Workspace:Mandelson's Times Article
From Pirate Party UK Wiki
Here is the link to the article.
There is a point-by-point examination from someone over at Techdirt that can be seen as a complement to this: [2]
Text of the article
The original is in italics, responses are indented.
Note that these are from individual party members, and may not represent the official views of the Pirate Party UK.
It was said this week by a former colleague of mine (anonymously, of course) that I do not “get the internet”. While I am still something of a novice when it comes to streaming and downloads, I have been around long enough to know that piracy is wrong. That is why my department decided to consider strengthening proposals to tackle illegal file sharing and downloading.
The thinking behind this is clear and has nothing to do with dinners in Corfu. The Government decided to reopen the issue of suspending internet connections as a sanction of last resort against the most egregious offenders for two simple reasons.
- How naughty of the media for doubting your noted probity [3]
- The proposals put forward, namely the cut off of Internet Access to a person accused (not convicted) of sharing copyrighted material in an infringing manner, followed by a potential £50,000 fine are indeed interesting.
- Firstly, cutting off the connection, even with direct evidence, before a person has been called to answer in a court of law, reverses the expectation of innocent until proven guilty.[4]
- The burden of proof must always lie with the claimant, otherwise we can simply assert that others have harmed us and ask them to prove they didn't. This is recognized in pretty much all countries where the rule of law applies.
- Secondly, the fine itself is unreasonably high given the inability to definitively prove an actual loss of income of any kind, other than by mere assertion.
- Rather than to attempt to quantify harm and then punish accordingly and proportionately these are exemplary damages designed to punish Pour encourager les autres.
- Morally unjustifiable high fines that are crafted to punish an individual not for what he or she may have done, but rather to punish them for what another may do.
- Valisk1 20:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
First, taking something for nothing, without permission, and with no compensation for the person who created and owns it, is wrong. Simple as that. I was shocked to hear that as much as half of all internet traffic in the UK is for the carriage of unlawful content. If technical solutions can discourage piracy, then as a Government we are obliged to consider them.
- In order for me to take something from you, you must be left without that thing afterwards. If I make a copy, you still have the original. The entire premise of this moral argument is therefore nonsense.
- What you are deprived of is the ability to exploit a monopoly. Suddenly your case doesn't sound so virtuous.
- Bobappleyard 20:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Second, our creative businesses drive much of our economy. They provide not only tax revenues and jobs but also ensure that Britain punches above its weight on the global cultural stage. We are a creative people and we do these things well. These businesses will get no favours from government, but we should create a regulatory environment where they can operate without having to deal with illegal competition.
- Neither the alleged state of the economy, nor the claims of lost profits - with evidence to the contrary, might I add - of a particular company, should have precedence over the human rights of several million citizens. Your proposals will invariably violate the human rights of those accused.
- --Icanhas 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Crucially, if these changes can give the creative businesses and their partners the space to develop new business models that support more new artists, acts and films, then surely we are duty bound to consider them.
Let me emphasise that nothing has been predetermined. And I understand why internet service providers (ISPs), consumer groups and digital rights activists are disappointed that we have decided to consider a range of tougher and faster measures. But let me try, if I can, to reassure them.
It is essential that film, music and other content companies do more to build joint services with ISPs, such as the deal between Virgin Media and Universal Music to allow unlimited music downloads for a monthly fee. Surely it is self-evident — a no-brainer, if you like — that they need to build a win-win position with ISPs, so that they compete by developing new services for consumers rather than competing solely for market share. It’s that which will effect the sea change that we are looking for.
- Essential to whom? This reads like a line from someone who has been listening to a record label executive a bit too much over dinner, or perhaps had an epiphany upon seeing a substantial number written on a cheque.
- --Icanhas 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
To those who have raised their voices about the proposed changes this week, let me say that I hear their concerns. I have read their blogs and can live with the abuse (I’ve had worse).
I made clear to the content industry that we would consider legislation that includes temporary account suspension only if it was seen as the sanction of last resort. It would only follow a well-established series of warnings and clear evidence that they were taking action to defend their own rights. This will not turn your ISP into Big Brother. The process is driven by rights holders reporting activity on public file-sharing websites rather than service providers monitoring individuals’ internet traffic.
I want to know more from digital rights groups and consumers about other steps that should be taken to protect people who may feel that they are at risk of being accused without good cause. This could perhaps be because of legitimate file sharing, or because of others hijacking their connection. Having a fair, fast and effective appeals process will obviously be essential.
We are fast approaching the tenth anniversary of the trial in which Napster.com, the site that enabled the first real boom in file sharing, was shut down after legal action by record labels. This legal action was hugely expensive, time-consuming and ultimately did little for consumers. Why? Because it failed to encourage rights holders to develop new business models and did nothing to seek to change consumer behaviour. A decade on, we have another opportunity, and for some in the content industries, perhaps the last.
- Ten years since the music industry launched their attack on Napster. Ten years to adapt to the new landscape and with minimal progress. You say that these ten years of lawsuits have done nothing for consumers because it has "failed to encourage rights holders to develop new business models" What makes you think that new laws to criminalise (yes, a shift from a civil offense to a criminal offense is by definition criminalisation) consumers will bring about this change in industry behaviour. If anything the history of the last ten years shows us that the industry will carry on naming and persecuting consumers rather than fixing their obsolete business models, if you have assurances to the contrary then please share them with us otherwise this will be looked at as nothing more than another of "Mandelson's favours to assorted business moguls" read: uninvestigated corruption charge. Murton
Ultimately the answer to combating digital piracy lies in the hands of those who own content and those who control access to the internet. Rights holders already have to take risks, and will have to take more — for example, by developing new online services such as Spotify that make much more of their back catalogue available in a way and at a price that makes sense to today’s consumers. The age of flogging a CD in HMV for £20 is well and truly over. Ask me what I think will finish off piracy as a real threat to our creators and creative businesses and the answer is obvious — it is the market.
Provide customers with a good quality, cheap, safe and efficient experience, and they will ditch illegal downloading. If the threat of temporary account suspension and its implementation in a small number of cases helps to build a market to make this happen, then I believe it is worth our serious consideration.
- I must have missed the part where the government declared its new job is pandering to huge businesses, helping them expand their harmful grip on creativity; acting as a consultant, providing a how-to guide to said businesses; and crushing small, independent companies (which are the only companies, in my opinion, that release content worth downloading and buying). I find it interesting that you not once mentioned the rights of artists in your article, which suggests you have only higher-ups in mind. I bet your trip to Corfu was enjoyable.
- --Icanhas 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)