Dealing with illegal file-sharing is not as simple as it sounds
Dear Kenneth Branagh,
I understand your concerns regarding illegal file-sharing. You and more than 100 other media personalities have written to the government asking for legal action to be considered if internet service providers (ISPs) do not act to prevent people from illegally sharing files containing films or TV programmes over the internet. I can see why you might be worried by the scale of file-sharing, which is astronomical (so I’ve heard). Unfortunately, the solutions are a little more complicated than you seem to realise.
Your argument is thus: “Our output entertains millions of people, employs tens of thousands in the UK’s creative sector, attracts foreign direct investment, wins awards and creates billions in revenue. We are very concerned that the successes of the creative industries in the UK are being undermined by the illegal online filesharing of film and TV content. At a time when so many jobs are being lost in the wider economy, it is especially important that this issue be taken seriously by the Government and that it devotes the resources necessary to enforce the law.” When an estimated 98 million illegal downloads and streams of films take place each year in the UK (with more than six million people illegally filesharing on a regular basis) I think you have a reasonable case to argue. As we face such a crippling economic downturn, the need to protect jobs becomes more intense, although you probably had a decent case beforehand. In short, you want ISPs to get involved by preventing their service from allowing file-sharing to continue and this may involve new legislation being brought by the government – but this is where it starts to get messy.
Earlier this year, ISPs were ordered by the High Court to hand over the IP addresses of customers thought to be sharing files illegally. Each IP address was matched with a name and the lucky named individual received a fairly threatening letter along with a request for around £500. If this sum was not paid, court action was threatened. However, it soon became clear that while IP addresses revealed a name and an address, it didn’t actually specify who the culprit was. Unfortunately, it is only possible to ‘prove’ that file-sharing has taken place by inspecting somebody’s hard drive. Thousands of people around the country (including some startled pensioners who’d barely heard of the internet, let alone P2P) were receiving threatening letters when they had never shared a file in their life. Then it comes to my attention a few weeks ago that ISPs are under no legal obligation to hand over personal data under European law. Data protection laws can only be bypassed by a government in the case of national security threats or if a criminal offence has been committed. Sharing files is not a threat to national security and it is not criminal (unless you try to make money out of it). As if all that wasn’t enough, ISPs do not host any of the copyrighted material that is being shared so how can they possibly be responsible for it? ISPs are not allowed to monitor the information that flows through the internet for obvious data protection reasons.
In conclusion, I think you have massively oversimplified the issue. Illegal file sharing is unacceptable and your claims that it damages the creative and media industries is undoubtedly true. The problem is that prosecutions should only target the individual who illegally shares files and must adhere to data protection laws. On both counts, ISPs are no good to you. In terms of solutions, YouTube have to monitor their network carefully to make sure that they don’t fall foul of copyright laws and I see no reason why this cannot be extended to software that allows users to share files directly such as BitTorrent – if they are notified of an illegal file on their network, they should be forced to delete it and ban the user involved. If they are unable to do so, the legal case against them begins to stack up (although it is still a complicated situation). This may not be the perfect solution, but getting the government to hammer ISPs over file-sharing is neither legally sound nor accurate from a technological point of view. The government has no right or reason to get involved.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Correct me if I’m wrong.
A buys a DVD and puts it on his hard drive.
Then he shares it with B, who downloads using P2P software, online.
Why is B a criminal?
Don’t folks trade second hand books?
Some shops are entirely second hand books.
If the above is correct, the whole episode is bollox, and based on greed.
So…..
Or, A puts it on a memory stick, B borrows the stick, downloads the tracks, and returns the stick to A.
Where’s the criminality?
Entertainment industry gets royalties from shops, clubs, any open-to-the-public place that plays music/films for the public, even though it is broadcast (radio eg) and is therefor in the public domain.
I say stuff the entertainment industry, they make enough, royalties are payable for DECADES FROM PRIMARY BROADCASTERS. Enough is enough.
Is big brother bribing the entertainment industry to push for detailed record keeping by the ISPs, as a backdoor intro to more databases?
I have little sympathy will massive record companies who charge £12+ for a CD when the artists receive a tiny percentage of the sale. That said, if TV production companies don’t receive revenues for their work then jobs in small British firms could start to disappear.
In your example, B is not a criminal because they have not tried to make any money out of it, but by not paying anything for the privilege of watching the TV show then the production companies and all those who worked on the show including actors, actresses and directors receive nothing for their work.
I haven’t figured out a perfect solution, but downloading material illegally does have consequences somewhere along the line. Even though governments forcing ISPs to get involved is not the right answer, illegal file sharing is not the ‘victimless crime’ that it make it out to be.
Where did I mention that it was a TV production?
Why should the BBC be the sole beneficiary of a taxation on broadcasting?
Don’t the rules of the BBC say that it has to represent the national ethos, and be balanced in its output?
Why are they absolutely PUSHING fabian views, and reflecting the views of the most reviled government in UK history. They are infested with Common Purpose Graduates. They are in breach of their Charter. Try watching “Lies and Evasions” every thursday evening after the, umm, “news”!!!! PUKE!
Why should the UK population support the overseas BBC output?
Let’s go further.
B uses the download from the memory stick to burn a DVD, lends the DVD to C who puts it on the hard drive.
C is an accomplished file sharer. He goes to the database via a proxy server in the Ukraine.
D is also an accomplished file sharer. He accesses the database from a proxy server in Atlanta.
Well?
It’s such a complicated mess. But some of the As,Bs,Cs and Ds previously mentioned might not have gone out to buy said DVD and are only watching because its free – therefore free riding but also able to spread the messge if said DVD was good. This could increase sales by word of mouth.
Some programmes would do better by wide dissemination eg. good old Attenborough. Isn’t education a public good? And the less people that believe God made the world like Nick Park made Wallace and Gromit the better.
I’m definitely in 2 minds about this whole thing, as to produce films and TV broadcasting costs a lot of money and that has to come from somewhere. File sharing is not like swapping books with friends or even like a second hand bookshop – as they are simply local providers serving a very small population. Not the global internet population of about a billion people! When scaled up this adds up to a huge loss of potential revenue.
“Taxation on broadcasting”
I meant taxation on the receipt of broadcasting.
Radio licensing went out the window when they went mobile, decades ago.
MP3 now goes via cellphone to cellphone, or computer.
Mobile phones can capture a sequence, and broadcast it to all and sundry.
G3, and G4 when it comes will give live TV on mobile phones, and broadband iptv/ internet access.
US already broadcast IP radio shows, – country and western etc.
TV cards (PCBs) now enable TV live into computers.
Utube, google etc, etc.
Well?
Exactly how do you monitor that lot? And who pays?
The horse has already exited.
File sharing is not like swapping books with friends
Amazon is global.
Check-out their second-hand section!
but by not paying anything for the privilege of watching the TV show then the production companies and all those who worked on the show including actors, actresses and directors receive nothing for their work.
Rubbish!
The production company gets paid by the broadcaster, who either gets paid by albeeb, (Me and you) or by the independent TV Co, (advertising).
The actors, stagehands, etc, get paid a salary by the production company. And in the case of certain actors/presenters, grossly overpaid.
So, …. Where’s the beef????????????? How much do the greedy beep beep want??
But that’s precisely my point – the broadcaster pays them. If tv viewing figures hit rock bottom because everyone is downloading it illegally instead, who is going to advertise on ITV? Their advert revenues are already plummeting. Obviously some web advertising can come into play but the money generated by that is miniscule compared to TV revenues.
If ITV, C4 and C5 can’t make money from advertising because no-one watches TV anymore, the BBC will be the only ones left standing and with your evident hatred of the BBC I would think you’d be desperate to avoid that situation.
haven’t figured out a perfect solution, but downloading material illegally does have consequences somewhere along the line.
LTAT.
You should rethink your entire ethos!!
Why should P2P be illegal?
Start there, and think!
Carefully!
Everything gets commoditised eventually, – it’s called progress, and increases the quality of life and its variables and diversity.
The reduced costs of receiving INFORMATION, enabled by technology, allow disposable income to be spent on other goods/services, and improve choice and quality of life.
The squeals you hear are from a dying, overpaid, reactionary industry.
Why should they receive income in perpetuity for work done decades ago?
I don’t, and neither do 99.99% of the population. So what makes them so special?
Pop groups are adapting, eg, releases free on internet.
You mention costs.
Technology is reducing those costs daily, the majority costs now being the demands of the “Stars”, those self same stars who want payment in perpetuity!
Regulation puts sand in the economic cogs and kills innovation.
Time for a rethink. Don’t let the crooks (incumbents) criminalise everyone by using their (failing) powerbase.
If ITV, C4 and C5 can’t make money from advertising because no-one watches TV anymore, the BBC will be the only ones left standing and with your evident hatred of the BBC I would think you’d be desperate to avoid that situation.
I’ve already covered that point.
Distribute the license fee!
Me, Amazon Marketplace isn’t the same as downloading a free film from the internet. Of course there’s a big second hand market – Chrities benefit from this but this isn’t really a second hand issue. I have never heard of any author complaining that a chart=ity shop is selling their book second hand. However with this downloading system one person can technically distribute the same product to millions of people.
This is great from a consumers point of view and I do hope this works for football – so those ridiculously overpaid neanderthals are brought back down to planet earth. However, when this pay cut affects documentary programming and quality films – then surely we all lose out in the end!
I’m fairly sure it’s a lot more than six million, depending on how you define ‘regular’. But even if it is only six million, that’s 10% of the British population, which is a huge proportion to be breaking any one law on a regular basis.
When six million people regularly break the law, does that not tend to suggest that the law is an ass?
Fair point about the enormous of files being shared, but my point in the letter was that if revenue streams dry up for production companies then society is going to suffer a heavy penalty.
Distributing the license fee won’t help stop the rot – it will only prolong the survival of these companies for a few months. There are far worse crimes than file sharing but that doesn’t mean it can’t have a crippling impact on the TV, radio and film production.
This is, ultimately, an interim argument while the Advertising industry adjusts to new technologies – its advertising wot pays for programmes, after all. Tivo/Sky + has done more damage than net ‘piracy’ as they are easily purchasable boxes that allow you to skip through the ads. The move is on to embed adverts into programmes; the retrograde end is dumb-old product-placement, the more sophisticated allows any flat surface depicted on a film/tv show to display an inserted advert and the ultimate goal (for now) is for you to watch a show on your PC or TV and be able to say “Hmm, I like the jacket that guy is wearing”, click on it and be shown retail options for you to buy it. Or better yet, have an amazon-style one-click order system attached to it (for those crazy kids dumb enough to leave copies of the Credit Cards lying around on 3rd party systems!). This sort of thing will shift the paradigm; suddenly piracy (AKA free mass distribution) is good but tampering with the commercial links will be bad. The majority of pirates just want to distribute the material, not arse about trying to ammend it to squeeze out some very traceable money.
LFAT.
Calm down and look at the entire picture.
TV.
Viewing hours per week are falling like a lead balloon.
Personally, my viewing is max 3 hours per week.
News?
I get it from a variety of RS feeds from around the globe, – gives a better international perspective.
WHY?
Because the coverage, by al-beeb, or any of the other UK channels is tainted, politicised and parochial. And increasingly parochial as the MSM forces its coverage into the regional mindset of the upcoming EUSSR dictated regions.
Yes, other coverage may be equally so, that’s why I strive for balance.
I am not alone by any means.
The more the UK channels dumb down their content, the more I resort to the internet for content.
Sad really, but given the resources thrown at al-beeb, they are a totally despicable product of a totally despicable mindset.
Investigative journalism, what the hell is that?
The things you want to outlaw?
Natural evolution resulting from the **** currently available.
You want to cure it?
Yours is NOT the answer!
I think I can live with crippling TV, radio and film production. At worst, all of these things will continue to be produced by amateurs, and there is more existing material than any one person could ever hope to watch or listen to.
The UK, along with a handful of other countries, seems to be absolutely intent on creating an economy that rests entirely on the production of intangible goods. This model has already collapsed for financial services and it will soon collapse for intellectual property.
ISPs are the main chance. All the rest is just flim flam.
[...] Update: Forgot to mention – Inspiration: LFaT [...]
As I said, this is a momentary argument in the big scheme of things, as we move from paying directly for content (movies) and advertisers/product placers/sponsors paying for content, possibly with view subscription subsidy (TV) to a model where product placement and deep links from content to retail become the norm. Think of it as cinemas sacking pianists when Talkies overtook silent films.
Difficulty being: most of the torrent hosters are in a country where their legal position is sound. The most notorious/cherished example being The Pirate’s Bay, which is based in Denmark and thus not committing any crime.
James: Sweden.