Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DMCA Amendment Proposed For UK

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the some-ides-are-better-than-others dept.

Censorship 208

Grumbleduke writes "During today's debate in the UK's House of Lords on the much-criticized Digital Economy Bill, the unpopular Clause 17 (which would have allowed the government to alter copyright law much more easily than it currently can) was voted out in favor of a DMCA-style take-down system for websites and ISPs. The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to pay the copyright owner's legal fees. This amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, which had so far been seen as the defenders of the internet and with the Conservative party supporting them. The UK's Pirate Party and Open Rights Group have both strongly criticized this new amendment."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Actually, most of the world's getting it (4, Informative)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355834)

Worse, it's in the ACTA treaty:

Their goal is to conclude the ACTA agreement by the end of 2010. Countries involved are Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States (US) - and others will be pressured to join afterward.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (5, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355962)

Seeing zero reporting on this in the media (apart from the excellent interviews professor Geist linked on his blog [michaelgeist.ca] ). Big media all for this. The majority of "big media" business models are based on artificial scarcity [wikipedia.org] . That is, big media charge for the packaging and distribution of bits and bytes as a if these things are scarce commodity. Note that I am not talking about the actual artistic content creation, but only the packaging and distribution. Packaging and distribution are certainly value adding exercises, but when talking about digital media, the cost to reproduce and distribute is a fixed cost or as close to fixed as you can get (see wikipedia article reference - "duplicated billions of times over for a relatively cheap production price (an initial investment in a computer, an internet connection, and any power consumption costs; and these are already fixed costs in most environments)").

It is physically impossible to maintain the current (substantial) profit differential between charging for the packaging and distribution of each digital item as if it is a scarce commodity, while running that part of their operation at or very close to fixed cost (The most profitable and central part of big media). Any other business model that embraces the digital medium for what it is (a fixed cost medium for duplication/distribution), and not based on artificial scarcity simply could never maintain the same levels of profitability they currently enjoy.

They only have one choice if they wish to maintain their currently profit levels: Legislate scarcity into the digital medium (hence we see secret ACTA treaties and other morally questionable political clout being thrown about in favor of this goal)

If we actually talk about the artistic content creation part of the business model, that could be considered and entirely different issue. Big media obviously pay artists to produce content. The interesting "moral high ground" issue that both sides of the debate are claiming revolves around the question of if Big Media should also be allowed by society to charge for artificial scarcity well into the future (even well beyond the original artists death!) because they also happened to contract the artists to create the work to begin with. Big Medias defense so far seems to me to be a "muddy the debate" tactic, ignoring the artificial scarcity issue entirely and just shouting "your damaging the artists" in an effort to maintain the moral high ground.

Who can you trust? (2, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356046)

The supposingly "defenders of the Internet" turn out to be the one who table the bill.

Who else can you trust?

Internet is indeed the whipping boy of the political scums !

Re:Who can you trust? (2, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356972)

Not exactly surprising.
Now all that have to do is slap a copyright notice on anything embarrassing.
Next time someone leaks the MP's expenses or some other embarrassing piece of info they can just send a takedown to have it blocked.

The DMCA has a few half decent elements like the safe harbour stuff and a lot of awful crap.
I just wish that when other governments try to copy the idea they'd learn from others and at the very least try to magnify the good and cut out the crap.

Instead they do the exact opposite, rather than exclude material with significant political implications and material which is in the public interest to know to prevent copyright law being used in place of the official secrets act they write it with that goal in mind.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356268)

A very good point. I have a sinking feeling about the whole matter.

I've grown up in a world where items of negligible value are price-inflated through packaging, advertising and pointless distribution channels. I have had enough. Now when I buy something, be it a movie, music or a game I seem to own nothing less than the packaging, whereas the items I desire remains the property of those who sold it to me and I am denied any freedom in it's usage.

This is a hypocrisy of greed.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356360)

It is physically impossible to maintain the current (substantial) profit differential between charging for the packaging and distribution of each digital item as if it is a scarce commodity, while running that part of their operation at or very close to fixed cost (The most profitable and central part of big media). Any other business model that embraces the digital medium for what it is (a fixed cost medium for duplication/distribution), and not based on artificial scarcity simply could never maintain the same levels of profitability they currently enjoy.

Your assuming that a decrease in price point won't increase sales, by a similar ratio. In other words if they cut the cost by 50% and the sales increase by a little over double( double would assume that the cost to them was 0 per copy), then the profit margin would not change.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (5, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356548)

Your assuming that a decrease in price point won't increase sales, by a similar ratio. In other words if they cut the cost by 50% and the sales increase by a little over double( double would assume that the cost to them was 0 per copy), then the profit margin would not change.

That is only based on the assumption that only "they" can distribute the media - so we are back where we started - legislating artificial scarcity into the unlimited copies, fixed cost distribution medium so that only those who are allowed by law to distribute can profit - everyone else cannot benefit from the Internets innovation. In the "normal" scarce goods model, distributors (companies running trucks, boats...) all take their cut of the profits for moving the physical goods around (and employed people outside of big media in the process). Big Media does not need those distributors anymore, at least not like they needed them before to before move CD boxes around. However In the Internets fixed cost distribution medium *anyone* can distribute, and redistribute for fixed cost. Without ACTA and legislation there is no massive profit for moving bits and bytes around. The power to reach people goes back to the artist and is no longer solely in the hands of of a few big media companies who used to be the only ones who could facilitate the distribution of their artistic works to the masses. However the artist can't try and ride on the next to free fixed cost distribution but charge for artificial scarcity either - profit is no longer in distribution (without ACTA and strict laws forcing artificial scarcity into the internet, that is).

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356702)

Now it's down to the artists to not renew contracts, and instead distribute their music to their fans themselves. Profits can be made selling merchandise and playing live.

Anyway, I look forward to Every. Single. Search Engine. being blocked by Every. Single. ISP. because they all link to infringing content. Hell, Google Images is the largest database of copyrighted images on the internet.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31357046)

All you will be allowed access to is the Government website, that tells you that everything is just fine.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356552)

Actually the profit margin would change.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (2, Interesting)

TractorBarry (788340) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356542)

One thing that totally clarifies this point for me is the fact that any sequence of bytes can be thought of as a number. If the byte stream is large (long ?) then admittedly we're talking about a huge number but it's still effectively just a number. The fact that this number can be interpreted by software and hardware to represent music, film, images, words etc. is very nice but doesn't change the fact that it's just a number.

So would it make sense to have a business model that tried to charge people money for telling each other a number ? Obviously not. Imagine trying to stop Jim from telling Tim that by writing the byte representation of 4,932,345 into a file he could load this file in "SoftwareX" which would then play Beethovens Vth or load the same file into "SoftwareY" which would show him a picture of a naked lady.

Selling numbers (in the form of collections of bits) is an anachronism which will go the way of the Dodo. You can't stop numbers being copied, used, added to, factored, divided, multiplied etc. etc. (well not without killing off maths !)

The only business model that will survive is one in which people pay for access to collections of well catalogued, well maintained works which they can add to themselves. And we all know somewhere this is already happening. A lot of us probably already subscribe to such a service.

Large music/film companies seem to be run by complete idiots who simply can't adapt from their old business model of selling physical copies in the form of vinyl, cassettes, film reels etc. and are going to die off. Sadly they have the financial muscle to temporarily hinder progress by buying laws etc. but this is only temporary. They are in their death throes and will not last long.

In the meantime it simply means a lot of people are going to made into criminals for making use of maths. What a fine society we live in !

Once a work can be represented by a number (held as a sequence of bytes) it's duplication and delivery costs are so close to zero they might as well be zero. This is a fact made possible by the internet, electricity and maths. Numbers do not recognise the concept of artifical scarcity.

Oh well on with the show...

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (2, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356868)

In the meantime it simply means a lot of people are going to made into criminals for making use of maths.

Anything bar a physical entity can be replicated as a number (if others have a means to interpret it) including novels, music, blueprints and medical formulas. The entire premise that limiting the unauthorised distribution of anything without a physical form is punishing people for using maths is pure and utter nonsense.

If you don't think people should have a right to control anything other than a physical entity then cut out the amateur debating of a dubious premise and get to that point.

Personally I have no issue with granting people this right but feel these rights should be sufficient not excessive.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31357050)

So would it make sense to have a business model that tried to charge people money for telling each other a number ? Obviously not.

Try telling that to the horse racing punters, they have essentially being doing that for years

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (0, Offtopic)

Joakal (1317443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356560)

I'm trying to ask parties to fill out a survey for shockseat.com which includes asking of the issue of copyright infringement protections which include DMCA or similar. Unfortunately, out of 26 parties [shockseat.com] , only the Liberal Democratic Party has accepted and filled out the survey promptly. If you're concerned about DMCA or any of the issues [shockseat.com] from the sample survey, please encourage the parties to fill the survey out.

New Zealand has started already (3, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356040)

ACTA Jr has been introduced to Parliament [creativefreedom.org.nz] in New Zealand a week ago. It includes 3 strikes, and responsibility for the ISP to keep IP address records.

We've had a few talks about it at work, and the general consensus is that it's a joke, with so many ways to render the IP addresses "evidence" questionable... and subjective application of the disconnection criteria and fines... but it's one we have to stop. You don't lose your phone if you break a law with it, and you shouldn't lose your internet connection (email, facebook, skype, etc) for the same.

Re:New Zealand has started already (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356270)

No, you don't lose your phone when you are accused of a crime, and you shouldn't lose your internet connection based solely on accusations (even if proven).

Re:New Zealand has started already (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356432)

The Internet should be thought of as a road. If I am caught selling copied DVDs on the road I don't loose my driving license.

links the the relevant pages (2, Informative)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356070)

page 27 requires that "the online service providers act expeditiously, in accordance with applicable law, to remove or disable access to infringing material or infringing activity upon obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement" - i.e. upon receiving a cease-and-desist letter.

Page 3 [swpat.org] has the current working text about "n order to a party to desist from an infringement" and which the EU wants to be written as "The Parties shall also ensure that the right holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right."

Page 30 [swpat.org] contains the Japanese proposal which is the current working text: 3 ter. Each Party shall enable right holders, who have given effective notification to an online service provider of materials that they claim with valid reasons to be infringing their copyright or related rights, to expeditiously obtain from that provider information on the identity of the relevant subscriber.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356078)

Michael Geists recent 20min presentation [michaelgeist.ca] to American Uni, Washington College of Law was very interesting, he basically says that ACTA is a sly underhanded run-around of existing treaty. If I understood correctly, big media/content producers did not like having to negotiate using open democratic processes built into existing agreements - so they sponsored ACTA to subvert the democratic process. Worth watching to understand where ACTA is coming from.

Re:Actually, most of the world's getting it (5, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356476)

In Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea,New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States in theory you can find the political party and minster linked to this.
Stay on public property and expose them.
Never drive to an event, they will note all car license plates in the area.
Read out the laws they are working on in your name in dark places.
Speak some truths at their next walk about, meet and greet, mall trip or suburban town hall meeting.
Have a few friends around you to film the response of their public security and party helpers.
If they allow you to protest, keep on showing up.
If they get physical you have some great clips for the local news, youtube and keep on showing up.
File complaints about your mis treatment, turn up in court with video evidence and a real lawyer.
Always ask for the collar numbers/shoulder number/badge number of anyone without it on display.
Make sure your friends record the reaction.

UK won't have a "Digital Economy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356606)

Lets see. If Digital is a codeword for RBS, a Northern Rock Model.
UK makes computer Hardware / Adds value: No.
UK software research and Development growing: No
UK hosting porn and download servers: No
UK Digital Gambling: No
In a position that will CREATE jobs: No
Will help out struggling UK CD shops: No.

I see a sea of red ink, and punters subscribing to crypto proxies. In Yes Minister speak, this is not helping, but putting the boot in.

... shall have regard ... to any other matters (3, Informative)

cyclomedia (882859) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355858)

Sigh, it's another kind of super injunction and of course there's a catch all, meaning it can be used not just against copyright infringment but "any issues of national security" or "any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant". So Mr. Billy Footballer could seek an injunction to block a website because it has a photo of him snorting coke on it, probably.

From TFL:

97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement
(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.
(2) In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—
(a) whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,
(b) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),
(c) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,
(d) any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State.
(e) the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,
(f) the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property, and
(g) any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.

Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355882)

they might as well make a law, "everything that should be not be legal is illegal."

Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356494)

they might as well make a law, "everything that should be not be legal is illegal."

Please, stop feeding them ideas !!

Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356744)

97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement

Which can be roughly translated as... torrent index sites and commercial BT proxies, They can't ban a protocol but they can ban some of the popular index hosts and anonymizers, so that's what they're doing.

The best part is they can use this legislation to block foreign hosts quite easily, so whether or not TPB is legal in Sweden has little bearing on whether you in the UK, USA, Canada, NZ, Aussie, Japan, Korea, and others can access it. No, you can't find your favorite free-to-air TV programme (or Japanese porn, for that matter) via the internet. Crap, it's worse than just not downloading, now you probably won't even know it exists if "they" don't market it to you.

It seems that we'll be facing the home-grown Great Firewall Of Western Media. China's got nothing on us now.
 

Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters (1)

Aradiel (1631073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356796)

But when a site is blocked or taken down, another will pop up. It will never stop. New sites will always appear.

Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356840)

Agreed, and there are "technical" ways around all of the legislation and take-downs, but they're not trying to block the hardcore geeks, they're trying to block the masses... the folks who have never heard of IRC, and to stop them reaching the biggest index sites like TBP, Mininova, etc.

Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters (1)

Aradiel (1631073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31357042)

But I wasn't meaning that the tech-savvy could easily get around the legislation, more that if, for example, Pirate Bay was taken done, Pirate Buoy would be up within a few hours.

Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356822)

This sounds pretty reasonable - especially (e).

Not making your 'back catalogue' accessible? No blocking of sites linking to someone elses copy of it.

Book out of print and not available as an ebook? No blocking of sites linking to an electronic copy someone else has produced.

This'll be interesting for Disney who regularly restrict the availability of their copyrighted works as a buisiness model.
And it also seems to provide a get-out clause for linking to films & games that are not available in the UK and have not been sent to the BBFC for certification.

I also think it could be used as a defence of modchip makers if their products give enough additional functionality that console makers block. i.e. I believe this would require console makers allow homebrew or allow modchips!

And the removal of the blanket powers for the government to make changes to the copyright legislation with the need for further papers/bills is a huge win for the public. It shows that the house of lords won't go for this in general (as well as benefiting this bill).

Re:... shall have regard ... to any other matters (1)

pdunning (1159915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356938)

It's worth noting that this "UK DMCA" will require a court injunction. I.e. not just a take-down notice. There are also lines in there for facilitating legal access. Does this mean abandonware etc can't be locked up by copyright years after production ends? I also fail to see why national security should affect copyright - we have the official secrets act for that.

Change is coming? (-1, Troll)

Stereoface (1400061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355870)

Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living. I'm not the biggest fan of the DMCA but it's still a push in the right direction. We've been stuck in this limbo of lost revenue since 1998 (napster era) and we'll be this way forever it seems. If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should. Many countries will follow suit on any action. The DMCA sucks for users, but doing nothing is worse for the entertainment industries by far. Sitting around while ISPs play the middle ground simply isn't fair to anyone. Any action is going to be better than what we're doing now.

No it doesn't (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31355912)

You make a very flawed and entitled assumption: that 100% of these pirates were going to buy "legal" stuff (had it been the only thing available) you say is "lost revenue".

WRONG!!!!!!

You must understand why stuff like this is pirated? CONVENIENCE. Do you REALLY think that teenager was going to buy 10,000 songs on CD if he couldn't get mp3s? You you really think all those MILLIONS downloads of $5K Photoshop would have been real purchases? You need to face reality on what would have been really lost. 99% of piracy, those would have never translated to real sales.

Re:Change is coming? (4, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355934)

What do you mean since 1998? I'm pretty sure music producers have been in limbo of lost revenue since the invention of the home recording devices like the compact cassette. And the music performers have been in severe limbo of lost revenue since the invention of the phonograph.

But as Lawrence Lessig already pointed out, this hasn't killed culture or entertainment, but resulted in new forms of entertainment (and income through other means).

Re:Change is coming? (2, Funny)

Aradiel (1631073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356806)

Home taping is killing music!

Re:Change is coming? (5, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355960)

Bollocks. Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players. As for doing nothing, that's what you want to do, right? Not change? Your old business model doesn't work any more, so man up and deal with it. Improve your marketing and online distribution, stream it from your site for a taste, and sell CDs and whatnot online. Christ, you bitch about lost sales but you don't even have a link to your website in your profile!

You'd rather fuck the entire online communication revolution because you can't compete? No. We (the entire technically literate world under 40) won't let that happen.

Re:Change is coming? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356036)

Slashdot needs a +2 Extra Insightful mod option

Re:Change is coming? (4, Funny)

SlashDread (38969) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356074)

Hey! I resent that! I won't let that happen too!

A technically literate over 40.

Re:Change is coming? (2, Informative)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356152)

No offense intended! Age is not a factor, and indeed I have some more senior IT colleagues who will also object strongly to this ACTA nonsense. Importantly, I expect that the 40+ group is likely to be taken more seriously by the politicians.

Re:Change is coming? (3, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356430)

Hey! I resent that! I won't let that happen too!

A technically literate over 40.

Hey, I resent that too!

A numerically literate 40-year old.

Re:Change is coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356090)

It's already happening, and unless you are willing to pour tons of cash your vote wont count at all. Power is for those with money, not the average citizen.

Re:Change is coming? (2, Insightful)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356150)

Bollocks. Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players.

Wrong. This is exactly what the majority of consumers want. Case in point, American Idol. Lady Gaga, etc.

Sure, they spend an asston on promotion and create the hype, but people happily eat it up. No, they can't help but eat it up or feel like a loser because it's been drilled into them that they NEED to hear the next throwaway artist or risk not being hip and cast out of society.

Re:Change is coming? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356156)

usual bullshit excuses.
You people ranted that music couldnt be bought as single tracks. you'd buy it then.

You didn't.

Then you ranted that it cost too much, if it was a dollar, you'd buy it.

You didn't

Then you ranted that DRM was stopping you buying, you'd buy it if they removed the DRM

You didn't.

Now you are dreaming up some new bullshit. What next? You'd buy it only if a dozen cheerleadeers came round and gave you a blowjob with every track?

At what point do you pathetic kids grow up and reslise you are tight asses who steal because you think you won't get caught. Everything else is bullshit and you know it.

Re:Change is coming? (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356252)

I'm over 40 you insensitive clod. And I'm technically literate!

Re:Change is coming? (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356414)

Please see apology above. I was thinking angry Gen-X'ers when I wrote that, but there's plenty of 40, 50 and older folks who understand the issues and think ACTA is a very very bad idea.

Re:Change is coming? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31355994)

I see what you did there...

Re:Change is coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356002)

"If we need to push hard for the world of internet consumers to realize the damage they cause- then we should."

Ironically the music industry is doing all it can to do twice the damage to itself.

Have you actually tried buying music online? It's a clusterfuck of arbitrary country restrictions, crappy payment systems, DRM, bad quality and annoying forced marketing.

Purchase:
1. search for online store
2. search for 10 other online stores until you find one that actually sells to your country
3. search for another store that actually offers a payment system that works for you AND sells to your country
4. realise you have to pay 200-300% of what US customers pay
5. realise you'll only get 128 kbps quality with DRM
6. register an account with the store
7. pay
8. contact support and wait for your purchase for a week, because the store software screwed up
9. download
10. setup spam filter to stop them from sending you inevitable newsetter spam

Sounds convoluted? That's how about 80% of my music/video game purchases end. It's a nightmare. No wonder people pirate:
1. enter "albumname torrent" in Google
2. download

Re:Change is coming? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356356)

Or just go to http://www.gemm.com/ [gemm.com] and enjoy 33 Million records, LPs, CDs and more from over 30,000 sellers
The sites are around, the costs can be reduced, VISA helps.
No need to fall for DRM online tracks.

Re:Change is coming? (3, Insightful)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356138)

Bullshit.

Take this from someone who sees 100+ concerts a year & buys alot of CD's:
Piracy is NOT the problem, quality is.

About 99% of current music simply sucks monkey balls, they would have to pay m to even listen to me
Ripping off customers: Why do cd's feature different numbers of tracks for different countries?!
Artificial scarcity: Some cd's don't see a release in this or that country for no logical reason, or are unavailable for sale because, well, they stopped making them
No means of listening to the whole cd before actually buying the bloody thing

That said, i'm a big last.fm user, and i still buy a lot of cd's at concerts directly of the bands (whom tend to be smaller bands mostly), but sampling a cd before buying it requires piracy.

Re:Change is coming? (1)

gnud (934243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356786)

I'm using a free spotify account to sample CDs before buying. The ads are annoying, but since I only use it when listening to music that's new to me, I can live with it.

Re:Change is coming? (5, Insightful)

Heed00 (1473203) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356276)

Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living.

Why should I care whether you can make a living or not?

I might care about the continued production of content (the music itself), but you most certainly are not necessary for that to continue. You might believe you are and you might believe you are entitled to make a living doing what you've always done, but that in no way makes it so. Many industries have changed over time and left people out of work and their old roles redundant -- we didn't legislate to keep those industries in limbo and those old roles viable -- nor should we legislate to keep your industry in limbo or your role viable.

It's the, "but, but, we're so important" attitude that really bites my ass. No, you're not -- you're Artie Fufkin -- now bend over and ask us all to collectively kick your ass. C'mon, for a man -- do it.

Re:Change is coming? (5, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356634)

I have some news for you: Music is nice to have, but I value my freedom and the Internet more. If you're going to stand between me and that, you're the one I can do without. And if you somehow succeed in instituting draconian laws, I'll make sure that not a cent of my money goes to you, and will simply find some other way to entretain myself.

If you want me to buy your music, make quality, unrestricted music. Drop the awful compression, drop the DRM, and drop the bullshit. Offer FLAC for download with no strings attached, selling individual tracks, and I could be interested. Sell DRMed stuff, and I definitely won't be.

BTW, I'm surprised you complain yet miss such an obvious chance to advertise your work. What do you make?

This is bad ? (0, Flamebait)

artg (24127) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355880)

Sounds like a good tradeoff to me. OK, it's harder for Joe Public to see a popular website, but it keeps the government's sticky fingers off the law, and 'satisfies' the DRM lobby with a technically unfeasible sop. Meanwhile, anyone who cares still has access via proxies, ssh tunnels, blah blah blah

no no no no... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31355898)

Along with our stupid libel laws this will destroy our democracy. This is no longer about kids sharing mp3s this is giving corporations and governments the power to silence anyone they want to.

For instance a lot of the documents leaked on wikileaks are copyrighted. So that's it, we will no longer be able to access anything that they don't want us to see. How about our MP's expenses that got leaked? Well that's copyrighted to the government right?

I also bet it wont even protect the little guy. If someone republishes my copyrighted work I bet the system won't even work unless I have a team of lawyers and a truck of money.

Its all just another way of suppressing us.

Re:no no no no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31357054)

No shit. What are you going to do about it?

One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (3, Interesting)

arethuza (737069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355966)

I had been contemplating voting Liberal Democrat as they seemed to have at least one MP who actually has a clue (Vince Cable) - which is one more than the other parties can muster. I'll go and read up on this and if they did table this then that's my vote going somewhere else... of to check the Pirate Party site to see if they are going to have a candidate here at the next general election.

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356066)

It would be more than one, actually. But they do constitute the strongest opposition to the Conservative Bastards who persuaded Mark Thompson to kill the BBC earlier this week. Arrgh!

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356092)

Yes, because if you don't vote for tweedledum, tweedledee will get in.
The system is flawed; your vote won't make the blindest bit of difference.
It's time to start thinking outside of the box for a change.

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356324)

The problem is, everyone thinks like this thus making the system flawed.

The amount of times I see and hear "I support "x", but I don't want "a" to get in and "b" is the only chance to knock "a" out". If 50% of the population thinks like this we have no chance of getting a party who is not corrupt and has a clue on modern society in power.

Stop tactically voting and go with the party you support for a change.

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356526)

You miss my point entirely.
Stop voting and start taking action that makes a difference.

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356142)

I'm suspicious that the whole Mark Thomas thing is a publicity stunt.

From my reading of the cutbacks, most of the justification seemed to be to avoid competing with commerical stations. There's always pressure from commercial radio to cut back on BBC because it takes away their market share.

What better way to shut them up than to say "OK, we're cutting back on areas in which we think there's commercial competition" and to get a massive public backlash saying that the commercial stations don't compete, at which point the BBC can just say "see, there isn't really any commercial competion in this area"?

It's a slightly risky strategy (e.g. if there was no backlash after all), but it seems to be paying off.

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (2, Informative)

stupid_is (716292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356218)

Mark Thomas [markthomasinfo.com] (who does do publicity stunts) is not Mark Thompson [wikipedia.org] , the DG@BBC.

The Beeb is being told to cut back on a lot of commercial activities (e.g. merchandising), which means a loss of revenue, which means cut-backs are inevitable. It would be nice if a start point was to stop paying rich folks quite so much in salaries, but that's only going to be a drop in the ocean for this, and there's a risk that they'll do a BA [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (3, Insightful)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356086)

For goodness sake let them know what you've just told us. A polite letter explaining that you were seriously intending to support them, but won't now, will do more than you might expect.

Parent modded troll? WTF (2, Insightful)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356274)

The usual keywords like "crack" "moderators" "on".

Re-arrange into a well know slashdot saying.

Re:Parent modded troll? WTF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356306)

I guess a Labour supporter figured out how to use the internet between picking up their unemployment benefits, applying for their ID card, and collecting their tax credits for contributing nothing to society.

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356288)

I'm of the same feeling here, I was certainly a Lib Dem voter until I read this. However, I do intend to seek clarification- is this just some Lord going off on his own little journey, or does it have party support?

The summary makes no fucking sense either, it seems to imply the Conservatives support the Lib Dems stance of challenging large parts of the bill. This is outright false, the Tories have only agreed to challenge clause 17 which gives Mandelson full control over copyright law with no parliamentary oversight and nothing more, in fact, to date, other than that, the only real noise we've heard from Tories officials on the bill is that they think the whole 3 strikes thing should've been done sooner, they believed it should've happened already.

I don't know who wrote the summary, but they clearly have no idea of the UK political situation regarding the DEB.

Certainly if the Tories get in, I think it's likely the DEB will remain as is, or perhaps be even worse, because they're at least as pro-music industry as Labour, possible more so, because David Cameron has a hard on for celebrities- i.e. putting a creative industries person in charge of his broadband/internet review rather than a technologist, putting Carol Vorderman (a highly numerate TV presenter) in charge of his maths review, rather than you know, a mathematician, missing the point that numeracy is just a tiny part of maths and hence being part the fucking problem with current maths education in not understanding maths himself. But then, I suppose putting people who would actually be competent at those roles, such as Tim Berners-Lee and Marcus du Sautoy would require some level of competence, which is a rare thing in public sector.

Of course, there are people for and against it in every party, the problem is those who are against it in the likes of the Conservatives such as David Davis no longer hold the power they once did. Those in Labour who disagreed with 3 strikes such as David Lammy and Stephen Timms have been mysteriously dragged into line to oddly now support it contradicting their original comments- I assume this is one of Dark Lord Mandelson's jedi mind tricks which would make sense in the context that Lammy is now in Mandelson's department.

Really, I don't expect that the Lib Dems would be perfect, but the difference with the Lib Dems is that their smarter people like Clegg, Cable, Huhne all hold prominent positions in the party, whilst in the other two parties, the smart people are marginalised and supressed.

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356540)

at least one MP who actually has a clue (Vince Cable)

I wonder if you're reffering to the same Vince Cable that supported a call to ciminalise patent infringement?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232130.stm

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (1)

arethuza (737069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356700)

My MP is this chap: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/mark_lazarowicz/edinburgh_north_and_leith [theyworkforyou.com]

Not a big majority and in a seat that I suspect will have a lot of strong feeling on this topic (particularly students). For £500 it might be worth standing as a Pirate myself..... :-)

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356754)

At this rate, and judging from all the ./ articles, your only hope is for Kim Jong Il to recover a Supreme Alien Weapon from the Sea of Japan and colonizing your country. That way you would probably keep some of your freedoms.

Re:One lost vote for the Liberal Democrats then (1)

mrsmiggs (1013037) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356948)

Lord Clement Jones has replied to critism of the ammendment
http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165.html [libdemvoice.org]

To sum up he argues that; this is only an addition to existing power of copyright holders in the UK and simply clarifies their role in the process.

I do think he misses the point however that this ammendment puts emphasis on the ISPs which provide any service that can access this material rather than those which host the material. It's one step closer to to a great firewall of the UK, I think this has been missed by commentators who have compared it to the DMCA and the vitriol in their critcism has somewhat distorted the issue.

ISP has no rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31355968)

If the ISP refuses the take-down notice, the copyright-holder can seek a court injunction. It doesn't speak of the ISP having rights in this process. Does a High court tribunal give the defendant a voice? Despite the USA forcing the ACTA upon its 'allies', those countries, such as the UK prefer to have trade agreements mirrored in law. This usually means a subtly different process between what the parliament approves and what the trade agreements demand.

Hmmm... could backfire (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31355972)

Someone somewhere will have published a novel about a bunch of lying thieving scumbag politicians working only to enrich themselves who bring in a load of legislation and powers that enable a police state. That person can then issue takedown notices against ALL government servers.

"Strongly critisise"? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31355980)

To hell with that. STOP THE THING. We cannot allow ignorance, fear, and greed to destroy our freedoms and rights any more.

Governments are only made up of people. They can and SHOULD be told that what they are doing is wrong, and blocked. They cannot be allowed to destroy all of the progress made just because a bunch of people are scared of the internet somehow destroying our way of life just because it gives the power back to the people.

It's time for the people who know better to stand up and block this garbage from happening. Stop doing weak garbage like "strongly criticizing" and go tell the old idiots off, and if they refuse, take back the government for the people. Certainly the UK has some sense of national need for a government that works for the people and not for those in power, right?

Overly broad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356004)

Took a quick look, it seems they have not made any provisions for making the block as specific as possible - if I am correct, this could turn properly silly: The entire of myspace.com blocked because someone claims that so-and-so on myspace.com infringes their copyright.

Blanket law (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356018)

The problem with these laws are that they pretty much cover anything and can easily be misused and breaking an injunction costs $$$ which means these laws favor corporations not consumers. A government is supposed to protect it's citizens and not play into the hands of large corporations.

A better solution would be for the record industry to realize CD is DEAD!!! Try to embrace the internet not fight against it, adapt or die a simple darwinian principle.

If you need a law like this make sure it's specific and that it target's real problems. The current problem with Piracy is born of record companies inadequacy to adapt and offer an alternative. Apple store is one of the few that exists and even there the record companies don't really like it.

I agree piracy is bad, but also it's like civil disobedience it points out there is a problem. There are lots of examples of civil disobedience that have inspired good change instead of more fear mongering and draconian rules.

Please stop using the word "table" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356052)

In the US, when you "table" a bill you kill it, whereas in the UK when you "table" a bill you introduce it. It can only cause confusion, so please find another word to use.

Not so surprising (3, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356054)

I'm disapointed with the Lib Dems (which are the 3rd largest party in the UK) but not overly surprised: they have pretty much adopted the style, dialetics and posture of the two major parties.

This probably goes a long way to explain why, at a time when people are very disapointed with politicians in the UK (and one would expect that the two main parties, being more visible, would bear the brunt of it), the Lib Dems are not increasing their share of the vote.

The sleazy salesmen in designer suits have taken over the party and the result is that people, instead of going for them as an alternative, are just not voting at all or voting for more fringe parties, especially younger people.

Honestly, even though they are a bit of a "one issue" party, the UK Pirate Party are more in tune with what matters for the Internet generation than any of the "traditional" parties. If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.

Re:Not so surprising (1)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356166)

If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.

I am and I still can't vote for the UK Pirate Party. I would if I could, but they don't have anyone standing for election in my area. It's like some kind of pseudo-democracy.

Re:Not so surprising (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356296)

No suitable candidate in your area? Stand yourself. That is how democracy works.

Re:Not so surprising (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356490)

Unfortunately a £500 deposit is payable to do this in the UK, and this is only returned if you receive more than 5% of the vote. It doesn't sound like a lot, but many people simply can't afford to spend that much.

Source: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/electing_mps/candidates.cfm

Re:Not so surprising (1)

chriseyre2000 (603088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356780)

You also need the backing of a certain number of voters from the area.

Re:Not so surprising (1)

FrostedWheat (172733) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356594)

I've thought about it, but I believe I would be doing the Pirate Party a disservice by standing in their name. They need people who can communicate well - that isn't me.

Re:Not so surprising (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356712)

So donate to them, write to them with coverage of these issues and your support of their stance regarding them, and become an activist. Offer your skills, if they are applicable. It could be web design, accounting, legal advice, whatever. Just show your support, and let others know why you do it.

Re:Not so surprising (2, Interesting)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356610)

If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.

I am and I still can't vote for the UK Pirate Party. I would if I could, but they don't have anyone standing for election in my area. It's like some kind of pseudo-democracy.

Want to stand as a candidate in the general election? Get in touch with us.

Re:Not so surprising (1)

arethuza (737069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356728)

Cool - I can just imagine the question "So, how did you get into politics"... "I replied to a posting on Slashdot"

So are the Pirate Party seriously looking for candidates? I live in Edinburgh North & Leith.

Re:Not so surprising (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356330)

I had a look at the PDF in question, and I think the summary may be somewhat wrong tbh. I'm not convinced this amendment has party support.

The layout of the PDF is confusing, it's hard to tell which names support the amendment, but if it's the ones before it, then the names listed are simply both the Lib Dem and the Tory ministers for culture and sport- i.e. those who are always most closely lobbied by the music industry.

If it's the names after, then it's still the Lib Dem culture and sport minister, coupled with Lord Razzall, one of the few Lib Dems who really did take the piss with expenses so someone whose corrupt to the core anyway.

I wouldn't assume from the summary alone that this is an indication of Lib Dem party support for the position- remember, Lords generally act much more independently and pursue their own paths more commonly than in the commons.

Pirate Party? (2, Insightful)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356056)

How is anyone going to take you seriously with a name like that?

Re:Pirate Party? (3, Funny)

qc_dk (734452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356146)

If you own a ship?

Re:Pirate Party? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356204)

[While I am a member of the Pirate Party UK, I speak only for myself here.]

“We recognise the iniquity of those seeking to prevent the development of free culture via immoral and questionable means, whilst portraying and labelling those that share information privately, and for no monetary gain, as nothing more than villainous, degenerate ‘pirates’. We seek to halt and de-construct the digital feudalism which now pervades the market, the reform of legislation that is currently manipulated to protect obsolete business models and feudalistic copyright controls.

“In response to this, the party has adopted the very term employed by associations and copyright maximalists, intended to demonise and promote further and more strict criminalisation of file sharing and free culture distribution, and used it to identify ourselves as a means of drawing attention to the fallacious nature of the label. It is true that we sail on the gales of creative destruction, however, we do so in the hope of aiding the creation of an open and democratic information society and founding of a cultural commons.”

— Quoted from the Pirate Party Australia, but the reasoning is the same.

It’s well known around here to be absurd that you’d equate people who commit copyright infringement with those who pillage and murder on the high seas, or that you’d equate piracy with theft when one is copying and the other is moving (completely different primitives)—the name is deliberately chosen to highlight that absurdity and provoke debate.

Re:Pirate Party? (2, Interesting)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356350)

I understand the reasoning behind it... but the problem is, the name will be way over the head of most people. Hardcore Geeks may get it. But hard-core geeks are not numerous enough to tip the scales in an election. We need to rally the common people behind us, or else it is a lost cause.

And how do you garner support with a name where almost half of your audience goes "is this like the beer-drinker's party", and almost the other half goes "so you mean, you want to get everything for free at the expense of the poor starving artists?". And only a tiny epsilon gets the sarcasm, but those won't vote for you either, because they'll assume that with such a name it's a lost cause, and their vote is better spent with the Green party.

IMHO, the "Open Rights Group" has a far better name than the "Pirate Party".

Re:Pirate Party? (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356454)

IMHO, the "Open Rights Group" has a far better name than the "Pirate Party".

Creative Freedom should merge with Pirate Party but keep the CF name. It keeps the intent but creates an image of supporting creative professionals, eg artists.

Re:Pirate Party? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356500)

There's sarcasm in the name? Everything I'd read makes it look like it is rather literal (using the media's definition) because they quite literally seem to want everyone to be able to download everything for free. They're possibly closest to my leanings because they realise that things like "fair use", "sensible legislation", "privacy" and "right to format-shift" make sense, but basically destroying/ignoring copyright (which is what FOSS is based on) takes it too far IMO.

As for the "open rights group", I don't think they've even made a splash in the UK, have they? I've never seen anything about them.

Re:Pirate Party? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31356730)

From my reading of the GPL, and similar licences, the foundations of Free Software are very much based on copyleft—which is a subversion of copyright to forcibly keep something open and prevent anyone from locking it away (rather than an affirmation of copyright by supporting the exclusive right to lock things away). In a hypothetical world with no copyright, while others would be free to swipe GPL work, you would also be free to swipe it right back, and both would be free to build upon the other. But that is not the world we live in, and I believe the GPL was an attempt by Stallman to take something that had been used in a bad way (copyright) and use it in a good way (hence “copyleft”).

More open licences which permit inclusion and linking with proprietary software, such as the 2-clause BSD or MIT licence, would, I do not think, in any material way be affected by the complete abolition of copyright, save for a requirement to attribute and thereby not plagiarise. (Effectively no-one stands for plagiarism.)

In any case, the Pirate Party stands for reasonable and balanced copyright laws; giving respect back to the public domain and the creative common. A moderate position, in my opinion, rather than an extreme one such as abolitionism, or the expanionist and overcriminalising views currently being heavily pushed by the people who have the most to gain and (they think) the least to lose from those views.

Re:Pirate Party? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356766)

While you could, in theory, "swipe it back" in a copyright-free world, you wouldn't get the requirement for access to source code. I see the GPL as a use of the rights granted by copyright to keep things open, rather than a subversion of a mechanism that it is completely at odds with.

MIT/BSD-like licenses would be unaffected in as much as people could still use the code as they wanted, but without copyright then I'd also expect that attribution requirements are also lost (after all, without a claim to copyright then you have no claim of ownership and no claim for having been plagiarised).

No-one standing for plagiarism assumes that people have some kind of moral grounding, rather than the more likely (and already existing) situation of people not caring about morals as long as they they can get their grubby little mits on some free stuff.

DRM, a lack of consumer rights and corporate-oriented copyright law is bad, but the message most pushed by the Pirate Party and those that support it sends things too far down the opposite side for it to be workable in anything other than short-term greed.

Copyright crazies getting everything they want (1)

gnarlin (696263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356102)

My fellow internet denizens.
It seems that every single day we are getting rammed by new legislation and international agreements that are so insane and ridiculously out of touch with where technology is actually taking us, mere words fail to properly describe my feelings on the matter. The quicker we are able to share/sync the entirety of human culture the less useful copyright becomes for the well being of the human race. How useful will copyright be for our race once the complete collection of all human culture can be synced or downloaded in mere seconds to your phone?
It is our nature to share news, gossip and other bits of our collective culture where ever we go; and now that we have to ability to all talk with one another (or YELL!) through the internet the old gatekeepers of culture have collectively gone INSANE!

I could go on and on about how the old copyright deal with the public (authors get exclusive temporary right to copy their works and through greater incentive to create the public benefits from increased production of culture) is completely useless today but I am just too disgusted to bother right now. Besides, it's all been said before in all the other new stories about all the other recent times the keystone cops of copyright terrorized Gotham city while cackling insanely.
I guess what I'm really asking is: why is it that despite all the anger about these issues from those who are in favor of sharing, we are loosing ground so badly? Is there no one who writes legislation who agrees that easy sharing is good for the human race?

Re:Copyright crazies getting everything they want (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356550)

" Is there no one who writes legislation who agrees that easy sharing is good for the human race?"
Say your a law student with political dreams ... and understand copyright reform ..
Political parties have their feeder staff on the look out to tap any new talent.
Expect to filtered out in university by the topics you select and papers your write, then by the types of early cases you represent.
If you are not exposed by your early legal life will be invited to join the ruling elite.
At parties in cities or country retreats events will unfold to join the elite. You will be expected to compromise yourself.
After that you have sold out as they have something on you for the rest of your life or you are finally exposed as a good person and any real political doors close.

I don't pay for my music, my software, or my movie (2, Interesting)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356336)

Well, sort of. I always pirate music, and if I especially enjoy an artist's music and continually listen to it I will buy T-Shirts and other merchandise. That way they get most of the money I spend and the ones I truly appreciate get all of my money-- the garbage albums with a few hits and some filler songs get rm -rf'd.

For my software, I use FOSS all the time and rarely need to use proprietary software (I'm a student).

I am a HUGE movie pirate. Why? Well, for starters movies are just too damn expensive-- and the quality of movies has been steadily declining for years. I pirate to avoid annoying DRM, but most importantly: I pirate so that the few quality movies I have the pleasure to watch can get all of my money. When I see a good movie, and I know I'll want to watch it again, I buy the fucking DVD. Shitty movies don't deserve my money, and good movies deserve all of my money that I would plan to spend normally.

I would LOVE to see a theater with a membership sort of deal; I enjoy going to the theaters, but paying $10 a ticket is unreasonable. I would pay $30 a month to see 10 movies. That way, the theater would get $360 a year from me instead of the $35 they're getting now. I feel like the entire entertainment biz is giving us the finger-- they routinely produce shit, at a low cost to them, and act surprised when people stop paying for it. Instead, people begin to pirate and rarely spend their dollars on such inferior goods.

whatever (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356438)

Our only true solution is to ignore them.
You want me to pay for your music? ok, a few geeks will waste a few months at some point writing a open source code that can generate music of a few given styles. You want me to pay for your movies? We have blender and python, and a few geeks can waste a few months to make it simple to generate a video if you have a script.
THESE TOOLS ONLY NEED TO BE CREATED ONCE AND WE NO LONGER NEED TO PAY.

Researchers the world over will move to open content journals because they need the money for other things. so we geeks will live on, ignoring the rich and cool as always. And if we really want to, we can pay for something that is worth the cost, and in time learn how to do that too.

on a related note, we should be less worried about this stuff. really. these are the same people who burned other people at the stake because they said the earth is round. our purpose should be to improve our quality of life, and any interaction with them should be guided by this principle.

(yes, i consider them to be "them").

Yeah (-1, Troll)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356462)

Fuck Britain...

Sigh... (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#31357028)

Are they simply forgetting that the whole purpose of copyright law is to stimulate creativity?

Here's some points that would actually work in that direction:

  • Don't let copyright expire too much in the future. We want artists (especially good ones) to work on new material, not spend the rest of their lives on a multi-million dollar yacht.
  • Stimulate that the work be released in source form, so that others can build on it. For computer programs, we are already see the positive effects this may have. For music, releasing not just the final (mixed) song, but also the sheet music, and the distinct tracks used in the recording would be absolutely fabulous. For movies, release an uncut version. For digital animations, release the 3d representations. For hardware, release the schematics and VHDL code, etc. Don't allow vendor lock-in of any kind.
  • Stimulate the teaching of arts by professional artists.

This is just from the top of my head, but there are probably many more things to say about this than the actual debate is covering right now.

I did actually write to the Lib Dem Party (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31357044)

I said I was disgusted with the proposal etc. and here is their reply; from the horses mouth no less.

Thank you for your email yesterday. Please see Lord Clement-Jones' justification for his amendment here:

"The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing. Around 35% of all online copyright infringement takes place on non peer-to-peer sites and services. Particular threats concern “cyberlockers” which are hosted abroad.

There are websites which consistently infringe copyright, many of them based outside the UK in countries such as Russia and beyond the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Many of these websites refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content.

It is a result of this situation that the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment in the Lords which has the support of the Conservatives that enables the High Court to grant an injunction requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to sites.

The amendment (amendment 120A) has generated some concern on the internet in the last few days.

Amendment 120A makes an explicit reference to human rights implications being taken into consideration by the Courts whilst they consider the imposition of an injunction. Such a safeguard is paramount to our concerns.

The intention is also for the injunction to only be possible for sites where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question.

The injunction will only be granted where copyright owners had first requested ISP’s to block access to the site and where they had also requested the site operator to stop providing access to the infringing material (either by removing the material itself or removing the ability to access the material).

There already exists a remedy under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (section 97A) which grants copyright owners a broad power to apply to the Court for an injunction. Therefore, all amendment 120A does is enhance this power by giving copyright owners a more clearly defined route.

Site blocking is not a new phenomenon, the most well-known being the recommended list of sites to block provided by the Internet Watch Foundation

Clause 17, the Government’s completely objectionable power to enable the Secretary of State to attempt to amend copyright law at any time is deleted by the joint Lib Dem and Conservative amendment.

Unlike Clause 17, amendment 120A depoliticises the process. The amendment will ensure any action will be heard before the High Court. The liberal principle of equality before the law remains intact allowing both sides to make their case before a judge, not by appeal to the Secretary of State.

Before making an injunction, under the amendment the Court has to have regard to whether the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access. This is designed to ensure that copyright owners continue to develop innovative ways of enabling their material to be accessed online legally, such as Spotify, before turning to legal action.

To conclude, the Lib Dems are not seeking to censor the internet but are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally."

Best wishes,

Dan Murch
Liberal Democrat Policy Research Unit

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?