Intellectual property Toolkit
Story: Fast: 'Ban them from any internet use'
Not so 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
Full Talkback thread
