Geeklawyer has commented before, like ORG along with very many others, on the grotesque proposal to strike people accused, but not proven, to have engaged in unlawful file sharing off the Intarweb. Two main things lie at the heart of this thinks Geeklawyer: one is the assertion that copyright creators are losing vast sums of money from such infringement; secondly preventing it is difficult and pursuing infringers is difficult & expensive.
On the first point the losses the BPI/MPAA etc routinely assert in press quotes or to politicians are absolutely phoney: figures pulled out of the ethernet. Every download is counted as a lost sale whereas it is probable that in the absence of the Internet the downloader would never have bought the work, so where is the loss? Geeklawyer would guess that a tiny minority will download rather than buy but it is probably very small.
The second point is an issue when rich powerful interests can buy politicians policy tends to get skewed. The American copyright industry, and let us not delude ourselves that it is anyone but them - notwithstanding their EU lackeys doing as they are told, have not had a massively successful time curtailing downloading. All the threats of legal action have not dissauded several million Britons from doing so; and when they sue they have to go to court and engage in the time and expense of litigation. How much more convenient to buy laws circumventing the tiresome process that all other people have to go though.
This is the proposal currently doing the rounds in the EU and MEPs have been caught trying to tack it secretly onto a bill meant for something entirely different - in a failed attempt to avoid scrutiny; a well used trick in the US that seems to be being imported to us. Twatty MEP Malcom Harbour is saying “no, we didn’t really mean the text to say that, honest.”
Don’t worry about proving your case we’ll assume it is you, we’ll assume you knew. Rely on the Internet for your job or living? Tough shit.
It really makes Geeklawyer want to open the plane door over Paris, on his way over to Japan, and defaecate on the idiot French but Geeklawyer is told this causes stability problems for the aircraft and much fallingoutness.
PS: You would do well to join ORG.
i do agree - however, on a purely legal aspect, aren’t we obliged to implement dir 2004/48? (fuckwitted and in contravention of everyone’s human rights tho it may be).
will certainly have a look at ORG, ta.
GL I’m surprised they don’t issue people with internet licences that you need to get online. Like with drivers licences there could be a points system leading to disqualification. This would be a great way to get rid of unlicensed software (possibly unauthorized Linux applications, firefox, P2P software.
We could employ private companies to trawl through huge databanks of stored data and they could take a cut on the ‘bounty’ of anyone one caught infringing the laws.
I’m writing to the G8 now suggesting this is the only way in which we can move towards having a fair, civilised and democratic internet that meets the challenges of the 21st century.
ORG is practicality a terrorist organization, trying to undermine the potential the internet has.
A brillianr suggestion. I do wish I had thought of it. We could call it the BPI - ‘Big Protector of the Internets”. I will make a fortune, and buy you a cappuccino as thanks.
I think we should expand this proposal further. I mean, why limit it to just copyright infringement? Or consumers? How about if we as consumers send three messages to the ISP of a company putting out false and misleading statements in a press release, the ISP cuts off the company’s Internet access.
I’m sure all of the record companies would agree to this. After all, they never lie about their activities. Especially Sony/BMG.
And yes, join ORG today.
Ah!! Mr Levitt, at last, a comment