UK Culture Secretary: Search Engines Must Magically Stop Piracy Or Else!
from the good-luck-with-that dept
You'd think that after years and years of pointless banter along these lines that people in power would understand just how ridiculous they sound when they try to blame search engines for infringement. TorrentFreak points out that the UK's Culture Secretary Sajid Javid gave a barn raising speech to folks from the British recording industry. It starts out with the usual political fluff about just how important the recording industry is and how much money the government is forking over to the industry in questionable subsidies. And, apparently Javid has no qualms directly admitting to accepting favors (bribes?) from the industry. Specifically he tells a "joke" about now his kids thing he's cool, because he can get hot concert tickets ("my new-found ability to get tickets for the Capital FM Summertime Ball, or Sam Smith at Somerset House!"), whereas in his previous job no one was rushing to give him such favors. It's a joke, but it's pretty telling.Then, about halfway through, he gets to the meat of the speech, in which Javid talks about the need to (of course) ratchet up copyright laws even more. Because that's the red meat of any speech to the recording industry.
People in your industry have a true vocation. You identify talented artists and record, release and publicise their work not just to make money, but because you love music. You have a passion for it. And intellectual property protection underpins that passion. It allows you to do what you do best. Without enforceable copyright there would be no A&R, no recording studios, no producers, no session musicians, no publicity, no artwork.Now, copyright law absolutely does enable one particular business model, but to argue that there would be no industry, no producers, no session musicians, no publicity and no artwork without enforceable copyright is just silly. And easily disproved since (1) there was plenty of artwork and music before that (2) there are still plenty of people who produce music without relying on copyright as a business model and (3) "session musicians" tend not have a copyright in the music they play anyway. They get paid session wages. That's not about copyright.
Note how he insists that the recording industry is not in it for the money, but for the "passion." He's pretty sure of this, even though copyright has nothing to do with passion, and everything to do with money. But when it comes to the internet sites he doesn't like, he's absolutely positive the opposite is true:
As I said earlier, you work in music because you love it. Copyright crooks don’t love music. They love money, and they’ve been attracted to the industry solely by its potential to make them rich. Take away their profits and you take away their reason for being.Interesting. Because most of those sites make almost no money. And, of course, the vast majority of file sharing happens between individuals for no profit at all. Are there some sites making some money from ads? Yes, but it's a tiny amount. And, um, as we've pointed out in the past, if it was such a lucrative business, wouldn't that suggest that the industry players themselves should get into the business and provide a better product?
But, the main point he's making is the favorite trope of the industry: that piracy is really all the big internet companies' fault, and he's demanding that they wave their magic wand, or he'll get legislation passed that forces them to wave their magic wand.
Let me be absolutely clear that I completely agree with Mike Weatherley when he says that the search engines also have to play their part. They must step up and show willing. That’s why Vince Cable and I have written to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, asking them to work with you to stop search results sending people to illegal sites. And let me be perfectly clear: if we don’t see real progress, we will be looking at a legislative approach. In the words of Martin Mills, “technology companies should be the partners of rights companies, not their masters.”We wrote about Weatherley's ridiculous comments earlier this year, but apparently Javid would like to double down on them. Here's the stuff he leaves out: what's an "illegal" site? Who defines what is or is not an illegal site? The legacy entertainment industry once claimed that YouTube is an illegal site. Should Google, Microsoft and Yahoo block all traffic to YouTube? Or what about Veoh, which they also declared to be an illegal site, until it was shut down. Only later did a court rule it to be perfectly legal. Oops. Too late.
What about Soundcloud? Or the Internet Archive? Or Vimeo? All of those were on a list that Universal Music helped create a few years ago of "illegal sites" on which no advertising could be placed.
So, again, how exactly are they determining what is and what is not an "illegal" site? That seems kind of important, because history shows this industry isn't very good at figuring it out. Remember, this is the same industry that tried to ban the VCR and the MP3 player entirely. I have a real problem with thinking that they're the final judges on what is a "legal" or "illegal" site.
And, of course all of this leaves out that very, very, very little piracy happens because of someone going to a search engine and typing in the name of an artist. We looked at the data, and there's almost no evidence that search is a major driver of piracy -- especially when it comes to someone looking up an artist's name or songs. In some cases, where people do searches directly related with copyright infringement, it may help them find an unauthorized track, but it's difficult to believe that the person doing such a search is looking for a way to pay in the first place.
In other words, it's pretty ridiculous to blame search engines for helping people find what they're looking for. The real problem is that the industry hasn't been giving people what they're looking for. Trying to ban search engines from actually helping people isn't exactly a reasonable solution. It's a bad idea that won't work.
The rest of his speech is the usual misleading stats and ridiculous assumptions. He talks about how many unauthorized downloads there are, never bothering to consider how many of those would actually involve payment -- or how many of those might be happening because there aren't useful, cheap and convenient alternatives. It's just all "piracy." He talks about how they're throwing millions at an "education" campaign. This is the old trope that comes up over and over again. "If only," people think, "everyone learned about copyrights, they'd stop infringing." Yeah, right. It's never worked. People don't download unauthorized tracks because they don't know about copyright law. They know. Education is a waste of money -- and nearly all educational campaigns are so laughable that the people they're directed at just laugh at them (often because they actually understand the issues better).
If, as Javid claims, music really "matters" to the UK then creating a bogus "war" with the tech industry (the industry that is actually delivering real solutions) seems like the exact wrong way about helping out. It's just extending the bogus narrative that the recording industry should sit back and let the government and other industries "solve" their failure to adapt to a changing marketplace in which music lovers want a better product.
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, culture secretary, education, enforcement, myths, sajid javid, search engines, uk
Companies: bpi
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Copyrights are about getting works into public domain after a reasonable period of time.
Only corporations have twisted it to mean money.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Our politicians are terribly infected by the need to "do something" about everything. They feel they must always interfere and tell others what to do. This is particularly galling when coming from the Conservatives who paraded before the last election on a "smaller government" approach and who have had various party members who really get technology. The latter have been sidelined as time went on and the vested interests invited the leadership to concerts etc.
I'm sick of the lot of them.
They are cowardly incompetents. Whenever something happens they jump in with both feet saying "we must do something" and then do something without any thought to the consequences of their actions.
None of the ones in positions of power have the strength of conviction or even the necessary vocabulary to say to people "This is the situation. This is what the loudest papers and lobbyists are shouting for. We do not think that is the best approach and this is why." Instead they just buckle.
Oh wow I'm angry now. Someone get me a beer.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many are still technically viable, though, which is why you sometimes hear about people being thrown in jail for things like giving or getting a blowjob, etc.
[ 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 ]
Copyrights are about getting works into public domain after a reasonable period of time.
Only corporations have twisted it to mean money.
[ 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 ]
He must really hate Libraries then with all that money they love and have been attracted to...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words rights companies should control the Internet, and once again have a monopoly on their area of publishing. Want to publish music, try to get a label deal, want to publish want to publish a book, try and find a publisher, want to a video, get a try to get a studio or TV company to carry it. write a political piece or social commentry, try and find a newspaper to publish it. Net result, less than 1% of people with something to say will actually get their voice heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit. If they were in for the passion the stuff would be free for sharing since their goal would be to reach as many people as possible, money being just collateral benefits.
Copyright crooks don’t love music. They love money, and they’ve been attracted to the industry solely by its potential to make them rich. Take away their profits and you take away their reason for being.
And then he describes the MAFIAA with perfection after bullshitting. Fascinating.
Really, the UK seems to be ruled by idiots...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The US was first. Quit STEALING our ideas you f***nuts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you wouldn't
...actually if I had a 3D printer and the need for a new toaster I might...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you wouldn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All this deserves is just a great big smiley ROFL ...
Can't think of anything else that's appropriate to the idea of search engines actually stopping piracy. Nor anyone else for that matter ... 'bout the same as when they tried to stop booze during prohibition. How did that work for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was wondering... is it really legal for corporations to give gifts to public office holders in the UK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an ireland,
it existed before lps,vinyl and cds and before copyright
existed .
Artists create ,art, music, write poetry ,
whether copyright exists or not.
Most musicians don,t get into the charts or make much
money .
its a long shot to become a pop/rock star or to even have 1 hit song.
IT continues to inspire new music to be created.
IF you don,t sell x amount of records,or downloads ,
the record company will drop any artist.
THE big record companys exist to make music,
they are just part of the equation of the music scene.
IF the music industry had its way most new tech,
mp3 players,
digital downloads would not exist .
THEY had to be dragged into adopting digital music as a format ,
by napster , and steve jobs and the ipod .
ITS seems the people in charge of tech policy are technically clueless ,and seem to be guided mainly by
advisors from american corporations and the legacy music companys,
it was only recently it was made legal in the uk ,for people to rip music from cd,s they bought for their own personal use to phones, or mp3 players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was skimming the post, and for a moment thought he was talking about the music labels. Without the surrounding context, that quote fits them perfectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess we know what will really cause massive destruction of our world: People listening to music or watching video that (maybe) they didn't pay for. (Perhaps this is what the cyberwar teams are really made for?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who expected anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sign of a government being hopelessly corrupt: Its officials make no attempt to hide their corrupt actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AHOY MATEYS the pirate engine is here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright was supposed to be a deal the public entered into so that works would come out into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time and so the creators could make their money with their temp monopoly, as the above poster said.
Works no longer come out into the public domain and the amount of time copyright lasts is no longer reasonable. Nor do the creators really get their just reward. There's basically nothing in it for the public.
Therefore we should rescind the deal and redesign copyright. Throw it away completely and try it again. I personally don't recognize it as a law anymore it's gone off the deep end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is true of US copyright law, but is it equally true of UK copyright law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Another indicator that it is for the publishers is the fact that performing rights came into existence after a viable recording industry had been established. Copyright in practice has always been about protecting the publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As it has been distorted, yes. But the Constitution clearly says what the purpose of copyright is supposed to be -- and the goal is not to benefit publishers or authors. It's to benefit the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any site not under their control.
Any musician that releases music without a label.
Any author that writes a book without a publisher.
Any artist that creates works for the public.
Any movie producer without a studio.
Any TV show without a network.
Any game developer without a publisher.
Basically anyone who creates culture not under the control of the gate keepers.
The UK Culture Secretary's job is to keep culture under their master's control, not to be diluted by the unwashed masses as they see fit.
[ 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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of poker...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice bit of projection there. What's actually going on is that rights companies want to be the masters of technology companies, not the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now that's an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]