Filesharing is the democratic choice
18 April 2008
Nonsense laws are socially divisive
In Saudi Arabia, ownership of a Bible is illegal. If you are found in the possession of a Bible, at the very least you will have it confiscated, you may be given corporal punishment. If you are found in possession of many bibles, then you can be executed (source).
We do not have that law in UK, or any laws like it. Not only is the UK a Christian country, (in name at least), but also because the majority of the people in the UK think that laws against owning books are stupid, only barbarians have such laws. In Britain you can own the Bible, the Koran, Harry Potter, whatever the heck book you want.
No matter what legal arguments you make for a law, if the majority of the public think it is stupid then it won't work.
A lot of countries used to have laws against "Nightwalking", i.e. walking around at night, because people out at night are obviously up to no good. Most countries have abolished such laws. Make laws about soliciting maybe, but wandering around at night? That was just silly.
Silly laws should be abolished. If you just leave silly laws on the statue book, expecting everyone to just ignore these laws, then you are undermining the law itself and making a mockery of the institutions charged with enforcing the law.
How many million people file share?
An study in 2005 claimed than 9.2 million people in Britain were involved in filesharing, which represented an annual 50% increase from the 4.3 million people that were involved in filesharing in 2003. Source 1, Source 2.
What is the number now? If a 50% annual increase was maintained, then it would have been 13.8 million people in 2006, 20.7 million people in 2007, and 31 million by the end of this year, 2008.
By the end of next year, it would be 46.6 million, and by 2010, it would be 70 million. That can't be possible of course as the population of the UK is only 60.6 Million.
So we can be pretty sure the number of people file-sharing is within the range of 10 million to 60.6 million. If you have more accurate figures please let me know. For sake of discussion, lets choose an arbitrary number - 20 million.
Filesharing is normal behaviour
Lets say that 20 million people in the UK have been or are involved in filesharing. With 20 million people, filesharing is not a crime, it is a mandate.
Labour achieved 9.5 million votes at the 2005 general election, for this it received 356 out of 646 possible seats, and became the government.
If 20 million people in the UK are filesharing then it cannot be considered a crime, or a bad act, it is the democratic will of the nation.
The majority of people have decided that previewing a song by downloading it is fair, the majority of people have decided that sharing a file with your friends is not the same as stealing a car.
Therefore, the government must stop trying to make 20 million British people into criminals, but instead should try to understand the cultural changes happening here and then frame the policy agenda accordingly.
The public are not interested in the police spending time in a futile mission to stop kids sharing music with other in order to prop up dying foreign companies. Instead spend the scarce resources on stopping organised drug crime, or on solving murders or on confiscating illegal guns from urban street gangs.
If the government cannot see this, and wants to waste our money on misadventures, then we will throw you lot out and get a government that does represent our values. That is democracy.
The old music companies are not important to the economic future of Britain
Likewise, the music and film industries also need to wake up and smell the coffee, their potential customers like sharing music and film on the web with each other. It is too late, they need to just get over it.
Suing their own customers is not going to help them manage decline. It is not going to turn back the clock. The old companies that represent yesterday's music industry cannot burn down the Internet, however hard it tries. The Internet has become far bigger and far more important economically and socially than the old music or film companies.
Google is one of the biggest web companies, alone it makes $10 billion in annual profit, that is double the profit for the whole music industry. To put it another way, all of these old music companies are worth, economically speaking, half a Google.
Things change, that is life, get on with it. The arrival of electric refrigeration killed off the ice storage companies. Tough luck, no one made a law protecting the old ice storage companies against people using freezers in their homes to make ice.
These old music and film companies if yesterday must be told to just live with it, get on with it, embrace it. Make services that appeal to these people, or cease to exist. Governments must not kill the Internet golden goose for some old dying companies.
The old ice storage companies going to the wall did not end cold drinks in the summer, in fact electronic refrigeration led to a massive increase in the number of cold drinks available.
Likewise if the old music companies are too slow to adapt and go to the wall, it will not be the end of music, or the beginning of the end of music, it will be, as Churchill famously said, the end of the beginning.
Politicians, this is your final warning
If you are a politician, be aware, we are watching you like never before. In the past you might have taken party contributions from special interests and then given them special treatment.
Now we, the public, have our own communication channels and this time, we will punish you for it. You will represent us, the people, or we will remove you.
1 Pierre says...
Hi,
I were totally agree with what you said, until this sentence : "If 20 million people in the UK are filesharing then it cannot be considered a crime, or a bad act, it is the democratic will of the nation."
The problem is I do agree that patents, copyrights, etc.. in our countries (I'm french...) are absurd, I think that filesharing (as far as it is controlled, and done with some intelligence) is a good way to improve media qualities. However the argument that you are using is awfully risky.
Imagine that someone use your argument to prove that something else than filesharing is great - let's try to prove that Reality TV is great : "If 20 million people in the UK are watching Reality TV then it cannot be considered as [...] a bad act, it is the democratic will of the nation." Hum. I don't think so. Let's try another example which can be understood by everyone : "If more than 20 million people in the world subscribed to Revolving credit then it cannot be considered as [...] a bad act, it is the democratic will of the world." (you can continue this with a lot of things : wars, starvation, etc...)
I think we should not be confused betwen what liberty is and what "full- licence" (does this word exist in english ?) is. A drunk man want to drink alcohol, it does not mean that it's good for him.
Anyway, I don't think neither that filesharing is alcohol, nor that you are drunk ; to share things is the principle of the life. The only problem is that people think that money (or property, like you want) is the most important principle in our societies.
Pierre.
(hum like I said I'm french, and my english is not perfect, I hope I didn't make too many grammars mistakes :-)
Posted at 3:36 p.m. on April 18, 2008
2 numerodix says...
Speaking of silly laws, I read the other day that photographers of all people in the UK are now having trouble taking pictures in public, that's right in public, because they're being apprehended under all sorts of bogus suspicions (terrorism, child abuse).
Not that it's at all relevant, but since I have no disagreement with your argument I thought I'd just throw that in.
Posted at 3:41 p.m. on April 18, 2008
3 Zeth says...
@Pierre,
If 20 million people in the UK believe that filesharing is not wrong, then it is probably not. That is how democracies work. The main thing that political institutions add is delay, a cooling off period. This can be a good thing if the public have been temporarily brainwashed.
In France, if the people vote for a new policy and a new government gets control of the National Assembly, then the Senate might block the policy. However, this is only a delay. If the people still want the policy when the Senate election comes around, then the public gets what it wants.
Democracy, aka mob rule, is the only system we have, it is the least worst system for structuring an extremely large number of people, even if we have to put up with wars, starvation and Reality TV.
Posted at 4:01 p.m. on April 18, 2008
4 Pierre says...
@Zeth:
You are totally right - according to Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". Even if I agree with this sentence, it is not what I tried to say.
The principle of the democracy is that "mob" (as you said) leads "mob". What I was saying is that "mob" must not be confused with liberty and licence, capacity. We all have the capacity, of doing everything - from eating french fries to killing his neighboor. If in the world, liberty means capacity, I think anyone may kill his neighboor. However, not so much neighboor are killed, so I believe that we can't affirm that liberty = the capacity of doing everything.
So, what could be the liberty then ? The only answer that mob*Â have found to that question is : liberty = self-government, autonomy. Bob's ideas must be "limited" by Alice's ideas, and Bob must limit Alice's ideas. THAT is democracy. Democracy does not mean to let *mob make what they want ; democracy is the contrary of the dictature of the mob (hum, grammar question : is it "mob" or "mobs" ?)
So, in order to enjoy real democraty in our countries, I suggest to any democratic citizen to stop to say that if a lot of people do something, then this thing is good. Even if everyone do something, this thing can be bad (that is, I think, one of the biggest failure of the democraty).
Posted at 5:31 p.m. on April 18, 2008
5 some other guy says...
A good argument, but consider what that argument does for speeding - nearly everyone who drives speeds, but I don't think that you would argue that speed limits should all be raised or eliminated.
I am sure that the 'speeding' example suffers from logical flaws, or something, but I never did study logic.
Posted at 6:53 p.m. on April 18, 2008
6 Pierre says...
That's exactly what I'm saying, some other guy : the fact that people use or don't use something can't be used as a criteria to know whether or not this thing is good.
Posted at 7:29 p.m. on April 18, 2008
7 Zeth says...
@Pierre, whether filesharing is good or not is another matter. The question is whether the government should try to criminalise an activity that 20 million people are involved in. And what sacrifices are made in order to try to stop them.
What I speak of is privacy. The private and non-commercial sharing of information should not be of any concern of the government. It makes no difference if that information is passed between a man and a wife talking in bed or two strangers linked only by a shared bit-torrent.
In the government's haste to prop-up old business models, it is trying to removing all digital privacy.
@some other guy
As for speeding, firstly I am sure every driver in Britain is not speeding. Secondly crashing cars kills people. Thirdly, the British transport is such a complete and utter pile of mess that I don't think it is worth getting into here.
Posted at 9:14 p.m. on April 18, 2008
8 Zeth says...
Some the comments or emails I have received are along the lines of "but what if the majority of British people believed that murder was okay, would we then legalise murder?".
Firstly, sending your friend a 6 MB file over the network, is nothing like murder. This is an Apples and Oranges comparison, they are so different actions that it does not make sense to compare them. Secondly, the majority of British people don't believe that murder is okay, they never have and they never will.
I think a better comparison is between file-sharing and non-smoking. 40 years ago, only a minority of the British public were non-smokers. In those times it was not possible to legislate against smoking. Only after non-smokers became the majority in Britain, was it feasible to act against smokers.
The smoking lobby was powerful and rich, but it was an old business model, it lost out in the end. (see below)
Likewise Internet file-sharing went from no-one (because the technology did not exist), to the majority in the space of a decade or two. The idea that the only was to distribute music is in plastic, surrounded by a plastic box, surrounded by a plastic wrapper; this is an old business model. If the companies don't move into the sharing age then they will lose out in the end.
Smoking kills people. Private file-sharing does not. The link is that the old guard in both industries decided to lobby/bribe the government to support their aging business models.
Posted at 9:16 p.m. on April 18, 2008
9 Zeth says...
Footnote to last comment
The government in Britain taxes smoking very punitively; lung cancer and other smoking related diseases make a huge extra cost to the National Health Service (British health care is almost all provided by the state), so it is only fair that smoking makes a large contribution to the public purse.
Smokers choose to risk lung cancer, etc, but smokers also force this risk on others because non-smokers still have to breath in the smoke filled air. Therefore in Britain, we banned smoking in workplaces, pubs, restaurants and other places that non-smokers are likely to be.
These were only possible after most people became non-smokers.
Posted at 9:16 p.m. on April 18, 2008
10 Pierre says...
@Zeth:
So, tell me if I have understood what you have said : you want to know if governments are right to criminalise filesharing (which is used by 20 millions persons) ?
At first glance, let's suppose something which seems obvious, but which is wrong (i'll explain why I think this later) : the government must criminalise something bad. So the question "Is the government right to criminalise filesharing which involves 20 million people ?" becomes "Is the filesharing which involves 20 million people is something bad ?". As I said before (read my first and my second post, I hope that I convinced you), the fact that people use or don't use something can't be used as a criteria to know whether or not this thing is good, so "Is the filesharing which involves 20 million people is something bad ?" becomes "Is the filesharing a bad thing ?".
I just proved that : "Is the government right to criminalise filesharing which involve 20 million people ?" <=> "Is the filesharing a bad thing ?". To this question, we can answer no, filesharing is a good thing (as far as it is controlled, and done with some intelligence), as I said before (since the debate is not about the result but about how we get it, I won't prove that filesharing is a good thing...).
So, if the government must criminalise something bad, the government is wrong to criminalise filesharing. Furthermore, I would say : the government must NOT criminaliser anything ; in an ideal city (or country, or anything else...) the government (if it does exist...) should prove to his citizens that something is bad, without having to criminalise it, without having to persuade people that something is bad (what would be the difference between that and propaganda then ?). Wise citizen would understand. So I believe that if a government criminilise anything, it means that it takes mobs for morons (huhu - according to democracy principle, that would mean that mob take mob for morons ? it sounds pretty realistic :-)
Then, I totally agree with you, filesharing can not be compared to murder - on this subject, you can read this : Intellectual Property is a silly euphemism (notice that I never compared filesharing with murder, I just say that anyone has the ability to do anything : eating french fries and killing his neighboor can be some good examples. Another example of what I wanted to prove can be taken in Proudhon's book, "What is Property ?" : if liberty = the ability to do everything, then it exists the liberty of stealing everything for everyone (according to his ability), so it means that you can steal everything to everyone, but everyone can steal you anything - it's the main principle of the "law of the jungle". The problem is that the "law of the jungle" is the absolute negation of liberty : in those "societies" everyone is the slave of everyone, so if libery=the ability to do everything, then liberty does not exist...)
Then, of course in all my speech what I meant by filesharing, is the filesharing of copyrighted materials. I don't think that government wants to criminalise "legal filesharing" (I hope so).
Posted at 11:41 p.m. on April 18, 2008
11 Pierre says...
And about smoking, I don't know if it's the same in England, but in france, "hard" laws against smoking are recent : in my personnal opinion (which is very subjectiv, and maybe a bit wrong), if government wants that people stop smoking, it's because cancers made the National Social Security (Sécurité sociale, the organism which pays off medical cares) lost too much money.
Posted at 11:46 p.m. on April 18, 2008
12 nawitus says...
Owning the anarchist cookbook is illegal in the UK.
Posted at 12:05 p.m. on April 23, 2008
13 Andrew West says...
@zeth,
Just a small comment with regards to smoking. In 1998 smokers cost the NHS an estimated 1.7 billion, while tax from cigarettes raised the government near 10 billion. Obesisty is costing the NHS an estimated £7 billion, but as yet I haven't seen the government raising the cost of a chocolate bar to nearly £5.
Posted at 12:47 p.m. on April 23, 2008
14 Andrew West says...
@nawitus.
Is it? Since when? Someone better tell Amazon before the police find out; Cookbook
Posted at 2:44 p.m. on April 23, 2008
15 Casual reader... says...
"Firstly, sending your friend a 6 MB file over the network, is nothing like murder. "
It is true that sending your friend a file over the network is nothing like murder. But it is also nothing like filesharing.
Posted at 11:35 a.m. on June 16, 2008