UK sees ISPs as Big 4 copyright cops
p2pnet news | Music:- A British baron wants ISPs to work for the corporate music copyright cartel, Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, as an unpaid copyright cops.
But, says Lord Triesman, the UK government isn’t interested in “hounding 14-year-olds who shared music”.
Rather, it’s, “intent on tracking down those who made multiple copies for profit,” says the BBC, continuing to perform sterling services as an unpaid, unofficial Big 4 PR agency.
With the successful OiNK campaign, ably assisted by the BBC, Interpol and the British police force, still fresh in mind, “The UK government could legislate to crack down on illegal file-sharers, Triesman told the BBC’s iPM programme,” it says.
Intellectual property theft would not be tolerated, it has Lord Triesman, parliamentary under secretary for innovation, universities and skills, declaring firmly.
“If we can’t get voluntary arrangements we will legislate,” he says in the story, calling on internet service providers to take a “more activist role” in the “problem of illegal file-sharing”.
No doubt quoting from material supplied by the Big 4’s BPI (British Phonographic Industry), “Where people have registered music as an intellectual property I believe we will be able to match data banks of that music to music going out and being exchanged on the net,” he said, also quoting the standard Big 4 line, “If creative artists can’t earn a living as a result of the work they produce, then we will kill off creative artists and that would be a tragedy.”
The Internet Service Providers Association, “has always maintained that it cannot be held responsible for illegal peer-to-peer traffic because it is ‘merely a conduit’ of such material,” says the BBC, quoting BPI mouthperson Geoff Taylor (right) as saying, “We greatly welcome the government reiterating its view that ISPs should work with us to tackle the problem of internet piracy, or else face legislation.”
Given the ease with which the corporate music industry is able to bend governments and law enforcement agencies around the world to its will, Taylor felt safe in making the statement.
Also See:
BBC – Anti file-sharing laws considered, October 24, 2007
OiNK campaign – Big Music’s OiNK farce rolls on, October 24, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Those who provide goods and services for others should be paid. I have 3 part time jobs and I don’t work for free. Why should a musician?
October 24th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Reader’s Write, the recording industry never really paid musicians to begin w/. The entire justification for intellectual property is that it is supposed to serve the “public good” by providing an incentive to produce more art. Busting people for downloading works of art that are often decades old (and whose artists are often dead) is obviously not serving the “public good.” Furthermore, artists aren’t normal “workers”; they generally produce art b/c they people to hear it. I don’t know too many artists who actually think they’re going to make big money off their art. Maybe the rational for intellectual copyright worked when it was very expensive to produce a record and so somebody had to foot the bill for it (and thus be compensated), but those days are long over. Yet the recording industry still hides behind these very artists in order to protect their monopoly control over the distribution of art that should be in the public domain to begin w/. If we still need to financially compensate artists there are plenty of other ways we can do so other than forking over money to the goons at Time Warner.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“Those who provide goods and services for others should be paid. I have 3 part time jobs and I don’t work for free. Why should a musician?”
From now on we will deal directly with the artists. The recording industry is no longer needed.
You can keep working for the music industry if you want to but it will be for free because you have no market and no customer. Sorry!
Have a rotten death in hell parasite!
October 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Musicians dont work for free, but do you think you should get a pension for life + 70 years for the work you do? If you and everyone else got that then it would be fair.
Well thats how long it take for a song to get into the public domain these days.
Learn aboiut the intent the framers of copyright envisioned and of the safety valves in place to assure it would achieve that objective.
Then it will be obvious that large content owners have just bought up the authors works to control the content by censoring and stifling creativity and trying to make end users feel guilty. Abusing the law for their own personal gain is their primary purpose not the primary purpose the law intended;
Search google for Lydia Pallas Loren “The Purpose of Copyright” then you will know and understand. It will add more insight to your opinion.
October 24th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I don’t work for a music label. I work partime at a grocery store anda library. I deliver newspapers on my bike and help my wife run a bus depot. I expect to get paid for my work. yes, why shouldn’t a musicin get paid. i was listening to buzz out loud on cnet and they reported radiohead is averaging 50 pence less on average per album download on thier own than they got with emi.
October 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
“Where people have registered music as an intellectual property I believe we will be able to match data banks of that music to music going out and being exchanged on the net,” have they ever heard of the concept of encryption?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Oh, 50 pence less than they got with EMI? Hm, I wonder how many more fans they made by offering to the fans to set the price of their album, but I guess Big 4 doesn’t want anyone to know THAT.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Again it’s another knee-jerk reaction by some Government numptie who hasn’t got the foggiest idea what he’s talking about… How is someone going to differentiate between my sharing a 700mb video file of the latest “blockbuster” (ie read crap film!) and a 700mb video file of my kids growing up that I’m torrenting to my sister in the US? They aren’t… And if they look at *every* 700mb video file then it’s gonna cost them a lot of cashola… Why not just ban BitTorrent files? Oh, you cant.. I downloaded Ubuntu 7.10 using BitTorrent.. .it has legal uses too… doh!
I do wish these Governement types would actually do some research before listening to ailing business model Corporations who spout their nonsense…
October 25th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Another politician espousing industry dribble verbatim… Next…
October 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
” why shouldn’t a musicin get paid. ”
Ask the record label execs that.
” i was listening to buzz out loud on cnet and they reported radiohead is averaging 50 pence less on average per album download on thier own than they got with emi. ”
Interesting that.
Do you mean that each album on the whole sold for 50 pence less than EMI sold them for ?
If that’s what you mean …
Album sell for 20.00 through EMI.
Radiohead MIGHT get .15 to .20 cents per ( depending on their contract. )
Album sells for 15.50 direct.
Radiohead gets 15.50.
See the difference.
” I don’t work for a music label. I work partime at a grocery store anda library. I deliver newspapers on my bike and help my wife run a bus depot. I expect to get paid for my work. ”
I work as a computer repair tech.
I work for free .. a lot.
Probably about 70% of the time.
In my small town there are a LOT of elderly folks with PC’s and little income, and
young families, just starting out, that need pc’s to further their education, for
their kids to use ..etc.
That’s just my choice though.
As I have said before …..
A REAL musician/artist does what they do because it’s a part of them, not
because they woke up one morning and said, i’m going to be a rich musician.
This shows up in the quality of their work.
Those that do it as a ‘job’ for a paycheck, well, it shows in the quality of their
‘product’ as well.
This is truly why the ‘industry ‘ is having such a hard time.
The lack of quality, ( cookie cutter sameness ) is showing.
Most acts appearing to have been churned out with the same speed and ’sameness’
as bottles of shampoo off of an assembly line.
Please post a link to this ‘ buzz’ you speak of.
I have a feeling that you are making it up, or completely misread whats there.
That or just accepting what the major media sells you has misled you, badly.
October 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
” From now on we will deal directly with the artists. ”
This is the only way to be sure the artists REALLY get paid.