UK Censors Responses to Piracy Consultation
Written by Ben Jones on January 15, 2009The UK Government, through the BERR, commissioned a public consultation last year into illicit file-sharing, and how to deal with it. The responses should have been published in December, but due to a holdup concerning a freedom of information request, it was delayed until today. Despite this, some will still be kept confidential.
A few months back, we reported on the opening of the Department for Business, Education and Regulatory Reform (BERR) public piracy consultation, and suggested it would be your chance to “get a say”. There has now been some debate about some of the responses, which were requested to be kept confidential. At the start of December, the BERR received a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request from a journalist, requesting all the consultation responses be made public.
This cuts to the crux of public consultations. Conclusions can only be as good as the data these consultations receive. We have seen many times how companies are willing to lie repeatedly when it comes to P2P, in order to maintain their positions. From Comcast and their ‘Sandvining’, the incorrect accusations of lawyers, MediaDefender and their entire business model, to anti-piracy agencies pushing their unique version of events to get the police to conduct raids. In an area where the people with the money and influence are well known for avoiding the truth on occasion, will the BERR release all documents to allow public scrutiny and thus ensure accuracy?
The answer, in a nutshell, is no. TorrentFreak contacted the BERR and pointed out that confidential submissions are as likely to be marked as such to cover lies and diversions from the truth as confidential business practices, and wondered how this was going to be handled. Also, as the BERR likely doesn’t contain experts that have the depth in knowledge of this subject as our readers, will they be able to spot errors without the public assistance that publishing would bring? Clare Keen at the BERR press office responded saying:
On the issue of standards of evidence, all responses received are considered on their merit. We expect there to be differences in opinions and in information respondents choose to submit in support of their position. However we do not rely solely on such submissions or a single information source when deciding policy. We use a range of sources to enable us to cross check and investigate claims to develop our own understanding and arrive at our own conclusions.
On your second point, in our experience the main reason why a company requests that their response be kept confidential is because their submission has included details of their own commercial business/contracts or operations – information they do not wish their rivals and competitors to have access to.
We would always seek to collaborate or cross-check key points of information. Additionally if a party deliberately provided false information they would risk losing all credibility within Government on future consultations or discussions.
However, it may be a moot point. The Guardian newspaper reported on the consultation saying that a proposal by Ingenious Media was getting serious consideration. The company, a London based consulting and venture capital firm, has reportedly proposed making broadband providers legally liable for copyright infringement by their customers. In return they get a small sum every time a legal download of a song or film happens. Where the money for this will come from, or what will qualify (such as Jamendo or other CC music tracks) for the payment isn’t mentioned. Also not mentioned is how an ISP is supposed to be able to regulate the actions of their customers, without using highly invasive methods, worse than the DPI methods that have already been protested.
The BERR finally published the non-confidential recommendations today, and the BERR has told TorrentFreak that the number of confidential and partially confidential responses were ‘a small number’. In a nutshell, though, the only respondents that wanted a co-regulatory approach, were rights holders. Everyone else expressed no desire for it, and significant concerns were raised over transparency and privacy issues. We’ll have a more detailed look at responses later.
Previously: Happy Birthday Mininova, 4 Years Young Today
Next: IFPI vs ISP: Piracy Means Less Sex and Drugs for Rock Stars
29 Responses
"On your second point, in our experience the main reason why a company requests that their response be kept confidential is because their submission has included details of their own commercial business/contracts or operations – information they do not wish their rivals and competitors to have access to."
Of course, business trumps everything else, eh? Ah, the company… that lovely legal construct which is not any one person, but increasingly is allowed to have more rights than every person.
Whatever happens, it is important that it is possible that vengeance may need to be taken if anything like that happens. Why let these (the MAFIAA, IFPI, &c.) immoral sinners free, why let them live free, while they take away the spirit of liberty worldwide? Those who violate liberties ought to lose their own right to live free.
Why are the heads of the IFPI &c. allowed to live? The proper place for them is hell.
Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze
What is more important to consider is that these actions are immoral and that it is possible that the leaders who push for such a thing may ought to be dead already.
Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze
Meanwhile, the injustices that the MAFIAA, IFPI, &c. commit continue to made – how can this be tolerated? Either the copyright industry can accept the realities, or the general will of the people can force it, and if the copyright industry themselves cannot accept the realities, the people must be the ones to correct the wrong. The popular will has similarly triumphed before, like the case of 1787 in France. The extent to which the industry can go is only so far, because despotism can only be enlightened to a certain extent; the real change must come from the people, from the masses of popular opinion.
"… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." – the American Declaration of Independence (emphasis added)."
It is unwise to sit around, and let them continue to commit their wrongs, for it is important that there be justice now – and the people, not the industry, are the ones responsible for that. In the case of a democratic government, there is no need to go to such ends as abolishing the old government, since there is the democratic power of the vote in order to effect change – and it is this power that ought to be used to effect change. In a democratic government, the people, not the industry, are the ones responsible for the rights and wrongs within the state. Even if some actions are not immediately effective, the spirit of change amongst people is effective over the long term in effecting change, for the spirit of change amongst people is what enables ideas to gain speed over time.
Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze
Meanwhile, the injustices that the MAFIAA, IFPI, &c. commit continue to made – how can this be tolerated? Either the copyright industry can accept the realities, or the general will of the people can force it, and if the copyright industry themselves cannot accept the realities, the people must be the ones to correct the wrong. The popular will has similarly triumphed before, like the case of 1787 in France. The extent to which the industry can go is only so far, because despotism can only be enlightened to a certain extent; the real change must come from the people, from the masses of popular opinion.
"… to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." – the American Declaration of Independence (emphasis added)."
It is unwise to sit around, and let them continue to commit their wrongs, for it is important that there be justice now – and the people, not the industry, are the ones responsible for that. In the case of a democratic government, there is no need to go to such ends as abolishing the old government, since there is the democratic power of the vote in order to effect change – and it is this power that ought to be used to effect change. In a democratic government, the people, not the industry, are the ones responsible for the rights and wrongs within the state. Even if some actions are not immediately effective, the spirit of change amongst people is effective over the long term in effecting change, for the spirit of change amongst people is what enables ideas to gain speed over time, in the general advancement of the idea into society.
Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze
Piracy isn't ever going to wiped out, they need to realise this. I guess the only thing publishers can do is make the material harder to distribute, but that isn't good for consumers.
http://www.fetchmp3.com
"or what will qualify (such as Jamendo or other CC music tracks)"
Are you tripping? CC music? What could be more obvious than what the MI means when they are talking about a "legal download"?
The documentation makes the association of 'legal download' with the purchase of a song from an online store, not of just any track that wouldn't constitute infringement.
The UK, of late, seems to be trying to rival the US as the worst place to live if you are a filesharer.
Not something to aspire to!
Well, I guess you have never read or heard anything about the copyright situation in the U.S. Simply put, it is bad, and it needs to be improved. Copyright extortion continues, the MAFIAA continues their despotic regime.
Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze
"On your second point, in our experience the main reason why a company requests that their response be kept confidential is because their submission has included details of their own commercial business/contracts or operations – information they do not wish their rivals and competitors to have access to."
Of course, business > everything else, eh? Ah, the company… that lovely legal construct which is not any one person, but increasingly is allowed to have more rights than any person.
You know I have never heard or seen anybody being threatened in the US for copyright Infringement. Must be If host servers here that attracts attention.
""The assumption that false positives are inevitable is inaccurate. Audible Magic’s proven fingerprint technology currently achieves a demonstrated level of zero false positives." – Audible Magic
Really? ZERO false positives… These people really live in their own little world, don't they..
This nonsense is just going to go on and on and on…. until the copyright industry accept the realities of 21st century technology and economics, stop using heavy-handed bully-boy tactics, and adapt their business models.
I ain't holding my breath.
Roze. Go lay down. You sound tired.
at Roze, stfu and get your tits out.
you sound like a retard politician with piss poor elocution.
since you learned 'despotism' last week youve flamed the forum with it about 20 times.
TO THE RECORD COMPANYS, CHANGE FORMAT OR PREPARE TO GET FUCKED HARD.
PLASTIC DISKS ARE NOT THE WAY FORWARD, YA MAKE A BUCK TODAY BUT FUCK ALL TOMORROW
Since you apparently misunderstood what I was saying, I shall state it more clearly:
There ought to be a political/social movement to effect a change in the laws in regards to copyright to prevent more travesties from the industry.
Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze
Since you apparently misunderstood what I was saying, I shall state it more clearly:
There ought to be a political/social movement to effect a change in the laws in regards to copyright to prevent more travesties from the industry. Even if the political situation were undemocratic, democratic change was certainly effected before in an undemocratic setting, like in 1787 in France.
(Note: you have apparently miscounted, since I have used "despotic" only twice.)
Écrasez l'Infâme! Crush the infamous thing!
Roze
Ummm.. how about the worst place to live if you value your privacy period? Both here in the US and over in the UK they're quickly becoming police states. There have been some big changes in the last 20 years and it looks to be accelerating at an even higher pace.
Some examples are:
More and more taxes
Cameras in the streets for spying and to fraudulently increase revenue
Fake war on terror, drugs anything else they want
Free speech zones
Harassing and arresting protesters
It's all about control and it doesn't matter what the topic is.
I really wish Roze would copy and paste some more of his drivel in this thread…
I wish you'd credit the author Voltaire with that quote you keep making.
I do understand where you are coming from with what you have written but may I make a suggestion of not using examples from hundreds of years ago – IMO it isn't really either inspirational to readers or current enough. We now live in an age where we have many benefits that can argueably be attributed at least in part to the French Revolution.
Try using more contemporary example of popular will over-throwing unpopular regimes such as the fall of Communist controlled Germany or the so call "Orange Revolution" – these are much better and are remembered by many more people as events that happened in their lifetimes. In the case of the latter revolution it also used many techniques and tools (eg. mobile technology and Internet) that are available right to anybody that may feel the same as you.
mr arouet is no doubt turning over in his grave at being quoted by such an gigantic idiot even if he probably would have sided with the pirates.
Article: "in our experience the main reason why a company requests that their response be kept confidential is because their submission has included details of their own commercial business/contracts or operations" (represenative of BERR)
This seems to be fallacious reason for entirely omitting submissions from public view. Surely if this was the case the submissions could still be published without including those details. Which doesn't confirm the reasoning of TF that it was to avoid responses from "experts who know how things work" but certainly adds weight to that reasoning IMO.
Well, I am trying to inspire people to act, and it does seem difficult to get people to care enough, since people just do not seem to care. Thanks for the advice.
Well, I would have thought that people would know that it is Voltaire. I mean, it is in another language, so I would have assumed that people would assume some foreign language saying as a quote.
OMG what is all the fuss about, get over it people!
anonweb.pro.tc
"I would have assumed that people would assume…some foreign language…saying as quote."
is english your second language?
Yeah more like, trying to rival the US in the worst place to live Full stop.
Fuck the UK, all i see is wankers speeding around in SUV's and gay ass adverts trying to apeal to you by calling their products British.
Fuck this country – DK1103's got it right
5 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.