Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, a Plan To Criminalize Illegal Downloaders
krou writes "It looks like the launch of the UK Pirate Party came not a moment too soon. The Independent reports that Business Secretary Lord Mandelson is going to take a hard-line stance to preserve copyright after intense lobbying by the music and film industry. 'Under the proposed laws, Ofcom, the industry regulator, would be given powers to require Internet service providers to collect information on those who downloaded pirate material. The data would be anonymous, but serious repeat infringers would be tracked down through their computer ID numbers.' Prospective punishments included restricting internet access, either slowing down an offender's broadband or disconnecting them altogether, and fines up to £50,000. The Pirate Party came out against the scheme, calling it a gross invasion of civil liberties, while Tom Watson, the former minister for digital engagement, spoke out against the move, saying that the government should stop trying criminalize downloaders just so as to 'restore 20th-century incumbents to their position of power,' but should instead be 'coming up with interventions that will nurture 21st-century creative talent.'"
The data would be anonymous, but serious repeat infringers would be tracked down through their computer ID numbers.
This must be some definition of the word 'anonymous' that I was not previously aware of.
Copyright infringments are not in the criminal code, at least not in civilized countries where the criminal code is reserved for laws "against the general population". Things like murder, rape and arson are in there, where you may assume that someone doing it is posing a threat to anyone and everyone, not just to a selected group of people, or that someone is posing a threat to life and wellbeing of a person, a group or everyone.
In general, these things are prosecuted by the state without you requiring to sue (it's one of those things where the cases are called "the people against "+$name.
The alternative is the civil code. Here, you have to sue if you care about someone doing something. Here you have things like slander or trespassing. I could maybe not care if someone told everyone I have a romantic inclination towards fish, or I could probably not care that my neighbor constantly walks through my yard. I have the right to make them stop, if necessary by legal force, sue them and I will get my right, but the state and attorney couldn't care less until I make the first move.
What's been done by the RIAA (and its local counterparts) is to push copyright towards the criminal code. The idea is simple: Save money, and have you, the taxpayer, pay to protect their rights.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It deprives us from works becoming public property long after they cease to be economically feasible, being held hostage by the 'rights owners' who refuse to let them go into PD and be renewed, to serve as a foundation for new work, new art, as it has been so many times before. We are deprived from the same rights that authors and musicians during the times enjoyed, to look at what was, rethink it, rephrase it and wrap it in new clothes. Think of all the plays and movies that are based on the basic idea of Romeo and Juliet (and I'm not talking about cheezy works like the one movie with Leonardo), something that could not be done if Shakespeare lived and worked today.
How many songs have been written that used classic tunes and parts thereof as their base, rearranged and reworked to fit the tastes of today? Have you ever heard Vanessa Mae play Toccata and Fuge? If Bach lived today he could demand that his work is to be played with organs only and we would never hear this goosebump-creating work of violin again. Ever.
You see how easily that argument is turned around? Why shouldn't we spin "copyright is stealing" in return?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So we have more camera surveillance than anywhere else.
We have more regulations than most places. And now we are going to help out the big money companies by criminalizing use of the internet.
Why are we helping a business model that doesn't work and is being flogged to death. UK industry used to be innovative and groundbreaking. Now instead of encouraging evolution of business, we are actively saying we will help you keep your outdated methods and kick the people who innovate.
We should be telling the record/movie industry to move with the times and only help when they have proven they have made changes that are compatible with the customers of the day.
Yes I know about iTunes and other services. but the pricing models applied to them are often the same (or worse) than physical media. And with all the DRM pain when the industry failed again to move forward, these methods have a bad name.
Things are changing and people *are* still buying music and movies. the losses the industry report assume that the downloaded tracks would have been bought (which is rarely the case) only a small preparation of downloaded music would have ever been bought. the rest would have been borrowed (taped/copied) from physical media as has been going on for many years. I don't ever remember a lawsuit over the sale of a dual tape deck that could copy between two tapes.
More interestingly, downloaded music can lead to more sales as bands that are not mainstream are discovered and shared.
I don't condone illegal music downloads. I do condone the use of laws to fund outdated industries that have big enough pockets to buy politicians.
[Hitler's] primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. /Godwin.
It's the Big Lie technique, through and through. Do you really expect otherwise from these mooks?
What constantly astounds me about Mandelson is the lack of furore about the fact that he's unelected. We didn't vote for this man. How the hell did he get to be running the country?
How can they possibly write this law in a way that will clearly delineate what a legal download is from an illegal download? Is it the responsibility of the consumer to know whether or not the distributor has acquired the legal rights to allow you to download a file in the first place. Does paying for something automatically indemnify you from charges of illegal downloading if you're not sure of the legality? If netflix offers a promotion to allow me to watch 3 movies for free without signing up for their service, is that legal? What about a site that streams the movie to me, inserts commercials, but doesn't have a license with the movie studios. Am I charged for illegal downloading or are they charged with illegal distribution, or both? What exactly is an illegal download when the distributor (even a pirate distributor) is willfully giving you content without charging for it?
I read this a while ago and also found it on wikipedia. It was said by Jean-Paul Gaster who happens to be the drummer for the band Clutch. "As a musician, I think it is irrelevant to me. It exists and it is out there and no matter what I try and do about it, it will always be there. I don't mind kids trading tapes, that's totally cool. Videos are cool too. They only add to the live show. A kid might show that to some of their friends and they might think that we are cool and might come out and see us next time. The reality is that an artist has to have a record go gold, before they are even going to see a dime. Bands put out 3 or 4 records on a label and never see a dime from record sales. So, it is not like people who are downloading would be putting a dollar in my pocket if they would have bought the record. The industry is set up so that the record company will immediately get paid from record sales. So...download all you want!!! I think that the internet has changed the record industry and will continue to do so. The record labels will find some way to make money. I think that the artists main concern is to concentrate on their live performance and be the best artist that they can". I don't know how much of this actual fact but this is coming from someone who has been making music for a very long time and is in a relatively well known band. So basically this will most likely come to pass considering all the lobbying from the music and film industry. Personally it does not affect me since I don't download music or films illegally (used to a few years back) but what does concern me is the privacy issues. I don't want someone keeping track of all my internet activity because I doubt that only illegal downloaders would be monitored.
@AC: Wow, judging from your totally over the top frankly arrogant comments its you who needs "a sense of perspective" rather than flying off the deep end. If you AC, bothered to learn some "history", you would see there was a lot more to Heinrich Himmler than his high profile horrific acts during WW2.
Heinrich Himmler spent years scheming and manipulating to finally work himself into a position of immense power. It is that scheming and manipulation that allowed him to consolidate his position of power leading up to WW2. His behavior showed someone extremely driven (at almost any cost) to seek any way to gain power over others. Psychologically that's very interesting, as it strongly points to a personality disorder that I strongly suspect Mandelson shares many aspects with. A good example is their extreme self interest, with such a total lack of empathy for opponents. Knowledge and lies are a weapon to people like this. Mandelson is exactly like this. (People like them so often learn from a young age that lying gets them what they want and as they have no empathy to others they don't care they are lying. Worst still, they sadly see most people as overly trusting pawns their lies easily manipulate. Even worse, they consider themselves smarter for winning over trusting people).
We have seen atrocities throughout human history, so sadly there's nothing special about our time. Given the right circumstances (or more to the point, wrong circumstances) seemingly innocent people today would sadly be capable of similar levels of horrific contempt and lack of empathy to opponents and people they just see as their pawns, in their own rampant driven for self advancement at the expense of others. For example, the act of treating 1 person with contempt or 10 million people with contempt is simply the difference between the amount of power the person in power has. But if someone with a huge amount of power treats the lives of 10 million people with contempt, then you will find hundreds of thousands of people out of the 10 million are likely to end up dying if the contempt lasts months and years. We have seen that repeated throughout history and around the world. The people in power at the time, often don't want the 10 million to die. The point is, they don't care if they live or die. Their only concern if the 10 million died is what effect would that have on their own position of power. Its a totally self interested mindset. They don't even think about the victims they are only interested in how that affects them. Thankfully most people don't think like this sick minority of people, but sadly this minority so often seeks to gain extreme power over others, ultimately for their own gain from having such power over others.
If the world is to ever progress, we *all* need to learn to recognize this kind of person and then together we would have the power to stop them holding such positions of power over us all.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.