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
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.
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.
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.