with the prevalence of wi-fi hacking will result in innocent people being disconnected."

This, of course, is the same point that plenty of people have been making for ages, but the recording industry never has a good response. They also haven't been able to respond to a more important point: how will kicking people off the internet make anyone more interested in buying music?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another UK ISP Insists It Won't Become A Copyright Cop; Scolds BPI

Mike Masnick — Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:38:27 PDT

Well there go those plans. Over in the UK, the British equivalent of the RIAA, the BPI, was pretty confident that it had the government on its side in forcing ISPs to become copyright cops and to kick off users found to be sharing unauthorized files. However, it looks like the BPI may have gotten a little ahead of itself. First, the BPI leaked to the press that Virgin Media would voluntarily agree only to have the ISP vehemently deny that it would do any such thing. Now, TalkTalk, the third largest ISP in the country isn't just saying it won't be a copyright cop fot the BPI, but its CEO is angrily denouncing the BPI for sending "the most unbelievably rude letter" demanding it do so. As its CEO said, it's as if the BPI is making ISPs pay the price for the record labels own failure to adopt: "They're not just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted -- the horse has left town, got married, and started a family." The BPI, for its part, has also responded angrily claiming that TalkTalk "just doesn't get it." It then goes on to talk about "fairness" and "partnerships" apparently missing the irony that the record labels are notorious for not being particularly fair and being absolutely terrible partners.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story