Rupert Goodwins, technology expert and editor of ZD Net in the BBC studio

Internet service providers (ISPs) have reacted with anger to new proposals on how to tackle internet piracy.

The government is proposing a tougher stance which would include cutting off repeat offenders from the net.

UK ISP Talk Talk said the recommendations were likely to "breach fundamental rights" and would not work.

Virgin said that "persuasion not coercion" was key in the fight to crack down on the estimated six million file-sharers in the UK.

TalkTalk's director of regulation Andrew Heaney told the BBC News the ISP was as keen as anyone to clamp down on illegal file-sharers.

"This is best done by making sure there are legal alternatives and educating people, writing letters to alleged file-sharers and, if necessary, taking them to court.

If Lord Mandelson really 'doesn't get the internet', you can be sure that there will be plenty of people now offering to educate him Rory Cellan-Jones

But introducing measures to simply cut people off will not work, he said.

"Disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection," he added.

There are also concerns that the method of identifying offenders using the IP address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection.

A spokeswoman for Virgin Media was concerned that a "heavy-handed, punitive regime will simply alienate consumers".

It was also concerned about the costs of implementing such a system.

Listening carefully

Originally the Digital Britain report, published in June, gave Ofcom until 2012 to consider whether technical measures to catch pirates were necessary.

However, according to a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills released on Tuesday, that timeframe is now considered "too long to wait".

ILLEGAL FILE-SHARING File-sharing is not illegal. It only becomes illegal when users are sharing content, such as music, that is protected by copyrights The crackdown will be aimed at people who regularly use technologies, such as BitTorrent, and websites, such as The Pirate Bay, to find and download files There are plenty of legitimate services which use file-sharing technology such as some on-demand TV services Q&A: Disconnecting file-sharers

Stephen Timms, minister for Digital Britain, explained the change of heart.

"We've been listening carefully to responses to the consultation this far, and it's become clear there are widespread concerns that the plans as they stand could delay action, impacting unfairly upon rights holders," he said.

It proposes that internet service providers (ISPs) are obliged to take action against repeat infringers and suggests that the cost of tracking down persistent pirates be shared 50:50 between ISPs and rights holders.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills denied that it had changed its position since the publication of Digital Britain and said that the recommendations were open to consultation.

"We are simply adding new ideas to the table that could potentially make the whole system more flexible and provide a quicker way to bring in technical measures," it said in a statement.

'Disproportionate'

ISPs have repeatedly argued that it is not their job to police the web.

The Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) said it was "disappointed by the proposal to force ISPs to suspend users' accounts".

HAVE YOUR SAY

By all means fine those who download illegally, but to cut them off from the internet would be taking away the right to free speech and communication

Janet Shaw, Romford, UK

Send us your comments

"The solution to the piracy problem must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive."

"ISPA and consumer groups consider disconnection of users to be a disproportionate response, a view that was recently supported by the European Parliament," it said in a statement.

European politicians recently ruled that cutting off someone's internet connection could be a breach of their human rights. The challenge came in response to France's tough policy on file-sharers.

ISPA also said that the changes had been proposed "without consultation with the internet industry".

Global issue

However, the proposal has been welcomed by some.

BPI, which represents the recorded music industry in Britain, welcomed the government's decision.

"'Digital piracy is a serious problem and a real threat to the UK's creative industries," it said in a statement.

FROM THE PM PROGRAMME More from PM

Countries around the world are grappling with how to control internet piracy. In the US, student Joel Tenebaum, who has admitted downloading 800 songs, was last month ordered to pay $675,000 (£412,000) to various record labels after being found guilty on 31 charges of sharing music online.

In May, the French parliament passed legislation which would see a new state-agency sending warning letters to file sharers. If they are caught three times, they will be cut off.

There have been protests against similar proposed legislation in Australia and New Zealand.

It is estimated that half of all the traffic on the net in the UK being content that is shared illegally.

The UK government has set a target of reducing the problem by at least 70% in the next few years.

The games industry has already begun a clampdown of those illegally sharing videogames and the methods it uses would broadly be similar to those the music and film industry would rely on.

It uses a third body anti-piracy firm to identify alleged file-sharers and a court order is sent to the relevant internet service provider, forcing it to reveal the identity of the person behind the IP address.

Around 6,000 letters have been sent out by law firm ACS Law on behalf of firms such as Reality Pump and Topware Interactive who own video games Two Worlds and Dream Pinball respectively.

Some 20 users have come forward to say they have been wrongly accused. All face fines of up to £665 or threat of court action.

Bookmark with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• reddit
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon

What are these?

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

The government rejected advice from its expert advisers on swine flu, who said there was no need for the widespread use of Tamiflu and suggested that the public should simply be told to take paracetamol.

An independent panel set up by the Department of Health warned ministers that plans to make the stockpiled drug widely available could do more harm than good, by helping the flu virus to develop resistance to the drug.

But ministers pressed ahead with a policy of mass prescription, fearing the public would not tolerate being told that the millions of doses of Tamiflu held by the state could not be used during a pandemic, one of the committee members has told the Guardian.

"It was felt ... it would simply be unacceptable to the UK population to tell them we had a huge stockpile of drugs but they were not going to be made available," Professor Robert Dingwall, a member of the Committee on Ethical Aspects of Pandemic Influenza, said.

Professor Hugh Pennington warns of a drug-resistant swine flu strain
Link to this audio

Today one of the country's foremost flu experts called for the national helpline to be shut down to stop hundreds of thousands of doses of Tamiflu going out in an unregulated way, which could render it useless when a more dominant strain returns in the autumn.

As it became clear that the current outbreak only had mild symptoms, the committee recommended that antivirals should only be given to those in high risk categories, like pregnant women or people with existing respiratory illnesses. It suggested the government explain to people that they would not be given medicine they did not need and should use off-the- shelf flu treatments.

"There were discussions within the Health Protection Authority and the Department of Health, once it became clear that swine flu was a relatively mild infection, about whether to reserve antivirals for high-risk groups and to advise the general population to treat themselves with paracetamol or ibuprofen," said Dingwall, director of the Institute for Science and Society at Nottingham University.

"Some people wanted to take a long-term view of the risk of resistance developing and to seek to preserve the effectiveness of antivirals for the next pandemic, which may be more severe."

Last month, the government launched the national pandemic flu service which authorised more than 511,000 courses of Tamiflu and Relenza treatment during its first fortnight in operation.

Oxford University researchers have warned that antivirals are not a "magic bullet" against flu, and that resistance to the drug could develop, making it useless to fight any future and potentially more serious pandemic flu strain.

The concern was seconded by flu expert Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor at Aberdeen University, who called for the national flu line to be shut down.

"I am concerned about the vast amount of Tamiflu that is going out almost unregulated," he told the Guardian. "We are increasing the possibility that the flu will become resistant sooner or later. At the moment there is no desperate need for Tamiflu. We should be reconsidering its issue, rather than encouraging its use.

"I think we should stop the national pandemic flu service. It was put there for an outbreak of far higher mortality than we have. If you get a resistant strain that becomes dominant in the autumn, Tamiflu will then be useless."

A senior government adviser, Prof Peter Openshaw, said the government was told during the early stages of the current outbreak of the "significant side effects" that Tamiflu was causing in some people.

"I think there was, in some quarters, a slight over-optimism about the acceptability of prophylactic medication and its effectiveness," said Openshaw, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. "Maybe some of the less clinical scientific advisers perhaps slightly over-inflated expectations of the ease and efficiency of antiviral treatment. Many of us who do clinical work and are clinically trained had a bit more of a jaundiced view of how things may turn out."

Openshaw said antivirals were effective only if used within 36 to 48 hours of symptoms developing. "If the treatment is delayed they are relatively ineffective.

"On the other hand, we do have this large stockpile available and I think there is an advantage in trying to treat cases early, in order to reduce the severity and the number of patients who end up needing hospital care."

Such a policy could "blunt" a spike of cases, reducing pressure on health resources, he said.

The pandemic ethical committee was set up at the request of Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, to assist planners and policy makers with ethical aspects of decisions they face in a pandemic, such as how to allocate scarce drugs when many people are sick.

At its last meeting in May, when it was already becoming clear that the current H1N1 strain was causing a relatively mild disease in most people, the committee discussed the government's antiviral strategy.

Members feared that the widespread use of antivirals in the current outbreak was incompatible with the principle of minimising harm, minutes from the meeting show. The current outbreak did not alter the risk of a more serious flu pandemic developing in the future. There would be ethical concerns if the blanket use of antivirals compromised their effectiveness in the future.

Members said it was important to use antivirals in the most appropriate way, not just because the government had a stockpile of the drugs. The committee called on the government to explain to the public that they were no cure for flu.

The committee concluded that it would be appropriate to offer antivirals as treatment only for those in risk groups, or with underlying conditions.

In a statement, the Department of Health said: "Protecting the public is the prime concern of our strategy, which has been shaped by advice from the most eminent specialists from the beginning.

"There is still doubt about how swine flu affects people – a safety-first approach is the best approach. This means offering antivirals when required. However, we will keep this policy under review as we learn more about the virus and its effects. This is in line with the views of both the Committee on Ethical Aspects of Pandemic Influenza and of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. AMBROSE BIERCE