talkmagic.co.uk

If this is all about copyright theft then I'm afraid I'm all for it. If it shuts down torrent sites where people's hard work is being handed out for free then I think it's a good idea. Free stuff on the internet which people have no right to hand out is klling both the music and film industries.

Its not doing the creatives in magic much good either.

I don't think that anyone's going to shut down YouTube or Facebook just because of a couple of copyrighted links, but it might just push them to take firmer action than they do at the moment. But if it means that places like BitTorrent and those other horrible sharing sites get taken down then I'm 100% behind it.

Piracy really is hurting magic, I was talking recently to a couple of very good thinkers who have stopped releasing anything because of piracy. I found some of my work on a file share site a couple of weeks back and because of that I'm almost certainly going to stop selling any ebooks and am thinking about stopping releasing any new physical books as well. It's horrible to see somthing that you've put months of work into just being passed around without a thought for the creator.

We were victim to someone posting something on a file sharing site and managed to sort the situation out and recover our losses. ANY file sharing site that has copyrighted material on it should be shut down. The users that do this aren't banned from these sites.

I think the only people that object to copyrighted material being controlled on the web are freeloaders who use torrent sites.

Youtube, twitter, google, facebook, microsoft.... when you combine their profits they are worth more than the US government. would any government really shut down sites that generates millions of dollars in corporate tax revenue ?

These laws may give them some teeth, but I dont think they will bite.

Tail wagging the dog methinks.

The real problem with this legislation is that it'll create a fixed law. But ideas of censorship change, so it'll end up being used in ways it was never meant to be used. The recording industry can use the scalpel of legal action. It doesn't need the blunderbuss of legislation.

Tomo - exactly right.



I'm kinda shocked that people don't seem to be able/willing to see the disconnect between objecting to illegal sharing of copyright materials and the fact that this proposed legislation allows the entertainment industry (historically one of the most anti-progress and anti-technology industries that exists) a carte blanche to shut down websites where NO crime has been committed.

DMCA protects websites who respond to takedown notices by removing copyright-infringing content from their service.
The new legislation removes that protection, so sites that don't (or can't, due to volume of content posted) police their services proactively no longer have any defence against prosecution and closure even though they are opposed to and rapidly remove infringing material.

I don't care how strongly you feel about copyright infringement - the threat this poses to innovation and to free speech is appalling and I'm really quite surprised that so many of you are siding with the proposals despite some quite startling and sweeping powers being created. There are far more effective ways of dealing with copyright infringement mixed in with legitimate sharing and content than shutting down entire sites.

I'm afraid I simply don't share the faith in government some of you are expressing with comments suggesting doubt that they would close down sites like YouTube and Facebook.


Lady of Mystery - YouTube's current stance is to BY DEFAULT remove any videos where someone makes a claim of copyright infringement. The burden of proof then lies upon the user who posted it to argue their case for fair use or other form of non-infringement. The current system is robust.
The existing legislation already permits all the things people are calling for to happen with regards to protecting IP. Freddie has already proven that with his claim to have had IP removed from a file sharing site with losses recovered.
If there is already sufficient legislation you need to look at what proposed legislation adds, and what it adds is exactly what I've described and Google, Yahoo, Facebook et al have objected to.


Lord Freddie - I don't see anyone objecting to the control of copyright material here. I see some of the biggest companies in the world objecting to this legislation due to the threat it poses to legitimate businesses and users who are NOT breaking any laws.
The non-internet equivalent would be a fraudster setting up a shop selling bootleg CDs in a shopping centre like the Bullring in Birmingham and in response the record companies closing down the ENTIRE shopping centre.


Discombobulator - perhaps not, but they would happily close down any number of smaller sites and companies. Remember also that it's the Department of Justice (an unelected body) that will oversee this legislation. Remember also that the US has already taken on Microsoft in a way nobody ever thought it would when they pulled it up on anti-competitive practices and split up the company. Also remember that this isn't a matter of the government taking an active role in copyright protection, but the music and motion picture industries pushing for legislation which will allow it to do something it's been trying for a long time, and that's obtain sweeping control of the internet.


Mandrake - international petitions like this run by Avaaz have had big effects in things like introducing anti-corruption legislation in countries like Brazil where politicians and the press insisted it could never happen.
They have managed to stop Uganda's parliament holding a vote which would have lead to homosexuals being executed.
They pushed Mbeki (a Mugabe-ally) to call for Mugabe to release election results.
They pushed China to re-open talks about Tibet with the Dali Lama.

As far as the normal (and generally ineffective) democratic process, no, there's nothing people outside the US can do... but that's not to say these things can't be effective.



Of course - people need to see past their own issues in order to see the wider harm legislation they feel generally supportive of will cause before they'll get on board with calls to deal with things in a less draconian manner.
I have a feeling I'm barking up the wrong tree here though. I know magicians are fond of their secrets, but I'm surprised at the response this thread has received.

As you all know TM, and I personally, fully support and applaud measures which will confound and stop thieves who steal other people’s work. However I’m not fully convinced that the legislation under discussion will do that. Banning or restricting something doesn’t stop it, it merely drives it underground – the US should know that from their attempts at Prohibition and the UK Government has acknowledged that their increases in tax and duty on tobacco and spirits has lead to a sharp increase in the import/production of counterfeit and dangerous versions. Cigarettes and alcohol from dodgy sources contain substances which are far more injurious to health than the original legitimate products which are being taxed to the hilt. Long before the computer/internet age books were being photocopied, many were simply typed out during lunch hours in typing pools, with several carbon copies, and duplicated/sold on that way.

Sites set up to deliberately share copyrighted stuff should be shut down and the operators fined off the planet but is this legislation going to do that and, at the same time, guarantee that there won’t be any collateral damage? As an example, we try to keep copyright data off the pages of TM but if someone does happen to post something along those lines and we don’t spot it for some reason then is it right that the owner should be fined and/or the site be shut down? How about the use of PMs? I am quite certain that a lot of copyright and stolen stuff is passed around on forums via the PM system, just as emails are likely to contain such material. Should TM be closed down because some members misuse the PM system? How about legitimate discussions of effects and routines in the Restricted Areas? Are those to be classed as doubtful to the extent that we can no longer have such discussions for fear of falling foul?

Purely my personal opinion but can we trust the Government of the most powerful nation on the planet to introduce and administer such legislation fairly and in no way favour their own industries? My experience of trade between the UK, the US and the EEC shows many examples where legislation has been introduced for supposedly altruistic reasons yet quickly became used to protect home trade whilst discriminating against all others. As far as I know those three entities are still swapping legal actions, and have been for at least five years, over allegations of unfair trading where government subsidies have been deliberately introduced to give an unfair edge to International Trading so I really have problems in fully trusting anything as complex as the suggested legislation to be administered impartially – the lawyers will make a fortune!

As I said, I firmly agree that theft of intellectual property etc isn’t right but is this legislation the right way to go about preventing it?

I have a number of book out on a number of topics, and more on the way. A few years ago Google decided to make every book available on their site. Let's personalise that - they decided to make my six books available to everyone, whether they paid me for those books or not. They decided to steal my life's work. Luckily they were stopped.

I am all in favour of someone putting the brakes on the internet.

So in short - one company infringed your copyright and as a result all the rest of us must suffer?

BigShot, one company didn't infringe my copyright. One company tried to rip off EVERY living author worldwide. This level of corruption and arrogance is staggering. Maybe you are okay with the theft of intellectual property, but when you start producing intellectual property your attitude might change.

I did not bother reading this thread unfortunately as I thought it was a joke however now I am glad I have.

The trouble with any legislation is not the reason it is brought in but the scope that legislation has.

What may seem like an excellent way of stopping copyright theft may become a way of controlling and censoring freedom of information and speech, which can only be a bad thing.

I agree that many laws that receive this exposure are overhyped and scaremongering however it is always worth keeping a close eye on this type of legislation and the consequences of the introduction of such laws.

If a law is positioned as "Stopping Terrorism, Catching Thieves, Protecting People's Property" - What law abiding citizen will argue?

When it is realised that the same laws may be used to censor freedom of speech, restrict access to content and convict without trial, the same law does not seem quite so attractive.

As with magic, it's all in the presentation !

ANT... quite right.

TonyB wrote:BigShot, one company didn't infringe my copyright. One company tried to rip off EVERY living author worldwide. This level of corruption and arrogance is staggering. Maybe you are okay with the theft of intellectual property, but when you start producing intellectual property your attitude might change.

It's still only one company. It still doesn't justify legislation that allows the entertainment industry the power to shut down sites pretty much at will with NO judicial oversight.

I can't believe you've actually read my posts if you think I'm ok with IP "theft" (strictly speaking I disagree with the word "theft" in this context which is why I've used "infringement" throughout this conversation).

I do produce IP. Every time I do it ends up online (whether I like it or not) where it is ripped off by others.
I have a business model where that isn't an issue (key point here, old business models are vulnerable in the modern world - I believe most of the "problems" associated with copyright infringement are down to flawed ideas and flawed business models)... but even if I didn't I wouldn't dream of supporting legislation which was tantamount to censorship to protect my own bottom line. I have bills to pay but I also have ethics based upon the philosophy of liberty.

TonyB wrote:BigShot, one company didn't infringe my copyright. One company tried to rip off EVERY living author worldwide. This level of corruption and arrogance is staggering. Maybe you are okay with the theft of intellectual property, but when you start producing intellectual property your attitude might change.

Why does near enough every post you make have to include a snide remark to another member?

It makes you come across as a bitter, twisted individual - I don't know if this is the case, but you seem to vent a fair bit

It's a shame as most of the time you seem to have an opinion on most topics, which is essential for a successful forum

Peace and love Tony