Digital Britain: Few Surprises As It Looks To Prop Up Content Industries

from the government-doing-what-government-does dept

Tue, Jun 16th 2009 2:21pm — Carlo Longino

The final version of the UK government's Digital Britain report, its blueprint for updating the country's tech-related laws and infrastructure, has been released today, and it doesn't look like it holds too many surprises. Like the interim report that was released earlier this year, it's full of a lot of vague language, and as the UK's opposition party points out, seems most interested in propping up failing old-media business models. Two aspects of the report are grabbing the most attention. First, the government will start a 50p (about 80 cents) monthly tax on landline phones in order to build out broadband networks in rural and other unserved areas. Second, and more controversially, the report says the UK's communications regulator must cut file-sharing by 70%, and calls for ISPs to help accomplish this by keeping tabs on their users, sending them notification letters when they download infringing material, and giving up their details to content companies (with a court order) so they can be sued. It stops short of creating a rights agency run by the copyright cartel, as had been rumored, and while it doesn't endorse the use of a three-strikes policy, it does say that regulators will have the power to force ISPs to use other technical means (such as throttling connections, traffic shaping, and even blocking certain sites, services and protocols) to try and stop persistent infringers.

The report pays a lot of lip service to the fact that content businesses need to update their business models to the changing digital environment, but it really does very little to help facilitate this, instead preferring to make stopping piracy the central focus. The government seems to have fully bought into the entertainment industry's propaganda -- that it can't do anything until piracy stops, that it can't move forward as long as there's file-sharing. The reality isn't that the industry can't move forward, but rather that it won't. And, after all, if the government is willing to get involved and offer the industry special protection to prop up its ailing business models, why should it?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, digital britain, file sharing, isps, levies, recording industry, uk, universal access

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 3:05pm

It sounds like the UK government got it right.

If a user isn't trading illegal / copyright / infringing files, they won't have issues. The government is only reminding the ISPs that they need to be more cooperative in workign to resolve the issues.

I don't think anyone can come on here and defend illegal file trading, unless of course they want to defend selling drugs and stealing shopping carts too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re:
  Do you troll other places or just here? First of all file sharing legal or not should be a civil matter as is copyright law. Selling drugs gives Pharmaceutical companies needed capital to do more research and stolen shopping carts provide shelter for the homeless.
  That being taken care of,since we are talking about illegality the ISPs are not the police and have no duty to be cooperative without a court order. The fact that the media industries have a hard time meeting the burden of proof to get such an order does not mean the government should give them a pass. If you want to talk about respecting laws then privacy laws count too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re:
  And the family without a computer and the dead grandma that were handed lawsuits for illegal downloads?
  
  Tanya Anderson, who was taken to court, won her defense, and still hasn't (I think) received the $100000 for attorney fees that the court had ordered (which had been upheld in appeals)?
  
  If it was true that only infringers were being pursued, then it would be much less of an issue. Sadly, it's not. Not to mention that the damages are often over 500 times the price of the illegally obtained files.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Kuyvenhoven (profile), 16 Jun 2009 @ 3:15pm

I don't defend illegal file sharing... but I also don't defend trying to sell over-priced product. If I have to choose between me stealing from the record companies or the record companies stealing from me... well, it's not a hard decision to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 3:46pm

I don't mind them cutting down on people sharing music in cases that this is what the artists want (but ONLY to the extent that they do not invade our privacy). What's important to me is that if an artist releases his music and doesn't mind others freely distributing it across file sharing networks without having to pay anyone royalties then neither the RIAA nor the ISP's have a right to stop it or impose royalty taxes. Period.

and don't give me this nonsense that "we can't know if it's infringing music so we must pay them royalties anyways." It is THEIR responsibility to ensure that we can easily find out (ie: by going to a website). If the RIAA doesn't communicate this then that's THEIR fault and we shouldn't be held responsible. We can't stop everyone from distributing music because the RIAA won't tell us anything. It's their job only to protect those they represent, not to extort money out of everyone that distributes music.

Artists should be allowed to have their music played on the radio (Internet, XM, AM, FM), in restaurants, on television, over the Internet, etc... without having some third party like the RIAA profit from it. To the extent that these rights are taken away from us we should fight for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re:
  You bought the lies posted here hook line and sinker. Mike will never tell you how much the RIAA actually pays out to artists each year. That would make you wonder what all the fuss is about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 3:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The RIAA is so sloppy they won't even tell us who they represent. So they try to impose general restrictions on everyone. You can't even go to their website and know who they represent.
    
    "The RIAA lists its member labels on their website [1]. However, their website lists not only includes RIAA labels but non-RIAA labels that are distributors that report to the RIAA. The site is outdated and has not been updated since 2003."
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels
    
    There is a third party site called RIAA radar that tries to do a better job
    
    http://www.riaaradar.com/
    
    Even that website says
    
    "Since the album data is not ours, and the RIAA member listings are terribly inaccurate and erroneous"
    
    If these people can't even keep a decent list of who they represent then why should I trust that they pay them?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    why don't tell us, asshole?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    First the RIAA argues that "satellite radio, internet radio and other forms of broadcasting were different from terrestrial radio" and therefore they should pay a royalty tax (even though terrestrial shouldn't). Later they argue that charging them a tax and not terrestrial radio is unfair and so they should charge everyone a tax.
    
    The only consistency I see among both of these contradicting arguments is that both of these arguments are in the best interest of the RIAA. It is you who bought the RIAA lies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090614/2223175228.shtml
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bettawrekonize, 16 Jun 2009 @ 3:52pm

Perhaps a good (unpatentable) idea for people who want to freely release their music to the public is to put a standard disclaimer at the begging of each song. Someone can make a short free disclaimer that anyone can attach either to the end or beginning of their song that says something like

"This song is released to the public domain for anyone to freely copy, distribute, and play as they see fit. This includes playing the music in restaurants without a license. This disclaimer may never be removed from the song and by playing this song you grant everyone else the license that this song provides you."

(Or the word "song" can be replaced with "podcast" or whatever).

Have them say it fast so it doesn't take up too much time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:00pm
  
  Re:
  Then we'll see the RIAA try to sue someone in court for playing and distributing music that an artist released to everyone for free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    At least this would bring them a LOT more negative publicity.
    
    Defendant: Prove I am infringing
    
    RIAA: You can't know that you aren't so you are
    
    Defendant: The artist gives me permission IN THE SONG.
    
    RIAA: Prove you're not infringing.
    
    Defendant: IT'S IN THE SONG!!!
    
    Imagine if the RIAA won how the public would react.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      actually, even if the artist released it "for free", they still may not have waved all rights.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What right did he not wave?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It would depend on how the music was published, the owner, record contract, obligations, etc. It would also depend if the music was registered, etc. I don't think it is very easy to wave performance rights, because it would create a very complicaed patchwork of having to prove which individual songs are and are not covered on a given day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not if the waver is in each individual song that is waved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the waiver (not waver, my mistake) is in each song that is waived and it clearly states that the artist waives his rights to this song indefinitely (ie: not just for a day or whatever) then I don't see the problem. That's enough proof, it's plenty of proof. What more can a judge/jury ask for?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 6:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It still doesn't matter - because it would be way too much work to try to track which songs are and are not played, which ones are and are not "exempt". So therefor they collect for all, and the artist can always pay the money back to the establishments (as is his right).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, because each exempt song has the waiver in it, so it's easy for someone to prove that the song is exempt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is the artists right to have his music distributed without some unnecessary third party profiting from it. That is ALSO his right. It is not too much work to try and track which songs are and aren't exempt, it is the RIAA's job to prove that a song is not exempt and pursue infringements only for the artists they represent. That's exactly what the are getting paid to do, to work. We can't prevent all artists from distributing their music or make song players pay royalties to the RIAA when it is not the will of the artists just because the RIAA wants to extort money out of people without doing any work. They are paid to do work and if they can't do their job then they should go out of business. My above waiver makes it very easy to prove that a song is exempt, it's not a lot of work, just play the beginning (or ending, depending on where the waiver is) of the song and TADA, PROOF. That's not a lot of work. It's not my fault the RIAA is too lazy to do any work, we shouldn't punish everyone because of their laziness.
        
        Can you people see how ridiculous these people are? If anything, this is strong evidence that this isn't about the artist, this has nothing to do with protecting the artists from piracy (especially since studies have shown that piracy sometimes helps the artists), it's about passing laws that allow the RIAA to extort money out of artists. This isn't rocket science, it's common sense. Stand up for your rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "way too much work "
        
        A: It's not a lot of work
        
        B: That's what the RIAA is getting paid to do. They're getting paid to work. Yes, if they want to get paid, they have to work. What a concept. If they don't want to work then they should go out of business. Asking the government for permission to extort money out of artists is not the solution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 7:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The RIAA doesn't want to do anything. They want to get paid and not work. They don't even want to provide a site listing who they represent (someone else has to do that for them). They just want to cry to the government for permission to extort money out of artists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 4:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, but it should be a quick case of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2009 @ 11:40pm
  
  Re:
  "This song is released to the public domain for anyone to freely copy, distribute, and play as they see fit. This includes playing the music in restaurants without a license. This disclaimer may never be removed from the song and by playing this song you grant everyone else the license that this song provides you."
  
  You're creating a contradiction there. Putting something in the public domain means that you give up control over it. However, you're trying to put it in the public domain AND keep control over it. Can't do that.
  
  If you want to keep control of it then you'll have to keep it copyrighted and then license it, just like every body else does. Otherwise, put it in the public domain and let people use it as they please.
  
  This is sooo obvious. Really. Do you think about things at all before you blab them out?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CleverName, 16 Jun 2009 @ 6:06pm

If all infringing were stopped tomorrow
... whining from the media conglomerates would not stop.

I'm sure they would still blame their declining sales on those bloody pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FatGiant (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 1:56am

The problem is a bit more complicated I'm afraid.

That waiver could be pasted on any song, and, also, could be cut from any song, rendering it unusable. You would never be sure if the song had been edited or not.

As for the purppose of the post comment, it's abundatelly clear that governments everywhere are bought and paid for by the Big Media Corps. They aren't capabble of unbiased decisions. One thing they are forgetting is that file-sharers are growing everyday, and pretty soon they will be abble to vote. Some, have already voted. With organized parties like "Pirate Party" file-sharers will have a voice.

I really don't care about legalities or rights or whatever, my main concern would be my ratio. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bettawrekonize, 19 Jun 2009 @ 1:37am
  
  Re:
  "That waiver could be pasted on any song, and, also, could be cut from any song, rendering it unusable. You would never be sure if the song had been edited or not."
  
  I am glad you mentioned this. I had already thought of long before you mentioned it and there are solutions to this, relatively simple to the artists. I'll give them out shortly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2009 @ 1:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    None of these solutions are in any way patentable (and they're pretty much common sense anyways).
    
    First of all, if someone speaks or sings or raps in the song, that singer/rapper himself can mention the disclaimer. That would help show that the singer/rapper did make a disclaimer. Ok, so you maybe thinking, what if someone took a disclaimer from one song and moved it to another from the same artist/singer/rapper.
    
    Have the singer play an instrumental that's in the song during the time he waives the music. This still isn't foolproof, but it helps. The instrumental should be unique to a time that has lyrics, but when played with the disclaimer there should be no lyrics.
    
    When the singer gives away songs he also gives them away with a high quality video. In the video he explicitly gives everyone permission to share the video to others all they want. He also can put it on youtube and encourage others to download and share it.
    
    In the video he gives all the names of the songs that he is giving away for free. He also plays a couple of seconds from each song so there is no confusion over what songs are being referred to. If he wants he himself can sing/rap or play music (or both) to show that he is in fact the singer/rapper (since people can correlate the voice). Any others who play a part in the song (ie: play instruments) can perform in the video as well. This shouldn't be a problem since more artists want publicity and don't mind people knowing who they are.
    
    On top of that she can write down, on a chalkboard (or piece of paper), the SHA-256 hashsum of the songs next to the names of the songs. This way anyone can verify, in court, that this is exactly the song that's been given permission in the video to freely distribute. Of course, on one piece of paper she may simply write multiple song names and hashums. Both her and the piece of paper will appear on the video and her writing on the paper may even appear. So the paper may look like this.
    
    Title - hashum
    
    Song1 - hashsum1
    Song2 - hashsum2
    song3 - hashsum3
    
    (I am not going to think of names or make up actual hashsums)
    
    If she wants she can even create a public/private key pair, introduce her public key on the video, and give away her songs with a text file that digitally signs the SHA - 256 hashsums along with the free to distribute license for each song.
    
    License (a bunch of text) - hashsum - signature
    license - hashsum - signature
    license - hashsum - signature
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bettawrekonize, 19 Jun 2009 @ 2:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Both her and the piece of paper will appear on the video and her writing on the paper may even appear."
      
      That is, both her and the piece of paper will appear on the video at the same time (of course), not during separate times. That is, on at least one common frame.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2009 @ 2:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and another possibility is to take a high quality picture of the artist holding up a piece of paper with the names of each song that he is releasing to the public and the hashsums. It can look something like this
        
        Licesne
        
        Song1 - hashsum1
        song2 - hashsum2
        etc...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2009 @ 2:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and if someone does manage to create a video on behalf of a song he does not have rights to then of course the person making the video (not the people distributing/sharing the music) should be held accountable. This goes back to the fact that if someone steals something and sells it to you and you didn't know it was stolen then you can't be held accountable (it's the fault of the person who stole it). If you knew it was stolen, of course, then you can be held accountable. That would further encourage people to share music (and to play them at restaurants) and since most artists know whether or not they own rights over their own songs (ie: that they never gave the RIAA rights over their songs) then they know they have nothing to worry about themselves.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sammie Houston (profile), 17 Jun 2009 @ 4:35am

Watunes, The New Music Industry!
To help alleviate issues with P2P file sharing whereby artists & record labels lose major revenue, we offer a service that allow the artists & record labels to collect all their revenue. As representatives for the largest digital distribution in the world, we will show you how to benefit from a Digital Distribution relationship. Gone are the days of selling your music through a physical means. Statistics say 48% of teenagers purchased their music online in 2007 with that number increasing from 32% a year prior. If you are still slanging CD’s, you are quickly falling into the dinosaur arena. We can help you change all that.

Watunes offers services for the entire independent music community, whether you already have digital representation or are just getting started in the digital world. We make it easy to distribute your content to digital outlets, promote your content using our innovative marketing systems, and manage your catalog and sales using our first-class technology.

WaTunes is a social media distribution service that enables artists, groups, and record labels to sell music, music videos, and audiobooks through leading online entertainment retailers, including iTunes,ShockHound, and eMusic. Artists and labels can sell unlimited music and earn 100% of their profits – ALL FOR FREE! In fact, as of Tuesday June 9th, we signed NBA Legend and Hall of Famer Earl ‘the Pearl’ Monroe who owns record label Reverse Spin Records. The link is listed right below & you can either click on it and/or copy & paste into your browser. I've also attached a PDF file of all the other services we're affiliated with should you choose to upgrade to our VIP service! Please direct any further inquires, comments, questions, or concerns to us. We're more than elated to serve you anyway we possibly can.

Best,

Sammie

Earl "the Pearl" Monroe link:

http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=watunes&oe=UTF-8&um=1&am p;ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

--
watunes.com

Sammie Houston
SVP, Client Services
e-mail: sammiehouston@watunes.com
Skype ID: sammie.houston
Office: 678-598-2439

Sneak Preview: http://tinyurl.com/dh3mum

Youtube advertisements:

http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=vJhsSKB2-u4

http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=O2AYrc DVhCs

Check out our Reviews, add your comments & feedback too:

http://www.rateitall.com/i-1125252
watunes.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kevin (profile), 25 Apr 2011 @ 2:58am

Thanks so much for your great page;this is the stuff that keeps me awake through out these day. I've been searching around for your site after being referred to them from a buddy and was thrilled when I was able to find it after searching for some time. Being a demanding blogger, Wood Pellets Biomass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]