Digital Economy Act 2010 [Was "DE Bill Not Passed, BiS Consulting Already"] - Page 2

Mr Angry · 02-04-2010, 18:03

I was referring to your "I have no objection to people been dealt with fairly for copyright infringement" statement.

Like yourself I have no wish to see innocent people penalized. However if innocent people are caught in the net and make noises then "pirates" , and indeed others, will realize the shallowness of their "victimless" crime argument. This is a societal problem, not just an "industry" problem.

Either way one has to look at how and why this situation has been arrived at and the common denominator is the illegal distribution and consumption of copyrighted works.

Chrysalis · 02-04-2010, 19:55

dealt with fairly yes.

the new method proposed is not fair. However the current law is fair where the copyright holders need to get a court order.

Mr Angry · 02-04-2010, 20:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

However the current law is fair where the copyright holders need to get a court order.

In your estimation, obviously. The fact is, as the "pirates" like to remind everyone, that the times, business models and delivery mechanisms for digital media have changed. Consequently it should come as no surprise that the law in relation to the protection of same should change.

Advocates for change in the digital age need to be very, very careful for what they wish for. Governments and legislators have shown that they are no longer prepared to allow people to decimate the creative and ancilliary industries simply because "they can" or they don't have the patience to wait.

I'm sorry but that is the reality.

Chrysalis · 02-04-2010, 20:13

So basically you are saying you have no problem of innocent people been judged guilty without proof and legal process?

thats what this bill does.

Mr Angry · 02-04-2010, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

So basically you are saying you have no problem of innocent people been judged guilty without proof and legal process?

thats what this bill does.

That is exactly not what I am saying. You appear to have overlooked my earlier statement above "Like yourself I have no wish to see innocent people penalized".

Unfortunately the behavioural habits of "pirates" and their freetard mentality have necessitated this legislation.

Anyone following the progress of this bill with any degree of interest beyond that which is normally espoused by the pro "piracy" lobbyists would know / see that the popular assertion that it is simply a mechanism whereby all and sundry (including innocent parties) would be deemed guilty without proof or adequate due process is very far from the truth.

Chrysalis · 03-04-2010, 04:31

yes I understood you, you dont want it but are prepared to accept it. I am not prepared to accept it.

Ignitionnet · 03-04-2010, 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

yes I understood you, you dont want it but are prepared to accept it. I am not prepared to accept it.

Not wanting to put words into his mouth you didn't understand him. He's saying that it's just not the case that innocent people can be punished out of hand and that that's a 'popular assertion' so nothing to accept.

Angua · 03-04-2010, 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That is exactly not what I am saying. You appear to have overlooked my earlier statement above "Like yourself I have no wish to see innocent people penalized".

Unfortunately the behavioural habits of "pirates" and their freetard mentality have necessitated this legislation.

Anyone following the progress of this bill with any degree of interest beyond that which is normally espoused by the pro "piracy" lobbyists would know / see that the popular assertion that it is simply a mechanism whereby all and sundry (including innocent parties) would be deemed guilty without proof or adequate due process is very far from the truth.

The behaviour of the Pirates does not excuse this bill going through on the nod without proper scrutiny. Smaller companies will not have the time or resources to make proper use of this. Whilst the big boys will just use it as an excuse to continue to charge exorbitant prices - the real reason piracy thrives.

Mr Angry · 03-04-2010, 10:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua

The behaviour of the Pirates does not excuse this bill going through on the nod without proper scrutiny. Smaller companies will not have the time or resources to make proper use of this. Whilst the big boys will just use it as an excuse to continue to charge exorbitant prices - the real reason piracy thrives.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken on several levels.

As at March 15th this bill, of only 48 clauses, had more than 430 amendments tabled during the term of its passage through the lords - more than sufficient scrutiny at that level by anyones standards.

Your assertion that "smaller" companies will not be able "to make proper use" is also flawed. One only has to look at how the independent sector (via the umbrella of Merlin by way of one example) is now representing the rights of their members. Whilst the "pirates" have been plundering the industries have been consolodating.

If the "pirates" did not behave as they do then perhaps your argument would stand and there would be no need for this legislation however that is not the reality of the situation.

As for "exorbitant prices" I'm afraid that argument, from a popular music perspective, is also flawed. Physical copy CDs have never been cheaper, you can buy single tracks for as little as 50p rather than having to buy an album of "filler" should you elect to do so. The only way that could be described by any rational person as "exorbitant" would be if the base comparator were "free".

Remember, artists and those involved in the creative industries - like anyone carrying out a job of work or delivering a service - deserve to be paid for their work in that regard.

Therein is the issue.

Chrysalis · 03-04-2010, 11:09

Ok the crunch question.

will a copyright holder be able to get someone cut off based on their ip been listed on a torrent tracker without a court order?

Mr Angry · 03-04-2010, 11:21

It's not as simple, nor as automatic, as that.

As I referenced earlier the pro "piracy" lobbyists would have you believe the proposed end result measures are akin to the closing scenes in Surrogates - that's simply not the case nor the intention.

The first step is education, not punitive measures. Additionally - and a lot of people are overlooking this - it is the ISP who carries out the technical measures, not the rights holder. It is in the ISPs interest (not least from a fiscal perspective) to effectively police the activities of their subscribers.

The playing field has changed - no longer can ISPs cite net neutrality or privacy. All to often it has bbeen proven that busines (especially at national and international levels) supersedes the rights and entitlements of individual citizens.

Creative people are by their nature, by and large, more interested in creating things than destroying them.

Sirius · 03-04-2010, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Remember, artists and those involved in the creative industries - like anyone carrying out a job of work or delivering a service - deserve to be paid for their work in that regard.

Therein is the issue.

Indeed

Chrysalis · 03-04-2010, 12:04

nice one sirius. I even know of artists who sell pirated copies of their own media to get by.

Ignitionnet · 03-04-2010, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

nice one sirius. I even know of artists who sell pirated copies of their own media to get by.

Hmm. Evidently they took some fairly abysmal deals which is their own fault totally. It's all there in black and white, if they aren't selling enough to get by via the terms of the contract they signed that's their problem.

It seems this thread has gone back to the old defence that record companies are brutal subjugators of the artists so why not just download the stuff for free.

Be interested in the source of that image that was posted.

It is of course total nonsense - the less profit that record companies make the less willing they are to take a chance on more risky acts and the more likely they'll be to stick to reality TV output that is pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit. We see that effect every week in the album and singles charts.

Of course that doesn't fit in with the freetard agenda behind that image, does it?

Mr Angry · 03-04-2010, 13:49

Given the fact that the industry standard for a manager is 20% of artist income it is quite evident that the pie chart image is distorted to suit a particular agenda.

Even if we were facile enough to take the splits as evidenced therein as serious then it becomes a self defeating argument. If, as it suggests, artists are receiving the notional splits the diagram suggests then, by definition, they are indeed the most affected by (illegal) free downloads.

On the matter of artists having to sell pirated copies of their own media to get by it comes as no surprise - given the fact that "pirates" have decimated the worth of legitimate releases.

I think you've rather tidily answered your own (badly formulated) counter argument.