Leading article: The wrong penalty for file-sharing
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Ministers, music executives and Hollywood film moguls have long tried to find a way of bringing order – in their terms – to the Wild West of the internet, where millions of people continue to download copyrighted material illegally. And we acknowledge that illegal file-sharing is a problem. We also accept, though, that it has an alluring side, which attests to the democracy and openness of the Web.
Which is one reason why we find Lord Mandelson's solution – to cut off the internet access of persistent illegal downloaders – to be an excessive and unimaginative response. Another is a suspicion of Lord Mandelson's motives. As so often where he is concerned, more than a little personal politics would seem to be involved. Given his already extensive portfolio as First Secretary of State, does he really need to add the power to overrule the broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom – which is what disconnecting illegal file-sharers would entail? And the fact that his latest proposal came just weeks after he met a film executive who is also a leading opponent of file-sharing is hard to dismiss as coincidence.
The possible unintended consequences of pushing ahead with the plan should be immediately apparent. Innocent people, who share internet access with a persistent offender, would lose their access, too. Those cut off would also be disconnected from important online public services. Forcing people away from file-sharing sites risks propelling them into the arms of the many DVD and CD counterfeiters, who are known to have links with organised crime. And anyway, what would be to stop them simply signing up with someone else? Would blacklisting be at all efficient?
To their credit, major internet service providers, including Virgin and BT, are already lining up on the side of the consumer. They realise that a more sophisticated approach will be needed to convince the filesharers to desist. It is, after all, not just supposed fat-cat intermediaries who lose from illegal file-sharing, but the artists and producers themselves , with knock-on effects on the quantity and quality of entertainment in future. Any reasonable solution will need every bit as much carrot as stick.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments