Star’s front row seat for sporting history
- Local newspaper week
Letter: Our right to an internet connection
Wednesday 3rd March 2010, 7:00AM GMT.
Right, I think I'll start with Avatar and then I'll download The Texas Chainsaw Massacre... Smirk
Letter: I’m sure your readers will agree that the internet is absolutely vital to the economy of Shropshire.
As a PR consultant I would not be able to run my business without a fast, reliable internet link. That is why the Government proposals to disconnect people from the internet are so worrying.
It sounds so unlikely in a modern democracy but the Digital Economy Bill currently passing through Parliament really does contain provisions which would mean that completely innocent people could lose their internet connection and without the benefit of a trial.
The idea is that if you break copyright three times you will get cut off. But the person who owns the connection and the person downloading pirated movies might not be the same.
Schoolchildren could be disconnected because of something their older brother got up to. Pubs could be disconnected because of what their customers got up to. Copyright owners won’t need to go to court to get you cut off they will just write to your provider. This is wrong.
I think most people are happy with the idea that if you break the law you should be punished. I think most of us would expect that you should have to identify the guilty party and have the evidence tested in court. The Digital Economy Bill will bypass both of those ideas.
The Bill is moving to the Commons next. I really hope that all of our MPs will work hard to make sure the Bill is improved before it becomes law. Wouldn’t fines imposed by the courts be a much more sensible way to deal with this problem?
Ben Proctor
Shrewsbury
Sponsored Links
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
LIVE traffic updates
Road, rail and airport - latest
Our new, live traffic and travel updates service - check before you set out.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
I think the government is going about this the wrong way. Rather than cutting off people for downloading ‘ilegally’ wouldn’t it be better if material was more easily available and at an affordable price? Electronic downloads of music/movies/video is considerably cheaper than with a hard copy – no packaging/retail outlet overheads, yet I often find that it is cheaper to buy a cd than download an album from iTunes. And why shouldn’t I be able to rip a dvd that I own to put on my own portable player? So many people own portable devices yet it is still difficult to obtain material legally that you can put on these devices. Copywright owners should be working to enable customers to download content at an affordable price, not trying to restrict it. Internet providers could put a small extra charge on the internet fee which could be passed onto copywright owners maybe?
Report abuse
It is wholly and morally wrong to punish someone because they happen to live with a criminal.
This bad piece of legislation ignores that and concentrates on indiscriminate punishment for the benefit of big-media organisations.
(But too late…those organisations have new oompah-loompah’s – “duppity-doo, I do what Murdoch tells me to do. duppity-dee, I’m going to start with the BBC”)
Report abuse
I certainly don’t like punitive, Draconian laws, but I think Ben Proctor needs to understand that we need to balance our rights with certain responsibilities.
In the examples that he gave, it would be the parents’ responsibility to ensure the older brother isn’t getting up to the kind of stuff that would cause his younger brother’s connection to be terminated. Ditto the pub owner.
Internet connectivity and security is complex and beyond the understanding of anyone who cannot – or does not want to – get to grips with it. But ignorance and innocence are not the same thing and the “owner” of an Internet connection needs to accept a certain degree of responsibility for the way it’s used.
I agree with Bridgnorth resident’s comments that reducing the price of downloadable content would be a major step forward in tackling pirating.
I also think the problem is overblown by the media companies. If someone downloads something for free, would they have paid for it if they had no access to the free download? Probably not, they would more likely have gone without. So no loss to the media company or artist either way.
Report abuse
The breaking of copyright is a ‘white elephant’ in this case, this sounds like a ‘good idea’ by some sales organisation selling the idea to a bunch of govt rep who havent got a clue whether its really good or not.
Copyright breaking is a developing area – where the rules need bringing into the 21st century context – I’m not for all out breaking but like previous people led changes (CB for example) the govt legislated to head-off the worst but still retaining freedom to use the technology. Lets protect the people generating the content – which the US and UK organisations macho attitudes seem to look outward, yet ignore inward land-grabs of record companies collecting up individuals rights. Create some new versions of copyright that the individual creator can choose to link to the material – not some big stick to hit people with and for the people to (like everything before) find a way around
People mentioned rights to internet connection..
I would say our right to internet connection only becomes a ‘right’ when materials and services we need to function in our democrat system are only supplied via the net or a call-centre or council shop that needs paid-for means to access as the only other alternative.
Most definitely if services are only supplied via the net – then yes, it’s a right elsewise the council would be actiing undemocratically. I say this because, then, not everyone could use or make decisions based on the services supplied.
It really needs turning upside down – short term financial savings made by reports from short term-thinking managers need ignoring for the floss they are – remember real people aren’t necessarily tech savvy (or want to be in many cases) – we still need the human face, the voice and stuff we can take away and read without the pressure of someone treating you like a customer.
Report abuse
Whilst you’re right you need to consider just what control you have over your wi-fi connection – you can get fined, or worse gaol time if you’re hacked. Remember, last thing I knew the legislation had the power to punish you even if you are only accused (not necessarily guilty).
The legislation allows for “secondary legislation” (legislation that is passed without debate) to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) i.e. they have the power to do anything (without Parliamentary debate) provided it was done in the name of protecting copyright.
Of course, it’s only bad people who’ll get punished, naturally, so no need to worry.
Report abuse
Having spent the best part of thirty years in the music business I have seen both sides of this ever since the introduction of the blank compact cassette. So like any business or retail outlet factored in shrinkage and petty pilfering. As a member of both the M.U and the P.R.S. this problem never seems to go away. My suggestion is for a download licence with a PIN quite easily set up and the costs of which could easily be absorbed by the industry, that way all bona fide productions can be tracked, cross checked and all relevant royalties paid accordingly. Any secondary downloads to personal media devices would be automatically covered by the original registration. This would cut out many poor quality multi generational copies found through file sharing which are both detrimental to the artists work and the recipients optical and aural senses.It would also cut out the need for this law to be passed. Its not ideal but of all the options it seems to me far more sensible.
Report abuse
The digital rights bill is an utter joke in everyway. Although I appluad the idea of someone being punished I’d they break the copyright rule, simply cutting off the root source is crazy. Any intelligent hacker can spectacularly stop a rival companies Internet connection. The British picture library association and it’s members are totally against the bill also for not adequatley protecting an authors work
There needs to be far more understanding on copyright and indeed how to actually spell it. When people have a website or post on a forum or message board they adhere to the same laws as a newspaper or magazine publishing company. It’s not just the big media organisations it effects individuals as well. And anyway why are big media organisations to blame? They take the risks, produce great material and any argument against gives anyone the right to steal £100 worth if food from a supermarket every week because they aren’t a corner shop. It’s blatant theft and stealing, though this government seems to let off burglars and thieves who take what isn’t thiers so in hindsight the bill is perhaps not a joke after all. Let the masses off Scott free leaving the authors to only suffer – a real election winner. Nice one Gordon
Report abuse
I never understood why a corporation should hold a copyright for so long after the original artist has died. The tune I hear today will still be in copyright by the time my great-great grandchildren are born!
Its crazy! Surely artists should get paid to produce their work, and benefit from it until their death, why should it go on and on for another 70 years?
Some one is going to have their internet connection cut off for downloading something created 70 years ago?
Report abuse
“I never understood why a corporation should hold a copyright for so long after the original artist has died. ”
Because they may have invested money in bringing that song/book/recording to the public attention and have an interest in making money from it to recoup their investment. Strangely that is capitalism and works for most things you have to buy. You may find that investments you may have are tied up in companies that do this sort of thing – it’s called making money!
I don’t understand why people think it’s appalling to steal from people (because they have worked hard and paid for goods) yet think it’s ok to steal from artists and companies (who work hard and provide you with music/art/literature). What’s the difference?
To take music as an example – if people stopped paying for music why would newcomers be motivated to produce new music? They wouldn’t and that would be to the detriment of everyone.
Illegally copying music is exactly the same as going to a record shop and shoplifting a cd.
I should declare an interest – I am paid to write and it is annoying when you spend a lot of time researching and producing articles to have someone rip them off and use them without paying you.
How many of you would work for nothing??
Report abuse