This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Legal Top Stories
TalkTalk man talk talks about three-strikes
By CMU Editorial | Published on Wednesday 30 September 2009
Most of the internet service providers are against proposals to force them to become the piracy police, and TalkTalk boss Charlie Dunstone has been one of the most vocal critics of any proposals to force ISPs to restrict, suspend or disconnect the internet connections of persistent file-sharers. So, with the government’s consultation on the issue coming to a close (the consultation which has led to all the recent debate on the matter within the music community), it’s unsurprising Charlie has been speaking out again.
Although not wishing to particularly come down on the side of the pro-three-strike brigade, Charlie is, to an extent, deliberately misrepresenting the proposals put forward by Peter Mandelson’s Department For Business, Innovation and Skills for dramatic effect. He said this week: “The approach proposed by Lord Mandelson is based on the principle of guilty until proven innocent and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court. What is being proposed is wrong in principle and it won’t work in practice”.
It is true that the issue of who specifically orders the net access of a file-sharer be suspended (ie a government official or a judge), and what process the accused pirate has to defend him or herself, has been the sticking point in both France and New Zealand, where full on three-strike systems are being introduced. But that doesn’t mean three-strikes in itself relies on the “guilty until proven innocent” principle. That’s to do with the way the proposed system is administered rather than the system itself. True, giving media regulator OfCom power in this domain without the involvement of a court (as has been proposed) might be wrong, but that isn’t, in itself, a reason to oppose three-strikes altogether.
Dwelling once more on that issue, Dunstone continues: “TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers (unless directed to do so by a court or a recognised tribunal). In the event we are instructed to impose extrajudicial technical measures we will refuse to do so and challenge the instruction in the courts”.
Such statements probably mean Mandelson’s team would be advised to look at the way France is involving a judge in the three-strike process – otherwise, even if the anti-piracy system does become law, you’re probably looking at an incredibly drawn out court case before said system has any real bite. Apart from in Hull perhaps (remember Karoo?).
TalkTalk aren’t the only ISP getting vocal on the issue. As previously reported, BT have already been talking up just how much the three-strike system would cost to administer – a cost that would either have to be covered by the content owners or ISPs – obviously they say content owners should foot the bill. Sky share that viewpoint, stressing that their opinion on the matter is less biased because they are both content owners and an internet service provider, which is true; though it has to be said, most of the content Sky owns is shit.
Interestingly – and presumably because Sky is both content owner and ISP – they are less opposed to the concept of three-strikes, though seem to be attached to the original proposals in the government’s ‘Digital Britain’ report from earlier this year. That accepted that three-strikes may be necessary, but said that stepped up education programmes and primary infringer lawsuits should be tried first as a way of cutting illegal file-sharing. As previously reported, the record companies etc weren’t very impressed with ‘Digital Britain’.
