optimo home


news
hung-up
echatio
ontour
optimo music
blog
podcasts
gallery who's played nine nine records discography
goodies
shoptimo
faq
where
facebook facebook twitter mailing list press contact
 

WELCOME TO THE OPTIMO (ESPACIO) BULLETIN BOARD - ESTABLISHED 11:11:2000

love is the message
Author Message

<  Echatio  ~  Digital Economoy Bill - all your internets are belong to us

The Boag
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:05 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 Mar 2009 Posts: 117
This week, Harriet Harman, leader of the House of Commons, received thousands of emails. Over the last week MPs have been sent more than 14,000 emails opposing the bill. Yet the government is still planning to force the bill into law – ignoring all opposition.

(From 38Degrees.org.uk)

That's the same bill Peter Mandelson returned from his holiday with a few months back. On that holiday he met with David Geffen and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's son at the Rothschild's family villa. He came home with plans to return al-Megrahi - the only man convicted for the Lockerbie bombing - home to Libya. He also introduced this ridiculous bill.

Opaque government, Mandelson's speciality.

So what can be done?
Andrew Dubber's a name that may be familiar to some folks here.
He's a smart bugger, and he wrote the free ebook, "The 20 Things You Must Know About Music Online". He also wrote to his MP about the Digital Economy Bill, and he inspired me to do the same. I don't know how effective that will be, so I plan to write to a few papers as well.

If you do kinda care, but can't really be bothered to email your MP, perhaps at least consider writing to the Metro? I think we will all regret it if this bill is passed, especially as it is currently written.

Below is Dubber's latest letter to his MP, and a link to his blog and his book.

Quote:

Dear Mr McCabe,

No doubt you’ve been contacted many times about the Digital Economy Bill. This is my third letter to you, and I am still awaiting a response.

I am Reader in Music Industries Innovation at Birmingham City University, and I deal extensively with musicians, music entrepreneurs and music businesses in general – as well as music archivists, music workers in many different industries (for example, music therapy and music education) and music technologists.

There are so many compelling reasons that this bill will be bad for consumers, bad for business, bad for music as an art form, and bad for music as part of our culture and heritage – let alone the flaws in the bill’s understanding of the technology.

It is clear to me and to the vast majority of the people I work with on a day-to-day basis that the bill only stands to benefit multi-national corporations and not British citizens, music workers, creative industries or the knowledge economy. In fact, the Digital Economy Bill is far more likely to be detrimental to those same multi-national corporations and lobbying interests like the BPI, despite what they may think, but their urgency to get this bill passed without debate is fuelled by the same misconceptions and protectionist, anti-consumer behaviour that has been the hallmark of the last 15 years of the entertainment industry.

In short – it is bad legislation. It is harmful to free speech, impedes access to education, knowledge and culture, aims to artificially prop up businesses that simply refuse to adapt to contemporary shifts in the media environment and prioritises music as commerce over music as culture – the very opposite of what copyright is intended to propagate.

I am writing now that Harriet Harman MP has announced that the Bill is definitely going to receive a second reading on Tuesday April 6, widely expected to be the day an election is called.

On Thursday, Harriet Harman gave no assurance that controversial parts of the Bill would not be rushed through in 90 minutes, despite concerns being raised by members from both sides of the House.

Please do not underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue. Over 17,000 letters have been sent to MPs in the last week – yet the Government still seems intent on forcing the bill through Parliament without allowing a real debate about the issues.

People like me, who are concerned about this issue, will be looking to see who has done everything they can to make sure this Bill is not crashed through on the last day before an election.

I am a long-time Labour supporter. This is a deal-breaker for me and for many like me. I wish to be perfectly clear about this: my continued support and my vote in the upcoming election rests entirely upon this issue. Are you the sort of politician that stands up for its constituents, for culture and for democracy, or are you the sort of politician that will hurry through a bill without scrutiny at the behest of powerful and monied corporate lobbyists?

I would very much appreciate it if you could do everything you can to raise this issue with ministers and party managers to make sure that these provisions receive proper debate and scrutiny in a new Parliament.

I look forward to your prompt and reassuring response.

Andrew Dubber



That post:
http://www.andrewdubber.com/2010/04/dear-mr-mccabe/
His book:
http://www.newmusicstrategies.com/ebook/[/quote]


There's also the website I opened with, hoachin' with advice and tools for people who want to lobby government. It's called 38 Degrees, and they make this sort of stuff a lot easier. Below is a link to the page I quoted regarding the Digital Economoy Bill:

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/extremeinternetl





TL;DR:

Big Media is about to be given the keys to the internet for the UK. If you give even half a fuck about music and culture, this is not in your interests.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
The Boag
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:22 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 Mar 2009 Posts: 117
This thread is also part of a conversation I'm having elsewhere online, and several great links are being thrown about in irc and the like... here are a few of those.

More on Mandy being a sycophantic sack of shit in the service of Big business:
http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/927321/Mandelson-leads-attack-against-illegal-file-sharers/
And some chat about how he might actually be the one who decides how long you get banned from the internet:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/23/mandelson-decide-internet-suspension

There's loads out there, but really? This is all nothing new. To quote some Douglas Adams(RIP):

Quote:
“I suppose earlier generations had to sit through all this huffing and puffing with the invention of television, the phone, cinema, radio, the car, the bicycle, printing, the wheel and so on, but you would think we would learn the way these things work, which is this:
1) everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;
2) anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;
3) anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.
Apply this list to movies, rock music, word processors and mobile phones to work out how old you are.”

http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/19990901-00-a.html


Lets not forget, selling sheet music was supposed to kill live music, as was selling recorded music when that was invented. Both instead provided additional revenue streams for artists, and both made the world of music accessible to more people, people who could then be counted as fans.

Fear of change, pure and simple.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
The Boag
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:53 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 Mar 2009 Posts: 117
THE BILL HAS BEEN PASSED.

So, that's the internet as we know it over. Thanks a fucking bunch, you sack of total cunts.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stanley_kubrick
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:09 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 13 Dec 2006 Posts: 650 Location: The Belgian Congo
This is lost on me.
Can you put this in quite simple terms for me. What was it we could do before the bill was passed that we can't do now?

_________________
I've met the man in the street and he's a cunt - Sid Vicious
View user's profile Send private message
Lighting Monkey
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:44 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 820 Location: In the booth
stanley_kubrick wrote:
This is lost on me.
Can you put this in quite simple terms for me. What was it we could do before the bill was passed that we can't do now?


Me too.

_________________
Girl: I thought the music would be more adventurous.
Me: *more* adventurous.
G: Yes.
Me: You're right, this is the least adventurous club in Scotland.
G: Yeah, it should be more housey.
Me: er.
View user's profile Send private message
morgy
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:05 am Reply with quote
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 164
My understanding of it is if your ISP finds that you have been partaking in some illegal file sharing, then your internet is gone, and they grass you up to the authorities.

It also protects the financial interests of record companies and producers regarding file sharing, and new media.

There's some other stuff too, but that's the crux of it as far as i'm concerned.

This is one of the reasons i think I might vote lib dem.

"We understand, however, that the proposals relating to website blocking and file sharing are controversial." - Richard Younger-Ross MP

(http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/2010/04/phil_willis_mp_libdem_on_the_d.php)

_________________
why don't we go back to your house mr taxi driver, and you can sit on my face?
View user's profile Send private message
Lighting Monkey
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:25 am Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 820 Location: In the booth
Ok I went a did a wee (tiny) bit of reading. It's only the most persistent and high level illegal downloaders that would actually get access suspended. I haven't seen a definition of 'persistant' or 'high -level' ( or similar terms), so that's up for debate.

People that know what they're about will never get caught anyway. They know it and it's all for show.

I'm still faintly against file-sharing. I don't do it, so the bill shouldn't affect me too much.

_________________
Girl: I thought the music would be more adventurous.
Me: *more* adventurous.
G: Yes.
Me: You're right, this is the least adventurous club in Scotland.
G: Yeah, it should be more housey.
Me: er.
View user's profile Send private message
The Boag
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:42 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 Mar 2009 Posts: 117
It might not affect you directly, but it will affect the internet, and as a result, most people in the UK.
From what I hear though, not filesharing is no guarantee you won't get busted. It's an accusation they need, not a conviction.

Also, the law will force ISPs to disclose information about suspected copyright infringers to the copyright owners. Suspected, ie accused.

Currently, if a copyright owner suspects you of illegally downloading material, they require a court summons to recover the information from the ISP. This will change – anyone will be able to declare themselves a copyright owner and request details based on an internet user’s IP address.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lighting Monkey
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:41 am Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 820 Location: In the booth
The Boag wrote:
It might not affect you directly, but it will affect the internet, and as a result, most people in the UK.
From what I hear though, not filesharing is no guarantee you won't get busted. It's an accusation they need, not a conviction.

Also, the law will force ISPs to disclose information about suspected copyright infringers to the copyright owners. Suspected, ie accused.

Currently, if a copyright owner suspects you of illegally downloading material, they require a court summons to recover the information from the ISP. This will change – anyone will be able to declare themselves a copyright owner and request details based on an internet user’s IP address.


Yes but why would they suspect you? They know it's going to be costly to pursue somebody to the nth degree, so they're not going to randomly pluck names out the ether to pursue them. Nor are they going to do so over a the odd song or album flying over the wires.

As I said before I'm to an extent against file sharing. I don't think it's unreasonable for anybody that puts money into recording or releasing music to at least expect to break even from it. However, I don't think people should be prosecuted/pursued for sharing material that's no longer in print/available to buy.

_________________
Girl: I thought the music would be more adventurous.
Me: *more* adventurous.
G: Yes.
Me: You're right, this is the least adventurous club in Scotland.
G: Yeah, it should be more housey.
Me: er.
View user's profile Send private message
leisuresuitbarry
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:59 am Reply with quote
Joined: 13 Dec 2006 Posts: 312 Location: marlboro country
morgy wrote:

It also protects the financial interests of record companies and producers regarding file sharing, and new media.

This is one of the reasons i think I might vote lib dem.


I don't know if I've understood you right, but are you suggesting that these interests shouldn't be protected?

I agree with Lighting Monkey on this one. Whilst the notion of someone making music because they want to get wealthy is abhorrent, I can't see this being a huge loss. There's still spotify and youtube and myspace and soundcloud if you want to tell your friends about a great track you just heard.

There's been a recurring theme in culture discussions over the last couple of years, regarding the difference between what makes us happy and what we desire. I'd cite the MP3 as a pretty good example of this - the amount of happiness it delivers is fractional compared to going out and buying an actual record.

_________________
doberdan doberman
View user's profile Send private message
GinaX
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:03 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 19 Sep 2008 Posts: 369
leisuresuitbarry wrote:
morgy wrote:

It also protects the financial interests of record companies and producers regarding file sharing, and new media.

This is one of the reasons i think I might vote lib dem.


I don't know if I've understood you right, but are you suggesting that these interests shouldn't be protected?

I agree with Lighting Monkey on this one. Whilst the notion of someone making music because they want to get wealthy is abhorrent, I can't see this being a huge loss. There's still spotify and youtube and myspace and soundcloud if you want to tell your friends about a great track you just heard.

There's been a recurring theme in culture discussions over the last couple of years, regarding the difference between what makes us happy and what we desire. I'd cite the MP3 as a pretty good example of this - the amount of happiness it delivers is fractional compared to going out and buying an actual record.




Spot on
View user's profile Send private message
morgy
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:30 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 164
leisuresuitbarry wrote:
morgy wrote:

It also protects the financial interests of record companies and producers regarding file sharing, and new media.

This is one of the reasons i think I might vote lib dem.


I don't know if I've understood you right, but are you suggesting that these interests shouldn't be protected?

I agree with Lighting Monkey on this one. Whilst the notion of someone making music because they want to get wealthy is abhorrent, I can't see this being a huge loss. There's still spotify and youtube and myspace and soundcloud if you want to tell your friends about a great track you just heard.

There's been a recurring theme in culture discussions over the last couple of years, regarding the difference between what makes us happy and what we desire. I'd cite the MP3 as a pretty good example of this - the amount of happiness it delivers is fractional compared to going out and buying an actual record.


Yes, I do agree that buying records is much more enjoyable than an mp3, but I do not agree with this bill. ISP's should not give away information to anyone, unless it is to do with a crime.

File sharing is not a crime, and it shouldn't be made one. The fact that people download music without owning it is a shame, but I think it's only because big record companies have resisted this change in the way media is delivered; just like when TV destroyed radio; or when home taping was killing music.

File sharing is a way for an artist's music to reach a wide audience instantly. Yes, they might lose out on some revenue, but they also might get more fans. With more fans, you'll get more people coming to your concerts. If I was a recording artist, I would like fans instead of money. Artists shouldn't make music for money, they should make music because they love it and want people to hear it; file sharing is the perfect way to do this.

I know there is still soundcloud, and spotify etc... So why should I be moaning about it? Record companies deserve to be hit hard by file sharing because instead of embracing the change, they have vehemently resisted it. Only recently have businesses, such as spotify, started to make 'legal money' from providing free music.

File sharers buy more music than normal people anyway. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/jul/27/media.business)

Instead of embracing file sharing, our government seeks to criminalise it, and by doing so support the big businesses who have resisted it. Why?

_________________
why don't we go back to your house mr taxi driver, and you can sit on my face?
View user's profile Send private message
Lighting Monkey
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:50 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 820 Location: In the booth
File sharing's actually a bit of a side issue in this whole debate really isn't it. The Govt know that a) the persistant, high level abusers are already getting round any means by which they might be tracked; and b) it's virtually impossible to prove that if somebody has a digital copy of something that they didn't once own the original and merely forgot to delete their 'back-up'.

There's some wider issues here like the potential end of free internet access. Data protection. If we're getting really paranoid perhaps even the ownership of encryption software being illegal (that would be further down the line though).

The other factor is that it was rushed through with bits being chopped off left right and centre, and others left open for debate in the new parliament session. It's now in a totally confused and flawed state and frankly should never have been passed.

_________________
Girl: I thought the music would be more adventurous.
Me: *more* adventurous.
G: Yes.
Me: You're right, this is the least adventurous club in Scotland.
G: Yeah, it should be more housey.
Me: er.
View user's profile Send private message
morgy
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:06 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 164
Furthermore, I steal music because I want to listen to an artists songs; if I liked the band, and wanted to own their album, I would buy it.

I think the benefits an artist gets from file sharing vastly outweigh the loss of income. The only people this is hurting is the record companies, and they deserve it. I don't want to come off as trying to know a lot about record companies, because I don't, but as far as I'm aware, big record companies are broken, and greedy.

Have you read this? - http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

I would rather hear the music for free, and then make a decision, based on whether I liked it or not, to decide whether or not to give money to the artist. If I like them, I might buy the album, and will probably end up spending money on concerts and merchandise. Surely this is more preferable to the artist?

I just text one of my mates who works with a record label, and he says that most artists don't make any money off record sales, and that they make most of the money through sales of merch and tours.

So, in conclusion: file sharing is good, it provides a way for a band to circumvent radio, companies or anything, to deliver their songs to their fans, directly.

This, in turn, will make them popular, by getting maximum outreach to their fans (what every artist wants, no?) People will want to see them live and buy t shirts with their name on it. More revenue for the artist, less for the greedy businesses that promote them.

What is wrong with that?

If I'm wrong, I'll delete all my mp3's, and I'll pick up all my favorite albums at Tesco the next time I'm there.

_________________
why don't we go back to your house mr taxi driver, and you can sit on my face?
View user's profile Send private message
leisuresuitbarry
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:22 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 13 Dec 2006 Posts: 312 Location: marlboro country
Hmm, I can see what you mean, but I'm not sure I understand your issues with the record labels. I think there was a post on here about Dissident closing down and Andy Blake placed the blame squarely on filesharing if I recall correctly...

I've got to get back to work, but I'll read that article tonight

_________________
doberdan doberman
View user's profile Send private message

Display posts from previous:  

All times are GMT
Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum