Curiously devoid of any actual debate about filesharing itself - ir proceeds from the (erroneous) assumption that its wrong, and then gets people that (think they) depend on huge record sales (to keep their bank balance in or above the 7 figure level) to promise the death of music itself if P2P doesnt stop, and plonks some kids and students infront of a camera and asks them leading questions to film the guilty looks they're led to have.
No debate. No one makes the argument that it is in fact not stealing in more than a forgetable offhand comment. Dave, yes, the 'lost revenue' argument featured heavily, and it wasnt properly questioned either.
The only counter-points made, in my opinion, were those that gave credence to the overaching assumption, drive and motivation for the whole thing - that music is the money that music makes. NO! Creativity will be killed off if major record labels arent major and flush. BOLLOCKS. Creativity was around LONG before record labels, and will be around long after they're gone, which shouldnt be long now. But its OK, because illegal downloaders spend more on music. $%&# off. Yeah its true, but it falls very much in the 'placates the people that think music is all about money' camp.
Record Exec: This is wong!
Guy in street: No it isnt
RE: Ah, but its not making money!
GiS: But the people that do it make you more money, its actually good marketing.
= avoiding the debate about the ethics of it and supplanting it with support for 'whatever makes more money is best'. Its a late-game card to be played after real arguments have shown them the precipice, as a consolation prize that lets everyone go away happy.
Reality.
Its not a problem that conventional copyright law and media distribution businesses are designed to handle. They're made to handle stuff, first and foremost - the exchange of a physical object for some money. Copyright laws are vestigial systems designed to hold sway over the sale of copied material as though one were a mini-distributor. Niether can apply here.
Its not theft because nothing is taken. Its copied. Its an inferior copy at that. No one lost anything.
It does fall under copyright, but thats using the letter of copyright to defeat the spirit of copyright. When it was for sale of an object that you were unauthorised to sell, then fine. As is, its not so clear. Are you a 'distributor' if you seed a torrent? I say no.
Lost revenue. Pull the other one. "They're stealing money we never made, because we never made it!" I think not. The equivalent would ford going round trying to stop people from driving if they bought a second hand ford, because that means that ford didnt sell a new ford. Any potential customer is culpable for a businesses diminishing revenue because they should be buying things that they arent. So, record companies must be kept afloat, and we must be made to do so at the cost of our civil liberties. I dont recall such an argument so transparently detached from reality ever gaining so much credence since intelligent design won over some rednecks in the bible belt.
Things not talked about enough
- You want to monitor the people of the UKs internet usage to WHAT degree to protect the profit of a vestigial industry now?
- 'The big machine' is in all ways a dinosaur, looking up at a funny light, getting bigger in the sky
- The reason for that us upstart little gits (many of whom can be found on these very boards) can now record good to great quality music for very, very little money, and even do it themselves if they have the getupandgo to learn how
- The 'big machine' that backs the spread and growth of modern music is now the internet itself. Anyone with a couple of grand in gear and a conneciton can throw that they have out here and whats gonna float will float, wont wont will sink. We no longer need distribution of a physical media to make and spread music, and thats what record labels were needed for
- Yeah, the highest quality is still made in very expensive studios, but studios =/= labels. Most studios make most of their money recording indie bands anyway.
- Business is business. You supply what theres demand for and you should be fine. If you get undercut or people dont want you any more, tough tits, you adapt or go out of business. This proposed law is nothing other than government protection of business.
The only point of significance stressed to a satisfactory degree was that the proposed measures and methods in the bill are indeed an exercise in futility.
