Big 4 labels, studios, totally out of control
p2pnet news view P2P | Freedom:- This has gotten totally out of hand.
The members of the entertainment industry, with Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US), well to the fore, have forgotten who keeps them in drugs, girls (and boys), parties, multi-million-dollar accommodations, cars, jets, holidays on secret tropical islands, luxury offices, and so forth.
They’ve forgotten who supplies the billions of dollars in cash, some of which is ironically used to bribe politicians around the world to keep vested corporate interests on the front burner.
They talk about price hikes, lawsuits, regulations and rules, ‘product,’ etc, as though we don’t even exist. We’re never mentioned, other than in the most derogatory terms.
It’s taken for granted we’ll do whatever we’re told to do, and pay whatever we’re told to pay, without protest.
But they’ve also forgotten, or have stupidly chosen to ignore, the fact that, thanks to blogs, news sites, IM, cellphones, texting and all the other forms of 21st century communication, they no longer operate in a closed environment which effectively excludes you and I.
“I’m confused,” says a Reader’s Write to Carphone says No! to BPI scheme. “Wasn’t there just an announcement a week or two ago that the UK government was going to impose a mandatory licensing scheme on the ISP’s and media cartel?”
You’re not confused. There was. And it wasn’t a week or two ago, it was yesterday —-Big Music tax on UK P2P file sharers.
In it, we quoted The Independent, which in turn had a ‘Whitehall,’ not ‘industry,’ source saying earnestly, “We need action as the industry is suffering.’
Right. Suffering.
The solution? “Net users could face fines, dressed up as ‘an annual charge,’ of up to £30 (about $60) to, ‘download music under plans to be unveiled today that aim to tackle illegal file-sharing’,” we said.
Licenses, in other words.
Just like people in the UK already have to pay the BBC to listen to BBC radio and watch BBC TV.
At the moment, each and every British household has to come up with 38p a day (about 76 cents), or £139.50 (about $277) a year for the privilege.
In February, “In what would amount to an unbelievable, officially sanctioned, violation of human rights, the UK government seems set to cave in to corporate entertainment cartel demands to impose strict control on the Net, using ISPs as the foil,” we posted, going on »»»
“People who illegally download films and music will be cut off from the internet under new legislative proposals to be unveiled next week,” we quoted Times Online as saying.ISPs would be, “legally required to take action against users who access pirated material,” said the story, going on:
“Users suspected of wrongly downloading films or music will receive a warning e-mail for the first offence, a suspension for the second infringement and the termination of their internet contract if caught a third time, under the most likely option to emerge from discussions about the new law.
“Broadband companies who fail to enforce the ‘three-strikes’ regime would be prosecuted and suspected customers’ details could be made available to the courts. The Government has yet to decide if information on offenders should be shared between ISPs.”
But French president president Nicolas Sarkozy was the first to sign his government up for, and on behalf of, the entertainment cartels, originally mooting the ‘three strikes’ rule for anyone “found guilty of internet piracy””.
Meanwhile, “ISPs are calling on the record industry to put its money where its mouth is on illegal file-sharing, by underwriting the cost of lawsuits brought by people who are wrongly accused of downloading or uploading music,” says The Register.
UK trade organisation the ISPA (Internet Services Providers’ Association ) told The Register it’s worried about the cost to members if users targeted by rights holders for copyright infringement turn out to be innocent.
If they turn out to be innocent?
A murderer is presumed innocent unless or until it’s been conclusively proven he or she has actually killed someone.
However, with file sharing, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ goes by the board.
Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG accuse people, including little children, of being criminals and thieves and harass them for literally years on end with absolutely no complaint from administrations, or passionate, ‘This must stop!’ campaigns from the media.
And they do this without the tiniest shred of hard evidence to back their spurious claims up.
In our story, and still quoting The Register, we continue »»»
“We still need to establish the proof points,” a spokesman said.
However, finding proof is something neither Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG nor any of their enforcement agencies, such as the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and BPI (British Phonographic Industry), have ever been overly concerned about.
The don’t need it.
Firing off thousands of subpoenas at alleged copywriting infringers, including very young children, has been enough to generate non-stop mainstream media coverage incorrectly implying scores of people have been successfully prosecuted for the non-existent crime of file sharing.
Adds The Register:
“The BPI said: ‘The music business wants to partner with internet service providers to create new services that would deliver even greater value for music lovers, artists, labels and ISPs.’ A hint perhaps at blanket licensing of file-sharing at ISP level – the other end of the internet music equation, which the record business must resolve to survive.”
Blanket licensing of file-sharing at ISP level.
OK. Maybe. But why wasn’t this mooted in the first place?
How have we become “criminals” and “thieves”?
How have we allowed a handful of venal executives to terrorise whole families across not only America, but around the world?
Why are we still buying their ‘product’ as they call their formulaic, cookie-cutter crap?
Or are we?
Jon Newton – p2pnet
.
.Stumble It!
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 details. Download here.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:06 am
A bit pissed are we?
July 25th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Ahh, The Dark Knight will probably one of the films of the year to make $200 Million dollars
…and the Charity Government Tax that they give them and all the lawsuits
Suffering? Oh Please
Sad, Much?
July 25th, 2008 at 11:17 am
@ A bit pissed are we?
Nope. I’m very pissed.
It wouldn’t take much to put things right — a little goodwill on the part of the labels and studios and a willingness to treat their customers as reasonable people who’ll behave reasonably if they’re given half a chance.
But this is about control, nothing else. And the cartels have made it plain they’ll settle for nothing less.
Cheers!
July 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
” But this is about control, nothing else. ”
Absolutely.
Time and time again, numbers like the ones for this film prove that internet access to
‘previews’ of these films make NO difference.
The Harvard/Yale study proved that downloading has NO EFFECT on sales.
The ‘piracy’ crap is just a smokescreen to insure that all artists, if they want to have anything more
than a limited local presence, MUST go through the labels as gatekeepers. This is even to the point
where harware manufacturers are pressured to cripple features that could allow someone to use their
PC as a home recording studio, ( the dell disabled stereo mix, attempts to plug analog access on pc’s .. etc.. )
They urgently need to bring the internet … a potential GLOBAL distribution system, under their control.
The government helps them, not only because of bribes, but because they too have a vested interest in
controlling information. Just look at the part the internet played in the US primaries.
Politicians need this door closed, and they’ll use whatever rallying cry is convenient.
The fact that the cartels will pay them for it as well is icing on the cake.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Maybe in Britain this could make sense, but in the US it wouldn’t. Not to knock Britain, but as the article says, they are used to paying to listen to radio. But in the US we have no such requirements, and logically, what is the difference between sharing and recording from the radio ? If you really want the best recording just plug the output jacks into a computer or DVD recorder. Near perfect results.
Plus, with the rapid forsaking of print newspapers for the electronic media of the web, this could probably be seen as a freedom of speech and info issue in the US. The “pay us or else you can’t hear or disseminate the free speech you’d like to” probably would throw up all kinds of red flags in the US. Or at least I like to think it would.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
” Maybe in Britain this could make sense, but in the US it wouldn’t. ”
Already happening here.
Those lawsuits aren’t throwing up any red flags at all.
Nothing is going to throw up a red flag if the US media DOES NOT REPORT IT TRUTHFULLY.
It doesn’t.
” The “pay us or else you can’t hear or disseminate the free speech you’d like to” probably would throw up all kinds of red flags in the US. Or at least I like to think it would. ”
That’s becuase it’s being masked as a crusade against piracy to ‘protect the artist’ .
When people recognize that as bullshit, it becomes a crusade against ‘kiddie porn’.
No one wants to look like they support that, right ?
The US media is marketing such control in a way that no one notices.
In the US we are very used to losing rights as well.. some of them we won’t notice till its to late.
It’s very nearly too late.
July 26th, 2008 at 5:07 am
I keep reading reports on The Reg and BBC news that some guy from the government wants to do the next ‘big’ thing to stamp out file-sharing and disconnect users who do it. IMO, those who suggest this must know as much about the Internet as I do about flower arranging (basically nothing). Also aggravating is hearing about ‘educating’ users that what they’re doing is wrong.
Nearly as horrifically amusing as the BBC article earlier this year about some minister ’suggesting’ proposals in the near future that *might* make copying a CD to a computer legal. I sometimes wonder how anyone in the government can turn their computer on in the morning if they’re that technologically unaware.
I have a small weep every time I hear anyone in authority say the words ‘copyright’ and ‘infringement’ in the same sentence.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
it’s time right here/right now. All programers for bit-torrent clients must come together and figure out a way to properly mask ones IP address and/or scramble all data. Its NO LONGER an option. Trackers going private isn’t going to help either, how does one know if one is a “whitelist” person verses a “blacklist” person. You can’t, no way to know…
all I know is that the time is right, the time for action is needed, it is now!
July 27th, 2008 at 3:21 am
these are the govts you voted in. Think about it.
No Jon, I don’t think we’re still buying the “cookie cutter crap” (ccc), but a small element who want this and can’t find it online or don’t have access to a PC and whose parents can afford it seem to be. Maybe they just need educating in file sharing.