I’d rather though we used appropriate analogies. Poor analogies only harm our arguments.

Since I never leave out an opportunity to plug them… I’ll point you at http://www.baen.com If you look at the “Free Library” there you will see masses of free books from award winning & best-selling authors. No DRM.. no strings attached. You’ll also see some essays by those same Authors showing how their sales of physical books actually improved when they made books available for free online.

I wouldn’t argue with you that people who put time and effort in creative endeavours should have an opportunity to make money. However, shouldn’t they have to do this through the free market like everyone else?

In order to even start to justify policies like the DEA, we have to believe that there is no effective way for entertainers to recoup their investment through the free market and that charging for copies is the only viable business model such that the government needs to step in and enforce it. However there is ample evidence that this is far from being the case.

A growing number of musicians and other creators are currently experimenting with alternative business models and many are making good money from their efforts. It looks very much like a transition in the market place is in progress, albeit still in the early stages. This is the kind of thing the government should be encouraging – wading in with ham-fisted legislation with the goal of propping up the legacy entertainment industry is exactly the opposite of what it should be doing.

while I agree with your sentiment, your analogy isn’t entirely accurate.

It’s like Danny going into the shop with a “future gizmo” analysing the biscuits in the shop and determining their exact composition and the recipe to create them, then walking out without the biscuits and baking his own. It’s never been about the shop, it’s about the people who spent the time and effort to create a popular recipe not being paid for their efforts. The shop is simply incidental.

Biscuits are a bad analogy in their own right. It’s like walking into a bookshop, making a photocopy of a book and walking out with the photocopy. The reason no one does it with books is because it’s more expensive than just buying the book. The issue with digital copies is that it costs nothing to create them.

It’s not just illiberal, but the blatant disregard of the principles of due process is a truly breathtaking example of a law which tramples all over everyone’s basic freedoms.

And don’t get me started on the whole “copyright infringement is not theft” angle – imagine if Danny walked into the shop and instead of taking the biscuits, used a futuristic portable baking machine to make an exact copy of the biscuits and left the shop with just the copies? Who is harmed by this and why should it be illegal? Last time I checked it wasn’t illegal for a shopkeeper to not make a sale because his customers have found another way to make biscuits!

(Option A)
2.1.12 Given this emphasis on growth and balanced legislation, we recommend the repeal of sections 3-18 of the Digital Economy Act, which relate to copyright infringement. Good legislation is built upon a robust evidential framework and a clear democratic mandate, neither of which were secured in this case. The ultimate result has been a deeply flawed and unworkable Act which stands only as the main emblem of a misguided, outdated and negative approach.

So does that mean it is now official Lib Dem policy to scrap secs.3-18 of the DEA? (I guess what I’m asking is to what extent are conference decisions binding on the party?)

No, A1 is nothing to do with the DEA. It’s about the policy, as outlined in the policy paper, of establishing a new government department for IT.
A2 affects only option A (the one that rejects the DEA), and strengthens the language about supporting creators’ rights.
A3 is about protection of internet hosts from libel action.
A4 upholds the right not to be forced to use the Internet.

There were then two options, A and B. A rejects all the controversial parts of the DEA (web-blocking and disconnection). Option B would only have called for repeal of the web blocking, and only suspending the disconnection. Option A (as amended by A1) was passed.

However, only the votes on options A and B affected the policy that was passed in the policy paper (Plain text link). All other votes were symbolic.

F28 Results – Preparing the Ground: Stimulating Growth in the Digital Economy (Information Technology Policy Paper)
A1 rejected,
A2 carried
A3 carried
A4 carried
Conference voted for Option A

I’m unclear, was A1 the motion rejecting the Digital Economy Act?
Motion as amended carried

There are other reasons people download illegitimate copies than simply free-loading. In many ways the “free” stuff is just a superior product, or actually the free product is available, while the official product isn’t.

“Illegal” MP3 downloads have gone down significantly since Amazon and Apple have made them available cheaply and above all without digital rights management. Finally consumers can get what they want, easily, at a reasonable price and unencumbered by cripleware that leaves them seething with fury that the £200 media gadget they bought can’t play the music they just bought. Steps forward.

TV programs and Films should be next. It’s sort of happening in the US already with HULU and Netflix, but Europeans are banned from those sites.

Which brings me to the blatant cartel behaviour. What if the music/tv/whatever you want to PAY for just isn’t available, and shops are not even allowed to provide if they know you are in a different country? This is true even in the EU where free trade of goods and services is enshrined. Once you delve into the realm of digital media the whole thing turns out simply to be a lie. Go to amazon.de and try to buy something physical and they’ll happily ship it. Try to buy something digital and no go. You won’t even be able to add it to your shopping basket. The message is, “we don’t want your money,” and consequently people will find others ways of getting what they want. The industry is actively encouraging that form of “piracy”.

And with all things like this, once you’ve lost a customer you’re unlikely to get them back.

If the music album I want is cheaper on amazon.de then I should be able to buy it there, just as I could the MP3 player I’d listen to it on. But I cannot and until this ridiculous situation is changed free then trade in the EU is very much being made a mockery off by the entertainment industry.

Instead of punishing consumers of digital media, the industry should be encouraged to get it’s house in order (and punished where it infringes other existing laws, not given exemptions) and provide the media people want in an easy and accessible way.