The anti-piracy brigade is out again in the government

[MK-2]

Following my last post about the piracy thing with BT blocking sites using CleanFeed, the "culture secretary" has launched a massive anti-piracy stance.

 

Unlawfully distributing copyrighted material is theft - and a direct assault on the freedoms and rights of creators of content to be rewarded fairly for their efforts

I'm sure we've been there before, it shouldn't be classified as theft and it is wrong to assume all who pirate would have gone out and bought music/video/game/app in the first place.

 

What worries me are the proposed measures in place for the new Communications Act coming in to place in 2015:

 

A cross-industry body, perhaps modelled on the Internet Watch Foundation, to be charged with identifying infringing websites against which action could be taken

(Probably a cross industry body who profits from big companies and it would be in their best interest to take action against sites which supposedly harm these big companies. I don't have any confidence this will be a neutral body who would be able to say "sorry big company X, that site isn't infringing, we will leave it alone")

 

A streamlined legal process to make it possible for the courts to act quickly

(again, worrying in the fact that things will be pushed through courts quickly by big companies who can afford to do it, and lean on officials to make it happen.)

 

 

It's already been reported that newzbin2 (the website being blocked to the UK by BT's cleanfeed system) is working on a program that people can download and will give them access to the site.

[localzuk]

The thing that gets me is they are constantly moving towards a 'shoot first ask questions later' approach. ie. guilty until proven innocent.

 

Much like in the USA where the FBI can now shut down a domain name for counterfeit goods sellers without a court order, doing this can damage legitimate businesses and sites who are unfairly targeted.

 

What happened to the old idea of innocent until proven guilty and being entitled to a fair trial?

[CHR1S]

What a Jhunt!

[teejay]

Unlawfully distributing copyrighted material is theft - and a direct assault on the freedoms and rights of creators of content to be rewarded fairly for their efforts

 

He really is talking out of his backside. Copyright infringement isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. The content creators can be rewarded fairly when they start treating the consumer fairly. How about sorting out the mess of it still being in breach of copyright to rip a cd to mp3, how about allowing ebooks to be given/sold on rather than crippling them with DRM, how about selling stuff at sensible prices rather than trying to rip us off all the time?

[MK-2]

Unlawfully distributing copyrighted material is theft - and a direct assault on the freedoms and rights of creators of content to be rewarded fairly for their efforts

 

Copyright infringement isn't theft, it's copyright infringement.

 

my thoughts exactly. if copyright infringement is a crime and theft is a crime, how can one be another. its like saying we need to be harsh on murderers because murder is theft as you are stealing a life

[mthomas08]

The thing that gets me is they are constantly moving towards a 'shoot first ask questions later' approach. ie. guilty until proven innocent.

 

To be fair to them, we don't use sites like that for "Legit" reasons.

[Arthur]

Unlawfully distributing copyrighted material is theft

As Teejay said, it's not theft in the traditional sense because nothing goes missing.

[localzuk]

To be fair to them, we don't use sites like that for "Legit" reasons.

 

Is it not the case that a judge and jury should make that decision, rather than some jumped up bureaucrat in an office, trying to make is rich friends richer?

[jinnantonnixx]

rights of creators of content to be rewarded fairly for their efforts

 

Surely by now, the film and record industry must be close to collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy.

 

Reward creators for their efforts? Is this the same industry who gave us the notion of "Hollywood accounting" which deliberately sets out to defraud the same said creators?

 

I quote

Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing.[7] That being so, he has refused to sell the screenplay rights to the novel's sequel, stating that he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure".

[jinnantonnixx]

While I'm in the mood...

 

Look at the sums at the end of the article.

 

The Problem With Music

[Jamman960]

Hopefully they'll never go further than messing with DNS... places like newzbin have just started giving out IP's instead so access continues

 

its either that or its time to start using something like VyprVPN for everything

[CESIL]

Sorry to repeat myself (well not really sorry) but here goes...

 

My son is hoping to make a career as a singer/songwriter...how does he make a living at it if people feel free to distribute his work to each other on the basis that as they have bought one copy then it's fair enough to pass it on to their friends...or even to millions of people they don't know via P2P sites?

 

Oh and yes I did sometimes make a copy of a record or tape for a friend back in the day so I am guilty of the same offence...but it was only an occasional copy...not uploading the stuff for countless numbers of users to download...

 

And while I am venting my spleen...how is this sort of "sharing" different from those who helped themselves to goods from shops during the riots because they had already been broken into?

 

And finally, I am really tired of hearing the old "rip-off" argument...it's only a rip-off if you are daft enough to buy at the offered price..if you think something is too expensive then don't buy it...if enough people vote with their wallets then the price will soon come down...caveat emptor!

[Arthur]

The Problem With Music

It's going to get even worse for the majority of artists now that the EU has extended musical copyright by another 20 years.

 

It took three years of doing, but the music industry has finally won its European battle to lock up in-copyright sound recordings for another 20 years. Looking forward to The Beatles' music entering the public domain as the 50-year copyright terms expires? Not going to happen.

 

The Council of the European Union, where the various member state governments all have a say, voted yesterday (PDF) without discussion to increase the copyright term in sound recordings from 50 to 70 years. Small countries like Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden voted against the extension, but it passed anyway. (Source)

 

"72 percent of the financial benefits from term extension will accrue to record labels. Of the 28 percent that will go to artists, most of the money will go to superstar acts, with only 4 percent benefiting those musicians mentioned in the European Council press release as facing an 'income gap at the end of their life times.' Many performers also do not appear to understand that the proposal would lead to a redistribution of income from living to dead artists." (Source)

 

Using The Beatles as an example, it would mean that their music won't enter the public domain until 70 years after the death of the last band member. Since Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are still alive it could be protected until the start of the next century!

Edited September 15, 2011 by Arthur

[Arthur]

My son is hoping to make a career as a singer/songwriter... how does he make a living at it if people feel free to distribute his work

Do what many artists do these days (Trent Reznor and Radiohead being the obvious examples) and sell the music directly to consumers in whatever format they want (MP3, FLAC etc.) for a reasonable price.

 

Radiohead's contract with EMI/Capitol expired after its last record, Hail to the Thief, was released in 2003; shortly before the band started writing new songs, singer Thom Yorke told TIME, "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'F___ you' to this decaying business model." (Source)

[CESIL]

Well maybe by the time my son is releasing his seventh or eight album he will have made enough money to consider doing the same as Radiohead and Trent Reznor and giving away his work...

[Arthur]

He's probably not going to get rich from people downloading his music legally via iTunes or streaming music services such as Spotify...

 

http://i.imgur.com/ESG41.png

 

Well maybe by the time my son is releasing his seventh or eight album he will have made enough money to consider doing the same

Less well-known artists (e.g. Hybrid, Amon Tobin, Rupert Parkes) sell music directly via their websites too. He doesn't have to give it away!

Edited September 15, 2011 by Arthur

[MK-2]

Sorry to repeat myself (well not really sorry) but here goes...

 

My son is hoping to make a career as a singer/songwriter...how does he make a living at it if people feel free to distribute his work to each other on the basis that as they have bought one copy then it's fair enough to pass it on to their friends...or even to millions of people they don't know via P2P sites?

 

Oh and yes I did sometimes make a copy of a record or tape for a friend back in the day so I am guilty of the same offence...but it was only an occasional copy...not uploading the stuff for countless numbers of users to download...

 

And while I am venting my spleen...how is this sort of "sharing" different from those who helped themselves to goods from shops during the riots because they had already been broken into?

 

And finally, I am really tired of hearing the old "rip-off" argument...it's only a rip-off if you are daft enough to buy at the offered price..if you think something is too expensive then don't buy it...if enough people vote with their wallets then the price will soon come down...caveat emptor!

 

this wasn't really my point. its not the fact that it affects people, its the assumptions made in every area.

lets say, for example, i heard that there is a new artist out called cesils son, i've never heard of him so i go online and illegally download an mp3 of his track. first of all its assumed i have now stolen that track. i haven't, i have infringed his copyright. he is still in possession of the song, i have copied it, not stolen it. thats the first assumption being made by the government and all these agencies.

now lets say i've heard the track and think "i hate it"....its now assumed i have deprived him of a legitimate sale. its assumed that i would have bought the song regardless, which obviously i wouldn't. these are the things im on about.

 

if assumptions are going to be common place then i dont think anyone would be happy being pulled over by the police just because they have been shopping and bought some beer, and the police now assume they are drink driving....no proof but they put two and two together and came out with drunk.

 

my other point was that this sort of precedent is dangerous. lets use again the example of your son. lets say he has made well of being an artist and has his own website selling his music online. now lets say apple, for example, would prefer him to sell his music only via itunes so go to the courts with some made up infringement and get his site shut down. your son has now lost his main revenue because the courts have shut his site down for all the wrong reasons because a bigger company said so.

 

i know its not a perfect example, but this is what i'm on about. its not purely about piracy, its the fact the government are giving control to people who will more often than not be influenced by these big companies for their own needs and will not always do what is best in general (look at cleanfeed....aimed at stopping child pornography....now also used to stop little johnny downloading a lady gaga mp3)

[mthomas08]

Is it not the case that a judge and jury should make that decision, rather than some jumped up bureaucrat in an office, trying to make is rich friends richer?

 

Totally agreed, but then the same could be said for those who steal all the time (including those who did while rioting was on).

[Domino]

Less well-known artists (e.g. Hybrid, Amon Tobin, Rupert Parkes) sell music directly via their websites too. He doesn't have to give it away!

 

However with no label/distribution backing its hard to get your music heard over the millions of other artists online.

 

Those people may be less well known, but they're still pretty well backed.

[X-13]

Personally, I download things to try them out.

 

Download a game, because there are no demos.

Download music, because I want to listen to it before I buy it.

Download/stream movies, because I'm not 100% sure it's something I'd like. [i've been misled with films before... Looks cool, actually sucks.]

 

No one is losing any money. If I don't like it, they weren't getting my money anyway, and if I do I pay for it.

[sted]

Personally, I download things to try them out.

 

Download a game, because there are no demos.

Download music, because I want to listen to it before I buy it.

Download/stream movies, because I'm not 100% sure it's something I'd like. [i've been misled with films before... Looks cool, actually sucks.]

 

No one is losing any money. If I don't like it, they weren't getting my money anyway, and if I do I pay for it.

 

thats the thing i bet a lot of people are like that cdownload an album if its good i will buy it if not the delete it (yes you hear odd tracks on the radio but the rest of the album may be utter garbage)

 

and what about tv progs that arnt avaliable on dvd and never will be where is the harm in downloading them if they arnt for sale who are you depriving of income?

[TechMonkey]

I think also the point is the Labels and Distributors make SO much. Why not make it fairer and give the artist (that they are so worried about losing out) a larger cut rather than funding a whole industry to persecute your customers? Or miss out on that corporate jet this year and spread the money around? They try and make themselves out to be squeaky clean (which is a laugh in itself with stories like Hollywood Accounting and the RIAA using tunes illegally for their own adverts) & yet are the biggest thieves around!

Arguments like "ohhh we take all the risk so have to make a large profit to cover this" are rubbish when you see they aren't taking risks. It's all FUBAR & they are just trying to hang on to an outdated model.

[LeMarchand]

This discussion is always full of the same arguments, and no-one is ever moved to "change sides" (so I don't actually know why I'm bothering to post this) but:

 

Yes, some people "try before they buy" or wouldn't have bought anyway, but huge amounts never buy and may well have bought if it hadn't been available for free. For instance, I'm fairly sure that someone I know with an HDD full of torrented movies could afford the DVDs and would be a bit less free with doling them out to all and sundry if she'd have to pay to replace them should they fail to be returned. My personal observations are that very few people who download via illegal channels later buy - why would they when they can just keep what they have on increasingly cheap hard or optical disk?

 

The "why should I pay for something that might be rubbish?" argument annoys me a bit. Why not either wait until it's cheap, or not buy? Would you demand your money back if (say) a footie match turned out not to be as epic as you hoped?

[localzuk]

The "why should I pay for something that might be rubbish?" argument annoys me a bit. Why not either wait until it's cheap, or not buy? Would you demand your money back if (say) a footie match turned out not to be as epic as you hoped?

 

If I bought a computer, or a TV and found out it was rubbish, I'd take it back...

 

The issue is not as simple as either of the points you made. It is a complex issue with many causes. Another one is the price of this stuff. Look at video games, a new release is £40+. You'd have to be insane to pay that. I've not bought a 'new' game straight up since C&C Red Alert 2. They're simply unaffordable to most people. Independent game makers like Mojang and Re-Logic have the right idea with their pricing - price it reasonably and people will buy it en-masse. Notch has become very rich from selling a game for €15. Would he have if he had been selling at €50?

[webman]

@CESIL He should try Bandcamp.

 

Buy a commercial DVD or BlueRay? With all the non-skippable ads and copyright warnings? And having to use a physical disc and all of the faffing around that entails? Or alternatively launch a computer file and get straight into the action. I know which one is more convenient and which one I prefer.

Edited September 16, 2011 by webman