UK File-Sharing Laws Unenforceable On Mobile Networks

superglaze writes "UK mobile broadband providers currently have no way of telling which subscribers are file-sharing which copyrighted content, ZDNet UK reports. This represents something of a problem for new laws that have been proposed to crack down on unlawful file-sharing. According to the article, databases (tracking IP address mappings) could be built to make it possible to identify what specific users are downloading, but the industry is loathe to fund this sort of project itself. Also, as an analyst points out in the piece, users of prepaid phone cards are mostly anonymous in the UK, which creates another challenge for the government's plans. And if that isn't enough, connection-sharing apps like JoikuBoost would make identification pretty much impossible anyway."

Bill the record industry

[Hatta]

If the record industry wants this data, they can pay for its collection.

Root Conflict

[headkase]

There is a book called, The Public Domain [thepublicdomain.org] written by a professor of law from the Duke Law School. You can download an electronic version legally and for free from that link. It outlines the conflicts facing areas of creativity like the arts and sciences and explains the history of how it came to be so enclosed. It also does not pull any punches, it supports industry where deserved and advocates Citizen interests where right. It certainly is a lot better than my rants and raves when I scream: I Want My Public Domain [slashdot.org] ! Although he has more reasons to be tactful than I. Inform yourself, read the free book. I am and once I'm done I'm going to go read some Pirate Party propaganda to see if it is compatible with the good professor.

Re:What about the isp?

[mdwh2]

Here in the UK, you don't have a right to use the mp3, even if you do own the CD.

Unless you're Lily Allen, making a "mix tape" of copyrighted material - then it's okay. Even if you fileshare it to push your own career.

Re:Or it would go the other way

[julesh]

Wasn't the guy who pushed this shit through removed from two elected positions for corruption, and now only holds an appointed position?

"Removed for corruption" is perhaps overstating the matter. The first time he resigned because he'd failed to declare an interest that should have been on the public record (although he hadn't actually been personally involved in any decisions where there would be a conflict of interest, his department was handling such a decision). The second time he resigned again, but an independent enquiry cleared him of any impropriety.