UK Government To Terminate File Sharers' Net Access 411
An anonymous reader writes "New plans published by the UK Govt show that they hope to terminate internet access for people suspected of breaching copyright by file sharing. Under the proposed new laws ISPs who fail to enforce the policy will face prosecution in the courts. Users falling foul of the new law will be subject to a three strike policy: First suspected instance of illegal file sharing they would receive a warning, at the second — a suspension, and at the third they will have their Internet connection terminated. It isn't clear whether users will be prevented from ever using the internet again, or whether simply subscribing to a new ISP will reset the process."
Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm (Score:5, Informative)
I can see my ISP's point, but they're making my life difficult.
Re:Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm (Score:4, Interesting)
It states several times "customers suspected of making illegal downloads."
I'll add some facts here ...
The way this works is like this: IFPI (or more likely some contracted-out company) will connect to "Teeney_Spears_best_of.torrent" bittorrent, and will note down the time and IP address of all the other machines in the swarm. Any which belong to a UK ISP will result in a notification being sent to the ISP who will forward it along to the customer. Three srikes etc.
The ISPs won't be monitoring connections, because (surprisingly) that is illegal interception and can only be done under carefully controlled conditions as specified in the RIP Act. Oh actually, it can be done by everyone and their dog in local government, but that is a separate issue [openrightsgroup.org].
Encryption and suspicion don't really come into this. Plausible deniability, neighbours and visitors using your wifi connection, challenges over the chain of evidence, compromised machine, etc. are all possible, assuming any of these cases ever makes it to court. The whole point of the voluntary agreement is to avoid cases coming to court and needing solid evidence.
Rich.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ummmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
* Probably much mroe than 99% of stuff on P2P is copyrighted. The term they're looking for is *infringing* copyrighted content.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably just using BitTorrent to download a Linux distro.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7240234.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Here are extracts.
A draft consultation suggests internet service providers would be required to take action over users who access pirated material.
According to the Times, the draft paper states: "We will move to legislate to require internet service providers to take action on illegal file sharing."
This is a draft proposal for discussion, so now is the time to act.
Write to your MP, explaining how the proposed legislation would be
Going after downloaders would seriously inconvenience legitimate users of P2P networks, such as those who use them for FOSS distribution. Driving people to encrypt their distributions would just result in an escalation of the problem and the gov't would
Re:Ummmm (Score:5, Informative)
A better answer is for the content industry to come up with a new business model. Obviously the world has changed and their old one doesn't work anymore.
Re:Ummmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that does not imply that it cannot lead to successful prosecution when an ISP is identified as being in violation...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Opening emails or data packets is illegal if you simple extend the law about snail-mail. If they stepped into this, they are making their unconstitutional (well, it's UK, so substitute whatever you have for constitution) rules, which makes it pretty much irrelevant whether you encrypt your uploads or not.
Re: (Score:2)
In our country anything can be made illegal if government can get it through parliament unless it breaches a Law that is passed down by a higher authority. The higher authorities we currently recognise are the European Court and the International Convention on Human Rights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
[1] Wait, this is Slashdot, no I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... you encrypt the transfer, not the file itself. Ever heard of SSL? Sort of like that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Note: I do not condone illegal file sharing. Well, most of the time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Overreaching will kill it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said.. I am sure there are probably protections in place to prevent abuse... heh.. okay maybe not...
Wait (Score:2)
If the file was being encrypted with a known key, the ISP can simply filter that data and it doesn't matter if it's encrypted or not.
If the connection between peers is encrypted, it's not obvious what is being done. Could be ftp-ing legal stuff, could be torrenting the latest blockbuster.
I think the trend is toward traffic analysis based on timing between packages or something like
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
please dob yourself in (Score:3, Funny)
Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Phone number (optional):
Comments
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bittorrent already blocked (Score:5, Informative)
I've fixed it now, but I'm not impressed that Pipex see BitTorrent as a cancer that needs to be cut out, and if anything innocent goes with it, then that's OK because it's for the greater good.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to know what problems you had.
I'm now using a server somewhere else and downloading via it. It's a lot easier, and quicker even though its indirect.
Re: (Score:2)
"Suspected" incidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see that they're not even going for proven guilt in this case. So what happens when some poor Brit has his internet connection pulled for downloading Ubuntu ISO's or WOW updates via BitTorrent... or the media companies just screw up and finger the wrong IP as infringing.
Re:"Suspected" incidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was already settled that IP's are no evidence?
A passport is a proof of somebody's identiy. A post-it with a name written on it is not. An IP is more like the post-it than the passport.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you please explain to me how the ISP is supposed to route packets to you if you've spoofed your IP?
Or are you suggesting that m4d h4xx0rz are spoofing IPs purely out of malice and/or to misdirect The Man?
Re:"Suspected" incidence (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually what I read is worse than this. Anything they do not like will be turned into "suspected" illegal file sharing. Blog the wrong thing? Suspected illegal file sharing. Visit an unapproved website? Suspected illegal file sharing. Have an ISP connection with my competitor? Suspected illegal file sharing.
Don't think it will happen? Obviously you don't understand human nature too well.
6 Million "Illegal Downloaders" in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:6 Million "Illegal Downloaders" in the UK (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That will prevent the rest of us from connecting to the automatic mesh network through them.
...and to put that into context. (Score:2)
I think that number is even an underestimate as I recall seeing a statement that over 6million people in the UK download movies via peer to peer back in 2004, if that statement was true back then I'd imagine that figure has increased, but is also even large again when you factor in peer to peer sharing of music and other content as well as just movies.
Time to emigrate (Score:4, Insightful)
Enforcing this would require constant monitoring of all communication over the net. I'm not suprised our government doesn't see any issue with this as they are totally morally bankrupt. One tenth of the population is doing this and the first thought is surveillance and punishment. Good going.
I hadn't realised how much they were in the pocket of the **AA/BPI etc though.
This is a civil matter, for civil courts that should decide a reasonable fine and that be the end of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the United Kingdom of America.
To add an important point (Score:2)
I mention this because people need to be made aware that voting Conservatives in will change nothing, if we're going to solve this problem through elections people need to be looking for a party that really will make a difference - the Lib Dems or even the Greens!
Just don't share from home (Score:2)
Fortunately for every stupid law there's a fairly easy technical solution, and it will be this way at least until the current generation of legislators retire and is replaced with people with basic understanding of technology.
Re: (Score:2)
welcome to the latest round of whack-a-mole (Score:2, Troll)
all of these legal efforts, all they do is drive the creation of more robust software. what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. thank you, uk government, for making file sharing softwar
Re:welcome to the latest round of whack-a-mole (Score:5, Insightful)
So the movie makers, musicians, writers, software developers and game designers should all go do a basic course in plumbing and carpentry?
I don't know about you, but I need to pay the bills. You are basically saying that thanks to selfish leeches who think everyone owes them free entertainment for life, our entire collective digital industries are now dead and buried, to be pursued only by hobbyists at the weekends?
Personally, I'd rather it didn't come to that, and if that means using the law to crack down on people blatantly and repeatedly infringing copyright, then good. Someone copying a mates Cd was never the issue. Its people who leave servers on 24/7 distributing tens of thousands of files that were only released yesterday that is the problem.
go ask the aztec and incan nobility (Score:5, Insightful)
or, refuse to adapt to change and obsolescence, and fight bravely agains tthe dying of the light. go ahead, pass more laws against file sharing. go ahead, hire 10x more pit bull lawyers. go for it dude
as if it will actually matter
accept reality, or don't, i don't care. whatever you think is right or wrong doesn't mean reality is going to necessarily reflect that. you can't realistically enforce your beliefs. so your beliefs will not be reality. sorry, but that's the truth. there is in fact naturalistic morality, and beleiving in real moral right and wrong. i'm sorry to break this to you, but intellectual property is not naturally moral. and os it is a completely articifial construct, and, when unable to be enforced, ceases to be respected. you can't reason or argue with a teenager as to why they must pay bertelsmann $10 because they want to listen to michael jackson. there is natural, moral compelling reason for them to respect intelelctual property. it's a fucking joke
furthermore, the real losers of this game is the distributors, not the artists. they already screw the artists with hilarious contracts. go look up "monkey points" on wikipedia and tell me again about how pirates are hurting artists. they aren't hurting artists at all, they are hurting distributors. distributors are screwing you, and have been screwing you long before the internet even existed
if distributors are removed, i think maybe 1/10th of the money involved goes away. but as before artists saw only 1/1,000th of the money in play, now they will see 900% of the money in play. so artists make out better for the destruction of distributors
so pirates are good for artists, by destroying the people that really screw you
you, like many people, mistake disrespect for a defunct distribution model as disrespect for artists
wake up
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of them, yes. We've got more than the free market can actually feed, and the bubble of copyright is about to burst.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Though it is nearly impossible to control sharing, sharing may not be the only or even the main motivation behind the law. Consider that pretty much anyone can be accused of file sharing, irrespective of whether the person actually engaged in it. How would you defend yourself? It is your word against theirs.
In short, if approved, this law provides an excuse to deny any citizen Internet access. In particular, it can be used to deny access to people eng
who cares? (Score:2)
you don't simply dramatically retard the internet in a democracy without serious repercussions
Re: (Score:2)
Flatmates (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, no-one's proposing that. They just expect me (internet is in my name) to police my flatmates computers for them. Bottom-up stazi citizenry for your future police state here we come.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How am I supposed to "police my internet connection"? Buy the same filtering kit that my ISP uses in order to detect infringements on my internet connection and expect me to give a shit that my flatmate is downloading Britney Spears? I don't give a shit what my flatmates are doing and they can fuck off if they expect me to police ANYTHING that isn't my data. You're saying I'm responsible for all data going across that network link. You are wrong.
Sorry to so infuru
Encryption (Score:2)
When encryption is used, the ISPs cannot directly monitor what data is coming across the network. Would they then assume that any BitTorrent connection must be something illegal? Would they have to depend on the content overlords to make claims from their own spies in the sharing?
Should the encryption be "in the stream" like HTTPS, SSL, and SSH does? Or should it be IPsec? Or both?
Re: (Score:2)
1. The ISPs will not be willing to monitor the traffic (prohibitively expensive)
2. The ISPs are not allowed by UK Law to monitor the traffic
3. The ISPs cannot tell if the traffic is copyright infringing material anyway , it might be encrypted, it might be Public domain, it might not be copyrightable material, it might be fair use, it might be creative commons, it might be with the owners consent?
This is another unenforceable law that the police and the public will ignore
Re: (Score:2)
1. The ISPs will not be willing to monitor the traffic (prohibitively expensive)
If the proposal becomes law, and the content overlords push enforcement, they may have no choice. And this will raise everyone's internet access price.
2. The ISPs are not allowed by UK Law to monitor the traffic
The proposal could make an exception for this, depending on the final form it takes if it gets that far.
3. The ISPs cannot tell if the traffic is copyright infringing material anyway , it might be encrypted, it might be Public domain, it might not be copyrightable material, it might be fair use, it might be creative commons, it might be with the owners consent?
The content overloards could provide some (probably very unreliable) software that will scan for signatures of most popular content. They will argue all fair use would not be going over the internet between different access accounts (even though i
Re: (Score:2)
No, they shouldn't be. But who knows what mechanisms the proposal might end up requiring if it becomes law. What encryption will do is at least cut out one such mechanism. It will still be possible for the content overlords to run their own bogus file sharing agents to see who is at least offering, or even accepting, such downloads. Or they could spy onto insecure computers. Or they could be planting rootkits. Encryption won't stop them, but it will make things harder for them.
As for the encryption p
Write to your MPs (Score:5, Insightful)
Write, phone, or email your MP. I'm doing it, are you?
Been there, done that (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately they simply responded to tell me that p2p destroys the creative industries, is responsible for terrorism and organised crime and that it must be stopped at all costs.
Of course, this ignored every legitimate point I put across to them and when I replied back asking if they could instead answer my points and how they can justify their decision when my points are taken into account I simply didn't get a response.
Writing
Encryption won't save you (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the legal hurdle to invoke this penalty is merely "suspicion," encryption is no protection. Using an encrypted link to a suspect site or using an anonymizing service can be enough evidence in and of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we need to start using more encryption ... for everything done over the internet. That includes making web sites that operate over HTTPS and redirect to the HTTPS URL if accessed via just the HTTP URL. The more we do that now the harder it will be for them to ass-u-me that encryption means you're hiding something. Use encryption by default "because it's more work to turn it on and off for different places".
Good. For everyone else. (Score:2)
I suppose it will be through encryption but it's not important. We all know this is not going to stop anything, just bother some British people for a short while.
Fortunately they keep applying those attacks to civilized countries first, so they become obsolete before reaching the people who lives in countries who wouldn't be able to respond so fast.
Would we tolerate this with any other utility? (Score:5, Interesting)
What about all the people falsely accused? Are they going to have to go to court and prove they DIDN'T do anything illegal just to get internet access back?
A sad day for the UK, and an unfortunate precedent that I'm sure the U.S. and others will soon follow.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those damned customers, they must be STOPPED!
Re: (Score:2)
Neutral ISP? (Score:2)
Dug
Consultation Paper (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps if a few thousand people respond to that as well as complaining on the Internet, it may help stop such laws (not that the Government is obliged to listen to consultation responses, but it's one possible way of opposing new laws, and makes it harder for the Government to claim there is public support).
Just switch to wifi (Score:3, Insightful)
The next step (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok so we have Britain proposing the monitoring of the entire internet, Australia is proposing an ISP-level filter, US cable companies are doing their own selective torrent throttling and various countries such as China already have expansive firewalls and filters in place. Even if this proposal falls through, or is modified somehow, I think we're going to have to accept that governments are in the pockets of the media companies and service providers will target users of p2p because, in their opinion, they aren't making as big a profit as they might like.
The next step is to ask what we, as the science, engineering and computer-loving community who have been using BitTorrent and various other protocols for legitimate uses before all the kids figured out they could score Amy Winehouse albums for free, can do to either circumvent the policies initiated by the above various groups or to bypass them completely.
Napster, Limewire and the first generation p2p clients collapsed so BitTorrent was designed and users flocked to it. Now it appears that BitTorrent is going to suffer the same fate (if not now than definitely in the near future - the increasing pressure put on ISP's and governments around the world by copyright holders is going to see to that).
We can't afford to fight fire with fire. Invasive laws and techniques used by companies such as Comcast may be un-Constitutional, or against the terms of service but the average p2p-user can't afford to launch a civil case against one of the biggest corporations in the USA. My suggestion is for a new protocol to be established, with the emphasis on sharing legitimate files such as patches, Linux ISO's, videos, game demo's etc. Inevitably the first people to jump onto the new system will be the true geeks (By this I mean your average Slashdotter) and by doing so, they can utilise it to its full extent (Something like the early days of BitTorrent) whilst the MPAA/RIAA flog a dead horse.
Of course it's only a matter of time before pirates jump onto the new protocol and then we watch the whole show unfold again. However p2p-users have proven resourceful and it's only a matter of time before yet another protocol is developed and the cycle continues. But the advantage lies with us. The cost to the developer of something like BitTorrent is minutely small when compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars MAFIAA throws away in its attempt to stop piracy. If we keep it up long enough we might finally get the message across that p2p != piracy, or we might simply bleed them dry.
A little story about Nokia (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in Germany Nokia recently decided to move production to Poland, where labor is much cheaper, shutting down a large factory in Dortmund where 3000 people are employed. 3000 people out of 80+ million is a
Tactics and counter-tactics (Score:2)
The simplest way I can see this happening is automated infringement notices, generated by *AA-run bots which join torrents with names similar to the intellectual property being defended, and send said notices after downloading enough to confirm it matches a signature.
Licence Fee, and Other Issues (Score:3, Interesting)
(Yes, the BBC is doing fairly well at introducing content online, but AFAIK that's still got DRM, only available for a certain period etc, and it's a hassle to install new software.)
Another problem is that the TV market is not anywhere near as a free market as say music, in that consumers are restricted by what their TV/cable/satellite company offers. For example, Virgin Media and Sky had a petty squabble, so VM suddenly cancelled the Sky channels on its service (3p a day per customer was too expensive for VM to pay to Sky). I'm sure people would gladly pay the 3p a day themselves if they could, but the only options are to not watch, or download.
If this really was costing billions, wouldn't they have worked out their petty squabbles?
Not to mention, it would help if UK shows weren't shown months after the US - even if it's going to be legally available on your TV, people don't want to watch it months after everyone else, risk being spoilered and so on. Imagine if music CDs were released months later in some countries?
Globalization and Cheap Copies (Score:4, Insightful)
Big business (and their sock puppets big government that they own completely and control now in the modern corporacracy (which is what are governments are now mostly) care not a whit how many "little people" are hurt economically, as long as their "cheap copy" business model stays intact. they promise and insist this is the "best method" possible for the modern economy.
We are told by our business and governmental leaders that this is the new plan of the 21st century, that to be efficient, we need the cheapest copies of a good or labor-hour as possible, with the tradeoffs to those disposed of their previous employment that they will receive-cheaper copies of whatever-else, could be the same exact thing they used to make, and frequently is. Lather rinse repeat across the board in the employment world.
The official rule now is, you accept globalization, take your day to day chances with your job, in exchange, big business and big government are promising "cheap copies" for you as a consumer. Of everything, no exceptions, the cheapest copies possible.
OK, fair enough! That is the economic "deal" they have created for everyone to enjoy. Globalization rules! Cheap copies of everything for everyone!
But...wait a minute..something isn't quite right here yet... exactly where are the "cheap copies" of digital bits "for sale" legally?
We have this "cheap copy" replicator technology now that shows us the cost of making the cheap copies of digital bits is pretty low, amazingly low. But the business world insists on "legal" copies that are vastly higher in end user retail price than what their own globalization cheap copy models suggest should be the actual true "tradeoff price" according to their "you must accept globalization no matter what, it is the new law and practice" rules.
Critics of that might say "you are leaving out the costs of producing the original in the first place, someone has to pay for that as well!". True enough as a criticism on the surface level, but let us go just *one* step below that and look at it.
When big business, with big governments help and permission, moves non-digital bits copy manufacturing to the "cheaper to make copies" place, they are *also* sidestepping why this new move becomes cheaper. A primary reason is they can completely sidestep a series of societally imposed environmental regulations, or actual costs of production...they can "make more profit" by *not* paying their previously worked out societal "bill" or "cost of original production" of being a little more respective of our commons, the environment. They usually also-at the same new "cheaper to make copies" place- can get to use and exploit the "cheap copy" of lower cost per hour labor by being allowed to support local near-slave drivers tied to repressive regimes who can seriously exploit their own labor force slaves in complete avoidance-avoiding a previous production cost- to what they previously had to include in the cost of making copies, by ignoring such things as child labor laws, workplace safety, and so on. But see, that doesn't matter, as long as a "cheap copy" can then be resold back to "the consumer". That's the globalization trade structure we are under now.
So that counter
Judge Dredd art imitates life? (Score:3, Insightful)
For a long time, I thought there were laws and rights inbetween
This proposal truly could destroy lives... (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in the UK as does my grandma. She used to have support from government funded community workers for her shopping, because she isn't mobile they used to collect a shopping list from her weekly and would then go out and get her shopping and bring it back for her. Unfortunately she lives 200 miles away so it's not something we're able to help her with from here. The goverment reduced funding to this scheme such that they no longer support it for her, and when she asked what she was supposed to do she was told they will give her computing tutorials and help with providing internet access for her so she could shop online and have the supermarkets deliver to her, this wasn't as good as the previous scheme but it works in a similar way now she has the hang of it.
So what happens if someone hijacks the wireless that came with her internet access that the goverment recommended and uses it for P2P getting her cut off? Is she supposed to just starve then or something? Another good example is homework, are kids without internet access meant to be at a disadvantage by being unable to perform decent research? I work in IT in the education sector and have recently encountered goverment proposals to get local-goverment supported IT kit and internet access to disadvantaged families so there appears to be a fair bit of evidence the goverment wants every kid to have net access when it comes to education.
The problem is the goverment here in the UK have recently done things that suggest the internet is an essential service like electricity, gas, water, telephone which is great because it can indeed serve as such an important service. After they've gone to such great lengths to recognise it's importance how can they possibly turn around now and suggest it's something that can just be taken away when kids futures and pensioners lives quite literally depend on it?
I'm not aware of any other crime in existence that would take away a service that is essential to both our children's future and our pensioners well being as a result of goverment proposed schemes.
Whoopee (Score:4, Insightful)
Buying a ship and heading off to sea is starting to sound more and more tempting.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FAIL (Score:2, Insightful)
It has in other places, your incredulity at that fact doesn't make it untrue though. Look at Canada, Spain, Germany etc.
"Are governments really going to say "tough shit" and encourage people to just pirate content?"
Some are imposing a tax, others are investigating just completely legalising p2p. Yes, remember that democracy is about the interests of the population, not just IP "owners".
"Like it or not 99% of the content on p2p serv
Re:Not so fast (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is the case, how do you explain the masses of Free Software?
How do you explain the rich culture and works that were created before copyrights were even invented?
How do you explain the fact that publishers struggled to be the ones to get to publish the 9/11 Commission Report, even though they could not get a copyright on it, and even though any other publisher could publish it as well? How do you explain that this report made quite a buck for the publisher that published it anyhow?
If indeed copyright drives quality content (which I believe it does not), is it really worth the extra laws that have to imposed on all citizens? Is it worth the trouble of policing information?
Re:Not so fast (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to try and imply that copyright, or more specifically, the collection of royalty payment for each copy, is the primary driver for the creation of content.
No. I suggest that it is one driver for the creation of content. Clearly other mechanisms from live performance to altruism also serve as effective motivators to varying degrees.
I have suggested before that the biggest single advantage of a copyright-style framework over any other method I've seen proposed is that it provides a credible mechanism for creators to make expensive works and each of many consumers to contribute a small share of the cost. In other words, it encourages the widest possible distribution of the works that take the most time and effort to produce, rather than charging higher amounts by making enjoyment of such works a scarce commodity (commissioned work, limited ticket sales at concerts, etc.).
If that is the case, how do you explain the masses of Free Software?
Free Software is a terrible example to use if you're trying to show a better way than copyright. The amount of useful, high quality commercial software developed via copyright absolutely dwarfs the amount of useful, high quality software developed under a Free Software model. Even flagship Free Software titles are often not as good as the commercial equivalents. And of course, this particular argument ignores the fact that commercial software development pays the rent for a large proportion of the people who contribute to Free Software in their spare time.
How do you explain the rich culture and works that were created before copyrights were even invented?
Again, this one is easy: far less work was produced, and far fewer people enjoyed it because it wasn't as widely available.
How do you explain the fact that publishers struggled to be the ones to get to publish the 9/11 Commission Report, even though they could not get a copyright on it, and even though any other publisher could publish it as well? How do you explain that this report made quite a buck for the publisher that published it anyhow?
Because even a thin margin is useful if someone else is paying for the original work to be done?
If indeed copyright drives quality content (which I believe it does not), is it really worth the extra laws that have to imposed on all citizens? Is it worth the trouble of policing information?
Copyright is no different to any other law. It should simply codify an accepted convention that informed people will respect without any need to police them, and provide a means for penalising the few who refuse to play by the same rules as everyone else. The fact that this is not the case today is indeed a damning indictment of the current copyright regime, which I believe is primarily down to poor public understanding of the economics involved and allowing the megacorp middlemen to have all the power when it should be the artists and the consumers who are the important groups. But fixing the ignore and the power imbalance are relatively easy, and do not require removing the entire copyright system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. I suggest that it is one driver for the creation of content. Clearly other mechanisms from live performance to altruism also serve as effective motivators to varying degrees.
I believe the main driver is the free market.
I have suggested before that the biggest single advantage of a copyright-style framework over any other method I've seen proposed is that it provides a credible mechanism for creators to make expensive works and each of many consumers to contribute a small share of the cost. In other words, it encourages the widest possible distribution of the works that take the most time and effort to produce, rather than charging higher amounts by making enjoyment of such works a scarce commodity (commissioned work, limited ticket sales at concerts, etc.).
It most certainly does not encourage the widest possible distribution, by placing artificial scarcity on the distribution. Limited ticket sales at concerts do not pose any limit whatsoever on the distribution of recordings of such concerts. That maximizes distribution, copyright does not.
Free Software is a terrible example to use if you're trying to show a better way than copyright. The amount of useful, high quality commercial software developed via copyright absolutely dwarfs the amount of useful, high quality software developed under a Free Software model. Even flagship Free Software titles are often not as good as the commercial equivalents. And of course, this particular argument ignores the fact that commercial software development pays the rent for a large proportion of the people who contribute to Free Software in their spare time.
Firstly, you are confusing "commercial" with closed-source (as many open-source products are commercial).
I believe Free Software is a great example. Copyright makes it possibl
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It seems to me Shakespeare, Mozart and the like did OK. At the least the first two produced some popular works and their lack of distribution at the time was more due to technical limitations and Mozart himself was a violator of the content control mechanisms of the day. Yeah, you won't
Well, not the honest part (Score:2)
Well, perhaps they're leaching, but certainly not from honest people. Perhaps you missed this story:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/0317238 [slashdot.org]
Which says amongst other things: "The Tolkien Trust says that New Line paid them only $62,500 to make 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy of films -- instead of the agreed-upon 7.5 percent of gross receipts of all film-related revenue."
Perhaps I'm judging too quickly though.
Oh
Re:Not suprising, and tbh about time (Score:4, Insightful)
When an industry fails because technology made the production damn cheap and within reach of everyone, there is a real, structural growth in the economy. It means productivity has gone up. This is exactly what happened with music and film. It has become cheap to make and cheap to distribute. The huge costs of studio equipment and record factories are gone. More digital content will be made for less money. More budget will be available for art and entertainment of a higher quality, like live gigs and high quality film theatres.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lawmakers (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no British law - Scotland has its own system, which I haven't seen made mention of yet as to how this proposal affects us.
You need to appreciate the sheer volume of ludicrous laws that have been implemented in the UK since Tony Blair's New Labour were voted into power. There are a lot of things that have been made illegal that people don't even know about. This looks to be another of those scenarios where someone has been lobbying the government who have been in discussion with industry members without any public transparency or debate and are about to introduce some sweeping, ill-conceived and ill informed draconian law.
People in the UK need to wake the fuck up and stop paying so much attention to all the bullshit that the news tries to make us focus on and face up to the real issues. Look at the effect of islamic terrorism post media coverage - the UK was subjected to terrorist attacks from Irish Republicans for over 30 years which people accepted and lived with effectively, now the media has created a focussed paranoia which is impacting settled British families of Asian decent.
This may sound extreme but there are parralels as to how many dictators have drawn attention from there real interests by blaming a group of people. In this cas the recession is the issue but we can just blame p2p users.
Re: (Score:2)
"International action in the US and France, which is implementing its own three-strikes regime, has increased the pressure on British internet companies and stiffened the Governments resolve."
It's not law yet either, just a proposal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Guantanamo Bay.
Shit, at least we're just proposing disconnecting people from the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Port 6881==bad.
And that's probably as sophisticated as it will get.
Re: (Score:2)
If they see encrypted traffic, they will probably ass-u-me you have something to hide. That's why what we need to do is not just do encryption, but do encryption for everything. For example, if you have your own web site, be sure it runs encrypted over HTTPS and that the non-encrypted URL always does a redirect to the encrypted URL.
The Open Rights Group (ORG) (Score:3, Informative)