Official Ares Free Download

This morning, at 3:00 am,  I was sitting at my computer wondering why the hell I do this. It isn’t because of the money. There isn’t any. It isn’t because of the glamour. There isn’t any.

Then I realised why. It’s because I’m angry. Really angry.

And I want you to be angry too.

What got me going yesterday was the TalkTalk bullshit.

The company is pretending to stand up for the rights of its customers and the Telegraph, normally one of the better UK news sources, wrote it up as though it was a genuine breakthrough, instead of a blatant PR move designed to portray TalkTalk owner Carphone Warehouse  as a good guy in a sea of bad guys.

What’s got me going today is another Telegraph report, only this time focusing on a new move by his lordship, and corporate entertainment industry shill, Peter ‘Mandy’ Mandelson (right).

He’s another of the corrupt, self-serving politicians looking after the interests of Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures at the expense of the public whose taxes pay his salary.

The story says >>>

In an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill, the Government has made it possible for those accused of illegal filesharing to be asked for a contribution towards the cost of the appeals process.

Amendment 200A was tabled by Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary on January 13 in an effort to clarify the wording of the Bill around how the costs of targeting web pirates will be apportioned between the suspected offenders, Internet Service Providers and the rights holders – such as record companies.

Yes, you read it correctly.

Mandelson isn’t only promoting a hard-core entertainment cartel bidniz plan which’d hang British file sharers out to dry, if they appeal, he wants them to pay for it as well.

“People wrongly accused of illegal downloading would be able to appeal the disconnection before it happened and could be charged by Ofcom, the media regulator, to cover the administrative costs of the appeals process run by the Tribunals Service”, says the Telegraph, noting the service is “unable to say how much this type of case would cost as it was subject to consultation”.

Another corporate shill

CMU was created in 1998 by Chris Cooke, the late Alastair Walker and Fraser Thomson to create “something which brought together everyone working in music and the music media, utilising the college network to reach the grass roots,” it says.

“Crucially,” the bill is being “heard first in the Lords, meaning it will move to the House Of  Commons with an election very close,” says the CMU blog, pointing out:

“That means it will be discussed at a time when those pesky MPs are more sensitive than ever to emotive predictions (by those who oppose the legislation and its anti-piracy three-strike provisions) of innocent families losing their internet connections thanks to a heavy handed record industry. And while the Tories are seemingly generally in favour of the DEB’s copyright-based proposals, they have issues with other parts of what is a rather eclectic bit of legalisation.”

So, “Basically it is not assured that this Bill will glide through the Commons on the nod”, says the post.

But one of Mandy’s keenest supporters, Geoff Taylor, speaking at MIDEM, doesn’t agree. In fact, he  reckons the bill is a done deal. But what else would he say?

Taylor is another corporate shill. He’s the mouthperson for Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s BPI (British Phornographic Industry) and they’ve bet the house on Three Strikes being rammed through not only in Britain but elswhere and, ultimately, in the US.

“As Taylor was talking up the bill in Cannes, one of its most vocal and well-funded opponents, the boss of internet service provider TalkTalk, was in Westminster trying to persuade political types to oppose the legislation,” it says, goiing on >>>

As previously reported, TalkTalk’s Charlie Dunstone hates the idea of having to tackle copyright infringers on the record industry’s behalf, mainly because of the costs involved in operating three-strikes and the PR challenge of suspending the services of paying customers.

Yesterday in a TalkTalk-sponsored event in Westminster, Dunstone insisted to the MPs and Lords who had swung by for coffee that his anti-three-strikes campaign was about protecting consumer rights and not protecting his company’s profits. Unfortunately for him one of the key lobbying groups he brought with him – and probably the most high profile campaigners for consumer rights in the UK, the Which magazine people – don’t especially agree with Charlie boy’s position.

As previously reported, Dunstone argues that if the record companies reckon one of his customers is illegally file-sharing then they should sue that customer directly through the courts – ie launch lawsuits like the 139 pursued by the BPI between 2003 and 2006, and the 30,000 plus lawsuits pursued by the Recording Industry Association Of America during the last decade. But such lawsuits don’t work for all sorts of reasons. Plus the record industry would argue that a system that begins with a stern but informative warning letter sent to a file-sharer via his or her ISP is more consumer friendly that a system that begins with punters on the street being served legal papers by a record company.

Meanwhile, “Creators will continue to create,” says Bill Glahn.

“Fans will continue to support them” and even if the bill somehow scrapes through, “Three-strikes will fail when the results become apparent to those even outside of the artist and fan contingencies. The only question is how much damage will be done to both emerging artists and their fans before that failure is complete.”

Stay tuned.

Jon Newton

Related Articles

 Enjoyed this? Subscribe to the feed.