The Only Way To Stop File Sharing Is To Stop Private Communications

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Christian Engstrom, one of the Pirate Party's elected officials in the EU Parliament, has a straightforward, but completely worthwhile read, about how copyright law today simply doesn't fit with what technology has enabled. He worries that the laws are making nearly everyone a criminal -- and worse, that the direction of change has to make it even worse, not better.

It is impossible to enforce the ban against non-commercial file sharing without infringing fundamental rights. As long as there are ways for citizens to communicate in private, they will be used to share copyrighted materials. The only way to even try to limit file sharing, is to remove the right to private communication. In the last decade, this is the direction that copyright enforcement legislation has moved in, under pressure from big business lobbyists who see their monopolies under threat. We need to reverse this trend, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights.

Furthermore, he notes that when you look at the actual details, it certainly does not show an industry in trouble. Perhaps parts of the industry -- the parts betting on distribution over plastic discs -- have had some trouble. But the rest looks pretty damn good:

In the economic statistics, we can see that household spending on culture and entertainment is slowly increasing year by year. If we spend less money on buying CD records, we spend more on something else, like for instance going to live concerts. This is great news for the artists. An artist will typically get 5-7% of the revenues from a CD record, but 50% of the revenues from a concert. The record companies lose out, but this is only because they are no longer adding any value.

It may well be that it will become more difficult to make money within some parts of the cultural sector, but if so, it will become easier in some other — including new ones, that we have not even imagined so far. But as long as the total household spending on culture continues to be on the same level or rising, nobody can claim that the artists as a group will have anything to lose from a reformed copyright.

Finally, he compares the way the entertainment industry today reacts to file sharing to the way book publishers reacted to public libraries:

When public libraries were introduced in Europe 150 years ago, the book publishers were very much opposed to this. The argument they used was the same one that is being used today in the file sharing debate: If people could get access to books for free, authors would not be able to make a living, and no new books would be written.

We now know that the arguments against public libraries were wrong. It quite obviously did not lead to a situation where no new books were written, and it did not make it impossible for authors to earn money from writing. On the contrary, free access to culture proved to be not only a boon to society at large, but also turned out to be beneficial to authors.

But rather than learning from history, the industry still seeks to deny it.

Filed Under: christian engstrom, communications, copyright, file sharing, free speech

Swedish Film Institute Learning That An IP Address Is Not A Person

from the lessons-learned dept

Earlier this month, an anti-piracy tracking company traced the origin of some Swedish films found on The Pirate Bay... all the way back to the Swedish Film Institute. After some embarrassment and further investigation, the Institute is now insisting that it can't find any evidence that someone there leaked the films... and they're complaining that the anti-piracy firm DoubleTrace "aren’t... forthcoming with their evidence." Shocking, I'm sure. But the larger point is that the Swedish Film Institute is pointing out that the IP address alone does not identify the user. This is, of course, entirely true. It's what tons of people have been pointing out for years, and what the film industry (and the recording industry) has often mocked as being a silly excuse. So I'm in agreement with TorrentFreak when it says:

The important thing here is that when it comes to the allegations against SFI, and the refusal of the anti-piracy company to make their ‘evidence’ available, SFI should be given the benefit of the doubt.

But, unlike the hundreds of thousands of other ISP account holders around the world who receive letters claiming that they illegally uploaded a movie or song and therefore should pay compensation or, increasingly, be disconnected from the Internet, they are treated more respectfully, quite simply because of who they are.

An IP address is not a person, and unless anti-piracy companies want to let their ‘evidence’ be seen and tested in public, perhaps it’s better if they keep their allegations to themselves.

Filed Under: copyright, evidence, file sharing, ip address, sweden
Companies: swedish film institute

British Transport Police: Illegal Downloading Kills Babies [Updated]

from the suspiciously-convenient-logic dept

Update: Apparently this is a parody of the actual ad, which is only slightly less ridiculous...

The British Transport Police's newest anti-terrorism campaign focusses on… illegal downloading? That seems to be the case, based on this billboard, as tweeted this weekend by @case_hardened: In case you can't see it, the billboard features a picture of a small crowd in an outdoor shopping area - and at the center, a mom with adorable baby. The text of the billboard reads:

"A bomb won't go off here because weeks before the criminal pirating films was caught by monitoring his internet history. Pirating films funds terrorism and organized crime. Report it today.
Confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline
Call 0800 789 321"

The logic is a bit difficult to follow, but the message is clear: if you are against the government monitoring your internet use, you are for killing babies.

We've been hearing for a while that counterfeit goods, including DVDs, software, and even handbags, fund terrorism, but it doesn't follow that an individual illegally downloading movies from the internet is helping terrorists. And it sure doesn't follow that monitoring individuals' internet use for illegal downloads is going to stop terrorists. On the whole, I think this campaign by the British Transport Police may have the opposite of the effect intended - the "Confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline" is going to be bogged down with reports of copyright violations instead of tips about actual terrorist activities.

Filed Under: file sharing, terrorism, uk

Insurers Suggest Podium & Stage Collapse Tragedies Are The Inevitable Result Of File Sharing?

from the say-what-now? dept

You may have heard about the recent tragedy at the Belgian Pukkelpop music festival, in which a tent collapsed in the middle of a big storm and four people died. This came soon after a series of other mishaps with stages collapsing, including at a Cheap Trick show, a Flaming Lips show and the big collapse at the Indiana State Fair, which resulted in multiple deaths as well.

Apparently some unnamed insurance companies have come up with an interesting theory behind all these collapses. As pointed out by JonMontgo, one company seems to be suggesting there's a direct connection to unauthorized file sharing. This comes from a BoingBoing post, which actually links to an image from a Belgian (?) newspaper: It does not sound like anyone's trying to get out from paying what they owe, but are just trying to explain what happened. Alex Schroeder on BoingBoing did a "loose translation" and came up with:

"The crashing down of the podium of the Pukkelpop rock festival that killed five and injured eighty last August 18, is maybe not due to the violence of the storm. Confronted with multiple similar catastrophes, the experts of insurance companies see it as the unexpected consequence of the falling disc sales. The bands have a vital interest in giant concerts, they rent giant podiums overloaded with video equipment and spots. The rain and the wind do not destroy more often than before, but when they fall, the damage is much greater."

That seems like a pretty weakly supported assertion. I'm not sure that the importance of concerts automatically leads to more video equipment, but whatever. Either way, it seems like a pretty big stretch to somehow pin this on file sharing.

Filed Under: blame, collapse, file sharing, insurers, stage

UNC Requiring Any Student Who Wants To Use File Sharing Software To Apply For A 'Hall Pass'

from the say-what-now? dept

Apparently UNC's method of dealing with constant complaints from the entertainment industry about students file-sharing is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's blocking network access to any computer which they discover has file sharing software on it. It's unclear from the article just how UNC is detecting file sharing software, though that would seem to raise some serious privacy questions. Also not explained in the article is what qualifies as "file sharing software." After all, an FTP app, email, instant messaging and a browser could all be considered "file sharing" apps. Either way, if UNC discovers you have file sharing software that's on its "evil" list, you get a message that pops up in your browser saying:

“UNC-CHAPEL HILL IS BLOCKING FILE-SHARING THROUGHOUT STUDENT HOUSING.”

Students then are told to remove such offending software or they won't be able to access the internet.

Of course, since there do remain legitimate reasons for using file sharing software, students can apply for a "Hall Pass," that will let them use the software after they "learn what does and does not violate copyright law." One hopes that the lesson plan required is reasonable, though such programs rarely are all that accurate.

I understand why UNC is doing this, but I still find it worrisome. These are technologies that rapidly evolve. What may seem "evil" today may not be in the near future. Blocking your students from using them, except after they jump through a bunch of hoops -- each with a giant warning on them -- chills the willingness of students to actually look at certain new and important innovations that can be built on top of the older things. Requiring people to go ask permission to go use one of the fundamental features of the internet is likely to be quite frustrating for students who have perfectly legitimate reasons to use such networks.

Separately, I will note with a bit of pride that the same article quotes someone from my alma mater saying that Cornell would never implement such a system:

Ms. Mitrano said. Engineering and science-heavy institutions would have a hard time, for instance, because those fields often require a lot of file-sharing. Cornell, she says, wouldn’t do it because it would violate a student code that emphasizes “freedom with responsibility.”

Nice to see them going against this kind of snooping/cutoff setup.

Filed Under: file sharing, hall pass, unc

60 Year Old Swedish Man Gets Sentenced To 'Conditional' Two Years In Jail For File Sharing

from the punishment-=-crime? dept

While yesterday we wrote about how a Swedish court acquitted a 15-year-old for file sharing some movies, today a court gave a 60-year-old man two years of conditional jail time along with a pretty large fine. The "conditional" jailtime appears to be like a form of probation, where if he meets certain criteria, he might never spend time in actual jail, but it's still quite a sentence.

As Rick Falkvinge notes in the link above, even if this guy never sets foot in jail, the Swedish court has now established a ridiculous precedent for what file sharing can get you in terms of jailtime. Copyright issues like this should, at most, be a civil issue, rather than a criminal one, and it seems like a very dangerous move by Swedish law enforcement to start trying to sentence people to jail over something done so widely. When the punishment does not match at all with the real "harm" of the crime, people respect the law even less. I'm sure the supporters of such a move think that this will help with "education." There's almost no evidence to support that. Ridiculously punitive punishment does not do anything to stop infringement.

Instead, it seems likely that a ridiculous ruling like this merely helps undermine the respect that citizens give to copyright law.

Earlier today we compared a discussion on whether or not the punishment fit the crime for copyright infringement in France. Falkvinge provides a similar set of info for Sweden. This guy was sentenced to two years and a big fine. What other verdicts have come out recently in Sweden?

• Severe negligent homicide, six months.
• Rape, one year and four months.
• Sexual abuse of a child, ten months.
• Armed robbery with a firearm, one year and nine months.
• Homicide by strangling, six months.
• Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, ten months.

When you make the punishment way out of line with the crime, you're not doing yourselves any favors. You just make people respect the law even less...

Filed Under: file sharing, jail, sweden

Brazil Looks To Criminalize Ripping A CD?

from the how-quickly-they've-fallen dept

Over the past few years, it really looked like Brazil was close to becoming one of the most progressive countries on copyright issues. It was embracing fair use and the public domain in a strong way, and was even considering proposals to fully legalize file sharing. And, of course, the music industry is thriving in Brazil as well, in part due to the embracing of free distribution. The government had also embraced open culture in a variety of ways, even using Creative Commons licenses on government websites.

How quickly things change.

Within months of a new administration coming to town, the new Culture Minister, ordered the Creative Commons license off of the Ministry's website. When asked why, she said "We will discuss copyright reform when the time comes." But having a CC license on a webpage has nothing to do with copyright reform. However, it was a warning sign that such efforts were coming, and rather than continuing the progress made in the country, the new administration was looking to go in the other direction.

Now it appears that we're seeing some of those efforts in action. The country is considering a broad new "cybercrime" bill, that, among other things, will criminalize both file sharing and ripping a CD to a computer. File sharing may involve infringement, but at a civil, not criminal level. The fact that the government seems to be going much further is ridiculous -- especially at a time when the Brazilian technobrega scene has demonstrated so clearly how an entire musical culture can thrive (and make lots of money) without even using copyright (and even actively ignoring it and encouraging the widespread sharing of works).

Filed Under: brazil, copyright, cybercrime, file sharing, ripping

File Sharing Continues To Grow, Not Shrink

from the hollywood-in-denial dept

The entertainment industry always seems to think that the next thing they do will suddenly kill off piracy. They file lawsuits, they shut down sites, they change laws, they, finally (kicking and screaming), agree to license innovative new services... and then they declare victory over "piracy." To hear industry folks talk about things these days, between the Limewire shut down, the new six strikes plan and the impending approval of PROTECT IP, piracy is somehow on its very last legs. There's definitely a sense of mission accomplished coming from them.

There's just one problem with this. None of the actions taken by the industry appear to have slowed down infringement online. Instead, it appears that it just keeps growing. Yes, some legal services have been growing faster, but in typical fashion, the industry seems to want to make those services worse, not realizing that there's still a viable (if illegal) alternative for many users.

At what point will the industry finally realize that maybe there's a better strategy, one which doesn't treat fans who use file sharing as the enemy, but as a potential opportunity?

Filed Under: business models, file sharing, growth, movie industry, recording industry
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Another Day, Another Study That Says 'Pirates' Are The Best Customers... This Time From HADOPI

from the damn-that-data dept

We've pointed out that a whole series of studies have all suggested that the biggest infringers of content online also tend to be the best customers of content, rather than just "freeloaders" who refuse to pay for content. Critics of these studies brush them off (without any evidence) by simply saying if that were true, then sales of content wouldn't have dropped so much in the music industry (other industries, it should be noted, have not seen such a drop-off). But that's misunderstanding (or misapplying) basic statistics. No one is saying that this means that file sharing automatically leads to more sales. But it does suggest that treating those people as just "freeloaders who just want stuff for free" is absolutely the wrong response. It shows that these people are willing to pay money if they're given a good reason to buy. The problem is that they're not.

From a strategic standpoint, this impacts how one responds to increased "piracy." If you realize that they're merely underserved customers, the correct response is to come up with better business models. If the problem is that it's "free, free, free!" then perhaps enforcement could make some sense. But... all of the studies seem to suggest it's the former, rather than the latter... and thus the enforcement/stricter copyright responses won't help at all (as we've seen).

Joe Karaganis, from SSRC, points us to the news that there's been yet another such study... and this one is from HADOPI, itself. Yes, the French agency put together to kick people off the internet for file sharing did a study on the nature of unauthorized file sharing, too. Not surprisingly (and consistent with every other study we've seen on this topic), it found that those who spend a lot of money on content... were much, much, much more likely to also get content through unauthorized means. HADOPI released the results in a somewhat convoluted way (perhaps trying to downplay this result), but Karaganis reformatted the results to make this clear: Karaganis suggests, then, that HADOPI's method of dealing with this -- threatening people to stop their file sharing, won't do very much to help the bottom lines of the entertainment industry:

If piracy is a sampling and discovery tool for high spenders, then suppressing piracy could depress legal sales. If–as I’ll argue at more length in a subsequent post–we’re in a mostly zero-sum market in which consumers are maxed out on discretionary media expenditures, then enforcement won’t significantly expand but at best just cannibalize one media sector for another. Music, games, and movies, let’s say, competing for the same discretionary dollars–and all of them competing with rising, increasingly non-discretionary internet access and data charges. If we’re in this type of market, then HADOPI is just in the business of eliminating its best customers. Good luck with that business model.

And suppressing the means of communication at the same time -- collateral damage for no good purpose. Brilliant!

Filed Under: customers, file sharing, piracy, studies
Companies: hadopi

Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six

from the this-isn't-helping dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about a guy who was found guilty of file sharing 44 songs in Sweden, but after the court realized that the actual "harm" done by the guy was minimal, he was fined about 2,000 kronor, a total of about $300 -- or approximately $7 per song. If you think that there needs to be some punishment for file sharing, then this at least seems reasonably in line and proportional to the offense. Of course, Swedish prosecutors appealed and not only sought to increase the fines, but also asked for jailtime for the guy. Talk about disproportionate punishment! Thankfully, the court turned down the jail time request, but it did increase the fine more than six times to 13,000 kronor or about $2,000. This is, still, a lot less than similar cases in the US, but it still seems way out of line for any "harm" done.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, punishment, sweden