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.'"
Lord Mandelson. It *is* a villainous name. He's a slimy horrible member of the undead. He just keeps coming back...
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
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.
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?
Illegal != Criminal. There are whole swathes of law which are not "criminal law".
Meta will eat itself
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.
Go somewhere random
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.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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?
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?
"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).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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.
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.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?