Ofcom
It requires Ofcom to prepare letters to be sent out by IPSs to people suspected, or accused by copyright owners, of infringing (this means both the receiver of a file and the senders, including everyone who uses P2P file sharing and allows others to download from their computer). Current proposals of typical letters drafted by Ofcom show 93% of the content to be railing against file sharing and breaking copyright, but only 7% on how to download a legal copy.
Ofcom has also to report on the levels of unlawful file sharing - I have no idea how, without either trusting the data coming from interested parties, the copyright owners, or by getting the ISPs to spy on your internet access...
The third thing Ofcom have to do is to educate people not to copy illegally and report on the success of the campaign. Again I have no idea how they will measure this... surveys anyone.
Legal alternatives
But one thing Ofcom have to do is to supply the legal alternative source for the files shared. And this is a BIG problem because they do not exist. It is no use accusing someone of downloading a copy of a new film, released in the USA but not in Europe or in cinemas but not on DVD and certainly not on the internet, because there will be no official source. The possibility of finding a legal source today are few and far between for many things that are shared - that's why people do it.
Many films are simply not made available, locally or globally, for legal download. This is because of the industry's old business models of creating shortage to exploit high initial pricing (hard back books versus paperback or ebooks, films in cinemas versus DVDs), or by controlling the delivery chain (CDs versus iTunes).
Need for copyright change, new business model
Now a fundamental change has to happen here if Ofcom have to provide a legal source for every specific file shared on Pirate Bay. And I know what I propose, which is quite radical:
If the media is not available globally for download at the time it is released to cinemas, or in Hardback, or on CD. Then the copyright owner must lose his copyright. Respecting this simple rule will solve all our problems as consumers, we can get what we want, when we want it. It will not kill the cinema, which is a night out. It will not kill the hardback which goes on your library shelf, the CD is dying anyway for different reasons (inconvenience, copying not permitted), it will not kill the DVD (DRM, copying not allowed, cost of film downloads over broadband is still very high).
In other words internet release has to be primary and of first concern, followed by promotion through cinemas, DVDs, CDs, live shows, etc.
It will, hopefully, force a transition to a new business model, which is the flip side of the DE Bill, in favour of consumers.
Will Ofcom squirm out of it?
Of course Ofcom and the industry may try to squirm out of this requirement, by pointing to generic download sites (Amazon, iTunes etc) which do not actually carry the offending items. But what good is that? It that what the law intended?
Summary of the Bill - reminder
1 Holders send copyright infringement report to ISP
2 Within one month ISP must inform subscriber
- education about legal alternatives (see above)
- evidence
- appeals procedure
- legal advice
3 ISP to provide holders with "infringement lists" by users (anonymous)
4 Ofcom to write "obligations code" to deliver 1, 2 & 3 (see above)
5 Ofcom must generate initial content for "infringement list" of alleged infringmenets > 1 year old
6 Ofcom to report (3 & 12 monthly)
- extent of infringement
- if holders are making legal content available
- on the education drive
- volume of infringement
7 Parliament can vote to tell Ofcom to implement sanctions, after consultation on workability. If OK, Ofcom can then tell ISPs to block/limit/slow/suspend connections
8 Appeals can be made to an independent person, costs split (ISP, Holder, Subscriber)
9 If ISP doesn't implement sanctions <= £250,00 fine
10 Holders & ISPs to pay Ofcom costs for implementing technical measures
Web site blocking clause withdrawn, but new one proposed, needs parliament approval.
No comments:
Post a Comment