There are many websites today which allow you to watch video clips, listen to music or read e-books for free. Due to a recent change in the law we may see the end of these media showcases.
Sites such as YouTube and FaceBook among others, broad cast a range of videos and other media which the public upload to and from their computers. However, many of these have broken copyright laws leaving the holders very much out of pocket. The Bill, first announced in the Queen’s speech in 2009 went through the third and final reading of the House of Lords last Wednesday and looks like it will be pushed through tomorrow despite much opposition from parties such as the Open Rights Group.
Most of the argument against the bill is said to be based on free speech, but I suspect most people are more concerned about not getting their free videos and music any more.
The digital economy bill will soon see the problem of copyright infringement start to face a steep decline. The idea is to attack the organ grinder as there are far too many monkeys out there for it to be worthwhile attacking each and every one. This would be very time consuming and cost far more money to enforce.
Amendment 120a will be aimed at those who make it possible for these sites to host the illegal material. The ISPs will foot the bill for all illegal activity and make the offending parties cover the costs. It is in the interest of the ISPs to shut down sites such as YouTube (the popular video streaming site).
YouTube hosts many examples of live footage from music concerts, which ultimately leaves the copyright holder losing money they are legally entitled to. The hosts of the material will be liable for court charges and heavy fines received by their ISPs. Clause17 will make it possible for any Secretary of State to change the 1988 copyright, designs and patents act without the need to gain parliamentary approval.
This change could lead to the consumer benefiting in regards to price as the copyright holders will not need to raise the prices of products in order to compensate for the illegal sharing that we see happening all the time today. This will also mean that, should sites such as YouTube want to carry on providing their services to the public; every video will have to go through a strict vetting process before making it onto our personal computers. We may not see this happen instantly, but over time the ISPs will start to realise the detrimental effects this illegal behaviour is having to their pay cheques, leaving them with no other choice but to hunt down the cyber criminals themselves and start a vetting process to prevent the activity before it starts. This could leave the process of creating websites a very long one indeed.
My advice is to go out and buy the media legally. After all I’m sure you would not be too happy to see your creations contributing to other peoples profits. There is a reason for the protection of a copyright and this, my friends, is it.
------ Other articles of interest ------
Tags: digital economy bill, economics, liberty, News, Politics
The arguments against the Digital Economy Bill are wide-ranging and varied and to posit that the reason for opposition to this lousy piece of legislation is a selfish desire to breach copyright is *astonishingly naive*. The burden that this bill puts on ISPs is dangerous, expensive and unprecedented. ISPs are being asked to rebuild their business models and be ready with a potential criminal profile of every end user, not for the sake of struggling artists but solely for the benefit of powerful corporate rightsholders. The burden this puts on ISPs is a bureaucratic nightmare that could force ISPs to shut down and move away (I work at an ISP and I know), just when Britain should be encouraging broadband provision as an important social utility. The best measures indicate that the cost of enforcing this bill will quickly eclipse any monetary benefit to rightsholders.
Asking ISPs to be mainly responsible for copyright enforcement on the internet is like asking roadbuilders to be responsible for policing drunk driving or water utilities to be responsible for policing drownings. It is a poorly-thought-through pandering to a few record companies and media conglomerates that creates a chilling effect on the use of the internet to the detriment of the populace. First, no one will be able to walk into an internet cafe or hotel lobby and check their e-mails on their laptop. Every use of the internet will have to be documented with a name and address, in case there is a change that this person illegally downloads material. The convenience and freedom of the average person will be impinged for no proportionate benefit. Shouldn’t that weigh into your analysis?
And on what basis do you posit that this will lead to a sharp decline in copyright infringement? This has not been the case in France where a government agency was set up to do what the British government is asking the ISPs to do.
I too agree that people should not download media illegally. However, I do not believe for a second that this Bill is the solution to the problem. “Free speech” happens to be something some of us still hold close to our hearts, something that some of us are still willing to fight for, something that our forefathers fought and died for. I disagree with your attempt to trivialise the importance of free speech by dismissing it and “suspecting” that it’s simply people who want to download free music and/or films. It is “free speech” that entitles you to “suspect” whatever you please.
I don’t even know where to begin about your (misguided) views about YouTube. “YouTube hosts many examples of live footage from music concerts, which ultimately leaves the copyright holder losing money they are legally entitled to”. You’re making an assumption that every single user who happens to view footage of a concert that is on YouTube should be made to pay, and the fact that they do not pay means the artists (performers) are losing out on cold hard cash. Have you ever heard of the “try before you buy” concept? In my opinion YouTube, in it’s relatively short existence, has given the world much more than “free concerts” (anyone still remember “Charlie Bit Me”?). YouTube is also a service that can be used by independent musicians who don’t have the marketing muscle of the major record labels to get their work out to the world, and I suspect that this is what frightens the major record labels (it’s an alternative that by-passes the major labels, hence the major labels lose out).
You talk about “Clause 17″ as though it’s a good thing. If you honestly believe that the giving the power to the Secretary of State to amend legislation without the consent of Parliament is a good thing, then I would hate to hear your views on democracy. I suppose you also agree that slipping this Bill into legislation using the “wash-up” process is also a good thing, and that Lord Mandelson is an honourable man who is untainted by scandal and whose wants for nothing more than what’s best for Britain.
It would be nice to also hear your views on the presumption of guilt – something else written into this Bill. Just being accused of downloading pirated material is enough to treat someone as though they actually did it. This is fine? Of course there is an appeals process, but appealing will cost the “accused” (oops, sorry, I meant guilty parasitic downloader who infringes copyright) money to do so.
My advice to those hoping to attain fame and fortune for being creative is to roll with the times and to embrace new media – after all, it’s the future and no amount of legislation will ever stamp it out completely. It will survive in one form or another somewhere, and the countries that do embrace it will thrive in the new digital era. Also, copyright holders should stop crying to the government because their antiquated business models can’t survive in today’s world, and artists who feel robbed because they created something and weren’t rewarded with a truck load of cash should wake up and smell the coffee.
I’m on the fence on this one. I can see the dangers to free speech if this potential law is misused (like the anti-terrorism measures), but I’ve also met many, many people who use the internet mainly to download and use pirated software, films and music. Then share them about without a qualm.
Now, if I’d spent days, maybe weeks crafting an original piece of work I would hate people treating it like junk that they can take and share at will. Especially if they surround it with their own adsense and affiliate ads in the process.
The real argument is about how much they charge for their stuff. Maybe if it was properly priced then the free swapping would decline rapidly.
The reason prices are so high is due to the illegal streaming – the reason for the streaming is the high prices – its not as circular as it is central line looking….lol
No really everyone knows the prices are ridiculous, doesnt harm the big companies but the little guys suffer!
“This change could lead to the consumer benefiting in regards to price as the copyright holders will not need to raise the prices of products in order to compensate for the illegal sharing that we see happening all the time today.”
With respect, this sentence is pure nonsense. Copyright holders who are feeling less pressure from illegal downloads won’t lower their prices as a result. The exact opposite will occur because they have less ‘competition’.
It’s not a coincidence that as downloading has become more prevalent the prices for albums and DVD on the High Street or online have dropped. Only a decade ago a new ‘vanilla’ DVD would cost you somewhere between £17-20. Today the price is half that.
Less competition leads to higher prices, not lower prices.
I agree with the other commentors, it’s not the fact that there is legislation against illegal downloading that is controversial. It’s how it goes about it. It’s the removal of fundamental rights such as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the introduction of universal surveillance of net usage via DPI (presently illegal under UK law), the removal of democratic oversight and the introduction of website blocking that WILL be abused both by Government and corporations to restrict free speech.
All it will do is falsely catch alot of people who have no idea their connection is being used in that way, or are not doing anything wrong at all; block lots of legitimate websites – freedom of speech ones – wikileaks and cryptome for example. The people you’re really after will just encrypt everything (alot are already) and access blocked websites via countries with less strict access rules (MI5 have commented on this regarding tracking criminals).
Does this mean google will pull out of the UK in the same way they are in China – we will be on equal footing then.
@Jeff Taylor: I know what you mean – there are many such people out there, and I certainly do not condone such behaviour. I still don’t see copyright infringement as a justification to impose such draconian and extreme laws (especially laws that remove the presumption of innocence). Has there been a study to ascertain if such downloaders would actually purchase media legally if they were (somehow) prevented from downloading it using P2P services? What about careful consideration about what this Bill is really going to do to Britain’s digital economy?
Excerpts from the first paragraph of http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/Page2830.asp:
“…world-class digital future…”
“…world leading digital knowledge economies…”
“…maximise the benefits from the digital revolution…”
All sounds good, yet one of the first consequences of this Bill will be the closure of WiFi hotspots. Libraries, Internet cafes, B&Bs (etc) will not be able to run the risk of being fined, and certainly will not be able to police their connections like an ISP.
In regards to your comments about spending weeks creating something only to have other people profiteer from your work… I willingly do this (and sometimes I spend years creating something, only to give it away). I contribute to the “open source” movement. I create software that companies and/or individuals can download, use, and modify however they please – totally free of charge. It’s my way of giving something back to an industry that has given me so much (and I like to think that I’m contributing to humanity rather than concentrating on stuffing my pockets). This started when I was fairly young and wrote a simple piece of software that enabled dyslexics to read what was on a computer screen (before GUIs like Windows were mainstream). Giving it away just seemed like the right thing to do. Don’t misunderstand me – I’m not a “Leftie” and I like the capitalist “free enterprise” way (when it’s not corrupted by a powerful minority). Also, it just so happens that I have managed to “stuff my pockets” along the way by means of support, consultancy work, share options, and other projects that availed themselves as a direct result of the work I gave away for free.
I don’t believe it’s simply the high price of legal media – there’s also the convenience factor. People can get online and download a track with a couple of clicks. The creative industry needs to move with the times and embrace this!
You make some very good point there AC, maybe a mixture is needed. But there has to be more protection for those that create. Giving it away should be, as in your case their decision. It should not be everyone else’s.
Biased Biased Biased. Face it. Wake up. “Illegal downloads” are NOT harming the movie/music industry. Their profits are still high. These so called losses that once in a while pop up in the media is PR biased funded studies. Most music lovers and movie fans do go to the cinema and do buy CDs/DVDs. The music/movie industry are the ones who should adapt to the new technologies. Offer some sort of download mechanism where users can pay like 0.99 per music. If the website is nice and clean, say like iTunes, a lot of people would not mind using it.
I did admit that it probably does not harm the major comapanies but the smaller independant people suffer. Especially when it comes to things such as ebooks, its hard in the publishing world. To aquire a deal with a publisher is hard enough you earn little royalties at first, it doesnt help if people are downloading them for free.
i-Tunes music is cheap isn’t it? But people still illegally download. If it was such a small problem then why is the music industry so hot under the collar about it?
Theft is theft.
There is no grey area.
@Jeff Taylor – the music industry is so “hot under the collar” because they want more money. Just because we’re in a recession and millions of people can barely feed themselves and their families, this industry feels that it is being robbed and cheated. Just because every piece of “artistic work” doesn’t result in truck loads of money (for the artist), the artist has a hissy fit. There are other market forces at play (a lot of music produced simply isn’t worth buying), but it’s all too easy to point the finger at illicit file sharing.
@Mr Ben Carter – I agree fully and whole heartedly. Theft is theft, and there is no grey area. This does not, however, give the government the right to legislate undemocratic laws to combat theft, or give the Secretary of State the power to amend British legislation without the consent of Parliament, or give anyone the right to presume a person is guilty just because they have been accused of something.
The best thing that has come of this is the British people have been made aware of this “wash-up” process that exists. I’ve also read several posts where there is talk of boycotting the purchase of any music and videos in protest. I don’t see this falling outside the realm of possibility, especially once hard working decent honest people start receiving letters accusing them of pirating music and discovering that challenging the accusation will cost them a substantial amount of money. It will be even easier for a boycott to gain momentum when people start realizing that the presumption of innocence has been replace with a presumption of guilt.
Jeff Taylor says: “…giving it away should be, as in your case their decision. It should not be everyone else’s….”
Jeff – I fully agree! The decision to give away work for free is at the discretion of the creator (or the rights holder). Kernel Sanders had the right to continue selling his fried chicken door to door, or to set up a number of restaurants and then start a franchise.
Those who choose to exercise their rights to use an obsolete antiquated distribution systems only to find that it simply doesn’t work (even when/if piracy is minimized) shouldn’t go crying “foul play”.
[...] For a different opinion on the Digital Economy Bill, read the article on the Economic Voice. [...]
I hope you will keep updating your content constantly as you have one dedicated reader here.
Congratulations! You have just won a new blog reader
.. really awesome article, Mike.
[...] The Digital Economy Bill « The Economic Voice [...]
Thanks for writing this info. We have been looking about this on msn and I am happy to find your post. I will return in the future for updates.
Hello, just doing some research for my New Hampshire 4g website. Amazing the amount of information on the web. Not what I was looking for, but nice site. Cya later.