Slashdot Mirror
PayPal Joins London Police Effort
derGoldstein writes this excerpt from Ars Technica: "PayPal has joined a music copyright association and the City of London police department's bid to financially starve websites deemed 'illegal.' When presented with sufficient evidence of unlicensed downloading from a site, the United Kingdom's PayPal branch 'will require the retailer to submit proof of licensing for the music offered by the retailer,' said the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry's latest press release." The press release can be found here.
The monopoly is the economic nature of copyright. And, like pringles, it is addictive. Once you pop, you can't stop.
I'd boycott PayPal, but sadly, I can't boycott them any more than I already do.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Without having read TFA I would imagine that this is aimed more at people who pirate music and sell it as genuine. Their customers think they're buying from a legitimate source.
So in a way this is a good thing, but is likely to be the thin end of a wedge where once people accept PayPal policing their users in this way then you'll start to see people having their PayPal accounts disabled for unrelated activities that someone or other doesn't approve of.
I'm given to understand that this happens anyway. In fact, Paypal is famous for suspending peoples' accounts for 180 days when they have a large balance, for example. No appeal. So really this isn't news IMO. Yeah ok maybe finally the music industry has cottoned on to the fact that their target should be people who make a living by ripping them off instead of 13 year olds, grandmothers, and cats because after all that's what copyright was originally designed to prevent, but apart from that I just don't see a story.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We have seen numerous times in the past where the recording industry will seek to charge for works they have no power over. Specifically independent works. We have seen cases go to court where elements of the case were discarded because the plaintiffs didn't actually own the copyright over some of the material in question. So I am guessing, that under this arrangement, the big music publishers will not be required to show they have ownership or authority over any specific works at all and that a mere accusation will result in damaging actions against another party who may be operating in a completely legal manner.
The article only says "sufficient evidence" is needed to start the action and doesn't say what is required. I suspect it will only be their word that infringement is occurring and we already know that the view music publishers have of infringement does not match that of the rest of the world as "fair use" and other such things simply do not exist in their minds.
And just as in the case of the DMCA, we are seeing more and more skipping over the use of the courts system. We are seeing essentially police and others operating at the request of private industry. Only recently, we have seen the tragic result that come of that sort of situation where Cisco was involved in the arrest of a former executive who happened to be suing them at the time.
The influence of business over government is damaging to the rest of the world. And this only seems to be getting worse.
This is the force that harassed Ian Puddick http://www.ianpuddick.com/?p=492 and withheld evidence from IPCC over the death of Ian Tomlinson http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/09/ian-tomlinson-evidence-held-back
Having worked in the City Of London, I can tell you that all they are good for is helping drunk Bankers find the way back to Liverpool Street Station for the last train home.
Then what's the alternative to the online trading venue run by PayPal's parent company, famous for its auction-style listings? This venue banned Google Checkout last time I checked.
When dealing with a vendor I don't trust, I'd rather use the one with a real merchant account. My bank offers a bullet proof dispute resolution system compared to paypal.
Presented with the choice, I'll go with the site which has proper card processing setup. Paypal is just ghetto.
Seriously forget "illegal" websites. I could go on for an hour rant about how paypal has given my customers (legitimate registered 501c3 not for profit groups) the runaround freezing their legally earned money seemingly at random with the explanation of "maintaining compliance". They have required fax and email after letter and voided check to "verify" the account because the not-for-profit was not comfortable tying paypal to their bank account (with good reason it seems). In the end they had to tie it to a bank account, and are uncomfortable with the arrangement to this day. Paypal needs independent oversight, not arrangements with MAFIAA and police.
Get a web developer
Yes, it is. The salty breeze, the port whores, the rum and the adrenaline, you won’t believe how good it feels, anonymous coward.