Comments on: Defend Intellectual Property against Mr. Toad

By: Richard D North

Richard D North — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:58:25 +0000

One of your commenters asks were’s the difference between making an ’80′s “mixtape” and 21st century filesharing. Isn’t it the very large difference that the former were usually replicated once or twice whilst the latter are intended to be and often are “published” or “broadcast” on a massive scale?

By: Heather Yaxley

Heather Yaxley — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:36:41 +0000

I agree that there is something modern about Toad’s impulsiveness and law-breaking attitudes. He certainly was challenging the status quo of his times – and the motor car was the equivalent of the internet for many in the establishment. It is a great book – and maybe all the better that anyone can read it now online as it is out of copyright.

By: Paul Seaman

Paul Seaman — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:21:12 +0000

Heather, Mr. Toad provides a foretaste – circa 1908 – of the Me Generation that came to define 20th century consumerism. He’s is a devil-may-care Toad obsessed with his feelings, desires and his shifting life-style whims. He’s forever tugging at the constraints of society in the form of his friends’ expectations and, sometimes, the law. There’s something thoroughly modern about him.

It struck me – as I read the book to my twelve-year-old son – that he was a lovable Mr. Self or Mr. Me; a basically decent chap that one cannot but like, even when disapproving of some of the things he did (as I disapprove of the abuse of copyright).

In short, despite his toff origins, Mr Toad is a modern classless impulsive consumer. This ditty from the book celebrating his return home from prison, captures his spirit well:

The Toad- came- home!
There was panic in the parlours and howling in the halls,
There was crying in the cow-sheds and shrieking in the stalls,
When the Toad- came- home!
When the Toad- came- home!
There was smashing in of window and crashing in of door,
There was chivvying of weasels that fainted on the floor,
When the Toad-came home!
Bang! go the drums!
The trumpeters are tooting and the soldiers are saluting,
And the cannon they are shooting and the motor-cars are hooting,
As the- Hero- comes!
Shout- Hoo-ray!
And let each one of the crowd try and shout it very loud,
In honour of an animal of whom you’re justly proud,
For it’s Toad’s- great- day!

By: Heather Yaxley

Heather Yaxley — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:35:26 +0000

I’m amused by the use of Mr Toad here – a toff of course. Were the magistrates and authorities seeking to protect the rights of the poor villagers whose lives were endangered by Toady types in their big smelly motors? Or was it that motor cars were seen as very common and not the sort of thing approved off by stuffy old legal types. Similar thinking seems to underpin a lot of the discussion about Internet and its free use.

Interesting that in the case of UK roads, these were subsequently built and paid for largely by the state and tax payers – not by users. The Internet was created and built largely by goodwill of those interested in its development. The music industry and others have only come to see its use belatedly – and in the case of providing access to their wares, often after facing the pressures of those who saw its advantages (even if this challenged copyright).

I am also rather puzzled by some of the way that copyright is seen today – it seems to apply very selectively to the “creativity” of some sectors (usually those that have been using it to make money). It was created for a purpose in previous centuries and so should be worthy of at least considerable debate today when other common practices have been challenged by the shifts of time.

Finally, it is ironic that you can so freely quote from Wind in the Willows given that its copyright expired in the 1980s.

By: Tim Pendry

Tim Pendry — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:42:04 +0000

I liked this well argued post even if, as a natural libertarian, anarchist some would say, I disagree … Where one stands on this issue is a matter of ideology. Once you have your ground, then and only then do you work through the consequences logically.

If you make certain ideological assumptions about property rights and the rule of law, then your argument stands up well – as does the anecdote about Bjorn Ulvaeus.

I start from a different ‘ideological assumption’ that the cost of a determined intrusion into private life by the Government in its attempts to protect the property rights of a few creatives and the industries that have built up around them is far too great in terms of our wider liberties.

There is a balance here to be struck but the accumulation of wealth by (say) Elton John, Madonna and others belies the fear that real creative talent will be pauperised.

Wide ‘free’ exposure increases the brand value of creatives (as we saw with the Arctic Monkeys) to the point where they automatically begin to reap the benefits from events, merchandising, actual product sales and so on. It is all about effective capitalist organisation under evolutionary pressure – we don’t need Government protecting creatives any more than it should protect the media.

By what right can special interests, representing minorities, obligate Government, which is supposed to represent the interests of the majority, to use its monopoly of force against ordinary families (indeed, terrorise them into compliance with the needs of special interests against their will)?

(I deal with this further at: http://asithappens.tppr.info/journal/2009/9/11/new-labour-and-the-lazy-libertarians-of-britain.html )

In short, your and the Government’s position represents the apex (typical of New Labour and of Mandelson) of a system where the political drive is to place propertied interests automatically above the democratic interests of the population, a shift from democratic socialism to traditional liberalism that this Party and Government has never tried to hide.

It also makes an amusing and ironical comment on the values of the Generation of ’68 which wittered on and sung about freedom thirty years ago and is now solely concerned with property rights and pensions. This is why I am with the kids and the pirates – it is a political revolutionary and libertarian revolt against a stale culture that talks freedom but secretly fears it …

By: Alan Brighty

Alan Brighty — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:54:37 +0000

You say we could apply common sense in administering the law. Never! Common sense is rarely applied! Witness all the idiocy over wheelie bins. The main point is: do we need even more laws? They have quadrupled under the pro-EU socialist government. The system is groaning already. Interestingly, I read that 75% of the people who download go on to buy the music in DVD or CD form. That makes rubbish out of the claims of hundreds of millions in lost income that the music industry lobbyists insist results from piracy.

By: tim beighton

tim beighton — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:10:09 +0000

Oh dear paul, I really hope your being sarcastic!
Normally I tend to agree with your arguments, in the least if not necessarily the whole however this time you have over stepped the mark.
Your article does not answer the one question that may back up your claims, you just presume it is given: why is internet piracy wrong?
You cannot compare it to rules of the road or shipping lanes etc. These rules are to stop people dying or coming t harm. Piracy of music does not kill, maim etc.you also miss another important point thatfilesharing is globall, since I last checked e don’t have a global government so New Labours plan is not really going to work, I and many others will just use a proxy server!
Could you also explain how filesharing is different to making mixtapes in the 80s? Or did you never do that either? There is strong evidence to suggest that those who fileshare actually contribute in music at least to a vibrant music industry and infact increase competition in the industry.
I worry you are writing as an idealist with little thought for reality when you state that commonsense should apply. When it comes to law in the UK commonsense is usually. Very far behind.
I think Bjorn is just concerned about his pocket more than his daughters moral upbringing.
One final question; could you explain why I should pay 79pence for a song in the uk when the same is far cheaper to buy in the US. If the playing field was fair in the first place perhaps less would be inclined to be pirates!
Finally and I could go on and on in a rant on this topic,leave the internet alone its beauty is its anarchistic development, you try to monitor and legislate it too much and its soul will be ripped out.

http://www.prnigeria.blogspot.com

By: Edward Boggis-Rolfe

Edward Boggis-Rolfe — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:55:12 +0000

Freedom to surf is the same as freedom to do anything else, if you do something wrong you deserve to be locked up, I consider being disconnected is the same thing for doing wrong on the internet.

Having said that legal file sharing of copyrighted material should be made easier, if that is made to be the case it is so much less hassle than illegally ripping and publishing your own copy. I think that record companies have realised that and sites such as Spotify will solve this public need for all but the most hard core. It is just that the old fogies in the recording industry have taken years to catch up with the new realities, technologies and revenue streams.