UK Continues Its War On Innovation And The Public, At The Urging Of The Major Labels
from the cluelessness-in-power dept
While the UK sometimes has moments of sanity in exploring copyright issues, it often seems that politicians there are even more willing to accept absolutely bullshit claims from the legacy entertainment industry at face value. Take, for example, the recent parliamentary debate over a new intellectual property bill, in which UK politicians made some absolutely crazy statements, arguing that it may be time to start throwing "persistent" file sharers in jail, and attacking Google for not rewriting its search results to match what the local version of the RIAA (the BPI) wants.Gerry Sutcliffe MP said that he believed that “millions of complaints [to Google] have not been dealt with”, a point underlined by John Leech MP who recalled “the complacent attitude taken by [Google's] representatives to the whole issue, as though it had nothing to do with them and was not their problem.”Of course, it's hogwash that the complaints "have not been dealt with." Google has shown time and time again that when it receives valid complaints, it takes down the links to that content within hours, despite receiving so many requests. Most other search engines take much, much longer. Second, the whole 50 million links thing is a total red herring. If the sites are illegal, as Sutcliffe claims, then there should be lawsuits against them to take those sites down. But the problem is that the sites generally, have not been found to be illegal. And, many of the sites are used for all sorts of legitimate offerings as well. Yet, Sutcliffe and BPI seem to think there's a magic wand that can be waved to determine what's legitimate and what's not.
[....] “At some time, this Government must have a proper look at the almost monopoly status of this huge, multinational, non-UK business and ask whether it is good for our content industries. I have a sneaking feeling that it is not,” Sutcliffe said.
“I have seen the evidence from the British Phonographic Industry. It sent 50 million notices to Google asking it to take down links to illegal — I emphasize, illegal—sites. Google should not be doing that. What on earth is going on if it receives 50 million requests to take down links to illegal sites?
“It is time to call in the Competition Commission: we cannot continue to allow Google to be the gateway to content industries when they do them so much damage.”
Even more troubling, however, were the comments from Mike Weatherly, who is now David Cameron's "Intellectual Property advisor," but who in the past worked for both the legacy recording and movie industries.
“Ultimately, we need to consider withdrawing internet rights from lawbreakers, along with imposing fines and, as a last resort, custodial sentences,” he told the debate.Yes, even as countries are backing away from the insane move of cutting off internet access -- a form of punishment that has been shown not to work -- he wants to go even further, and put those people in jail. When another politician tried to say that individuals in their bedrooms are different from companies setting up file sharing offerings, Weatherly made it clear that he meant that even those downloading in their bedrooms should face jail if they keep downloading.
“My point was that, when we get the education right and people understand that stealing intellectual property is wrong, and when the industry has alternative downloading models, if we exhaust fines and other means of stopping persons downloading illegally, we must consider some sort of custodial sentence for persistent offenders and people who operate on a commercial scale,”That's the old entertainment industry we've grown to know so well. No matter how many times they ratchet up the punishment and find that it doesn't slow infringement, they just think that if they keep cranking up that dial, it'll work next time. It's why the US passed 15 different anti-piracy bills in the course of 30 years, after none of them actually worked. Perhaps, next time, they should try to offer the death penalty for copying. Except that won't work either.
Maybe, just maybe, rather than trying to punish everyone, they should focus on trying to make things convenient and worth buying. Just a suggestion.
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, file sharing, gerry sutcliffe, innovation, mike weatherly, uk
Companies: bpi, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Here's an idea
No, I'm not talking crazy talk.
Consider this.
How easy is it to push a few buttons on the TV remote to access content on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, or even a website that streams programs?
How much more difficult is it to have to get out of your chair, and download content? How much more trouble is it to have to rip a DVD? (Nevermind the enormously long time of a several minute wait. Not even taking into account the difficulty of renting the DVD from Netflix or Redbox.)
If content were available at the click of the remote, who would even bother to pirate?
Ah, but then artists would not be protected if people could actually see and hear their creations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is insane. this is a barely veiled attempt to expand the reach of copyright law and removing every last bit of protection the already overreaching DMCA grants by trying to take the UK citizens hostage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goggle won't show results on that. Pirates won't be pirating. Sites presumably won't be illegal then.
Every one should be happy as a pig in a waller not to have to hear how poorly all these entertainment companies are doing that are raking in record profits every year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> They won't have to worry about search term results if they
> aren't releasing new stuff outside their grip.
Your idea extends to patent infringement as well.
If you have an idea and are inclined to patent it, then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Then nobody will infringe upon your patent. Don't worry. Someone else will think of your exact same idea, probably within six months. Or maybe they already have years and years ago, but just not "...on the internet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I use an alternative method. This was advice I got decades ago, and it's served me very, very well: develop your product, then publish the patentable idea in recognized professional forum that relates to the field. This accomplishes three things:
1) It helps to advertise your product
2) It protects you from having someone else patent your own idea by establishing a date for prior art
3) You earn a bit of cash up front through payment for the article you wrote about the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "War on IP Piracy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Now, that's obvious IF one accepts that the producers of the content that freeloading pirates want to steal have a right to prevent theft. But nearly all of the prior sentence is daily opposed by Pirate Mike, who allegedly "supports copyright" yet never wants any enforcement of the simple property rights in "I made it, therefore I own it, you do not".
Oh. let's see. I'll just tagline for the rest:
What are you stoopid pirates doing here? Mike supports copyright! (41 of 192)
Where Mike "supports copyright" but always overlooks or excuses piracy. (43 of 192)
If you advocate taking copyright away from Disney after its long abuse and extension, then FINE! -- But don't at same time empower today's mega-corporations to steal creative works from the poor. Those are not similar cases. Doing away with ALL copyright is even more criminal than the current mess. -- Make a means test for copyright, prohibit it entirely to corporations, and prevent them from raiding the public domain. (115 of 192)
Mike's notions are all get-rich-quick schemes by using products someone else made. His continued defense of Megaupload shows his ideal "business model": neither pay to produce nor royalties on any of the files hosted so costs are just above bandwidth, and able to avoid legal liability so long as pretend ignorance of infringed content. (120 of 192)
You're not on the leading edge of new production models, Mike, just advocating plain old-fashioned theft with new gadgets. (190 of 192)
04:04:23[f-17-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Ah blue. I'm not going to expend the effort. There's no point in me ridiculing you anymore. You've already taken the trouble to make yourself look as insane as possible, so I can't actually use Reductio ad absurdum anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Actually, that's 192 taglines which have been previously debunked, ripped to shreds with logic and/or are basically incoherent rants.
Blue is one of those people whose mind is already made up based on incorrect information and faulty logic and doesn't want to be confused with actual facts. It's sad really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
No, you have not shown this to be true.
Ford facilitates bank robberies by making and selling cars which might be used by bank robbers. But they aren't required to take steps to prevent their cars from being misused in that way.
Chemical companies facilitate murder since a number of household chemicals may be used to murder people. But the chemical companies aren't required to stop selling, or change formulas to prevent their products from being misused in that way.
Google's services may be misused for piracy, but that's not a good enough reason to impose any obligations on Google to avoid or prevent this.
As it happens, the standard in US copyright law from Sony v. Universal (the case that supported Sony's right to continue to make and sell VCRs that facilitated piracy) is that if the product in question is capable of legitimate, noninfringing uses, copyright law may not be used against the manufacturer due to their trade in said product.
This is fairly well known, especially as this year is the 30th anniversary of this landmark case. In fact, it's also well-known that the movie studios that opposed Sony benefited tremendously from home video and that it was stupid of them to ever oppose it. But you're an idiot, so it's no surprise that you got this wrong. You're almost always wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Google has nothing to do with what comes up on search results, save some ads. It's just an algorithm. Google doesn't say; "huehuehue lets put pirate sites at the top of the search results". Google does not facilitate theft. Google is a search engine. You type in words, and Google matches them with sites based on its algorithm. You are repeating the mistakes of the MPAA/RIAA, which makes me wonder whether you are actually a shill for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we've been waiting for years, and still a big fat whopping zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Google: Please drop Britain
Message: You don't want your countrymen to find things? Fine, keep them from finding things. Can't tell what's infringing from not, of course, so just drop the entire country. Buh-bye!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Google: Please drop Britain
If none of their shit was search able on google we would all be a lot happier. They will die a lot quicker with nobody being able to find their wares and the indies will take over much faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear Google: Please drop Britain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop claiming that this is fucking censorship.
Censorship is being shot for your beliefs by the state police. Censorship is being jailed for arguing that abortions should be permitted in certain cases. Censorship is being forbidden to practice your religion in your own home.
For a third time, since you seem incapable of rationality: this is not fucking censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess if one says it is not censorship enough times he/she might actually come to believe what they say. Self-delusion, however, is generally not something to which people should aspire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not self-delusion nor is it censorship, my friend. The comment is still there and Blue has not been prevented from spouting more of his crap in any way, shape or form.
Do you also claim that newspapers who place letters to the editor on page 6 instead of the front page are engaging in censorship also? Same concept, but instead of a single mouse click you have to leaf through a few printed pages instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, a loud, obnoxious drunk can be heard throughout a room. You have no way to drown out the commentary in most instances. Comments on a site are absolutely silent and can easily be avoided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're absolutely correct. The First Amendment doesn't apply here, since the 1A's right of free speech only concerns the government blockage of speech. Private websites do not have a duty to you to allow you to say what you want. Mike could remove all comments tomorrow if he wanted, and he would not be in violation of the 1A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All output, no input.
Totally incapable of reasoned replies or initial postings for that matter. ootb simply makes noise. We simply info to noise ratio better by doing "report".
The noise is still there for anybody to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Chew on a report vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It has nothing to do with "disagreement." It has everything to do with ootb being a gigantic fucking asshole, with a looooooooong history of being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive (he even admits to this). And that's the least of his faults.
What really needs to happen is for more people to report ootb every single time along with EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody is twisting my arm to read his drivel. In fact, I don't. What irks me, though, is that his sole intent is to derail any conversation and inject his entirely irrelevant point of view on all manners of nonsense. What then follows is that lots of people get drawn into arguing with him (to which, I'll add, he NEVER listens to ESPECIALLY when facts are introduced), thereby giving him what he (clearly lacks) and craves: attention.
I don't come here to read his moronic rants, nor do I want to read people arguing with a moron. And that is why I'll continue to
REPORT OOTB AND EVERYONE WHO REPLIES TO HIM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is it censorship to block spam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> when it is done here with such alacrity.
Thank goodness that the First Amendment guarantees you the right to force other people to listen to you and to agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm seeing politicians trying to stick their noses into the Internet's business as a worse threat than hackers, scammers and malware creators. I'd rather have the latter.
I think it's time for us to take our internet and go home. Enough of the playground bullies trying to rewrite the rules in their favor. Kick them off. No governments allowed. Things worked better before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The MPAA has rated the following search result S for Stupid.
Unsuitable for whatever you were searching for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sign me up baby!
http://thechive.com/2014/01/27/porn-star-takes-to-twitter-with-an-interesting-offer-10-photos/
Christy Mack is going to suck off whoever builds her the best Lego house! LOL Lego will make more money today than they have in the last ten years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America -> UK
Well, I used to.
I think that's our biggest export to the UK now, irrational thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America -> UK
Except for France, who historically has a completely different approach to what copyright and protectionism entails, mainland Europe is slightly more sensible. IE: EU has a law that would make actual application of several of the described methods illegal. France got an exemption because of HADOPI, while Great Britain just got an exemption...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: America -> UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also they have no idea how the internets work so ban this sick filth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bing - because parsing googles search results and shuffling the order makes you a big-boy search engine!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't you mean...?
FTFY, Mike Weatherly. It's simple supply and demand, after all. We demand, and the entertainment industry fails to supply. Again and again and again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]