British ISPs Fail To Defeat Digital Economy Act

judgecorp writes "ISPs objecting to the British government's Digital Economy Act have lost a court challenge which argued the Act breaches fundamental rights. There's still room to appeal, but it looks like alleged file sharers will be getting warning letters next year."

Comments

Race to the bottom

[pieterh]

And as the world flattened, and the West lost its historical advantages over the rest of the world, one hope remained. The Internet. Anglophone, agile, it offered a future where the talent and skills of Europe and America could earn their keep in a world starving for digital products. Sure, export all your industrial capacity to Asia. But they'll be importing their digital services from the West. Win-win.

Except it didn't happen like that. Patents and copyright, originally designed to protect the rights of a few, spread like cancer in the new digital economy. The "rights holders" and their lawyers wielded disproportionate influence over politicians. The newer digital businesses, though larger, didn't focus exclusively on control, lobbying, political influence, and protectionism.

One by one, the startups failed. The cost and risk of doing business was just too high. The Internet, once a lawyer-free zone, became the hunting ground for a new breed of legal parasite that used Google to search its prey. Society itself, which in the 21st century found itself heavily digitised, became captive to the "rights owners" and their lawyers.

One by one the digital businesses forced themselves to become involved in politics. It was only in 2024 in Europe, and a full decade later in the USA that the first pro-digital political parties took control of major power blocks. In the 21st century, there was no left, no right. There was only forwards, and backwards.

Re:Race to the bottom

[pieterh]

Note: I really do believe that copyright is as bad as patents. Yes, I release all my software under the GPLv3, which depends entirely on copyright law, but it's a hack. In the ideal digital world, sharing of culture would not be optional. Areas of industry without copyright-like protection - like fashion - are hugely successful. Copyright is a 15th century concept designed to stop the free sharing of information. Copyright originated as censorship.

To those who will argue, inevitably, that without patent and copyright, people will not produce, kindly either look at history, or the real world. Competing through production is not an option. It takes a Soviet-style destruction of private property to dissuade us to produce. In every study, the more law tries to encourage "innovation" by privatising our culture, the less we produce. This would be obvious to the advocates for such privatisation if they actually produced anything of value, ever, in their own lives.

Culture and ideas and technology and works of art are "private property" only in the warped mindset of an intellectual property lawyer. I challenge that advocate to invent his own alphabet and language, build his own Internet and browser, and come back when his ability to speak nonsense is not entirely dependent on the culture freely shared by others.

Re:Race to the bottom

[dgatwood]

I disagree, not because people will not produce, but because without copyright, there will be nothing to produce that has any inherent value other than food. Everything else can always be made by somebody else cheaper, and to some extent, even food can....

The problem is not that patents and copyright are inherently bad. The problem is that copyright should be 14 years with the option to extend for another 14. After you've created something, you should be able to make money on it for a limited period of time, and then it should go into the public domain while people still care about it enough to preserve it. And patent duration should depend on the field. For slow-moving fields, it might be twenty years. For high-tech fields, it should be more like three. And for individual inventors working independently, the duration should be longer than for patents-for-hire.

If we had no copyrights, there would be no incentive to create movies or TV shows because anyone could get a copy of it and air it for free or post it for free, and then there would be no revenue. Zero. That might be great for theater troupes, but it's crap for anyone trying to do any other sort of acting.

And don't think for one minute that you could make it up with advertising. If anyone can make it available for free, why would anyone watch an ad-laden copy? Why would anyone pay the creator a thing if they don't have to? Ask any shareware author how many people pay them. You'd be surprised. It's remarkably close to nobody.

It would also be pretty rough for musicians, because now they would have to live on revenue from live shows. That's great for acts that bring in a lot of people. It means that the people at the bottom, though—the singer-songwriters and small garage bands of the world—would not be able to use recordings to supplement the pittance that they get from club owners.

So in practice, the lack of copyrights would really screw over an awful lot of good people trying to make an honest living. Basically, you would be reducing every actor, every musician, every computer programmer, every artist to begging for change from people who themselves will likely have no source of income. In effect, the only thing of value will be food, but unfortunately there won't be anyone who can afford to buy it.

Re:Race to the bottom

[alostpacket]

Not going to debate a philisophical rhetoric, but fashion has tangible goods. It's not a good analogy. Nor is historical precedence where most artists died in poverty. I fully agree that patents and copyright are severely broken and laws are meant to serve the priveleged, but this kind of "all culture should be free" nonsense is bordering on fantasy land. There has to be a reasonable middle.

Re:Race to the bottom

[pieterh]

It's not the job of the legal system to feed artists, nor inventors, nor entrepreneurs. We all live or die off our ability to create value for others.

As for "all culture should be free" being nonsense and fantasy, realize that the vast majority of culture is free, and always has been. As I wrote in my previous post, your very ability to argue that owning culture is somehow a good thing depends on the massive free sharing by others of their work.

Reasonable middle grounds are fine. But the problem here is that there is no safe dividing line. It's just as with software patents. There is no objective line to be drawn between "good" and "bad". Once you allow some, no matter how hard you try to limit the scope, any defined line will move inexorably. It's obvious, really. If you accept the (and this really is the fantasy) argument that privatised culture is more valuable than shared culture, you will always accept a little more. If one patent is good, two is better and a million even better. If 14 years' copyright is good, 15 is better, and 100 is even better.

It is rather like smallpox. There's no reasonable middle ground. Eradication, abolition of privatized culture (and technology and ideas) is the only sustainable long term situation, and though it's far from an inevitable outcome, it's one worth fighting for.

Re:Race to the bottom

[syousef]

The problem is that copyright should be 14 years with the option to extend for another 14. After you've created something, you should be able to make money on it for a limited period of time, and then it should go into the public domain while people still care about it enough to preserve it. And patent duration should depend on the field. For slow-moving fields, it might be twenty years. For high-tech fields, it should be more like three. And for individual inventors working independently, the duration should be longer than for patents-for-hire.

You are essentially arguing that we should be stifling innovation, just more slowly. That is nonsense and doesn't fly. Copyright is an outdated mechanism. A new one is needed that compensates the creator without allowing the creator control or limitation. In the simplest instance you should be able to "sue for your cut". Even that has it's problems but it's a better compromise than limiting usage of a creation.

Re:Race to the bottom

[pieterh]

You seem to be claiming that copyright is the basis for a successful economy. You also seem to believe that society has an obligation to feed its artists, musicians, computer programmers, and actors. Lastly, and most amusingly, you seem to claim that the copyright system currently reward these groups, rather than, for example, executives, lawyers, marketing directors, and CEOs.

Firstly, economies work (or fail) on the basis of specialization and trade. This is a basic mechanism, like natural and sexual selection are basic mechanisms for evolution. Economies depend on people dividing up larger problems into smaller ones, and trading solutions. You make bread, I'll make beer, we'll trade. Money of course allows abstraction of this trade, and consequent scaling. Copyright plays no roles in this system except to limit its efficiency, and create friction. There is no benefit to society in individuals or groups owning any part of the culture needed. It is in fact the opposite.

Second, and I'm a computer programmer, but nonetheless: society has no obligation to feed any particular sector except those who cannot look after themselves. Artists, musicians, programmers, writers, and those who would fashion bushes into amusing topiary choose their professions, and do not merit special treatment. The Netherlands tried this. It did, and still does, pay registered artists to produce works. The result is wharehouses filled with junk art. The fact here is that not only do creative people merit no special treatment, but they actually only create valuable works when they are hungry and fairly desperate.

Third, there is no evidence that copyright law helps these people you care about, just as patent law doesn't help "inventors". All forms of privatised culture benefit only those with lawyers and muscle. This also should be obvious, either from studying history (who actually lobbied to create these laws, starting in the 15th century), or by deduction (any law is only tested in the courts, and since these are civil laws, contested between parties, which party will always win? Indeed, it's the one with more and better lawyers and more taste for lawsuits).

Re:Who pays?

[GrpA]

The ISPs won't pay for this. The costs will be passed on to their users as always. And since it's a level playing field, one ISP won't gain an advantage over others.

What is likely to happen however is that important people will find that their kids activities lead to getting such letters and then maybe the older generation, which really doesn't understand the situation, will start to feel the copyright noose they placed around their own necks tighten.

That is likely to lead to change, but not before.

GrpA.

Re:British DMCA?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's something that returns a bunch of results when you type it into a search engine. You should try it.

Re:Who pays?

[Simmeh]

The ISPs won't pay for this. The costs will be passed on to their users as always. And since it's a level playing field, one ISP won't gain an advantage over others.

Incorrect. This only applies to ISPs with over ~400,000 users. More ISPs would of supported this, but there aren't many with a lot of users. This act promotes heavy users to migrate to less popular ISPs.

Re:Who pays?

[GrpA]

its not fair for companies to have to defend themselves against millions of criminals.

If a company has to defend itself against *millions* of criminals, then common logic holds that whatever these millions of people are doing it is not, or should not be, a crime.

GrpA

Re:Who pays?

[517714]

The burden always lies, both literally and figuratively, with those at the bottom of the food chain.

Re:Who pays?

[Hazel Bergeron]

I recall similar arguments when people tried to outlaw slavery. Anyway, it's for the market to decide who counts as a free human!

Any other idiocy you want to share?

Re:Who pays?

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

By your logic I am also contributing to the destruction of the "world economy" because I don't watch films or TV programmes. I don't deliberately listen to music.

I don't buy such media and I don't "pirate" it.

I have neither interest in nor plans for fixing the segment of the economy injured through my inaction.

So, am I as bad as a "pirate" or does your argument fail at this point?

Re:Who pays?

[malkavian]

In exactly the same way car manufacturers are currently benefiting from illegal behaviour (getaway cars, etc.). Oooo.. Look, the Government pays for the locations that muggers use! They're supporting crime!
Please stop putting forth silly quotes that aren't actually even arguments.
The real story behind this is that Lord 'Mandy' Mandelson (who had twice been fired from the Labour government for misconduct and corruption that he only escaped being locked up for because he was a prominent politician. Both times he was quietly brought back in by the government of the time when the public outcry faded away.
Now Lord Mandy went away for a nice little holiday with a friend of his, that just incidentally happened to be in the entertainment industry. When he came back, he put this act on a fast track, basically avoiding most of the debate that would normally be associated with something this intrusive. There are so many things wrong with it on so many levels, an it'll ramp up the cost of internet provision hugely.
Ok, so I assume you're going to say "Well, it protects the artists".. This would be the artists that did just fine several hundred years ago with a copyright span of just 12 years? Oh, that small limit killed art because nobody would do it with such meagre protection, would they?
Well, it didn't kill art. It made a rich public domain that everyone could engage in legally.
Now, however, it's a case that if you've got loads of money (read: entertainment industry), you can hire a lawyer to say that technically, copyright terms are extendible to just shy of an infinite duration (because it's termed to be 'a limited time'. This of course deprives everyone of the public domain. Which is essentially theft. Except you've just used a lot of money to make sure it's got a stamp on it by a judge, making it legal. So, you have the unethical, immoral behaviour practiced by the entertainment industry to deprive people of what used to be a right, but spending a shed load of money (that your average person couldn't even begin to fight against) to make it legal. Then you put more laws in place to protect what you've forced through against ethics.
This has been shown (several studies) to be socially destructive, yet it's perfectly legal, and they keep on tightening the screws.
If you think that an arbitrary law is always just and should dictate what the world does, rather than saying "what works, and what is just is what the law should be", then you're rapidly going to be supporting the building of a massive dystopia.

Re:British DMCA?

[91degrees]

Rather than wade through several google results and a detailed but verbose article, I'll actually answer your question. After all, others might wish to know as well.

The Digital Economy Act was a piece of legislation rushed through at the end of the last parliament just before the election. It's common to do a sort of tidy-up before an election usually this is with the less controversial bills.

The act requires ISPs to send warning letters to infringers and may be used to force ISPs to disconnect the service for repeat infringers. This is seen as placing too heavy a burdn on the ISPs and somewhat draconian against accused file sharers, especially because they may not actually be guilty of any wrongdoing.

Re:Who pays?

[Hazel Bergeron]

No, I'm applying reductio to dismiss GooberToo's absurd argument. If the mere existence of "countless chunks of the world economy, including businesses of all sizes, ranging from one man shops to multi-billion dollar corporations" is moral justification for an underlying principle on which the countless chunks rely... then we can justify slavery.

Of course, hoarding information is not equivalent to owning a whole human being, but it is a constituent part of human ownership. If you control how a human may express himself then you own some part of him. Copyright and patents are, in practice, enforced assertions of control over other people's actions, even while those people are neither causing you harm nor threatening to do so.

Re:Who pays?

[rich_hudds]

It ultimately comes down to whether or not you think that the Government has the right to read all of your communications or not.

If you believe copyright law is a good enough justification for that then you are 'anti-pirate' if you don't you are 'pro-pirate'.

Tell me how you'll enforce copyright once everyone switches to out of country VPNs without effectively snooping on absolutely everything that anyone does and I'll reconsider my 'pro-pirate stupidity'.