Liberal Democrats threaten Youtube!

[swissarmycheese]

www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/04/lords-digital-economy-bill

Why would they do this? It makes absolutely no sense at all - especially for a party which is so popular amongst students and high internet users.

If you have a Lib Dem MP please write to them and ask them to change their minds.

The article clearly states that the amendment has "the opposite" effect to what "it's creators" (ie the Lib Dems) intended. The speech my the guy who moved the amendment makes it v clear he intended to relax the law not tighten it. So the lib dems aren't intending in threatening YouTube, it's an unintended consequence of the way the amendment was written.

This is not uncommon when parliamentary votes to accept a non government amendment. It is v v hard to draft legislation without expert help and the experts all work for the gov of the day.

Before the Bill is passed the Gov will either accept the intention of the lib dem amendment and therefore help draft a better one OR the gov will reverse the defeat and go back to the original gov proposal.

It is easy to say they are just being incompetent, not malicious. That is bad enough, but I am not convinced.

From one of the comments in that Guardian article (from rhinocero), it seems the peer who proposed the amendment got a £70000 donation from an intellectual property firm which will directly benefit from it.

bit.ly/chpdo8

YouTube are fairly good at reacting to copyright complaints and removing material that shouldn't be up there.

The legislation is aimed at those sites that don't respond to such reports.

However I would be concerned about how it would actually be applied in practice.

Actually as well as taking into account the efforts that the site has made to remove the illegal content it also considers "the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content".

So it sounds like if the copyright holder has not made any attempt to release some material and someone then pops it onto YouTube you might actually have a legal defence.

Which is incredibly lenient and forgiving.

I'm sure DLA Piper will find it incredibly lenient on their balance sheet.

It doesn't affect youtube.

I "think" YouTube is very much a potential target. My understanding is that if they didn't respond to take down requests then ISPs in the UK could be forced to block them.

However I admit I don't claim to be an expert on the new legislation so I'm more than happy to be corrected on why YouTube would be exempt.

Are we now the peoples rupublic of uk?

MP's siding with big business again and imposing draconian laws on the 'little' people.

We don't like the content you've uploaded or agree with your website therefore we want it banned, this has happened to many sites over the years including FASSIT who had to take down content and youtube ( have had my own tubes taken down with intervention from the government agency).

It's appaulling that governments will act in big business interests in this way, mandleson yes, we've all seen pictures of him on yauchts with giffen etc, will do anything to stuff his pockets, but now the lib dems are at it?

And sorry JH but it does affect youtube as you can download from there site so in essence it has a p2p content.

Atlantis don't confuse P2P, which is just a method of distribution, with YouTube.

YouTube host the content and as such are liable for it. That's completely different from P2P.

"We don't like the content you've uploaded"

This is not about not liking the content but about the person uploading the content not having the permission to upload it.

"MP's siding with big business again and imposing draconian laws on the 'little' people."

At it's heart this is about "little" people like me.

I rely on copyright to protect some of what I do.

Why should people be able to take my work without paying for it?

Why should someone be able to say, "I think you're charging too much, so I'm not going to pay you". Imagine if your boss said that to you at the end of the month.

However yes I do agree that the law is now beginning to go to far.

Why can't people just accept that stealing content is just wrong though?

You wouldn't go into a small shop and steal a chocolate bar from the shopkeeper.

Why is it OK to steal from me?

Copyright theft shouldn't be turned in to the little people vs. big nameless businesses.

It's about little people like me being deprived of the results of our work.

I don't know what will happen to this bill when it gets to the commons.

The amendment was an amendment to take out the ability of the government to simply re-write copyright law.

At no stage was this likely to affect youtube, however. There is a debate going on about whether this needs to be further changed. The response from those who proposed the change is here:
www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-parliamentarians-reply-to-prospective-candidates-18200.html

Ahh yes it's not likely to affect YouTube because they do a relatively small proportion of their content infringes copyright and because they do respond pretty well to take down requests.

However they've got no special exemption and if they did stop taking stuff down that shouldn't be there then the law would apply to them and ISPs could be made to block access.

At least that's my understanding of it.

"Why can't people just accept that stealing content is just wrong though?"

But this has always been since the invention of the tape recorded and the video recorder you can not blame the internet for this, it doesn't make it anymore accessible than the radio or the local video shop's under counter 'selection', you will never be able to keep content solely 'legal', people have always shared and will always share.

"Copyright theft shouldn't be turned in to the little people vs. big nameless businesses."

But what gives big business the right to think they can police the internet? People campaigning to stop these laws are concerned with the 'where does it end' senario, are we to become like China or Iran where the powers that be can block a site? If mumsnet allows posters to copy and paste or link from another site will this be infringing someones copyright?

"But this has always been since the invention of the tape recorded and the video recorder you can not blame the internet for this"

It is "worse" with the internet and digital media. Previous other media formats would not produce perfect copies, each subsequent copy would get noticeably worse.

Now days each and every copy of something is perfect.

Also the internet increases the reach of something.

Years ago if someone had a CD then one or two people might tape it. The tape already sounded worse than the CD. If those tape holders then copy it for one or two other people then then quality gets worse again.

With the internet one person makes a perfect digital copy of something and posts it up on the internet. Thousands of people can download it. Each of them gets a perfect copy, they in turn pass on perfect copies to even more people.

Can you not see the difference?

The taping days weren't any more legal but the damage was more limited.

The effects of even one digital copy of an album leaking out can now be devastating and it's reach unlimited.

I don't "blame" the internet, I blame this culture where people think it's OK to steal from people like me. The internet empowers that mindset and magnifies the damage it can do but it doesn't actually cause it.

We even see it here with people asking for help on downloading copied software, I mean how would a shopkeeper feel if they saw someone discussing how to steal from them.

The public's attitudes are the real problem and not the technology.

"But what gives big business the right to think they can police the internet? People campaigning to stop these laws are concerned with the 'where does it end' senario, are we to become like China or Iran where the powers that be can block a site"

And this is where I do begin to get uncomfortable.

For example look at what happened to the Pirate Bay web site.

I hate those people with a passion, they're good for nothing leeches that think nothing of ripping off people like me just because they can and then try and pretend that it's some moral crusade. It's not, it's theft.

However the recent court cases that went against them I totally disagree with.

Whatever Pirate Bay's attitudes towards people like me are they're not actually doing anything other than linking to content, which is what Google do. No matter how ignorant and repulsive their attitude they're not actually doing anything wrong and you can't ban a technology because it can lead to copyright infringement. That's if it's even possible to ban a technology at all.

However heading back to this law what it seems to say is that sites that do host content must respond within a reasonable time and take that content down or the site could be blocked.

And that to me, in all honesty, seems pretty reasonable.

"However heading back to this law what it seems to say is that sites that do host content must respond within a reasonable time and take that content down or the site could be blocked."

Well if you were right before about the p2p being taken out of the loop then this 'law' will not stop p2p sharing which every worthwhile site out there now ( TPB, Demonoid, EZTV, Frostwire etc ) are all p2p and do not host content, so this law will be moot for 'illegal' sites, it will not stop copyright infringement.

"Well if you were right before about the p2p being taken out of the loop then this 'law' will not stop p2p sharing which every worthwhile site out there now ( TPB, Demonoid, EZTV, Frostwire etc ) are all p2p and do not host content, so this law will be moot for 'illegal' sites, it will not stop copyright infringement."

The lib-dem amendment doesn't seem to be targeted at p2p sites. They do not "host" anything and so cannot be ordered to take it down.

However the current law proposed does explicitly target users that share copyright files, via p2p or whatever, with the three strikes policy.

The lib-dem amendment to me seems very sensible.

Punishing those that spread copyright files without permission also seems to me to be very sensible, but it's a very hard thing to do and I'm not yet convinced that any technical approach will actually work.

The way to really deal with this problem is to get the message across that sharing copyrighted material isn't getting one over on big business, it's not a victory for the little guy, it's not a victimless crime and plainly put it's not a moral thing to be doing.

Morally it's theft.

You wouldn't take anybody else's work without paying them and you wouldn't stand for your own work being taken without someone paying you.

So don't take my work from me.

And applying the word "worthwhile" to a site that encourages people to steal from people like me is obviously going to be a sensitive subject.

Big Content has screwed us for years. Copyright laws are a farce; whenever they are "harmonized" it is in the interest of Big Content rather than the consumer or the public good.

No-one wants large scale copyright infringement but the Lib Dem amendment is a joke. Even their own activists don't like it one bit, just read the comments on johnhemming's link!

Big Content want to buy legislation to prop up their failed business models in every country. It seems they might succeed here in Britain.

A lot of content gets downloaded that wouldn't normally be bought, new music especially has gained more than it's lost by introducing the artist to the world.

If someone says if you like xyz your love zyx your less likely to go buy the album without listening to a couple of the songs to see if you like them, it's good purchasing practise.

Personally I am too lazy to upload onto my computer all my cd's to burn a disc of my favourite songs for the car so I download them, burn the disc, job done. Why should I have to pay twice for the same song?

I alos download movies (some), I am a smoker so am banned from the cinema so I have to wait for them to come out on dvd, but I'm not going to spend up to 20 pounds buying something I don't know is any good so I have to wait a year for them to come onto sky, so big business isn't going to get my money anyway, now if I download a dvd rip (which come out a good few months after it leaves the cinema) I can watch the film and if it's any good then I can purchase it on dvd, hence big buisness gets my money.

What I actually want to know is why in the uk we have been systematically charge almost double for a product compared to the USA?

"A lot of content gets downloaded that wouldn't normally be bought, new music especially has gained more than it's lost by introducing the artist to the world."

And if an artist wants to release any product to the world for free they can go ahead and do it.

However if they choose not to do so that does not give you the right to make that decision for them and to take their output without recompense.

Again think how you would feel if after your first month in a new job the boss says to you "well I'm employing people that I wouldn't normally employ, so new employees have gained more than they've lost, but I'm letting you go, and I'm not paying you."

Stealing something so you can try it out is theft not "good purchasing practice".

"hence big buisness gets my money."

This isn't about big business, this is about people like me.

"Big business", often it's not so big, is the channel by which people like me can get product out there. Without that business element I wouldn't be able to fund the time it takes to produce something.

So in the end the people you're hurting are people like me. Little people, with little lives, and little families. But somehow it's OK to take my work without payment as you're just "trying it" or it's "too expensive".

People who produce things that so often the downloaders claim to be "fans" of. How on earth can you be a "fan" when you're hurting the creator of the thing that you claim to be enjoying? And not just hurting them but actively harming the chances of them being able to produce anything further in the future.

So you have to wait for something.

So you have to listen to the radio or use a bands web site to hear a new song.

So you have to pay 69p to download a track you can't hear elsewhere from iTunes.

Are all of those oh so very bad when the alternative is to kick someone like me down, steal the results of my work, reduce the chances of me working again and have me loose the way I earn my living?

Thanks.

The frequent use of the word "big business"is just an attempt to hide from the fact that the people you are hurting are people like me. And that's what's got to change before people stop downloading.

And in all honesty crazy schemes like the ISP cut off or annoying adverts on DVDs aren't going to do that.

Finally just consider how you would feel watching whoever provides your income talking about how it's OK not to pay you and discussing ways they can avoid having to do so.

"Big Content want to buy legislation to prop up their failed business models in every country."

If everyone suddenly thought it OK to walk into a local small shop and steal everything on the shelves would they be seen as having a "failed" business model too?

As I've already said drop the "big content" excuse, you're hurting people like me, real people.

If you're going to justify stealing content then face up to what you're doing and explain why it's OK to steal it from my family and I rather than pretend it's some evil corporation that you're somehow doing a "Robin Hood" to.

This Lord hasn't thought through any of the consequences. How does a website get restored once it is taken offline? Who makes the judgement? How are copyright disputes fairly handled when all the assumptions are on the side of the accuser? We mustn't give it the benefit of the doubt - the DMCA in America shows us how copyright law will be abused.

At least the Liberal Democrat activists are falling over themselves to run away from the policies of their Parliamentarians. That has restored a lot of my faith in their party.

"This Lord hasn't thought through any of the consequences"

Everything that you list are all very good points, and the DMCA is as you rightly point out a massively over the top reaction to the problem.

However there does have to be some process by which a web site that does host copyright materials, makes money by that hosting and makes no effort to remove it can be called to account.

That said though the law as it does seem to actually be working reasonably well on that account. The problems with copyright theft are not generally about individual sites that host the content.

While I'm very much anti-copyright theft I am also very much a supporter of technologies such as p2p and do not want to see a heavily restricted internet.

"If you're going to justify stealing content then face up to what you're doing and explain why it's OK to steal it from my family and I rather than pretend it's some evil corporation that you're somehow doing a "Robin Hood" to. "

I'm not trying to justify it, I have explained why I do what I do and I'm quite comfortable doing it, I wont change my ways and I will use technology to prevent anyone being able to track my downloads as will most other people who do it.

What I will say to you is maybe as a result of the problems you as an individual are facing it would be better for people in your position to go to the companies and ask for more money per unit to compensate for your loss.

I'm not without sympathy for your situation but in your position I would be more inclined to be peeved at the corporations who don't share with you the obvious wealth they make from your product than be peeved at downloaders.

"I'm not without sympathy for your situation but in your position I would be more inclined to be peeved at the corporations who don't share with you the obvious wealth they make from your product than be peeved at downloaders.'

Well you don't have enough sympathy to listen to a song on the radio or wait a year to a movie to be on Sky. And that's really not very much sympathy at all.

And again you seem to have this image that it's big companies who are coining in the money and holding it back from people like me.

That's not always true and I'd go as far to say that it's not often true.

Huge number of producers of content work through small companies who are struggling, who are not making vast profits and are hurt by every person who steals their output. There often is no more money in the pot and when they go bust, and they do go bust, they shatter the lives of everyone who works for them from the creatives through to the cleaners.

I've never worked for some cigar smoking caviar eating boss living the high life while the creatives were trying to get their children to write shorter letters to Father Christmas.

I've no doubt that that happens, but that's not most of the picture.

Now maybe I've done something to offend you and you're happy to rip off people like me and our families. But admit what you're doing and stop trying to pretend that it's the fault of the business and not the fault of what you're choosing to do.

I sincerely doubt you'd walk into any kind of a franchise, steal from them and tell the franchise owner to negotiate better rates of return with the parent company.

Why should the response to you stealing from people like me be to tell bosses like mine to pay us more money?

As I say BP i'm not trying to justify what I do, it's something I do that I'm comfortable doing and have no intention of stopping.

"doubt you'd walk into any kind of a franchise, steal from them.."

it depends on your definition of stealing, ever taken more than one serviette? ever taken more than one straw? an extra piece of trial cake ,yes I have. Ever walked away without paying or noticed too much change and not given it back? No I haven't.

We've all broken the law, drove to fast, parked up for five mins where we shouldn't, picked up a pound coin on the street and pocketed it etc, if it's free and it's there for the taking people are going to take it and no amount of legislation will stop that.

But i'm not a hypercrite (thats not to say you are just saying i'm not ), if I wrote a book tomorrow and someone uploaded it I wouldn't shout about it, it's part of the 'new' era, once you release something into the world in whatever format it's publicly owned in todays age and thats something I think people need to accept.

"As I say BP i'm not trying to justify what I do, it's something I do that I'm comfortable doing and have no intention of stopping."

OK but be comfortable that you are stealing from people like me and not people like Sony.

Be comfortable that when companies I work for go bust because a product was sold once and pirated a dozen times that you are part of the problem.

"it depends on your definition of stealing, ever taken more than one serviette?"

Taking what people like me is not akin to taking an extra serviette. It's akin to going to a family restaurant, eating the food and the jumping out the toilet window while telling yourself you were only trying the food out.

"if it's free and it's there for the taking people are going to take it and no amount of legislation will stop that"

Thankfully that's not the case.

I see so many shops where stuff is "free for the taking" but people don't as a rule shoplift from them despite them being able to get away with it.

But that's not due to legislation. That's because people understand that stealing from that shop is wrong.

People are able to see stealing from people like me as not being wrong. They justify it as trying things out, because the product is too expensive, because they'd never buy it anyway, because they disagree with how my company circulates it's income, because they disagree with the global financial model, because it only hurts some big wealthy boss or some other dubious reason.

All to avoid facing the obvious fact that the person it hurts is someone just like them.

And if they could understand that then, as with most forms of theft, I think a lot of this sort of thing would stop.

Sure there would be some persistent offenders who in the end don't give a damn who they hurt as long as they can get what they want for free.

But most people aren't like that.