The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[Deckard]

Sweden's Pirate Party has won a seat in the European Parliament. The group - which campaigned on reformation of copyright and patent law - secured 7.1% of the Swedish vote. The result puts the Pirate Party in fifth place, behind the Social Democrats, Greens, Liberals and the Moderate Party.

Swedish pirates capture EU seat

[BeautifulBurnout]

Ben Goldacre did his usual expert hatchet job on the dodgy statistics being bandied about by industry and government as to how much revenue is "lost" as a result of downloading in his Bad Science column in the Grauniad.

[//\/\/]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Sweden's Pirate Party has won a seat in the European Parliament. The group - which campaigned on reformation of copyright and patent law - secured 7.1% of the Swedish vote. The result puts the Pirate Party in fifth place, behind the Social Democrats, Greens, Liberals and the Moderate Party.

Swedish pirates capture EU seat

aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! t'is a fine thing, t'be sure! aaaarrr!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Future Proof

I can't say that I agree that the issue is about who's getting hurt and how, but whether or not the site owners are complicit in any way. In my mind this is really a slippery slope. Some of the content on TPB isn't copyrighted, and some is but the problem that I see is that if Ginsu's not liable for every person that's been murdered by their knives and if Hoffman-La Roche isn't liable for every sexual assault that happens because of Rohypnol, then how are the guys from TPB guilty of anything? TPB helps people commit illegal acts but what about movies that glorify violence?

I think that society's definition of complicity is way too vague to force these guys to pay $4,000,000 and a year of incarceration.

Well let's be real about this specific case. The website was designed largely for the purpose of sharing copyrighted material, all the way down to their name. I mean seriously - "Pirate Bay" is a pretty blatant announcement of their intent. And like any of the copyright law-abiding companies out there, they could very simply set up their site in a way that fights illegal sharing - employing filters that identify copyrighted materials, having site administrators who keep on the lookout for abuse, banning members who make copyrighted material available, etc. Simply because we live in the digital age doesn't mean responsibility is no longer relevant.

Don't get me wrong, I have no great love of big-ass record labels, or even big movie studios despite being employed by one. If I didn't need money to survive, I would be working on my own projects all the time, not on these gigantic, "four-quadrant", hundred million dollar movies. But that being said, people and companies are entitled to protecting their products and belongings. Pre-digital age, the equivalent of "Pirate Bay" would be something like "Shoplift Express", and they would be providing the means to remove those bulky old CD security cases that they used to use in music stores. But would we be having a debate about whether it was right or wrong to purposefully facilitate shoplifting? Probably not. Somehow, because we're talking about digital files being stolen instead of physical products, it's become something to support and even celebrate in many people's eyes.

And just in case anyone has missed when I've said it in the past, I also don't agree with the harsh measures being taken by large labels/studios - there's no justification to absolutely destroy Jane or John Doe's entire financial existence as retribution for having a few hundred illegally downloaded songs. They could just demand the cost of the illegal files along with a reasonable fine to discourage illegal behavior, and call it even. But to pretend that there's nothing wrong with stealing music or movie files is, in my opinion, ignorant, selfish, short-sighted, and typically damaging to small, independent artists. A company like Pirate Bay sets a horrible example, and I'm all for seeing them shut down, or forced to modify their business model to be in line with copyright laws. As a professional artist both in film and music, I've witnessed artists being screwed over time and time again when they didn't have proper copyright protections in place, so to see the power of copyrights being nullified is extremely disheartening.

[chuck]

And in Australia - they're going after the music that's played in cafe's, gyms, shops, the pub....

I'll have a little more Elvis with that thanks...

CAFE and restaurant patrons could soon be eating in silence, after a proposal by Australia's largest record labels to increase the cost of background music by up to 2000 times.


The push to raise the cost of playing recorded music could also make gym membership more expensive unless fitness classes use artists excluded by Australian copyright laws, including Elvis Presley and Beethoven.
The bid by the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia, which represents more than 750 record companies, follows a decision by the Copyright Tribunal to approve an increase of 15 times the music costs for the nightclub industry, which was recently endorsed by the Federal Court of Australia.


The Australasian Performing Right Association, which collects licensing fees on behalf of composers and artists, has launched a separate action for a tenfold increase in the fees paid by nightclubs for recorded music.
Buoyed by the nightclub ruling, the PPCA is now targeting eateries. It wants to increase licensing fees in a 120-seat restaurant to $19,344 a year — up from $125. Small cafes would be slugged with a 4729 per cent yearly increase from $124 to $5860.


Action against fitness centres is under way and the PPCA has indicated it will review the cost of playing music in pubs, shops and hairdressing salons.


...


Mr Healey said illegal internet downloads were robbing the music industry of its main income source — CD sales — and the PPCA was looking for other ways to make money for record companies.


PPCA chief executive Stephen Peach said recorded music attracted patrons to venues and was significantly undervalued. "The rates we have historically charged are barely nominal and we are looking to establish a fair return. The cafe owner just has to ask if the music is worth it, and if it isn't they don't have to play it," he said.

I think you'll find they'll either ignore it - and play whatever iPod that's brought in - or they'll just not play any music.

Or. SHOCK HORROR! They'll source Creative commons licensed music - or get tunes direct from the artist and holy hell - the big record labels are still screwed.

What a sad bunch of little people run organisations like the PPCA.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

Pre-digital age, the equivalent of "Pirate Bay" would be something like "Shoplift Express", and they would be providing the means to remove those bulky old CD security cases that they used to use in music stores. But would we be having a debate about whether it was right or wrong to purposefully facilitate shoplifting? Probably not. Somehow, because we're talking about digital files being stolen instead of physical products, it's become something to support and even celebrate in many people's eyes.

I still disagree with this, this has more to do with the difference between a physical object and a digital one. If I shoplift 40,000 CDs, that is a big problem for the music industry - if I download the same amount, it's really not a big deal.

[chuck]

In a desperate bid to keep hope alive... the Canadian BSA - just makes a whole bunch of numbers up - aiming to prove that piracy is thriving - they just don't have any evidence, because they never actually did any surveying in Canada.

Oh yeah - we're taking it seriously now.

[chuck]

Seven crimes to consider Before you pirate the music.

I don't agree with everything in this article - but it's an interesting take on the issue.

I'm quite keen on the burning down Lars Ulrich house one as well. ;-)

And yes - it's hypothetical and written as entertainment. So don't get too hot under the collar.

I was interested in the fact that Obama's appointed a couple of RIAA lawyers to the justice department though.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

That is definitely the thing I hate the most about the RIAA; most punishments fit the crime, but this one is out of whack. I remember a study being done that said that more people have pirated music than voted for president, and if the RIAA thinks that they're fining the proper amount, they must think then that they are entitled to something like a million billion dollars from the American public. It would be like if speeding carried a 6-figure fine and several years in jail. Really hamfisted and not helping their cause at all. It is strictly negative PR and nobody's going to be able to pay that much.

[matt]

Interesting response from Matt Bellamy of Muse to this rant by Lily Allen:

Lily
My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed.
Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).

We should set up a meeting with Lord Mandelson as he is on this issue at the moment, I'm sure he would meet us for breakfast!