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

Hey Whatever Happened To Those Andrew Cuomo-Backed, RIAA Agreements With ISPs To Kick People Off The Internet?

from the still-waiting... dept

It's now been over a year since the infamous announcement, leaked to the Wall Street Journal, that the RIAA was going to effectively drop its strategy of suing individuals in favor of agreements, worked out between the RIAA and ISPs with NY AG Andrew Cuomo adding pressure, to kick people off the internet on a "three strikes" regime. The whole thing sounded pretty ridiculous at the time. Cuomo had absolutely no legal standing to pressure ISPs into such a deal, since the ISPs had every legal right to say no. And, since the "leak" many ISPs have insisted, quite vocally, that they have never made any such agreement with the RIAA and that they would never kick their customers offline in such a manner.

And so Greg Sandoval, over at News.com, smartly realizes that these "preliminary agreements" we were told about last year are still nowhere to be found and goes exploring to find out why. Reading between the lines, it appears the answer is that the RIAA flat out lied (no surprise, but...) and the Wall Street Journal bought it (again, no surprise, but...). Basically, with various record labels hemorrhaging money, they started to cut back on their allowance to the RIAA, such that the legal strategy of suing tons of people was getting too expensive. But they didn't want to make it look like they were just giving up.

So they concocted a myth: this idea that ISPs would cut people off. It was, in fact, what the RIAA and other international entertainment industry lobbying groups had been pushing for with little success (since then they have had a few wins on that front, but also many losses). But they couldn't wait for their usual process of pushing through legislation (*cough* ACTA *cough*) to complete before they had to cut back on individual lawsuits. So they brought in Andrew Cuomo, because he had successfully threatened ISPs to get them to cut off Usenet, despite no legal basis for doing so. But, that worked because Cuomo threatened (again, despite no legal basis) to shame them for offering access to child porn. When it came to unauthorized access to music, the moral outrage aspect isn't nearly as strong (not that the RIAA and their lobbyist friends haven't tried six dozen ways to try to link file sharing to child porn -- but most people realize how ridiculous that is).

Given that the ISPs seemed to have little interest (i.e., no interest) in moving forward with this plan, they leaked it to the WSJ, figuring that if ISPs thought others were doing it, then they'd start to sign up, and the whole thing would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Except they failed to account for the simple fact that people protested against any ISP dim enough to think that it's smart to kick off customers based on accusations (not convictions), and ISPs quickly stepped up to deny any such deal, shedding light on the RIAA's big lie.

So, here we are today, with no such agreements in place, and the RIAA back to trying to sneak through "three strikes" legislation through international treaties that they write (which the public has no access to). But, shouldn't someone call them on the fact that they blatantly lied last year? And also, shouldn't someone ask where the WSJ's correction is on that story?

Filed Under: andrew cuomo, isps, riaa, three strikes
Companies: riaa

New Zealand Brings Back Three Strikes... With Some Oversight

from the well,-it's-a-step dept

Last year, you may recall that New Zealand tried to sneak through a "three strikes" type law that relied solely on accusations and would kick people off the internet. After first resisting, the government realized that public outrage over the plan was too strong and scrapped the plan, but admitted it was planning to try again, though with a bit more oversight.

It looks like that's exactly what's happened. The New Zealand government has released its new three strikes plan that is a bit more sane. You can still get kicked off the internet, which is troubling, but it's a much more involved process. The system involves a notice-and-notice offering, whereby copyright holders notify an ISP, who notifies the user. After three notices, you don't face disconnection, but a government tribunal, who can fine the user monetarily, but only to recover "damages," not for punitive reasons. Finally, if there are still more signs of infringement, the rights holder can take the user to court, which can lead to much larger fines and the possibility of losing an internet connection for six months. Throughout the process, the user will be able to appeal.

This is certainly a lot more reasonable than the original plan, but I still find any plan that involves kicking people off the internet entirely for their actions to be draconian and impossible to enforce reasonably. These days, your mobile phone or even a desk phone may use the internet, and many people require internet access for their jobs. It seems ridiculous to kick people off entirely.

Filed Under: copyright, due process, new zealand, three strikes

French Government's Plan To Help Book Publishers Adapt: Have Them Embrace Three Strikes Plan

from the not-exactly-adapting dept

PrometheeFeu writes "The French Minister of Culture Christine Albanel has just been assigned a mission to prepare the French publishing industry for the digital economy. The phrasing of the mission-letter makes it clear that while developing legal offerings and digitizing books is part of the plan, the focus is on getting the cooperation of publishers to enforce the 3-strike law (Google translation from the original). The language actually talks about inciting publishers to do so which leads me to wonder why the government should incite people to exercise their rights if they don't want to do so...

The letter makes it clear that IP enforcement is seen as the only way to distribute value to authors and distributors (consumers are not mentioned). Here is a choice quote:

"The government cannot accept to see another cultural industry threatened by the pillaging."

The letter also mentions the "damages observed for the music and film industries through the growth of illegal downloads." Obviously, no sources are given for that information. Most amusingly, the letter states that Christine Albanel (who kindly told us that OpenOffice comes with a firewall which would somehow block illegal downloads) should use in this mission her experience in working with the music and film industry. I like many French authors and I sincerely hope that they ignore whatever she says and instead try something which might actually work, but I'm not holding my breath..."

Filed Under: france, publishers, three strikes

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

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

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

UK Gov't Official: Innocent People Won't Get Kicked Off The Internet; Trust Us

from the we're-from-the-gov't-and-we're-here-to-help-Hollywood dept

With all of the concern over the proposed bill in the UK to kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations (not convictions), some have been raising concerns about innocent users kicked off the internet. Culture Minister Sion Simon has hit back at those claims insisting that the innocent won't be kicked offline. Really. Trust us. Or something like that. The main reason he claims that it won't impact the innocent is because multiple letters will be sent and there will be an "appeals" process. Of course, that ignores the fact that this could still be quite a disruption in someone's life. If they're falsely accused, they risk losing their internet access and have to fight an appeal? That could be costly in terms of both time and money. And, of course, we've already seen, with other similar threats, that the warning letters sometimes get sent to the wrong address or wrong person and get ignored entirely.

Filed Under: innocent, sion simon, three strikes, 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

EU Officials Push Back Against Hollywood... Sorta; Note That Internet Access Should Be A Right... Sorta

from the well,-it's-something dept

The pendulum on the entertainment industry's push to have countries force ISPs to kick accused (not convicted) file sharers offline via a "three strikes" policy keeps swinging back and forth. While there was some capitulation recently, with the EU Parliament group that was negotiating with the EU Commission agreeing to remove the clause claiming that internet access was a human right, Hephaestus was the first of a few of you to send in word that negotiations have moved back a bit in the other direction. The new agreed upon text says that internet access is a human right, and that anyone should have the right to defend themselves against being kicked off the internet. But... (and it's a big one) if internet access is such a human right, why should anyone ever need to defend themselves? That's because the new text doesn't really mean what it says. It will still allow countries to force ISPs to kick people off the internet without judicial review. The only thing it adds is that people will be able to appeal after the fact. That's really not that helpful.

Filed Under: eu, three strikes