Music Industry Suits Could Bankrupt Pirate Party Members 215
An anonymous reader writes "Music industry group BPI has threatened legal action against six members of the UK Pirate Party, after the party refused to take its Pirate Bay proxy offline. BPI seems to want to hold the individual members of the party responsible for copyright infringements that may occur via the proxy, which puts them at risk of personal bankruptcy. Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye criticized the latest music industry threats and reiterated that blocking The Pirate Bay is a disproportionate measure."
Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:4, Interesting)
If so, the money they get from the SLAPP-back lawsuits could fill the Pirate Party's campaign coffers for the next century. This is a very stupid move for any large group of companies to pull. If BPI has even a mote of legal sense, they need to fire their lawyers now, pull out of the suit, and offer a settlement in exchange for the Pirate Party not countersuing.
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:4, Informative)
IIRC, the UK has a rule where the winning party is paid their legal fees by the losing side.
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but they tend to only recover 60% of their costs, and that's only after they win. But to get to that point, they have to spend £100,000 plus in costs, which the Party doesn't have right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And if 20 different companies file major lawsuits with rooms full of lawyers each, all at the same time? It's hard to win a court case when you can't show up to court because you can't afford to put gas in your car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hint: The music industry is tiny. The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt. It's insane. The whole German revenue of the music industry is as "big" as the revenue of the public transportation company (KVB) of one single 1 million people city (Cologne)!
That is nothing! If I were a big company, I would just buy the big three [wikipedia.org], fire them all, and be done with it. I could file the expenses under "bought new toilet brushes for the entire company", and nobody would even blink. I'm surprised Google and Apple haven't already done it. I mean the cartel watchdogs won't complain. It already is a cartel.
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt.
Based on the numbers listed for tax purposes.
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:5, Informative)
+1
Remember their imaginative lawyers are second only to their imaginative accountants - just ask the artists...
Re: (Score:3)
Remember their imaginative lawyers are second only to their imaginative accountants - just ask the artists...
Everybody imagines accountancy and the legal professions to be dry, bookish jobs dealing in facts, history and obscurae.
But the truth is that those jobs are just as creative as writers, painters or musicians.
If anything, we should be paying them more!
Re: (Score:2)
The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt.
Based on the numbers listed for tax purposes.
If someone with racks and stacks of cash wanted to salt their ground they could initiate hostile takeovers against them, and then laugh and laugh as they had to admit how badly they're cheesing the numbers in order to prove their financial solvency and their ability to operate without being bought out.
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:5, Informative)
That is nothing! If I were a big company, I would just buy the big three, fire them all, and be done with it.
The big three are Universal Music Group Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group.
UMG in turn is a division of Vivendi and WMG a division of Access Industries.
Access Industries is one those blandly named, incredibly rich --- and all-but-invisible --- privately held conglomerates that seem to have a hand in almost everything: Russian oil, petrochemicals, aluminum, broadcasting, mobile communications, hotels, real estate and so on.
Vivendi's assets, which include 61% of Activision Blizzard, are worth about 56 billion euros, which is by no means pocket change.
It may have escaped the geek's attention, but companies that actually make big investments in popular entertainment --- not fantasy buy-outs on Slashdot --- tend to be very protective of their IP.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:5, Informative)
The UK doesn't have SLAPP laws. In theory, frivolous lawsuits are supposed to be shut down by the judges before they get that far. While there's no real way to counter-sue, this sort of behaviour is usually dealt with through costs orders (making the side wasting the other's time pay all the other's costs).
Of course, if the BPI win (or the Party runs out of funds first), that's another matter...
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:5, Informative)
The UK does however also have a list of vexatious litigants:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/vexatious-litigants [justice.gov.uk]
These are people who can no longer bring civil suits because they have taken the piss too much. If the BPI files too many frivolous lawsuits it's staff (likely it's lawyers) will find themselves no longer able to practice in civil suits because they will become named on this list.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but to get on that list you have to be a vexatious litigant; and bringing (or threatening to bring) one case against a few people in what is a fairly grey legal area probably won't cover that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it fundamentally depends on how many. If they're talking about a large number of members including some who have merely given financial contribution to the party then that would almost certainly be construed as vexatious litigation as it would be a clear attempt to subdue the party by going after it's funding source- it's members.
If it's just going after the members who actually setup, and maintained the proxy, then you're probably right, it wouldn't be enough.
This said, the vexatious litigant list is
Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (Score:5, Informative)
Minor corrections: They haven't won any court order against The Pirate Bay or its operators - they never took it to court (not that you can take a website to court). The won several (uncontested) orders against the 6 major UK ISPs.
Secondly, PPUk was running the proxy before the court orders were issued, so it wasn't that it was trying to frustrate the order - simply provide a service.
The issue of it being frivolous or in bad faith could come from the fact that it is trivially easy for the BPI to effectively shut down the PPUk proxy; from my understanding of the text of the court orders (which I tried to get hold of, but would have costed £95), they simply need to write a letter to the ISPs asking them to add the proxy to the existing block. But instead they've decided to go after the officers of the Party.
[Disclaimer: I work for PPUk, but am not involved in this mess any more, and don't know much more that what has been published.]
Re: (Score:3)
Well for starters, there was no one present to argue the case. So no defence, no cross-examination of evidence, the court relied entirely on the BPI's numbers and claims. [There is a provably wrong statistic used in one of the Newzbin2 judgments, so it is possible for them to lie, either through accident or deliberately.] An adversarial legal system (like England's) only works when you have two sides present in the court, with eq
Seems like... (Score:5, Interesting)
...BPI wants to create some martyrs and boost the UK pirate party right to the parliament.
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Informative)
Bribing, threatening, or extorting, public officials should be a no-no.
Well, yes, but what's that got to do with this? Being a member of a political party doesn't make you a public official, and the only thing being threatened here is legal action, which is perfectly, well, legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is a torrent/magnet link illegal or a copyright infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bribing, threatening, or extorting, public officials should be a no-no.
Well, yes, but what's that got to do with this? Being a member of a political party doesn't make you a public official, and the only thing being threatened here is legal action, which is perfectly, well, legal.
On the contrary. Threatening legal action as a form of extortion is called "Barratry" and is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary. Threatening legal action as a form of extortion is called "Barratry" and is illegal.
What indications are there that this is what's happening here?
Re: (Score:2)
failing to warn people that you have a problem with their actions, and just leaping straight to a court case is also bad.
I'm fairly sure that what you call 'threatening', the BPI would call 'fair warning'
Not that I support their case, just that if they are going to take it - I would absolutely require them to warn the pirate party, and attempt a settlement first.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is how the british legal system encourages people to act.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah threatening legal action is also called blackmail in some circles too... I guess it just depends on how much money you have whether it's 'legal action' or 'blackmail'.
Re: (Score:2)
They have to be public officials first, and threatening to sue is not really extortion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (Score:4, Interesting)
but there has been very real damage caused by a generation of people who grew up thinking copying music without paying for it is totally acceptable
And just how much damage? Care to cite your facts and figures? Care to explain to me how copying certain data is objectively not acceptable?
Don't try to justify your selfishness with "zomg evil cocaine-snorting criminals".
I don't think they should try to do that, either; justifications are 100% unnecessary. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, copyright is failing. People will eventually have to find viable business models or die off like anyone else would rather than tell the government to give them monopolies.
You're hurting the artists you supposedly care about and listen to all day.
You have not hurt someone if the only thing you did was not give them money (i.e. they didn't perform a service for you, didn't lend you any resources, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (Score:4, Insightful)
There certainly have been excesses in the recording industry's past, but these days the record industry -- record labels, recording studios, and most importantly music artists -- are just struggling to survive.
I guess that's why Nielsen Soundscan is reporting that overall music sales were up 4% [scoopmarketing.com] in first half of 2012 compared to same time last year. And the 2011 [businesswire.com] report said overall music sales were up 6.9% and: "For the first time, total music purchases reached the 1.6 Billion mark for the year." And there's still more than 75000 albums released per year so there's no mass death of artists, the rumors of the impending doom of the music industry are wildly exaggerated.
Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that's a bit of a naughty use of numbers.
Your link says:
Album sales ($15?) each are down 3.2%
and
and single track sales (99c) are up 5.6%
That is not the growth you purport it to be.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, it quite clearly says overall album sales are down 3.6%.
That does not equate to growth. In any way shape or form. They may be selling 4% more "units" - but the average value of those units is down significantly.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because people stop buying full 12-tracks bundles of music, preferring to go after the ONE song they want.
So instead of spending $15 for a CD or digital download of an album ($10), they're spending $0.99 to get the one song they want, and ignoring the 11 other pieces of crap they don't wa
This can be a good thing! (Score:5, Interesting)
This will open a precedent.
Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".
Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!
Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!
Re: (Score:2)
This will open a precedent.
Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".
Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!
Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!
Just think, a morally bankrupt organization trying to financially bankrupt another. Neil Young may have something to say about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm generally to take advantage of the corporate veil requires that you uh incorporate first.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it matter?
The charging is the precedent, not the veracity if the charge!
Re:This can be a good thing! (Score:4, Interesting)
First, its civil so no charges being filed, just lawsuits for liability. Second, this happens all the time. A corporation does not shield someone from their own actions. It only shields those who took no part in the actions and those where the evidence isn't sufficient to show someone took part in an action. There is no precedent here other then you knowing about it. Most of the suits will likely be tossed because there won't be enough evidence to show they took any specific actions regarding the claims giving the appearance that no one in a corp gets busted when the corp does.
This is really a form of harassment and there will likely by some serious judicial blow back once it starts. That is if it is more then a bluff attempting to get party members to pressure the party to drop the proxy. There might even be some blow back if it's a bluff too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like if you make up a character in an online game, and make the character commit crimes. What's the worst that can happen to you? A bit of inconvenience. If the character dies, you can just make a new one.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong-- this is a misnomer that needs to stop. a corporation will not shield any personal liability for your own actions. It will only shield for liability due to not causes of yours-. In other words, if you fuck up, a corporation will not shield you from any liability but if your employee fucks up, it limits the liability to the corporate assets. The only personal assets that are shielded are the ones owned by owners and employees who did not participate in the act.
You will find no law saying "a corporatio
Re: (Score:2)
Your caveats mean very little in practice, they only apply when the corporate shield is being used by amateurs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to argue this with you. If you start a business and incorporate it, go out and you break the law or do something that makes you liable for damages, your personal financials are not shielded. Its the same for any corporation, those who break the law or do something that makes them liable, they are/can be liable personally too.
All you have to do is pay attention to detail and you would know this is true. The management of worldcom, tyco, and a few other big name mismanaged companies ended up get
Re: (Score:3)
read the rest of what was written. the reason you think that is because there isn't evidence connecting people with the actions. Its not because they aren't held accountable. And BTW, they are. search for CEO goes to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the odd token CEO goes to prison to placate the masses doesn't mean justice is even, look at what HSBC just got away with doing. Every company should have an individual identified as having responsibility for all actions. If you cant identify who is responsible for an action then the person with general responsibility is held accountable. Network goes down costing someones life? CTO goes to jail. Pension fund fails due to neglect? Financial officer goes to jail. That would at least go some way
Re: (Score:2)
No one said anything about justice, I said the myth that a corporation shields anyone from prosecution or personal liability is not true.
That is the dumbest id
Re: (Score:2)
"Imagine if the law decided that because you were the oldest of your siblings that you are responsible for all the acts of your brothers and sisters."
My brothers and sisters are not a corporation, I don't direct them, I have no authority over them. I'm talking about responsibility. If I run my family with a strong hierarchy and direct my brothers actions in a way which is likely to result in him doing something which harms others then you bet I'm responsible. If during the course of normal business activiti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"See what I did there, I held you to the same assumptions you want to hold corporations to."
No, no you didn't. What you did was failed to appreciate the difference in context. Your next example does a perfect job of illustrating that because we have RICO laws to deal with gangsters but don't use them on corporate officers even when it is clearly appropriate. One rule for the black / latino / italian guy directing his employees to do illegal stuff and another for the white one because the white one hides beh
Re: (Score:2)
The context was completely the same and appropriate as you being convinced of something does not mean there is proof of it nor does it mean the evidence when viewed as evidence says anything close to what you believe or want to think is true. Note, what is true or not is independent of what the evidence shows. That is what is important when punishing someone- what the evidence shows, not what you want to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
"This brings a whole slew of other laws into effect and you will likely not find a corporation that is declared a criminal gang or criminal organization."
This was precisely my point. A very large chunk of corporations have behaved like criminal gangs and are not treated as such. It may well be the correct application of the law, but it is again a classic example of one law for corporations and another for everyone else. HSBC have recently behaved like a criminal gang. They should be declared and treated lik
Re: (Score:2)
So all the Pirate party needs to do is hold a secret ballot about shutting down a proxy? As long as at least one person votes Yes they will all be in the clear, since you can't prove it was their actions that 'broke' the law.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't work that way.
As a though experiment, lets vote to break into the white house and paint it pink with purple stripes. Now supposing the vote passes and we democratically agree to do this, does it automatically happen without anyone taking any further steps? Of course not, no matter how we organize ourselves, whether it be a corporation or political party, or even a club of geeks, it takes the actions of a specific person in order to make it happen.
So the reality is that someone has to specific
Re: (Score:2)
But It would create a nice precedent for a counter suit. Go after the lawyer that filed the suit against the Pirate party. And after the guy who ordered him to do it, and so on. If the Pirate party members can be personally responsible, then why not their accusers. Sue them for slander, perjury,.... Then do the same thing the next time Pirate Bay receives a DMCA request for something that is clearly in the public domain - sue the lawyers.
MAD only works if the side that is attacked is willing to fire back.
Re: (Score:2)
A vote in and of itself cannot be the illegal action. If as you suggested, a computer program automatically does the action after the vote is tallied, then I would suggest the person running the program is the party you would be after. It's like bit torrent traffic, I can use it for legal activity and illegal activity, I can program a bot to run it for me too. I would be the one responsible for what the bot and the program does at my di
Re: (Score:3)
Iirc the only felony left in the UK is the treason felony [wikipedia.org], which was last used in the UK in the 1880s.
As for the original question, this is a threatened lawsuit, not a crime. And the issue of holding individuals liable is due to the fact that political parties in the UK aren't automatically incorporated, so it is technically impossible to sue them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. Just because I am employed by a corporation does not mean my actions fall under a corporate shield. The idea is preposterous really. Employees and officers of corporations get prosecuted for their individual acts all the time. If it weren't so you could not possibly have a working legal system in any way.
The corporate shield protects employees from actions of the corporation, for example if I am head of Exxon and an Exxon ship in Timbuktu sinks you can't sue me. You might be able to sue the captain o
Re: (Score:3)
The term 'felony' isn't really used here. However, operating a proxy may or may not be illegal, depending on circumstances.
Offering a proxy to TPB shouldn't be illegal, but certain companies are obliged by court order not to provide direct access to that site. Whether the proxy can be deemed contempt of court (for subverting that order) would be an interesting challenge, but probably not.
Expansion of the court order to include the Pirate Party is more likely, but hasn't yet happened.
Suing the members of the
How about getting personal on the BPI (Score:3)
Take names, kick ass.
Don't forget: (Score:2)
Chew gum.
Time to take up a collection, then. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Time to take up a collection, then. (Score:5, Informative)
OK, so your comment is Funny...
...but here is how you can help [pirateparty.org.uk]
Music industry could bankrupt every one of us (Score:5, Interesting)
A new McLibel trial? (Score:3)
The McLibel [mcspotlight.org] trial was widely regarded as the biggest publicity disaster [wikipedia.org] to every hit McDonalds.
This case is so peripherally connected with file sharing, that it could sour the public on the recording industry. Specifically, if England, if they go to trial, the can subpoena the record company executives to testify at trial. There is no end of embarassing documents that might come up.
One big difference (Score:2)
The content industry has no reputation left to loose, the days people liked a record label as much as an artist is long gone.
Furthermore, the case would be fought by a proxy, not by a restaurant chain people have to physically enter to buy stuff from.
McDonald's has lots of competition for food pounds, the content industry controls ALL content, they are united. If people wanted to boycott McDonald's (and how many did that anyway?) they can still go to Burger King. If they want to boycott the record labels,
Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable (Score:5, Insightful)
Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable TV is immoral. Just don't do it, and try your best to stop your friends and family from doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable TV is immoral.
I don't see why. Giving money to companies associated with these ass clowns is, sure. But there's a world of stuff out there. It's perfectly possible to acquite art, pay the artist and not involve these litigious bastards in any way whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it? Please tell me which cable TV company you use that is not associated with these ass clowns in any way or form NOR does it financially contribute to these ass clowns. I'm curious...
GP is right. If you are giving money to these litigious bastards, you are part of the PROBLEM, not of the solution.
Some things are more important than getting your quick fix of entertainment.
With that said, I agree with you... there are indie artists out there that actually deserve your money. Look for them, love them, supp
All Publicity... (Score:3)
The Pirate Party should consider the McLibel defence [wikipedia.org].
War of attrition (Score:2)
That is all this is, no real 'escalation' has occurred. I dont think this 'war' will ever end anyway, much like the 'war on terror', so instead of getting all worked up about today's silliness, its better to just plan for the long term.
We need to go deeper (Score:3)
Re:"Disproportionate?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that why there's first, second, and third degree murder charges and convictions then - because it's not a matter of degree?
Re:"Disproportionate?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that why there's first, second, and third degree murder charges and convictions then - because it's not a matter of degree?
No, because of mens rea and culpability.
Re:"Disproportionate?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Either murder is wrong, or it isn't.
Either abortion is wrong, or it isn't.
Either war is wrong, or it isn't.
Either depriving someone on their freedom is wrong, or it isn't.
etc.
In the real world, things are not always "black" or "white".
Well... to begin with, "copyright infringement" is not exactly the same as "murder", despite your silly fantasies.
Second, there ARE several degrees of "copyright infringement", from totally "fair use" cases, to "personal, non-commercial copyright infringement", to "large-scale, commercial copyright infringement". Also, most of these degrees of copyright infringement (apart from "commercial infringement") are NOT a crime in most places in the world.
Third, there ARE cases where a seemingly wrong thing (e.g. depriving someone of their freedom), might actually be the best thing to do (e.g. in the case that person is a psychopath murderer).
The pirates in this article have called themselves "the Pirate Party," while engaging in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement to take the rights of creators away from them.
What is this "contributory copyright infringement" concept you just made up? (Protip: US laws don't apply elsewhere. Kthnxbai.) Also, even the US, there is nothing codified in LAW regarding "contributory copyright infringement" (Protip: jurisprudence is not law). ALSO, you have yet to demonstrate that the people (not the legal entity, but the people) that are being threatened with a lawsuit have, in any way, knowingly contributed to copyright infringement.
One thing you have to take into account is that all metadata (including cryptographic hashes, checksums and torrent files) is, by definition, non-copyrighted information (even if they refer to copyrighted information), since it is mechanistic, non-creative information. Therefore, having and duplicating metadata CANNOT be considered copyright infringement, even if said metadata refers to an instance of a copyrighted work (otherwise, IMDB would be quite sparse, for instance).
Also, important to take into account that UK Pirate Party is not storing anything at all: not magnet links nor torrents nor anything. They are simply proxying a connection to some host (which apparently is allowed to still operate.... TPB) and, through that connection, information legally equivalent to consulting IMDB will be transmitted (not copyrighted information, but NON-copyrighted information). You cannot blame the UK Pirate Party if someone decides to take that (non-copyrighted) information and use it for "integrity checking" copyrighted files. AGAIN, it's important to note that the torrent file DOESN'T enable file sharing or trading, it only enables FILE INTEGRITY CHECK after file sharing or trading.
Selling knifes isn't a crime, killing people is. And the Pirate Party is not even selling knifes: they're just acting like UPS, transporting knifes from the knife shop (TPB) to the customer's home. If you want to prevent this all from happening, maybe you should either go to the knife shop itself (TPB) and close it, or go to the people actually doing the crimes (not TPB nor the UK Pirate Party). Because, otherwise, people just use something other than UPS to get their knifes (e.g. FedEx).
Even worse for you: nowadays, TPB is not even selling knifes (i.e. torrents), they just give you pictures of how a knife is supposed to look like (i.e. magnet-links) and you're just supposed to ask random people on the street until they hand you something which resembles what you have in the picture (i.e. the torrent you are looking for). This means that TPB nowadays actually transmits non-copyrighted metadata (i.e. magnet-link) regarding some other non-copyrighted piece of metadata (i.e. a torrent). Anything else that might actually involve transmitting copyrighted data between people NEVER involves TPB, by design.
They then they are complaining about first degree vs. second degree, when they should
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't allowed to go on someone else's lawn and do what you want: it's the same thing with creations of the mind as with ownership of physical property.
My computer is not MAFIAA's lawn. Neither are the bajillion other computers, devices and wires that together form the Internet. When I create copies of content under MAFIAA monopoly, I don't go to MAFIAA's lawn to do it, I stay on my own lawn and use tools from my own house. But apparently the law allows MAFIAA to come to my lawn and tell me what I'm not allowed to do with the stuff I own. Copyright is legal violation of physical property rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Note: I don't think the Pirate Party should go to prison for *supporting* piracy: they have a right to do that. But proxying TPB turns them into active participants.
Wrong on two counts:
1. The Pirate Party does not condone piracy - it's focus is copyright reform and freedom of speech.
2. Being a website proxy doesn't imply participation at any level. The reason the proxy exists is in protest at the BPI's overzealous legal action against ISPs.
Re: (Score:2)
They might be, they might not. Hence there is an increasing amount of case law on this (particularly the Infopaq case in the EU) as to what can actually be covered by copyright. There's certainly nothing "definite" about it.
Re:"Disproportionate?" (Score:5, Insightful)
It appears you suffer from a severe mental dysfunction.
The funny name aside, the Pirates isn't out to steal or plunder. You would know this if you check out the various Pirate Party charters.
They argue that the business model where an organization - for a hefty fee - handles the rights of musicians and filmmakers, is not only obsolete but actually the very reason the creative people are locked into a structure where they cannot make a living.
Step back for a minute and think about this. You know when someone really like a new movie and goes to see it again and again? When someone love a record so much that he buys it again and again in different versions, different pressings, different formats etc.?
These are the people that don't mind paying for their entertainment - because it's that good.
So why are people downloading illegally? - Well, there are those people that can't or won't pay. You can't force them to pay. If they can't get it for free, they're not interested. So there's no loss there. Are they the majority? Nope. They are about 10% of the so-called pirates. The rest actually have one thing in common: They want something which isn't available where they live. Most would happily pay a decent price if they could. But due to the old and obsolete business model, entertainment is divided into regions and into sectors, strictly separated.
A movie usually get a monopoly in the local cinemas first. Then comes pay-per-view and subscription movie channels. Then rental. Finally it hits the shelves for general purchase. Along the way, other regions join in, usually in the same order, i.e. cinemas first etc. Now, if you happen to live in the wrong place, you'll have to wait. Maybe it will show up later, maybe not. But the movie is available illegally from day one. So instead of allowing people to pay for it, they push people into piracy. That's stupidity squared and that's why piracy works so well.
A model that would work is make everything available all at once globally in all formats. Then offer merchandise and enhanced experience in the cinemas. That way over 90% the piracy goes away and done right the merchandising extended to almost all titles could be a gold mine. Sure, there would still be some piracy here and there, mostly done by the people who can't or won't pay, so that's not worth fussing over as there's no sales to be gained.
Re: (Score:2)
Yikes... the MAFIAA are getting into hiring shills too now!
Re: (Score:2)
The pirates in this article have called themselves "the Pirate Party," while engaging in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement to take the monopolies of creators away from them.
FTFY
Re:"Disproportionate?" (Score:5, Insightful)
The law itself is disproportionate...
Copyright in general has become corrupted totally corrupted such that it now exists solely to benefit big copyright holders to the detriment of everyone else. When first envisaged, it was an agreement between society and content creators to allow content creators to profit in the short term while providing their work to the public domain for the benefit of society as a whole long term.
A copyright term of 20 years made sense at the time, nowadays with modern distribution technology the copyright term should be shorter and yet it has been corrupted beyond belief - now it is extremely unlikely that anyone who was around when something was first released is going to still be alive when it falls into the public domain, and there might not even be any readable copies left by then either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
20 years is too long given modern technology... You can distribute worldwide in a matter of minutes, most media makes the vast majority of its profit in the first year and a lot stops being sold not long after that, especially if it sold on physical media as it's no longer economical to continue producing the media anymore.
Unless something became massively popular, it can often be extremely difficult to obtain copies of software/movies/music/games/etc which are more than a few years old, and in some cases c
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Disproportionate?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Right and wrong is an either/or thing, not a matter of degrees.
No, it's all a matter of degree.
We don't punish a murderer tthe same way we punish someone who is shoplifting. Both things are wrong/illegal and yet one comes with a harsher punishment than the other. A matter of degree. So some things are more wrong than others.
Re: (Score:2)
Theft is bad. It's never a good thing. But, you become a judge for a few minutes.
First case - you have a young man from a wealthy family who is charged with embezzling tens of thousands of (dollars, pounds, euros, whatever) from the local bank. The facts are all in, your jury has returned with a verdict, there is no doubt of his guilt, there is no doubt that he has caused tremendous harm to the community. It's time for you to sentence him.
Second case - a young parent has a kid or six at home, who are hu
Re: (Score:2)
If the world were fair, "Les Miserable" would be a comedy. As long as there are people who think the response to being barred from your pocket is nuclear war, you can't be surprised to see their paid minions (mostly legal or political) serving up humanity like chalupas from Taco Bell.
Re:"Disproportionate?" (Score:5, Funny)
I disagree. The so called "rights holders" have twisted the law to their benefit, over the past several decades. People such as Walt Disney have wined and dined, and bribed the lawmakers to pass ridiculous laws, extending copyrights far beyond anything that is reasonable. Sonny Bonehead did the same.
The "rights holders" have even thrown a wet blanket over the use of "Happy Birthday" by little children at private parties.
I see the Pirate Party as a modern day Robin Hood, standing up to an unreasonable Sheriff of Nottanyfun.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that being a member of a political party is illegal?
As for whether or not the Party (or its officers) are breaking the law; the BPI seem to think they are, but they don't. Hence they may be going to court over it. It's far from simple.
[Disclaimer: I am a member of, and work for the Party, but am not directly involved in this business.]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the problem is that the elements of speech the US has done a better job of protecting are things like being able to protest next to dead soldiers graves and call them and their families "fags". It does however still legislate against many types of speech which is pretty much the same as in Europe. See sections 4 and 5 for a decent overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
I'm not really convinced that the US is any better off for protecting the speech it does protect t
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The CIA/NSA/MI6/etc: "My god, we brought this on ourselves by taking actions that made other people hate us! We have to immediately restore the bill of rights tenfold, dismantle the illegal spying programs, and recall our troops from around the world!"
Were you dropped on your head as a child, by any chance?
Re:If only... (Score:5, Funny)
I have occasionally said only partially in jest that the best thing that could happen to Washington DC would be for the British to come back and finish the job they started in 1814.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I would imagine PPUK has a LLC or non-profit company as their organization. It seems that the MAFIAA wants to pierce the corporate veil and expose those in charge of teh company and their personal assets to attack.
Personally I think if that is the case then the MAFIAA companies heads should have their own personal assets viable for a counter attack.
Re: (Score:2)
LLC is a US term; the UK equivalents are Ltd, plc or LLP (perhaps). The Pirate Party hasn't already set up some sort of company, mainly because the legal/corporate status of political parties is a real mess in the UK and it could be a lot of hassle. But it's being looked into now...
[Disclaimer: I am a member of, and work for, the Party, but am not directly involved in the BPI threat.]
Re: (Score:2)
This will almost certainly not see a jury (it's not a criminal case at the moment). As for the judge being biased due to the name of the Party, I really hope our judges are above that sort of thing. Plus it's not the Party, but some of its officers, being threatened.
If you think the name is a bad thing, you might want to look up the history of the term "Tory [wikipedia.org]." Names are just names, some people take 'bad' names as a badge of honour.
[Disclaimer: I am a member of, and work for, the Party, but an not directly i
Re: (Score:2)
Which precise law is the Pirate Party (or rather, its officers) breaking? Please provide either case law or a statutory reference.
Re: (Score:2)
The BPI is a private company, whose members include (iirc) various record labels. It will own copyrights, but not any in music. However, what they will do is get some of their record labels to act as claimants for them - the BPI runs the litigation, but the record labels sign the documents (and possibly the cheques). In the first Pirate Bay case, the claimants were 9 different record labels (which doesn't sound at all like anticompetitive collusion to me...).