Response from Susan Elan Jones

[serpentstar]

Here it is:

Dear Mr Sturrock,

Thank you very much for your email, and especially the detail you have gone into for what is for most of us 'non-techies' a complex area. I am quite happy for you to post my response on-line if you like.

Now, in terms of the Act, my understanding is that the main aims of the legislation was to ensure that we

Comments

[greylock]

Thank you very much for your email, and especially the detail you have gone into for what is for most of us 'non-techies' a complex area

I am building up a mental picture already of what she might look like.
Ex-teacher by any chance?

The copyright issue is one a few residents have written to me about. The view they have taken is that illicit file-sharing is costing the UK’s creative industries and creative talent hundreds of millions of pounds a year and that if we do nothing, it will be a blow to jobs and economic growth - and could also put at risk the films, computer games and music that people enjoy.

Bollocks. The only people who would have "reached out" to her over that issue are lobbyists.

[serpentstar]

I don't know her background. "Non-techies" is a bit scary though. I'm decidedly a non-techie, and I have no trouble grasping the Act's implications (though I'm glad to discover, after a bit of research, that some of its nastier teeth seem to have been knocked out during its accelerated passage through Parliament).

Yeah, I would be very surprised if there are very many film companies, record labels, or large computer game software houses in Wrexham.

[inkymitts]

She just signed it with her forename?
I don't know if I'm just being sensitive but I find that worryingly informal in a response to a serious issue.

[serpentstar]

Full name was just below, with her title (Prospective Candidate etc.).

I did write initially assuming she'd be my new MP, though with the current national Lib Dem swing... who knows?

[swiftblade]

Thing is, we've heard all this before.

I remember when we all had tape recorders and would make mix tapes for our mates and that was the end of the industry. Its all complete crap, the industries are just as successful as they've every been or they wouldn't keep blowing all this money on half arsed massive budget films. They make lots of wonga, always have, always will.

Funnily enough, a few recent surveys have shown that illegal file sharers contribute more to the industries than the average person. Why? Because they're film/music buffs. They buy shit, lots of shit. However, they also download lots of stuff, sometimes to preview, sometimes because they don't think its worth paying for and sometimes because they can and they'd never buy it anyway.

You cannot lose money that would never have been spent in the first place. And guess what? Everyone is selling less at this particular moment, its called a credit crunch. Subject to that though I've seen no evidence of a real downturn.

[_grimtales_]

The assumption that continues to piss me off is the one that a pirated download necessarily means a lost sale.

[swiftblade]

Exactly.

If I download something and its good, chances are I'll buy it. I have a large DVD collection and enjoy adding to it. If its crap, I won't, but I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

Where is the lost revenue?

[swiftblade]

Thought I'd add an example.

The film "Kick ass". I've heard good reviews, it looks ok. there's no way I'd pay to see it at the cinema and I'll wouldn't buy it based soley on the reviews.

If I decide to download it, and it turns out to be shit, then who loses? me for wasting my time, but I wouldn't have bought it anyway. If I download it and it turns out to be a great movie then I'll go and buy it when it's released. Who wins? Well, me and the film company.

I appreciate not everyone takes this view, but seriously, where is the lost revenue in the above scenario?

[renniek]

WRT her response, it seems fairly reasonable - which is to say, at least it seems clear she read your letter, and she attempts to give a considered response to it

[serpentstar]

Agreed.

[nattydreadi]

WRT her the response drafted by her private office, it seems fairly reasonable - which is to say, at least it seems clear she some lackey read your letter, and she has attemptsed to give a considered response to it using a set of pre-approved anecdotes and statistics, and then got the MP to sign it having skim read it to make sure she hasn't sworn at them.

Fixed for you :)
/cynic

[renniek]

Hmm. Is it more or less cynical that I didn't mention any of that because I assumed it was all both obvious and true for all candidates (maybe not for smaller parties - but maybe because they have less letters to respond to)?