Mashable reports that US Internet radio streaming company is shutting down UK access to its site after being unable to get a commercially sensible licensing agreement with the shysters crooks and shakedown artists of the MCPRS/PRS and PPL. This is a rather disappointing follow-on to the US campaign of the RIAA to suppress independent radio in the US, lest it threaten their control of the media. It looks as though their UK running dogs are continuing the campaign over here as proxies. The only people to lose are the public.
A second more alarming prospect now being mooted is for ISPs in the UK to disconnect people using file-sharing programs. The French government is running one of its traditional ‘protect the artists’ schemes forcing French ISPs to disconnect infringing filesharers; and the UK is following on.
This tendency of the French is based around their laughably pretentious self-delusion of being, and protecting, artists and intellectuals. For reason mentioned, infra, this idea is making its way across the Channel. What lies under it is the content industries search for cheaper ways of enforcing and protecting their own long broken business model. Whereas you might need to spend money on lawyers to enforce your rights they feel that they should be excused from such inconveniences. If you were abused you might need to go to court and make applications and arguments before a court. The content industries find this a bit tiresome and feel that they shouldn’t have to. The difference is that unlike you they can buy politicians from the Tories and Neo-Labour parties.
In behaving in this way the content industries are not so much flogging a dead horse as trying to give it the kiss of life.
The Internet is more than just a place to do MySpace, Facebook or get porn (all fine purposes it should be said). For many it is a central part of their lives (saddo Geeklawyer will confess he would rather have Internet access than TV or sex. OK, TV not optional either) like electricity or a phone. It is a central civic right in a modern digital era. The proposed policy is an electronic exile and as primitive and unjust. Sure, if you infringe copyright you should be liable: but what needs to change is policy, business models and the legislative changes needed to match them. Geeklawyer would argue that this proposed legislation is an infringement of the human rights of people to talk freely and live liberated online lives.
On a cynical note Geeklawyer asserts that this is so called ‘policy laundering‘: the MPAA/RIAA want easier ways to shut off infringers in the US but there their ISPs won’t play ball. By running a proxy campaign in Europe and getting laws changed here they hope to go back to the US and say “See?! The Europeans are doing it - we are out of step, we need to raise our game to their level.” This is the technique they used successfully to get copyright extension.
One sunnier note today it that it looks as though the government may allow people what they have been doing for a decade anyway: ripping CDs into electronic form so they can be legally loaded onto an iPod. A Decade late? Great. The government is displaying it’s up to date comprehension of the tech landscape 
Ms Robinson has just discovered your blog Geeklawyer and is delighted to find an another user of the Third Person. Ms R has constantly had to answer queries as to why she uses the Third Person and usually says it’s because she wants to keep her distance. However now she will say it’s because she has a superiority complex. It feels right. It really does.
Dear Mrs Robinson, I think you are far too modest.
In my, and I suspect your, case the use is not through a superiority complex so much as actual superiority. Yes I admit to being a snob. One day I aspire to the use of the third person in my comments too, but I don’t want to be thought pompous and self-important.
Here’s to you.
You will be called pompous: Ms R is called a dominatrix aunt. Not true of course.
Not that I was suggesting *you* were pompous or self-important! oops