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."

Comments

Um

[SpooForBrains]

Didn't the European Parliament just rule that this sort of thing was illegal?

Re:Um

[L4t3r4lu5]

"No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities ... save when public security is threatened..." - Out-Law.com

Yes, it certainly seems so. I don't expect it to make much difference, though, as you'd need to take the case to the ECHR to get a disconnection overturned. Who can be bothered with that?

Re:Um

[flyneye]

I'm sorry but "states rights" makes it sound as though the power flows from the fed to the states to the people. In fact, it is the opposite.
          This is why Arizona, for example, doesn't do daylight savings. Most states whore off their "states rights" in exchange for federal $. Unless they meet federal guidelines they get no money for programs. Medical marijuana is legal where legalized. The fed is just trying to posture and assert illegal authority. Unless someone points out more often that "the king wears no clothes" our posterity will grow up thinking that the federal government is our master and not our servant. Remember the feds only jobs are to run a post office, protect the borders, keep interstate commerce fair and nothing else to speak of. Anything the fed does now is largly ILLEGAL.
        Revolt at will.

Re:Um

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'm sorry but "states rights" makes it sound as though the power flows from the fed to the states

No it doesn't. States rights, a term that dates back to the 1780s, implies that the States hold the power as a natural consequence of their existence, and that the central government is merely their puppet which they created. Read the U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This principle applies in the E.U. as well. France, the UK, Germany, et cetera existed first... the EU is their creation and therefore secondary.

Re:Um

[commodore64_love]

IMHO it should *all* be legal, so long as you limit its use to your own house. If I'm sitting here watching Simpsons, what does it matter if I shoot-up? I'm not harming anyone but myself, therefore it is NONE of the government's business.

Now if I leave my home, then yes, I should be arrested. If I'm behind the wheel of a car, then it's DUI.

The only "creativity" here is legal...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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?

Re:The only "creativity" here is legal...

[DrLang21]

they claim 50% of net traffic in the UK is illegal content but provide no evidence for this figure

That's pretty creative.

If everybody breaks the law ...

[houghi]

... you should not make the law stricter, you should change the law.

Re:If everybody breaks the law ...

[damburger]

That isn't how they think.

You have to understand, that just like at the end of the Cold War, Western elites (I won't bother distinguishing between judges, politicians and businessmen in this matter because of the almost total blurring between the leaders of state, judiciary and corporation) consider us at the End of History. Our present form of government is perfect now, and for a thousand years hence.

When you believe have a perfect state, it logically follows that everything should be in the state, for the state, and of the state. Any element that goes against the wishes of the state must be wrong and evil, for the state is perfect and good.

I believe the people in power today, more so than in previous generations, are so convinced of the suitability of present laws and institutions they will resist all substantial changes with any force required. They are the last men, who say they have discovered happiness. Their destruction is a prerequisite for any further advancement of the human species.

Future the Internet

[mc1138]

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...

£112 bn lost?

[Crookdotter]

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.

Re:£112 bn lost?

[Anonymous Coward]

The multiplier effect would still occur in the alternative products and services people purchase with the money they don't spend on music / movies.

Really, this is more of a Broken window fallacy. The idea that people not spending money on the music industry is costing society is flawed, because people are free to spend that money in other markets which thereby benefit.

The 'broken window' in this case is the music industry - they claim that breaking the window (forcing people to buy CDs) is good for society because it keeps a window repairsman (music executive) in a job.

In fact, society is less efficient because it has incurred a cost in a non-productive asset that could have otherwise been spent on something else, possibly something that adds to society's productive capacity thereby increasing maximum GDP.

A music executive in no way contributes to society's productive capacity, so money spent on the music executive is a purely consumption expenditure and is not beneficial to society in terms of GDP at large at all.

In summary, if these idiots truly cared about the productive capacity of society (which is what GDP measures), then they should fire themselves and all the media / music executives, because they divert resources away from spending which would increase productive capacity. Until such time as they do that, they should feel free to eat a bag of hell.

Re:£112 bn lost?

[commodore64_love]

If you're going to convince me you need a better explanation than "multiplier effect". The grandparent poster's argument makes a lot of sense to me. If I'm not spending $1000 a year on CDs, then I'm spending that $1000 on something else like a new computer or new bigscreen TV or buying stock for my IRA. So it's basically a displacement of jobs from one group (music suits) to another group. There's no loss overall.

Using the classic whipmaker example, yes they lost their jobs when cars took-over from horses, but a bunch of other unemployed guys got jobs making steering wheels. There was no net loss overall. It was just a shift.

The problem is that the music suits at MCA, RCA, et cetera don't want the shift to happen. They don't want me to transfer my $1000 a year expenditure on CDs to some other article like videogames. They are Luddites trying to sabotage a technology shift.

Re:£112 bn lost?

[Mprx]

The monopoly holders are the parasites, by holding onto monopolies far longer than necessary to encourage progress of science and useful arts. Sharing information is natural human behavior. The only reason information monopoly holders have the right to restrict sharing is because the public gave them that right. When the deal is no longer profitable we can rescind it.

Damn it to hell!

[commodore64_love]

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.

The Wild West is already here

[PhxBlue]

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.'

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.

You know, it's interesting...

[AKAImBatman]

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. ;-)

four words.

[owlnation]

Innocent until proven guilty.

The British have a history of doing this

[mangu]

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.

Re:112 bn lost?

[JustinOpinion]

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.

Re:One word....

[meringuoid]

Encryption.

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.

One Path: I2P & Similar

[Bob9113]

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.

My Anecdote Can Beat Your Anecdote

[RobotRunAmok]

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"