Good of you to refer to a list of e-mail addresses as you’ve done here, but I’ve checked it out and it’s really rather short and consists mostly of e-mail addresses of British Members of the European Parliament. Those MEPs won’t be able to do anything about the Mandelson proposal, that’s really up to the Members of the UK Parliament. Although I suppose it can never hurt, if their European counterparts receive this information as well.

A much more extensive list containing e-mail addresses of British Members of Parliament, can however be found here:
http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/alms.cfm

Nevertheless, I really appreciate the fact that you have actually taken some action in this matter, and yes, it would be really helpful if others were to join in, so to speak!

@ Siobhan

Nice suggestion indeed!

If anyone else is thinking of writing to MEP/MPs also, here is a list of all the relevant email addresses I have been able to find:

http://paste.uni.cc/20187/dl

I hope some of you do also.

Well done! I’m glad someone has picked up on my suggestion to send British MPs a copy of James Monaghan’s response, as it’s been shown in this article. What I also like is the way you’ve added your own feelings about the subject, even if it means that apparently you didn’t pay a lot of attention to grammatical accuracy. ;)

Now let’s hope that your efforts will make a difference, and that this ridiculous proposal by Lord Mandelson won’t make it into law!

Sorry it its ‘off topic’, mumbles on and crap. :)

********************
Being only 20, and proving just one of the many unfortunate stereotypical views on today’s youth,
politics has never been an interest of mine; unfortunate because, now, I feel in a powerless situation to be heard on the damaging issue of file sharing and our rights on the Internet

Within the last few months of having such a passionate interest, my views and interests have certainly changed and so, my knowledge, on the politics and business within ‘the real world’ that I live in.

That is why I hope you will please read the this email in it’s interity, whenever you may get a few minutes free. I appreciate it may be fairly long but myself and many others feel insignificant and powerless to get our voices out and our ‘defence’ heard.

I am not sure to what extent you are aware, or even feel, about the on going issues with the Internet, it’s technologies and the on going battle between: the large media corporations, such as the; BPI, IRMA, RIAA, and file sharers who seek a more relaxed law regarding the sharing of Information and aim to keep the Internet one of the last neutral resources of information, free, open, and uncapitalised. However your knowledge I ask if you please read without a biased mind that you may or may not have due to recent media coverage.

The latest Digital Britain report has bought many harsh proposals to light and, in my view, are infringing on our Human Rights; powers are being abused by multinational enterprises.

Eurpoean Government Parties, who share views the same as fileshareres on the Internet, have tried in vain to seek agreements on a more fair, relaxed and legal model on the ability to share data with other users.
Such attempts have been simply disregarded with out thought or discussion, perhaps due to lack of understanding of today’s technologies or simply refusing to want to any change.

Under attack are Bit-Torrent sites, such as ThePirateBay, who allow people from all of the world to share and discover almost any type of knowledge and data on they require.
While, this may to some raise issues of acts of criminality being committed, that, like in any aspect or way by which any crime has been committed, it should be dealt with, but using this excuse to police every use of the Internet, limit or disconnect their use to the Internet and invade on their rights is morally, and at least of now, is legally wrong.

Just recently a single mother was sued for $1.92million for sharing 24 songs on the internet, $800,000 for each song, a rediciouls amount in contrast with fines for other ‘crimes’ far, far less serious than this.
(Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10268199-93.html).
Such actions our becoming more wide spread, in many countries, especially own our.

The ability to discover new types of information and date, like music, should not be seen as a severe act of criminality and should not be punished under the same degree, the way it is fast becoming.
Instead been seen as the great resource it is that can help artists share their music with an undeniable means of a new profit, that certain industries fail to see.

ThePirateBay are currently changing hands in the ‘ownership’ of the website, and is planned to become fully legal and on the stock market by the end of this month, giving fair rights to both the consumers, the artists and the record labels.

This highly backed idea has all but been disregarded by the media industries in power, threatening the new owners with substantial fines. per day, that are from a previous court case unrelated to them, if the deal goes through.
(http://torrentfreak.com/brein-not-impressed-with-new-pirate-bay-plans-090820 ).

Not criminalising filesharers is a view that is shared by many high ranking profiles in Government across Europe.

One such example is The Norwegian Minister of Education, Bård Vegar Solhjell, who fully supports the idea to legalise (illegal) file sharing.
On a recent blog post he said:

“All previous technology advances have led to fears that the older format would die.
But TV did not kill radio, the Web did not kill the book, and the download is not going
to kill music,”

A recently published report comissioned by the Duth Governement, which looked into the economic and culteral consequences of filesharing, estimated the positive effect on the Dutch economy that fileshearing would have to be around 100 million euros a year.
(http://torrentfreak.com/economy-profits-from-file-sharing-report-concludes-090119 )

At present the UK the Government, encouraged by the music and move industries, a three-strike law is seeking approval which gives Internet Service Providers the right to disconnect people from the Internet alltother without be able to go to court to defend themselves and dispute any evidence, surely this is not fair? These actions could be seen in effect by29th September 2009.

However, these actions are being critised by Internet Service Providers and film companies themselves.

On the 26th August 2009 on the the largest UK Internet Service Provider Talk Talk criticised disconnecting users as
a “likely breach” of “fundamental human rights,” and worse yet, that ultimately “they will not work.”
They expressed its strong displeasure upon learnin that the Goverments thinking on illegal file-sharing had “evolved”
and that disconnecting users from the Internet was back on the list of acceptable technical solutions to the problem.

“Barely two months after the publication of largely sensible and pragmatic measures tn
tackle the problem (in the Digital Britain Report) Lord Mandelson has, it seems, caved in under pressure
from powerful lobbyists in the content industry.”
-Talk Talk; Source: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86900/uk-isp-dismayed-by-govts-futile-u-turn-on-p2p

These views are also shared by the independant film company: Monagan Media based in Manchester, England.
I would like to end this E-Mail by quoting a response from James Monahan, from the above named film company, on his views on the latest actions.

“There are an estimated 7 million file-sharers (your figures) in the UK, and you want to reduce that number by 70%. 70% is 4.9 million. A fair trial is fundamental to democracy. To fairly prosecute 4.9 million citizens is an optimistic suggestion when currently Her Majesty’s Court System holds 200,000 criminal cases per year. This would suggest it is going to take 25 years to reduce file-sharing by 70%. This is only dealing with the 70% of today’s file-sharing with no regard to the expected increase of file-sharing. Research suggests that the number of file-sharers increases every day, 63% of people aged 14-24 now admit file-sharing, with 83% of those file-sharing every day.

To prosecute 4.9million people you will also need evidence. No evidence exists. Anywhere.

The ‘evidence’ championed by the failing sector of the media industry – the physical distribution sector – has been proven time and time again to be incredibly flawed. I refer here to the elderly couple who the copyright industry began legal proceedings against for downloading a pornographic film. I also refer to the law firm Davenport-Lyons, who sent out 15,000 letters telling people to pay a small ‘fine’ (usually about £600) and they’d make a lawsuit against them (for file-sharing) go away. This is what is known as ‘extortion’.

Luckily for the consumers, and all of those of us who enjoy freedom from criminals, Davenport-Lyons were quickly picked up by BBC’s Watchdog program, and promptly disappeared.

I note though, that in today’s (25th August 2009) response, you don’t mention a fair trial. In fact you don’t mention any opportunity for those accused with this flawed and faulty evidence to defend themselves. Which rather gives the impression that there will be no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. What you do say is this:

“…the previous proposals, whilst robust, would take an unacceptable amount of time to complete in a situation that calls for urgent action…”

So what you’ve stated, is that it is impossible for your draconian anti-file-sharing measures to be implemented fairly. Which is correct. What this means, is that this route of anti-file-sharing legislation, the ‘criminalise-7-million-of-your-citizens’ route is wholly unfeasible, impossible to implement without massive cost to the tax-payer, and impossible to implement without massive damage to the progress of the UK’s creative industries. What this does not mean is that instead of fair trials and the assumption that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, everyone should be presumed guilty until they are proven innocent. This is perverse as the accused would not then have the opportunity to be proven innocent.

In my previous contribution to this consultation, I briefly touched upon the fact that the industry has never been able to show any loss, financial or otherwise, has been caused by file-sharing. I’ve gone into a little more detail here, which shows, with numbers, evidence, and references, (rather than the usual hearsay provided by the industry) to show that there isn’t a financial loss to any of the most downloaded films this year (so far).

You’ll note that all of the top ten most downloaded films so far this year (3) are all incredible commercial successes, each making hundreds of millions of pounds. Watchmen, the most downloaded film with 16.9 million illegal downloads, still made $185,248,060. How can anyone argue that file-sharing has caused it a financial loss? Benjamin Button was the second most downloaded film so far, being downloaded 13.1 million times illegally. It made $332,860,689. A financial loss? I think not.

What we are seeing here, is the end of one type of business: the physical distribution of digital products. We are in a world where DVDs are old technology, in less than ten years Blu-ray disks will go the same way as LPs, as tape cassettes, as VHS tapes, and as DVDs. The internet however, has outlived the DVD. And it will outlive the Blu-ray disk. And it will outlive whatever format ‘succeeds’ the Blu-ray disk. The internet is here to stay. What we are seeing in the Creative Industry is a very small sector (distribution), which makes massive money from a system which is made redundant by the internet.

It is not the responsibility of the government, or the ISPs to prop up a failing business. If a business is failing, it is the responsibility of that business to look at itself, at its actions and rethink its operations in order to save itself.

It is wholly unfeasible to enforce any rule against filesharers, and impossible, literally impossible to enforce according to law.

I reiterate the statement I made in my first contribution to this consultation, the majority of my audiences watch my films over the BitTorrent system, a system so revolutionarily brilliant that it means I, an independent film-maker, can distribute a film in full High Definition to hundreds of millions of viewers with absolutely no cost incurred to me, where normally global film distribution costs several tens of millions of pounds. I think it is acceptable to say then, that my company and I are at the forefront of the industry.

As someone who uses file-sharing systems, not only to gain access to media which I never could’ve before, but also to distribute my own contributions to the UK’s Creative Industry, I am utterly shocked and appalled by the lengths to which your government will go to make my audiences, my peers and myself criminals.

This is not the end of the creative industry. I can say this with great confidence, as someone working in the industry. The industry is currently undergoing a change, a natural change, a change that it must undergo. Although this is not the end of the creative industry, it is the end of a disgusting sector of the industry which has been a parasite on the industry for the past half-century, milking it for as much money as it can, promoting false inflation of the rest of the industry only to increase its own profits.

The criminals here are not the teenagers downloading films and music, but the global corporations that extort money from artists and consumers alike, and who operate in a manner not unfamiliar with sinister global criminal networks.

It is the remit of democratically elected Government to protect the citizens, film-makers, and business-owners from the failing business model which threatens freedom, civil liberty, and creative business’ economic future.

Finally, I take this quote from your statement today:

“…As ever we would need to ensure any such measure fully complied with both UK and EU legislation…”

Disconnecting people from the internet does not fully comply with EU legislation. In fact it directly contravenes EU legislation. I am referring to amendment 138/46 which was adopted on the 6th May 2009 in response to French attempts to implement a system almost exactly the same as the one proposed here. A system which was declared unconstitutional by the French High Court. You will be aware that amendment 138/46 declared that access to the internet was a fundamental human right.

Not only do your proposals directly contravene European Law, but the certainty of wrongful sanctions being taken against citizens opens the government up to legal action. The fact that cutting off an entire household’s internet punishes everyone in that household and not just the ‘accused file-sharer’ is near-certain to breach the government’s ‘Every Child Matters’ directive where children are punished for others’ actions. The probability of cutting off the internet of those who need the internet to survive, the long-term sick, for example, or the disabled, further opens up the government to attack.

Is this the route that my government wants to pursue? Or should the government perhaps listen to its’ citizens’ outrage and stop neglecting them in favour of the power and massive wealth offered by the global corporations who’s only motivation is furthering said power and wealth?

Yours faithfully,
James Monaghan”

-James Monaghan; Managhan Media. Source: http://torrentfreak.com/independent-film-company-responds-to-berr-consultation-090827

I appreciate any time you have taken to read this email. I hope to hear your views on this matter if possible, or hope you can forward it on to the relevant people who can.

Thank You,
JD

should be:

“whose only motivation”

and there is organizations in Ireland and the EFF Europe arm.

Anyone knows about more civil liberties group that are fighting those ridiculous copyrights in what is being called by some the copywars.

http://copycrime.org/

Here read the chilling effects that too much power have on society:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/

And thank you, James Monaghan, for your outstanding response!

Why shouldn’t they be able to be financially rewarded for doing just that?

Because the world doesn’t work that way, if I go to my boss and tell him I am entitled to a salary just for doing part of what the job requires you think I would get that?
Of course not, so why should artists that don’t know how to master all the requirements for their job have the right to any financial gain? or even respect?
Life is not easy, is not a joke and is not for the weak. If you don’t have what it takes don’t do it period.

I’m merely stating that the choice as to whether an artist shares there intellectual property should rest with the artist or the rights holder, not the consumer

The first rule of capitalism:

Let the market decide what is better.

As I love capitalism I would say that copyright only exist because people let it stand, some copyright is fine to much and it encroches on the rights of the people so no the artist shouldn’t have the right to decide in “all” instances how his work should be used, it is ok to go after people trying to monetize your ideas in a BRIEF! period of time lets say 2 years after that it should be fair game to everybody or even better lets make a 3 strikes copyright were the artists have absolute control over his or hers work over the period of 1 year in the second year he or she looses the right to go after anybody sharing it for free for non commercial purposes and on the third year it is fair game to engage on commecial exploration by anyone this way the most profitable time window is granted to the artist and after that the people can start commercializing localy and make some money out of a contracted work that was done in the name of society. Copyright is a social contract it does not grant ownership on ideas or art it grants rights.

The criminals here are not the teenagers downloading films and music, but the global corporations that extort money from artists and consumers alike, and who operate in a manner not unfamiliar with sinister global criminal networks.

This is the platform that everyone can agree with…….I personally agree with this statement

- Ask Madonna how she did to get $200 million dollars even some country guy named Nelson something made $45 million dollars, how they can and other cannot make money?

- Paulo Coelho made millions pirating his own stuff and in his own words “Piracy is a great promotional tool”(More or less what he said)

- Software companies that go the opensource way are doing fine and there is a growing list of profitable companies that although their main product is free to distribute, modify and copy they still somehow make money out of it? And many programmers gain exposure and are hired by big companies or have their ideas bought and paid for.

- Movie theaters are flooding with people is impressive how they make can afford the oppressive charges from the MPAA and still make a little profit on the side with popcorn’s and sodas.

- New ways for discovery and financing for artists are springing up like slicethepie and sellaband that use fans to finance the costs to produce and market things and they are operating for 3 or 5 years now.

- At least one Canadian music label gives the music for free and is making tons of money and have names like Avril Lavigne so is not a small outfit.

Besides here are some facts:

- The industry is seeing growth where others are loosing their houses and being homeless. It is a global recession and they are seeing growth.

- What the industry calls lost sales I call it pipe dreams as the market is finite and the industry never ever sold more then it has in this decade how they can say that they are being hurt with record profits?

- If it hurts explain how is that TV and Radio stations that give away their products are not hurting the industry but magically someone listening or watching over the internet is wrong and evil.

- Tape recorders, video recorders existed and will continue to exist, what is the diference of a Tivo from the pirate bay really? I mean one records video from the TV and let you see it the other offers the recorded TV for anybody to see it, in a way the pirate bay is the ultimate tivo LoL Did it stop people from buying anything? if you look up the numbers for the industry you will find your answer(it did not)

Your arguments are certainly valid and often expressed, but are selective and inaccurate.

“The overpaid industry” is certainly true especially if you consider it’s not really artist, and certainly not writers, that get “the big bucks”.

And considering the business is essentially a popularity contest the internet does nothing but help popularize new and upcoming artist gain more fame, which they find a lot of ways convert in more palpable currency. Be it J Lo g-strings or Puff Diddly smell-my-armpit-cologne.

And as to whether customers should be allowed to choose for what to pay I personally refuse to pay for badly rendered service isn’t it reasonable for me to pay only for music or movies I like? This is actually useless because it draws an analogy to a complete different business model, but still it is workable refutable.

As the letter accurately states, my deepest respect for Mr. Monaghan btw, the feudal industry is simply trying to hold the serfs tied to the land in order to exploit them better. And it’s really only the industry that gets any hurt from p2p because in its face it has a competing cheap distribution channel that they don’t know how to harness and use.

Bottom line is the big shots are risking a long term alienation of it’s customer base by criminalizing the behavior of a significant percentage of it’s target demographic in order to squeeze a few short term dollars. Moreover this has spawned a new despicable and horribly unprincipled little industry that helps victimize the customers.

OK, so why is it we can freely got to a library, borrow a book, take it home and read it with out spending a single penny, yet, you don’t see writers or publishers loosing out.

Because of this, I have bought more books than I ever would have.

Why can’t this be the same for music and movies?
Why do I have to pay money upfront for some creative work that I may or may not like.

Well for one the writers, most of the time, are more intelligent and have a better perspective on sharing their creative works compared to the MAFFIA’s out there, who only care about profits.

Heck, more time and effort goes into writing a book than an album, yet you don’t see the writers complaining about their books being available at library’s and they still make a nice sum of money.

The Internet is our library, the books our music, and no one for the life of me is going to stop me downloading.

If I like an album enough, I WILL and do go out and buy it, the same I do with books.

In this case the producer (artist) has to face up to the fact that the consumer has long since known that their base product is fundamentally worthless. Copying has always existed for that reason. The producer has to sell the ‘extras’ like the concerts or the t-shirts or go under.

The loss of a few artists who won’t accept this paradigm shift is nothing to concern the consumer but the artist will be the one who can’t pay their mortgage. The producer must accept that they are less important than the consumer therefore if they are to survive.

You can’t stop progress in something such as P2P without, essentially, restoring the world to the Dark Ages (stagnant technology production). So, wishing to keep selling physical media and getting rich or w/e is nothing but a pipe dream. Technology has changed, there is NOTHING that can be done about it. The very structure of the internet was made to resist attacks from foreign partys, and it’s unforseem consequence was, of course, that even internal attempts at interfering with it would result in nothing. In the end, you can’t unplug pirates without unplugging every single human being, which is also impossible.

So, it is not a matter of “fairness” or “think of the artists”. I have immense respect for artists around the globe, but getting revenue this way has become impossible, or will shortly.

In a valid analogy, it’s like saying that we shouldn’t use light bulbs, because this way the whole candle industry would go bankrupt, taking away thousands of jobs from hardworking North-Americans, including candle resellers, wax makers, not to mention gas lamps, street illumination workers, etc. We all know this is bullshit, but it’s the exact same situation.

And the faster we stop crying about the past, the faster executives will move on investing in Internet content production and reselling, Internet infrastructure, artists to Web-content research and etc.

That’s because it’s derived from the association that one IP address equals one person.

They want to keep the number, on the one side, smallish, on another side high. When they’re trying to convince politicians the numbers has to be high enough. But when they’re trying to sell the law the numbers has to be small enough.

Not so differently for a site owner selling commercial space, where all of a suddenly one hit, or peer in this case, equals one person, but negotiating bandwidth cost there’s not that many visiting the page after all. :p

‘Naturally though, (as with all government figures), its probably hilariously incorrect.’

As I see it, problem is either politicians only receive input from one side because the other side, our side, is to damn lazy or doesn’t understand how politicians make up their judgement, or numbers, (which of course is very much based on lobbying enforcement), or the politicians only eyes input from those who, lets say, treat them well. (Not a whole lot of politicians actively go out on their own to seek input, and understand it, the input is handed to ‘em, preferably pre-chewed. And how do we, pretty much everyone, prioritize what we read?)

Point is, politicians might make sound judgement… on the input they have received, or read. So we prolly should blame the right side, especially for these BS numbers. :-()

Thank you for responding to the consultation in such a lucid maner.

So you’re saying that the consumer should decide whether they want to pay for goods or services?

Just out of curiosity, who you apply that model to all businesses or just the entertainment industry? Maybe you could give small indication as to which goods & services you feel you should pay for and which you are happy just to take for nothing?

Why? Who is more important in this ‘transaction’ the artist or the consumer. Ultimately they need us a lot more than we need them. Therefore what we want is more important than what they want. Too many businesses operate on the assumption that we work for them rather than the other way round.

http://vimeo.com/5229486

Information that is accurate, unlike the information that gets supplied to them by any in favour of the proposed changes.

scene release site
http://www.torrentkit.com

In addition, the entertainment industry (both recording and tv/motion picture) has a LONG history of cheating its members out of just due royalties – that is documented FACT.

And here’s a little remembered article that sums up the recording industry as a whole quite well – many people may hold a grudge against the writer for who she is, but she DOES make a very good point about the issue –

Courtney Love Does The Math

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

I hoestly say that i have bought MORE CDs/DVDs and CONCERT TICKETS since file sharing began – there are NUMEROUS European artists that will NEVER get mainstream exposure in the US without filesharing – and I have supported many of them as much and as directly as I have been able.

And again, I re-iterate – WHO would spend money on an artist they have never heard of?

Joining the crowd… we are passionate about creatives and file sharing here.

I would like to answer for the old and known argument you wrote:

They genuinely seem to believe that there will be a never ending supply of creatives who will be more than happy to churn out new media for people to share, for absolutely no financial gain.

My answer:
Well David, actually creating creatives has the opposite relation to do this. As more people consume those creative products creativity grows. The internet is made out of everyone, and everyone creates content.

You might argue not all content is original. Well, some say that even Shakespeare copied for the Greeks, and after 4000 years of written word we print more and more book titles each year (check out the amazon statistics!) because more and more people write read-worthy books. Ideas stay the same, people execute them completely differently.

Creativity is a human nature, that grows bigger as your are being exposed to creative “stuff”. File-sharing harms creativity? No! It inspires creativity. Every year Every year you are being exposed to more and more great music artists.

File sharing evens up the exposure that used to be focused on what the “big labels” decided to promote.

There is a group of people that still believe that there is only a few dozen talented people in the world that is worth hearing about. They own or are those people.

Luckily we have the internets to teach us right. :)

And two examples from self experience:

I’m giving my code for free. every last piece of it. always. I think I am one of the most requested web consultants in my country.

I have a very close artist friend that would be glad if people will be able to listen to his music for free (his current recording contract forbids it)- all he cares is that they will pay when coming to see him preform (scared goods).

Cookie

I’ll look forward to seeing you again this September James.

thanks to all involved for getting our voice heard

http://www.h33t.com thinks the bill will not succeed

That’s fine for people like Mr Reznor who already has a huge fanbase to ‘exploit’. But what about new artists whose talents are for writing & recording songs? Why shouldn’t they be able to be financially rewarded for doing just that? Why should they be required to master other aspects of marketing in order to see a return on their hard work? They good at writing songs, not designing mugs & T-shirts and stuff like that.

There’s obviously still a demand for music otherwise people wouldn’t be sharing it – There’s demand and supply so there should be a financial transaction. Whether that’s via a subscription model or straight sales is open for debate, but I fail to see why it is unreasonable to expect someone to get paid for doing their job.

The argument that businesses are already making enough money so it doesn’t matter if consumers take stuff for free is plainly ridiculous.

I’m serious, please run for PM.