Three-strikes piracy deterrent not for S'pore
Monday, November 16, 2009 07:02 PM
SINGAPORE--The government will not be adopting the "three-strikes" law just yet, since existing laws are already in place for appropriate action to be taken against illegal content-sharing offenders.
According to the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), the country currently has no plans to introduce a graduated response system, or the three strikes law. If implemented, users repeatedly caught downloading content illegally will receive up to three warnings before their Internet access will be terminated. Countries including France and Britain have already approved similar legislation.
"The implementation of such laws in other countries are very new developments, and we are monitoring these developments as part of our regular environmental scan of the international copyright landscape," IPOS spokesperson Tan Mei Jue said in an e-mail interview, pointing to statement posted on the statutory board's Web site.
"Illegal downloading and illegal file-sharing are violations of copyright law in Singapore, and there are remedies in our copyright law for copyright holders to take appropriate legal action against copyright infringers," she added.
Tan noted that in an IPOS survey released in April 2009, more than 90 percent of online respondents said they were aware of Singapore's existing copyright law and its consequences. Nine out of 10 respondents also understood the importance of protecting intellectual property (IP) rights, she said. The two-part survey included a poll of 1,011 Singaporeans aged 15 years and above.
Cyril Chua, a partner at local law firm ATMD Bird & Bird and specializing in IP and technology, supported the stance taken by IPOS.
Describing the three-strikes law as "merely an additional obstacle", Chua said in an e-mail it would be a challenge tracking offenders in cases where, for instance, broadband access is shared by multiple users.
According to the lawyer, however, current Internet Service Providers (ISPs) liability provisions under the Copyright Act are not useful to "tackle downloads by end users".
Other ways to combat piracy
Chua noted that the best way to combat piracy is for the local police force, operating within the IP Rights branch, to take the lead.
This division has "all the powers under the Criminal Procedure Code to compel ISPs to disclose the identity of frequent downloaders of pirated materials", through which the police can conduct raids and get the necessary evidence to prosecute these offenders, he explained.
"All it would take is a few high-profile prosecutions. Once the public is aware that [illegal content] downloaders are prosecuted, they would stop," said Chua. "While some may claim that this is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a pea, this is clearly the most effective method. The only unresolved issue is whether the police would have the bandwidth to handle such cases."
Other industry watchers are calling for education, rather than persecution, to rid online piracy.
CEO of music streaming service we7, Steve Purdham, is one such advocate. In an article he wrote for The Times last month, Purdham noted that learning from past mistakes to develop reasonable and sustainable models for providing music to consumers, is "more likely to reduce piracy than today's 'three-strikes' proposal".
"While there is room for some form of deterrent for repeat offenders, simply cutting people off is not the answer, and educating consumers about alternatives such as legitimate online streaming, would go much further to resolving the issue," said Purdham.
In a survey published by The Independent on earlier this month, respondents who admitted to illegally downloading music spent 33 pounds (US$54.9) annually more than people who do not. Commenting on this finding, Mark Mulligan, research director of Forrester Research, said in the article: "The people who file-share are the ones who are interested in music, [and they] use file-sharing as a discovery mechanism."
Three-strikes piracy deterrent not for S'pore
Are we going into a total copyright gridlock? Yes, when looking at the music industry itself. No, when looking at necessary revenues (monetize?) for those that make (write) music. It would be stupid to throw a whole body of law away because an industry is taking away too much money from the ones that have the creativity. So music authors should start using the rigths given to them by copyright law. They then should use the regained power to facilitate their own (social) network to allow the ones in their network to download their music legally and for free. And that those who want to earn money from using music should pay a fee for the licence. All this can be done by using the internet as a distribution and fee earning system.
In this way the social networks around music(ians) can get stronger, the networks can then be used to monetize on the strength of the network aimed at those that want to earn money from music. A nice bit of quotes, beautifully told but not a solution to the problem. The music author should still be enabled to earn money from his creativity. Go and check out www.villamusicrights.com where the autor enjoys the right to determine its own licences for those who earn from the(ir) music and where listeners (You and I) can legally download and for free
So I agree that music authors should stop signing contracts that after becoming famous don't seem so nice anymore. That sounds a bit hypocritical, start giving away licences for free to home users and start charging those who earn money from using the music, (web) radio stations and the like. The internet is the ideal machine to realize this. In that the music can really become everybodies possesion and in the mean reap revenues for the creators among us.
Website: www.villamusicrights.com
Posted by oxana gonzalez on Monday, November 16 2009 10:19 PM