Three strikes and you're......

Peter Mandelson today said that the UK will get a "3 strikes and you're off the Internet" rule by April 2010. The BBC notes that:

Lord Mandelson emphasised that cutting off internet connections would be a "last resort".

"I have no expectation of mass suspensions. People will receive two notifications and if it reaches the point [of cutting them off] they will have the opportunity to appeal," Lord Mandelson told the audience at the C&binet Forum, a talking shop set up by government to debate the issues facing the creative industries (of which more, later). The pay-off for tough penalties against persistent file-sharers would be a more relaxed copyright regime, Lord Mandelson said. The details of it would need to be hammered out at European level but it would take account of the use of copyright material "at home and between friends", he said.

It would mean that, for example, someone who has bought a CD would be able to copy it to their iPod or share it with family members without acting unlawfully.

Well, that's akin to giving people what they already have with one hand while extracting something with the other hand - I don't know anyone who has ever been prosecuted for taping their own CD's or loading music onto their spouse's iPod. Still, there are some delicious turns of phrase:

....he emphasised that "legislation and enforcement can only ever be part of the solution".

The long-term answer was for the industry to educate users and to offer new and cheaper ways to download content, he said. In addition, new copyright laws were needed to lift restrictions on how people moved content on to the various different devices that they owned.

(Italics are mine.) There's a subtle knife twist in there, around those words "cheaper", "lift" and "restrictions". Its the music rightsholders that are behind this, they are trying to get the ISP's to police it - and bear some of the costs. They are not going to like those 3 words. The ISP's have also hit back where it hurts - in the wallet:

The Internet Service Providers' Association thinks rightsholders should shoulder the burden for all costs, including the reimbursement of ISPs.

"This approach is consistent with the principle of beneficiary pays and would serve to incentivise rightsholders to develop new business models and ensure an effective and efficient use of notifications and targeted legal action," read a statement from ISPA.

Which is a sound principle in most sensible legal systems. Another sound principle is that any law that criminalises the majority of its citizens will be made an ass of. The issue, of course, is the one the industry doesn't really want to adress - ie overcharging, What no-one who looks at this "gets" is why this industry feels the Apple model - decent quality at reasonable prices - isn't acceptable.

Now Lord Mandelson, of all people, knows all this. He also knows the Labour party has near zero chance of getting this law through before the next election anyway. Plus there are far bigger fish to fry, so why cause a storm in a teacup full of bloggers, music fans, open rights activists etc who like nothing better than a nice righteous campaign to get off on?

Part of the answer is the size of the industry, c £16bn annually, which the Government needs to ensure (i) keeps its revenue going and people employed and (ii) that they can tax, especially now the City's golden egg is broken.

Another part, suggested by some scurrilous wags, is that some of that £16bn turnover is used to fund lobbying activity, and....well, what with all the other parliamentary expenses being curtailed these days.........but frankly, thats too obvious a ploy, and if you need petty cash go float a bank or two.

Must admit I'm stumped on this at the moment.