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.'"

Comments

Mandelson

[Canazza]

Lord Mandelson. It *is* a villainous name. He's a slimy horrible member of the undead. He just keeps coming back...

Re:Mandelson

[krou]

As Frankie Boyle said recently on Mock the Week, "Who made this guy a Lord, the Sith?"

My other favourite was, "Mandelson's back from his summer vacation - what they don't tell you is he stopped on his way back to visit his parents ... in Mordor."

Re:Mandelson

[Opportunist]

It does sound like a villain name out of a cheesy crossover between James Bond and DC comics, doesn't it?

Re:Mandelson

[TheLink]

Maybe he was a Grand Vizier in a previous incarnation.

p.s. somehow Grand Viziers tend to be portrayed rather "unsympathetically" in books and films, wonder why :).

Re:Mandelson

[bs7rphb]

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?

Re:Mandelson

[Anonymous Coward]

Put slimebag Mandelson into perspective...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/471585.stm
"Mr Mandelson resigned from the Cabinet in December last year after it was revealed he took a secret £373,000 home loan from his ministerial colleague, Geoffrey Robinson, who also resigned over the affair."

Pulled in a few favors and got away with mortgage fraud on the mortgage application form by not declaring the secret loan. Anyone else would be in prison for that fraud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1210506.stm
"Peter Mandelson and Europe Minister Keith Vaz have been cleared of wrongdoing by the Hammond inquiry into the Hinduja passport affair. The inquiry into the circumstances that led to Mr Mandelson's resignation in January accepted that he had not deliberately lied about making a call to a Home Office minister. Secondly it found there was no connection between the Hindujas' donation to the Dome and their successful applications for citizenship."

Pulled in a few favors, got away with arranging a passport for a Labour donor, whitewashes inquiry into affair.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205049/Lapping-sun-super-rich-friends--Mandy-man-whos-supposed-running-country.html
Story seems to have been strangely deleted and not in anyone's cache about Mandelson living it up on a rich benefactors behalf.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207060/Mandelson-met-Gaddafis-son-Corfu-ahead-Lockerbie-bomber-release-talks.html
"Lord Mandelson faces the prospect of a sleaze investigation after he met Colonel Gaddafi's son days before it emerged that the Lockerbie bomber was to be freed."

Now reports that the alleged bomber may be freed on compassionate grounds.

Re:Mandelson

[MindKata]

"It isn't helped by the fact he really looks like Hitler."

Its funny but also somewhat scary you say that, because for years I've thought he not only looked like but also behaved very much like Heinrich Himmler. At times I find Mandelson a truly scary character because he seems to have immense political power behind the scenes. Time and time again he has been linked with corruption. He has even been thrown out of Government twice, yet he is back for a 3rd time and within months of being back, somehow he has one of the most powerful jobs in New Labour. He must have some very powerful friends and considering the speed he has got back to such a powerful position, I wonder if he has also enough dirt on other MPs to blackmail and force himself back into such power. In some ways he is just as manipulative and controlling as Heinrich Himmler was. I think if Mandelson ever got anymore political power, He would create a nightmare country with him at the center of power.

Re:Mandelson

[FourthAge]

Himmler is close, but both I and Mandelson himself think that Stalin's henchman Lavrentiy Beria is a closer fit:

"You're a kind of Trotsky figure," said a fellow guest.

"Oh no," said Lord Mandelson. "I'm far more of a Beria."

Beria is the nasty version of Himmler, as you will find if you read about his activities as Stalin's secret police chief. What sort of man would find a comparison with mass murderers like Trotsky and Beria flattering and amusing? A former member of the Young Communist League, perhaps? But I'm sure he abandoned the Marxist ideology years ago, just like the rest of New Labour. You know, when they became "right wing" like the BBC says. <Hollow Laughter>.

Re:Mandelson

[d3ac0n]

Actually, his name reminds me of THIS.

Re:Mandelson

[Tenebrarum]

"Who made this guy a Lord, the Sith?"

Quite. The "man" is a disgrace to the Lords. I wish there were a way to have him kicked out....

Re:Mandelson

[d3ac0n]

Your word is all we have to go on, and reading the paranoid, strawman-bashing, slogan-ridden rant in your sig really diminishes the value of that. If you think everyone who doesn't kneel at the alter of the Invisible Hand is a dirty evil Socialist and will crush your freedom. Please.

Actually, I just read through the essay linked at his sig and found it to be measured, intelligent, and well researched with multiple links to sources and extensive explanation and footnoting.

Indeed, I wish that more people would put as much thought and care into their opinions as FourthAge has.

Of course, if you are a proponent of some of the ideologies that he opposes, which, based on your statement it would seem you are, you do yourself no favors by indulging in ad-hominem attacks. It merely shows that you have no substantive argument to make in support of your own ideology and must resort to attacking the messenger to try and silence him. Sad, really.

At any rate, I have "Friended" FourthAge as he is a Slashdot contributor well worth following. I would recommend him to any reader here.

Re:Mandelson

[damburger]

The funny thing is that I probably used to be exactly like you. I probably would have agreed with everything you said, and posted a similar flame of someone who disagreed.

You know nothing about me you patronising cocksucker. The old chestnut of 'when you get older you will understand' is just an excuse to avoid addressing somebodies arguments on their own merit.

Everybody in Britain is a socialist by default, because that faith is preached by the television and the schools. It has been for decades. That is why it is so hard to convince anyone to reassess their faith. And yet, apostates do exist. I am one of them.

Socialism (by which you mean, anything not pure capitalism) is a faith? But I suppose YOUR views are founded on pure logic and reason? Logic and reason that will, regardless of the evidence your are presented with, always vindicate capitalism? You really haven't taken a hard look at yourself have you?

If I can convince just one British person to start thinking about why people like Mandelson behave as they do, why the media lets them get away with it, and why the country is in such a mess, then I will have succeeded.

The fact you classify Mandelson as a socialist shows just how far gone your 'thinking' is. After 30 years of Thatcherism, your idiotic prescription is more Thatcherism, based on the premise that every bad politician must be a 'socialist'.

You clearly consider yourself an intellectual, privy to a great truth that the other 'sheep' just cannot see. There are some people who believe this, and is true. There are many more people who believe this, and are medicore minds wearing tinfoil helmets. Make an honest appraisal of the stats and work out which you are.

Re:Mandelson

[alex67500]

That's a Terry Pratchett quote. Interesting times if my memory doesn't fail me...

Re:Mandelson

[David Gerard]

Baron Mandelson, 679, of Transylvania, smiled for the cameras, only having to reconstitute himself twice when the flashes dissolved him into dust. "I only enter where I am invited," he said in sepulchral Eurocratic tones. "When I am called upon, I shall return."

Labour MPs rushed to greet the chief architect of New Labour, many carrying wooden stakes, garlic and crosses.

Mr Mandelson has had a chequered career in office. Previous Cabinet terms have ended with unfortunate resignations due to being beheaded by angry villagers, burnt at the stake, wrapped in chains and thrown to the bottom of the Volga and, in one case, nuked from orbit.

Re:Mandelson

[MindKata]

@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.

Re:Mandelson

[drsquare]

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?

This is Britain, not a democracy, why does he need anyone to vote for him? No-one voted for Brown, and two-thirds of the country voted against the ruling party in the last election yet they were returned with a large majority.

You've never needed an electoral mandate to rule this country, what are you so surprised about?

anonymous?

[The Bubble]

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.

Re:anonymous?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the British definition.

Re:anonymous?

[PeterBrett]

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.

Yes, quite. The whole thing is pure fascistic lunacy, that appears to have been drawn up by corporate lobbyists and Whitehall bureaucrats with no awareness of either the technical or legal ramifications of what they are doing.

Also, since the rate of progress of technology nowadays is so much faster than big business and government can respond to it, this scheme will be obsolescent by the time that it gets implemented.

I recently wrote to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in response to the pre-legislative consultation documents, and I would encourage other technically-literate Brits to do the same.

Re:anonymous?

[damburger]

The ruling class is utterly insulated. Politicians in this country can live their entire lives without meeting anybody outside their social class. All the MPs have been railroaded from private school through to Oxford, and thence into safe seats arranged by their mentors and parents. Their entire reality is defined for them by their lobbyists.

Re:anonymous?

[john83]

Nothing is more insulting that equating being technically literate with 'defending the anonymity of internet pirates'.

Welcome to slashdot.

I tend to agree with you regarding downloading (though I'm fully supportive of significant copyright reform), but what this amounts to is government monitoring in your home. As the internet grows in significance in people's lives, the information broadband providers can collect on them has too - what your read, what you say, what you buy. That data should not be collected by the government. You mention traffic cameras, but that's another balancing act - illegal driving leads to deaths, illegal filesharing may slightly undermine some commerce. I'll mention your mail. Should the government read your post to check for illegal activities? (Sure, it'll x-ray a package to make sure there are no guns, or run it past a sniffer dog for drugs, but these don't intrude to the same extent.) Should it monitor your book purchases and library use for inappropriate materials? Alternatively, we could put microphones in your house to ensure you have appropriate licenses for all of your music use. The crowd on here does tend to take an extreme libertarian perspective, but it's not as simple as saying they're wrong. Ultimately, their argument is not even that the crime shouldn't be detected and prosecuted for (though many will say just that), but rather that the tools being proposed are not suitable for a government.

Re:anonymous?

[PeterBrett]

Nothing is more insulting that equating being technically literate with 'defending the anonymity of internet pirates'. What is this? digg? torrentfreak? or 'newsforpirates'?

If you think that's what my objection to this is about, you're a fool suffering under the influence of the well-known fallacy, "The innocent have nothing to fear."

I am not a pirate, yet I oppose this. My main objections to this are:

• Very little if any consideration of how false accusations might occur. At the moment, you might end up getting hauled into court:
  • Because the clock on the ISP's DHCP box was incorrect;
  • Because you were uploading something entirely legitimate which happened to have a filename which looked like it might be unauthorised.
  • Other ways I haven't thought of yet.

  In the legislation as currently proposed, there is no discussion whatsoever of what recourse ISP account holders would have against false accusations.

• No requirement that an ISP account holder is notified promptly of accusations made against them, so that they can preserve evidence of non-infringement. Indeed, there is not even a requirement that an account holder is told what work they are alleged to have illicitly copied or who is asserting the copyright on the work.
• No requirement that civil court-grade evidence is gathered at the time that an accusation of infringement is made. Essentially, any lawsuit brought based on the proposed legislation would be a case of, "He said, she said," without the defendant receiving the benefit of good quality evidence to use in their defence.
• There are several other similar issues.

Support this legislation if you like; I will have no sympathy whatsoever for you if and when you find yourself in court accused of something you didn't do and with no way to mount an effective defence.

Re:anonymous?

[Xebikr]

And its my opinion that someone who people who repeatedly, knowingly, constantly take other peoples hard work for free, again and again and again,with zero intention of ever paying for it, or giving a shit about the effects of what they do, deserve what they get.
pure and simple.

I knowingly, contantly, take other peoples hard work for free, again and again and again! I listened to the radio and when a commercial came on, I CHANGED THE CHANNEL! Wha ha ha ha ha! Whenever I watch tv, I intentionally avoid commercials, EVERY DAMN TIME! I borrow books from the library, watch movies at friends houses, borrow thier games and use open source software and none of those guys ever see a single dime from me! I am EVIL! I am a dirty rotten stinky theif and I deserve what I get!

Re:anonymous?

[agnosticnixie]

No, they're not. In the case of music, the money lost is lost by the majors - the money for artists is not and has never been in recordings, with a very very few exceptions. Same for post-theater movies, the money doesn't go to pay the people whose hard work went into it, but to make a fat cheque to an already overpaid mpaa exec.

Re:anonymous?

[shutdown -p now]

Nothing is more insulting that equating being technically literate with 'defending the anonymity of internet pirates'.

It's not about defending anonymity of pirates, it's defending of anonymity on the Net in general. Unless you have some magical way of determining which users are pirates and which aren't without getting rid of anonymity for everyone...

Re:anonymous?

[mcgrew]

I won't respond to the ACGP, but Star Wrek: In The Pirkinning was produced for a few thousand dollars. Only twenty years ago it cost a fortune to produce an album, now it's within everyone's reach. It won't be long before MPAA vs indies is where RIAA vs indies is now.

The MPAA's situation is more dire than the RIAA's, because the RIAA has radio. The MPAA has theaters that suck. Your idea is one the MPAA should look into. Rather than surround sound they should keep the sound on or behind the screen, with a separate channel driving a separate speaker at each corner.

They should lower their rediculous prices, too. And serve alcohol. I'm sure there are a lot of other ways they could make the theater experience far better than it is now.

Re:anonymous?

[agnosticnixie]

The people who complain are the majors for the most part - and the money they grab even in some cases over cases of infringement of copyright of small indie bands or of in-the-end legal downloads that just happened to be distributed through p2p (jamendo uses bt, there's some private tracker exclusive releases as well, or at least they start as such) doesn't exactly go to the profit of these indies whose visibility is increased, not reduced this way.
As for after the fact rationalization, it was prior the fact, tyvm, except anyway our copyrights lobby managed to levy a tax on blank media instead: again, it doesn't go in the pocket of who makes the art, but the copyright trolls.
But you'd rather be a sanctimonious ass, I figure.

Re:anonymous?

[scamper_22]

you say the word lobbyist as if it is a bad word.
What do you think democracy is? The interested parties lobby to get their way.

What you have a problem with is not lobbying.... but the fact that lobbies you do not like are successful.
Corporations are a lobby.
Public sector unions are a lobby.
Lawyers are a lobby. ...

You could easily form your own lobby with whatever you wish. Get some names. Get people out there to care about the issue, and you too can influence government.

In any case. I do not believe in democracy for this very reason. I believe in a republic. Rule of law above the rule of men.

Criminalise Illegal Downloaders?

[AlterRNow]

If they are downloading something illegally, aren't they already criminals?

I thought criminalising something was where you took something that wasn't illegal ( but a significant amount of people do ) and making it illegal?

Re:Criminalise Illegal Downloaders?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Criminalise Illegal Downloaders?

[pjt33]

If you read the page you linked to carefully you will find:

The making, dealing in or use of infringing copies is a criminal offence (s. 107).

This is an example of /. needing a "-1 Factually incorrect" to cancel "+1 Informative" mods.

Re:Criminalise Illegal Downloaders?

[Bert64]

Physical theft is considered a crime, because it deprives someone of a good...
Copyright infringement on the other hand, does not deprive anyone, and it is impossible to prove that something would have been purchased had it not been available for free.
Infact, it has been shown that copyright infringement has actually increased sales of various things, as it increases the product exposure, at least assuming the product is any good... If the product is really lousy, then people might tell their friends how crap it was and discourage them from purchasing it.. They would do this anyway, but you lose out on ripping off the original people with crap.

Re:Criminalise Illegal Downloaders?

[kz45]

"It doesn't directly. Someone who pirates something that they genuinely wouldn't have paid the asking price for hasn't increased the price for anyone else. By contrast, stealing a physical item that they wouldn't have paid the asking price for does impose costs on those that it is stolen from."

Yes it does. For starters, once person may not be a direct loss in sales, but as it's shared more and more and easily accessible by the masses, the owner of the copyrighted material will see less sales over time. Also, if companies know it's easy to pirate their stuff, they will start investing more money in protection, which will drive the price up for the consumer.

Copying is stealing

[wild_quinine]

It's starting to look like the war is over, and the lobbyists won. I doubt they even have to work that hard any more. The perception of the population has been changed.

Copying is stealing.

The very fact that we're willing to accept that sentence for discussion shows how far things have come. Stop and think about it, taken out of context. How Orwellian it sounds!

Now that every uninformed member of society believes that copying is a criminal act, well of course it should be criminalised. That only makes sense.

I do believe that artists and creators need to be rewarded. But more and more I'm coming around to the notion that we should scrap the whole bloody slab of law that covers IP, and start again with something sensible.

That won't happen of course. It seems that preserving industry and building capital is the single only motivation for existence in this brave new Labour world.

What ever happened to the notion that money is not valuable in and of itself, but only as a means to the ends we choose?

Re:Copying is stealing

[damburger]

Bullshit. Its acceptance by the mainstream media shows the irrelevance of the mainstream media. The fact that a behaviour casually classed as 'criminal' by newspapers is engaged in by such a large portion of the population shows they haven't won anything. Furthermore, the proportion of the population that does engage in this 'criminal' behaviour is disproportionately young.

*sigh*

[tygerstripes]

Illegal != Criminal. There are whole swathes of law which are not "criminal law".

This news is from the 16th

[bheer]

The Reg covered it yesterday and noted that Mandelson denied this report -- given they're due for an election in less than a year I can't believe they'd go out of their way to alienate voters.

Offtopic, British lords are so hilarious. There's a secretary of transport called Lord Adonis. Had to chuckle at that.

Re:This news is from the 16th

[krou]

Mandelson denied this report

Well, that's that settled then.

This is interesting

[ProfYaff]

Despite what Darth Mandelson says, it is a little odd that these plans have come out just after he attended a dinner with David Geffen, who is a massive critic of file sharing: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6797844.ece

media types

[EasyTarget]

So, lord Mandy, a total media wonk (and highly manipulative individual) has gotten together with other wonks in the media to agree to 'crack down' on piracy. How nice.

This is easy to beat folks; deprive them of money and mandy will slime away, like most modern politicians he's totally besotted with influence and power. Take away the music industries money and they loose that influence, and Mandy will sleeze away from them looking for the next big thing.

Media types need to understand Economics 101, you used to be able to charge 20 euros for an album and I'd pay because it was the only way I could get the music in hi-quality for listening wto whenever I wanted. Ok.

But now it is worth a 10 cents or less to me. This is an economic problem and trying to use the law to distort the market is anti-capitalistic.

Do what I do, and totally stop paying for media. Not by piracy, but just by sticking only to free stuff. Plenty of original music gets delivered straight to my ears, completely legally, without the 'music industry' profiteering at all.

I pay for my internet connection because that is a physical service, and I'll accept a moderate amount of advertising with my media, but that is all..

I choose to get it direct from the artists (and through portals like magnatunes etc..); and if I am not allowed to download music from a site created or controlled directly by the artists, full quality, free in both senses of the word, then I simply move along. I support artists directly with concert attendance and buying merchandise. But again, I check to see how deeply the 'music industry' is involved in the process and avoid venues/merchandising that they control.

Basically, I am using capitalism to solve the problem. Any objections from the 'industry' to that?

Video is more of a problem, I still go to cinemas, and there is a lot of entertaining free video out there, but I still watch TV for my sci-fi, and pay for that because I have decided it is worth it.

Re:media types

[damburger]

Capitalism is socialism for the rich

Mining had to die, because 'the market' said so. Manufacturing, shipbuilding, all the other things had to go to. But when industries that the ruling classes have deep interests in, such as media or banking, start losing money - they must be saved to 'safeguard jobs' and 'protect creativity'.

Twas ever thus. The market promotes self-interest, and self-interest distorts the market for its own benefit. Capitalism always does this.

What about other 'copyright criminals'

[stiggle]

Like those companies which abuse the GPL and release media STB but not the source code for them? Oh, like Humax for their Foxsat-HDR box as (and I directly quote them) "the consumer can't update the firmware so there is no need to release the source code we use".

Thats just as much a breach of copyright as someone downloading a TV show off a torrent site.
So will Mandelson remove their net connection

Re:What about other 'copyright criminals'

[chrb]

Has this appeared on gpl-violations.org yet? Given that Humax is a German company I'd have thought that Harald Welte would be interested.

Copyright is stealing

[Opportunist]

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?

Re:Copyright is stealing

[damburger]

Ah, the old 'Big Lie' method of propaganda. Just keep repeating it!

You assert that without copyright there is no content.

Therefore Linux does not exist, I have a computer at home that displays nothing but a blank screen, and I only imagine it has an operating system in my diseased CyberCommie mind.

Also, music came into existence with copyright. Prior to the 18th century music was a concept unknown to the human race. The 10,000 year old wind instrument recently dug up was clearly as fraudulent as all the dinosaur skulls that ruin nice peoples bedtime stories.

Furthermore, there is a perfect correlation between how much revenue a film generates and its artistic merit. Expensive movies are critically acclaimed and popular, movies made on a shoestring budget are critically panned and never attract an audience.

It must be nice to live in a complete fantasy world :)

Re:Copyright is stealing

[svtdragon]

I think the GP's not arguing against copyright per se, so much as against this neverending copyright scheme we seem to have had thrust upon us.

When over half a century has passed, something like Disney's perpetual ownership of Mickey Mouse--long after the figure himself has become, in effect, a part of the public domain (to use the term in the sense in which it was intended, and not the legal one), so much so that passing allusions are sufficient to invoke collective association with the character--said perpetual ownership is impeding progress. Walt Disney is dead, and I don't think that it's in anyone's best interest (nor was it the intent of copyright laws) to subsidize the existence of the creator's children long after he's dead. People want to get paid for what they do, and that's understandable and perfectly legitimate. But I think any reasonable artist/musician/etc. is not so blind as to expect their work to support their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so on for a hundred years after they die, or even to desire that to happen. (IMHO, nothing stifles creativity and sense of self like having everything handed to you--but that's only MHO.)

It's an inherently arbitrary and subjective assessment to give any kind of fixed-length term to a copyright, but I think we all agree that there should be some protection for those who have created these works. The question is how much is sufficient to inspire continued creativity and invention. And that is what we should be debating.

Re:Copyright is stealing

[dissy]

First off, sorry you got modded troll.
Too many moronic moderators these days use Troll in place of "I don't agree" :/

It's not depriving you a helluva lot more than the alternative, i.e. the works not being created in the first place. For any commercial work created under copyright, there is a very good chance that it would never have been created without copyright.

That is flat out wrong, and provable.

Copyright is only a couple hundred years old, yet creative works of art have been made for over 10,000 years.

I mean, the Renaissance?

Most of the expansion of human knowledge has come about without any form of copyright protection, and in fact is measurably slower now which some say might be due to stifling effects of copyright.
For every 1 company that makes some new advance in technology, a thousand more are prevented from improving upon it for their lifetime.

In an age where scientific discoveries no longer need to take multiple life times, and a person can see the results of the same work they started, it seems more than counter intuitive to artificially limit human advancement just so some large companies can continue to rape profits from those that actually created the things that make the companies rich.

In fact, that statement is yet another example of the deep sense of entitlement that has permeated our hearts and minds over culture since piracy became popular.

You're right. Artists and their sense of entitlement over ideas that are impossible to 'own' is destroying our country, culture, and scientific advancement. I fully agree with you here.

Personally, I would rather live without a piece of crap art someone only made because they wanted a buck, in exchange for advancement of science that would make mine and everyone elses quality of life improve leaps and bounds.
After all, real artists create art for the sake of creating art. Money isn't a factor, it's only nice to get for it.
I don't do what I love for my profession either. I can't help but do the things that interest me, even for free. That's why I also work at a job, to have money to live on. Artists should remember how the rest of the world lives and come back to reality.

uh oh

[GarretSidzaka]

whatever happens in Airstrip One will probably follow here in Oceania

Re:You wouldn't steal a car...

[sakdoctor]

You wouldn't steal a baby.
You wouldn't kill a policeman, and steal his helmet.
You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet.
You wouldn't then send the helmet to the policeman's grieving widow.
and THEN steal it again.

Britian the land of the ... err free?

[dreamer_uk]

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.

Re:You wouldn't steal a car...

[squizzar]

The IT Crowd spoofed this beautifully... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

If you haven't seen it watch it. I think of it every time I watch a legally purchased DVD and am forced to sit through their propaganda and smile.

One in 12 of the population might disagree.

[91degrees]

According to the article, this is "a practice engaged in by one in 12 of the population".

If that large a portion of the population think that something should not be illegal (and it's reasonable to assume that most people consider behaviour they indulge in should not be illegal), then perhaps their views should be considered rather than having them declared criminals. Perhaps though, Labour really wants to lose the next election. At least they consider losing 8.3% of the vote acceptable losses.

Re:One in 12 of the population might disagree.

[lattyware]

You seem to have forgotten that the government is meant to be there to implement what the people want. If everyone in the country wants the speed limits increased, then in theory, they should be able to vote for someone who says they will do that. The equivalent for this is the Pirate Party. The government are not meant to control us, we are meant to control the government.

Re:One in 12 of the population might disagree.

[damburger]

Its worth adding to that the fact that although 49% is not a majority is it a bigger proportion of the population, and of the voting population, than has carried a party to victory in any general election I can recall.

Re:One in 12 of the population might disagree.

[vivaelamor]

The pirate party is for kids who have yet to have a real job and learn the value of work.

Ah yes, real job. Like making computer games for a living. Ha Ha Ha my side just split.

Re:You wouldn't steal a car...

[Kuroji]

[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 is an illegal download?

[seanalltogether]

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?

Re:What is an illegal download?

[JustinOpinion]

That's a very good point. And it's not just academic.

I think most courts would contend that any reasonable person would know that the files being offered through links on Pirate Bay are not sanctioned. Conversely any reasonable person would agree that files being offered for purchase through iTunes are sanctioned. But there is a wide middle-ground. YouTube now has so many officially-sponsored channels and deals that it's hard to know, when you watch something, whether it was posted officially or not. In fact there are even a few cases of takedown notices being sent against legitimate postings (the legal branch of some consortium sends a notice to a band's official YouTube channel, for instance). If you search for various TV shows, you'll find a range of sites offering to stream them for "free" (with ads), ranging from Hulu to sites in foreign languages I can't read. How is the consumer supposed to know which ones have licenses and which ones don't? And then there are sites like allofmp3, which are also ambiguous.

It seems really dangerous to criminalize a behavior when it can be so difficult (impossible, really) to know whether or not you're in strict violation of the law. Which is why it makes much more sense to focus on unlicensed distributors, and not on downloaders.

Re:Keep It Simple, Stupid

[digitig]

"The law is made by the rich and powerful in order to make sure they stay that way". Piers Paul Reed, (but he may have been quoting somebody else, and from memory so may not be exact).

Re:!constitional ?

[jabithew]

We do have a constitution. Parliament is the supreme power in the nation though, so effectively the constitution can be changed with a simple majority vote in the Commons.

It probably isn't unconstitutional, because if Parliament passes a law to sanction it (which it probably will in our elected dictatorship) then it becomes part of the constitution.

Re:Criminalize Leaks of private information by Gov

[jimicus]

Get a law passed that criminalizes The leakage of private information by Govt or its supreme "Yes, Minister" servants.
That way, the next time some MP or minister or a civil servant loses a hard disk containing private information, he/she faces hard time in a Federal Prison: for 10 years or more.
Why doesn't someone get the stupid ministers to pass a law like this?

There already is such a law - the Data Protection Act forces organisations to keep data secure and a major mortgage company were fined for losing a laptop which had a whole lot of personal information on it. (They later announced that they'd pass this fine on to customers because they "didn't think it was fair" to pass it onto the executives, and nobody raised a stink. Go figure.)

There is the minor issue that AFAICT the only thing they can do is fine an organisation - and of course there's only one place government can get money from to pay such a fine...

An artist's view.

[gintoki]

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.

Re:An artist's view.

[damburger]

Good for him. I sometimes suspect the dividing line between artists who say 'OMG no copyright no more music' and ones who say 'Whatever, filesharing will just bring more people out to shows' is their own perception of their ability as a live performer. The weaker ones who require a studio to make them sound tolerable are terrified of having to depend on their lackluster live performances for an income.

Definition of "illegal?"

[EmagGeek]

Isn't it redundant to "criminalize" something that is already illegal? Isn't that sort of the definition of "illegal?"

Funny, I thought they were synonymous.

Wtf is up with the UK?

[miffo.swe]

Im pretty intrigued by all that the UK citizen that seems to put up with this. CCTV at their jobs, parks, roads and even pointing right into their very private homes. Laws demanding handing over encryption keys encriminating themselves, survalliance and secret prisons etc. For being able to monitor illegal downloads they will save ALL traffic that people sends and receives on their computers, not just movies and music but everything at all lika chat etc.

Are people in the UK just fine with this or are the press just ignoring it? Myself i have a hard time understanding how people would just sheeply comply with their overlords and bend over without a fuss. Especially when the powers that be tends to classify more and more about themselves the more they pry into about ther underlings. Things like theese makes the KGB/Stasi etc look pretty lame and innocent.

Re:Wtf is up with the UK?

[damburger]

Its complicated. With a wide and varied population you can't identify a singular reason. Let me see if I can have a crack at enumerating a few though:

1. Boiling frogs. There was never an Enabling Act really, more a series of measures which have slowly made us one of the least free people in Europe. Ask any of my fellow Brits, I bet none of them can definitively name a date when the government anti-freedom agenda began.

2. Thatcherism. Old milk-snatcher mounted a long, brutal, and ultimately successful campaign to decimate the base of her political opponents. This has left any political organization that doesn't blindly follow the dictats of the City out in the wilderness with few members. Sometimes I don't think Americans appreciate how horrific it was; they just assume she was a clone of Reagan - but she was much worse.

3. Media lockdown. The BBC doesn't have a mandate to really rip the government a new one. The papers are owned by people with heavy financial interests in the government. Murdoch has a vast media empire (several newspapers, and the very popular Sky television network) which basically dictates policy. In one instance, the Murdoch-owned Sun ran a 'campaign' to get the then home secretary David Blunkett to make some token move against immigrants, which he ultimately acceded to in an interview with the Sun. Thing is, he had his interview with the Sun to announce this very initiative already arranged before their 'campaign' started.

4. Paranoia. Britain is a very fearful society, largely for reasons 1 and 2 above. The assumption that everyone is ruthless and out for themselves is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because believing everyone else is a greedy scheming fucker makes it easier to be one yourself.

5. Deference. The curse of British society. We are conditioned by centuries of culture to defer to those of higher social classes. Even icons of the left such as Bertrand Russel and Tony Benn come from aristocratic stock, and their aristocratic manner helped them become iconic. The concept of 'betters' is sold to ordinary people by the tacit suggestion that, whilst they have their betters, they are in turn better than others...

6. Scapegoating. British people don't look up for the source of problems, they look down. Its the chavs. Its the muslims. Its single mums. Aside from taking the heat away from power, it also helps sell deference by telling people that there are 'scum' out their that they are better than.

There will be more reasons. Frankly, I think my country is doomed.

And how will this be done?

[quarkoid]

Firstly, this sounds like a Daily Mail [wikipedia.org] article, but nevertheless.....

How do the government propose than ISPs determine whether content being downloaded is pirated or not? What is the difference between your browser downloading a copyrighted image on [insert name of favourite photo library site] for viewing and downloading an MP3 file? You and I may both download [copyrightedsong.mp3] but I may have permission from the publisher and you may not. How will the ISPs determine this? What if our connections were encrypted, encoded or used IPv6?

I could go on. And on. And on......

The fact is that apart from monitoring visits to [downloadyourillegalaudiofilesandfilmshere.com], there's absolutely sod all that anybody can do which is even remotely effective.

Now, on the other hand, if the government were brave enough to stand up to the music/film groups and come up with some sensible laws which benefit both the citizens and the music/film groups.... well, if that happend, I'd be living in cloud-cookoo land.

Re:And how will this be done?

[Xest]

They do what they already do, join BitTorrent swarms, note down the IP addresses in the swarm, see which ISPs they belong to, if the ISPs are UK ISPs, contact them to get their details, or get them via court order, then they sue.

The problem is that BitTorrent is by default weak to this type of attack - you have to connect to a public tracker for a specific piece of content.

If you use USENET to just download off of newsgroups on foreign servers using SSL then you should be safe to all government legislation and attempts to crack down on piracy, unless they take it to the extreme of making ISPs perform man in the middle attacks on SSL connections to see what is being transferred and catch you that way, but I don't think even Labour would go that far- it would have too many side effects, such as reducing confidence in online shopping and banking at UK firms if it was known that encrypted connections were being snooped.

Realistically I think if these laws go ahead a lot of people who don't understand the vulnerabilities of P2P systems like BitTorrent do leave them open to getting caught. Personally I do not believe an IP address connected to a tracker is an acceptable level of evidence of a crime as it's so fundamentally flawed, but unfortunately it seems people in government do believe it's acceptable. This catching of large amounts of people will go one of three ways, either it will kill off British file sharing (but leave other methods like burning CDs for mates, direct downloads, USENET etc. intact), it'll lead to a cat and mouse game where technology (such as anonymous networks built for file sharing) arise to work around the inherent vulnerabilities of bittorrent or it'll lead to public discontent and political pressure will force the government to backtrack.

Either way, if you use P2P, it's going to be a bumpy road.

Re:Criminalizing an Illegal Act.

[DaveV1.0]

Speeding is an illegal act that is a civil, not criminal, offense.

US Pirate Party

[gambino21]

For anyone who is interested, there is also a Pirate Party of the United States. It appears to be based on similar ideas as other pirate parties.

Show me the act that makes downloading illegal?

[Grcie]

People keep saying 'illegal downloading'

Please, someone show me where it says that downloading is illegal.

Here's the Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020025_en_1

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I can't find where it says that I, as a private individual, am committing an illegal act by obtaining an unlicensed copy of a movie

Business yes, distributing yes, merely posessing? No