Comments on: The Digital Economy Bill: Thinking further about copyright

By: Google Vs Facebook, Digital Economy Act, Net Neutrality « Dominic Tyer's blog

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:01:13 +0000

[...] critical voices belonged to BT’s chief scientist JP Rangaswami, and before the Act was passed he blogged that it would “protect and enhance distributor rights while actually damaging the rights of [...]

By: My second email to my MP #debill | Rob’s Digital Life

My second email to my MP #debill | Rob’s Digital Life — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:34:55 +0000

[...] Link to JP’s blog post: http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2010/04/05/the-digital-economy-bill-thinking-further-about-copyright/ [...]

By: renaissance chambara | Ged Carroll - Links of the day

renaissance chambara | Ged Carroll - Links of the day — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 22:58:07 +0000

[...] The Digital Economy Bill: Thinking further about copyright – confused of calcutta [...]

By: drew3000

drew3000 — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:12:49 +0000

Great post. The analogy is entirely consistent. I lived in Rabat, Morocco where pirated DVDs were available in the medina for about 2 to 3 dirham a pop. Selling the DVDs at the level they go for elsewhere would have cut out the vast majority of the population, so there’s no market. Being there’s no potential market, we’re the people stealing? No.

Another example: When I was a kid in Salem, Oregon, my friends and I would take our bikes to the local drive in. Inside the drive in area you tuned your radio to a station that gave you the sound. We could sit on an adjacent hill with our radio and mostly get the signal and watch the film. The drive in required a car to enter. We didn’t have a car so were not part of the market. Is that stealing? No.

The DEBill assumes that all users represent market, and this is not true. Now living in UK, I can only see it doing more harm to the economy it seeks to prop up while also criminalizing people regardless of their actual behaviour.

By: The Digital Economy Bill Mike Outram ~ The Electric Campfire

The Digital Economy Bill Mike Outram ~ The Electric Campfire — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:07:39 +0000

[...] http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2010/04/05/the-digital-economy-bill-thinking-further-about-copyright/ [...]

By: Martin Budden

Martin Budden — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:54:36 +0000

@Rob Myers
I agree that we need to address the problem of orphan works, but I think the clause in the bill got it totally wrong and simply did not address the problem. I’ve written about this extensively at:

http://martinbudden.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/digital-britain-report-and-orphan-works/

By: Social media insights from #DEBill / we are social

Social media insights from #DEBill / we are social — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:12:46 +0000

[...] In short, the Bill will make the UK’s Internet less free than China’s and stifle innovation, creativity and economic growth. [...]

By: Links 7/4/2010: North Korea’s “RED Star”; Nokia Tablets to Come | Techrights

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:49:01 +0000

[...] The Digital Economy Bill: Thinking further about copyright Two photographs. Nearly a century apart. Of people watching a sports game without paying. [...]

By: Rob Myers

Rob Myers — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:00:40 +0000

The orphan works legislation was a positive part of the bill. But the moral panic manufactured by some photographic groups has had its intended effect. Which is a shame as their fears were a product of a failure to try and sell their work rather than any prospect that big media might treat them any worse than it already does.

Nobody wins with the orphan works clause removed.

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:19:38 +0000

JP, I’d suggest that ‘freeloading’ is (or should be) reserved to those situations in which consumption occurs without payment, not reception. And let’s not forget that art (concert or game) is NOT consumed by its audience, but received and hopefully enjoyed.

It is only the 18th century privileges of copyright and patent that have created the idea that mankind’s science, technology, and arts can be ‘privatised’ and that none who have not paid for their instance, copy, or reception license deserve to benefit (indeed, are criminals). (I now even see potted plants with ‘no propagation permitted’ warnings on them!)

People who use public libraries are not literary freeloaders, nor for that matter are file-sharers. The people who want a public event or work to be produced will pay. That many others in the public may benefit who had not paid is not freeloading, just as we do not freeload in our enjoyment of Shakespeare.

Karl, unfortunately the ‘rainwater catching’ simile has already been usurped: http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2444