Slashdot Mirror
UK "Creative Industries" Call For File-Sharers Ban
siloko writes "An alliance of so-called 'Creative Industries,' including the UK Film Council, have signed a joint statement asking the UK government to force ISPs into banning users caught sharing illegally. In an 'unprecedented joint statement,' the alliance predicted a 'lawless free-for-all' unless the government ensured the 'safe and secure delivery of legal content.' The previous tactic of pursuing individual file-sharers in the courts appear to have been abandoned. 'Instead, [the government] should provide enabling legislation, for the specific measures to be identified and implemented in an Industry Code of Practice,' it recommends. One wonders how they remain 'creative' in their vocation when they keep on trotting out the same old story backed up by imaginary statistics (they claim 50% of net traffic in the UK is illegal content but provide no evidence for this figure). The BBC also has a blog entry dissecting their statement."
Didn't the European Parliament just rule that this sort of thing was illegal?
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
The only creativity in this situation seems to be that involved in pulling numbers and "legal" justifications out of one's ass.
Also, is the phrase "the government should provide enabling legislation, for specific measures to be identified and implemented..." equal parts vague and sinister, or what?
... you should not make the law stricter, you should change the law.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Is file sharing. Rather than waste time trying to fight this, find ways to work with it. Look at what Apple did with their music store, even in the days of "piracy" they're still doing quite well for themselves. Digital distribution is here to stay, rather than go after people downloading illegally, give them a reason and easy means to acquire your product. I know lots of people that pirate, and when they find something they like, they buy it. Funny how that works like that...
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
They claim that 800,000 jobs are threatened, with the loss of £112 bn in jobs and sales?
Money doesn't just disappear like that. If a file-sharer doesn't buy media and downloads it instead, they have more money to go see a movie, or have a nice meal at a restaurant - whatever. The money is still used in the economy, just not in same industry as media.
To suggest that filesharers are causing an 8% drop in GDP is idiotic, as well as the 50% of all traffic is illegal. And they want to ban illegal filesharers? Ok, lets ban half the population of the UK from surfing the net, or more!
Let's see how your sales drop after that pal.
The banning of people from ISPs without due process of law (i.e. a hearing in the courts) is the antithesis of a democratic Republic. It is a nullification of human rights philosophy. It is the return of a class system where Monarchs and Nobility rule by default in the United Kingdom.
Bravo conservatives! If you succeed, you will have wrestled control away from the people. It took 200 years but you finally succeeded in turning the people back into mere commoners, to be declared "guilty" with a mere flick of a noble parliamentarian's effeminate wrist. No jury by your peers. No defense of liberty.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Isn't the Internet a "lawless free-for-all" anyway? On one hand, you have commerce sites like Amazon and Newegg, news sites like the New York Times et al, government sites, and so on. On the other, though, you have plenty of sites out there -- and plenty of people -- who are basically outlaws. But for all that, the Internet works. If this "alliance of creative industries" doesn't want to play ball, they should yank out their LAN cables and go home.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Over the past decade or so, I've watched companies freak out over source code becoming more and more available to the recipients of software. First it was Java and how "easy" it was to decompile. Then it was HTML/Javascript and how easy it was for someone to steal unobfuscated code. Nowadays, practically every bit of compiled code is easy to reverse.
Invariably, this caused managers to attempt to buy into bizarre technical solutions to "protect" their investments. Which was ridiculous. The correct hammer to use was a legal one. If someone stole your code and tried to hide it (which isn't easy to do successfully, as the GPL violators can testify), the correct hammer is a legal one. It's much easier to legally go after someone dumb enough to steal code rather than running around like chicken little trying to protect something that's inherently unprotectable.
Fast forward to today, where the core concern is content and the theft thereof. Again, the industry tried the technological hammer (DRM) and predictably failed. Now they're trying the legal hammer. Which is only partially a correct tool to use. Yes, feel free to root out the pirate organizations. But for the vast majority of the users, the real solution is proper paid access to the content.
I remember when MP3s first came into existence. I said then, "The music companies should sell their music online. That would prevent people from illegally distributing MP3s." As expected, the music industry was not going to go that direction. What happened? Well, the market found what it wanted: Napster. And the music industry lost BIG TIME. A service like Napster with fees for song downloads could have been huge. But instead, the industry allowed the public to get a taste of the "free" mentality.
Even so, it's still possible to reverse the effects. (To some degree.) The correct solution is to continue embracing digital distribution. Offer a fair product at a fair price and people will pay for it. For the vast majority of users, their time is worth more than tooling around trying to find the content they're interested in. But as long as companies make it worth more to run through virus-laden torrent sites than to download off of their websites or iTunes, then consumers will go for the virus-laden torrent sites.
Welcome to the new competition media industry. For the first time ever, you have to compete. And guess what? You're competing against yourselves. ;-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Innocent until proven guilty.
In the 19th century the invention of the automobile was delayed by restrictive legislation in Britain. File sharing may well be the future if the internet, I agree with you in that, but a legislation that tries to freeze the past could delay considerably the progress.
To suggest that filesharers are causing an 8% drop in GDP is idiotic, as well as the 50% of all traffic is illegal. And they want to ban illegal filesharers? Ok, lets ban half the population of the UK from surfing the net, or more!
Their argument is self-defeating. If 50% of people are really file-sharing, and they want all those people banned from using the Internet... well, just imagine what would happen to the economy if 50% of Internet-users were forced to stop using the Internet. These are people who are supporting numerous businesses with their web browsing (e.g. ads), purchasing products online, running their own businesses using the Internet, etc. Imagine the number of lost sales, the number of jobs lost, the number of small-business bankruptcies... (Not to mention other economic disruptions: e.g. people less productive at work because they can't web-browse at home; the creation of a black-market for net access.)
The UK GDP would take a far greater hit from 50% of their net-using population being forced off the net than it does from the same 50% illegally sharing some content.
Not a panacea, unfortunately. Suppose I connect to a torrent, and begin downloading. My communication with the tracker site is done via SSL. My communications with all peers are also encrypted. Nobody can tell what I'm doing, right?
Well, er... not quite. Anybody can connect to the same torrent, and they can connect to peers as well. Then all they have to do is nslookup the IP numbers, identify the ISP, and then with the ISP's cooperation they can get my personal details.
You could use systems like Freenet to get deniability in this matter, but that's still pretty slow. And you might not be happy about the high statistical likelihood that your computer will be serving cp.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The only sure way to end this is with a bullet to the head of RIAA. I guarantee his replacement will back-off from the policy of sending 5000 dollar "pay else or else" extortionate letters and dragging citizens into court, if only because he's scared he might get shot too. Nothing works better to keep the leaders under control than an unruly populace willing to protect their basic rights (like a trial by jury).
"What matter a few deaths in the course of a century? From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with blood... let the citizens take-up arms." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This story started the day being reported sympathetically by the bbc and others. Thankfully they have since updated their stance to include the views of ISPs, the people who would have to implement this measure (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8046028.stm). They rightly point out that such a move is impossible and disproportionate, "Ispa members have consistently explained that significant technological advances would be required if these measures are to reach a standard where they would be admissible as evidence in court." I particularly like the use of "in court" here. We all know what often happens when file sharing cases actually get to a judge who understands technology
They are artists, creative people. They should be in the forefront of the development of human culture. Then they base their business model on certain technological limitations. That is bad in the first place, but then, when the limitations are overcome, they try to force the limitations back, just so they won't have to adapt to a new reality. That's not very artistic. With that kind of attitude, I'm not sure I want their stuff, for free or not. Then again, I hope very few actual artists think in this way. I guess it is the industry people, who are very rich and conservative, and want to stay rich and conservative.
Nobles, Romans, Geeks, lend me your ears. This is not going away. They will not stop, no matter how many times they are proven wrong. No matter how many times they are slapped down by the courts. They will keep coming at us, and they will never stop. They have a lot of money, and they think they have it all to lose. The only solution is to disappear.
Start working on your darknet, today. The only way out is to become invisible.
There are others, and I think this one shows promise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2P
I am not advocating copyright infringement. I don't think you should use a darknet to break the law. But you absolutely should do what you can to make your Internet behavior inscrutable. It is none of their business, but they will keep monitoring you, and finding new things you are doing to outlaw, until they own you, or you disappear.
This, copyright infringement, is only one tiny piece. It is not the only field in which you are being watched, and it is far from the most dangerous one. The only way to protect free speech and free association is to make your speech and association impossible to observe.
Now go, and actively engage in the hard work of being free.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Any time there is a call for:
enabling legislation,
it always seems to turn out like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I know lots of people that pirate, and when they find something they like, they buy it.
And I know plenty of people, and many sub-people, who pirate with no intention of ever buying it. They collect digital files of music they don't like, books they can't read, even pictures they don't understand, all for purposes of uploading them to thousands of strangers for the odd reason that it makes their dick grow to be such a big "contributor" to the "community"
Not at all. 84% of the UK population spend time writing sums in the little book they've got concealed in an alcove next to their TV.
Its our politicians gleefully rubbing their hands at each erosion of freedom, and the population is too broken, demoralised, and drunk, to do anything about it.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Then encrypt the IP numbers!
I can't believe no one has thought of that before!
(yeah, yeah, I'll hand my card into reception on the way out)
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Also, file sharing really improves our standard of living. Instead of spending money on an overpriced product, we are now able to use this money on something else. In terms of pure economics, this is a huge productivity boost!
Regardless of your position on copyright infringement, the content lobby, and IP in general, there is a growing merger of the content lobby with those opposed to freedom of speech and communication. And not just the bs apolitical kind of speech (that should still be free, courts be damned), but now political speech. Sure, at first just anyone who's allegedly infringing. Then, people showing you how to infringe (doom9) will be cut off. Then people just expressing opinions on IP. Then, after people's attention has been diverted from the scandal, people who are opposed to sex offender registries, or no fly lists, or whatever will be denied net access.
The same tech that lets you post relatively anonymously and organize with your countrymen will also allow you to post the AACS key. The same tech that allows you to upload origins.avi also allows you to share video of the Tiannamen square standoff or the assault on the Branch Davidian compound.
So either speech and communication are free for both infringement and for politics, or they are not free for either.
Btw, in tfa, the head of the film council uses the argument that infringement is costing jobs. If this is used as an argument to society (that whole social contract thing?) then it's bs. Any money theoretically lost is retained and starts chasing other goods, resulting in other economic activity. Now, if you argue that the money is going to domestic industry rather than China*, that's at least a valid argument, although I would argue that the real problem is with trade policy, and it shouldn't be covered up by a band aid to the content lobby.
* I use China as an example because I'm American. I have no idea what the UK's trade situation is.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.