Some Good News on the Piracy Front

[Magda Hassan]

One for the people. Zero for the Corporations.




France’s highest legal authority on Wednesday struck down a key provision of a contested Internet piracy law that set up a new state agency to cut off offenders from the web.
The ruling is an embarrassing setback for President Nicolas Sarkozy, who championed the adoption of the tough new legislation last month.
The Constitutional Council ruled that "free access to public communication services on line" was a human right, and that only a judge should have the power to strike an individual from the Internet.
Council members, who include former French presidents, based their ruling on the preamble to the French constitution, which lists freedom of communication and expression as a basic human right.
France’s opposition Socialist Party had asked the Council to rule on the constitutional legality of the bill, which won final parliamentary approval on May 13.
One of the toughest ever drafted in the global fight against Internet piracy, the law would punish those who download music and film illegally by shutting down their Internet access for up to a year.
The law approved the set-up of of a state agency known by the acronym Hadopi to track and punish illegal downloaders, serving as a go-between for content providers and Internet service providers.
Under a "three-strikes" system, offenders would first receive an email warning, then a letter and finally lose their Internet account for up to a year if they are caught a third time.
The bill enjoyed broad support from the music and film industry in France and abroad, but was fiercely opposed by consumer groups, the Internet industry and the left-wing opposition.
Opponents said the bill failed to give alleged offenders enough recourse to challenge accusations and argued that web innovations would make it possible for downloaders to avoid detection.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160604.html

[Magda Hassan]

And just so we know how truly dangerous piracy can be to profits... some real figures.
An article by Ben Goldacre from Bad Science
http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-t...ill-music/
Home taping didn’t kill music

June 5th, 2009 by Ben Goldacre in bad science |
Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
Saturday 6th June 2009
You are killing our creative industries. “Downloading costs billions” said the Sun. “MORE than seven million Brits use illegal downloading sites that cost the economy billions of pounds, Government advisors said today. Researchers found more than a million people using a download site in ONE day and estimated that in a year they would use £120bn worth of material.”

That’s about a tenth of our GDP. No wonder the Daily Mail were worried too: “The network had 1.3 million users sharing files online at midday on a weekday. If each of those downloaded just one file per day, this would amount to 4.73 billion items being consumed for free every year.”
Now I am always suspicious of this industry, because they have produced a lot of dodgy figures over the years. I also doubt that every download is lost revenue since, for example, people who download more also buy more music. I’d like more details.
So where do these notions of so many billions in lost revenue come from? I found the original report. It was written by some academics you can hire in a unit at UCL called CIBER, the Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (which “seeks to inform by countering idle speculation and uninformed opinion with the facts”). The report was commissioned by a government body called SABIP, the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy.
On the billions lost it says: “Estimates as to the overall lost revenues if we include all creative industries whose products can be copied digitally, or counterfeited, reach £10 billion (IP Rights, 2004), conservatively, as our figure is from 2004, and a loss of 4,000 jobs.”
What is the origin of this conservative figure? I hunted down the full CIBER documents, found the references section, and followed the web link, which led to a 2004 press release from a private legal firm called Rouse who specialise in intellectual property law. This press release was not about the £10bn figure. It was, in fact, a one page document, which simply welcomed the government setting up an intellectual property theft strategy. In a short section headed “background”, among five other points, it says: “Rights owners have estimated that last year alone counterfeiting and piracy cost the UK economy £10 billion and 4,000 jobs.” An industry estimate, as an aside, in a press release. Genius.
But what about all these other figures in the media coverage? Lots of it revolved around the figure of 4.73 billion items downloaded each year, worth £120 billion. This means each downloaded item, software, movie, mp3, ebook, is worth about £25. Now before we go anywhere, this already seems rather high. I am not an economist, and I don’t know about their methods, but to me, for example, an appropriate comparator for someone who downloads a film to watch it once might be the rental value, not the sale value. And someone downloading a £1,000 professional 3D animation software package to fiddle about with at home may not use it more than three times. I’m just saying.
In any case, that’s £175 a week or £8,750 a year potentially not being spent by millions of people. Is this really lost revenue for the economy, as reported in the press? Plenty will have been schoolkids, or students, and even if not, that’s still about a third of the average UK wage. Before tax. Oh but the figures were wrong: it was actually 473 million items and £12 billion (so the item value was still £25) but the wrong figures were in the original executive summary, and the press release. They changed them quietly, after the errors were pointed out by a BBC journalist. I can find no public correction.
I asked what steps they took to notify journalists of their error, which exaggerated their findings by a factor of ten and were widely reported in news outlets around the world. SABIP refused to answer my questions in emails, insisted on a phone call (always a warning sign), told me that they had taken steps but wouldn’t say what, explained something about how they couldn’t be held responsible for lazy journalism, then, bizarrely, after ten minutes, tried to tell me retrospectively that the whole call was actually off the record, that I wasn’t allowed to use the information in my piece, but that they had answered my questions, and so they didn’t need to answer on the record, but I wasn’t allowed to use the answers, and I couldn’t say they hadn’t answered, I just couldn’t say what the answers were. Then the PR man from SABIP demanded that I acknowledge, in our phone call, formally, for reasons I still don’t fully understand, that he had been helpful.
I think it’s okay to be confused and disappointed by this. Like I said: as far as I’m concerned, everything from this industry is false, until proven otherwise.