-
04FebInternet by David Hall
Print This Post
Monday this week brought me an email from the marketing manager at the firm where I work, giving me a link to an illegal file sharing news item on the BBC website. The link’s at the bottom of this post.
I popped up to see him. I don’t know how to play this one, I said. Blog it, he said. Fair enough.
First things first. At our firm we often call ourselves ACS. We don’t trade as ACS:Law – that’s someone else. No connection.
Moving quickly on. The BBC article raises interesting questions about how you deal with copyright piracy on the internet. The thing is, if ACS:Law’s clients see some strategic value in sending letters to every illegal file sharer under the sun, that’s the service that they want from their lawyers. If we were convinced of the strategic value, frankly we’d do the same.
I’d like to see a debate and it’s a shame that the BBC article doesn’t invite comments, and that the views reported in the article are polemic.
I see mixed strategic value in using big mail shots in these cases. It depends how good the evidence is against the pirates. The BBC article quotes that point being made, but the implications aren’t explained and they’re key. Internet piracy is increasingly conducted through social networks. They don’t bother to set up big websites for law enforcers to shoot at. If all you’ve got to go on to provide piracy is an IP address, a big mailshot could make the problem worse. Copyright pirates often have some spirit and nerve. They might be intimidated by being pursued. But they’ll probably also wait for the threats to develop. The implications: no evidence = empty threat = bolder pirate.
You can however understand copyright owners’ frustration. It’s a costly road to go down if you want enough evidence to really nail illegal file sharers. You can easily make yourself anonymous on the web, and under current UK law it costs a small fortune through the courts to get names from the ISPs. If you’re a copyright owner you’re pretty comfortable with the proposition that some alleged infringers will pay to make the problem go away, not because they did it. If you’re a music copyright owner who has responded to Napster etc by offering cheap MP3 downloads as an alternative to full price CDs, you’ve got some moral high ground to stand on. And after all, the UK TV licensing authority behaves in substantially the same way.
In the BBC article the BPI is quoted as saying its policy is to concentrate on the big infringers. On balance I agree that probably is the more responsible approach. But I think what’s really needed is a change in the law so that it’s easier and cheaper to identify pirates and collect evidence to pursue them.
BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8483482.stm
Posted by David Hall @ 11:30 am
Tags: BPI, enforcement, evidence, illegal file sharing, intellectual property
