Aridi Writes

New idea. It’s growing on me. Check the banner.

UK To Get Tough On File-Sharers.

Before I get into the meat of this rant I’d like to suggest a few alternative headlines:

- “Mandelson U-Turn On Net Neutrality Expected To Be Rushed Into Law”
- “Victory For The Dinosaurs As Idiot Lord Accepts Bribery”
- “So Much For Progress”
- “Who Is This Guy Anyway?”

If you aren’t sure where I stand on this issue, then this rant is probably not for you.

Okay, so. If Johnny Reb, your average internet user, is caught using torrents or the Pirate Bay, then his ISP will be bound by law to bar him from the internet? That’s…kind of what I get from this. Because, see, there’s not a lot of ways that your ISP can identify what you are downloading. Oh, I’m sure they would be able to monitor traffic in terms of data flow and bitrate etc. But can they pinpoint each file and piece of information that ends up on Johnny Reb’s computer, AND find out if he has the legal right to have it on his computer?

I would suggest…probably not. Which would in turn raise the question – how WILL Johnny Reb’s downloading habits be monitored? I’m far from an expert on this, but all I can think of is two options:

1) A system is created by which all web traffic is monitored in-depth, thus breaching untold privacy laws and effectively creating massive demand for anonimity (which will of course be made illegal, otherwise the system won’t work), OR

2) The assumption is made that if your traffic LOOKS like you are downloading illegal files, then you are assumed to be downloading illegal files, and are thus guilty until proven innocent.

As much bullshit as both of those options are, the results of either of them being adopted is the same.

Let me put it this way. I DO know people that download EVERYTHING illegally and never pay for a damn thing. But they’re the types who won’t get caught. They’re the ones that know how to hide, or how to masquerade as a different user, or how to bamboozle automated systems into believing they are common-or-garden consumers.

So it won’t be those people – the ones that the record and film industries seem to think everyone with broadband aspires to be – that actually get caught and pay the penalty. No; it’ll be average downloaders like Johnny Reb, who actually purchase more media than those who don’t download anything (The Guardian – Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music, BBC News – Downloading ‘myths’ challenged).

To outline how this works: Johnny Reb hears a snippet of the latest Random Band CD on the radio. The radio cuts it short of course, and might not mention the song title, so after a little research he finds out what the song is called. He takes the effort to download it, plus a couple more. He listens to the songs, and if the music is good – would it be bad if he went through the effort? – he buys the CD, either in his local record store, or online.

Johnny Reb then tells his friends about Random Band. Some of them have never heard of Random Band. He sends them the songs he has downloaded. A proportion of his friends dislike – and thus delete – the songs. Another proportion of his friends just keep the songs, listen to them, and don’t buy the CD. Yet another proportion of his friends DO buy the CD. And in return, Johnny Reb is sent a few songs by Other Random Band. Does he like them? If he does, he’ll more than likely buy the CD.

Some people will dismiss that little story as being purely fantasy. I don’t blame them. They believe whatever they are told by the people that own the media, and what they are told over and over is that pirates never pay for anything and keep everything for themselves, thus crippling the industry, starving actors and musicians to death, actually murdering puppies, defecating in police helmets, etc etc.

But I digress. It’s people like Johnny Reb – who, statistically speaking, contribute more monetarily speaking than people that don’t download anything – that will be banned from using the internet.

What does that tell you, boys and girls?

My figures here are fast and loose but they will serve as an indication of the statistical trend here. If someone else has actual verifiable figures, please provide them, otherwise…observe.

Out of 1,000 people, 400 are Johnny Rebs, 5 are non-buyers that download everything and never pay. On average, your normal punter – 595 of them – spends around £2 a month on legal downloads, while Johnny Reb spends £5 a month. The 5 non-buyers don’t spend anything. That’s (595X2) + (400X5) + (5×0) = £3,190 a month.

Now assume the law is passed. All of the Johnny Rebs are banned from using the internet, so they actually CAN’T legally download anything. And if the non-buyers get caught or not, their statistical input remains unchanged at 0. So let’s simply assume that we have our 595 normal punters who spend their £2 a month. That’s (595X2) = £1,190 a month. A rather catastrophic drop of £2,000, almost two thirds of the original monthly sum.

“But John, you raging pro-scurvy stallion of the seas,” I hear you cry. “What about actual CD sales?”

You have me there. Or, as the case may be, not. Because as described earlier, one of the least-advertised but most prevalent forms of CD advertising is what people like Mandelson would have us call piracy. Also, lending people a CD (which doesn’t seem to cop as much raging angst from the RIAA and its worldwide equivalents) and playing music at them in your own homes. Speaking personally, some 70% of my most recent music purchases have been due to a download, a file transfer, or a CD lend.

I can see why it would be embarassing for, say, Warner Music Group to admit that having a song on a popular video on YouTube might increase their sales – after all it is that kind of thing they want to crush out – but wait a minute. Haven’t Universal Music Group effectively turned that to their advantage by allowing the music to remain in videos, as long as a link is placed to allow its purchase? Thus becoming an instant FREE advertisement? And thus making a ton of money for ALLOWING an action that Warner refuses to allow?

I wonder how musicians that can sell records based on the quality of the record feel about one of their primary sources of advertising and marketing being curtailed by a rather dubious law. I wonder how record companies can’t see from the figures that their audience WILL SPEND LESS if this law passes. I wonder how Johnny Reb will react when, trying to download Random Band Part Deux, his internet access is taken away.

And I wonder how many people need that internet access on a daily basis. Recently the Constitutional Council, the highest court in France, actually ruled internet access to be a basic human right. And having looked through the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, I find Article 19 to be pretty interesting:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Italics added by me, for emphasis.

The Conservatives have been lambasted for suggesting they would remove the Human Rights Act and replace it with something else, but at least they want to replace it with something else. Peter Mandelson’s new web law seems to indicate that, either by massively intruding on Johnny Reb’s privacy (a breach of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or by assuming guilt without true evidence (a breach of Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), a “media by which Johnny Reb is entitled to seek, recieve and impart information and ideas through” will be removed from him (as mentioned, a breach of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

To summarise:

• The law itself breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• The law will severely affect both CD and digital music sales, in a negative fashion.
• The law will criminalise otherwise legal, competent computer users.
• The law is counter to the interests of 99.9% of the nation.

Even if we ignore the fact that Mandy changed his mind after having a rather expensive dinner on a rather expensive yacht with David Geffen, we can’t ignore just how toxic Mandelson’s law will be if enacted and enforced.

Something must be done.

Suggestions in writing.

Okay, so.

Two weeks ago I was going strong. I had two different ideas for NaNo; a rather deep look into depression and apathy heavily inspired by the grunge scene called In Chains, and a sci-fi effort set in a setting I’ve recently developed named Sanctity. And all was going well. I’d charge head-first into In Chains and if that didn’t work, default to Sanctity. You guys know I love me some sci fi asskicking.

And yet…

…and yet the scifi, while looking awesome, isn’t necessarily something I want to go into – as it will be a companion story to a full-length novel project I’m working on…in which humanity ENDS, aside from a new colony in another galaxy. Which is somewhat depressing. And In Chains, while I know it would be interesting, is starting to look…well…like something I don’t want to write.

And two other ideas are fighting for my attention.

One is a long-standing idea I’ve had about a man who lives a boring, repetitive life…who one day just decides to step out of it. Just on a whim. And in his travels he finds a notebook and starts writing, and meets some interesting people.

The other has just occured to me. A piece about the forthcoming draconian anti-downloading laws that Peter Mandelson wants to enact in this country. I’m not sure where I am going to take that. But…

Well, we’ll see.

…but there should be a lot more posts around NaNo season.

My primary project is a lit-fic piece about a young man in Des Moines, Iowa. It’s heavily inspired by the music of the grunge scene, and the title is In Chains. It’s musical, kind of – each chapter is the name of a song, loosely follows that song AS WELL AS the narrative, and will include at least one line of the song as dialogue.

…the other thing is a scifi war thing but we’ll get into that later HERE CHECK THIS OUT