Seemingly forgetting its position as little more than a trades group, the BPI has taken it upon itself to start drafting UK legislation.
Surprisingly, they've gone with something designed to tighten up planning legislation in areas near, but not part of, national parks with regard to buildings of more than three stories.
No, no, they haven't. It's an attempt to sneak DCMA style rules in through the backdoor. Just being helpful, you understand:
“Clause 17 [of the Digital Britain bill] is an essential component of the Bill since it provides a mechanism to deal with the increasing threat of illegal downloading from non-P2P sources and other future threats. In light of the ongoing debate on the current draft of Clause 17, we thought it prudent to propose possible alternative approaches, including a straw-man s.97B. However, Clause 17 remains our favoured approach to address forms of online infringement other than P2P filesharing.”
Aha. "Son, I'm delighted that you're thinking about marrying Mary. Mary is my first choice for a daughter-in-law. However, you're wavering, and so - while I really, really want you to marry Mary - I've set you up on a series of blind-dates with all of the Sugababes. Just, you know, to help you make up your mind."
The proposal from the BPI would shift responsibility for policing rights from the people who benefit from the rights to the publisher. You know, like in the way the BPI are trying to shift the costs of policing peer-to-peer material from themselves to the ISPs.
If you drive a taxi, I'd advise you never to pick up a fare from the BPI - you'll arrive at your destination only to be told that you should underwrite the cost of the journey, being as how you've arrived at the location first.