ACTA
OK, this is the ACTA thread. I don’t know what I think about it yet because I haven’t read the relevant documents, so at this stage I am completely uninformed and with no time at present to get informed.
And I’m not one to go on what other people think, so these Stop ACTA things on the internet are getting on my nerves. Give me a couple of days and I’ll have had time to do a bit of reading and talking to people who actually know what this is all about.
I don’t know whether I have a mind to stop ACTA until I actually know what there is to be stopped. But I can tell you’re fidgeting to talk about it because you’ve begun commenting under posts that have nothing to do with it.
So go ahead, and post your ACTA views here.
95 Comments Comment
Reply to Jozef Click here to cancel reply
This link is very helpful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoW26CwhcR8
The video seems rather over the top, like something Kevin Ellul Bonici would subscribe to. It’s all very sinister.
Yes. Whatever happened to him? Tried to occupy Wall Street and been arrested?
Well I didn’t make it…Let’s ask Kevin if he likes it
Over the top it maybe, but it is a very real danger.
I mean, who needs ACTA, when we could have Grace Borg? I will miss her.
Sign the Avaaz petition if you’re interested in not seeing ACTA go through. It appears that the EU Parllamentarians voted against ACTA in their majority. I’m also searching for more material.
Link:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet_spread/?aopEHcb
http://mattborgi.com/2012/01/27/stop-acta-now/
http://mattborgi.com/2012/01/27/acta-the-position-within-the-eu/
Those are my ACTA views.
I’m against it. It is intended to tackle piracy and counterfeiting however the legislature is vague and therefore can be easily misused. When it comes to the internet it will force ISPs to comply with privacy invasions because they will be required to act as enforcers so as to protect themselves from liability.
It will also stifle the creativity and the generation of new ideas that have come with the internet through sharing of material too. Even videos like the Downfall spoofs and similar forms of satire can become illegal. Besides, we all know that real counterfeiters will still find the means to get by. This will only affect people who do not share material to make profit.
You can work out for yourself how this is going to impact those who live under totalitarian regimes like the one in Iran.
I’m also put off by the way many people were left in the dark as regards what the negotiations involved and what they were about. The Internet has become something as basic microwave, an issue like this should have been given much more importance.
Erratum: as basic as the microwave
Looking forward to your views, Daphne . . .
These links are also helpful;
Chief ACTA eurocrat quits;
http://boingboing.net/2012/01/27/chief-acta-eurocrat-quits-in-d.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29
EU citizens petition;
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet_spread/?slideshow
Richard Stallman’s page – at the moment it contains quiet a few good links about ACTA, SOPA and PIPA;
http://stallman.org/
The EP voted agaist ACTA, and rapporteur resigned, mainly because of the secrecy with which the Commission was negotiating on behalf of EU, that is without consulting the other institutions and civil society.
We should not rush to conclusions as the balance between the rightful protection of access to information on internet by consumers/citizens and the freedom to trade and the protection of IP (Interllectual property) rights are delicate even for the Courts (European Courst included) although the latter recently ruled in line with the citizens and their access of information (Viz Scarlet Case C-70/10).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/23/if-you-thought-sopa-was-bad-just-wait-until-you-meet-acta/
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/286925/20120124/acta-sopa-reasons-scarier-threat-internet-freedom.htm
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.1/whats-wrong-with-ACTA
http://www.msfaccess.org/content/secret-treaty-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta-and-its-impact-access-medicines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=citzRjwk-sQ&feature=related
The forerunner of ACTA, SOPA and PIPA explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_URcT_Y1TME
As a start you can look at this info from the European Commission which is pretty clear and even reassuring.
It shoots down a lot of myths which are currently circulating on the internet.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectual-property/anti-counterfeiting/
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/january/tradoc_149002.pdf
Daphne, this is the only link that counts. The rapporteur on this text resigned and had the following to say about it: http://www.kader-arif.fr/actualites.php?actualite_id=147
Then it’s all right.
“A Party may provide, in accordance with its laws and regulations, its competent authorities with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement, where that right holder has filed a legally sufficient claim of trademark or copyright or related rights infringement, and where such information is being sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing those rights.”
this means that your ISP has to keep track and store all your movements through their network. It also needs to be easily accessible for when law enforcement needs it.
The “legally sufficient” claim is suspicious as it depends on the size of the legal team making the submission. In litigious countries like the USA there was the case of a law firm sending cease and desist letters to people for years with what amounted to be an extortion (pay a big sum now or risk a bigger fee in court). After trolling the legal system and their victims, the operation has been effectively shut down by a federal court only because one of the victims went all the way and appealed.
The current case against Megaupload started without SOPA or ACTA or PIPA or the latest one in the pipeline.
Patents in the US and the EU are different. In the EU you cannot patent a software algorithm or an existing gene but in the US, if a company patent a novel albeit simple use for an existing human gene, then the gene can be patented and effectively closed to further research from other labs.
There’s a fine line between the state creating and enforcing a property for the common good and a property created so a private party can toll access only because of legal expediency not as a reward to the genuine value created.
Large content owners (not necessarily creators) in the USA have been flooding youtube and other sites with user submitted content with random takedowns to the extent that they blocked genuinely original content from small music bands simply because their legal teams are big and expensive.
Did you expect the EU to be anything other than reassuring? However, the fact that ACTA was discussed, agreed upon and signed in secret speaks volumes. Read through the actual documents and what independent analysts are saying and the proper picture will emerge.
Just make your voice heard in the next election. Do not vote for a party supporting ACTA. Simply abstain or give your vote another party.
[Daphne – Wise decision. Then when you wake up five months later and have no job, or your business has been cut by 25%, just tell yourself ‘At least we don’t have ACTA.’ Get a grip, why don’t you. I can’t believe people make such stupid decisions. Stupider still, you haven’t even considered the various ramifications of what the two political parties think about ACTA. You are just repeating rumours. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120131/local/pl-meps-get-it-wrong-again.404694 ]
@daphne:
Our business might be cut by more than 25% when ACTA becomes reality. ACTA will introduce software patents through the back door. As you might remember those have been rejected and forbidden by the EU parliament.
What would you think how our Maltese eBusiness will do when we have to pay royalties for every shopping basket, pay button, etc?
Did you ever consider the other impact of cross border trade inside the EU? Currently we have a free market. When ACTA is in place consumer can be stopped from purchasing via Internet in another country! ACTA re-introduces “customs”.
What about the seeds our farmers are using? In future they will be forced to use expensive and terminated seeds from Monsanto.
There are many more aspects of ACTA. I am wondering why the PN MEPs do not even mention them? Maybe because they simply do not know the details themselves?
Actually the EC’s statement is not reassuring at all. First of all P2P software and file-sharing websites may become illegal if the treaty is enforced and open source software would have to abide by a wide range of patents, coming from any signatory country, hence killing innovation in software development.
Linux for example violates many patents in different countries. In future the sites, hosting Linux, will be simply shut off.
The ISPs would be required to log their clients’ data and on request (suspicion of infringement activities) they would be required to provide it to the government. This is because they would technically be legally responsible for what you do online.
The logged data consists of emails, instant messaging, websites visited, songs you downloaded (i.e. via internet radio or anything else that streams music), that one episode of East Enders which you missed, etc. Then they’ll throw you in jail over something ridiculous.
[Daphne – No, it’s nothing like that at all, from what I’ve worked out so far. It stands to reason that nobody has any interest in doing that. I gather that the aim of the exercise is to make it easier to target people and organisations who steal and sell copyrighted work on an organised basis.]
“I gather that the aim of the exercise is to make it easier to target people and organisations who steal and sell copyrighted work on an organised basis”
There are already countless laws that over protect property rights at the expense of innovation. There is no counter balance in law that protects the right to innovate and create new value for society. It’s sort of implied but the concept is shrinking as moneyed interests are colonising and putting toll booths at every junction of innovation.
[Daphne – Please don’t be ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing to stop you exercising your creativity. You don’t need laws to protect your ‘right’ to do so. That’s not how laws work. If it were, we would need a law for everything, including a law allowing us to cross the road.]
If by making it easier to prosecute, the interested party can run roughshod on the civil rights and liberties of a mere suspect, then, you of all people should be at the forefront of this fight.
[Daphne – Yes, that is an aspect of concern, but I am not at all convinced that it is going to be the case, because it runs headlong into too many other issues which are challengeable at law.]
“There is absolutely nothing to stop you exercising your creativity”
Certainly not. There is a lot though keeping me from exercising it profitably. The value of a creative is arbitrary and connections help a lot on getting a fair value for the work created. An internet Luddite can itemise a charge of €300 for 15 minutes ‘research’ whilst I have to justify every little expense at a cut throat rate. If there’s a job with a decent budget it goes to the well connected, by family or shareholding… usually both.
[Daphne – Here we go. The usual whining story. Whine whine whine. There will always be people who have connections by birth or business. That’s life, and it’s the same the world over. That’s how the daughter of a former pilot and air hostess got to marry the future King of England. The sooner you get over it, the better for you. Get out there and make your own connections, but be warned: nobody loves a chippy whiner. If you can’t survive without help, then I suggest you stop whining and get yourself a salaried job. It’s tough out there, and I should know.]
“Yes, that is an aspect of concern, but I am not at all convinced that it is going to be the case, because it runs headlong into too many other issues which are challengeable at law”
Considering the wealth of scary stories available online on simple drug possession and even on content piracy in the USA I’d say justice is neither fair not blind.
This is the new war on drugs to keep a lid on the hoi polloi.
[Daphne – I love a man with a positive attitude.]
I happen to agree with your chastisement Daph. Still doesn’t make it right though…
@daphne:
Currently there is a lot of creativity. In future every creativity (like open source software) can be simply shut down because someone abroad will say it breaches some copyright. This someone abroad will not even need a court to decide if he is right. Me as the victim then has to fight in court to proof that I am right. But what if I do not have the energy or the money to proof that? I will simply be forced to stop being creative!
Even your blog will suffer because you constantly breach some copyrights. In future your blog can be simply shut down! YOU as a journalist should be very aware of the ACTA impacts. YOU should make your own research and not just repeating what some MEPs whisper in your ears!
[Daphne – You are quite wrong. And common sense should tell you that.]
Wow, you are a believer? You simply believe what is written somewhere? Thats how Hitler came in power!
ACTA xi tfisser? Anglu Cuc Torta u Antipatiku?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120130/local/acta-will-not-censor-websites-finance-ministry-insists.404610
Semplici, l blog/website li andek tispicca because we would not have no freedom of speech.. We’re also half way through to ACTA because our nice Government just signed the papers in Japan’s Conference without evening knowing the risks/consequences this might impact the whole country being surveillianced 24/7. For example, you’ll have to be careful what you browse on the net, or while you’re talking on the phone.. others like social sites: Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google and many otheers.. will be brought down and will longer exist!
On the other hand, this is politically correct in the eyes of the United Nations and the ACTA treaty board as they will make lots of money by punishing all countries caught For Americans there are SOPA & PIPA..
[Daphne – Oh for God’s sake don’t be so dramatic. There isn’t some sinister being out there with the power To Take Control. Simple business logic should tell you that the forces for business on the internet are way too strong, even if you insist on ignoring the underpinnings of freedom of speech issues. That’s why I insist on people getting themselves informed before they start kicking up a fuss. Very often, you’ll find that you might be manipulated by the ones making a fuss, for reasons of their own. I can’t bear bandwagon causes, sorry. Let’s keep a sense of perspective here. Use your head: nobody’s going to bring down sites worth billions.]
Matthew. Very far from the truth. ACTA is just a way to allow owners of IP to obtain FAST action against people they accuse of abusing their IP.
I disagree with it because it favours certain industries giving much more power to these companies by giving them short-cuts to “justice”.
It also removes most of what is considered to be “fair-use” (for example it makes the production of DVD hacking software illegal. Hence you cannot backup a DVD that you own to use said content on your iPad)
Finally, it imposes the same sanctions on material goods onto the digital world. Hence a website CAN BE SHUT DOWN if an IP owner claims that their IP is being abused. This fact is not very clear from the agreement text, but Section 5 which explains the implications on the Digital market clearly states
“Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures, to the extent set forth in Sections 2
(Civil Enforcement) and 4 (Criminal Enforcement), are available under its law so as to permit
effective action against an act of infringement of intellectual property rights which takes place in
the digital environment, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringement and remedies
which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. ”
Now the Civil Enforcement section allows a company to take action against third parties (in this case ISPs) to force them to shut down the channels of distribution (in this case their internet connection and hosting).
Furthermore, since ACTA started being discussed France has introduced its “three-strikes law” that disconnects an internet connection for any user that uploads pirated content after three warnings.
The UK is also in the final stages of its “Digital Economy Act” which has similar sanctions…
It boils down to this: these interests want to turn the versatility of the internet into a walled garden like cable tv. where the middle man between producer and consumer charges for no added value whatsoever.
These laws are meant to protect the interests of big corporations that can afford to protect their property through litigation and monopolisation.
[Daphne – That is not so. Internet business rules out the middleman by its very nature. It allows businesses to sell direct to their customers. But that does not entitle us to take stuff for free that we are not entitled to. It is quite clear that protection is needed for coyrighted items. ]
Then you need to read up daphne because what the internet enabled, some corporations what to put asunder through arbitrary and draconian laws.
[Daphne – I find it very difficult to read and understand this kind of sentence.]
Thanks, Daphne for the links above – still have my doubts, but will read and get back to you.
If you wish to sign the petition there are many online ones but I suggest the Avaaz.org one because, in my opinion, it seems very concise and they have always tackled issues seriously.
I don’t think ACTA is as terrifying as they want to make it appear. I can’t see how all this control is going to take place. That Youtube video is, in my opinion, exaggerated on purpose. I’d go to the official EU sites to get first hand information and, most probably, the full text of the ACTA draft signed.
You should not think how bad ACTA is but you should read the draft yourself to build an opinion. Forget what your MPs tell you (from both sides).
Is it the same Avaaz who keep littering my mailbox with spam? Is that the kind of freedom the want? It is about time we realise that what is public is not necessarily free.
Well basically it was signed very secretly, without consulting any of the people such as the end user or ISP’s? It smells fishy when one knows that the USA, EU, Switzerland and Japan decided to work on this so called anti-counterfeiting law.
Like the anti-terrorist laws, you look like a terrorist, then you are a terrorist and so you are guilty of whatever I wish to charge you. What gets my goat is that when you are sold a product, it should become yours, to do what you like with it (within the law), but then they introduce new laws that restrict you from using it even further.
Let us take your computer, now you own a brand new computer, but you new software to run it (operating system) which costs you money. After installing this OS, you have to pay a license, and you are restricted from installing anything the owner of the software do not want you to install (in case his competition is better).
You then realise you bought a printer, but you need to make sure it’s listed in your software license and is compatible with all the laws governing the license. Then you surf the net finally and find out that your internet browser must comply with the license of your software and is allowed by your ISP/Government/ police/ owner of the software.
By the way, why did I buy the computer in the first place. The more restrictions the more people learn to break them.
This is a link to the Scarlet case ruling:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=115202&mode=lst&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=1005452
The ruling and the opinion of the advocate general are relevant to the subject.
Just purchase a VPN service, connect to a server where ACTA will never see the light of day and stop whinging if you really have to steal other people’s work.
I look forward to the day where sharing literally means borrowing (still technically stealing but come on) from a friend for a few days.
Very true. Real criminals will always find a way to hide. It will be only the “small man” who will suffer.
Popular blogs will be shut down just because they do not comply with a law in any ACTA country. Good bye free speech!
[Daphne – Democratic countries have no interest in doing any such thing, and non-democratic countries do it already.]
@daphne
ACTA will transfer interest and the powers of the governments to private companies. And they will have some interests to retrieve royalties for your blog, etc. The danger of ACTA is that it implements non-democratic structures.
[Daphne – Hardly.]
I’m still trying to make heads or tails of all this but the fact that “The discussions about this agreement started in 2007. Formal negotiations were launched in June 2008 and seven rounds of negotiations haven taken place. The negotiations were finalised in November 2010, and the negotiating parties are now fulfilling their internal ratification procedures” (taken from the European Commission website) doesn’t augur all that well.
Seems like the EU are insisting it is more about counterfeit branded goods and pharmaceuticals and not so much about internet downloading/piracy as the anti-ACTA campaign has been portraying.
If this is the case then I think we don’t have much to worry about.
However I haven’t understood if downloading/copying music or a film that someone has legally bought and then uploaded onto a site is considered piracy and counterfeiting. See what you make of it please – appreciate hearing your opinion.
The agreement:
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf
[Daphne – Uploading films and music in that way is already a very serious crime; no need for ACTA. And too many people don’t realise how serious it is. Consider the ongoing case of 23-year-old Richard O’Dwyer. http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16148629 ]
Uploading copyrighted material is already considered a crime, fb, because you are “reproducing” it without any consent whatsoever.
When you buy a DVD or CD, it is for your personal use, not to share with just about everybody. That is why many are afraid that, for example, Youtube will be thinned out so much.
Consider that most material there is copyrighted yet it is available to all and sundry for free. There is even free software to download that material from YouTube. Companies don’t see any profit from that, now, do they?
This is a fallacy. People only have so much money you can suck out of them. I wish I could get the government to enforce my arbitrary fees. it doesn’t happen to me. I create content and I’m at the mercy of publisher and consumer.
There are studies showing that those who copy are the biggest PURCHASERS of copyrighted material.
Let’s face it, you buy only the stuff you really like the rest you try it and see if you like it. ACTA will not protect me but the big interests with big money and big legal teams.
[Daphne – That’s the case with everything, Joseph, but it’s also proportionate. Big business generates more money, and that money is fed into the economy, benefitting people all round. The music industry is one of the few you can’t really object to, because it’s not exactly damaging the environment or taking down whole forests in central America etc.]
Yes Izzie and Daphne, I know its already considered a crime – I just think it’s no different sharing music or films electronically to for example having a party at my home for 500 people and sharing the CD I bought with them and to push if further they can even record the song on their phone and go play it at home.
I mean where does this stop?
Maybe it should be considered illegal when there is over a certain amount of money being made/lost?
Also for me it’s the modern equivalent of us recording music cassettes for each other back in the 70s and 80s. The problem here is all the abuse and people making quick and easy money from other peoples hard work which is going to destroy and ruin everybody’s “fun”.
Hopefully they will start making a distinction between the little guy sharing his favourite song, film, article, sketch with friends and the big guys reaping in loads of money.
Also can you imagine what a different place the WWW would be without people’s constant uploading and sharing of material and information?
All things aside, I am still not convinced whether I should fear or welcome ACTA – what about you?
trickle down economy has been soundly refuted daph.
the deregulation that started with Carter and accelerated under Reagan and Clinton left us with the mess we have today: rich corporations hoarding wealth and holding governments to ransom as they don’t want to pay their fair share.
when shit hits the fan they demand that governments bail them out with public money…
the concept of corporations make sense and made more sense when merchants and enterprising people wanted some protections from kings and monarchs. What I ask you is: within a democracy, do we need all powerful corporations turning back the clock to feudal times when the lord’s family dictated what where and how of everything.
You mock communism for its totalitarian bent but this is no different…
The subject of entertainment business is a bit complex even for a confident loud mouth like me. I can only write a couple of sentences here that will invariably leave out a lot and be misunderstood.
Why do we call the turkey so? because when it started hitting European markets it was coming from the great souks of the Turkish Empire. The turkey was found thanks to enterprising and unscrupulous european merchants and it was grown in the new world.
It got the name because the Ottoman Empire was the biggest market. The entertainment industry is the same thing. They don’t create and they don’t discover, they are the middlemen that promote and sell at a very large markup. With the internet this middleman is not needed anymore thus shifting the market away from the USA to a more distributed spread over the world.
With films it’s almost the same thing. Apart from the big budget blockbusters (they’re the baroque edifice that is sputtering to an end) many films are relatively cheap to make. If you ask independent producers, they’ll tell you that their biggest stumbling block is the choke hold some corporations have on the film distribution business, which, as you know doesn’t create value in itself.
Don’t forget that piracy used to be (and where convenient still is) endorsed by nation-states. it was called privateering. The US did it, the British did it and the French as well.
Exactly. That is already a crime. Instead of ACTA we need enforcement. ACTA allows ISPs, Hoster, etc to enforce things which should be in the hand of the goverments, police and courts.
The case of Richard is very serious. Germany NEVER extradites its own citizens. In fact Germany is a good example how it protects its citizens and that should become law in all EU countries.
ACTA is just a set of laws to facilitate for big companies to exert their control on the small creative artist.
Copyright laws already exist and have already been used to shut down pirating websites and illegal file-sharing networks.
But ACTA will empower these more into stiffling into extinction, the small creative artist, musician, programmer.
As a creative artist…. if you draw something and put it online and co-incidentally it is similar ( or can be interpreted similar ) to an item owned by the big mega corporations… they will instruct your ISP to close down your account, divulge your details to them.
You then need to find a lawyer to prove that you did nothing wrong. What freedom of speech is this, if before you are proven guilty…. you are actually charged as guilty… and then you have to prove yourself innocent.
Stop ACTA, before we create a giant unstoppable law.
Melita and GO… should be wetting their pants however. Cause any TV programme transmitted over their network… which isnt properly licenced…. will hit them with a hard fine… and possible imprisonment to the people responsible of ensuring this doenst happen.
Even if one of the Maltese channels ( with their total lack of professionalism ) shows something ‘unlicenced’… the network provided is just as guilty…as they didnt `stop` it being aired.
Look at maltese radio stations…. actually boasting they have a computer full of MP3s and they found the track that the listener wanted them to play.
Oh yes Daphne, It’s a serious crime because actor A and actor B won’t be getting their 7th house in Miami and you know 99c for a song on iTunes (which Apple gets a share of) will surely mean that their garage will hold one less bugatti veyron… http://9gag.com/gag/2165628?ref=fb-share
[Daphne – It’s the other way round, actually eldarion. I don’t share your communist sentiments, and you don’t seem to understand that it is those very communist sentiments which are undermining the very thing you want: good music. One of the reasons that the music scene has become so impoverished (in terms of quality and innovation, that is) over the last few years is that there is decreasing will for investment in new people/ new music, precisely because nobody is going to invest in something and then have it ripped off. Several of the big recording studios in North America have filed for bankruptcy because they’ve lost their business. When they shut down, there are fewer and fewer places to record for those who do wish to record. It is not a coincidence that the glory years of music were the years when you actually had to physically go out and buy a vinyl disc for an absolute fortune. It made music less accessible yes, but the music there was was great – people are still fixated on it today. Why? Because the record companies made so much money off the process that they could afford to reinvest a great deal of it in looking for and promoting new names, new bands. Look at it this way: there is no point in celebrating because you can download all the music you like for free, if the ultimate result is little, no, or very dull music to download. The situation is actually so bad that The Rolling Stones could never have been possible today. Nobody would have invested in them. This is basic market economics. You don’t hav a ‘right’ to other people’s property. That’s communism, not liberalism. Yes, it’s true that the temptation is really great and we all do it, but we are all suffering as a result because we are being deprived of innovation. For there to be innovation, there must be investment, and for there to be investment, there must be sizeable profits.]
Mp3’s are the fast-food of the music industry.
Interesting points, Daphne, but do we really need record labels (that take most of the money and leave the musicians with very little anyway)? The music business is moving away from the corporations and towards the indie scene and the same thing is happening with book publishing. See this very interesting analysis of the current situation: http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=5855
Before you had author -> publisher -> retailer -> reader. Now companies like Amazon let authors be the publishers too, which means authors get a much better share of the profits. Scouting for music talent and selecting book manuscripts are being replaced by consumers voting the cream up to the top, while the bad and mediocre inevitably sink down to oblivion. The greedy middlemen (who are also horrid gatekeepers often suppressing genuine talent) are getting cut out of the deal and content creators are finally able to get their fair share. Artists will still have to do their own marketing by means of concerts and book tours and what not, apart from good old word of mouth (made easier than ever by the Internet), so nothing really new there.
Indie publishing will also benefit the consumer and reduce the incentive for piracy because prices can now drop to more affordable levels. An indie published Kindle ebook that sells on Amazon for $2.99 nets the author more than $2 (70% of gross).The same book would have to sell at $20 under the traditional publishing model for the author to earn those $2 with the standard 10% entry level royalty publishers offer. Do the math.
The corporations are realising too late that they have not kept up with the changing times and, in their death throes, are kicking up a huge fuss. That’s all there really is to it.
Forget internet and music. That’s a welcome battle of the people in favour of ACTA. Like that nobody really discusses the real problems.
What will happen with the availability of cheap medicines.
The EU opened the market and removed customs in the EU. ACTA will introduce new trade barriers. In future you will not be able to buy a brand new gadget, not available in you country, from abroad. We are going backwards.
True, eldarion is rather shallow in his/her arguments, but your reply is rather misinformed.
“One of the reasons that the music scene has become so impoverished (in terms of quality and innovation, that is) over the last few years is that there is decreasing will for investment in new people/ new music, precisely because nobody is going to invest in something and then have it ripped off.”
By what standards has the music scene become impoverished? There’s plenty of exciting new music to go around in all genres. Not going into the merits of which artists, since it’s all subjective, but there never has been more innovation, great writing and accessibility. Actually the problem is the opposite, there’s far too much great songs and artists to go around that it’s hard to keep up.
“Several of the big recording studios in North America have filed for bankruptcy because they’ve lost their business.”
They’ve lost businesses by adhering to a defunct business model – recording studios file for bankruptcy because the competition has become too much – anyone can record a studio quality album in their bedroom with minimal expense and plenty creativity. If their prices remain too high and they don’t evolve to meet modern requirements, or at least find a niche, then they file for bankruptcy. Nothing to do with copyright – most recording studios don’t live off major record labels or publishing houses.
“When they shut down, there are fewer and fewer places to record for those who do wish to record.”
Wrong. You can really record anything anywhere nowadays. Also, you don’t need a great big studio to record amazing music. Billie Holiday was recorded on one microphone in one room directly to vinyl.
“It is not a coincidence that the glory years of music were the years when you actually had to physically go out and buy a vinyl disc for an absolute fortune. It made music less accessible yes, but the music there was was great – people are still fixated on it today. ”
It is not a coincidence because tightly controlled music meant better control on promotion. Hence you’d get 5 or 6 big named bands repeatedly marketed each half decade, and thousands of others that come and go. Once a genre or a decade comes back in fashion, they’re re-packaged, re-marketed (read re-mastered) and voila, people love them decades down the line. Not taking any merit away from any of the great artists, but it really is all about marketing.
“Why? Because the record companies made so much money off the process that they could afford to reinvest a great deal of it in looking for and promoting new names, new bands.”
The amount of waste record companies generated was incredible in the so called ‘golden years’. Parasites, hangers-on, unnecessary lavish spending instead of actually spending the time getting out new talent. It was always about overt spending in marketing, and caressing primadonnas, so that they keep their cash-cow status.
“Look at it this way: there is no point in celebrating because you can download all the music you like for free, if the ultimate result is little, no, or very dull music to download. The situation is actually so bad that The Rolling Stones could never have been possible today. Nobody would have invested in them. This is basic market economics. ”
The amount of music available for download is incredible, the amount of music out there at the moment is unprecedented – and it’s not thanks to the large record labels and copyright hoarders. I’m not saying that forcibly downloading music created by someone who asks money for it is right, but if free market economics really had to be applied, no artist would ask money for it’s recordings, or at least if they would it would be just to recoup expenses for distribution. The real money was never in record sales – record sales always resulted in the artist to get a minimal part of the real price – the real money was in live performances and merchandise – which the artist owned all the rights to. It still is, that’s why successful artists are still very rich. It’s funny you mention the Rolling Stones, who peddle their live shows to lavish corporate events – case in point, having written so many great songs and sold so many albums, they could have easily retired, but no, they get their geriatric arses out on a stage because they make the real money from performances. The record sales and publishing and mechanical rights royalties go to the copyright holders, whoever they are, not the artist.
And yes maybe you are partially right, few would have invested in the Rolling Stones per se, and back then the record industry played an important part in distribution and marketing – I’m sure at your age you remember no internet, no digital sales and difficult DIY promotion – but basic market economics is obviously stating that business model is defunct. If you need so much laws and acts and monitoring to try and keep a business model afloat, that’s not free market economics – it’s a very controlled economy.
“You don’t hav a ‘right’ to other people’s property. That’s communism, not liberalism. Yes, it’s true that the temptation is really great and we all do it, but we are all suffering as a result because we are being deprived of innovation. For there to be innovation, there must be investment, and for there to be investment, there must be sizeable profits.”
No you don’t have a right to other people’s property true, but economic liberalism states you can’t force prices above the market price, when they can get your music so easily elsewhere. If supply is so huge (in no realistic way can anyone ever stop illegal downloads, this applies to ACTA), your price will automatically go down, down to next to zero. Yes collectable vinyl or CDs are scarcer, that’s why collectors, or music lovers are ready to pay the price, but the song itself has no real monetary value nowadays in terms of personal consumption. (Public consumption is different due to performance rights).
We are deprived of innovation because we cannot let go of the past – the regurgitation of older songs and artists that exist on the huge copyrighted catalogues spanning the most part of the last 60 years every few years to make money stifles innovation by artists. We keep on getting the post-punk revival, the punk-revival, the prog-revival, the surf revival, the grunge revival and so on so forth. And this regurgitation comes in waves, depending on what was being marketed in an artists’ formative years.
And with regards to real innovation? It has been constant – every year new genres appear, independent or at least not rehashes of older ones. Technology to record and promote has never been so accessible and useful and within the budget of the average musician/producer/engineer and now finally the playing field has been leveled for a hard working young musician. Meritocracy at it’s best, and that’s free market economics.
ACTA? Why have we had so much innovation in medicine, music, technology in the past 100 years with 100 year old patent laws? Because they are enough to protect real innovators. ACTA is policy that goes beyond real democracy since no average voter can actually have a real say in it, and it is being implemented only to keep the old guard afloat. Pharmaceutical companies that hoard medicine and want longer times before the ‘Generic’ transfer, Record companies who shouldn’t exist anymore by free market rules, and Tech companies plying legal patent laws on the most trivial of lines of code.
Out with the old, in with the new, that’s innovation. Protecting the old just because they are old goes against what you profess to believe in, at least that’s what I think.
[Daphne – I completely disagree with you there, and your argument is both fallacious and disingenuous. Patent laws were enough for 100 years precisely because there was no internet. How would you have stolen and redistributed somebody else’s music or novel or photography or feature article in the pre-internet age? That’s right, with great difficulty and so much expense that it wouldn’t be worth it. Also, the law would be able to catch you immediately. Internet has made that level of IP theft not just possible, but extremely easy and hard to pin down. Let’s say a sought-after newspaper columnist (and historian…) like Niall Ferguson suddenly woke up one morning to find that somebody had been through the internet, downloaded all his columns (from the online versions of the newspapers for which he writes) and created a site with them, called niallfergusonscolumns.com. Who is in the wrong here, in your view – the person who stole his work and used it for his own ends (even if not to make money), or Ferguson for kicking up one hell of a fuss and doing what he can to get the site taken down and seeking redress? The reality is that sites can be taken down already without court cases and so on. If you give godaddy false registration informaiton, they will take down your site immediately they find out, without a legal process. When you register a domain with godaddy, you undertake to give your correct details. If you don’t, you are considered to be not in good faith and your site goes down.]
Granted, maybe updated patent laws to accommodate the internet situation are obviously required – and because at the end of the day the internet always stops in the real world (hence godaddy removing the domain) it’s not that difficult to update intellectual property laws.
But let’s take the case of Niall Ferguson. He’s a columnist yours truly hasn’t heard about, unfortunately. Through your recommendation, I decide to learn more about him, but his works are very jealously guarded through a price wall.
However, someone decides to put up all of his work on niallfergusonscolumns.com – and through a simple google search – (the domain is guaranteed to show up), I find this site, and I spend a few evenings reading his body of work. I begin to really like how he writes, I start salivating at the prospect of reading his weekly column, and keep on reading them for free, without him getting a cent.
One day he decides to write a book, a collection of all his opinion pieces, I like him so much, I’d love to have his name on a spine on my bookshelf – photocopies don’t cut it, a nicely packaged book would do the trick. I buy it, he gets money. Niall decides he’s been spending too much time indoors to write, and decides to take his views out in the sun, and begins a series of university lectures, say under the auspices of TED, and I, big fan of his, decide to go to the one closest to my house. I pay, he gets money.
[Daphne – Dan, Niall Ferguson has written many books and they are all bestsellers. At that level, you don’t need to promote your work for free in that manner to get your books to sell. He’s promoted enough already through his paid writing work for newspapers, speeches, lectures and television appearances. ]
But, with your logic, Niall protects his writing behind a paywall and does his utmost to prevent people from reading it. Happily sitting on his work, protected by an cereberus of a paywall, I don’t get to read it, and I don’t buy his forthcoming book and never go to his lectures, because let’s face it, who the hell is Niall Ferguson?
[Daphne – That’s a bit of a tautology. The sort of people who don’t know who Niall Ferguson is just because he doesn’t give his work away for free on the interest are not going to be interested in buying his book in the first place. If you were interested in the kind of thing he writes about, then you would know who he is already, in exactly the same way I do.]
Same applies to music, I don’t pay for the song, but if I like it it, I pay for the CD, the vinyl because it’s cool, and if I’m really crazy, the cassette.
Then I proudly buy the t-shirt because I’m in my teens and need to show off my love for the band. They’re playing up in Italy, catch the next Ryanair flight, to go watch them and don’t care what price they ask for. At the venue they are selling rubiks cubes with the band logo, I laugh, and I buy it.
The frontman states they’re recording this for a forthcoming DVD – I was there, so I want to have the actual real DVD. If I wasn’t there, I’d have drooled over an illegal youtube clip to the point I’d actually go buy a ticket to a concert.
What happened there? The non-physical song became an advert, a marketing tool. You don’t actually pay to read, watch or listen to an advert. Same goes to Niall Fergusson’s columns.
[Daphne – There is a very clear line, and I know about this kind of thing because it’s my line of work, between advertising your work in a controlled fashion and letting other people run away with it. Beyond a certain point, the more you give away, the less you sell, because you have devalued your own product.]
It’s short-sighted to be so protective of your work, because your work gets you known, your work shouldn’t be limited to one thing you did, you have to constantly be on your toes and innovate, not repeat one thing you got right years ago.
Why should the Beatles keep on getting money from genuine listeners, 50 years later for their first album, when they haven’t performed one song live, when they haven’t released new songs for 30 years? Isn’t that extreme protectionism?
[Daphne – OH MY GOD, THIS IS THE FRIGGING LIMIT! THEY OWN THAT WORK, YOU EFFING MORON! I apologise for losing my temper, but honestly. They haven’t produced new songs in 40 (not 30, because Lennon has been dead for more than that alone) years ergo they lose their rights to the first songs they wrote? How’s that for logic or respect for property rights? Copyright expires at law after a certain period of time in any case, but it never expires during the original owner’s lifetime and often not even in the lifetime of his or her heirs. What you are doing here is arguing against copyright law, not arguing against ACTA. ACTA seeks to make it easier to uphold copyright law. It is not INVENTING copyright. The law is there. ACTA provisions just make for easier enforcement.]
I say, protect it if you really must for a few years, but then release it for public consumption. Be innovative and make new music, and remain exciting not rest on your laurels for all this time.
[Daphne – Dan, the law is there already. ACTA IS SOMETHING ELSE. IT MAKES ENFORCEMENT OF AN EXISTING LAW EASIER.]
By the way anyone who bought band merchandise locally before the internet did so at great detriment to the band, because all merchandise was counterfeit. A quick update to non-existent copyright laws locally, and demand for the real stuff because it was of better quality phased it out.
I doubt anyone would be seen dead wearing a fake Metallica tshirt nowadays unless it was a very weird fashion statement. The internet and REAL demand solved the problem.
What do you mean the song itself has no value?
You’re backing the argument that music has been transformed into a raw commodity at the expense of quality.
Somehow the cry for unregulated liberalisation seems to justify the decline of the talent scout whose role it was to discover raw talent. Simply because one thinks he’s a brilliant musician doesn’t give him the right to expect to avoid critics. No wonder we’re stuck with reality shows which don’t distinguish between talent and rubbish.
Quality is something which only talent can produce, which in turn determines value. Expecting to consume music for free simply because it’s so easily reproducible is like saying a canvas has no value because it can be reproduced in a book.
What is significant is how fifteen minutes of fame have become the twenty minutes a musician expects to survive on air before being consigned to the past.
Add design, research, technical innovation, fashion, literature and anything which requires creative prowess and you’ll see where this could lead. Music and film have been the victims of piracy simply because they carry an intangible quality. The work is still as real though.
“How would you have stolen and redistributed somebody else’s music or novel or photography or feature article in the pre-internet age? ”
The printing revolution happened a long while ago…
That’s what every book writer complained about! From Shakespeare’s librettos to Thomas Paine’s pamphlets to Charles Dickens. The latter two famously complained loudly that the barbarians on the other side of the pond were printing his works without consent or payments of royalties…
Nobody in his right mind would abolish a sane protection of intellectual property. That’s not what the fight is about.
“Daphne – Dan, Niall Ferguson has written many books and they are all bestsellers. At that level, you don’t need to promote your work for free in that manner to get your books to sell. He’s promoted enough already through his paid writing work for newspapers, speeches, lectures and television appearances.”
Exactly so what does he lose from someone who, out of respect of his work, republishing some of his work. Were it abusive the avenues already exist, so do enforcement methods. You don’t need ACTA.
“Daphne – […] The sort of people who don’t know who Niall Ferguson is just because he doesn’t give his work away for free on the interest are not going to be interested in buying his book in the first place. If you were interested in the kind of thing he writes about, then you would know who he is already, in exactly the same way I do.”
Yes I get that free publishing cheapens one’s work in certain circumstances, but still, Niall Ferguson’s academic credentials is what made him of interest in the first place – so far copyright hasn’t entered into it. And a bestseller author is not going to be hurt by niallfergusonscolumns.com, maybe Newsweek would. Still again, avenues exist. Niall doesn’t need ACTA to protect his work, neither do Newsweek or his book publishers. They already go after perpetrators through existing legal channels and successfully – take Wikileaks as an example.
“There is a very clear line, and I know about this kind of thing because it’s my line of work, between advertising your work in a controlled fashion and letting other people run away with it. Beyond a certain point, the more you give away, the less you sell, because you have devalued your own product.”
Give me an example of when people ran away with it? I can’t picture it, short of giving you no credit for a piece of writing, which then, yes, is criminal to an extent, or making money off plagarising your work – as a columnist i doubt it, as editor, maybe… but as far as I know unless it’s the recipe for Coca Cola (and even that is worthless without the brand), people copying recipes has been done millennia before the internet.
“[Daphne – OH MY GOD, THIS IS THE FRIGGING LIMIT! THEY OWN THAT WORK, YOU EFFING MORON! I apologise for losing my temper, but honestly. They haven’t produced new songs in 40 (not 30, because Lennon has been dead for more than that alone) years ergo they lose their rights to the first songs they wrote? How’s that for logic or respect for property rights? Copyright expires at law after a certain period of time in any case, but it never expires during the original owner’s lifetime and often not even in the lifetime of his or her heirs. What you are doing here is arguing against copyright law, not arguing against ACTA. ACTA seeks to make it easier to uphold copyright law. It is not INVENTING copyright. The law is there. ACTA provisions just make for easier enforcement.]”
Yes I am an effing moron, in caps. And the backspace key is always more effective than any apology, but anyway, yes why the hell should we guard intellectual property in music for so long so tightly? Even the vast majority of patents expire 20 years including medical ones (and this in the US, protector of big industry), let alone after 40 years and over, artists sitting on their hands for so long is ridiculous.
And the mechanism for enforcing copyright exists already. And you probably seem to know this since you write about this much, making it easier to enforce things isn’t necessarily the best idea. Whereas there is no conspiracy behind it, you definitely know that individuals or businesses wouldn’t hesitate to abuse the ease of enforcement had they the chance. That’s why, for example, antitrust laws are good.
And the record labels that bemoan the loss in revenue? Well they were selling us CDs, overpriced ugly discs, with pitiful artwork, easily scratched and really a waste of space. DRM music? Of course not, you like a band, you want send your friend the mp3 in the same manner you made cassette compilations two decades ago. Stop people from doing that and they’ll rather have DRM-free pirated mp3s – obviously.
Once they started reissuing vinyl and DRM-free legal mp3s people started paying up willingly. Again, demand.
Enforcing copyright on the whole is good when it’s reasonable, ACTA verges on the unreasonable – just because McCartney doesn’t like you putting a Beatles track to your latest holiday slideshow on youtube (actually it wouldn’t be McCartney – i think it stopped at the Jackson estate), he can make it possible for your internet connection to be stopped. Maybe it wouldn’t be the Beatles, maybe it wouldn’t be your holiday slideshow, but it’s policing something that has grown healthily and freely and has been so positive without interference for something in reality so ineffectual – some lazy old songwriter already rich from his hit single released 40 years ago deciding he wants more pennies for it. Organise a comeback tour, and leave common mortals alone.
Borderless treaties like ACTA (enacted not in the most democratic of ways it must be said) allow a large crime against creativity with the excuse of fighting a small crime against creativity in comparison. Prosecutors might not use the full powers it grants them, but why grant them if they don’t really need them?
Again, I repeat, it’s trying to prop up and patch a dead and obsolete business model.
Just a side note out of curiosity – is this the same Niall Ferguson?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/11/harvard-historian-niall-ferguson-threatens-lawsuit-over-bad-review.html
If it is, this is obviously pre-ACTA – imagine what he would do had he the powers that ACTA grants.
Good that you mention patent laws and the missing internet. Read about “Software Patents” and why they are not allowed in Europe and how they will impact your blog when ACTA introduces them through the back door.
[Daphne – Don’t talk rot.]
The problem with the music argument is that there are good, even great bands, and they produce quality material, but without some sort of file sharing, they’ll be absolutely unknown, since recording companies make the first cut from marketing.
Granted, file sharing can be controlled. There are countless avenues that benefit recording companies, musicians and consumers, such as http://www.8tracks.com, which is absolutely stellar. Or else, one can look at the VEVO channels on youtube.
I just think it’s unfair and incorrect to say that upcoming artists are suffering because of downloading. I found about most bands I know through file sharing, and in turn, I’ve spent money on them. On albums, merchandise and even festivals. Sharing helps smaller bands, hurts bigger acts.
@ John H:
Yes, true, sharing does help new artists, so much so that many independent artists even offer whole albums for free legal download on their websites.
To give you an example, I recently found out about a Brazilian post-rock band called Labirinto. Their entire debut album is available for free download on their own website. I downloaded it, and liked it so much that I ordered their CD (for the better sound quality, the experience of having another album in my collection, and for the beautiful artwork on the digipak CD).
But the point still remains: It’s up to the artist or his record label to decide whether they want to distribute any of their music for free.
Undoubtedly so. It is their choice how to share their property. My reaction was towards what Daphne said –
” One of the reasons that the music scene has become so impoverished (in terms of quality and innovation, that is) over the last few years is that there is decreasing will for investment in new people/ new music, precisely because nobody is going to invest in something and then have it ripped off.”
It isn’t impoverished. There is still investment, and there are still avenues that good artists take to become famous / get money / do-whatever-they-really-want.
The reason we get so much of the same thing churned at us on the waves is not because there isn’t anything better, but because companies don’t want to take risks, and this isn’t a new phenomenon. I could name countless generic bands, from every generation, that made it just because risk is not profitable.
And it’s not only in the music industry. The games industry, for example, has an iteration of Call of Duty every year, despite the games being horrendously boring. There are better games, that are selling really well too, but a guaranteed $50 profit is better than a potential $70 for any company.
PS: Gave Labirinto a listen through youtube. They’re quite good!
You’re wrong on that one Daphne, the entertainment industry has never been bigger than it is today.
The problem isn’t piracy, but the unwillingness of these companies to adapt to a change in the market. Take Steam as an example. They took the game piracy idea and sold games for a cheaper price with game synchronization over multiple machines. The result is more money for the game companies ,a much wider audience and an improved service for users. Win-Win.
Take movie studios. Avatar made a total of $2,782,275,172 at the box-office (Worldwide) in 2009 (when movie piracy was rampant) and if thats not enough profit for a shit movie about humanoid alien smurfs saying ‘I feel you’. They also made (and still make) money off premiers, dvds, collectors items, stupid dolls and etc.
The Music industry has never been bigger. The reason they’re producing shit music is because it sells. In any case: if an artist is producing purely for money’s sake then their music would be shit anyways. Don’t tell me Freddy Mercury sang, for the same reasons Flo Rida “sings”, and all he does is get an unpopular song add words like ‘543’, ‘caliente’ and some spanglish shit and is filthy rich for it. The internet also allows bands to get more coverage and earn more album sales. It also reduces costs in marketing unknown artists.
The problem with music is not piracy, but service. The only way to kill piracy is to improve the service and make it more affordable. Take Spotify, the Itunes store or Beatport.com, those are the companies that will make music profitable again and not some stupid law (which will be circumvented anyways).
I mean seriously Daphne, what is the point of ACTA, if all one needs to do is pop a Tape into a recorder and record off the radio (like most of the kids used to do in the 90s)? Or worse still pay some ‘chalie’ at the Sunday monti for black market albums?
ACTA is simply a LOSE-LOSE bill. Everyone looses, except ‘chalie’ at the Sunday monti.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120131/local/pl-meps-get-it-wrong-again.404694#.TyfMQJ8soAU.facebook
I think we can put our minds at rest that our MEPs know what’s happening, they are reassuring us that it is large organised crime that ACTA aims to stop and not the individual internet user.
So you put your mind at rest because of a statement of a MEP? You should make up your mind and read more about ACTA and make your own conclusions.
With ACTA every website is at risk. For example for using a image without copyright. It happens already in Germany that websites are being legally challenged. With ACTA there is no legal challenge anymore required. ACTA gives legal powers to ISPs, Hoster, etc.
Besides that nobody ever discussed the issue of cheaper medicines when the patent expired. With ACTA we will not have them anymore.
I hope you’re being sarcastic, but I’m afraid you’re not.
Our MEPs you say? Our MEPs went native before they were elected. I doubt if they truly know what ACTA is, even if they voted for it.
Just one thing, you retards: tyranny usually creeps your way – it does not announce itself as such.
[Daphne – Note to fb: this man is married to Sharon Ellul Bonici and believes that there is a conspiracy surrounding the collapse of the Twin Towers.]
What would you know about the Twin towers (or Tower 7 and the Pentagon, for that matter)? Tell us, what research did you go through? Do you know the details? Will you? Not with that schoolyard frame of mind you won’t.
@kev:
Actually I have a friend who has his offices exactly the opposite of the Pentagon and he is a witness of the impact. So stop with your rubbish.
One has got to be a Pollyanna to declare oneself a ‘liberal’ who fights for civil liberties and not be aware of something that has been on the EU (and global) books for over two years.
ACTA is more about control than copyright piracy. The corporate media is failing in its endeavour to sustain the false reality. The alternative media has risen too fast to compete against. Their lies are unearthed. Their aims exposed.
They have no problem with you lot, of course. You are sleepwalking into tyranny like no other people have in history. The fact that Daphne is not embarrassed – at this VERY late stage – to admit she knows nothing about ACTA (or SOPA, I assume) only vindicates people like me, who sustain that she is as ignorant as the people who’s brains she likes meddling with.
[Daphne – I’d rather sleepwalk into tyranny than sleepwalk into a power structure that includes the likes of you, your wife and her brothers, Kevin.]
Here’s a good link: http://www.naturalnews.com/034802_ACTA_counterfeiting_piracy.html
[Daphne – ‘Natural News’. Yawn. Send it to the Hare Krista Jollywood Laughter Yoga Club. Just their thing.]
The “power structure” is called FREEDOM. It is based on individual responsibility, a sound monetary system, and a non-collectivist government that exists specifically to protect life and property, and not to restrain the people and tell them how to do.
You being a statist – and a very ignorant one at that – wouldn’t know one power sturcture from the other. It is the result of prejudgmental ‘investigation’ – well, you don’t really investigate, you just gossip.
[Daphne – ‘You being a statist’: hot from the mouth of an avid fan of Dom Mintoff and KMB. U hallina, Kevin. Gej bis-statist. People like you and your wife have an anarchic approach to the liberal west because you have a pressing sympathy for communist totalitariansim (for other people, thougb – you prefer living in Brussels) and not because you are liberal.]
Coorection: “…and tell them how to live their life.”
Correction: coorection is not a word.
Daphne, I have to disagree with you about my sentiments since they are my own and only I know what they are (especially coming from a right-wing family).
Some people just download as a trial to buy the full thing. Piracy is bad, but you seem to forget other people less fortunate than you and myself have to resort to that.
Take a look at this, does this make this game developer a communist? http://www.gamefront.com/notch-says-if-you-cant-pay-for-minecraft-pirate-it-and-pay-later/
Last night Daphne’s blog was down. In future we will get used to vanishing blogs. Most blogs somehow infringe some rights.
Today you need a court to shut down a blog
With ACTA you need just to order an ISP to shut down the blog.
[Daphne – Enough with the drama, please.]
Hi Daphne
This might help in your research too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142
Mintoff would have loved ACTA as a welcome tool to shut up unwelcome journalists.
I’m confused here. Malta is saying that it will vote to support the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACT.
Didn’t Malta sign a trade agreement last year with China which is the biggest source of counterfeiting and piracy in the world?
How can they morally support this act whilst at the same time supporting the largest contributor to counterfeit goods in the world?
Malta has no choice.
Chinese counterfeit items are made by subcontractors who were licensed to produce the original. Initally, the western companies, patent holders, ignored the phenomenon, as the economical advantages outweighed the damage this was causing.
This agreement on a European level, will provide a sharper instrument to stop counterfeit goods entering the country. When one considers that these happen to be the ones which would have somehow fallen off the offical value chain, China will suffer major cutbacks to its production and have to raise its own standards. Even because companies have become extremely wary of risking their know how now that the subcontractors have become competitors themselves.
China’s also fast losing its labour competitiveness to Vietnam, Pakistan and African countries.
It is not a coincidence that Japan, the US and Europe, agreed.
Fair enough Jozef, if you can identify the counterfeit goods. That’s easy with an Armani shirt or a Gucci handbag but not so easy with medicines.
It’s a known fact that counterfeit Chinese made medication for heart disease, diabetes, blood pressure etc. are already on the shelves of pharmacies around the world.
As someone who has to take a certain drug for life I sometimes wonder if what I am taking was made in a clean Western laboratory or some rat infested back street sweatshop in China with an open sewer running past the door!
ACTA doesn’t look that bad if it manages to strike the balance between the producer and consumer. What remains to be seen are the costs of protection and patenting of material, enforcement of antitrust laws to prevent market distortion and the setting of clear standards to follow.
I think you’re right that music has degenerated into sampling given the ease with which it can be done. It’s no different to plain copying of industrial patents, just look at the stasis in product design, in particular automotive design, due the onslaught of reverse engineering. We may have multiple facelifts and new models introduced every year, yet innovation is stifled.
This could also be due the prohibitive costs in patenting ideas, exacerbated by the fact that new models barely make it past three years.
Autodesk products are considered expensive to run, yet when they introduced their own shared development platform, they were shot down for trying to copy other interfaces’ functions. It seems we want to have it both ways.
What I haven’t understood, is whether posting a link, on this blog for example, will be considered liable to copyright. In the sense that this website could be generating a considerable number of hits even because being an open space, people come here to inform themselves. Correct me if I’m wrong.
This is from New Zealand website:
“There are a number of sources of statistics, figures, and economic analysis emerging that look at the effects of filesharing of copyrighted works, the real costs and benefits of strong copyright law, and the effectiveness of strong copyright enforcement. See below for links to reports and analysis of economic trends in the music, film, TV and book publishing industries, and the impact of new business models of content creation and dissemination.
US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus
Ars technica article discussing the US Government Accountability Office report on unathourised filesharing, which found that it is “difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts.”
UK Guardian: The demise of the music industry is visible everywhere but in the facts
An article by the Guardian presenting numbers on UK single track, album, and liveshow sales based on 2008 figures. “Evidence of the demise of purchased music is everywhere to be seen, except for one place: the statistics.”
British cinemas see best performance in seven years
Doom-mongers who predicted the slow death of cinema, as viewers sat at home watching box sets and downloaded movies would appear to be off the mark. In the UK last year, cinema admissions hit 173.5m and the combined box office takings in the UK and Ireland exceeded £1bn for the first time.
IFPI publishes Digital Music Report 2010
More than a quarter of all recorded music industry revenues worldwide are now coming from digital channels, as music companies license music in partnership with ISPs and mobile operators, subscription services, streaming sites and hundreds of download stores.
Report: Digital Music Sales Will Surpass CDs in 2012
According to analyst firm Forrester’s latest report, 2009 was “a lousy end to an even lousier decade” for the music industry and we shouldn’t expect much different until at least 2013. Last year, as a matter of fact, was one of the worst years yet, with a 13% decline from the year before.
P2P Hurts UK Music Sales?
There is a belief, that music sales are being harmed by the internet. MP3’s and peer-to-peer (p2p) networks have made swapping music easy, ever since Napster burst onto the scene in 1999. Is true though? Well, according to figures from the UK music industry themselves, the answer is No.
File-Sharing and Copyright
A recent study performed by Felix Oberholzer-Gee from the Harvard Business School which found that file-sharing was responsible for no losses on the part of content producers, and was unlikely to result in weaker incentives for those creating new content. The paper concludes that file-sharing has had a net positive effect on consumer welfare, and has increased the overall income of artists/content producers.
IFPI Digital Music Report 2009
A report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, showing that only 10% of all illegal downloads cause a loss in sales, and that filesharing has helped the industry understand how to monetize music online and increase digital sales.
See also a summary by TorrentFreak.
750,000 lost jobs? The dodgy digits behind the war on piracy
An article by Julian Sanchez of the lack of empirical verification on some of the job loss and financial loss figures promoted by advocates for strong copyright law and enforcement.
Danish filesharing
A paper examining the relationship between VHS/DVD sales, CD sales, and filesharing in Denmark. It shows that between 2001-2005 the number of artists receiving royalties has grown, and all but the top paid artists in fact increased the royalties they received.
On-line Piracy and Recorded Music Sales
A paper by David Blackburn of Harvard University on the effect of higher album sales due to increased publicity through filesharing vs the negative effect caused by direct substitution (people filesharing rather than buying).”
My main issue regarding ACTA is that it was negotiated behind closed doors. I find this deplorable and applaud Kader Arif for resigning over this. This is what we should be protesting: the undemocratic introduction of such agreements.
However, beyond that, there is nothing that I can see in the agreement itself which is draconian in the way these hysterical internet monkeys are claiming.
There has been a lot of confusion caused by the fact that there have been numerous revisions of ACTA. The original agreement WAS draconian. It called for ISP monitoring and liability in copyright infringement, a 3-strike law (like France has right now), border searches, and the ability for copyright holders to demand privacy invasions on private citizens without any legal due process. The original ACTA as drafted by Japan and the US was shocking. Thankfully, the EU didn’t sign it, and over the years, it was watered down to a version which is compatible with the civil rights we’re used to having in the EU.
The current ACTA merely guarantees a minimum standard of laws helping copyright holders fight infringement. This doesn’t mean that Coca cola can just bring down any site on the internet which refers to Coke, the authorities still have to decide whether or not the particular case constitutes a copyright infringement.
What I dislike about ACTA is something which was mentioned up top. ACTA should have been more explicit on what constitutes intellectual freedom and what doesn’t. This puts various software companies and open source projects at a great disadvantage from “patent trolls”. Big copyright holders employ these proxy companies called patent trolls to trawl the internet, and stamp out any competition which could somehow be considered to infringe one of their clients’ patents. Before ACTA the standard approach was to threaten the individual developers working on the accused project with law-suits. Many would comply and back off, while some would call their bluff (which usually resulted in nothing happening). However now, with ACTA these patent trolls have a much stronger tool. This is one of the aspects I feel the ACTA negotiators did not think this over properly.
Of course, many people are just worried about having their illegal file copying cut off. The reality is that illegal file sharing always was illegal. ACTA has not changed anything there. Moreover, as someone who develops software, illegal file sharing does a lot of damage to small and middle sized software companies, and so I have little sympathy for these people. Besides, if you really need to download such files, it is trivially easy to do so over a VPN or other encrypted connection making detection of the content impossible.
The ISP surveillance issue could be overcome by using SSL connections. Facebook already supports it and so do hosting companies like Rapidshare.
SSL cannot be hacked mid-way so the surveillance operation then needs to be shifted towards the user (which is illegal without a warrant) or towards the website/service provider.
Case study – Youtube:
–> Youtube is already obliged to delete copyrighted material so this doesn’t directly effect them.
–> The viewers of copyrighted material on Youtube aren’t exactly doing anything wrong as they cannot be sure whether the content is available with the consent of its owner or not.
–> The uploader of the content on the other hand IS in the wrong – even presently. ACTA gives greater powers to prosecute people who share or make available copyrighted material. Uploads of course could be anonymous – via proxies/VPNs.
Case study – downloading of copyrighted content:
–> ALREADY ILLEGAL
–> P2P networks (like bit-torrent) can make use of SSL to avoid surveillance – but they are still susceptible to sting operations.
–> File lockers such as Fileserve and Hotfile are obliged to remove copyrighted material
–> People who download should be in the clear, but the uploaders…well…
The ANONYMOUS video on Youtube mentioned emails and chats being scanned/searched. ACTA is very vague on this but such activity is an invasion of privacy and may only be conducted after a warrant has been obtained. Again, if we can upgrade such services to use SSL connections there is NO WAY they can be checked somewhere along the way to their destination.
Something like BBM for example cannot be hacked or surveyed.
Glad to see the Kev back in the ranks with the ignorant.
Kemm hu bravu, hux?
ACTA is neither the first nor the last iteration of legislation regulating the internet on copyright issues. The most vocal and powerful lobbyists behind it are the music, cinema and porn industry who claim to have been damaged to the extent of billions of dollars through illegal downloading and sharing of copyrighted content via P2P sites. A plethora of organizations and individual stakeholders has disputed these claims of lost sales.
The entertainment industry claims a loss of sale on every download. While I agree with Daphne’s comment whereby access to entertainment content has increased via illegal activities, sharing does not necessarily translate to lost sales. Other factors are at play. The rise of gaming has certainly had a negative effect on music sales (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/09/games-dvd-music-downloads-piracy).
One must also consider the current market trends. Consumers today want to test/listen/review content before they pay for it. Why would anyone pay for a whole CD when only one song is anywhere decent? In my teens, I would borrow vinyl or a tape from a friend and would purchase only if I liked most of the album. Today, the internet can offer consumers a similar service at a push of a button from the comfort of your couch – a platform which Apple (iTunes) is heavily investing in. The con for the artist is the increased pressure to produce content consistently and of better quality. It is not enough to be a one-hit wonder and strike it rich – the days of Sigue Sigue Sputnik are largely over barring a few exceptions. The pro easily counterbalances the con – if the artist is good, the world is his oyster in less than a day.
The ‘downfall’ of the music industry has been its inability to adapt to consumer demands and innovative internet business models. Instead, the industry and especially the RIAA, have resorted to an all out war on P2P. In fighting against organized internet crime, a useful tool (P2P) developed to share information across the globe will have to be restricted financially and legally to the point of virtual death. It is widely accepted, even by the RIAA, that the eradication of P2P will not hinder organized crime – VPN, IP proxies and other technologies are available, cheap and much harder to control.
One might argue that the lobbyists will attack VPN sites once P2P has been defeated. True, but with our current technology, that will come at an unacceptable price – a massive intrusion on our privacy, requested by private enterprise and condoned by the Government. This is where I draw the line in the sand. I, naively some might argue, believe the western democracies will not cross this Orwellian line.
I have seen comments on ACTA and the effect on the availability of generic pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical industry has resolved the IP issues a few decades ago. Medicines have a worldwide limited exclusivity ‘copyright’ granted to them via the patent system. Once it expires, there are no issues on availability. The generic pharmaceutical industry (EGA) is only asking the EU to remove pharmaceutical patents from ACTA because it is already combating counterfeit medicines via other means (http://keionline.org/node/1009).
I seriously doubt the EU or any other country has any interest to restrict the use of generic pharmaceuticals. Generics have saved the US government alone, 1 trillion dollars in the last 12 years (http://www.financialexpress.com/news/generic-drugs-help-us-save-1-trn-in-12-yrs/855400/).
My personal concern is mainly for the information sharing websites such as Wikipedia. While the EU’s promise to hit only at organized crime may be the only current reason to enact ACTA, I would much prefer the EU to propose and enact legislation that is not as vague or open to interpretation.
I am by no means condoning intellectual property theft and we are certainly not going to gain anything with paranoid conspiracy theories. However, legislation that is wide open to interpretation is also of concern and may well be the beginning of a very slippery slope. It is up to all of us to remind our governments to achieve a balanced position between copyright theft and freedom of speech on the internet.