As is usually the case, what happens first in the US eventually winds up coming across the Big Pond. So it was with suing filesharers and so it is with the record companies targeting the ISP. the BPI is saying to Bulldog and Tiscali that they should enforce their own T&Cs by cutting off Internet use to filesharers.
Geeklawyer agrees that filesharing is to some degree wrong but then it’s unlikely that any significant damage is suffered by the music industry. Indeed it isn’t at all clear it doesn’t help them by promoting artists and films. Some studies have indicated this while some, quoted by the music industry natch, say it damages them. Whatever.
Geeklawyer would say to the likes of Bulldog & Tiscali don’t put these provisions into your T&Cs!!! Let the BPI chase your clients. In any event there’s usually no proof that the customer is doing the filesharing rather than another resident in the household: a child relative flatmate etc.
For those of us who are not well versed in UK law how is it relevant if the file sharer is not the client? Surely the client is responsible for any use they allow their connection to be used for. Clearly if somebody is piggy-backing without the client’s knowledge then that should fall under some computer mis-use law shouldn’t it?
Hi Kirit, if you’re interested we’ve set up a heading for lawyers from other jurisdictions on the forum. Geekboy had headed it Common Law, but anyone is welcome. I like chatting to lawyers from other jurisdictions, if only with a view to understanding how things might be done better here. Or maybe I’m just after wangling a free holiday
Don’t think Kirit’s a lawyer?
But a couple of people have asked me about this so I will blog on it at some point soon, when I get a free moment.