Would UK Politicians Support The Digital Economy Bill If It Applied To Offline Activities As Well?

from the equivalencies? dept

Fri, Mar 19th 2010 5:57pm — Mike Masnick

The entertainment industry always likes to take the digital world and compare it to the physical world as if the two were the same -- often making claims like unauthorized downloading is "just like stealing a CD from a store." However, they don't seem to like it when you do that back to them to prove all the inconsistencies in their arguments. Lee Griffin wrote up a good blog post about the Digital Economy Bill in the UK, wondering how people would feel if the same rules were applied offline:

Would you appreciate being put under house arrest not because of any court determined guilt, but because of someone making accusations of copyright infringement against you for something that may or may not have occurred in your property at the time? Is it even remotely justified to put you under house arrest, to stop you from going to the library, to work, or to socialise with your friends because of those accusations alone?

Or how about point 4...how would you feel if the police were stopping you from accessing your local community centre because a single individual or organisation had threatened the local council in such a way that it is too much for the council to risk the financial cost of allowng it to continue functioning for the community? Imagine arriving at your local pub only to find it inaccessible to you, even though anyone that is visiting from another town can use it freely; not for anything that you or your town have necessarily done, but because of the implications made by an individual in a completely unscrutinised manner?

Finally, point 5 would be very interesting. Could you imagine the police coming and turfing you out of a building you've legitimately bought, and putting it back on the market without paying you a penny, simply because you knew it was in a good location and could make some money off of the future sale? Somehow I don't think that's all too likely!

Of course, supporters of the DEB will claim that "this is different!" but they seem to be the same people who will still insist that infringement is no different than theft. Funny how that works.

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: digital economy bill, uk

46 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dean Landolt (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 6:19pm

individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
As we all know, when you "pirate" a song the original "owner" of that file hasn't actually lost anything. Every time our liberties are systematically whittled away, we all *actually* lose something. That *is* theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 8:40pm
  
  Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
  As we all know, when you "pirate" a song the original "owner" of that file hasn't actually lost anything. Every time our liberties are systematically whittled away, we all *actually* lose something. That *is* theft.
  
  So it's theft when YOUR rights are infringed but not when you infringe another person's rights?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 9:23pm
    
    Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
    And copyrights are like liberty in what sense?
    
    These rights are self-evident and all that jazz.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - abc gum, 20 Mar 2010 @ 12:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
      Don't expect a rational answer, because they do not have one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
        They don't even have any irrational answers. That's how bankrupt their position is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chargone (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 12:09am
    
    Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
    infringement =/= removal.
    
    removal is theft, at least in an analogical manner. once the thing, in this case a right, is removed, the origional possesor there of no longer posseses it (in the case of a right, one could make the case that it's not theft, but willful destruction of property, because not only does the origional owner no longer have it, it no longer exists... but that's another logical tangle we don't need for the moment.)
    
    infringement is not. even if you're talking about the right, if you infringe upon it, the right itself is still there. (though due to different logic than that which leaves the copied file in the possession of the original owner)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 11:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
      even if you're talking about the right, if you infringe upon it, the right itself is still there.
      
      So if YOUR rights are infringed then those rights are completely annihilated, but if a copyright is infringed it remains as it was, completely unaffected?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 20 Mar 2010 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
        I realize this may be difficult for you, but do try to follow along.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
        My rights are self-evident. A copyright is not self-evident otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
        My rights are self-evident. A copyright is not self-evident otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we?
        
        I wasn't aware that the constitution outlined a self-evident right to be a copyright-infringing freeloader...
        
        Can anyone cite the appropriate passage from their United States of Unicorns constitution?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
        Nice straw man. We're talking about civil liberties being removed by the desperate flailing of doomed industries.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 20 Mar 2010 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
        That's right.
        
        According to the copyright cartel, copyright trumps due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 5:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
        Yeah, I couldn't find anything about copyright here:
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
        Way to answer the question!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 1:03am
    
    Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
    1. Bear in mind that these liberties are removed by *accusations* of infringement. It's quite possible (and likely) that the liberties of innocent people will be removed. So, yes, the rights of an innocent party are more important.
    
    2. These are 2 different types of infringement with 2 different kinds of consequences. In the first instance, the "owner" of the infringed music loses nothing. They still have the original music, which they can still sell to anybody who wants it. The only thing they've lost is the *potential* to sell at that instance to that person, and even that makes the massive assumptions that said person would have bought had the opportunity to infringe not existed, and will never buy in the future.
    
    On the other hand, a person who has their internet removed may suffer actual losses, including but not limited to: their business and livelihood (if they run a home business), the ability to contact certain family & friends, financial, educational, employment & low-cost retail opportunities, their telephone & entertainment options (if they use Skype/Hulu/Netflix instead of a cable & traditional phone) and many, many other things that the internet can provide.
    
    All on the accusation of wrongdoing. This is clearly unbalanced.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 7:33am
    
    Re: Re: individual liberties: the only scarce good that matters...
    The rights Dean is talking about are positive rights - copyright is a negative right - a right to STOP others from doing things.
    
    Infringing a positive right is theft, infringing a negative right must be the opposite. So infringing a copyright is anti-theft.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 6:40pm

if someone sees you stealing a cd from their store, they call the police and they deal with it. when you call the police for online theft, they do nothing. the online world cant work like the real world, so online rules dont match back to real world experiences. the entire post is very misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 6:48pm
  
  Re:
  What is online theft?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I guess that means when someone defrauds a bank. Then the bank claims it is not their fault because it was identify theft
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:07pm
  
  Re:
  "when you call the police for online theft, they do nothing."
  
  What you meant to say was that when you call the police and try to report civil copyright infringement with poor evidence, they laugh at you and hang-up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What are they too busy eating doughnuts and investigating murderers, rapists and actual thieves?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brian (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah some bullcrap about protecting citizens and whatnot, its all just a bunch of garbage. I mean I have vast amounts of money and the police should be doing everything in their power to prop up my failing business and ensure that I continue to make lots of money even at the expense of progress and freedom. :D
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        all nice but all you are proving is that masnicks little comparison isnt valid. if it doesnt go one way it doesnt go the other either
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 7:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Uhh, yeah...that's the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Andy (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 11:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No they are too busy eating doughnuts and trying to find some unwitting motorist doing a couple over the speed limit to fine and keep their hit rates up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  if someone sees you stealing a cd from their store, they call the police and they deal with it. when you call the police for online theft, they do nothing. the online world cant work like the real world, so online rules dont match back to real world experiences
  
  Right. Which is why the argument that downloading a song is anything like stealing a CD is misleading.
  
  I'm glad you finally agree.
  
  Of course, you also got your facts wrong (you do this a lot). Because if you actually were robbed, the police would pay attention. The problem -- as has been explained to you countless times, so it's odd that you would repeat it -- is that what is happening is not theft, but civil infringement. And the cops know that, even if you seem to have trouble grasping it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2010 @ 7:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    i have made maybe 20 comments on this site total. how do i get facts wrong a lot?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2010 @ 8:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why would anyone call the police over civil infringement? If that post is indicative of your other posts then yes, you seem to get the facts wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldrick, 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:36pm

When you download a file, you only get a copy. The original file is still intact - so you haven't "stolen" it in the same sense as stealing a CD from a store (i.e that deprives the vendor from selling it to anyone, and he loses what he paid for it). What you have done is *potentially* deprive the vendor of one sale (only to you, not to anyone else). I say potentially, because you may not actually have been willing to pay the purchase price to buy it - but because you could download it for "free", you did. In other words you say to yourself "ah it's not a bad song, I'll have it if it's free, but it's not so good that I would pay $x for it."
The equivalent actions in the physical "old" world (i.e pre-internet), would actually be more akin to tape recording songs off the radio, or photocopying books - for personal use (not to sell them).
Recording songs off the radio was common when I was a kid. It's interesting that nobody ever mentioned it as a problem. The record companies allow these songs to be "broadcast" into the airwaves, and anyone can "catch them" with a radio receiver and keep a copy, if they have a recording device. The internet is really just another way to "broadcast" them - but over a different medium, copper wires and glass fibre, instead of airwaves. I guess the difference is that the radio broadcasters pay the record companies each time they broadcast the song - whereas internet folks don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kryptonianjorel (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 2:07am
  
  Re:
  Radio only pays songwriters, since it is a free promotion for artists. Recording radio via cassettes is still copyright infringement, and is illegal, just like using your vcr to record tv shows.
  
  Not saying I don't agree with you, just pointing out the facts
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TtfnJohn (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Radio only pays songwriters, since it is a free promotion for artists. Recording radio via cassettes is still copyright infringement, and is illegal, just like using your vcr to record tv shows."
    
    Not quite.
    
    If you record off the airwaves/cable for your own personal use that may fall under fair use or fair dealing as you are not depriving the creator of a single penny in reality or potentially. Anyway, who's to know if you just watch/listen at home or in the car?
    
    OTOH if you record then sell your tapes then that is copyright infringement and the creator may or may not choose to recover real and potential earnings. Of course not all do. See Grateful Dead and/or bootleg concerts.
    
    Which reminds me that what we now call piracy was once called bootlegging.
    
    Notice that while copyright holders have insisted that copyright violation is theft for a long time when it's actually a civil issue the names given to violators, often by those wanting to paint them as criminal, seem to follow a pattern of while being criminal are also covered in a romantic aura. Pirate and Bootlegger. Both, in fiction, often battling against unreasonable or oppressive authority.
    
    Seems like the **AA's just can't get out of the fictional world of scripts that they live in or songs describing such things where pirates, bootleggers, smugglers and even highwaymen often are the heros and liberators.
    
    These people prefer the fictional world of the Errol Flynns and Johnny Depps to the real one. Is it any wonder they can't figure out how to operate when the real world and the on line world are stopping being separate things and becoming one and the same.
    
    This is roughly the same as the fictional world the **AAs inhabit where artists are actually paid by them instead of being constantly ripped off and not paid by virtue of creative "accounting".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldrick, 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:46pm

Another difference is that when a song is broadcast over radio, it is transient. It can only be copied while it is being played by the broadcaster. On the Internet it is "hosted" so it is there to be copied anytime ("on demand").

Another reason that downloading only "potentially" deprives the vendor from selling it to you - is that you could still buy it at a later time, if you choose to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldrick, 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:49pm

Yeah - so the ads about stealing CD's are really a sly non-sequitur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldrick, 19 Mar 2010 @ 7:53pm

Imagine the "real" ad - the non-non-sequitur version...

"You wouldn't tape record a song off the radio would you..."

The cinema audience just burst out laughing! I don't think it would work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 19 Mar 2010 @ 9:37pm

Quantum Copying
What people don’t realize is that even digital bits cannot be perfectly copied without degradation. What happens is that the original and the copy become quantumly entangled in a quantumical “superposition of states”. This means that, if a bit in one copy flips one way, a bit in another copy will flip another way. But of course quantumism doesn’t distinguish between the “original” and the “copy”, so the owner of the original can end up with the wrong copy—the one who made the copy has, in effect, quantumishly stolen the correct value of that bit from the owner.

The more copies there are floating around, the worse this effect gets. Eventually all the data degenerates into a totally quantumized haze of quantumational noise.

So you see, piracy is worse than just ripping off some content creator or other; it actually destroys the quantumic order of the Universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: Quantum Copying
  Yes - but according to the Wheeler-Feynmann theory of advanced and retarded potentials you can tell which direction the copying process actually went in - so when I have downloaded a song of the internet I am at liberty to sue the original artist for infringing MY copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 7:43am
    
    Re: Re: Quantum Copying
    you can tell
    
    should be you can't tell
    
    sorry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Schrödinger, 20 Mar 2010 @ 8:17am
  
  Re: Quantum Copying
  Leave my cat alone
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy (profile), 19 Mar 2010 @ 11:52pm

Point 5
"Finally, point 5 would be very interesting. Could you imagine the police coming and turfing you out of a building you've legitimately bought, and putting it back on the market without paying you a penny, simply because you knew it was in a good location and could make some money off of the future sale? Somehow I don't think that's all too likely!"

This point starts to sound similar to the worrying trend over "Eminent Domain" in numerous US cities. OK, perhaps it is not a case of not "paying you a penny", but the rest definitely applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 12:14am

what i nwould love to know is
As I work in broadcasting (radio) i send shows to stations in several countries using weblockers i guess i am out work when this bill is law. so Mandleson et al can expect a law suit from me for money lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trav, 20 Mar 2010 @ 2:58am

Wait a second?
if you download music tracks you can get sued for thousands right? But if you steal a CD from a store you would not be sued for thousands.
how come the penalties for downloading are so much more severe then if I stole it from a store
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mike allen (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 3:17am
  
  Re: Wait a second?
  Simple the recording companies seem to think that people who put the music on file shareing sites are making tons of cash from it and so are the downloaders. You wont ever convince that mindset that it is all for free!!!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Mar 2010 @ 7:48am
  
  Re: Wait a second?
  The correct answer is "Because it's on the internets!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 20 Mar 2010 @ 9:17am

Politicians will support anything that gives them more power and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 21 Mar 2010 @ 6:36pm

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/this-is-how-you-debate-health-care-brooklyn-style.html

One can hope the English politicians are not like their republican counterparts in the U.S. that declared in public they are owned by the insurance companies LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2010 @ 4:37pm

The whole idea that the recording and movie industry want to be able to punish people and cause them financial loss based upon an accusation of copyright infringement is insane.

A person that is falsely accused has more to lose than a potentially possible lost sale of a plastic disc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]