Court Orders ISPs to Block Websites of Three Sites Streaming Copyrighted Video Programming; Lexology, May 12, 2022

 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP - Jeff Lanning, Lexology; Court Orders ISPs to Block Websites of Three Sites Streaming Copyrighted Video Programming

"The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued three virtually identical Default Judgement and Permanent Injunction Orders against Israel.tv, Israeli-tv.com, and Sdarot.tv for copyright infringement. The three orders include directions requiring all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the United States of America to block access to the named websites. In addition, the court ordered third parties to cease providing services of any kind used in connection with the defendants’ operations, including web hosting and banking.

The cases were filed by “movie, television, sports and news content producers and providers in Israel” alleging copyright infringement against the owners and/or operators of the websites, which are “re-broadcasting and streaming, in the United States, Hebrew-language television and online channels and content.”"

Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech; The Verge, February 13, 2020

Adi Robertson, The Verge; Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech

"By the end of the year, Tillis — who chairs the Senate’s intellectual property subcommittee — plans to draft changes to the DMCA. He and co-chair Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) kicked off the process this week with an introductory hearing, speaking to eight legal experts and former congressional staffers. The hearing helped set the stage to re-fight some long-running battles over the balance between protecting copyrighted content and keeping the internet open — but at a time where internet companies are already facing a large-scale backlash.

The 1998 DMCA attempted to outline how copyright should work on the then-nascent internet, where you could almost freely and infinitely copy a piece of media. But it’s been widely criticized by people with very different stances on intellectual property."

European court of justice rules Pirate Bay is infringing copyright; Guardian, June 15, 2017

Alex Hern, Guardian; European court of justice rules Pirate Bay is infringing copyright

"The European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled that BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay is directly infringing copyright, in a move that could lead to ISPs and governments blocking access to other torrent sites across Europe.

The ruling comes after a seven-year legal battle, which has seen the site, founded in Sweden in 2003, blocked and seized, its offices raided, and its three founders fined and jailed."

While EU Copyright Protests Mount, the Proposals Get Even Worse; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), June 1, 2017

Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); While EU Copyright Protests Mount, the Proposals Get Even Worse

"This week, EFF joined Creative Commons, Wikimedia, Mozilla, EDRi, Open Rights Group, and sixty other organizations in signing an open letter [PDF] addressed to Members of the European Parliament expressing our concerns about two key proposals for a new European "Digital Single Market" Directive on copyright.

These are the "value gap" proposal to require Internet platforms to put in place automatic filters to prevent copyright-infringing content from being uploaded by users (Article 13) and the equally misguided "link tax" proposal that would give news publishers a right to compensation when snippets of the text of news articles are used to link to the original source (Article 11)."

Prenda Law principal pleads guilty to federal charges in porn copyright case; ABA Journal, March 7, 2017

Stephanie Francis Ward, ABA Journal; 

Prenda Law principal pleads guilty to federal charges in porn copyright case

"A defendant in the Prenda Law case, which involved alleged shakedowns of people accused of illegally downloading pornography, pleaded guilty Monday to federal conspiracy charges of money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud. 

John L. Steele, the defendant, previously bragged about earning millions from suing people for illegal downloads, the Star Tribune reports. Federal prosecutors claim that Steele and Paul Hansmeier, a Minneapolis attorney, created two fake businesses to acquire copyrights for the pornographic films, some of which they filmed themselves, and posted the materials to file-sharing websites. Then they and other lawyers filed John Doe lawsuits against the downloaders and subpoenaed Internet service providers to identify defendants.

The government asked for a sentence of eight to 10 years. But according to the Star Tribune, prosecutors could agree to something shorter if Steele cooperates with them, which presumably would involve testifying against Hansemeier.

Between April 2011 and December 2012, Steele and Hansmeier, along with lawyers who worked for them, collected more than $6 million in settlements, according to the article."

Appeals Court Gives Internet Service Providers Big Relief in Copyright Disputes; Hollywood Reporter, 6/18/16

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; Appeals Court Gives Internet Service Providers Big Relief in Copyright Disputes:

"On Thursday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a long- and eagerly-awaited opinion in a case brought by major record labels against the video-sharing site Vimeo. The decision will be cheered by those in the tech community by providing some immunization from copyright liability.

Capitol Records and others sued the Barry Diller-owned Vimeo in 2009 — a virtual generation ago in the digital world. At the time, Viacom was fighting with YouTube over how to interpret the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows ISPs to escape copyright claims so long as they remove infringements expeditiously and not have actual knowledge of infringements on their networks. The since-settled YouTube controversy slowed the Vimeo case, which dealt with videos posted of the "lip dub" variety, showing users who choreographed elaborate lip-synching spectacles to popular music. Ultimately, Capitol Records et. al. v. Vimeo figures to be just as important as Viacom v. YouTube...

The case is now remanded back to the district court to sort out, but the decision may save Vimeo tens of millions of dollars in liability, and more importantly, become a new guiding post for copyright owners and digital service providers. Here's the full opinion."

Digital Rights Groups: DMCA Reform Should Target Takedown Abuse, Errors; Intellectual Property Watch, 4/3/16

William New, Intellectual Property Watch; Digital Rights Groups: DMCA Reform Should Target Takedown Abuse, Errors:

"EFF’s written comments were filed as part of a series of studies on the effectiveness of the DMCA, begun by the Copyright Office this year. This round of public comments focuses on Section 512, which provides a notice-and-takedown process for addressing online copyright infringement, as well as “safe harbors” for Internet services that comply.

“One of the central questions of the study is whether the safe harbors are working as intended, and the answer is largely yes,” said EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry. “The safe harbors were supposed to give rightsholders streamlined tools to police infringement, and give service providers clear rules so they could avoid liability for the potentially infringing acts of their users. Without those safe harbors, the Internet as we know it simply wouldn’t exist, and our ability to create, innovate, and share ideas would suffer.”

As EFF also notes in its comments, however, the notice-and-takedown process is often abused. A recent report found that the notice-and-takedown system is riddled with errors, misuse, and overreach, leaving much legal and legitimate content offline. EFF’s comments describe numerous examples of bad takedowns, including many that seemed based on automated content filters employed by the major online content sharing services."

Paper Finds Little Success In ‘Three-Strikes’ IP Enforcement Programmes; Intellectual Property Watch, 9/10/13

Intellectual Property Watch; Paper Finds Little Success In ‘Three-Strikes’ IP Enforcement Programmes: "“Evaluating Graduated Response,” authored by Rebecca Giblin of the Monash University Faculty of Law, is available here. The abstract of the paper reads: “It has been more than three years since the first countries began implementing ‘graduated responses’, requiring ISPs [internet service providers] to take a range of measures to police their users’ copyright infringements. Graduated responses now exist in a range of forms in seven jurisdictions. Right-holders describe them as ‘successful’ and ‘effective’ and are agitating for their further international roll-out. But what is the evidence in support of these claims?” The paper looks at schemes in France, New Zealand, Taiwan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States and evaluates “the extent to which they are actually achieving the copyright law’s aims,” it says."

Start Nears on Plan to Combat Online Infringement; New York Times, 10/18/12

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Start Nears on Plan to Combat Online Infringement: "Last year, five major Internet service providers and the big entertainment trade organizations announced a joint plan to fight illegal downloading through what might be called a strategy of annoyance. Instead of suing people suspected of copyright infringement, as the record labels have in the past, they would prod and poke people into good behavior through a “six strikes” system that escalate from friendly notices in their e-mail to, ultimately, throttled Internet access. Progress has been slow on the project, called the Copyright Alert System, since it was announced 15 months ago. But in a blog post Thursday, the group created to carry out the process said it would finally begin “over the course of the next two months.”"

Op-ed: Imminent "six strikes" Copyright Alert System needs antitrust scrutiny; ArsTechnica.com, 3/18/12

Sean M. Flaim, ArsTechnica.com; Op-ed: Imminent "six strikes" Copyright Alert System needs antitrust scrutiny:

"In her recent book, Consent of the Networked, author Rebecca MacKinnon discusses how many consumers are now residents of "Facebookistan" and "Googledom," reminding us of the power these two companies hold over consumers. But this power pales in comparison to the power exercised over consumers by their local ISPs, which control the very pipes that connect people to Google and Facebook.

Congress is the body that writes laws affecting interstate commerce. Antitrust, at least in part, offers protection against private companies doing the same. Recent reports indicate that the alert system, until now off to a slow start, will soon start affecting Internet users. Once it does, regulators must look closely to make sure the system lives up to its main promise as an educational tool rather than a system of vigilante justice."

Caving to Washington? "Canadian DMCA" expected to pass; ArsTechnica.com, 9/30/11

Matthew Lasar, ArsTechnica.com; Caving to Washington? "Canadian DMCA" expected to pass:

"News accounts say that C-11 is an exact duplicate of Bill C-32, which croaked when the 2010 Parliament dissolved without passing the bill. Now, as then, one of the biggest points of contention will be the provisions regarding "digital locks." These add up to a Canadian version of the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with its DRM anti-circumvention provisions that make a variety of fair dealing (or fair use) activities untenable.

But critics of that portion of the legislation, such as Canadian law professor Michael Geist, suggest that this time around, the government will get its way."

French copyright cops: we're swamped with "three strikes" complaints; ArsTechnica.com, 7/15/11

Timothy B. Lee, ArsTechnica.com; French copyright cops: we're swamped with "three strikes" complaints:

"We can appreciate that Hadopi has a broad mission, but the three strikes program, with its threat to actually disconnect people from the Internet over online infringement, is what has drawn worldwide attention to France's antipiracy program. For example, we've been covering American ISPs' recent tentative steps toward a "graduated response" strategy of their own. Those ISPs took great pains to distinguish their own policies from a French-style 3-strikes plan, promising that they would not spy on their users or disconnect them from the Internet. Disconnection as a sanction has almost come under attack from the United Nations and from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, both of which say the penalty is disproportionate to the offense."

[Editorial] A New Try at Curbing Piracy; New York Times, 6/16/11

[Editorial] New York Times; A New Try at Curbing Piracy:

"It remains to be seen whether the new approach will do better in curbing piracy, which is starting to evolve from BitTorrent downloads — currently the main vehicle of piracy — to streaming and other less detectable techniques. But it is well worth a try."

To Slow Piracy, Internet Providers Ready Penalties; New York Times, 7/7/11

Ben Sisario, New York Times; To Slow Piracy, Internet Providers Ready Penalties:

"Americans who illegally download songs and movies may soon be in for a surprise: They will be warned to stop, and if they don’t, they could find their Internet access slowing to a crawl.

After years of negotiations with Hollywood and the music industry, the nation’s top Internet providers have agreed to a systematic approach to identifying customers suspected of digital copyright infringement and then alerting them via e-mail or other means."

Canadian copyright reform debate turns nasty; Hollywood Reporter, 6/24/10

Etan Vlessing, Hollywood Reporter; Canadian copyright reform debate turns nasty:

"Canadian federal politician James Moore has lashed out at opponents of his made-in-U.S.A. copyright reform package as "radical extremists."

"They will find any excuse to oppose this bill, to drum up fear, to mislead, to misdirect and to push people in the wrong direction and to undermine what has been a year-long comprehensive effort to get something right," Moore, the federal heritage minister in charge of copyright reform, told a G20 Chamber of Commerce gathering in Toronto.

Moore, who is looking to get Bill C-32 and its amendments to the federal Copyright Act into law, has come under attack from artist and consumer advocates for proposing to bar Canadians from picking a digital lock on music, film or any entertainment product protected from duplication

"There are those cited as experts by the media who are not in favor of copyright reform. They are in favor only in weakening legislation, and only gutting tools that would allow those who are investing in and creating jobs to continue to have those jobs," Moore insisted.

"When they speak up, we need to confront them," he added.

But Moore's call to arms met with an immediate barrage of complaints from opposition politicians and copyright reform critics.

Charlie Angus, a broadcast critic for the opposition NDP party, said Moore attacking artists and consumers posing legitimate questions about Bill C-32 was "ridiculous."

"Instead of understanding and appreciating the nuances of balanced copyright, the minister is appearing hyper-defensive and bombastic. I think he needs a time out," Angus said.

Michael Geist, an Internet and e-commerce law professor at the University of Ottawa, in a blog criticized Moore for looking to discredit and confront opponents of his proposed copyright reform package.

"To use his own words, it is an attempt to mislead, misdirect, and undermine what has been more than a year-long effort for Canadians to speak out on copyright," Geist said.

The Canadian mud fight over copyright reform comes as Ottawa looks to get back in Washington's good books after being placed by the U.S. Trade Representative on its "priority watch list" for piracy.

Moore's proposed copyright reforms include a first-time "notice-and-notice" regime where copyright holders can warn Internet service providers of suspected piracy, and the ISP will then be compelled to tell their customer they are breaking the law.

The long-awaited reforms to limit consumer protections will also narrow Canada's fair dealing provision, albeit with extensions for the recording of content for news reporting or parody, for example, if copyright infringement is not intended.

Bill C32 will now go to committee in Ottawa for likely amendments before the Canadian Parliament gets a chance to vote on the new legislation."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/world/news/e3i4398ded06f46a32c46ea40e0f6d0562e

Copyright Law Could Get Ugly If ACTA Is Adopted as Is; IT Business Edge, 5/17/10

Lori Bentley, IT Business Edge; Copyright Law Could Get Ugly If ACTA Is Adopted as Is: Lora Bentley spoke to Jim Burger, an intellectual property attorney in the Washington, D.C., offices of Dow Lohnes, about the proposed Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the impact it would have on the tech industry:

"Bentley: I've read that Internet service providers are concerned about the ACTA treaty, but I'm unclear what in particular they don't like about it. Is it the secondary liability provision?

Burger: Device manufacturers are more concerned about secondary liability than ISPs. The ISPs are primarily concerned about secondary liability where the search engines are concerned. The ISPs are primarily concerned about the safe harbor issue - the section 512 issue.

Generally in their space, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was a very carefully negotiated piece of legislation, gives them a safe harbor for users posting [copyrighted] material on their websites. So their concern, on a macro level, is that the DMCA was a very hard-fought battle. Almost every word mattered. In the ACTA treaty, they have a Reader's Digest version of [the safe harbor provision]. It gives them great concern because liability is huge.

Couple that with a provision in the enforcement section that says, essentially, countries will have predetermined damages. In the United States, it's potentially $150,000 maximum per infringing title, which is significant. For example, in the Viacom YouTube case, Viacom is alleging 100,000 titles. Multiply 100,000 by $150,000 and that's real money even for Google. So that's the problem the ISPs have in a nutshell."

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/interviews/blog/copyright-law-could-get-ugly-if-acta-is-adopted-as-is/?cs=41213

'Hurt Locker' producers about to sue an army of pirates; Hollywood Reporter, 5/11/10

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; 'Hurt Locker' producers about to sue an army of pirates:

"EXCLUSIVE: The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive. We've learned that the producers of the Oscar-winning "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against thousands of individuals who pirated the film online. The case could be filed as soon as tomorrow.

Voltage Pictures, the banner behind the best picture winner, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, the Washington D.C.-based venture that, as we first reported in March, has begun a litigation campaign targeting tens of thousands of BitTorrent users.

According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit should be filed this week. He declines to say exactly how many individuals will be targeted, but expect the number to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. "Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S.

The U.S. Copyright Group has already filed lawsuits over about 10 other films, including Uwe Boll's "Far Cry," "Call of the Wild 3D" and "Uncross the Stars." Reports of those suits raised alarms in some circles, whereas others joked that the movie industry was merely suing those with poor taste.

"You can guess that relative to the films we've pursued already, the order of magnitude is much higher" with "Hurt Locker," says Dunlap, adding that the lawsuit will also cover other Voltage pictures such as "Personal Effects," starring Ashton Kutcher.

If the addition of "Locker" to this litigation campaign could shake things up, so too could news about cooperation by ISPs in this escalating fight.

After filing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs must subpoena ISP records in an effort to match IP addresses with illicit behavior on BitTorrent.

According to lawyers at Dunlap's firm, 75 percent of ISPs have cooperated fully. Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names. But the clock may be ticking. For example, in the lawsuit over "Far Cry," Comcast has until next Wednesday to file motions to quash subpoenas. (Here's the stipulation by the parties.) By the end of next week, thousands of Comcast subscribers could be turned over.

Of the some 50,000 individuals who have been sued thus far, only three have tried to quash the subpoena. In one instance, a Georgia man tried to invoke the state's shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose their sources. The judge denied the motion. In another instance, a woman successfully got a court to throw out the subpoena because her IP address wasn't listed in the original complaint. Unfortunately for her, the complaint was then amended.

After unmasking individuals who have illegally downloaded films, the U.S. Copyright Group then sends a settlement offer.

Lawyers at the firm are seeing some returns on the first two lawsuits filed back in January. About 40 percent have settled, according to the U.S. Copyright Group. Those who haven't settled will be sent another round of settlement offers, and the group promises to eventually serve lawsuits on these individuals.

Since we first broke news about the litigation campaign, Dunlap says he's been besieged by e-mails from 20 to 30 independent film groups that have expressed frustration about rampant piracy and interest in joining up. The firm plans to send people to this month's Festival de Cannes, where they've already arranged meetings with a number of other film producers to discuss further lawsuits."

http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/hurt-locker-producer-to-sue-pirates.html

Spying begins on UK web users; Short Sharp Science Blog, 12/9/09

Paul Marks, Short Sharp Science Blog; Spying begins on UK web users:

"We reported last week on plans to enforce copyright law by forcing internet service providers to spy on consumers to detect and report every piece of copied music, movies, e-books, games and software.

Now one UK ISP, Virgin Media, is trialling some of the technology needed to do that on about 1.6 million of its customers.

Provided by Detica, a subsidiary of defence firm BAE Systems, the system is being used to try and gauge the size of the alleged piracy problem.

CView, as the system is known, will take a snapshot of the scale of peer-to-peer music transfers over a few months.

It will do so by copying every packet of data that passes by, and looking for the digital signatures of data transferred using the popular bittorrent, gnutella, and edonkey file sharing protocols.

Whenever it finds a data packet that matches, it will extract the code these protocols use to identify the contents of the packet.

CView will then compare that code with a database of "musical fingerprints" to identify any music being shared, allowing it to work out if the data packet infringes copyright.

As a result, Virgin will find out how much file-sharing traffic is infringing copyright, and what the most-pirated tracks and albums are, the Register reports.

CView won't be able to finger individual users, because the IP addresses that identify each computer's connection will be stripped from every packet. But some Virgin customers are worried about the potential for it to be used for snooping at a later date.

CView's technology could conceivably be used to identify people accessing certain data, for example.

Or it could block certain content, in much the same way as China's "great firewall".

The anonymisation of the data in Virgin's assessment phase, and the fact that no humans see it, should mean the technology does not count as illegal interception, says Richard Clayton at the University of Cambridge's security lab.But he says on the security group's blog that "it may take some case law before anyone can say for sure"."

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/spying-begins-on-uk-web-users.html

Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing; Guardian, 11/19/09

Charles Arthur, Guardian; Mandelson seeks to amend copyright law in new crackdown on filesharing:

Labour colleagues are concerned business secretary could set precedent that would allow Tories to help Murdoch take on Google

"Lord Mandelson is seeking to amend the laws on copyright to give the government sweeping new powers against people accused of illegal downloading.

But Labour colleagues are concerned that if he succeeds it could give a future Tory government the ability that Rupert Murdoch wants to quash Google.

In a letter to Harriet Harman, the leader of the house and head of the committee responsible for determining changes to such legislation, Mandelson says he is "writing to seek your urgent agreement" to changes to the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act "for the purposes of facilitating prevention or reduction of online copyright infringement".

By writing to Harman, the business secretary is seeking to get the change made through a "statutory instrument" – in effect, an update to the existing bill that the government can push through using its parliamentary majority.

That can be done with the minimum of parliamentary time, which is already at a premium.

The letter, which is circulating inside the government, comes as ministers prepare to publish the digital economy bill at 7.30am tomorrow. That is expected to set out a "three strikes" policy under which people who are found to be illicitly downloading copyrighted material have their internet connections withdrawn after three warnings.

Internet service providers have warned that the scheme is unworkable and unlawful.

The proposed alteration to the Copyright Act would create a new offence of downloading material that infringes copyright laws, as well as giving new powers or rights to "protect" rights holders such as record companies and movie studios – and, controversially, conferring powers on "any person as may be specified" to help cut down online infringement of copyright.

The changes proposed seem small – but are enormously wideranging, given both the breadth of even minor copyright infringement online, where photographs and text are copied with little regard to ownership, and the complexity of ownership.

Mandelson says in his letter that he is concerned about "cyberlockers" – websites that offer users private storage spaces whose contents can be shared by passing a web link via email.

"These can be used entirely legitimately, but recently rights holders have pointed to them as being used for illegal use," Mandelson writes in the letter.

But the proposal to alter the Copyright Act in this way has caused alarm within government, where some fear that an incoming Tory administration could use it to curry favour with Murdoch, head of the News International publishing group.

"They've seen that file-sharing is essentially unpoliceable, but the net effect is that a future secretary of state could change copyright law as they see fit," said one Labour insider.

In his letter, Mandelson sets out the expected reaction from the three groups who would be affected by the changes: rights holders such as record companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and consumers.

"I expect rights holders to welcome this and to support it. ISPs are likely to be neutral until it is clear what effect it will have on them in terms of costs." Consumer groups "are likely to oppose [the move] but will see it may lead to further unquantifiable measures against infringing consumers."

He also expects "a great deal of scrutiny" of the idea in parliament.

Murdoch has recently said that he believes that copyright is being abused, particularly by organisations such as Google, which uses short extracts from online newspapers to create its Google News page, and the BBC, which he has accused of "stealing from newspapers".

Earlier this month Murdoch was vituperative about how search engines have aggregated news. "The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories – they just take them," he said. "That's Google, that's Microsoft, that's Ask.com, a whole lot of people ... They shouldn't have had it free all the time, and I think we've been asleep."

By giving the business secretary the power to amend the Copyright Act at will, Labour fears Mandelson could be creating a Trojan horse that under a Tory administration would allow Murdoch to be rewarded for his support for David Cameron over Gordon Brown, for example by making it illegal to use such extracts from a news site for profit.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business said the department could not comment on correspondence between ministers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/19/mandelson-copyright-filesharing-murdoch-google

Digital divide over filesharing plans; Guardian, 11/20/09

Richard Wray, Guardian; Digital divide over filesharing plans:

"The government's planned crackdown on unlawful online filesharing has been attacked by privacy campaigners and internet service providers but welcomed by executives and artists in the music business.

Earlier today, the government published the digital economy bill, the result of more than a year's consultation and debate, which includes plans to send warnings letters to persistent unlawful file-sharers and paves the way for persistent illegal sharers to have their broadband cut off from 2011...

Some critics have already suggested that the wide definition of online copyright within the bill could leave the door open for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation to use the new legislation to prevent sites such as Google News from linking to his online content.

But music and film companies warmly welcomed the digital economy bill. Christine Payne, general secretary of Equity and chair of the Creative Coalition Campaign, said: "The government is doing the right thing by introducing legal measures aimed at tackling widespread online infringement of creative copyright, such as by peer-to-peer filesharing or other technologies that may emerge in the future."

"Our creative sector provides 1.8 million jobs in the UK and produces world-class content, enjoyed by millions around the world, but simply put, this cannot be sustained and more jobs will be lost if illegal filesharing persists."

Chris Marcich, president and managing director of the Motion Picture Association for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, added that Mandelson's decision to include powers in the bill to further change copyright law in future, were to be welcomed as "safeguards built in that will ensure the effectiveness of the legislation in the long-term"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/20/filesharing-crackdown