Headlines - Scare-mongering digital music leaflet plays into BPI?s hands

Quote:

---

Leaflet for schools and parents by Childnet International suggests the ?three strikes? ISP demand is already the law.

---

Read more.

I realise that Scott Bicheno appears permanently on the lookout for something to froth about, but calling this pamphlet "tendentious" has very definite pot/kettle nomenclature issues.

The pamphlet does NOT "...<conflate> P2P with MySpace, Bebo and Facebook, and all of them with the spread of viruses and ‘unwelcome content.’", it specifically distinguishes the various services, how they operate and the risks attendant upon using each. It only mentions viruses and unwelcome content in the context of P2P and denying that there is a risk of that when using P2P software is frankly burying your head in the sand. Its description of the potential for social networking sites to host content - "You can create your own pages and post messages or upload your own videos, photos and music for others to see." - looks fairly accurate to me.

It does NOT suggest that the "three strikes and you're out" proposal is already law. What it says is "Consider what would happen if you faced legal action – who would pay the bill or lose out if their internet access was disconnected?". It is perfectly possible NOW for a rights holder or their representative to bring legal action against someone infringing copyright, and to secure their disconnection by informing the ISP of infringement - I know people that it's happened to. Check the terms and conditions of your broadband service; you'll find that there is probably specific provision in there prohibiting the unlawful use of copyrighted material over your connection or on any hosting provided, and reserving the right to terminate your agreement if this prohibition is broken.

"Fair-use provision?" Technically, we're still not quite part of the USA... Seriously, the use of copyrighted material in schools has ALWAYS been governed by licenses - there isn't a blanket "fair use" provision for educational institutions - or for anyone else, for that matter. It's usually legal to quote small sections of a work, for instance, but not to photocopy the whole thing or show a whole film without permission or license to do so.

Sorry, but this article's a gross misrepresentation of what's in the pamphlet, and is a little naive about the law as it stands.

I'm with nichomach on this one.

There seems to be a far more sensationalist tone to many of the artcles of late. It's not something I expect from HEXUS.

(And btw, whats with the odd characters in thread titles? IS there some weird encoding happening with the HEXUS.channel posts or is Scott using a strange browser/OS configuration for posting?)

I have to agree with nicho too - that (Hexus) article is alarmist and, from what I can see (having read the article and the leaflet several times) misrepresents what that leaflet says.

There are aspects of music sharing that are legal but many are not. There are legal risks to be faced, and they can be significant and serious. There are other risks too, especially from file-sharing services, and they do include getting material that isn't what it purports to be, or is what it purports to be but carries viruses and/or trjans with it.

That leaflet doesn't seek to provide a comprehensive discussion of all the issues in those areas. If it did, it'd be a book, not a leaflet. It's intended to get people thinking about the issues, and about what is both reasonable and legal, and what isn't.

I can't see anything in it that isn't absolutely accurate.

Thanks for your excellent feedback guys.

It’s important to remember that the leaflet’s stated aim is to be “A guide for parents and teachers about digital music at home, at school and on the go.” It positions itself as a disseminator of the truth thus invites scrutiny of the veracity of its account. It’s also important to remember that there are many ways to convey a message or impression.

I will also concede that there is a lot of useful advice in the pamphlet and it is initially convincing as a ‘guide’. All the more reason therefore to scrutinise ways in which it appears to deviate from its stated purpose.

To conflate is to combine two readings into a composite reading. The page ‘Unpicking the Jargon’, in my opinion, does not sufficiently differentiate between P2P and Social Networking. Additionally, while file-swappers are indeed vulnerable to risks such as viruses and ‘unwelcome content,’ so are all internet users. Unsupervised children can easily find ‘unwelcome content’ on the internet without P2P or social networking. Predation is a particularly acute problem in social networking, but that is not what this leaflet is about. I believe the suggestion that music sharing increases the risk of predation is false. If I am ill-informed, I would welcome enlightenment.

The question ‘consider what would happen if you faced legal action – who would pay the bill or lose out if their internet connection was disconnected?’ undoubtedly suggests that disconnection is a possibility for file-sharers. Copyright infringement covers a wide range of offences. If anyone has been disconnected by their ISP because of free sharing – as opposed to selling – material in breach of copyright, I am unaware of it. Again, if there are such precedents I would be grateful for them to be brought to my attention.

The leaflet invites teachers to conflate file-sharing with plagiarism. Plagiarism is a very big problem for educators at all levels. They should not blur the line between using another’s material for personal gain and file-sharing.

The leaflet says: ‘Many uses of copyrighted music in the classroom for teaching purposes are allowed by exceptions in the law that apply to educational institutions.’ Somehow generations of teachers have managed without referring to A Guide to Copyright Licensing in Schools, as the leaflet recommends. Fair use is indeed a legal term more associated with US system than with the British. So is freedom of speech, which is much more severely constrained in the UK – notably in the fat cats’ charter known as libel law – than across the pond.

Childnet’s brief is internet safety for children. It is, in my opinion, misleading to combine, in one pamphlet, the gut-wrenching issue of internet predation by paedophiles and the legally, morally and socially separate issue of file-sharing. If Childnet had researched the issue more carefully, a more balanced and – yes – less scare-mongering publication would have resulted. It is fair comment to point out that Pro-Music is not an unbiased source.

I do NOT recommend or endorse illegal file-sharing. However I DO object to the established music industry’s pose as the defender of creativity. The majors have legal rights and can enforce them, but the main advantage of Common Law is that it adjusts to changing circumstances. Laws are usually changed when a sufficient number of people disregard them. That appears to be the case with copyright law as it stands today.

The article was not an attempt to sensationalise the issue, but to expose what I perceived as flawed factual linkages and an at best disguised agenda. The pamphlet claims to be a digital music guide but, to me at least, appears to have the aim of recruiting parents and teachers to fight on behalf of the music industry to protect its revenue streams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott B

Thanks for your excellent feedback guys....

---

Firstly, the sections covering P2P, WiFi & Bluetooth and social networking are completely separated under separate bold headings. That's pretty un-conflated, Scott. Secondly, predation is not relevant in any way to this discussion; it isn't even mentioned in the leaflet. The leaflet mentions specifically issues around unwelcome content and malware over P2P networks, and however much smoke gets blown, that is a very real issue.

Disconnection IS a possibility for filesharers, as is a civil action for copyright infringement, and without naming names I know a chap here at work whose home broadband service was disconnected for that very reason.

Your assumption that schools have been somehow immune to or unaware of copyright issues is false. It was an issue that was very much alive when I was at school, and that's over 20 years ago; I recall discussing the exceptions and licenses available for schools, along with, for instance, how much of a book they were allowed to copy - and the copying in question was being done on Banda copiers. Our music suite at secondary school had PRS stickers up, FFS. Schools and universities have ALWAYS had to be aware of copyright and have been issued extensive guidance on it for donkey's years. Just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't know why you've chosen to froth about libel in your response, but the correct term is "defamation" of which libel is one form and slander another. You are mistaken in assuming that equivalent laws do not exist in the US; they do, and are even allowed as an exception to constitutionally protected free speech, where malice can be proven on the part of the defamer.

Once again, the leaflet does not mention predation, Scott. It mentions objectionable content, but that is not the same thing; you are reading into the pamphlet words that simply are not there. The pamphlet is not sensationalist, nor is it actually misleading, but your response is both, I'm afraid.