The BPI has started moaning. They say they gave BT details of 100,000 customers they claim are file-sharing without permission, and BT haven't done anything with the information.
100,000? BT only has 4.8 million customers, which means the BPI is claiming 2% of their customers are filesharing to a point where something must be done. (You'll recall there's been suggestions that the music industry would only be interested in pursuing "heavy" uploaders rather than light users.)
BT have said that, much as they'd like to help, that many IP numbers are quite expensive to deal with:
Petter said he fears that the anti-piracy process could cost ISPs a staggering £365m a year – £165m a year more than the £200m the BPI says the industry will lose to online music piracy in 2009. The BT boss went on to label the BPI’s losses assessment as “melodramatic.”
Well, if the BPI are going to send so many demands, the figure of £365million isn't too extravagant - presumably Carphone Warehouse and Virgin customers would be roughly as evil, so we'd be expecting around a third of a million contacts to have to be made. That implies quite a few full-time jobs, and a lot of administration. The BPI isn't having a bit of it:
Geoff Taylor, chief executive of BPI, is now hitting back, claiming that Petter has exaggerated his figures too.[...]
“It’s shameful for a company like BT to know that a high percentage of the traffic it carries is illegal material but do nothing,” Taylor told The Mirror. “If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business.”
Is it? Really? Or is that rubbish? Is there any other business which expects someone else to fund the cost of its own security measures?
[Thanks to Michael M for the link]