| Author | Message | ||
     Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 88.106.240.83 |
Hello. Not sure how many of you will be members of the Writers Guild, but for those who are, this might be of interest. They published their opinion on the Digital Economy Bill last week: http://www.writersguild.org.uk/public/003_WritersGuil/429_WGGBNewsDig.html I wrote a blog post about how, as a member, I didn't feel that was a very helpful position to take: http://nathanieltapley.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/why-my-union-is-wrong/ The General Secretary of the union wrote a response: http://nathanieltapley.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/bernie-corbetts-response-to-wmui w/ which got a few interesting responses in the comments. I've done another post on it today: http://nathanieltapley.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/one-stupid-thing-about-the-digit al-economy-bill/ Anyway, for most of you this is probably brain-wrenchingly dull, but for Writers' Guild members, or people interested in the Digital Economy Act, I thought it might be of interest... | ||
| Johnny_mains (Johnny_mains) Username: Johnny_mains Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 82.22.70.137 |
Absolutely brilliant essay, reply from Bernie and your comeback. You're rather a brilliant thinker, young Nathaniel. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.240.106 |
Interesting stuff. I think I more or less agree with you, Nathaniel. The internet - and associated media - does create a new set of rules, and we all need to start thinking about these things in a way which reflects this. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 88.106.237.0 |
Thank you, Johnny, I'm blushing... (Where can I get a copy of your excellent new Pan anthology again?) I think there are two possible strands of opposition to this act for creative people: one practical and one principled (for want of a better word). The practical objections are that it's impossible to enforce; the procedures to allege infringement are weighted in favour of large corporations; the appeals procedure has not been clarified; it affects people providing internet acces rather than those people downloading things illegally; it will lead to fewer places offering fre wifi; it criminalises a lot of legal file-sharing that creative people use to move things like artwork or video or audio files around; that kicking people off the Internet when you want to generate money from their being on the Internet is counter-productive... The principled (for want of a better word) arguments are that copyright as it currently exists has been around since 1993 and needs re-examining; that Internet access is too important to restrict for minor infringements; that legislation written with a lot of input from industry is unlikely to be good for consumers... Anyway, I think the Bill fails on both counts. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 86.142.146.96 |
It's the same combination of zealousness and stupidity that allowed the Dangerous Pictures Act to pass. | ||
| Johnny_mains (Johnny_mains) Username: Johnny_mains Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 82.22.70.137 |
Nathaniel - email me - panbookofhorrorstories@gmail.com | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.182.163.131 |
Excellent stuff, Nathaniel - fully agree with you. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 88.106.210.191 |
Johnny - I'll email you at the beginning of next week, I only have intermittent and rubbish Internet access at the moment... Thanks, Mick! For anyone still inetersted, there's a nice blogpost with links to relevant data about revenue loss and file-sharing here: http://fitconniptions.livejournal.com/26683.html |