Why Must ISPs Pay To Be The Mandatory Copyright Cops Of The Entertainment Industry?
from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept
A bunch of folks have been submitting various versions of the story of how the UK government appears to have -- somewhat arbitrarily -- decided that copyright holders should pay 75% of the costs of tracking down those accused of file sharing, while ISPs should pay the remaining 25%. It's all meaningless, of course. The reality is that consumers will pay either way, via higher prices, which will then be used to kick them off the internet. How nice. Of course, even more ridiculous is that the recording industry is still complaining, saying that ISPs should have to pay even more. This is the entitlement mentality of the industry at work. They want everyone else to pay for everything. The artists "pay" via the recouping process. Radio stations need to "pay" to promote their songs. And, now, ISPs should have to "pay" for mandatory efforts to act as the record labels' copyright cops. The sense of entitlement from the industry is staggering. Along those lines, what's up with UK communications minister Ed Vaizey, as part of announcing these plans, making the blatantly false claim about "our valuable creative industries, which have already suffered significant losses as a result of people sharing digital content without paying for it." After all, as the music industry's own research shows, the industry has been growing. It seems blatantly and intellectually dishonest for Vaizey to claim otherwise.
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 act, isps, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We have more music and working musicians than ever before. Movies have never made so much money. E-readers are at the root of a surge in (ludicrously overpriced) digital book sales.
We’re in a period of incredible cultural growth and prolificacy, yet our goverments are being tricked into supporting invasive, regressive laws, just to save a few rich and out of date corporations, who only achieved their wealth by royally fucking over the actual artists they repesented for years.
Why can so few people see this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The framing of the debate, the misdirection, and the outright lies from the big gatekeepers are all designed to fool the politicians and the unfailiar public into believing there actually is a problem that needs to be solved, when in actual fact there isn’t one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're absolutely right - there are plenty of politicians (the vast majority in fact) that have gone into the job for the right reasons - but problematically very very few of them understand digital issues.
You could see that in the discussion on the DEA in the Commons - there were a handful like Tom Watson that argued intelligently on the subject - but most simply didn't even understand the terms involved like IP addresses. They all understand the idea that digital industries have become very important to this country - and then just accept the bag of half-truths the lobbyists throw at them because that is often the only information they are presented on the subject.
The only way to solve these issues is to have a digital freedoms lobby group that argues the other side. Not the Pirate Party that is easy to dismiss, but something with support of tech companies and the like who can flash their market caps and show how many jobs and how much tax they are worth to the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money for nothing
So, really it all comes down to corrupt law: The creation of legal entities we call corporations. The creation of legalised extortion rackets (monopolies of copyright & patent). The creation of further laws to force others to police/enforce their rackets and laws to punish any disobedience on the part of the citizenry.
To assume corporations have an entitlement mentality is to buy in to the idea that corporations are human beings who might have a brain into which a feeling of entitlement might manifest. Corporations are best considered immortal alien robots whose predatory Asimov-like 'laws' direct them to maximise the extraction of revenue from the human workforce.
The solution is obvious:
1. Dissolve corporations into associations of culpable individuals (with no legal constraint to maximise share price)
2. Abolish all privileges, such as copyright & patent
3. Reform trademark, e.g. change to law against passing off
4. Reform libel laws - end legal concept of defamation
Implementing that solution is of course a bigger problem, with a less than obvious solution.
This predicament was created through an accretion of corruption (lobbied legislation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money for nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Money for nothing
"When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where his fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from his fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. A fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest."
YJMV
This pretty much makes corporations sociopaths. The law says 'Ignore your petty ethical considerations, the ends of maximising the share price justify any means of achieving it'. Even emptying oil wells into the ocean to bring about stricter regulations to impede upcoming competition is fine, irrespective of incurring trivial pollution penalties (and forget any environmental conscientiousness).
You cannot both have an interest in protecting the environment AND protecting the share price.
The PR benefit of expressing a damn about people's cultural liberty is a speck of dust compared with exploiting state granted reproduction monopolies - and lobbying for ever greater enforcement until there are so many kids in jail there are none left with any money. But, then considering the example set by fishing industries, they WILL extract revenue until there's none left and no-one left to earn it. Hence why transitioning to the taxation of the Internet is seen as a more sustainable revenue model (by the state in its favour for publishing corporations).
Similar 'over-fishing' issues apply to use of monopolies in drugs (patents) and crops (GM patents).
What mankind fails to learn from history is that he is doomed to repeat it. Check out the history concerning previous cases of monopoly blighted societies. It's the sort of thing to foment civil war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Costs
So they get to charge people for providing them nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't feel sorry for the record mafia one bit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ticklechicken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've been making a concerted effort the last year or so to move into legal downloading. I try and do it as cheaply as possible but since I'm not a broke student anymore I figure I can afford it.
If they start to make me pay for copyright policing and pay for the content then I'll have to offset one against the other as I refuse to bear the cost burden of their ridiculous war on infringers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ticklechicken
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's true. However, it does make a difference who bears the costs. If the entertainment industry bears the costs, then the price of entertainment goes up. If the ISPs bear the costs, then the price of internet access goes up.
Sp, the products of whoever pays for this will become more expensive, and fewer people will be able to afford them.
Entertainment is a luxury, but internet access is not. By raising internet prices, some people (many of them innocent) may lose their internet connections.
The government consists of retards. Q.E.D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What-about
So it makes perfect sense that our government will back a charge for the entertainment industry to screw me as much as the BBC law does.
This is private business, the government should not have a say or be able to pass laws that enforce payments for non-service.
But then again this is the UK government, & still got their heads up monies arse since broadcasting entertainment began.
We cannot win! - Corruption reigns harder than ever under the guise of anti-theft we will be stolen from - AGAIN!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What-about
Try watching television in a country that doesn't have the BBC - or an equivalent.
It is (mostly) rubbish punctuated by frequent advert breaks. Even if you never watch a BBC programme (which I doubt), the existence of the BBC forces the cable channels that you do watch to provide better programmes, with fewer commercials, than they otherwise would.
Also you should ponder on the fact that your cable subscription is almost certainly funding Rupert Murdoch....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What-about
I'm not dissin the Beeb but the corny LAW that demands that if I own a TV I must pay money to an organisation that does nothing for me personnally.
A twisted couple of points here:
1) If I buy a TV to just play my PS3 (& not use IPlayer) on I must buy a license, that seem fair?
2) If I am paying to watch a Beeb program on a cable channel which is susidised with adverts & I also have to pay the Beeb & the cable company just where does it end... Me in bankrupcy?.
Honestly I watch very little TV all in all. So it is possible to have a TV & not watch BBC stuff.
Just like it is possible to have internet access but not download any copyrighted or protected material.
I want to pay for what I get not what might be possible.
Glad you questioned me on that one, made me think a bit more about it.
It's really unfare anyone paying for someone else to enjoy their entertainment, BBC or Internet piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What-about
No you don't.
My son avoided paying for a license for a couple of years on exactly that premise - you just have to send them a letter and they will go away.
The same applies if you only watch pre-recorded material - there was a case about 20 years ago that established that principle.
It would also apply if you signed up with a cable provider that didn't offer any BBC channels.
The fact is that whenever you buy an entertainment package you end up paying a lot for stuff you don't actually watch.
It is virtually certain that your cable provider is paying a whole shedload of money for stuff you will never watch - and passing the cost on to you. You only notice the BBC part because it is "billed separately".
Your problem is not the BBC license fee - it is the bundling policy of your cable provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What-about
I was just trying to point out that taxing the ISP's means that I would be suckered by my own government into paying for other peoples entertainment.
Once is enough, twice is bad (Over-priced cable service) but DON'T TOUCH MY BROADBAND.
I will admit to a little white lie - I like BBC 3, for its original & kooky comedies, but thats it.
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What-about
Please cite the 20 year old case that proves this. If there is such a thing then it's news to the TV licensing authority, who are quite clear that you need to pay for any live TV, regardless of origin:
"Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence."
In any case, I would wonder whether a 20 year old case would apply, given the new legislation in effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What-about
I don't want to watch television, here or in any other country. I don't even want to own a television. I don't want to access the BBC web site. I don't want to listen to the radio. The only thing the BBC does for me is ensure that my money won't go towards something I want. I get fed up about hearing how great their programming is. If that's the best that can be done then switch off the broadcast towers because it's just not worth it any more.
"the existence of the BBC forces the cable channels that you do watch to provide better programmes, with fewer commercials, than they otherwise would."
On what do you base that theory? To suggest that forcing people to pay for a competing product somehow makes for a more competitive market seems absurd. If it worked then we should apply the principle everywhere and scrap the free market altogether. We could start with a cooker licence to subsidise food production. Eventually we'll find something that'll subsidise the cooker too. You'll have less choice but at least there'll be plenty of people saying how great that is.
"Also you should ponder on the fact that your cable subscription is almost certainly funding Rupert Murdoch...."
It is a sad irony that the biggest force the BBC has in its favour is rational distrust of the Murdoch family. They might be arseholes, but at least I can choose not to buy their crap. That's what freedom is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What-about
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/
"It is a sad irony that the biggest force the BBC has in its favour is rational distrust of the Murdoch family. They might be arseholes, but at least I can choose not to buy their crap. That's what freedom is all about."
...and yet you're here complaining about them and not the ad-funded Fox crap you can't choose not to support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What-about
Why would I shut the fuck up? As for not paying the fee, if you'd stop watching the BBC and browse the internet some more then you might know the trouble that causes. Note on your link how they also refer to computers, laptops, mobile phones and DVD/video recorders as grounds for requiring a licence. It's a criminal offence to not pay the licence fee and all you have to do to be liable is click on an internet link to a live TV stream. So, the option of paying �145.50 a year or risk a criminal record for browsing the internet. Aside from that, why should I have to forgo non BBC TV just to satisfy your need for me to shut up.
Enough about me, I've helped enough families in financial difficulty budget to give a broader picture. The TV licence is regarded as an essential expenditure, thus while a person may not be able to offer more than �1 per month to their creditors (whom they actually entered into an agreement with), they will still be paying over �12 per month for a TV licence. Before you say 'well they should give up their TV', from all reports and experience I would say that you will be pursued more ferociously for a TV licence you don't need than for a debt you actually owe.
"...and yet you're here complaining about them and not the ad-funded Fox crap you can't choose not to support."
Can't choose not to support? Advertisers support Fox, not me.
Please, tell me to shut up again. It validates my position so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What-about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What-about
So license is a double whammy!, for something I can assure you I do not watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What-about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What-about
Like why can't I choose the channels I want, instead of the lame package options.
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What-about
I watch plenty of BBC but I share the parent's sentiment and don't see how it harms the argument. Just because I watch BBC programmes doesn't mean I wouldn't give them up in a heartbeat if it meant I had £145.50 extra a year to spend on stuff of my own choosing. If I wanted to contribute to Jeremy Clarkson's wage that desperately then I'd buy that paper he writes for (coincidentally owned by Murdoch), instead of toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This only annoy people, I stopped "renting" things from them so I'm not financing them but somebody is and to those I say "stop now or face the consequences later".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explicitly blame the government
The ISPs should just make sure to charge customers separately for this tax, rather than including it in the base subscription.
Call it the "Government mandated recording industry subsidy" on all invoices, put a little * on all advertised prices with a "*Plus government mandated recording industry subsidy" down in the corner, wait for the complaints to roll in, then point all disgruntled customers at their local MPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i htink parents should pay also
then them fucktards get what they deserve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SACK: Ed Vaizey
Solving these issues on behalf of the people who gave him his power should be his ONLY priority.
Not pushing for laws that only benefit greedy organisations at the expense of the population. A population which will ensure his reign will be far shorter than he reckons... but I presume the payoffs from the entertainment industry will see him through the dark times.
Ed your are an evil money grabbing freak - resign now, and stop treating us like a bunch of dumbasses that can't see through your agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unbelievable
1) Who gets all the money?.
2) What is it they actually do to justify making more out of the works than the hard working artists & studios, & from taxing every other medium than can transmit the intellectual property that they do not own.
I'm baffled, how does this money for nothing industry work so well that it has now got laws to block all contestants.
Oh thats right - they hold all of the money!.
Now MP's in the UK are rumbled on their expenses, they have found a new niche to milk.
REVOLUTION - its a coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So then where is the loss? Why the outrage over people using your product? You didn't lose a sale but you gained a fan.
For the past 30 to 40 years the middleclass has been shrinking and a lot of it has to do with corporations starving off innovation and progression, creating a world where if you want to make any money, you have to work for a giant corporate entity that has no concern for you or your well-being. But what's the alternative? You can always quit to work for another corporation or try your luck at a local store but then you are competing with those corporations that have endless supplies of cash to ensure that you don't gain marketshare as a small local store.
So instead your stuck in a corporate world that has consistently refused to adequately increase wages while at the same time, driving up inflation with their products leaving you, the employee and consumer in a hopeless situation. You may make enough to buy a decent number of entertainment products: movie tickets, blu-rays, itunes songs, etc. You also might be making too little and can barely pay your bills as it is so in reaching for some form of entertainment, you start downloading songs, movies, books, none of which you could have paid for based on your limited income. Both of these people are patrons to the same products but only one of which could have ever created a possible sale for the media company. Downloading content is no different than if these two people knew eachother, and one lent the other a book or a movie; sharing is taking place, not a loss of sale.
It's unfortunate that the same corporations driving this fight against sharing, are some of the same companies that refuse to properly pay employees.
I've yet to understand why capitalism gets so much praise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is simple, because they say so and their Congressional and Senatorial lapdogs agree.
And the average Joe is more worried about the latest crap TV than usage rights, until it bites them on the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I see a tiny bit of hope here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Aftermath
Pen Rights Group | Tens of thousands could be priced out of broadband after Government announcement on file sharing code
I’m sure they’ll all be flocking to the record stores after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Aftermath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Idea
This means that the British ISPs will scan every photograph uploaded to their servers, plus all illustrations, designs and text quotations and snippets, compare the usage with the terms and conditions of any outstanding licenses or authorized uses, evaluate for fair use and derivative usages, determine what content is in the public domain, resolve jurisdictional issues, and then if necessary either bill the user and send me the money, or insist that the content be removed.
Wait. You mean this only applies to Hollywood films and recordings from the major music labels?
Oh darn, looks like it is not such a good idea after all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to clarify on the whole TV Licence thing
In Ireland, if your TV is equipped with a TV receiver i.e. input connectors (S-video, Antenna, Component, Composite, HDMI etc.), then you must pay a licence fee (goes to RTE and funding for independent programming). There is one fee for a household, so you could have four TV's and only pay about a hundred odd quid (I forget the exact number).
Myself, I have two screens at the moment. One is a 23-inch computer monitor, connected with DVI, the other unused connector is standard VGA. My other screen is a standard TV, a 19 inch 1080i, with Antenna, AV and HDMI, connected to my computer as a secondary display via HDMI. I do not pay for any type of cable service or sattelite or any other means of TV programming. I have no means of watching broadcasts, at all, save from my computer's hard drive (and all my video files come from sources other than the national broadcaster, in this case, RTE, which I refuse to watch). And yet, the law says I must still pay the licence fee, even though I have no way of receiving programming at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to clarify on the whole TV Licence thing
By all reports and experience, in the UK you'll be chased more ferociously for a licence for a TV you don't have than you will for a debt you actually owe. Especially if you're in financial difficulty because legitimate creditors have to give way for essential expenditure like the TV licence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]