Broadband Consumers to foot bill to fight Piracy

[Minischoles]

As some might know, Peter Mandelson and the Labour government over here in Britain is rushing through the Digital Economy Bill at the behest of the music industry, and at the parties own admission, they could cut off 40,000 consumers due to the costs of enforcing this, which are being placed almost entirely on the ISPs costumers rather than the industries trying to enforce it.

Broadband consumers to foot £500m bill to tackle online piracy
Patrick Foster, Media Correspondent

Proposals to suspend the internet connections of those who repeatedly share music and films online will leave consumers with a bill for £500 million, ministers have admitted.

The Digital Economy Bill would force internet service providers (ISPs) to send warning letters to anyone caught swapping copyright material illegally, and to suspend or slow the connections of those who refused to stop. ISPs say that such interference with their customers’ connections would add £25 a year to a broadband subscription.

Ministers have not estimated the cost of the measures but say that the cost of the initial letter-writing campaign, estimated at an extra £1.40 per subscription, will lead to 40,000 households giving up their internet connections. Impact assessments published alongside the Bill predict that the measures will generate £1.7 billion in extra sales for the film and music industries over the next ten years, as well as £350 million for the Government in extra VAT.

ISPs have called on the content industries to lessen the burden on broadband consumers by contributing to the costs. Charles Dunstone, chief executive of Carphone Warehouse, whose subsidiary TalkTalk is the biggest consumer provider of broadband, said: “Broadband consumers shouldn’t have to bail out the music industry. If they really think it’s worth spending vast sums of money on these measures then they should be footing the bill; not the consumer.”


BT also stepped up its attack on the plans, which it said represented “collective punishment that goes against natural justice”. John Petter, managing director of BT Retail’s consumer division, said: “Put yourself in the shoes of a small businessman who has a rogue member of staff. Your internet access could get cut off because of the actions of one individual. It really feels like the UK is out on a limb with these proposals compared to the rest of the world.”

Mr Petter said that the Bill, which is being rushed through Parliament before the general election next year, had been poorly thought out. He said: “The whole tenor of the way this is being introduced makes us really worried that this is all a false game. It’s like the dangerous dogs legislation, which was introduced quickly and was not effective.”

The Conservatives, who are broadly supportive of the plans, also called on the Government to spare consumers the bulk of the costs. Jeremy Hunt, the Shadow Culture Secretary, said: “It is grossly unfair that Labour expects millions of innocent customers to pay extra each month because of the actions of a minority. By their own admission this will make broadband unaffordable for tens of thousands of people, which flies in the face of government policy to increase take-up in disadvantaged communities.”

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “Many of the figures in the impact assessment for the Digital Economy Bill are expressed in ranges and some of the costs will be borne by the rightholders and some by the ISPs. The overall benefits to the country far outweigh the costs.”

A spokesman for the BPI, which represents the record industry, said: “It is in everyone’s interest that ISPs’ statutory obligations can be discharged as cost efficiently as possible — particularly those law-abiding broadband customers who currently carry the burden of infringers.

“We are confident that those costs will be a mere fraction of the stratospheric sums suggested by some ISPs, and negligibly small when set against their vast annual revenues.” The latest Star Trek movie was dowloaded illegally almost 11 million times this year, according to Torrentfreak, a download-monitoring weblog.

This year the FBI started an investigation after an unfinished version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, was posted online and watched by thousands of people a month before its release.
Times Online

[Axis Kast]

Downloading intellectual property for which one did not pay is no different than walking into the mall, stuffing one's pocket with compact discs or tape cassettes, and leaving without first paying at the cash register. The penalties for digital piracy are disproportionate, and therefore both absurd and unjust, but the criminality, while widespread and easy, is nonetheless obvious.

All of the "battles" to "fight" illegal behavior are waged on the consumer dime. When Target or WalMart are hit by shoplifters, preventive measures must be applied, and stock replaced. The price of the remaining goods for sale then rise accordingly. Mr. Hunt's particular criticism is, on the fact of it, ridiculous.

[Sarevok]

Downloading intellectual property for which one did not pay is no different than walking into the mall, stuffing one's pocket with compact discs or tape cassettes, and leaving without first paying at the cash register. The penalties for digital piracy are disproportionate, and therefore both absurd and unjust, but the criminality, while widespread and easy, is nonetheless obvious.

WTF ?

If I download a song the original is still there.

I am DUPLICATING it. With my own expense. If anything I should get paid.

[Starglider]

Downloading intellectual property for which one did not pay is no different than walking into the mall, stuffing one's pocket with compact discs or tape cassettes, and leaving without first paying at the cash register.

Idiocy. Stealing a physical item deprives the owner of that item; stealing from a store means that they must pay money to replace the lost stock. Copyright infringement is not theft because it does not deprive anyone of their lawful property; rather it creates a pattern on the recipient's legally owned hard drive (etc). The music and film industry's attempts to equate the two actions with their 'copying = stealing = piracy = TERRORISM' mesages look pathetic to me, but you prove that some people are stupid enough to swallow that line.

Some form of copyright is worth having (almost certainly not the kind of copyright we have in the US and the UK), and thus copyright infringement is a real issue, but it is not and will never be 'stealing'. Personally I have zero sympathy for any losses suffered by media cartels that gleefully exploit public domain art while refusing to allow their content to ever emerge from copyright.

[Axis Kast]

I am DUPLICATING it. With my own expense. If anything I should get paid.

If you are legally permitted to duplicate tapes and cassettes purchased offline, I don't see any reason why you should be precluded from duplicating that file, assuming it remains in your possession.

However, if you have managed to lose the file, then how is it any different than replacing a lost muffler by raiding the local auto body shop?

I am anyway referring, in general, to those who download music which they do not, and have never, owned.

Idiocy. Stealing a physical item deprives the owner of that item; stealing from a store means that they must pay money to replace the lost stock. Copyright infringement is not theft because it does not deprive anyone of their lawful property; rather it creates a pattern on the recipient's legally owned hard drive (etc). The music and film industry's attempts to equate the two actions with their 'copying = stealing = piracy = TERRORISM' mesages look pathetic to me, but you prove that some people are stupid enough to swallow that line.

Stealing a physical item deprives somebody of profit. Stealing a piece of intellectual property has the same effect. You would ordinarily pay to enjoy access to that intellectual property, which is not your own, and which you wouldn't have access to unless authorized by the original inventor. When you download his music, for free, from somebody else who has made a copy, that is equivalent to making the knowing purchase of counterfeit property.

Copying files that aren't your own isn't terrorism; it is stealing. If people couldn't download music for nothing, or watch movies without paying, they would buy more CDs, or attend the theater more often. If I sneak into a theater, I'm committing a crime; they don't offer those shows for free.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Copying files that aren't your own isn't terrorism; it is stealing. If people couldn't download music for nothing, or watch movies without paying, they would buy more CDs, or attend the theater more often. If I sneak into a theater, I'm committing a crime; they don't offer those shows for free.

Theft, yes. But I sincerely doubt the industry funded studies that say they're losing several times their yearly income to piracy, or that their sales would go up any more than they have if they could wave a wand and make the internet unhappen.

They're not only trying to maintain a failing business model, which rips off the IP creators as much as the consumers, but actively retard the advancement of technology. Not to even touch the aforementioned abuse of public domain laws.

[Axis Kast]

Theft, yes. But I sincerely doubt the industry funded studies that say they're losing several times their yearly income to piracy, or that their sales would go up any more than they have if they could wave a wand and make the internet unhappen.

While I am sympathetic to some of those arguments, given the voluminous libraries of pirated music I saw in high school, and the obvious lure of simply downloading whatever new song one finds catchy -- at least some of which folks presumably would have bought in CD format, or as singles -- I don't find it unreasonably to concluded that the industry has lost enormous sums.

However, that's somewhat beside the point. My general complaint is that folks will find all sorts of ways to justify the theft of music when they would not justify the theft of something tangible, or less easily stolen. Worse, it is sometimes dismissed because "musicians still make so much money." If I steal from Bill Gates, I am no less an outlaw.

[adam_grif]

but you prove that some people are stupid enough to swallow that line.

The fact that they got away with having it known as Piracy was the first hint you should have picked up on.

Some form of copyright is worth having (almost certainly not the kind of copyright we have in the US and the UK), and thus copyright infringement is a real issue, but it is not and will never be 'stealing'. Personally I have zero sympathy for any losses suffered by media cartels that gleefully exploit public domain art while refusing to allow their content to ever emerge from copyright.

There are questions to be raised as to whether or not it's really even worth enforcing on the individual scale. Despite the rapid proliferation of pirated movies, music and tv shows, the industries haven't really been hit hard by it. The only industry that's been declining is the record industry, and it's ambiguous as to whether or not illegal file sharing is the root cause of this, since it's been steadily trending downwards since the 90's. Possibly not even at all. It raises an interesting question - it's against the law, but a majority of the population is doing it. How high a percentage of the population has to be undertaking a crime like this on a regular basis before we should consider legalizing it?

Stealing a physical item deprives somebody of profit. Stealing a piece of intellectual property has the same effect

No, they lose hypothetical profit. If somebody copies a song they never would have considered purchasing with money, the net loss of actual profit is 0. If they decide they like the song so much that they then buy it, they have gained a real, actual profit.

Recording songs on the radio has been going on for a bajillion years, and of course they had a heart attack when people could record TV shows too. Tried to shut it down, tried to sue Sony. Eventually they realized it wasn't going to fly because people liked doing it way too much, and "Free to Air" was born.

They got scared because suddenly they no longer had a total monopoly on manufacturing and distributing their IP. Now it's worse - it's not just once you show it on TV that they lose control over it's distribution, as soon as it hits DVD shelves, a high quality rip of it will be put up by someone online. And long before that, some Russians somewhere probably snuck a camera into a theater and got a low quality rip. Sometimes, people yoink the DVDs they use to show in certain cinemas and put them up on the internet, or get a screener copy for the Academy Awards and put that up.

Historically, when a market can no longer exist in its present form because of changing dynamics, the market stops existing. But of course now, instead of that, the industry is trying its absolute hardest to hang on in its present, bloated form.

[Keevan_Colton]

Is walking through a newsagents and reading the headlines on the newspapers in the rack theft?

[Axis Kast]

Is walking through a newsagents and reading the headlines on the newspapers in the rack theft?

No, but stuffing your bag with the newspaper without paying the shop seller? That's a crime. One doesn't just "experience" music from the ether. I can visit my friend's house and play with his X-Box. I do not thereby gain free right to that X-Box.

How does your analogy actually apply?

Possibly not even at all. It raises an interesting question - it's against the law, but a majority of the population is doing it. How high a percentage of the population has to be undertaking a crime like this on a regular basis before we should consider legalizing it?

It's the morality of the issue that concerns me, not the practical or economic side of enforcement.

No, they lose hypothetical profit. If somebody copies a song they never would have considered purchasing with money, the net loss of actual profit is 0. If they decide they like the song so much that they then buy it, they have gained a real, actual profit.

The very fact of cost-free access absolves the individual in question from ever having to determine whether or not they would make a purchase with money.

If I go home, eat Nabisco cookies, then "crack" Nabisco's patented formula and sell the item from my garage, that's a crime. Just because I download music from the hazy community on the Internet, that's not somehow absolving me. I'm not making something generic, having once heard the song; I'm obtaining the exact thing, at no cost.

If somebody sneaks into a theater and uses a recording device, that is an illegal act. A screeners' copy for the Academy Awards is protected by law. You're trying to talk about a hated entity, and then acting as if its greed is justification for taking criminal action against it.

[Molyneux]

Is walking through a newsagents and reading the headlines on the newspapers in the rack theft?

No, but stuffing your bag with the newspaper without paying the shop seller? That's a crime. One doesn't just "experience" music from the ether. I can visit my friend's house and play with his X-Box. I do not thereby gain free right to that X-Box.

How does your analogy actually apply?

Because, as stated earlier in this thread, after you read the headlines the newsagent still has a newspaper to sell. Copyright infringement is illegal, but it is distinct from theft for that specific reason - theft involves the loss of property. Just saying that the content owner loses money does not make it theft.

[Axis Kast]

Because, as stated earlier in this thread, after you read the headlines the newsagent still has a newspaper to sell. Copyright infringement is illegal, but it is distinct from theft for that specific reason - theft involves the loss of property. Just saying that the content owner loses money does not make it theft.

All right. I concede that the technical term I applied was incorrect. The act of infringement, however, is still immoral, even if the punishments being meted out are cruel and unusual.

[ArmorPierce]

Is walking through a newsagents and reading the headlines on the newspapers in the rack theft?

No, but stuffing your bag with the newspaper without paying the shop seller? That's a crime. One doesn't just "experience" music from the ether. I can visit my friend's house and play with his X-Box. I do not thereby gain free right to that X-Box.

How does your analogy actually apply?

Downloading music would me more compared to you ging to the newsagents and taking a picture of the article on your phone. Is that theft? Anyway, going soley by legal definition, as far as I know from the couple business law classes I took, it is not theft.

[Molyneux]

Because, as stated earlier in this thread, after you read the headlines the newsagent still has a newspaper to sell. Copyright infringement is illegal, but it is distinct from theft for that specific reason - theft involves the loss of property. Just saying that the content owner loses money does not make it theft.

All right. I concede that the technical term I applied was incorrect. The act of infringement, however, is still immoral, even if the punishments being meted out are cruel and unusual.

Definitely...although it is certainly not unknown for copyright holders to attempt to extend their control over their property to an unreasonable degree (such as preventing someone from making copies for their own use of a work that they legitimately purchased, or preventing someone from re-selling a purchased item like a piece of software [which they have not made additional copies of]).

[Mr Bean]

We've had this argument with Axis Kast for going on four years now. Don't bother, he is roughly at a Ted Stevens understanding of computers. He does not understand and never will that the difference between someone illegally downloading a song off the internet and someone shoplifting from a store. He's physically incapable of understanding it. It's why he goes back to the theft analogy each time despite the fact that all Pirating consists of copying.

A better comparison is this.
I walk into a library, I don't own any of the books there the Library does. Sitting down using all the same materials I bought myself I make an exactly copy of a book. Lets say it's The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. So I'm at the Library I using the same kind of paper, with a dusk jacket I illustrated myself to exact detail. Using my super penmenship I make an exactly duplicate of everything. The type face, the typo's and word spacing of Mr Brown's latest book. To note minus the Library's mark on the inside cover, each book is identical, every word, every sentence... every detail. These books are the same right down to the over print mark on page 92.

I then take the original, I put it back on the shelf. I take my exact copy and I go home.
That, that is Pirating music. The library still has their copy, and I now have mine.
It is not theft, the Library lost nothing except the possibility I might take their book home.
I could do the same thing in a Barnes and Nobel, they again lost nothing. The only thing they "lost" was the fact I won't be buying Dan Brown's latest book from them. But if that's true, I'm guilty right now because I don't intend to buy his book without pirating it. If I want to read it, I'll borrow my uncle's copy.

What a great thief I am.

[Axis Kast]

We've had this argument with Axis Kast for going on four years now. Don't bother, he is roughly at a Ted Stevens understanding of computers. He does not understand and never will that the difference between someone illegally downloading a song off the internet and someone shoplifting from a store. He's physically incapable of understanding it. It's why he goes back to the theft analogy each time despite the fact that all Pirating consists of copying.

A better comparison is this, I walk into a library I don't own any of the books there the Library does. Sitting down using all the same materials I bought myself I make an exactly copy a book lets say it's The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. So I'm at the Library I using the same kind of paper, with a dusk jacket I illustrated myself to exact detail. Using my super penmenship I exactly duplicate the type face, the typo's and word spacing of Mr Brown's latest book. To note minus the Library's mark on the inside cover, each book is identical, every word, every sentence... every detail.

Nice evasion; you've fixed on the fact that I've deployed an imperfect analogy, rather than that the purpose of my original post was to condemn file piracy as crime.

Ever been to college? Remember the warnings prominently displayed in the library copy rooms concerning the amount of a book which one is permitted to copy?

The problem is that individuals are acquiring something -- some piece of intellectual property -- without having paid for it, and without having been exposed to it inadvertently, as to newsstand headlines.

[ray245]

We've had this argument with Axis Kast for going on four years now. Don't bother, he is roughly at a Ted Stevens understanding of computers. He does not understand and never will that the difference between someone illegally downloading a song off the internet and someone shoplifting from a store. He's physically incapable of understanding it. It's why he goes back to the theft analogy each time despite the fact that all Pirating consists of copying.

A better comparison is this, I walk into a library I don't own any of the books there the Library does. Sitting down using all the same materials I bought myself I make an exactly copy a book lets say it's The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. So I'm at the Library I using the same kind of paper, with a dusk jacket I illustrated myself to exact detail. Using my super penmenship I exactly duplicate the type face, the typo's and word spacing of Mr Brown's latest book. To note minus the Library's mark on the inside cover, each book is identical, every word, every sentence... every detail.

Nice evasion; you've fixed on the fact that I've deployed an imperfect analogy, rather than that the purpose of my original post was to condemn file piracy as crime.

Ever been to college? Remember the warnings prominently displayed in the library copy rooms concerning the amount of a book which one is permitted to copy?

The problem is that individuals are acquiring something -- some piece of intellectual property -- without having paid for it, and without having been exposed to it inadvertently, as to newsstand headlines.

So? That does not prove that it is the same as shoplifting.

[Axis Kast]

So? That does not prove that it is the same as shoplifting.

I just said that that wasn't my point. I don't want to prove technical equivalent; I want to bemoan the fact that people often defend piracy because the behaviors of the recording industry are unethical, when that really has no bearing on the morality of the crime.

If I walked into a library and did as Bean indicates, I could be arrested and held liable for copyright infringement - and assessed considerable fines.

Inasmuch as I have taken what doesn't belong to me, and benefited from it without having had to pay compensation to the parties responsible for its production, I am committing a crime. In layman's terms, I call that theft.

[salm]

A better comparison is this.
I walk into a library, I don't own any of the books there the Library does. Sitting down using all the same materials I bought myself I make an exactly copy of a book. Lets say it's The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown. So I'm at the Library I using the same kind of paper, with a dusk jacket I illustrated myself to exact detail. Using my super penmenship I make an exactly duplicate of everything. The type face, the typo's and word spacing of Mr Brown's latest book. To note minus the Library's mark on the inside cover, each book is identical, every word, every sentence... every detail. These books are the same right down to the over print mark on page 92.

I then take the original, I put it back on the shelf. I take my exact copy and I go home.
That, that is Pirating music. The library still has their copy, and I now have mine.
It is not theft, the Library lost nothing except the possibility I might take their book home.
I could do the same thing in a Barnes and Nobel, they again lost nothing. The only thing they "lost" was the fact I won't be buying Dan Brown's latest book from them. But if that's true, I'm guilty right now because I don't intend to buy his book without pirating it. If I want to read it, I'll borrow my uncle's copy.

What a great thief I am.

Copying books is illegal. At least where i´m from. At least if you use a copying machine. You´re allowed to write it by hand but i guess that´s only the case because it´s so impractical that nobody would do it.

Your analogy would desicribe a person listening to a cd and then producing every single sound by himself for example by using his own instruments. That´s legal as well.

[Minischoles]

Stealing a physical item deprives somebody of profit. Stealing a piece of intellectual property has the same effect. You would ordinarily pay to enjoy access to that intellectual property, which is not your own, and which you wouldn't have access to unless authorized by the original inventor. When you download his music, for free, from somebody else who has made a copy, that is equivalent to making the knowing purchase of counterfeit property.

Copying files that aren't your own isn't terrorism; it is stealing. If people couldn't download music for nothing, or watch movies without paying, they would buy more CDs, or attend the theater more often. If I sneak into a theater, I'm committing a crime; they don't offer those shows for free.

Except repeated studies have shown that ludicrous line being parroted by every music industry spokesperson of 'one download = one last sale' is a complete fallacy that they continually perpetuate in an effort to squeeze more profit out of a media that has been dying since mp3s came about. It's been proven time and again that people won't go out and buy an album or buy a CD they pirated, and as for movies how much did Wolverine make after being leaked onto the internet? how much did New Moon make despite being the most downloaded film of 2009? yeah they really need that extra profit.

What annoys me about this that they go on this crusade against 'piracy', pursuing absurd fees for people they catch and managing to wine and dine Peter Mandelson into creating the Digital Economy Bill then refuse to pay for it. Especially considering their projected profits (going by their own absurd 1 dl = 1 sale mantra) they stand to make £1.7 billion, yet they expect the ISPs and consumers to pay for this, rather than pay for it themselves.

[Axis Kast]

I'm not saying that the recording industry has played fair ball in pursuing remedies to its situation, only that pirating music is immoral, and is a form of taking what is now one's own. It is typically a crime of opportunity -- performed because it is easy, and the likelihood of apprehension or consequence relatively small.

I'd also like to know if there is anyone brazen enough to step forward and insist that they've downloaded only what they would not otherwise buy.

[Stark]

Ignoring the legal technicalities, how is this supposed to work on a technical level? How can it affect people who simply tick the 'encrypted connections only' box? How frequently are they going to be checking data on a per-user basis?

[General Zod]

Ignoring the legal technicalities, how is this supposed to work on a technical level? How can it affect people who simply tick the 'encrypted connections only' box? How frequently are they going to be checking data on a per-user basis?

It isn't, which is kind of hilarious. The only people it's going to deter are "casual pirates" or people not smart enough to circumvent it. The people they're claiming they want to stop are likely to not be affected one iota because they already know how to get around it.

[Alyeska]

Downloading intellectual property for which one did not pay is no different than walking into the mall, stuffing one's pocket with compact discs or tape cassettes, and leaving without first paying at the cash register. The penalties for digital piracy are disproportionate, and therefore both absurd and unjust, but the criminality, while widespread and easy, is nonetheless obvious.

All of the "battles" to "fight" illegal behavior are waged on the consumer dime. When Target or WalMart are hit by shoplifters, preventive measures must be applied, and stock replaced. The price of the remaining goods for sale then rise accordingly. Mr. Hunt's particular criticism is, on the fact of it, ridiculous.

You've already been Dogpiled, but seriously man. You damned well know this example is fucking bullshit.

[Alyeska]

DRM isn't about Piracy, its about Money.

Ars Technica
Link

MPAA: DRM "helps honest users"

DRM is your friend, didn't you know? Without it, says Dan Glickman, you wouldn't know your limits, you wouldn't know what was right. You big idiot, you.
By Ken Fisher | Last updated February 10, 2006 11:03 AM

and more recently.

Ars Technica
Link

Privately, Hollywood admits DRM isn't about piracy

Perspective: Hollywood is talking off the record about its real reason for wanting DRM?opportunities to sell you back your rights.

As I've always suspected, the claims about piracy are bullshit. Its not about piracy. Its about greed and the desire to fleece more money out of the customer. Criminalize fair use and make people pay to get the same product on multiple formats.