Lord Lucas Proposes That Copyright Holders Detail Actual Damages From Infringement Under Mandelson Bill

from the smart-man dept

As the debate over Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill (which would represent a radical shift in copyright law in the UK) continues, it appears that Lord Lucas continues to propose all sorts of good ideas in response. You may recall that Lucas was quite explicit in questioning why such changes were needed when it was obviously the industry's inability to adapt that was the problem. Later, he suggested adding a remedy for bogus copyright claims. His latest is to try to add an amendment that would require copyright holders to detail actual damages done by file sharing in their reports to ISPs notifying them of infringement.

This is a very sensible idea for a variety of reasons. Last year, we wrote about a fascinating paper that points out that, realistically, the only way to reconcile free speech with copyright law is to have copyright holders prove what damages were caused by the infringement. Every other limitation on free speech in the US (defamation, for example) has such a requirement. It makes no sense that copyright makes no such requirement. Now, obviously, the UK is different from the US and not bound by the First Amendment, but it's hard to come up with any compelling reason at all that a copyright holder shouldn't have to prove actual damages before making a claim of copyright infringement.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, lord lucas, peter mandelson, uk

UK Government Report Shows That Digital Economy Bill Will Cost More Than Highest 'Piracy' Estimates, Drive 40,000 Offline

from the this-is-good-for-who-exactly? dept

As the UK considers Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, a UK government report that looks into the likely impact of the law is incredibly damning. It finds that the plans to send threat letters to users and eventually kick them offline based on accusations (not convictions) would cost consumers in the neighborhood of £500 million. Note, of course, that the music industry itself claims that £200 million worth of music is downloaded in the UK per year (and, of course, that's only "losses" if you use the ridiculous and obviously incorrect calculation that each download is a "lost sale"). The report also finds that these greater costs on ISPs for managing such things (all of which will get passed along to consumers) will likely caused 40,000 residents to just give up their broadband, rather than pay the higher fees.

You might think that this would be reason enough to drop the bill as quickly as possible, but not so fast. The report also, without any evidence, suggests that the same law would also increase sales for the music and movie industry by £1.7 billion over the next ten years. That's odd, because there's still no one who can explain how kicking people off the internet actually gets anyone else to buy anything. In fact, we already have proof that it won't. Prior to the threats of losing your internet access were the much more threatening prospect of ending up being fined millions for sharing two dozen songs. And that didn't convince people to buy more.

Either way, the cost side of the equation makes it quite clear that this is the government asking consumers to artificially foot the bill for an entertainment industry that appears unwilling to adapt to a changing marketplace that requires new business models.

Filed Under: consumers, copyright, costs, digital economy bill, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk

UK Record Label Boss Resigns From BPI/IFPI Committees Due To Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill

from the speak-with-your-feet dept

BPI and IFPI, lobbying groups that represent record labels, have been major supporters of Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, that will grant him powers to change copyright law at will, and to kick people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. However, it appears that at least some record labels are realizing what an incredibly bad idea this is. EFF points us to the news that the boss of indie label Pure Mint Recordings has resigned from both the BPI and IFPI committee's he was a part of, citing his opposition to the Digital Economy Bill, and both organizations support of the bill:

Hall believes the proposed legislation has been rushed in a bid to get it through parliament before the next General Election, that it is in danger of disregarding some sacred legal principles (regarding process, presumption of innocence and burden of proof) and that it won't solve the record industry's piracy problems anyway.

In his resignation letter to the BPI, Hall writes: "I have enjoyed contributing to both [the BPI's] Rights [Committee] and the [IFPI's] ILC, but increasingly feel that my contributions are falling on deaf ears as an agenda has already been reached that I now consider is unmovable. As you know, I do not think the Digital Economy Bill is a sensible or well thought out piece of legislation. In my view it is being rushed through the last months of a parliament of an unpopular government and it is not legislation that I support".

Referencing clause 17 - the one that gives senior ministers the right to change copyright laws on whim - he continued: "I am particularly surprised that the record industry has chosen to endorse s.17 of the DEB, which I consider is wholly undemocratic and contrary to centuries of good practice regarding the forming of our copyright legislation. I also believe it may set a dangerous precedent going forwards (and could come back to haunt the industry)".

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, labels, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk
Companies: bpi, ifpi, pure mint

UK Politicians Pushing Back On Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill

from the it's-the-industry's-fault dept

Luca Leonardi alerts us to the news that at least some politicians in the UK are pushing back against Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, with Lord Lucas specifically pointing out that the real problem seemed to be one of the entertainment industry's own making:

"We need to bear in mind that the problems now facing the industry are, to quite a large extent, of their own creation," he said. "The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them, seeking to punish them before thinking of how to serve them better.

"It has taken a decade for the industry to produce sensible alternatives to illegal file-sharing, and the fact that a generation of people have become used to an illegality comes down to the industry's sluggishness. It is still slow."

Lucas, who considers himself a libertarian, also questioned the use of IP addresses as identifying who was doing something online:

"I am not at all clear that we have the technology to go beyond the IP address, which comes into my router, to identify which user of perhaps one or two dozen who have access, has done the illegal downloading," he told the peers.

"We need to be very clear that we do not tip people into losing their internet connection, or worse, on a technically fallible basis."

Nice to see at least someone pushing back on the reasoning behind the bill.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, lord lucas, peter mandelson, uk

Yes, But Will Sergey Brin Take Peter Mandelson Out To Dinner At A Fancy Resort?

from the because-that's-how-this-works dept

A bunch of big name tech companies have come out against Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill. They're most concerned with the clause that gives Mandelson (a guy who resigned elected position in disgrace twice) the ability to flat out change copyright laws on a whim with no real oversight. Amazingly, Mandelson had his staffers try to make the case for this clause:

"The law must keep pace with technology, so that the Government can act if new ways of seriously infringing copyright develop in the future."

And what's wrong with Parliament actually setting those laws? That part isn't explained. Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if this particular clause is being used to draw away the fire from the "three strikes and we kick you off the internet" clause. With the big tech companies focused on this ridiculous power grab by the Business Secretary, not nearly as much attention is being paid to that "guilty based on accusations" clause. In the meantime, if these tech firms actually want to get anywhere, an open letter might not do the trick, but I hear that a nice dinner with Mandy at a fancy resort can do wonders.

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk
Companies: google

Dear Peter Mandelson... Dan Bull Sings His Opposition To Kicking People Off The Internet

from the go-dan-bull dept

Musician Dan Bull seems to be carving out a nice space for himself responding to UK efforts to make copyright law more ridiculous than it already is, by voicing his opposition in song. A few months back, we wrote about his awesome open letter to Lily Allen (full disclosure: I get a brief mention) and now he's informed us that he's back again with an open letter (in song) to Peter Mandelson, called Dear Mandy: I wonder if someone rich and famous has to buy Mandelson dinner before he'll actually listen to it.

Filed Under: dan bull, lily allen, peter mandelson, songs

UK Digital Economy Bill As Bad As Expected; Digital Britain Minister Flat Out Lies About ISP Support

from the nice-try dept

Just as the leaks predicted, the UK government has offered up its Digital Economy Bill, which includes massive changes to copyright law, including the power of the government to effectively change the law at will with little to no oversight. Basically, it would let the Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, change copyright law through secondary legislation, which requires no Parliamentary approval. As people are noting, Mandelson has had to resign from elected positions twice in the past in disgrace, and is now in an unelected position. And he's the guy who gets to change copyright law at will? That does not seem right. On top of that, the bill doesn't even specify "three" strikes for users. Instead, it requires ISPs to notify users with warnings -- and to notify copyright holders that they did notify users -- and if file sharing is not reduced by 70% in a year (with no indication of how this is measured), then the government will tell ISPs to start kicking people off the internet.

Furthermore, Minister for Digital Britain Stephen Timms, who introduced the new bill, claimed that 99% of ISPs are "broadly supportive" of the bill. That's funny because BT and TalkTalk -- two of the largest ISPs in the UK -- have loudly complained about the plans (with TalkTalk threatening to sue, and BT saying that this solution is "not the way forward") and the ISP Association, which represents ISPs in the UK has loudly slammed the bill as unworkable and backwards looking:

"ISPA members are extremely concerned that the bill, far from strengthening the nation's communications infrastructure, will penalise the success of the internet industry and undermine the backbone of the digital economy," the industry group said.

Nicholas Lansman, ISPA's general secretary, said in the statement that the government's proposals were "being fast-tracked... and will do little to address the underlying problem".

"Rather than focusing blindly on enforcement, the government should be asking rights holders to reform the licensing framework so that legal content can be distributed online to consumers in a way that they are clearly demanding," Lansman said.

So, where exactly are the 99% who are supportive of the bill? Or is that RIAA/IFPI/BPI math?

Filed Under: copyright, peter mandelson, stephen timms, three strikes, uk

Mandelson Wants Gov't To Have Sweeping Powers To Protect Copyright Holders

from the this-is-not-good dept

As pretty much everyone who reads Techdirt has been submitting today, Lord Peter Mandelson over in the UK -- the guy who just discovered copyright law after a resort vacation dinner with entertainment industry mogul David Geffen -- wants to go even further in changing copyright law against consumers' rights. We already know that he was the major force behind getting the UK to move forward with a plan to kick file sharers off the internet based on a "three strikes" plan that involves accusations, not convictions. This was despite a study by the government which had already concluded that three strikes was a bad idea.

However, the latest plan seems even more ridiculous. Not only would it include a new offense for those who download unauthorized material, it would allow the government to give powers to "any person as may be specified" to do whatever is necessary to try to stop online infringement. In other words, it would allow the government to basically deputize anyone they wanted (such as record labels...) with near complete power and little oversight to do whatever they thought necessary to fight online infringement. And this includes changing copyright law at will through "secondary legislation" that involves no Parliamentary oversight or debate. Talk about a broad, sweeping and totally ridiculous change to copyright law.

Part of the reasoning, supposedly, is to be able to force online digital lockers like YouSendIt, which are quite useful for legally sharing all sorts of things, to get rid of privacy, so that any infringing works sent via those tools can be revealed. The whole thing is an incredible overreach of power, well beyond anything that is necessary. Mandelson doesn't even hide the fact that this is done purely in support of copyright holders and against consumers' rights:

"These can be used entirely legitimately, but recently rights holders have pointed to them as being used for illegal use,"

Because if rights holders don't like it, it must be stopped? He admits in the letter that consumer groups will oppose this proposal, but he doesn't seem concerned. Consumers, after all, don't take him out to dinner at expensive resorts.

Filed Under: copyright, peter mandelson, uk

Lord Mandelson Wants Students To Get More Tech Education; Can We Start By Educating Him?

from the learning-begins-at-home dept

Lord Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary who has been the leading force behind putting in place the entertainment industry's desired plan to require ISPs to kick accused file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, apparently is also saying that young people need better technology skills. Along with that, he's supporting a plan to get universities to do more technical skills training. Now, I'm all for more tech skills training in universities, but wouldn't it be nice if Mandelson started by getting some tech skills training himself -- including a basic understanding of why an IP address is not an accurate indicator of who is doing something online? Or, perhaps, an understanding of how BitTorrent actually works and a brief primer on encryption technologies....

Filed Under: peter mandelson, tech skills, three strikes, uk

Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy

from the we've-done-this-before dept

When Lord Mandelson officially announced his plan to kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) -- the so-called "three strikes" plan -- I asked a simple question: how will this get people to buy more. It was fun watching industry defenders paint themselves into corners trying to explain it, but they couldn't. The best they could say is that the fear of losing an internet connection would get them to stop file sharing. But, of course, getting them to stop file sharing is a lot different than actually getting them to buy something.

And, on top of that, we already have empirical evidence that a fear-based campaign doesn't make people buy any more. Over at The Telegraph in the UK (where I'll now be writing a semi-regular column) I explore how the industry already tried a fear-based campaign when they threatened and/or sued tens of thousands of individuals for file sharing. Even the industry's most strident defenders, who support taking away people's internet access have admitted that such a punishment is less scary than being sued and potentially on the hook for millions of dollars.

So how did that work out? If the industry's logic is correct, than the fear of being hit with a multi-million dollar fine should be a lot more persuasive in (a) getting people to give up file sharing and (b) buy more instead. And yet... the industry is still freaking out, complaining about phantom "losses" and demanding new laws to protect them. So, if kicking people off the internet is less fearful than being on the hook for millions of dollars, and the potential of being sued for so much did not slow the growth of file sharing or get people to buy any more, can someone explain (please) how it's possible that anyone thinks kicking people off the internet will get them to buy?

Filed Under: peter mandelson, three strikes, uk