Open letter to Lord Mandelson
p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- Lord Mandelson (right) is now indelibly linked to the British end of the entertainment cartel Three Strikes anti-P2P, anti-file sharing, anti-consumer programme.
With spurious claims that some seven million Britons are file sharing criminals and thieves in the background, Mandelson, secretary of state for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), ordered legislative measures be, “beefed up to include sanctions such as fines and cutting off of Internet access, said Billboard recently.
Under them, Hollywood and the Big 4 record labels, principally, strive to can gain control of how, and by whom, product is distributed online, with governments acting as taxpayer-funded corporate copyright enforcement overseers, and ISPs working as their police units.
However, internet service providers aren’t quite as enthusiastic as Mandelson, who was apparently egged on by movie David Geffen, and the former is also on the receiving end of heavy flak from corporate performers of the ilk of Paul McCartney and Elton John.
And while Mandelson continues to haemorrhage credibility for both himself and his department, Cameron Neylon has a few thoughts to share with him on his Science in the open blog.
Among other things, “Large and traditional content producers, if given additional rights over those currently provided by law, must also respect equivalent rights for the small and new media producer,” he says in an open letter he sent to Mandelson via www.writetothem.com, suggesting anyone who’s similarly concerned should do the same.
Neylon, who works at Britain’s Science and Technology Facilities Council, says, “I am writing to protest the decision taken by yourself to impose a “three strikes” approach to online rights and monopoly violations with an ultimate sanction requiring service providers to remove internet access.”
He goes on »»»
I am not a UK citizen but have lived in the UK for ten years and regard it as my home. I have a direct interest in the use of new technologies for communication, particularly in scientific research, and a vested interest in the long term competitiveness of the UK and its ability to support continued innovation in this area.
Your decision is wrong. Not because copyright violation should be allowed or respected and not because the main stream content industry should be ashamed that it makes money. It is wrong because it will stifle the development of new forms of creativity and the development of entirely new industries. As an advocate of Open Access scientific publication and copyright reform I am critical of the the current system of rights and monopolies but I work hard to respect the rights of content producers. And it is very hard work. Even as someone with some expertise in copyright and licensing, to do this right, requires time and effort. When I write, or prepare presentations, I spend significant amounts of time identifying work I can re-use, checking that licences are compatible, and making sure I license my own derivative work in a way that respects the rights of those people whose work I have built on.
New forms of creativity are developing that re-use and re-purpose existing content but in fact this is not new at all. Re-use and re-purposing in culture has a grand tradition from Homer, via Don Quixote to Romeo and Juliet, from Brahms` Haydn variations to Hendrix`s version of the Star Spangled Banner.
In my own field all science and technology is derivative. It builds constantly on the work of others. But the internet makes new forms of re-use possible. New types of value creation are also made possible. Re-use of images, video, and text, as well as ideas and data are enabling the development of new forms of business, new types of innovation in ways that are very challenging to predict. Your proposal will stifle this innovation by creating an environment of fear around re-use and by privileging certain classes and types of content and producer over the generators of new and innovative products. Those who do not care will ignore and circumvent the rules by technical means. And those who are exploring new types of derivative work, new types of innovative content, will be discouraged by the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty created by your policy.
Nonetheless it is important that the rights of content producers are respected. The key is finding the right balance between the needs to existing industries and individuals involved in the creation of new content and new industries. I would suggest that the key to any protection mechanism is parity. Large and traditional content producers, if given additional rights over those currently provided by law, must also respect equivalent rights for the small and new media producer.
This can be simply achieved by providing a similar three strikes mechanisms for traditional media. Thus if a television broadcaster uses, without appropriate attributions or licensing, video, images, or text taken by an individual then they should have their broadcast licence revoked. Similarly if print media utilise text from bloggers or Wikipedia without appropriate licensing or attribution, then the rights holders should be able to revoke their paper supply. Paper suppliers to the print media would be required to implement systems to enable online authors to register complaints and would be responsible for imposing these sanctions.
Clearly such a system is farcical, creating a nightmare of bureaucracy and heavy handed sanctions that stifle experimentation and economic activity. Yet it is analogous to what you have proposed. Only you are imposing this to protect a mature set of industries with no real long term growth potential while stifling the potential of a whole new class of industries and innovation with massive growth potential over the next few decades.
Your proposal is wrong for purely economic reasons. It is wrong because it will stifle a major opportunity for economic growth right at the point where we need it most. And it is wrong because as a government your role is not to legislate to protect business models but to regulate in a way that balances the risks of damage in one sector against the potential for encouraging new sectors to develop.
“I respectfully suggest that you have got that balance wrong,” Neyklon says, adding:
“I disagreed with much in Lord Carter`s report but perhaps the best measure of its balance was the equally vociferous criticism it received from both sides of the debate. This to me suggests that it forms a productive basis on which to move forward.”
Stay tuned.
[Note - the Reuters pic on the right shows Iz Lordship enjoying a close encounter of the slime kind, as reported in the Telegraph.]
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
spurious claims – 7 million Brits are file sharing criminals !?, September 5, 2009
Billboard U.K. Govt Rebuffs File-Sharing Reports, August 17, 2009
quite as enthusiastic – UK anti-file sharing move angers ISPs, August 26, 2009
corporate performers – UK `Three Strikes` plan under heavy fire, September 4, 2009
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.
September 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
he’s green blooded
September 5th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Why even engage with this unelected knave? Doing so only validates his existence. He’s already been thrown out of government three times, and now he’s running the country. We just can’t get rid of this cockroach!
September 5th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
The trouble with shooting your mouth off like this guy is, when people realize everyone really is doing something (and 7 million people is something like 30% of Britain’s Internet users), laws tend to get repealed, not strengthened.
There was another estimate a few months ago saying that 64% of the UK’s Internet users are downloading music illegally. Unless he has his head in the sand and thinks that Internet users are still a tiny minority of the population, any politician is going to realize which way the tide is going, and ride with it.
In the US, when it was revealed in the 90s that the vast majority of drivers speed regularly, they didn’t institute jail time for exceeding the speed limit, not even after “three strikes”. Instead, the national speed limit was raised by almost 20%. Eventually, ruling bodies are going to realize that the content industries have spent decades trying to force new technology into their obsolete business models rather than adapting. Unlike GM or AIG, UMG is not “too big to fail”. When politicians finally realize that billions are being wasted bailing water out of that boat without a hull, they’re going to end the protectionism.
I imagine that’ll happen right around the time that the record labels run out of bribe money.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:08 am
“I imagine thatâll happen right around the time that the record labels run out of bribe money.”
QFT!