If you are not saying you want to ban people from the internet completely, then what are you saying?
We're not saying we're not trying to ban people completely. If they are serial file rippers, they are clearly not just people doing it to be mischievous. This is an industry out there and people are using it as a livelihood to rip off people's genuine livelihood.
If we have the evidence, then I do say ban them from any internet use and let them be black sheep. We're not talking about the 14-year-old or the student who makes a couple of copies — we don't have the resources for that — but the serious people. Then we'd be going some way towards protecting an industry that's very important to the economy.
What is your opinion on the recent case in Belgium where a judge ordered an ISP to actively monitor its users' P2P activity?
I'm not sure that is possible. We're not advocating that the ISPs have to monitor what's going across their networks. We're asking them to co-operate with us and ban people from using their networks, and make a register amongst themselves of people where they have been [found out]. If [rights holders] all reported [such activities] to ISPs and they get the same names [recurring] at the top, and you take away the vehicle they're using, then they can't go robbing banks.
What's to stop them reregistering under a false name or using a proxy?
That's a difficult one — I'm not sure about the technology. On some auction sites they have a paying mechanism where users can't provide the wrong information, so they can always track back to bank accounts — although I'm not sure that would work with ISPs.
What about where people are sharing an IP address?
This has not been totally fleshed out. There are questions all the way down the line. Like any legislation, it would have to evolve. We haven't sat down at a roundtable and aired these kinds of views. We're just saying: "What about if you did this?"
If someone was banned without having been found guilty by a court, wouldn't they have a strong argument that their civil liberties were being infringed upon?
How do people in the insurance industry have difficulty getting insurance? Because they are proven to be a bad risk. And, if this person is a risk to your particular business, although they haven't been found guilty, are you wanting to associate with them? Yes, they haven't been found guilty, but evidence shows that they have been using it for illegal activity, civil though it may be.
If we have the evidence, then I do say ban them from any internet use and let them be black sheep
John Lovelock, Fast
The same evidence could be used in court and we could get the lawyers together and they would discern that evidence could be held up in court. We don't want to go to court, we don't want to take every single individual that is caught to court, but we want to try and nip it in the bud without having to resort to legislation and court costs.
We don't want to know who the subscriber is. We just want to say: "If we provide enough evidence to the ISP, will you take action against these people? We don't want you to divulge personal details, because the Data Protection Act says you can't do that anyway without a court order. We want you to take action and deny them the use of your networks and then they have no business left." We're never going to eliminate it, only chip away at it.
What is your opinion on the tactics used by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which has become, some would say, notorious for going after individuals to make examples of them?
I couldn't comment at all — what goes on in American law is totally different to what happens here. Fast is inward-facing and all we want to do is what is right for our members and the economy.
Does Fast have any quantifiable data on the damage inflicted on the UK software industry by unauthorised file-sharing?
I don't think we separate it in terms of whether it takes place over the internet or in business, but the loss is around £1bn per annum just in the UK because of people not paying for the software they are using. In terms of the IP industry in general… the loss is £9bn per annum.
But does that take into account the fact that some people who illegally download material might not otherwise buy it anyway?
There is no empirical evidence that says that, because they've downloaded, they would have bought the original. That's a very difficult question to answer.
Talkback
Who do they think they are? What do they propose - the practice to replace the court in civil law application? Some "sponsored association" provides some "evidences" ("Hey I have 3 friends who saw it!") to the other business actor that performs some actions by denying someones rights? No more courts, no more possibility to defense, no more evidence evaluation, no jury (who the hell invented these stupid practices?). Just one business man denyes civil rights of other person. Fast.
Fast has a poor reputation and represents few interests.
http://www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/news/2159547/complaints-catch-fast-anti
But no-one should be given extra judicial powers not available to the rest of society and exposing ISP's to liability (common carriers), by-passing the judicial and other remedies already open to them based upon an unspecified and in fact absent evidence of economic damage.
An economic case can be made against tighter copyright control and FAST has not even made a case as to why it should be given extraordinary control over the publics use of the internet.
Societies interests do not coincide with that of FAST members especially when it comes to circumventing fundamental civil rights and freedoms.
Civil remedies and other remedies exist and special interest groups like FAST avail themselves of them, like the rest of society.
Question: What is Fast's reaction to Lord Triesman's comments?
Fast should use the civil law to gain redress like everyone else. FAST are not be a special case.
One summary judgment does not make every case default to conviction and punishment as nominated by the plaintive.
Question: As one of our readers pointed out, copyright infringement is a civil issue rather than criminal — surely you should have to go through the courts?
It is not illegal, and it is a tort or delict (civil wrong) not a crime.
ISP's do not wish to collaborate with you but are facing the threat of legislation.
The ISP has no business interfering with their customers use of the Internet
To do so would loose them their common carrier status and expose them to civil liabilities including restraint of trade, losses etc.
Why is a ban on internet use proportionate or desirable. Who appointed you as judge and jury and the ISP as executioner.
Question: Are you arguing that Fast should be legislated to have a right to ban?
This is the implication, and for a civil offence, without redress.
The activity is not illegal (just a civil wrong). And it is not the function of the ISP to police internet usage. A common carrier explicitly does not interfere with the activities of their users.
Question: But you are now talking about a criminal activity.
Use the civil remedies open to FAST.
The Internet Watch foundation and the actions of the ISP's using cleanfeed are wrong in principle, but child pornography is a highly emotive issue. Much more so that the economic interests of FAST.
There is no comparison in terms of the public interest and this function creep should not be extended to a special interest group like FAST. Who next ?
Question: Is it actually practicable to ban someone from using the internet?
Is it proportionate or desirable, what are the potentail consequences and all without reference to a court.
What is to stop creative industries following manufacturing offshore ?
http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.10408
"The transitioning of software development activity from organisations based in developed countries like the UK is potentially a major source of competitive advantage for those organisations"
Look at Indian service industry. (WIPRO etc)
In fact members of FAST facilitate the movement of jobs to the low cost producers.
This argument is specious.
Question: If you are not saying you want to ban people from the internet completely, then what are you saying?
That is just what they are saying, but now they determine whom shall have it enforced against them.
Have you not, just destroyed the volume argument implied in question 1.
There are plenty of options for redress open to you, in fact in the area of commercial infringement the powers available are already extraordinary.
Question: What's to stop them reregistering under a false name or using a proxy?
It isn't child pornography, nor is it murder or jay walking, but I would suggest it is much nearer the latter than the former.
Question What abo
I agree as long as we ban any business from ever trading again, that has committed any wrong doing. It would be interesting to see how many members of FAST, RIAA, would be left trading.