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?

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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....

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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?

79 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?

from the might-be-a-long-shot dept

With Peter Mandelson announcing this week (as everyone expected) that he's going to introduce a proposal to kick file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, it's been amusing watching defenders of this idea try and fail to answer the question "how will this make people buy more stuff." Over and over again people explain to us why it'll decrease file sharing (something I actually doubt for a variety of reasons that I'll explore later), but no one has explained how it will make more people buy stuff.

But, perhaps an even bigger question is whether or not it will ever actually get implemented in the UK. TalkTalk, the ISP that has been fighting the proposal for a while (and even gave a nice demonstration to show why IP addresses are not accurate in figuring out who's responsible for online activity) is now saying that it will take legal action to block such a proposal from being put in place, saying that it's a violation of human rights to kick people offline based on accusations, rather than due process.

On top of that, the idea is already incredibly unpopular with the majority of people in the UK... and (most importantly) there's an election coming up soon in the UK. Backing a massively disliked proposal to kick people off the internet based on accusations using weak evidence... probably isn't a savvy political move at this moment. Given all of that, I'm wondering if the plan ever really moves forward in the UK, or if it just makes a lot of noise so that Mandelson and his colleagues can tell the entertainment industry how they tried, to make sure the political donations keep coming in.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet

from the but-how-will-this-get-them-to-buy? dept

This should come as no surprise -- as it was pretty clearly a foregone conclusion after his dinner with David Geffen, but UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson (who prior to that dinner didn't seem to care about this issue at all) has decided to totally ignore the Digital Britain report, as well as the widespread outcry from individuals and ISPs, and will implement a plan to kick file sharers offline using a "three strikes" system. While he says there will be an appeals process, there's no indication that there will be a due process system that allows for innocence before guilt. Instead, it sounds like the other way around. It's pretty clear, of course, that Mandelson was simply blowing smoke when he claimed he was merely asking for feedback around such an idea, rather than definitely endorsing it.

In defending the new proposal, Mandelson continues to state things that just don't make sense. He claims that he was "shocked" to learn that only one in twenty downloads were authorized, but fails to note that stat has little basis in reality. Meanwhile, he again insists that downloading is "economically unsustainable," ignoring two recent studies (one from Harvard and one from the UK's own PRS) showing that the overall music industry is growing. How is that economically unsustainable?

But, honestly, the biggest issue is that he fails to address the huge question that I keep asking, and which no one wants to answer:

How will kicking people off the internet get them to buy more product?

That's because there is no answer. Will it make some people participate less in file sharing? Perhaps -- though, it's likely to just drive more people further underground. But just because they stop file sharing it doesn't mean that people will buy any more. In fact, continuing this war on music fans is only going to make people less interested in buying. This is exactly the opposite of what the music industry needs right now. Taking the war against consumers up a notch only ensures that they're even less interested in giving any money to the entertainment industry. Instead, they'll find those who treat them right and actually give them a reason to buy (rather than trying to limit them) to give their money to.

65 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

Those who believe that kicking people off the internet based on accusations of file sharing is an affront to basic due process and civil rights have perhaps an unexpected ally: UK law enforcement and intelligence services have come out against Peter Mandelson's "three strikes and your off the internet" plan. Of course, they're not as concerned about due process and civil rights, as they are about making it more difficult to track down criminals online:

Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic. One official said: "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly."

A source involved in drafting the Bill said that the intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6, had also voiced concerns about disconnection. "The spooks hate it," the source said. "They think it is only going to make monitoring more difficult."

Enforcement groups are also unhappy that the Government's change of plans has left them little time to draw up a response. Lord Mandelson's intervention came two months after the Government's Digital Britain report, published in June, failed to back disconnection.

So, the government's own plan said no to kicking people off the internet. The police and the intelligence services are saying no to it. Why is Mandelson still supporting it?

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EU Parliament Pressured By France, Removes Clause That Bans Kicking People Off The Internet

from the ah,-regulatory-capture-at-work dept

With France passing its new law to kick accused file sharers off the internet based on accusations rather than due process, you may wonder how that could possibly square with the EU Parliament's position from earlier this year that no one should be kicked off the internet without due process, and should only be allowed in "exceptional circumstances." Well, it looks like the lobbyists and the French gov't put enough pressure on the EU Parliament that it's now ditched that clause, even though 88% of Parliament agreed to it the first time around. Forget gov't for the people, the EU Parliament has shown that it's now the gov't for an entertainment industry that doesn't want to innovate. Sad. In the meantime, we're back to asking the basic question that no one in the industry ever answers: how will kicking fans of your content offline make them want to buy anything? It may get some to stop file sharing, but it won't make them buy. It seems the industry has become so confused that it actually thinks stopping file sharing is more important than making money.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

France Agrees To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet Again; Lobbyists Call It 'Consumer Relief'

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white,-you-said-what-now? dept

There isn't a huge surprise in the news that France has once again passed a law to force ISPs to kick accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet under a draconian "three strikes" system. We all knew this was coming. After the original French three strikes law was gutted as being totally unconstitutional, French President Nicolas Sarkozy (who apparently doesn't believe any such law should apply to him, given his history of mass piracy) insisted that such a law was necessary to defend freedom. Yes, really. And, even as France's cultural minister was planning to get multiple internet connections just in case he got cut off -- while also wishing that his own creative content were "pirated" more often, the French gov't went back to work on putting in place such a law. The big "change" this time was to give judges 5 whole minutes to rule on file sharers, so that they could say a judge oversaw the case, rather than it just being a random accusation. I'm not sure how due process works with a 5 minute limit... but what can you do.

What's much more entertaining is seeing how entertainment industry lobbyists are cheering this on. I'm beginning to think that they actually believe that kicking people off the internet will make people buy more of their content. Incredible. First up, the MPAA's Dan Glickman (who's being pushed out of his job for being woefully ineffective):

"Today's decision is an enormous victory for creators everywhere. It is our hope that ISPs will fully honor their promise to cooperate and that the French government will take the necessary measures to dedicate resources to handle the enormous task ahead."

A victory for creators? Really? By kicking fans off the internet for promoting their works? Yikes. Someone's out of touch. Then we have Rick Cotton, of NBC Universal, the man who insisted that movie piracy was really harming the poor American corn farmer since people ate less popcorn with pirated movies:

"The French action recognizes that jobs and economic growth in creative industries are under assault by digital theft. We need a safe and secure Internet that enables consumers to access content easily but does not facilitate illegal file sharing that kills jobs in creative sectors."

Yes, and the corn farmers, too, right? So, if it's really all about jobs, what about the people kicked offline who rely on the internet for their job? Apparently those jobs don't matter? In the meantime, it's already pretty clear from multiple studies that it's not file sharing that's "killing jobs in creative sectors" but the inability of executives like Cotton to understand basic economics and business models.

But, honestly, the most guffaw-inducing response to this comes from Tom Sydnor at the Progress & Freedom Foundation. Sydnor, who as you may know, has a long history of making claims that don't pass the laugh test, has really outdone himself this time (it's even better than when he accused a college that couldn't identify accused file sharers of harboring "terrorists, pedophiles, phishing-scheme operators, hackers [and] identity thieves" by giving them a "get out of jail free" card). So what's his take on kicking people off the internet based on accusations? Well, it's really about consumer relief. No, seriously:

"As a consumer, I would far prefer the successive warnings that French law would now provide to the sudden financial devastation of the John-Doe lawsuit that American law would now require. I thus urge American internet-service providers and copyright owners to work together to provide American consumers with similar relief."

Ah, yes, because the only options are to sue everyone or to kick people off the internet? Apparently Tom has such incredibly little faith in the innovation ability of content providers that he assumes that they cannot craft unique and innovative business models that don't involve suing everyone or kicking people off the internet. How insulting of him towards content creators. Every time Sydnor makes a statement like this and PFF promotes it, it just weakens the work that PFF does in other areas. It's tough to take an organization seriously that has someone claiming that kicking people off the internet based on accusations of private companies is "consumer relief."

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Parliamentary Group Blames Entertainment Industry For File Sharing Problem, Opposes Kicking People Off The Internet

from the good-for-them dept

More and more opposition is forming to Peter Mandelson's plan to kick accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet. The latest is that the All Party Parliamentary Communications Group -- a non-partisan group of UK MPs and Lords -- has come out with quite a report damning the idea. It doesn't just bash the idea of such "three strikes" plans to kick people off the internet, but notes that the whole problem really comes from the entertainment industry itself for not adapting or innovating:

We conclude that much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available.

We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered.

Looks like David Geffen may need to start taking more UK politicians out for dinner...

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK ISP Shows Why Kicking People Off The Internet Based On An IP Address Is Dumb

from the let's-use-some-logic dept

UK ISP TalkTalk has been a strong critic of the way the recording industry has tried to turn ISPs into copyright cops in the past. A year and a half ago it swore it would not be a copyright cop, and scolded BPI for suggesting it had any responsibility to enforce the entertainment industry's poor excuse for a business model -- while also complaining about "the most unbelievably rude letter" that BPI sent TalkTalk in demanding it do so. At the time, he told them:

"They're not just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted -- the horse has left town, got married, and started a family."

Well said. Then, earlier this year, TalkTalk's CEO also pointed out how naive it was to think that the industry could do anything to stop unauthorized file sharing, noting:

If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid....

If people want to share content they will find another way to do it....

TalkTalk is continuing to show how silly the recording industry's plans are, by doing a little demonstration. The company sent out a security expert on staff to an ordinary street in Stanmore, Middlesex. Then it had him find all the WiFi connections there -- noting that many were totally open, and many others used weak security. From a few open ones, he went and downloaded some songs including Barry Manilow's hit Mandy and the soundtrack to the 1992 film Peter's Friends -- those two choices in honor of Peter Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary who suddenly became a supporter of kicking file sharers off the internet using a three strikes provision after dining with entertainment industry mogul, David Geffen.

To be clear, in this case, the music downloads were both done legally -- and the company checked with the WiFi access point owners first to make sure they were okay with it -- but the point is still clear. Just because you have an IP address, it doesn't act as any sort of proof. TalkTalk's director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney made the point clear:

"The Mandelson scheme is every bit as wrong-headed as it is naive. The lack of presumption of innocence and the absence of judicial process combined with the prevalence of wi-fi hacking will result in innocent people being disconnected."

This, of course, is the same point that plenty of people have been making for ages, but the recording industry never has a good response. They also haven't been able to respond to a more important point: how will kicking people off the internet make anyone more interested in buying music?

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Politician Proposes Motion Against Kicking People Off The Internet

from the some-sanity dept

While a bunch of politicians in the UK had been under the influence of entertainment industry lobbyists in believing that kicking accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet would somehow magically bring back a working business model, at least there are some who recognize what a futile and backwards effort this would be. MP Tom Watson has put forth an "Early Day Motion" against such proposals:

That this House notes with concern the Government's proposals on file sharing which would allow rights holders to request internet service providers to disconnect for a period of time, or throttle, the internet connection of people who may be accused of copyright infringement via peer to peer networks; believes that disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection; acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it; further notes that identifying offenders using the Internet Protocol address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection; and calls on the Government to ensure that any citizen accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed.

I'd even take issue with the claim that it costs rights holders money when people download instead of buy -- as there's ample evidence that such things can lead to additional purchases down the road. But, still, this is a good start, and great to see some politicians not falling for the industry's claims.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lily Allen No Longer in Favor Of Kicking People Offline... Just Cutting Back Their Bandwidth

from the um.-ok. dept

Well, this is getting particularly silly now. Despite claiming that she wasn't going to the meeting of various musicians in the UK to discuss Peter Mandelson's "three strikes" proposal, Lily Allen apparently did show up and said that kicking people offline was too draconian. This is, at least, a modest victory for those of us who questioned her stance. Still... it wasn't a wholesale shift. The musicians instead still agreed to support a similar three strikes plan, that just had a slightly less onerous "final solution," involving taking away most of a user's bandwidth:

"Our meeting voted to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter, and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringers' bandwith to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic e-mail and web access functional."

That's still a pretty big overreaction to such things -- especially since none of these artists have been able to respond to the basic questions posed by many of us, asking for any evidence that the problem they face is actually unauthorized file sharing, rather than a shift in technologies and business models. Again, as we've pointed out countless times, the size of the overall UK music industry is growing, not shrinking, and those who have put in place business models that embrace file sharing have seen their own markets grow, not shrink. So, it's hard to see how the claim that "file sharing" harms the industry squares with reality. Instead, it sounds like a failure to adapt a business model is harming some artists, while other, smarter artists are doing just fine.

The group also condemned the vitriol that Allen had faced on an internet blog that she had set up to argue against music piracy.

Now, I certainly condemn any such "vitriol" as well, but again, nearly every comment I saw on the later posts on her blog were quite well thought out and well-argued. There was a lot of silly and condemnable comments on her earlier posts, but later posts brought up very good questions -- all of which Lily refused to respond to. So, I'm still having trouble believing that she shut down the blog due to any vitriol -- even if the press seems to be accepting that claim uncritically. It's also quite telling that she shut down the blog just after attention was brought to the fact that Lily herself was sharing a ton of music in the form of mixtapes.

It still seems a lot more likely that she shut down her blog not because of any vitriol, but because she was unable to respond to those questions. In fact, the brief response she had up, claimed that the mixtapes only used 30 seconds to 1 minute of songs. However, those who downloaded the mixtapes claim this is not true, and most of the songs appear to be complete versions. Furthermore, she claimed she made the mixtapes five years ago, but her own blog posts suggest it was more like three years ago... So, again, this is not vitriol, and while I'm sure there are some vitriolic commenters out there, I find it rather weak that Lily and these other musicians are refusing to respond to some very serious questions by hiding behind a claim that she was somehow unfairly "attacked." Playing victim when you were caught doing the very thing you condemn isn't particularly convincing.

I will say that I hope that many of those reasoned, well-thought out and carefully argued comments on Lily's blog before she erased it were part of what convinced her that her original support for cutting people off of the internet entirely was wrong. At least that was a small victory for reasoned debate. It's only unfortunate that once the debate started to reach more serious questions, she stopped participating. And, once again, given that she, herself, appeared to have shared a large amount of music, I have to ask if she's willing to accept the same limitations on her internet access that she came out in support of tonight. Will she accept limited bandwidth, so she can do basic web surfing and email, but no more? If not, how is that fair?

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]

from the missing-the-point dept

In my last post about Lily Allen's hypocrisy in uploading tons of songs without authorization, while saying it's good to cut off internet access for regular uploaders, one of the commenters made a good point: we should use this as a teaching moment, to try to show Ms. Allen why her position is wrong, rather than focusing on calling her a hypocrite. And, indeed, that would be great, but it seems like a difficult lesson for some -- including Ms. Allen -- to grasp. Her response to my post seems to come up with a variety of excuses, none of which actually touch on the actual point:

i made those mixtapes 5 years ago, i didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then...

The point is that, thanks to today's technology, it's quite easy for people to infringe while doing what they think is a good and reasonable thing. Lily, you created these mixtapes to promote both your own music and the music of others you liked. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But it's infringing. Think of all the other people who are just like you 5 years ago. They don't have knowledge of the workings of the music industry, and they're trying to promote themselves or share music they like. But, based on the laws that you yourself now support, the Lily of 5 years ago might not have an internet connection. Even though the "infringement" you did was for entirely innocent reasons. How is that fair or just?

The point (and this was the same point we tried to make with our original post about copying a Techdirt post) is that incidental infringement is almost impossible to avoid. Everyone infringes in some way or another in the course of a day. One paper found that people infringe many times over in the course of a single day. Everyone does. And while your infringements are a bit more... um... blatant than most, it highlights the problem of having such a draconian action against file sharers. Cutting them off from the internet for something that everyone is doing all the time seems quite problematic, doesn't it?

So, a quick question for you, Lily: Is "well I uploaded those songs before I knew how the music industry worked" a reasonable defense to prevent Lord Mandelson from taking away your internet access or the internet access of anyone else?

As your article clearly states , lilyallenmusic.co.uk is an EMI run website, which is exactly why i don't acknowledge it (i think theres a link to it on my myspace(which i do run), thats purely because, my record contract states i cant sell my merchandise online anywhere else on the net . i don't post on there, i dont even look at it. the record company run it.

Fair enough, but really the fact that it's a major label owned site was a separate issue (having to do with EMI's claims in its lawsuit against MP3Tunes). It still doesn't change the fact that you created these mixtapes, and used them to advance your career. And now you are claiming that the very same tactics should not be allowed for others?

In your original post pushing back on the Featured Artists Coalition, you complained about how they were all big stars, and how their plan would hurt the up-and-coming artist. And yet, when you yourself were an up-and-coming artist, you used free music distribution to your own advantage. Now you're not only looking to take that option away from up-and-coming artists, you're looking to kick them entirely offline for a period of time. It seems like that's a much bigger "harm" to up-and-coming artists than people sharing their music and promoting them for free.

But just like you mocked the FAC artists for having an unfair advantage for being big, you seem to be in the same position. You want to take away tools from up-and-coming artists that you yourself used.

Anyway the snippets of songs you hear on those mixtapes are about 30 seconds to 1 minute in length, in traditional mixtape style, it is infringement, correct, but it's not my site, it's EMI's. i am not a hypocrite, i don't illegally download music, and i still think unauthorised file sharing is wrong.

But you were the one who created the mixtapes, correct? You were the one who infringed and uploaded them and offered them to the world. That they're now on a site controlled by EMI is quite besides the point.

If you truly believe that regular uploaders should have their internet access taken away, why not make an example of yourself? Why not take away your own internet access for a year to prove the point? Or do you not think the laws you want to apply to everyone else should apply to you?

Again, the whole point here is that what you did was entirely natural and made plenty of sense. Lots of people do it today. They do it because they love music. There's nothing wrong with that, and you know it (or, apparently, knew it at one point in the past). And, there are many ways to take advantage of that fact. Just as 50 Cent does. Just as you did. Going to war with the fans who made you who you are today, in part because of your own infringing behavior, just doesn't make any sense. You keep saying that file sharing harms artists, but it existed five years ago as well, and didn't harm you. It helped you. So why would you want to take that away from everyone else?

Update: Wow. In the half an hour or so that I took to write this post, Lily erased the blog post where she responded (I've got a screenshot if anyone wants to see it), and just added a note to Twitter, saying that she's shut down the entire blog due to too much abuse. Lily, it's not abuse if we're just asking you to rethink your positions that appear to not be particularly well thought out.

203 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Beyond Kicking People Offline, France Raises Fines For Copyright Infringement To $440,000

from the proportionate? dept

With France continuing to push for a version of three strikes legislation, the latest bill approved also happens to increase potential fines for infringement up to 300,000 euros, or approximately $440,000. Nice to see governments making sure that the punishment fits the crime, huh?

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lily Allen Distributing Tons Of Copyrighted Music; Blows Way Past Three Strikes

from the put-the-stone-down-lily,-that's-a-big-glass-house dept

Really don't want to turn this into an all Lily Allen all the time blog, but reader Peter has sent in something rather interesting: When Lily was first trying to get attention, she created a couple of mixtapes with a ton of songs from other artists... available as MP3 downloads, and mixing in her own tracks. This is a well-known tradition in some circles and a great way to get some attention. We're all for it. But... it seems quite hypocritical of Ms. Allen to claim that file sharing is somehow evil and destroying the industry when she appears to be an active participant and used it to promote herself (oh my goodness! free music working as promotion!). According to the tracklisting of the second mixtape, it included 19 tracks by artists other than Lily Allen. Both mixtapes (mixtape 1 and mixtape 2) are available directly off of Lily's website, LilyAllenMusic.com, which has a copyright notice at the bottom from EMI.

So, when Lily notes on her anti-piracy blog that:

Also the government legislation is targeting uploaders -- people that make music available illegally

It appears that she actually qualifies. Quite directly. She's offering music from, among others, Jay-Z, Jefferson Airplane, The Specials and The Kinks. Admittedly, it's just a quick look around, but it appears many of the artists whose works she's distributing for free have no connection with EMI. Even if they did, remember EMI was recently claiming that it's never authorized MP3s for distribution for publicity purposes. Uh oh.

So... while the hypocrisy of Allen's copying a Techdirt post was still misunderstood by some (including Ms. Allen), I'm curious how anyone can say she isn't in serious trouble at this point. She claims that people who make music available illegally should have their internet connections removed. Yet, these two mixtapes, hosted directly on her own (EMI copyrighted) website, seem to suggest a pretty massive illegal distribution attempt. Given how much the music industry was awarded from Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum for distributing significantly fewer songs... not only should Allen be kicked offline, but she should be fined too. Or am I missing something from the recording industry's "education campaign" on this topic?

Honestly, this whole thing is so insane, I'm beginning to wonder if the blog and the statements from Lily Allen are really from her. How could someone who is still directly distributing free music from others from her own major label site claim a moral high ground against music being free?

92 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Elton John Flip Flops: Kicking People Off The Internet Is Good! No, Bad! No, Good!

from the does-he-even-know-what-he's-saying? dept

Sometimes you have to wonder if certain celebrities even know what they're talking about half the time. A few years back, Elton John went on an anti-internet tirade, where he suggested shutting down the entire internet for five years for the sake of saving music. So, it was a bit of a surprise a few weeks back to see him among the list of big name rockstars coming out against kicking people off the internet for file sharing. Apparently, though, no one told Elton John that he was on that list, because now he's switched positions again and is saying that he's all for Peter Mandelson's proposal to kick people off the internet. Yes, just a couple weeks after his name was on a document against the very same proposal. Perhaps we shouldn't take much of what his opinion is this week seriously, when even he doesn't seem to know what it is.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Music Pretends That Musicians Aren't Against Kicking People Off The Internet

from the oh-really? dept

Recently, we noted that a bunch of big name musicians had come out against Peter Mandelson's sudden decision that it was ok to kick music fans off the internet for file sharing, despite earlier promises that such a proposal was off the table. Having these musicians speak out against such a "three strikes" plan looked really bad for the various collections societies and industry groups that want such a plan -- leading some to publicly complain that these musicians were doing something "destructive" in standing up for consumer rights (how dare they!).

There were rumors that following this little dustup, that the UK music industry would drop its support for three strikes. Instead, Feargal Sharkey, the head of the UK Music lobbying group, has come out with a totally meaningless statement that basically says that the industry supports the government's plan and there's nothing to see here in terms of a rift in the views of the UK music industry.

That's not very believable. More and more musicians have realized that a proposal to kick people off the internet does nothing to promote better business models and does a lot to create significantly more ill will with fans. The only people who seem to be supporting it are those who are looking to protect old business models, and seem to think that kicking people offline will magically bring back paying customers. Sharkey has claimed in the past that the industry needs to stop fighting against music fans. Too bad he's aligning himself with a plan that is entirely about fighting music fans.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Recording Industry Insiders Complain About Musicians Who Argue Against Kicking People Off The Internet

from the how-dare-they-speak-their-minds dept

Well, well. Last week, we noted that a large number of well known musicians had come out against the idea of kicking accused file sharers off the internet, noting that it would only escalate the problem rather than solve it. But, of course, the industry organizations who claim to represent musicians' best interests can't have that, so this week they're on the attack. The head of a royalty collection society apparently called the statement from musicians "grossly naive and desperately damaging." Yes, but damaging to whom? Perhaps to collections societies, but not to artists. Smart artists know that going to war with fans is never a smart move. But the collection society head went on:

"This is more than unhelpful. It's destructive, I wish I could understand the hostility. But if between us all we don't screw it up, within 12 months we could have some legislation in place. I am quietly confident."

You wish you could understand the hostility? There was no hostility from the artists. The only hostility has come from an industry hellbent on protecting an old and obsolete business model by kicking people offline for sharing the music they love. These artists were coming out against hostility. They were coming out against this war mentality where it's the industry against the consumer.

Meanwhile, another group, the Musicians Union has come out and called the statement from the musicians last week "a bit blinkered" and "counterproductive" and then said:

"I am disappointed they went maverick without looking at the bigger picture. Our position is somebody should be paid for their creation."

Actually, they are looking at the bigger picture, and recognize that kicking people off the internet doesn't have anything to do with getting paid. You get paid by providing something that people want to buy. Kicking people off the internet doesn't make anyone want to pay you. It actually does the opposite. No one is saying artists shouldn't get paid for their creation -- least of all the musicians who spoke out last week. What they're saying is that kicking people off the internet doesn't help anyone get paid.

Honestly, does anyone actually think that kicking people off of the internet is a good business model?

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..