UK "Creative Industries" Call For File-Sharers Ban 211
siloko writes "An alliance of so-called 'Creative Industries,' including the UK Film Council, have signed a joint statement asking the UK government to force ISPs into banning users caught sharing illegally. In an 'unprecedented joint statement,' the alliance predicted a 'lawless free-for-all' unless the government ensured the 'safe and secure delivery of legal content.' The previous tactic of pursuing individual file-sharers in the courts appear to have been abandoned. 'Instead, [the government] should provide enabling legislation, for the specific measures to be identified and implemented in an Industry Code of Practice,' it recommends. One wonders how they remain 'creative' in their vocation when they keep on trotting out the same old story backed up by imaginary statistics (they claim 50% of net traffic in the UK is illegal content but provide no evidence for this figure). The BBC also has a blog entry dissecting their statement."
The only "creativity" here is legal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, is the phrase "the government should provide enabling legislation, for specific measures to be identified and implemented..." equal parts vague and sinister, or what?
Re:Um (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it certainly seems so. I don't expect it to make much difference, though, as you'd need to take the case to the ECHR to get a disconnection overturned. Who can be bothered with that?
Re:£112 bn lost? (Score:1, Interesting)
Money doesn't just disappear like that. If a file-sharer doesn't buy media and downloads it instead, they have more money to go see a movie, or have a nice meal at a restaurant - whatever. The money is still used in the economy, just not in same industry as media.
To suggest that filesharers are causing an 8% drop in GDP is idiotic, as well as the 50% of all traffic is illegal. And they want to ban illegal filesharers? Ok, lets ban half the population of the UK from surfing the net, or more!
Let's see how your sales drop after that pal.
Oh, stop whining will you! You make it sound as if rampant piracy doesn't harm the content industry while boosting all sorts of other parts of the economy. In other words nobody loses, which is of course bullshit. If you are consuming services and content for free that you could easily afford to pay for somebody is losing money. Just because you are spending the money you save, by pirating digital content and software, to stimulate other parts of the economy, that doesn't make you any less of a harmful parasite to the people whose hard work you are ripping off. You can make the argument that piracy is OK because everybody does it but it still does not change the fact that what you are doing is basically dishonest.
Re:If everybody breaks the law ... (Score:4, Interesting)
That isn't how they think.
You have to understand, that just like at the end of the Cold War, Western elites (I won't bother distinguishing between judges, politicians and businessmen in this matter because of the almost total blurring between the leaders of state, judiciary and corporation) consider us at the End of History. Our present form of government is perfect now, and for a thousand years hence.
When you believe have a perfect state, it logically follows that everything should be in the state, for the state, and of the state. Any element that goes against the wishes of the state must be wrong and evil, for the state is perfect and good.
I believe the people in power today, more so than in previous generations, are so convinced of the suitability of present laws and institutions they will resist all substantial changes with any force required. They are the last men, who say they have discovered happiness. Their destruction is a prerequisite for any further advancement of the human species.
Re:One word.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The only sure way to end this is with a bullet to the head of RIAA. I guarantee his replacement will back-off from the policy of sending 5000 dollar "pay else or else" extortionate letters and dragging citizens into court, if only because he's scared he might get shot too. Nothing works better to keep the leaders under control than an unruly populace willing to protect their basic rights (like a trial by jury).
"What matter a few deaths in the course of a century? From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with blood... let the citizens take-up arms." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party
Re:Um (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry but "states rights" makes it sound as though the power flows from the fed to the states to the people. In fact, it is the opposite.
This is why Arizona, for example, doesn't do daylight savings. Most states whore off their "states rights" in exchange for federal $. Unless they meet federal guidelines they get no money for programs. Medical marijuana is legal where legalized. The fed is just trying to posture and assert illegal authority. Unless someone points out more often that "the king wears no clothes" our posterity will grow up thinking that the federal government is our master and not our servant. Remember the feds only jobs are to run a post office, protect the borders, keep interstate commerce fair and nothing else to speak of. Anything the fed does now is largly ILLEGAL.
Revolt at will.
Re:Um (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>I'm sorry but "states rights" makes it sound as though the power flows from the fed to the states
No it doesn't. States rights, a term that dates back to the 1780s, implies that the States hold the power as a natural consequence of their existence, and that the central government is merely their puppet which they created. Read the U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This principle applies in the E.U. as well. France, the UK, Germany, et cetera existed first... the EU is their creation and therefore secondary.
Re:If everybody breaks the law ... (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Clearly, the highway engineers mean the road surface won't get damaged, and the vehicles aren't going to slip off the road.
You shouldn't make assumptions. When highway engineers designate a safe speed, they are using the 70th percentile. i.e. You could go up to the design limit of 120 miles an hour and still be safe, but it's standard procedure to multiply 120 * 0.70 == 85 as their recommended speed. (We do the exact same thing in electrical engineering - it's a safety buffer between the absolute limit and nominal limit.)
>>>- Whether pedestrians or cyclists will use the road
On an interstate????? Fat chance. I'm not ignoring your other points, which are good, but if a state declares, "The maximum speed in Maryland shall be 65mph no matter what," they are not taking-into account the conditions you named. They are pulling an arbitrary number out of thin air, just the same as when they arbitrarily decided age 21 is the legal age to drink (but it's okay to go die in Afghanistan if you're only 18).
Furthermore, when you're driving through empty Wyoming or Montana, where there's literally *nothing* for you to hit, it makes no sense to limit the speed to 65. Does it?
U.S. speed limits may have been a good idea initially, but in today's world they exist for one reason only - so insurance companies can say, "Ahhh you got a ticket. We're tripling your rates to $5000 a year." It's collusion between the corporation and the state government to set limits 0mph lower than engineers' recommendations for the sake of increasing insurance profits.
Re:£112 bn lost? (Score:1, Interesting)
You explain well the key point that many self-righteous music industry apologists just don't seem to get. As a file sharer, I really really really DO NOT CARE who is suffering because of a lack of money from the music industry. As far as sob stories go it is unpitiful.
No one is deprived of anything but a gravy train which they argue is essential to maintain the status quo. I don't want the status quo, I want music that people invest in willfully.
Should I buy a CD today a pitance of that CD goes to the artist I would listen to.. the rest of it if we're optimistic goes into investing in whatever the record company thinks will make them money. That is not my justification for infringing copyright but it is surely one of the reasons why I lack justification to abide by it.
Whether you're pro, anti, or whatever (Score:2, Interesting)
Regardless of your position on copyright infringement, the content lobby, and IP in general, there is a growing merger of the content lobby with those opposed to freedom of speech and communication. And not just the bs apolitical kind of speech (that should still be free, courts be damned), but now political speech. Sure, at first just anyone who's allegedly infringing. Then, people showing you how to infringe (doom9) will be cut off. Then people just expressing opinions on IP. Then, after people's attention has been diverted from the scandal, people who are opposed to sex offender registries, or no fly lists, or whatever will be denied net access.
The same tech that lets you post relatively anonymously and organize with your countrymen will also allow you to post the AACS key. The same tech that allows you to upload origins.avi also allows you to share video of the Tiannamen square standoff or the assault on the Branch Davidian compound.
So either speech and communication are free for both infringement and for politics, or they are not free for either.
Btw, in tfa, the head of the film council uses the argument that infringement is costing jobs. If this is used as an argument to society (that whole social contract thing?) then it's bs. Any money theoretically lost is retained and starts chasing other goods, resulting in other economic activity. Now, if you argue that the money is going to domestic industry rather than China*, that's at least a valid argument, although I would argue that the real problem is with trade policy, and it shouldn't be covered up by a band aid to the content lobby.
* I use China as an example because I'm American. I have no idea what the UK's trade situation is.