Slashdot Mirror


Lord Lucas Says Record Companies "Blackmail" Users

Kijori writes "Lord Lucas, a member of the UK House of Lords, has accused record companies of blackmailing internet users by accusing people of copyright infringement who have no way to defend themselves. 'You can get away with asking for £500 or £1,000 and be paid on most occasions without any effort having to be made to really establish guilt. It is straightforward legal blackmail.' The issue is that there is no way for people to prove their innocence, since the record company's data is held to be conclusive proof, and home networking equipment does not log who is downloading what. Hopefully, at the very least, the fact that parliament has realised this fact will mean that copyright laws will get a little more sane."

32 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Finally, someone gets it. by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the best thing I've read all week. If I went to someone and said "You have wronged me so pay me money or I'll report you to the cops", I could be reported and sent to jail. Maybe if I had a lawyer write my threat up, my demand would magically be non-extortionate.

    1. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But will anything really happen or will this just be another excuse for yet more surveillance of home computer usage?

      The track record of the House of Lords hasn't been so good over the long run has it?

      I would bet that if Lucas gains any traction great pressure will be brought to shut him up one way or another.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is there's no real scenario where they lose. You say "Fuck you", they take whatever evidence they have to court and maybe they win and maybe they don't but the evidence passes enough standards to never be considered a frivolous lawsuit. Didn't you see this case that was just covered on slashdot, fight for 5 years and end in stalemate. Now this is UK law and not US, but I assume it's civil with a standard of "preponderance of evidence", I've heard that this means in practice something like a 60-40 probability. Is it possible their accusations are 60% correct? Quite possible, 40% is a huge error margin. And if so, their evidence really does meet that legal standard, disturbingly enough as it is for the 40% who ends up falsely paying.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by LainTouko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you say "Fuck you", they'll leave you alone and go and find someone more easily intimidated into giving them money. None of these cases has ever gone to court, and they're clearly worried about killing the cash cow if it does happen.

      (A couple of related cases did go to court a while back, but I think they cherry-picked people who chose ill-advised defenses which effectively admitted the bits which are impossible to prove. And someone who had moved and wasn't getting any letters, so would never turn up to defend themselves in the first place.)

    4. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright infringement is not theft.

    5. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by VJ42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well that's a matter for the courts to decide and unfortunatly for you they have decided.

      Yes, in UK law they decided that information wasn't property and thus couldn't be stolen. See the case ofOxford v Moss for more detail.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    6. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by jimicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's quite good that the Nobles finally stand for their nation and condone globalisation.

      I would have expected it to come from a civil entity as it should be expected from a democracy.

      Most of the hereditary lords lost their seats years ago when Labour first came to power. So they're not the nobles they once were.

      However - and this is the important bit - they are not elected by the voting public. Seats are (generally speaking) for life.

      This is completely counter-intuitive and flies in the face of democracy. I guarantee there will be at least one person who will reply saying "What a ridiculous system" or words to that effect. But the thing is, it works quite well. IIRC the Lords can't introduce legislation themselves but they can discuss and block legislation that's coming through - and because their seat is for life, they don't need to worry too much about pandering to either a panicked electorate or to commercial interests who are going to be funding their next election campaign.

      In fact, it works rather too well in some cases. Our Glorious Former Leader, Blair, very nearly discovered this to his cost with a few of his anti-terror bills. They only got through because of the use of "emergency" legislation which essentially allowed him to bypass the House of Lords.

    7. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Kijori · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But will anything really happen or will this just be another excuse for yet more surveillance of home computer usage?

      The track record of the House of Lords hasn't been so good over the long run has it?

      I would bet that if Lucas gains any traction great pressure will be brought to shut him up one way or another.

      Unfortunately it's heading in the other direction. The statement was made in the context of a debate on the Digital Economy Bill, which is designed to make it easier to punish "copyright violators" (although, as numerous Lords have pointed out, they're actually just people accused of copyright violation), by making it easier to get information from ISPs and allowing copyright holders to have a user's internet connection shut off if they refuse to stop downloading (i.e. if the record company still has "evidence" after they have written to the user and threatened them). All in all, an absolutely disastrous bill.

      *Shameless plug* If you agree and want to try to get answers from Mandelson, sign the DigitalWrong letter. This is going to be printed up on huge bits of card with all the messages people have left and presented to Lord Mandelson, since he doesn't bother replying to individual letters.

    8. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by delinear · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're right, the House of Lords gets a lot of negative press, and perhaps that's a legacy of what it used to be like with hereditary peerages and a lot of people deciding the laws of the country purely because of who their ancestors were, but yes it's changed a lot and is actually now a very useful legislative tool (along with its judicial function). It's great that people with a lifetime of skills and experience aren't simply discarded but have a real input into the way our laws are decided, and although its structure is partisan, the voting generally isn't, people generally vote with their conscience not just to bolster their party line.

      A lot of the Lords' powers to block laws have been stripped away by the Parliament Acts unfortunately. As you mention certain legislation can bypass the Lords completely, I think this includes anything to do with finance and taxation, and on top of that no law can be delayed in the House of Lords for more than - IIRC - two parliamentary sessions, so while they used to be able to send laws back to "the other place" indefinitely, now they can only delay for effectively about a year. It's good that they can't hold up new laws forever, but at the same time a strong government can pretty much force through anything it wants now - as we've experienced in the last decade.

    9. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by dargaud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to think the house of lords was a ridiculous system, particularly when it was inherited. But now I recognize the need for a permanent govt structure with long term goals and stability. I think a system like that would work well with its members being elected for life based on various criteria: some named by the govt, some voted, some through some lifetime achievements (a few famous actors, journalists, artists, sportsmen, winners of work trade awards, persons nominated for civilian bravery, etc) in order to maximize variety. You don't want pro politicians in a system like that.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    10. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by jabuzz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem with the House of Lords is that the vast majority of people have no idea as to the real work that they do. The amount of poor drafting of legislation that they correct is truly staggering. The amount of just nasty ideas that get blocked is also quite staggering. However because the chamber is unelected (which has traditionally made them very hard to bribe) people see it as undemocratic, and we get the fiddling that Blair did which just served to make them prone to bribery.

    11. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Lords can block 'money' bills but, by convention, don't. They did once at the start of the 20th century, that's why we had the first parliament act.
      The Lords also let through any bill which is an implementation of the ruling party's last manifesto.

      --
      FGD 135
    12. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Eivind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you actually couldn't, not if the claim isn't obviously frivolous.

      "You owe me money, pay up, or I'll be forced to take the matter to court", is even, in principle, entirely reasonable in some situations.

      The problem is that the punishments are so out of line with the severity of the transgression, that people cannot afford to let the courts sort it out, even in cases where they're quite possibly innocent.

      If I say the above, and demand $700 from you for NOT taking it to court, and you know that being taken to court means potentially a year-long battle and hundreds of thousands if you loose, can you afford to take that gamble, even if you think you're most-probably going to come out innocent ?

      Or do you buckle ?

      That's the point where it becomes blackmail.

      If the punishment for uploading copyrighted material was limited to something sane, this problem would go away.

      Say if you downloaded 300 songs from piratebay, and have a share-ratio of 2, and they calculated this means 600 people illegally got a song from you, at $0.99 a song, that's a loss of $600 -- so they convict you guilty and demand you pay $1000.

      That's not what happens though, you potentially end up paying orders of magnitude more. And that's wrong.

    13. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Talderas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The House of Lords functions in a manner that the US Senate should have functioned. Since the appointment is life time, the Lords are not subject to listening to the populism. Thus they are free to make intelligent and informed decisions rather than relying on listening to the whims of the populace, potentially serving as a mechanism by which to prevent utterly stupid laws from passing.

      The US had that with the Senate, by making Senators a 6 year term and not making their appointment subjected directly to the whim of the people. Since the 17th Amendment in 1913 things have gotten progressively worse as Senators suddenly pay heed to populism.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    14. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The wonderful thing is that they had to create a legal framework to make it possible, vote it, and let it happen to realize this kind of abuse was possible. What is the job they are supposed to do again ? I thought they were supposed to be literate and intelligent people, specialist of laws and how they could be used in a nasty way in order to design them intelligently.

      Day after day, I wonder if it would be a lot more damaging to choose MPs at random and let random people be incompetent instead of these elected buffoons. At least, the random people would be really representative of the population.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    15. Re:Finally, someone gets it. by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You were the one who said it was and I quote "For the courts to decide". I just pointed out that they had, but in the opposite direction to the one you originally suggested. I didn't comment on the decision itself, so how you can infer that:

      People like you are what give companies excuses to try and control our software and the internet.

      from what I said, I don't know. My actual opinion is thus: I don't personally wilfully infringe copyright, however I support copyright reform as I feel the current lengths are far too long; I think that a standard length of 10-20 years is probably about the correct limit. As such I am a Pirate - a member of the Pirate Party UK, that is.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  2. To which Lord Vader of the RIAA replied, by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Funny

    I find your lack of faith disturbing.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:To which Lord Vader of the RIAA replied, by Soldats · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh good so I'm not the only one who thought George Lucas when I read that headline.
      .
      .
      .
      right?
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      guys?

  3. Always another way by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Flood you local MP and legal watch dogs with "due diligence" claims.
    Make the ambulance chasing legal teams feel the heat of well written complaints to all MP's in the area.
    Write to the local press. get on radio, tv, youtube, name the lawyers.
    Protest outside their offices and public events demanding legal reform.
    Make a web page with the legal teams letters to attract many others.
    Make it out rank their own site in google searches.
    If they sue you, go to court.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Always another way by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If they sue you, go to court."

      Problem with that one is anyone that has said they're willing to go to court over it has had the case dropped, and there's no recourse, or way to force them to put their money where their mouth is. They just rely on the people who are scared to death at the idea of the court costs and so just settle regardless of innocence or guilty because as Lucas says, the music industry's "evidence" is being treated as proof of guilt when it's anything but.

  4. Grrr....mind trick by whovian · · Score: 4, Funny

    This wasn't the Lucas I was looking for.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  5. Re:Outbreak of common sense! by JoshDD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He might just be blackmailing the record companies in his own way. (Pay me and I'll shut up.)

  6. Re:Lets hope that this is the start... by tomtomtom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Finally a politician who acts like they have a pair, working in government to actually bring the issues faced by the Great British public to light.

    Lord Lucas is a Conservative hereditary peer, and a "backbencher" at that - so he is not working in government at all at present and neither is he likely to be even after the election. In many respects this is a shame, because he's one of the few people who have been pointing out some of the other heinous flaws in the Digital Economy Bill (i.e. the parts apart from the copyright regime - the powers it gives the government to take over the UK Domain Name Registry for one).

    Actually on the whole the politicians who act most independently tend to be the remaining hereditary peers because they owe their position and therefore "allegiance" to rather fewer people than almost anyone else in government (they are technically elected to sit in the house from amongst all hereditary peers by the existing members of the House of Lords but the pool of candidates is small and once elected they are there until death or, more likely, further reform of the House of Lords occurs).

  7. Read up a bit more on the system by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lords like Lucas are very difficult to pressure or to get them to shut up. As a whole, the lords are a bit of a nuisance because they tend to get in everybodies way. If you are on the left, they go against a ban on fox hunting and if you are on the right they keep insisting on this bloody liberty thing. That is where they get this bad rep from, because politicians don't like to be questioned. As citizens, we shouldn't take politicians word for it that the lords are all bad.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Read up a bit more on the system by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it's why the government have been trying to get rid of unelected members of the House of Lords for most of the past 10 years; something that I suspect the next government will continue to do.

  8. He has been saying this for longer by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87352/uks-lord-lucas-compares-p2p-to-sharing-a-newspaper/

    If he is who I think he is, he is also a real lord, not a made one. Means he is rich, or at least of that kind of well to do family that scoffs at the typical goverment bribes as being WAAAAAAY to low.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:He has been saying this for longer by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Digital Economy bill has been in the lords of the last few weeks for debate. It's been grossly under-reported even on IT news sites, but to anyone that's been keeping an eye, Lucas has been quite the hero. He's been one of the the main people consistently questioning the logic of the bill's three strikes provision and so forth.

      He's a smart guy, he seems to understand how the bill's plans run completely counter to hundreds of years worth of citizens hard earned legal and fundamental rights.

  9. Let the lawmakers have their fun by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems the way to beat this copyright cabal is to keep on sharing, keep on using the Internet. Playing their game, trying to outlobby them, looks like a losing proposition. They can lobby for all the laws they like, but they can't rescind the facts of nature, which is that copying is inherent in the universe. This Copyright Inquisition will fizzle out eventually, the likes of Jack Valenti will go down in infamy next to Torquemada, and centuries from now this hatred, fear, and attempted suppression of copying and extreme punishment of alleged copiers will seem as counterproductive, senseless, and inexplicable as the torture of random people does now. Though I would like to see it happen rather sooner than the length of the typical copyright term.

    The lawmakers for their part may choose how they want to look. Do they want to look corrupt, clueless, and irrelevant by taking the money and enacting the industry's idiotic proposals that make about as much sense as enacting a law that pi must equal 3.0? Or look good and far-seeing by not taking the money, and serving the people? Nice that this Lord Lucas is apparently opting for high road. I wish him luck.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  10. Re:Lord Lucas by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    That was Lord Lucan, not Lord Lucas

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  11. mistaken analysis by Doviende · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The poster here is making a big mistake about government. He is assuming that politicians are dumb and uninformed, and have made these bad decisions through ignorance. This assumption leads to the idea that "if only they knew", then they'd choose to make good, smart decisions that benefit the rest of us. If this were the case, all we'd need to do is educate them and things would get better.

    In fact, what we have is a group of wealthy smart businessmen whose financial interests conflict with ours. They have made a series of decisions that benefit themselves and their wealthy friends (who will scratch their backs later when they retire from politics and need a cushy position on someone's corporate board). They are not stupid, and quite often not so misinformed as we would like to think.

    Typically what is happening in one of these situations where some certain politician has one of these "epiphanies" is that he just wants to change his position on something because he has decided that it will benefit him. He makes out like he's been misinformed and has discovered the light. By implying that the opposing side is an unjust position, he's making a persuasive argument for people to support his position.

    --
    "The value of a man resides in what he gives,
    and not in what he is capable of receiving."
    --Albert Einstein
  12. Re:Mandelson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing makes up for Mandelson.

  13. Re:sane copyright laws? by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you follow my sig, it would be something like this:

    RANDOMIZE TIMER
    copyrightsanity% = INT(RND * 255) + 1
    IF copyrightsanity% = 0 THEN copyrightissane = 1: ELSE wereallfucked$ = "very yes"

    --
    -I only code in BASIC.-