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”