As UK Piracy Falls To Record Lows, Government Still Wants To Put Pirates In Jail For 10 Years
from the maybe-there's-another-way dept
Last fall, our think tank, the Copia Institute, released a paper, The Carrot or the Stick? which detailed how innovation in the form of convenient, appealing and reasonably priced legal content streaming services appeared to be the most powerful tool in reducing piracy. The report looked at a number of different data sources and situations in multiple different countries. And what we found, over and over again, was pretty straightforward: ratcheting up enforcement or punishment did not work -- or, if it did work, it only worked exceptionally briefly. However, by introducing good, convenient authorized services, piracy rates fell, like off a cliff. We saw this pattern repeated over and over again.And yet... instead of seeing policymakers and legacy content companies pursue strategies to encourage more innovation and more competition in authorized services, they continually focus on enforcement and punishment. This makes no sense at all. Take the situation in the UK, for example. Last week, the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) came out with a report noting that piracy in the UK had dropped significantly in the wake of authorized streaming services like Spotify and Netflix entering the market. The full report is worth reading and pretty clearly suggests -- as our own report last year did -- that having good authorized services in place is the best way to reduce piracy.
The IPO’s report, carried out by research group Kantar Media, suggested a strong link between the rise of such services and falling piracy. 80pc of music listeners now use exclusively legal means, up from 74pc a year agoThis is all great and consistent with what we found in basically every country we looked at. But that's why it's equally troubling that, rather than supporting that innovative ecosystem that is successfully diminishing piracy, the UK's IPO has moved forward with its ridiculous plan to jail pirates for 10 years. As we described in great detail a few months ago, the IPO's support of 10-year prison sentences for copyright infringement was not only based on no actual data, and pulled out of thin air, but it directly contradicted numerous studies on the deterrence effect of longer prison sentences.
I spoke to people at the IPO (many of whom are quite reasonable) after the recommendation came out, and they insisted that the 10-year prison sentence would only be used for "true criminals" and not just people sharing files online. They apparently also promised Open Rights Group that the specifics would be clarified in the final bill so as not to target ordinary people file sharing online -- but that's not what happened:
Partly in an attempt to deal with headlines that this was “10 years for filesharing", the IPO has rewritten the definition of criminal liability. They told us during meetings that the new definition would make it very clear that ordinary internet users - including filesharers - would not be targeted, and raising the penalty would also mean narrowing its application to real criminals. Unfortunately the final draft appears to be as bad or worse than the original, with a very low threshold of “having a reason to believe” that the right holder will be exposed to “a risk of loss”.So, what the hell is going on at the IPO over there? They have clear research showing that a massively effective way to reduce piracy is to get more good, convenient authorized services. And they have no research backing up the idea that increased prison sentences will reduce infringement. And yet, which one have they doubled down on?
This is why people have so little respect for copyright law and why we so often refer to it as "faith-based" policy making. The evidence clearly points in one directly, and the powers that be, instead, go in the other direction, against all the evidence, because some people "feel" that piracy must be punished to make it stop.
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: carrot, competition, copyright, enforcement, innovation, ipo, piracy, stick, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's not 'faith' based. It's pay based. Whoever can afford to pay the most to buy the laws they want get the laws that they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fear and Tyrannical based polices are about the only policies being made these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Path of least resistance
Easier access to what the public wants will reduce sharing and copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Path of least resistance
In 2000s music started to sell online but the cost was the same as purchasing a physical disk and I thought that too was a rip-off since their distribution costs had been reduced significantly yet the inflated cost remained the same so to this day I still have not purchased ANY music online. At the inflated prices they sell at its just not valuable enough to me, I have more important things to spend my money on.
Netflix came along, made DVD rental easy, I signed up and enjoyed watching new movies each week. Now I use their streaming service.
Apps like Pandora, iHeart Radio, etc came along, I now listen to streaming music for free, still too cheap to pay for premium plans tho, commercials don't bother me.
I've 'purchased' only one digital movie, Citizen Four on Amazon since I really wanted to watch it and support the filmmaker.
Someday I hope we can have one stop shops where I can get all media through a single provider like Netflix for a low monthly fee. I'd gladly pay more for such a service but sadly it seems the MAFIAA is not willing to let that happen, guess they don't want more of my money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is, indeed, an utterly asinine argument, especially when you consider the long and storied history of culture theft via copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oh that's just for the worst of the worst..."
This is especially true when it comes to all things copyright, where promises are given freely, and almost always broken.
As for the sentence itself, ten years is just a wee bit insane when compared to other crimes and potential sentencing.
Maximum sentence by crime:
10 Years:
-Possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence
-Possessing or distributing prohibited weapon or ammunition (5 year minimum sentence)
-Riot
-Making threats to kill
-Administering poison etc. so as to endanger life
-Cruelty to persons under 16
-Possession of firearm without certificate
-Possession or acquisition of shotgun without certificate
-Indecent assault on a woman/man
Source
Assuming the ten years for infringement is a maximum, rather than a mandatory sentence, then those pushing for the change to the law are basically saying that copyright infringement is at the very least just as bad as the above. If it's mandatory then they are saying that it's worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Oh that's just for the worst of the worst..."
You want to nail someone for something, well because! They might have spoken harshly to a government agent.
"Even though we couldn't nail you with any actual crime, we did an intensive investigation onto every single computing device in your life, and we managed to find one song which you don't seem to have a license for. And the penalty for that is good enough for what we really wanted to get you for, but couldn't find any actual evidence that you are guilty of."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punative
Despite the fact that one action results in a tangible, demonstrable loss of property and the other doesn't, those that like to equate infringement as theft always insist that the one that doesn't result in a tangible, demonstrable loss is far, far worse and needs to be treated as such, with the ultimate punchline being that the absolute last thing they'd want is for infringement to actually be treated as theft, as that would drastically reduce the penalties and require a showing of loss, not just an assertion of such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punitive
Ten Year jail sentences would really get people to start respecting copyright. If the sentences were increased to several decades of one's life for downloading that song, then I could see how the public's respect for copyright would grow into a deep admiration and even adoration for copyright.
Now if these jail sentences could come with the lack of any due process that usually goes hand in hand with copyright, then I think this will seriously improve the respect everyone has for copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Punitive
http://www.copyrightreform.eu/sites/copyrightreform.eu/files/The_Case_for_Copyright_Reform.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Artists Need To Get Paid !
Copyright is a useful tool towards that end. Especially if you don't need real evidence. And ESPECIALLY if you don't need due process.
Copyright should be the pre-eminent concern of our world today. If we can just strengthen copyright with an automated takedown and drive-thru trial on the way to jail, then the solutions to all of the other problems the world faces would simply fall into place and everything would be a paradise.
If 10 year sentences don't put a stop to piracy, then try 100 year sentences. If that doesn't work, try 200 year sentences. Similarly, if raising the age for smoking cigarettes to 21 doesn't stop teen smoking, then raise the age to 25. If that doesn't stop teen smoking then raise the legal age to 30. Etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights holders have screamed that things that became beneficial and gave them record profits would cause them losses.
The only thing that want to listen to is imaginary dollars, and they are wasting more cash then they think they are losing buying the laws they think they need.
Imagine if people decided to stop consuming media to make a point. It is unlikely to happen, but perhaps the idea of someone being in prison for 10 yrs for having nabbed an episode of Game of Thrones might finally motivate people.
Imagine an opening weekend with no ticket sales.
Imagine an album release with no sales.
Imagine enough people saying fuck you to the cartels and the government they bought off, and cause them actual harm to the bottom line.
They are so focused on the imaginary dollars, they shit on the paying customers who keep taking it and ask for more. Its time to remind them that without those customers they have nothing.
They force paying customers to sit through stupid warnings about don't steal this thing you paid us for... that we get to decided how, where, when you might be able to view because we control it all. The only people they end up punishing are paying customers... its time to end the Ike & Tina love affair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since no artists were involved in the lack of sales, and consequent drop in culture, no artists need to get paid. The culture tax can go into a fund for starving record and motion picture company executives.
The culture tax needs to be adjusted for their cost of living. We simply can't have them in a cardboard box on the street eating caviar and smoking cigars lit by $100 bills.
No artists were harmed in the making of the lack of culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just imagine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But then, might the prevailing direction of extradition get reversed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who could believe that a copyright law would ever be abused? (*cough* DMCA *cough*)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reports say Law enforcement abuses and mishandles personal data of citizens. Legislatural reaction: Give law enforcement virtually unlimited ability to collect such data, with zero oversight.
Reports say citizens violate copyright significantly less if given reasonably-priced, convenient access to copyrighted materials, while draconian measures do nothing. Legislatural reaction: Write harsher laws to punish citizens criminally for the most minor copyright infractions.
My only possible conclusion: THIS AM BIZARRO WORLD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet if you steal a CD with the same content it's only 2.5 years in jail
For example, shoplift a CD/DVD of some music instead of pirating it online and you'll get 2.5 years in jail in the UK.
So that means that the 10 years in jail proposal isn't just an insane solution to the problem, it's punishing people much more harshly for doing crimes online than doing it in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet if you steal a CD with the same content it's only 2.5 years in jail
Nobody gets sent to prison for shoplifting, not unless you get caught about 10 times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it cuts both ways, but only one way bolsters your in house "think tank" (aka, another way for Mike to try to out talk everyone else on the topic).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LOL? Was this a joke? "scramble"? There are so many ways around blocks like that it's a joke. It's actually easier to circumvent blocks like that than it is to weed through the garbage to get to the torrent you want. It's just more whack a mole...
"It could also suggest that, once piracy isn't "quick and easy" that people move back to paying services."
OR are paying services becoming more cost effective and as a result are competing with free? No.. wait.. that can't be it,,.. you just CAN'T compete with free ... can you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are the one that keeps ignoring the facts consistently since ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, why not? I mean that's never happened before in the history of copyright infringement enforcement, but this could be the time it finally happens right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So if there's less of a problem it merits a harsh penalty in response how, exactly? If the army understands there are less enemy rebels how does it make sense to haul up twice the amount of tanks and ammo to deal with a smaller perceived threat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He also seems to believe that the only way to do this is to attack piracy venues to make them more difficult rather than, you know, just making the legal venues better value.
Most people I know who started using the likes of Spotify and Netflix did so because instantly available streaming was a better experience than P2P downloads, not because P2P suddenly decreased in quality. It's the constant piss-taking with windowing and exclusive licences that convinces most to dip back into piracy, not because the P2P methods suddenly got better.
Merely attacking piracy without improving legal services to make them attractive will not work, and that's the reason why piracy got the foothold over legal downloads in the first place - legal services were a mess of low speed, low quality downloads infected with DRM that fragmented the available market and wouldn't be guaranteed to work in 6 months, while the pirates gave you a DRM free file that would always work. It's not until they improved that situation that legal downloads picked up steam, and there's plenty more the industry can do to make their products better than the pirated offerings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hi Paul. Still with the personal attacks I see.
"Most people I know who started using the likes of Spotify and Netflix did so because instantly available streaming was a better experience than P2P downloads, not because P2P suddenly decreased in quality. "
Yup - the P2P experience got worse, and the new services looked better as a result. We agree. Part of the reason P2P has gotten worse of course is because pirate sites come and go, and many of them have more recently resorted to allowing ads with malware and such on their sites. Trying to keep up with the domain name of the week, of which version of a site (like KAT) is actually real and which is a snakepit mirror... yeah, piracy stopped looking so good.
If piracy had remained as good as it was say 5 years ago, then the new services would likely find it much harder to get a foothold. They are doing well in no small part to diminished competition. Oh. and of course, as people more to the legal stuff, the P2P world loses peers, loses seeders, chipping away the critical mass required to make it work well.
"Merely attacking piracy without improving legal services to make them attractive will not work,"
Nobody said that, you are trying to build a strawman here! No one thing makes piracy disappear. Good legal streaming and download services are a big help. But if they were only as good as the pirate sites, and if the pirate sites could operate in the clear without legal risk, then those services would likely find it harder to compete against pirate sites. The COMBINATION of constant legal pressure, the risks of using some pirate sites, and the accessibility of good streaming options is shifting the needle that is for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Geo blocking is as much caused by local governments than anything else. As a Canadian, I can tell you that it's insanely painful to not be able to watch US TV channels as an example. That isn't the US networks not wanting to be in Canada, it's local regulation (CRTC) which forces Canadian content, ownership, and such of broadcasting undertakings. Movies end up in the same boat, with different provinces having their own rating boards, and in Quebec, requiring a French language translation before most movies can be released to the cinemas.
It's why it took Netflix a long time to come to Canada, and some of the very big reasons why the content is not the same. Ditto for HBO, where there is "HBO Canada" which doesn't run the same programming as HBO in many cases in order to meet it's CanCon requirements and such.
I guess on the plus side, South Park isn't censored, even over the air.
So if you want to loosen up on Geo blocking, then get your local governments to loosen up on local content and ownership requirements. The movie companies would love nothing more than to be able to do it all themselves from one central location, rather than having to make literally hundreds of separate distribution deals around the world just to release a movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy being a thing is precisely because the government hasn't bothered to do anything, save for a few countries like Australia (which you relentlessly denigrate because you can't stand the people who suggested it). Taking your posts into account you seem to fervently fight against any attempt to change the status quo. Not to mention the fact that on the article about Chris Dodd whining about weakening geoblocking, you wrote a chest-thumping post in support of him.
Honestly, I do without. My guess is you're going to assume we're all pirates, but apparently you're not keen on following your own advice either because you find it painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Piracy being a thing is precisely because the government hasn't bothered to do anything, save for a few countries like Australia (which you relentlessly denigrate because you can't stand the people who suggested it). Taking your posts into account you seem to fervently fight against any attempt to change the status quo. Not to mention the fact that on the article about Chris Dodd whining about weakening geoblocking, you wrote a chest-thumping post in support of him.
Honestly, I do without. My guess is you're going to assume we're all pirates, but apparently you're not keen on following your own advice either because you find it painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes and no. Different countries have different censorship and other laws covering them, this much is true. A company wishing to distribute in that country will have to abide by them. There may be other rules and regulation - although these usually don't apply to imports and so it's a weak excuse when dealing with geoblocking on physical media.
HOWEVER - and this is the point you wilfully miss - half the problem with distribution is that the industry parcels the distribution rights off. The fact that a UK release needs to be certified by the BBFC has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the US studio sold off the UK rights to another distributor for its UK release. That also has nothing to do with why the licencing demands different terms for streaming and DVD.
I know your schtick is to come up with reasons to deflect blame from certain corporate interests, but at least stick to facts.
"The movie companies would love nothing more than to be able to do it all themselves from one central location, rather than having to make literally hundreds of separate distribution deals around the world just to release a movie."
No, they wouldn't. They make more money by selling off distribution rights, especially to countries with smaller/riskier/less familiar markets. That's why they insisted on DVD / Blu Ray region codes as being part of the format, and why they have not made any moves to consolidate them now that digital geolocation means that Europe (for example) now has as many regions as countries rather than the single region code that covered the continent in the past - even though legally it's meant to be a single common market.
This is of the movie industry's creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it didn't change, the legal services offered something better.
"If piracy had remained as good as it was say 5 years ago"
An expert on the piracy experience, are we? Enough to say accurately how the experience has altered for the average user (assuming you're not just making shit up again)? Hmmm.... I don't suppose you have actual evidence for what you claim, because it goes against the experience of the people I've talked to.
Anyway, while your thin-skinned little shell whines about "personal attacks" for me correctly noting the lack of logical consistency in your statements, you do seem to agree with most of what's being said. Your ego just can't allow you to agree with the site you obsess over attacking. But, balance is still key - and the experience of the last decade states that making legal services better will always get better results than trying to block illegal ones.
You can do both, but to pretend that ridiculous P2P lawsuits and fruitless games of whack a mole are as effective as Spotify's library or Netflix's streaming quality is simply untrue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, don't expect any reciprocity in the other direction (i.e. penalties reducing when piracy increases), because "fuck you, that's why".
What else did you expect from the cunt that complains about why his spam isn't considered Pulitzer material?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It could also suggest that people are sick and tired of ass clowns overvaluing their content, they simply spend their money elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
YouTube,Vimeo,Jamendo,Bandcamp,Podiobook and podcasts, along with creators running their own websites provide mor free and legal content than I can possibly Experience.
Patreon, Kickstarter, and direct sales allow them to support their creative endevours. The problem that the middlemen you keep on supporting have is not piracy, but rather that they are no longer the only route to market, and their desire to own works via copyright transfer, and keep most of the generated revenue for themselves is becoming less and less attractive to creators, especially when they realise they can make more money if they can build a loyal fanbase.
All these efforts to make piracy more difficult only have one effect on me, and that is making it even less likely that I will purchase works from companies that belong the the RIAA and MPAA etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, what the hell is going on at the IPO over there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't you hear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compromise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a consequence of supply and demand
The fewer people create and/or distribute illicit copies, the longer you can jail them at a given prison capacity.
With technical hurdles such as DRM on the rise, you can expect this to end with life sentences. Unless, of course, you can rejuvenate capital crime and/or incite frequent riots. Both strategies are successfully used in the U.S. The UK has the additional advantage of not having the death penalty, so they can't accidentally overdo it and end up with empty prison cells after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a consequence of supply and demand
To a degree. After that, it becomes very apparent how disproportionate the punishment is to the crime and you can expect a lot of public backlash. You *might* be able to get it to a point where people are actually scared to pirate, but that doesn't necessarily translate into more legally purchased copies of specific types of merchandise. You're probably just as likely to have people downloading as an act of civil disobedience as you are to reduce it, especially if you're going to start punishing people who copy files more harshly than people committing violent and sex crimes as you suggest here.
"With technical hurdles such as DRM on the rise"
DRM doesn't work in terms of reducing the number of pirates. The only effect it has, and even this is very debatable, is provide a small speed bump between the time a product is available and the time a hacked version is available. In theory, this should get some early adopters who would otherwise pirate to buy the legal copy.
But, once DRM is cracked, its effect is to make the legal copy worth less. The pirated copy, stripped of DRM and its inherent functionality and compatibility problems, can be copied infinitely so long as one such copy exists. The only people restricted by the DRM after the first stripped copy will be those who have already paid money for an inferior product.
TLDR: if you're depending on extended sentences and DRM to reduce piracy, you're both wrong and strangling your own marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Jelous of US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]