Talking of government agencies to police online piracy, mobile and internet firm Orange are not thrilled by the idea of such an agency being launched here in the UK.
As previously reported, some sort of independent body to monitor the protection of intellectual property rights online, maybe or maybe not aligned to media regulator OfCom, but most likely paid for by interested industries, was proposed in the recent 'Digital Britain' report produced by the government's Comms Minister Lord Carter. As also previously reported, the government's IP Office has begun a consultation on what form such a body might take.
In reality the body would sit between content owners, such as record companies, film studios and TV producers, and content distributors, in particular the internet service providers. It might have a primarily coordinating role, assisting in the creation of voluntary codes between the various industries, ie encouraging more talks like those that are already underway between the major labels and the ISPs. Or it might have proper powers and an actual anti-piracy policing role - so that if the three-strike system was introduced over here (not that the government is currently seriously considering it) this agency would manage any disconnection penalties.
For the record companies, who had hoped that 'Digital Britain' might propose more specific obligations on the part of ISPs in policing piracy than just helping them obtain the real identities of suspected file-sharers so they can take legal action against them, should they wish to, the proposed Rights Agency is potentially a way of getting more severe measures against piracy into the debate - ie give the agency power, and the music and film industries' anti-piracy efforts might have more bite.
Presumably aware of this, Orange, in its general response to the 'Digital Britain' report, is very against the idea of the rights agency, reckoning that it will exist primarily for the content owner's benefit, but partly at their expense. They write: "We do not think it is appropriate for our industry to fund a rights agency that would only be to the benefit of the rights-holders. This would ultimately become an 'anti-piracy tax' on all consumers, whether or not they infringe. Orange does not understand why one industry should be asked to fund the protection of another industry's commercial interests".
Even though it's not mentioned in Carter's report, nor is it within the remit of the proposed Rights Agency, Orange also specifically referenced the three-strike proposal, remarking: "This proposed solution, which is still strongly advocated by the music industry despite public statements to the contrary, cuts across basic principles of common law, user rights and ISPs' legitimate commercial interests and would fail a straightforward cost-benefit analysis".
They conclude: "The real key to combating unlawful file-sharing and copyright infringement online is (a) education and (b) the development and popularisation of legitimate and compelling content distribution business models".
I'm not sure what that means for the chances of a Rights Agency being launched any time soon. It certainly suggests that ISPs like Orange are not that keen on compromising with the record companies - either through the two industries' current talks, or any future rights agency talks - on being any more proactive in the fight against online piracy over and above the warning letters they have already agreed to send out to suspected file sharers.
To be honest, and assuming they are still committed to ISP-action to stop piracy, it seems increasingly likely that the record industry may have to demand that the government, who have made past commitments to legislate on this matter, and in tougher ways than proposed in 'Digital Britain', come good on those commitments. Though I think we all know - and the ISPs are certainly relying on this - that the government isn't going to want to introduce draconian new laws that could lead to people losing their internet connection in the run up to the next General Election.