Followup: UK Lords, I salute you
This article is the followup article to UK Lords, I salute you. Certain articles will contain a followup article which is intended to present reader feedback to the original article. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Before we start, I feel there is the need to clarify something I thought was evident in the original article. This was the major portion of your comments and so lets get it out of the way; I do not agree with a few of the things in the Digital Economy bill. Especially I do not agree with the fact moms and dads may be penalized by their offspring actions. However the whole point of the article was to bring a major issue to the debate: Exactly what did we do (by action or omission) that is leading to a toughening of positions aimed at protecting copyrights? In other words, why is this happening? And do we deserve it?
I just don’t like to so easily fall prey to the mainstream commentary. Especially when I personally see other factors in play that must be addressed in order to offer an honest position. I prefer to say Aye or Nay after having digested all sides to the story, instead of concentrating solely on my own interests. After all, I’d be doing the exact same thing the nay supporters accuse the big business of doing; looking only after their bellies.
And sometimes — from weighting both sides of the story — I end up realizing, to my own surprise, I’m becoming supportive of a position I wouldn’t normally accept. A position that may go against some of my interests and a position that even questions some of my rights or liberties. And I do this because I perceive some greater good in that position. So, contrary to the black and white world some of us insist living in, I prefer the grayscale variation where things aren’t simply “Yes or No” and where one can choose a shade of gray and value the white in it, while remaining aware of the black.
This doesn’t mean I’m right and you are wrong. This simply means I place little value in opinions that don’t show there was a genuine effort to look at the other side of the equation. But enough of that, let’s get started.
I am a…
By a few. Not many: You are a …
It pleases me that the only readers I made angry are those whose vocabulary spans no more than 4 or 5 words. Imagine if they had a richer vocabulary; they could actually end up convincing me I am a …
A rushed law.
Mnick: [...] it (the bill) was rushed. It has very serious implications to businesses and individuals to be treated like this by the Lords.
HouseOfCommons: All they wanted was to pass the bill before the elections. To hell with our rights!
This is open for interpretation, as you must agree. On my part I agree critics of the bill say it was rushed and defenders say there has been plenty of debate and public consultation. I also agree critics are worried and would like to see some items dropped and that’s why they call for further debate, while defenders are generally happy with the bill and feel it was about time it passed and became law. Can you see the problem with the “this was rushed” argument? But not being a British citizen and not living in UK, this is the extent of what I’m willing to say about that matter.
However, as a footnote, I was sadly taken aback by the 3rd reading. While the bill passed with 189 votes against 47, which does show a clear and undeniable majority in favor of the bill, the importance of this majority loses luster when we consider there’s 650 MPs. Close to 2/3 didn’t turn up. Not a pretty sight in any parliament. Much less in a country that promotes democratic values around the world, sometimes at gunpoint.
Liability.
Mnick: This is an inequitable law. Mons and dads can have their internet connections closed. A public access point may go out of business, when customers start doing there what they can’t do at home. And all without even presuming innocence.
Whiteflags: You only hear about housewives who take it to trial, after all. Enforcement is a mess [...] and the RIAA and MPAA like to tackle low hanging fruit [...]
Indeed. These are some of the issues that would concern me if a similar law was to be applied in my country. But, as I see it, the problem is a lot more complicated than that.
Parents are responsible for their children actions. This is unavoidable until they come of age. In an internet populated with so many risks including a serious temptation to illegal downloads, there should be a conscious effort to, at the very least, monitor our children activities in the internet. The ability to do so effectively is however dependent on a large number of social and economical factors. But neither does the new law assume guilt when a notification is issued. I base this interpretation on the last paragraph of Column 1108, here. To quote:
My amendment would replace that wording with a neutral meaning to provide reassurance to parents up and down the country, students in houses in multiple occupation and anyone who shares a network, as the legislation would not assume guilt when a notification was sent out.
But in any case this remains a trouble spot for laws of this nature. I prefer to think the practice and enforcement of this law will be subject to a lot more scrutiny by both the population at large and the media, but also courts and legislators, so we cannot reach a situation in which copyright holders are abusing their position to bring down half of a country internet connections. But to put things in perspective lets not forget that closing the connection is a last resort action, taken 1 year after the first notification and in case of repeated offenses. For any conscious parent one letter should be enough, but a string of letters… I’m sorry, but they become liable. There’s no excuse.
Commuter students may pose a problem to households too (which is an ironic argument, considering it clearly shows the dimension of the piracy phenomena and why something must be done). Here I confess I cannot think of an easy way out. This is indeed a problem to this law. But just last year I was hearing from a friend of mine talking about this place where his son is living that didn’t allow him to have internet access. If he wanted internet access, he would have to subscribe to it himself and it couldn’t be cable or ADSL. And there’s not even a law like this in Portugal (there’s other more prevailing reasons to be careful about giving internet access to commuter students). So, there’s a tip.
For businesses however, things are different. And here I don’t see any problem with this law whatsoever. Businesses only task is to adapt. They sometimes need to adapt to new market conditions that are far more damaging. The internet is no longer a place — never was. But it seems only now we are starting to finally take notice — that can be offered to the public without any kind of restrictions. Internet Cafés, to name one, have been for a very long time limiting the type of internet usage they allow. Only the careless will fall “victims” to this law. Or those who cannot create the conditions. But these become the failed businesses that should not survive by the very rules of the game they play.
A disproportionate measure.
Andreia: (translated from Portuguese) Why not fine people, instead? What’s the sense, or value, in closing connections when this clearly also brings in ISPs and companies like Google to come to detest this law? Couldn’t they just then use the money on awareness campaigns or even to help pay those extra Mbps they are saying they’ll be giving to rural areas?
Whiteflags: If plagiarism were enforced like internet copyright infringement, authorities would have to burn your books, in addition to fines and the permanent damage to your reputation that ensures you never get a new opportunity to be published; now you will only borrow from the library.
I honestly have to say that’s how you shut my mouth.
I have to agree. On all accounts. I too read the letter sent to the Financial Times signed by some heavyweights of the industry. And its clear this type of opposition would not be met by some of the greatest businesses on the internet, if instead of having their connections closed, offenders were fined. Fines could even go up in value as they repeated the offense.
I’m however a little unsure as to whether it is indeed possible to fine offenders at this moment. If laws are in UK anything like they are over here in Portugal, I think the nature of the actual “crime” must be changed in order for a fine to be possible. This because the actual victims of the crime of copyright infringement are the copyright holders, but the money would stay on government hands despite this not being a public crime. And if the argument is “then give the damn money to the copyright holders”, you still have a problem because you’ll then need a court to decide how much and to whom. And back we are at how things were before.
But this is muddy grounds for me. I’m not sure things are like that over here, much less in UK.
The problem is upstream, in copyright laws
various readers: I want to back up my DVDs
Indeed. On that I’m entirely with you. Make no mistake. But as the header to this section suggests, that’s not the scope of this bill. This is a law to enforce copyright laws. Instead of fighting this, we should be fighting for fairer copyright laws. And that’s not what we have been doing… as usual.
When it comes to fighting laws trying to protect copyright we all raise to the call. But when it comes to fight the root of the problem we are always busy with something else. If we only applied the same energy to actual copyright laws, we probably would never have to face an ACTA or Digital Economy Bill because the actual targets of such measures would be clearly defined as true copyright offenders.
But we would need to fight these laws with credible alternatives that understand the world we live in. The utter nonsense of Pirate Parties around Europe suggesting 5 years at most of copyright holding rights is the type of complete rubbish that has done more to undermine the actual struggle for a fair copyright laws than all pirates combined. The level of insanity and lack of realism in these proposals goes hand in hand with the obvious political agenda of the people behind them.
If we stop listening to the noise and concentrate on the real issues — like DRM violations of property and privacy — while maintaining a clear eye on protecting and respecting copyright laws as necessary and valuable assets on a digital economy, we can eventually reach a point when we will feel equally protect as consumers or as right-holders.
Prepare for Unforeseen Consequences
As a final note, I’d like to bring one more thought.
The application of laws the likes of the UK Digital Economy may actually weaken copyright holders ability to justify DRM measures in their products and give rise to the government willingness to legislate on consumer behalf on matters of content backups and format shifting. And nothing could be a better sign in this direction than a considerable drop in copyright infringement because of the application of this law.
