Euro watchdog: We need ONE definition of 'illegal content' across EU

Re: Thin end of the wedge

Yep. In all reasonableness when I create media and content I expect the customer and users to wear chicken suits, pay me a million dollars and sing the hokey cokey. If they don't, then the government should enforce it on the population. I mean, I've worked really hard for that content, and spent millions of dollars of other peoples money on it, so I deserve to set my rules on everyone else. If you see my content, your bound by my rules.

/sarcasm

Re: Thin end of the wedge

Personally, I wouldn't cooperate with the copyright lobby on anything, ever, specifically in order to force them to start selling stuff I want, rather than the current situation where they're trying to force me to buy the crap they currently offer.

Personally, I've co-operated in the past but made them stick to the letter of the law. Want us to take something of a customers site? Written notification (email's fine) please, with sensible proof of copyright attached and any other details that might be pertinent. Issue will be considered, and customer will be contacted to give them a chance to respond.

I did have one conversation with a company who said it 'might' be in breach of their copyrights. It was politely explained to them that I wasn't going to action a takedown on the basis of 'might', it either was or wasn't.

7 times out of 10, the customer says 'oops, I'll get that down now' when I contact them. The rest of the time they usually have a reason for it being there, and I get the fun job of considering whether we need to comply with the request or not. In all cases, everything is heavily documented so that we can defend our decision if court if needed (not that it's come to that yet).

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to turn round and say "Nah, start selling some decent music and then I'll consider it" but it has to be a business decision and not a personal one. They've got a much bigger legal slush fund than us, so we have to be careful, but out of principal they'll only get what they want if it appears they are in the right. Not that they like hearing that, especially when they're demanding a customers details (response: "we manage the server, deal with us. Or you can get a court order or find their details yourselves. Your choice, but only one is likely to resolve this quickly").

Re: "consumer protection law breaches"?

I think it probably relates to the often touted idea that dodgy software puts consumers at risk. Very 'fact' convenient for the likes of BSA, though it's not entirely true.

Yes, some pirated software will contain malware, and yes there's a risk that all could (just as there's a small risk that 'legitimate' software could). The reality though, is that if Joe Bloggs has ripped his XP cd and put a torrent up, there's no more chance of malware than on a shop-bought disc. The gamble, I guess, is that you don't know whether Joe Bloggs is a rip-n-share type or a rip-lace-n-share.

As far as media goes, I guess it's obvious. It must be a breach of consumer protection law (and human rights) if you download a Metallica track, only to play it and find that someone's renamed a Justin Bieber song!

Re: Very simple

And how, exactly, do you propose they do that?

If I upload an MP3 file, how do they know if I have permission? I might even own the copyright, or at the very least have permission of the holder.

Then of course there's the issue of how they know what's going where. Are you really suggesting we all get subjected to DPI just to try and prop-up an industry that would have been in far less of a mess if they'd embraced the technology in the first place? An industry that still seems to be making rather a lot of money?

Who pays for the kit? The media industries? The ISPs, Governments? Here's a clue, in the latter two cases it's us as customers/taxpayers paying. In the former, the only people not paying for the cost of the DPI are those who the DPI is trying to catch.

Rather than whining about copyright infringement on the net, and expecting everyone else to sort it for them, how about the industry addresses the root causes (pricing being a big concern, convenience another)?

A good proportion of people on the Reg probably hold copyright on something(s), so lets use us as a sample. Are ISP's supposed to know what I've said can and can't be used by someone else? Are they supposed to even recognise that it's not been written/sung/played by the person uploading? No, of course not, which means any 'regulation' requiring ISPs to monitor favours big business over small. Those who are small will, by your view of the world, get killed by piracy, whilst Big Business will get a lovely bit of protectionism to help top up their bank balances.

Copyright infringement has been an issue ever since it became possible to copy things under copyright. It's gotten a lot easier to do, sure, but it's been a good while since Napster and yet the Industry is still here. Yes, there have been job losses, just as in every other industry - there's this thing called a recession on ya know.

Wow, feeling a bit ranty tonight. Think I'll go chill out somehwere!