UK Continues Its War On Innovation And The Public, At The Urging Of The Major Labels
from the cluelessness-in-power dept
While the UK sometimes has moments of sanity in exploring copyright issues, it often seems that politicians there are even more willing to accept absolutely bullshit claims from the legacy entertainment industry at face value. Take, for example, the recent parliamentary debate over a new intellectual property bill, in which UK politicians made some absolutely crazy statements, arguing that it may be time to start throwing “persistent” file sharers in jail, and attacking Google for not rewriting its search results to match what the local version of the RIAA (the BPI) wants.
Gerry Sutcliffe MP said that he believed that “millions of complaints [to Google] have not been dealt with”, a point underlined by John Leech MP who recalled “the complacent attitude taken by [Google’s] representatives to the whole issue, as though it had nothing to do with them and was not their problem.”
[….] “At some time, this Government must have a proper look at the almost monopoly status of this huge, multinational, non-UK business and ask whether it is good for our content industries. I have a sneaking feeling that it is not,” Sutcliffe said.
“I have seen the evidence from the British Phonographic Industry. It sent 50 million notices to Google asking it to take down links to illegal — I emphasize, illegal—sites. Google should not be doing that. What on earth is going on if it receives 50 million requests to take down links to illegal sites?
“It is time to call in the Competition Commission: we cannot continue to allow Google to be the gateway to content industries when they do them so much damage.”
Of course, it’s hogwash that the complaints “have not been dealt with.” Google has shown time and time again that when it receives valid complaints, it takes down the links to that content within hours, despite receiving so many requests. Most other search engines take much, much longer. Second, the whole 50 million links thing is a total red herring. If the sites are illegal, as Sutcliffe claims, then there should be lawsuits against them to take those sites down. But the problem is that the sites generally, have not been found to be illegal. And, many of the sites are used for all sorts of legitimate offerings as well. Yet, Sutcliffe and BPI seem to think there’s a magic wand that can be waved to determine what’s legitimate and what’s not.
Even more troubling, however, were the comments from Mike Weatherly, who is now David Cameron’s “Intellectual Property advisor,” but who in the past worked for both the legacy recording and movie industries.
“Ultimately, we need to consider withdrawing internet rights from lawbreakers, along with imposing fines and, as a last resort, custodial sentences,” he told the debate.
Yes, even as countries are backing away from the insane move of cutting off internet access — a form of punishment that has been shown not to work — he wants to go even further, and put those people in jail. When another politician tried to say that individuals in their bedrooms are different from companies setting up file sharing offerings, Weatherly made it clear that he meant that even those downloading in their bedrooms should face jail if they keep downloading.
“My point was that, when we get the education right and people understand that stealing intellectual property is wrong, and when the industry has alternative downloading models, if we exhaust fines and other means of stopping persons downloading illegally, we must consider some sort of custodial sentence for persistent offenders and people who operate on a commercial scale,”
That’s the old entertainment industry we’ve grown to know so well. No matter how many times they ratchet up the punishment and find that it doesn’t slow infringement, they just think that if they keep cranking up that dial, it’ll work next time. It’s why the US passed 15 different anti-piracy bills in the course of 30 years, after none of them actually worked. Perhaps, next time, they should try to offer the death penalty for copying. Except that won’t work either.
Maybe, just maybe, rather than trying to punish everyone, they should focus on trying to make things convenient and worth buying. Just a suggestion.
Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, gerry sutcliffe, innovation, mike weatherly, uk
Companies: bpi, google
Comments on “UK Continues Its War On Innovation And The Public, At The Urging Of The Major Labels”
Here's an idea
How about making legitimate access easier than piracy!
No, I’m not talking crazy talk.
Consider this.
How easy is it to push a few buttons on the TV remote to access content on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, or even a website that streams programs?
How much more difficult is it to have to get out of your chair, and download content? How much more trouble is it to have to rip a DVD? (Nevermind the enormously long time of a several minute wait. Not even taking into account the difficulty of renting the DVD from Netflix or Redbox.)
If content were available at the click of the remote, who would even bother to pirate?
Ah, but then artists would not be protected if people could actually see and hear their creations.
the most insane part about that statement is something else. They complain about google’s, the “monopolistic, huge, multinational, non-UK business”, lack of “dealing with complaints” by a trade group representing primarily “huge, multinational, non-UK businesses” which already have a law to cover that (DMCA) because both of them fall primarily under US law.
this is insane. this is a barely veiled attempt to expand the reach of copyright law and removing every last bit of protection the already overreaching DMCA grants by trying to take the UK citizens hostage.
You know there is a real simply solution the entertainment companies could do to stop their stuff on the internet. Don’t put it out for sale and no one will have a copy of it. They won’t have to worry about search term results if they aren’t releasing new stuff outside their grip.
Goggle won’t show results on that. Pirates won’t be pirating. Sites presumably won’t be illegal then.
Every one should be happy as a pig in a waller not to have to hear how poorly all these entertainment companies are doing that are raking in record profits every year.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
“If you have an idea and are inclined to patent it, then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF”
I use an alternative method. This was advice I got decades ago, and it’s served me very, very well: develop your product, then publish the patentable idea in recognized professional forum that relates to the field. This accomplishes three things:
1) It helps to advertise your product
2) It protects you from having someone else patent your own idea by establishing a date for prior art
3) You earn a bit of cash up front through payment for the article you wrote about the idea.
How long before asshat politicians turn the complete failure of the “War on Drugs” into the new problem.
The “War on IP Piracy”.
Re: Re:
Give it five minutes.
Re: Re:
Given the maximalist’s approval of overly-harsh measures meant to intimidate, I prefer “War for Terror”.
Why do politicians and the like always concentrate on shooting the messenger, in this Case Google?
If the MAFFIA claim that Google is in a way facilitating piracy for not doing enough to stamp out piracy from its site then why don’t they stop moaning and whining about it and get a court order in the UK to get the isp’s in the UK to block access to Google the same as what the MAFIAA did in getting the UK isp’s to block access to The Pirate Bay. The MAFFIA won’t get a court order for the isp’s to block access to the site because they haven’t got the balls to do it as it will cause a load of backlash that will no doubt hurt their reputation (if it hasn’t already been hurt).
More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
So far as Google facilitate theft, it needs to take steps to reduce that. Google has no rights, it’s a corporation that must serve public interests to even exist, and some computerized blocking to prevent known theft is entirely within duties that should be imposed.
Now, that’s obvious IF one accepts that the producers of the content that freeloading pirates want to steal have a right to prevent theft. But nearly all of the prior sentence is daily opposed by Pirate Mike, who allegedly “supports copyright” yet never wants any enforcement of the simple property rights in “I made it, therefore I own it, you do not”.
Oh. let’s see. I’ll just tagline for the rest:
What are you stoopid pirates doing here? Mike supports copyright! (41 of 192)
Where Mike “supports copyright” but always overlooks or excuses piracy. (43 of 192)
If you advocate taking copyright away from Disney after its long abuse and extension, then FINE! — But don’t at same time empower today’s mega-corporations to steal creative works from the poor. Those are not similar cases. Doing away with ALL copyright is even more criminal than the current mess. — Make a means test for copyright, prohibit it entirely to corporations, and prevent them from raiding the public domain. (115 of 192)
Mike’s notions are all get-rich-quick schemes by using products someone else made. His continued defense of Megaupload shows his ideal “business model”: neither pay to produce nor royalties on any of the files hosted so costs are just above bandwidth, and able to avoid legal liability so long as pretend ignorance of infringed content. (120 of 192)
You’re not on the leading edge of new production models, Mike, just advocating plain old-fashioned theft with new gadgets. (190 of 192)
04:04:23[f-17-5]
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Who else here thinks it’s cute (and insane, outright bloody insane) that a commenter spent the time and effort to create ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO different tag lines?
Ah blue. I’m not going to expend the effort. There’s no point in me ridiculing you anymore. You’ve already taken the trouble to make yourself look as insane as possible, so I can’t actually use Reductio ad absurdum anymore.
Re: Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
I don’t trust ankle-bite #1 to count or state the number properly, let alone come up with 192 original lines. It’s far more likely it’s a made-up number as are all his points he constantly fails to agitate against Mike with.
Re: Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Who else here thinks it’s cute (and insane, outright bloody insane) that a commenter spent the time and effort to create ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY TWO different tag lines?
Actually, that’s 192 taglines which have been previously debunked, ripped to shreds with logic and/or are basically incoherent rants.
Blue is one of those people whose mind is already made up based on incorrect information and faulty logic and doesn’t want to be confused with actual facts. It’s sad really.
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Any chance of cutting out the middleman and posting a pastebin with all 192 taglines? I could use a laugh.
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
Actually, he does support copyright. It is just, in the context of this article, he believes it is the 50M (probably a lot of duplication here, so the 50M notices are likely not directed to separate and independent works), certainly throughout the world, are the ones who should be sued. Of course, once a possible wrongdoer is located, the discussion then shifts to “But how do you know they are really the wrongdoer”, etc., etc., etc., all in an effort to proclaim that misappropriation of works is so widespread why even bother.
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
So far as Google facilitate theft, it needs to take steps to reduce that.
No, you have not shown this to be true.
Ford facilitates bank robberies by making and selling cars which might be used by bank robbers. But they aren’t required to take steps to prevent their cars from being misused in that way.
Chemical companies facilitate murder since a number of household chemicals may be used to murder people. But the chemical companies aren’t required to stop selling, or change formulas to prevent their products from being misused in that way.
Google’s services may be misused for piracy, but that’s not a good enough reason to impose any obligations on Google to avoid or prevent this.
As it happens, the standard in US copyright law from Sony v. Universal (the case that supported Sony’s right to continue to make and sell VCRs that facilitated piracy) is that if the product in question is capable of legitimate, noninfringing uses, copyright law may not be used against the manufacturer due to their trade in said product.
This is fairly well known, especially as this year is the 30th anniversary of this landmark case. In fact, it’s also well-known that the movie studios that opposed Sony benefited tremendously from home video and that it was stupid of them to ever oppose it. But you’re an idiot, so it’s no surprise that you got this wrong. You’re almost always wrong.
Re: More Pirate Mike boilerplate including defense of Google.
“some computerized blocking to prevent known theft is entirely within duties that should be imposed.”
Google has nothing to do with what comes up on search results, save some ads. It’s just an algorithm. Google doesn’t say; “huehuehue lets put pirate sites at the top of the search results”. Google does not facilitate theft. Google is a search engine. You type in words, and Google matches them with sites based on its algorithm. You are repeating the mistakes of the MPAA/RIAA, which makes me wonder whether you are actually a shill for them.
“when the industry has alternative downloading models.”
we’ve been waiting for years, and still a big fat whopping zero.
Dear Google: Please drop Britain
Perhaps the best thing Google could do would be to simply drop Great Britain from its reach and make it unavailable from inside GB and similarly remove all sites GB from Google’s search results. Make them a example of just how nonsensical all this is. As an alternate, Google could instead ‘disappear’ the equally batty France from all its listings. then, suggest to the competition Bing, Yahoo and the others that they too should ‘disappear’ this sue-happy land from their listings lest they be tabbed ‘the next Google’.
Message: You don’t want your countrymen to find things? Fine, keep them from finding things. Can’t tell what’s infringing from not, of course, so just drop the entire country. Buh-bye!
Re: Dear Google: Please drop Britain
Actually I think Google should just drop anything to do with the MPAA/RIAA/BPI.
If none of their shit was search able on google we would all be a lot happier. They will die a lot quicker with nobody being able to find their wares and the indies will take over much faster.
Re: Re: Dear Google: Please drop Britain
If nothing else it would be absolutely hilarious to hear them scream about how Google was ‘punishing them’, and ‘unfairly discriminating against them’ after such a move.
the way the UK has gone, taking over from the USA in it’s ridiculousness for punishing file sharers, it’s so obvious all that is going on is Cameron’s constant desire to do ‘all things Obama’, ie do anything to please him. perhaps the best idea would be for him to move to the USA? i’m sure there’ll be a lot of happy people then. as for Weatherly, he stated the obvious answer, but refuses to exploit it because the industries just think that punishment is going to get people back as customers in the shops. what he should be doing is forcing the industries to do what he says ‘when the industry has alternative downloading models’ instead of taking, as usual, their word for doing so he should be checking the ‘alternative downloading models’ out. when he does so and finds out personally what customers constantly tell the government, that they are absolute fucking crap, perhaps he’ll have a much better realisation of why people file share! as it is, he’s just doing what the industries want, taking what they say as gospel with no checks being done. but then, what do you expect from someone who has been so involved with the entertainment industries anyway?
Re No. 9, no matter whether one agrees or disagrees with comments by the individual, it is hypocritical to decry people being censored when it is done here with such alacrity. Yes, this is not a site where the First Amendment applies, but then again many comments at this site decry perceived violations of our constitutional provisions in places and instances where they have not a whit of applicability.
Re: Re:
This isn’t fucking censorship.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop claiming that this is fucking censorship.
Censorship is being shot for your beliefs by the state police. Censorship is being jailed for arguing that abortions should be permitted in certain cases. Censorship is being forbidden to practice your religion in your own home.
For a third time, since you seem incapable of rationality: this is not fucking censorship.
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps (no, make that obviously) you are unfamiliar with the fact that censorship is a term that has been applied with equal facility to private and public activities. Of course the former is not illegal, whereas in many instances in the US the latter as practiced through state action is illegal. As a word “censorship” is not a legal term, something that seems to escape so many here who come to the defense of “reporting” stuff they do not like so that it disappears behind the “hit here if you want to see it” wall.
I guess if one says it is not censorship enough times he/she might actually come to believe what they say. Self-delusion, however, is generally not something to which people should aspire.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess if one says it is not censorship enough times he/she might actually come to believe what they say. Self-delusion, however, is generally not something to which people should aspire.
It’s not self-delusion nor is it censorship, my friend. The comment is still there and Blue has not been prevented from spouting more of his crap in any way, shape or form.
Do you also claim that newspapers who place letters to the editor on page 6 instead of the front page are engaging in censorship also? Same concept, but instead of a single mouse click you have to leaf through a few printed pages instead.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Surely you jest with your page 6 example. Ever try to read every posted here in a single window on your screen? Scrolling is the full equivalent of turning pages.
BTW, a loud, obnoxious drunk can be heard throughout a room. You have no way to drown out the commentary in most instances. Comments on a site are absolutely silent and can easily be avoided.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“every posted” should read “every comment posted”
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Please avoid the entire comments section in the future.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Loud obnoxious drunks are routinely asked to leave and/or escorted off the premises and it is not censorship. The proprietor removing an annoying client from the patrons is not censorship.
Re: Re:
” Yes, this is not a site where the First Amendment applies”
You’re absolutely correct. The First Amendment doesn’t apply here, since the 1A’s right of free speech only concerns the government blockage of speech. Private websites do not have a duty to you to allow you to say what you want. Mike could remove all comments tomorrow if he wanted, and he would not be in violation of the 1A.
Re: Re:
It was collapsed (not censored — you can still read it) because he was doing his usual schtick of calling everyone here a bunch of pirates and thieves. In other words, he’s just trolling.
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, because people here may find his comments off-putting they should be relegated to a separate “room” from everything else, a room where one must open a door before being permitted to see what has been said. Kinda reminds me of the Ole’ South in the days of segregation when one group got to determine when another group could enter and be accorded so measure of legitimacy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s more like telling that one obnoxious loudmouth drunk in the bar who is screaming insults in every else’s face to take it outside.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I was going to apply to AC, but your comment sums up the situation perfectly. Nothing else for me to add.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“reply to AC,”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since when should one person be forced to promulgate the message of someone else, particularly when the message is mildly or grossly offensive. You sound like those people who think free speech means that they can shout down any opinions that they disagree with. Being thrown out of a public meeting arranged by someone else because you are trying to disrupt it is not censorship, but rather protecting the right to free speech of the organizer.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You see, ootb, TD’s Village Idiot, is like a speaker.
All output, no input.
Totally incapable of reasoned replies or initial postings for that matter. ootb simply makes noise. We simply info to noise ratio better by doing “report”.
The noise is still there for anybody to see.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That you consider out_of_the_blue useless hypocrisy as the height of intelligence is more telling about you than any other user on this site.
Chew on a report vote.
Re: Re:
It has nothing to do with “disagreement.” It has everything to do with ootb being a gigantic fucking asshole, with a looooooooong history of being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive (he even admits to this). And that’s the least of his faults.
What really needs to happen is for more people to report ootb every single time along with EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM.
Re: Re: Re:
So you believe he is a ******* *******. Ok, that is your opinion and I am certainly not one to say you are wrong, but who is twisting your arm to read what he may have to say and compel you to act?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you believe he is a ******* *******.Ok, that is your opinion and I am certainly not one to say you are wrong, but who is twisting your arm to read what he may have to say and compel you to act?
Nobody is twisting my arm to read his drivel. In fact, I don’t. What irks me, though, is that his sole intent is to derail any conversation and inject his entirely irrelevant point of view on all manners of nonsense. What then follows is that lots of people get drawn into arguing with him (to which, I’ll add, he NEVER listens to ESPECIALLY when facts are introduced), thereby giving him what he (clearly lacks) and craves: attention.
I don’t come here to read his moronic rants, nor do I want to read people arguing with a moron. And that is why I’ll continue to
REPORT OOTB AND EVERYONE WHO REPLIES TO HIM
Re: Re:
Re No. 9, no matter whether one agrees or disagrees with comments by the individual, it is hypocritical to decry people being censored when it is done here with such alacrity
Is it censorship to block spam?
Re: Re:
IP industries aren’t doing enough to create their own search engine.
I’m seeing politicians trying to stick their noses into the Internet’s business as a worse threat than hackers, scammers and malware creators. I’d rather have the latter.
I think it’s time for us to take our internet and go home. Enough of the playground bullies trying to rewrite the rules in their favor. Kick them off. No governments allowed. Things worked better before.
Re: Re:
What an idea. An MPAA sponsored search engine.
The MPAA has rated the following search result S for Stupid.
Unsuitable for whatever you were searching for.
Sign me up baby!
ROFL OMFG
http://thechive.com/2014/01/27/porn-star-takes-to-twitter-with-an-interesting-offer-10-photos/
Christy Mack is going to suck off whoever builds her the best Lego house! LOL Lego will make more money today than they have in the last ten years.
America -> UK
I used to think between America and the UK, the UK was the more sensible.
Well, I used to.
I think that’s our biggest export to the UK now, irrational thought.
Re: America -> UK
Why doesn’t UK apply for becoming a state in USA? It seems like the obvious thing to do.
Except for France, who historically has a completely different approach to what copyright and protectionism entails, mainland Europe is slightly more sensible. IE: EU has a law that would make actual application of several of the described methods illegal. France got an exemption because of HADOPI, while Great Britain just got an exemption…
Re: Re: America -> UK
Merely as a historical note, a significant part of the reason that US law underwent a quantum leap between the 1909 and 1976 copyright acts is because of France’s extreme measures in defining the rights of authors. If was France who was behind the inordinately long terms incorporated into the Berne Convention, as well as the provision of “moral rights”. In contrast, the US clung on to a much more limited copyright regime about 90 years before finally throwing in the towel and signing on to Berne so that its nationals were not prejudiced in foreign jurisdictions. Even then it still reserved the requirement of formalities until about the late 90’s when it saw that their retention was a losing proposition.
To american folks, the current govement is a joke, they are complete tools who are in the process of privatising everything. Royal mail SOLD, school inspections SOLD, probation/prison SOLD the list goes on.
Also they have no idea how the internets work so ban this sick filth.
Re: Re:
So, pretty much like the US, then.
did you know that Gerry Sutcliffe MP has taken tens of thousands of pounds of money from microsoft’s Bing team to ‘promote’ their rather shitty (and fake) search engine bing?
Bing – because parsing googles search results and shuffling the order makes you a big-boy search engine!
Don't you mean...?
My point is that, when we get the intellectual property right and people understand that restricting knowledge is wrong, and because the industry has no alternative downloading models, if we exhaust fines and other means of stopping persons withholding illegally, we must consider some sort of custodial sentence for persistent offenders and heads of companies which operate on a national and/or international scale.
FTFY, Mike Weatherly. It’s simple supply and demand, after all. We demand, and the entertainment industry fails to supply. Again and again and again.