Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Abandons Piracy Legislation
arcticstoat writes "Following last year's reports of a scheme to 'ban' pirates from the Internet via ISPs in the UK, it looks as though the UK government has now decided to back down on the plan, saying that it hopes it won't have to apply 'the heavy hand of legislation'. The UK's Intellectual Property Minister, David Lammy, said that 'I'm not sure it's actually going to be possible,' as a result of the complexities of enforcing such legislation. Lammy also revealed that he had a different opinion on file sharers than many people in the music industry. He pointed out that there's a big difference between organized counterfeiting gangs and 'younger people not quite buying into the system'. He added that 'we can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap — there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television.'"
First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government? Pinch me!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
it looks as though the UK government has now decided to back down on the plan, saying that it hopes it won't have to apply 'the heavy hand of legislation'.
Call me stupid but I was kind of hoping they would pass legislation and attempt to arrest a 100,000 people--flooding their legal system with 'guilty' file sharers and stealing valuable time from police officers who should be focusing on real threats to society.
You know, it's not until they actually try to rigidly enforce this that they'll realize that the premise of "stealing from the IFPI/MPAA/RIAA" is utter bullshit. They'll be arresting (hopefully Brazil style) large numbers of students that have no money and finding that the file sharing they were doing did not supplant an imaginary source of spending. They'll also cripple their legal system to try to reprimand people from "stealing" something that isn't physical.
I'm not supporting illegal file sharing, I'm not condoning it, I am just hoping that they try to enforce something this stupid so they realize they are in no way providing a solution to a fix an archaic business model threatened by amazing new communications technology.
My work here is dung.
They just ran out of money, that's all.
"'we can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms."
Why not? We do it here daily in the USA.
we also financially ruin their families just for good measure as well.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
a sensible politician in UK ? i wouldnt expect to see that after last 8 years !
Read radical news here
... "then try try again", as the old saying goes.
...
So, "First outbreak of common sense by the Uk government". Its not common sense. They just plan to use a bigger net to catch people with.
In other words, Jacqui Smith's team of control freaks will be able to watch everyone (and then punish) via their much bigger plans to monitor all Internet communications, i.e
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/18/imp_tim_hayward/
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
The problem always was, Company A complaining about person P to Company B, who then has to refuse P service. If you think about it from B's point of view, do they check or not? If not, what if they get it wrong and get sued - does A indemnify them? Further, from the Government's point of view. There are some services which are reasonably considered essential, and which, if you are denied them, may be more damaging to your quality of life than some criminal sentences. Yet in the case of the criminal law sanctions, the Human Rights legislation (entered into by this Government) demands due process and open hearings of the evidence. Where would that be in the present case?
To see the absurdity of it, and why it would not fly, consider the following case. The country is in the grip of smoking hysteria. Suppose we pass a law that on three accusations of buying tobacco for minors, a person must be denied access to his local supermarket. Suppose there is only one. His ability to buy food at a reasonable price and selection is being abridged solely on an unsupported allegation, the evidence for which does not even to have to be presented to him. No judge is involved.
In the UK we have anti social behaviour orders. These enable magistrates to order almost anything - like barring people from certain streets, certain associations or meetings, some behaviour. But even these, you do have to get an order from a magistrate. When you think about it, the proposal would be giving the record industry the power to disconnect anyone they chose from the internet with no reason given, no hearing, no comeback, not even a magistrate being informed.
It was never going to fly. The EC Charter guarantees access to information. This sort of measure is totally incompatible with it. It is going to be down to old fashioned policing and prosecution if they want to stamp out file sharing in violation of copyright. Yes, it will be expensive and time consuming. And yes, it may not work, or may not be worth working. And yes, maybe they would be better off revising their business model. But if they don't want to revise, that's the only way. Very glad the government has seen the cliff in time, and stopped. Not that you could really miss it, it was pretty obvious. The only people who would have enjoyed it would have been the lawyers, blowing up case after case with unconcealed glee!
I'm left speechless. It's as if someone with an ounce of intelligence has cunningly infiltrated their way in.
Someone in British government with a clue, this really should be headline news in every paper.
No doubt Jacqui Smith will implement emergency legislation and have him shot by firing squad ASAP on terrorism charges now however.
The law, as I understand it was proposed, would have made ISPs responsible for monitoring their networks and enforcing the law, which ain't their job.
All this does is open the way for a properly appointed government body to do it.
Bugger.
His work as an MP http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/15560 and his works as a Minister of State http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=David_Lammy&mpc=Tottenham & http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=David+Lammy&p=4 - indeed a busy man.
People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap â" there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television
In other words, it's fine to steal things as long as they're of low value. I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.
Bear in mind the Gower's report on copyright terms that was an independent review on what was best for the country. The report fed back that 50 years as is is fine, but less would be better.
Both the Conservatives and Labour outright ignored this independent report that they commissioned in the first place and still decided to push for 70 years.
This could just as well end up the same. Unfortunately common sense holds no place in the corrupt halls of British parliament. Why follow the recommended route and gain nothing when you can just vote for harsh punishments and get all sorts of goodies and incentives from the music and movie industry? That's how most of them see it. It aint just the Lords that's corrupt, I felt David Cameron's comment the other day that he'd put someone from the creative industries (music, movies, books, advertising) in charge of Britain's broadband future quite telling- I mean really, what the hell qualifications do the creative industries have for solving what are basically technological problems?
Wow it really is a sudden outbreak of common sense... I am shocked. Then again, it would be 10x more amazing if it were the US dropping the DMCA...
we can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap - there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television.
But if you DO leave with the TV you get to go to another hotel and this time the soap comes on a rope!
Government - If you think the problems we create are bad, you should see our solutions!
Did this guy just equate the value of a song to a bar of hotel soap?
BWHAHAHAHAHAH
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.
I'm trying to imagine a way they could prove you stole the soap.
Maybe they could simply decide that if the soap wasn't there after you were gone, you surely stole it. And if that event happened three times, they could permanently ban you from all hotels.
:(
>In other words, it's fine to steal things as long as they're of low value.
More importantly and relevantly, it's fine to steal music, since it's no worse than stealing a bar of hotel soap.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Dude. Weak. The Register?! You may as well be referencing Fox News, I've never read anything in the register that wasn't bleeding of oversensationalisation and regularly hit spots where they obviously haven't even made a slight attempt at verifying their story elements. The Register isn't a reliable source of anything, please don't spread their panic stories, you can do so much better I promise you.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
So, given AT&T and Comcast colluding with the RIAA now, it sounds like now would be a great time for somebody in the UK to set up an encrypted VPN connection, available to folks for a nominal monthly fee.
I swear, I'm starting to consider subscribing to one and routing all of my traffic through it permanently. I am sick of these fuckers pawing through my traffic looking for evidence of wrongdoing.
If I were the content side of this struggle, I would encode a serial number tag somewhere in the DVD. Change it around so often that people have to spend >1 hour finding it. Make it spread-spectrum. Then when the DVD is stolen, the RIAA can return it to you.
Society is better off if we don't prosecute crimes of low value or low impact, but rather leave it to citizens to work out between themselves.
I'm thinking that class action law suits exist for the case where one big guy illegally squeezes a little bit of blood out of a large number of small guys.
None of the small guys have an incentive to file suit (because each individual act is too small to be worth it), but if they all go together there's only one per-case overhead and so it will be worth it.
I'm not sure how I'm best served as the hotel owner (big guy) in that case. Oh well, I could just write the stolen soap off as the cost of doing business, and charge my customers a bit more. That's of course not just towards the honest customers, but it's the cheapest justice I can give them.
The UK's Intellectual Property Minister...
Someone at the IFPI or the RIAA has dropped the ball. They either bought the wrong guy or they didn't pay enough - one of the two.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
Because well it seems that UK doesn't have much in the way of privacy
Of all the potential legislation that the government have been talking about over the last few months, this music industry stuff reeks of lobbyists doing whatever they can to gain influence in Westminster. And what has been in the headlines in the UK the last few days? Ah yes, allegations that unelected members of the House of Lords are being paid by lobbyists to table amendments to UK law. Maybe there's a hurried shakedown going of this kind of overly "lobbied" legislation - before a pesky journalist joins the dots while the legislation is still on the table.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
Don't know about anyone else, but every time I've been to a hotel, they always have brand new soap bars laid out. Who would like to go to a hotel and find they have not changed the soap? Such a joy to pick the previous occupant's pubes off before you wash. I'm definitely coming back here again.
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
Given that there is some very real *piracy* occurring in the seas near Somalia, perhaps this might be a good time for this note.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy
âoePiracyâ
Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as âoepiracy.â In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)
If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word âoepiracyâ to describe it. Neutral terms such as âoeunauthorized copyingâ (or âoeprohibited copyingâ for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead.
Eircom adapts this voluntarily.
Reminds me of the speed cameras - after years, just as the UK discovers that speed cameras do essentially nothing for road safety, Ireland plans to hand out a license to private companies to get hundreds installed.
I hate some of the stuff on this Island.
"Your "conclusion" is that as it was said by The Register, then its wrong."
You're just making stuff up. I take it you didn't do that going back and reading it thing? My conclusion was that as it's written by the register, it's over sensationalised. I said they often don't bother checking their facts, which means that they're not a reliable source, as there is a high chance that you'll be reading something that hasn't been verified, which means a greater chance of errors being published, which means a greater chance of you reading something that is wrong. You seem to not understand basic logic. 'Often', and 'increased chance of', does not say that anything is always that thing. Of course you can find examples of things they've said that are correct. That does *not* invalidate a claim of 'often' to the inverted claim.
You're throwing around terms like 'straw man' because you're hoping that the meaning and connotations attached to such terms can help prove your point, where they don't, they are merely erronous conclusions based of faulty observations.
My original post was obviously a post about the quality of the opinions posed as facts in the register. Anyone who goes to that site should know that they're not a reliable source and additional verification is required... or you could just skip the register step, and go straight to where you'd've been verifying the facts and get them first hand, not twisted to fit the panic drive they use in their reports.
Please don't repeat yourself with this made up claim I'm saying that it must be wrong if it's the register, it just demonstrates your ignorance, and I don't think I can explain how what I'm saying isn't that any clearer. If you cannot respond to reason, then there's no point me saying anything other than "you're wrong", as you'd have proven that you will read what you want to read rather than what is written, anything further would be futile.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
>4) MATERIALS are PROPERTY and INFORMATION is NOT.
Yes, yes, I have heard this countless times before. Copying music is not stealing since the original still exists.
But from the perspective of the person who owns it, the effect is the same. Whether you physically took the object from me or not, by copying it without paying for it you have reduced its value to zero.
I also find the argument that information is not property a bit sketchy. For example, I consider my medical information my property and consequently I would, can, and do place limits on how that information is disseminated.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>How is your copy's value reduced to zero? Neither copy is of zero value at any point,
>since either copy may be sold (legally or illegally) for real value.
Since copies can be obtained for free, while in theory either copy can be sold, as a practical matter no one will want to buy it for any meaningful sum. It's simple supply and demand. As supply trends towards infinity, price trends towards zero.
[b]Your value comes from the ability/"legal right" to distribute information, not from the information itself.[/b]
The value of any given item, at least in terms of /monetary/ value, is determined by supply and demand.
>Information by itself is invaluable, it's the withholding of information that can have a debt instead, are you following the basics here?
No, I have no idea what you meant by your last statement.
>If I were to create a glut of availability for your information (eg distribute it for free),
>that would be violating your property rights - because you OWN the RIGHT to distribute
>that information, see? Not because you own the information itself.
This is semantics from my point of view. Whether I own the rights to distribute the item or whether I own the item itself, when infinite copies are available for free no one will pay me either way.
>When it comes to a particular song the same effect comes into play. If I just steal the song,
>I haven't hurt you. It's not until I start distributing that there is a problem.
Of course. I thought this is what we were talking about?
>But here the problem is confounded by the idea that leeching is bad, so your ;) anyway, enjoy...
>social mores against leaching(eg, pay for what you get) lead you to DISTRIBUTE
>the data as well!! The morality is really screwed up if you follow it around
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
>Your medical information is not your property just because you have the right to control it.
>You have the right to control its dissemination to some small extent (you can prevent the public
>from seeing it, sometimes, if they aren't very interested). That doesn't make it property.
>That just means you have rights associated with it.
By your definition, it seems nothing can be viewed as property.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I'm sorry you were unable to articulate your argument better.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
"My conclusion was that as it's written by the register, it's over sensationalised."
... You still can't see its irrelevant that its *also* written about in The Register. Key word, ALSO. In other words, there are OTHER sources of the SAME news.
... No, its still 2+2=4
You just don't listen do you
"I said they often don't bother checking their facts"
Then you *keep making* the same mistakes as The Register makes, as you also fail to check the facts. There are OTHER sources of the SAME news and you would see this, if you did check the facts, but you are stuck in a loop talking about The Register and so failing to see you are missing the important point.
The important point is that it was true. What The Register usually says or does is irrelevant, the news was still true.
If Hitler had said, 2+2=4 then would that be wrong because an evil tyrant had said it?
In the same way, just because a news site you hate says something, doesn't automatically make everything they say wrong.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.