Britain is Appeasing the Copyright Cartel Again

LONDON -- The British government says people who illegally download music and films could have their Internet connections cut off.

Treasury Minister Stephen Timms says the move would allow "swifter and more flexible measures" to clamp down on piracy. -- AP

Britain is completely on the wrong side of this issue. Copyrights are the public's rights to help manage the public's intellectual property. A limited period of time, like 28 years (per the original Constitutional statute), giving individuals monopoly rights over intellectual property is the outer most boundary of time that a society invested in the speech rights and intellectual rights of its people would allow in good conscience. Britain, and it is easy to understand, given the massive cock ups of this Labor government, is allowing themselves to be steered by the copyright cartel just like they allow themselves to be strong armed by the banking, pharmaceutical, and defense industries. This Labor government has abdicated its role as a representative of the People and their position on Copyright is yet another glaring example of their conflicted, misguided policies.

AP: Illegal downloaders in Britain may lose Web access

Follow Max Keiser on Twitter: www.twitter.com/maxkeiser

Comments

[winningticket]

Maybe someone should cut off the British Government's access to the internet. A fine bunch of bullies they are.

[BlackJAC]

Yeah, how dare the government prosecute criminals. Why can't the government understand that if you make theft legal, nobody will steal anything?

[signified]

I'm sure BlackJAC won't be happy when his phone company disconnects him from the internet without due process because someone is secretly using his IP address to illegally download movies and music. It's another example of "guilty before proven innocent" and will cause serious legal problems if implemented.

[BlackJAC]

So I go about proving my innocence in the matter.

[BlackJAC]

Another day, another declaration from the Napsterites that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment don't apply to entertainers. Why oh why can't those greedy artists be less like George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry and more like Nikola Tesla and the guys who created Superman: naively signing away any and all claim to their creations in exchange for a noble existence of poverty and despair? Show me the exact passage in the Constitution where it says someone can own property--you can't because it doesn't exist!

[Max Keiser - Huffpost Blogger]

Copyright is great... For a LIMITED time like 28 years. So-called pirates are doing the work of free speech and innovation rights activists by forcing a re-pricing of content per market forces. Unfortunately, US and world politicians have no spine to stand up to a photo of Sharon Stone topless representing the glory of the Hollywood copyright cartel. Take a cold shower and think with the big head.

[BlackJAC]

The only people who believe that fever dream are those who are incapable of creating anything worth paying money for. They want a chip in the Big Game and the only way they know how is to latch onto someone else's coattails like a barnacle. They're not doing all this theft just to have it, they're doing it to punish those who got the signed deals and the legions of fans and groupies.

[boogieandjive]

I don't think anyone is suggesting 'artists' be poor. Original copyright was restricted to 28 years in English law because the Lords who ruled that it be this found that perpetual copyright as the book publishing monopolies (the Hollywood studio / record labels of their day) were fighting for was not in the public interest, especially as the publishers kept prices as high 28 years after publishing as they were when first published and, thus, out of the hands of the poor. And that, ""Knowledge has no value or use for the solitary owner: to be enjoyed it must be communicated."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaldson_v_Beckett

Of course, prices mysteriously fell when other publishers were able to print the books.

If we didn't have such a monopolistic, unfair price and use system now then I doubt the peasants would have revolted against the monarchs and broken their laws so flagrantly.

[Eris23]

"Show me the exact passage in the Constitution where it says someone can own property--you can't because it doesn't exist!"

How ignorant do you want to show yourself to be?

From the fifth amendment: "No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[BlackJAC]

The problem with plain text is that it doesn't convey tone well, such as sarcasm.

[rjmiller]

This same idea keeps getting rejected over and over in country after country. What I really want to know is why no one has proposed the reciprocal law: that entertainment companies get blocked from the internet after making 2-3 false infringement accusations?

I guess the people who copy music, some 60+% of the population, don't pay as well as the entertainment industry.

[BlackJAC]

That's the problem with the Napsterites' gift-based economy: it's useless for moving anything of real value.

[Eris23]

Cute. A subjective "real" value. Through people who have put their work up on archive.org and deviantart.net, I've purchased their work which I would not otherwise have discovered. For people who have put up their music on myspace.com for free, I've attended concerts and bought CDs which results in a majority of the money going directly into their pockets. Your repeated assertions on this site that people "don't buy what they can get for free" is absurd. A pirate is a pirate. They will steal whatever they want for the most part. But, for those of us who don't particularly care for the BS dying business model you are defending, many of us are quite thankful that this "gift based economy" has come to be, as we get to more directly empower artists and authors who's work we enjoy without feeding a business model that is ugly and abusive. Get over it.

[BailUsOut]

CHECK OUT MAX KEISER AT HIS YOUTUBE CHANNEL

http://www.youtube.com/user/MaxKeiserTV

at the very least watch his documentaries for al jazeera english
no forked tongue b.s.

[CulpeperMin]

The NWO tentacles are reaching for the internet on both sides of the Atlantic;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14186

[Max Keiser - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree that this is a global problem. I have just posted a follow up blog about the Netherlands attacking Mininova.

[Sinick]

"This Labor government has abdicated its role as a representative of the People and their position on Copyright is yet another glaring example of their conflicted, misguided policies."

In other words, abdicated its role as an enabler for the "People" to steal intellectual properties from others. Get a grip man! Moreover, the "banking, pharmaceutical, and defense industries" analogy is a bad one--they indiscriminately steal from the "People" and reward the rich--a reverse Robin Hood in effect.

[Max Keiser - Huffpost Blogger]

Who is a thief. For someone to demand access to the public domain is not in fact thieving at all whereas a corporation monopolizing the public's domain does indeed qualify as a thief. I find it amazing that Americans (and you find very little of this in other countries operating as democracies) stand up to defend the interests of oligarchs and monopolists while vilifying those who are fighting to expand the public's domain of liberty and freedom. Makes for an interesting fight though. Clearly, movements such as the open-source movement in the software industry; an expansion of the public's domain, are winning against the S&P monarchs and copyright cartels.

[BlackJAC]

Open Source means that any upgrades to the code can come from users without an extended internal vetting process from the company that created it in the first place.

Gotta love the First Amendment: it protects the right of someone to talk out of their rear end and look foolish.

[BeenieMon]

the Keiser is King !!!

all hail the new MAX

[tompoe]

The Internet was designed for communication for several billion people around the world. It was never, ever intended to be a distribution channel for business. If corporations want to take advantage of our communications medium, fine. What the 2 or 3 billion of us won't permit, is their dictating the rules as to how we communicate to fit their obsolete business practices.

[BlackJAC]

Typical Napsterite: claiming ownership of something he didn't create.

[tompoe]

What's a napsterite? Claiming ownership of what?