Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jabns]

Full story: Click Here

I would love to know how the government would implement this!

I have been using a little pogram called Peer Guardian for a long time now and the invaisioon of my privacy is quite shocking. For example when getting custom versions of ubuntu off thepiratebay.org torrent tracker i have about 20 government and anti-p2p IP's trying to connect to the PC with the ports forwarded to it every min.

I personally think that the music industry ect... are going the wrong way about this. I think they need to look at why people are using these methods to get the content, eg: money, quality, bang for buck ect....

I have got music using usenet before. Then after listening to it thought either yes these people deserve my money or no these people do not deserve my money and then it gets deleted.

Also when you see the "stars" doing drugs it makes you wonder why you are funding someones drug habit.

What your thoughts???

James

[roseway]

The music and video industries are rich powerful companies who would do just about anything to preserve their vast profits. And they don't do it for the benefit of the artists, that's for sure. The big name stars no doubt make a lot of money out of it, but the lesser artists get ripped off rotten by the music companies. The whole industry stinks.

That being said, I can't believe that this will ever come to much. How on earth are the ISPs supposed to distinguish between legal and illegal P2P? If they tried to ban P2P in total there would surely be a vast outcry from those organisations which use it legally (which include some big household name companies). It's yet another example of politicians who have no understanding of technology bending over for the powerful media lobby.

[kitz]

Excellent points

Perhaps the media industry needs to look at why people download the content and address this. Are people viewing it because its available in some countries months before retail sale in the UK or appearing on UK TV channels? Or is the pricing too high? Are the existing downloads available legally too restrictive, in that the digital rights management makes it hard or impossible for people to copy it from a home PC to a mobile device?

[Floydoid]

One of the great things about peer-to-peer is that you can often find long deleted tracks that are no longer available by more legitimate means.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm

Some of the UK's biggest internet providers, such as BT, Virgin and Tiscali have been in talks with the entertainment industry over introducing a voluntary scheme for policing pirate activity, but no agreement has been reached.

So far, they have failed to resolve how disputed allegations would be arbitrated - for example, when customers claim other people have been "piggybacking" on their internet service.

Will be interesting to see how this one develops.

[jabns]

Alot of the open source software/VMware images i use are distributed by torrent netorks because how are a group of people surposed to afford hosting for for iso's that are 700mb+.

The one good thing about IP's is they have to be registered to someone so i just ban any gov,edu,anti-p2p,unused IP blocks and finally corporate IP's.

James

[soms]

Indeed some projects like OpenOffice.org have moved away from traditional hosting to torrent downloads.

The odd bit of music I really want i will buy on iTunes if I can find it, or i'll buy the CD/record on eBay cheap.

I am with Floydoid that some music just isn't easily available to buy, or cannot be bought as a single track, which leads to the occassional search on Limewire. If the music industry cared even a little about consumers rather than the profit margin perhaps they would offer an alternative for those who don't mind paying something from turning to P2P.

I certainly never leave P2P on and remove files from the shared folders - mainly because I dont really like using it and also uploading counts towards my monthly usage.

[oldfogy]

The Times is reporting this morning that a green paper due to be published next week could see ISPs forced to disconnect users found to be downloading illegally obtained music or movies.

Well that will save me £45 PM, plus my ISP would be losing another TV and BB customer.
Because I would no longer need the service I have at present.

So I can't see that ISPs would implement that type of strategy, "they want our money" that is why they mainly introduced the FUP and capping.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

[kitz]

>> So I can't see that ISPs would implement that type of strategy, "they want our money" that is why they mainly introduced the FUP and capping.

In all fairness to the ISPs bandwidth does cost - I did a report a few years back and at the time it worked out that it cost the ISPs something like 67p for every GB that you download.  They then have to pay port costs at the exchange to BTw of what was £9.87 each and every month.   Therefore to break even before they even started adding on any of their own costs or equipment or foreign transit..  the ISP had to collect apprx £12 from each and every customer per month for just 1GB.  For every additional GB add on about another £1.

The full workings out are here
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/adsl_cost.htm

Prices at the exchange have fallen slightly since then...  but it gives you an idea of what and what isnt sustainable.

Cable costs are different since thats fibre thats already laid.

[jabns]

I think just about everyone in the country has downloaded at least one song or knows someone that has. The music industry must not be bothered to find out WHY such a vast amount of people get there music this way.

I think you should pay for digital content when the price is right and the content is of good quality and available to you. As i said in the last line of the first post i just sometimes wha the money is funding.

Some of you may know this already but in sweden politions have to be carefull what they say to sway voters. More info is available at: thepiratebay.org.

They have a 2 videos called "steal this film 1 & 2" and a blog. They also have a funny(a bit tasteless) legal threats section.

[guest]

El Reg has an article up about play.com "opening" their DRM-free mp3 shop :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/13/play_uk_drm_free/

The comments are worth a read through.

My personal opinion is that the pricing is still out by an order of magnitude. For audio piracy to "go away" then the cost of purchasing individual tracks needs to be trivially low. 65p a track is not trivially low - its the record companies STILL trying to preserve their traditional (physical product) markups. Try 5-10p per track and an easy way of making those "micro-payments". That's what it'll take and frankly that's all most tracks are actually worth to the average individual. That price is quite achievable too as there isn't the same distribution chain for data as for physical product.

IMHO we've still got a few years of the tiny (for it is tiny) record/film industry bribing (lobbying they call it) politicians to protect their markups via legislation before the whole copyright system collapses. The complete and total failure of DRM to protect the record industry from piracy is starting to make some in that industry realise that there is no "silver bullet" to enforce copyright. The film industry is still stuck back in the 1990s though.....

[guest]

Another one

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/15/tiscali_bpi_agreement/

Looks like Tiscali and the BPI have fallen out

[oldfogy]

Money, Money, Money,

This is most certainly one time where disharmony in the ranks is good news.
All I can say is the more they continue to argue among them selves, the better for us.

[soms]

It looks like the BPI and cronic illegal music downloaders have something in common - they want something for nothing 

Surely they need to spend some money to save all that money they claim their precious industry is loosing?

[kitz]

"Discouraging customers from using their accounts unlawfully is an obligation that any ISP should bear as part of its core business. That is the socially responsible thing to do, and it's disappointing if Tiscali sees illegal behaviour on its network as a further opportunity to make money at the expense of the music community."

Are they implying that the ISP should be monitoring their users accounts there?  I cant quite make that out.
If so I have no doubt that the isps would be up in arms about the cost of this.

After all if you post a letter, the Post office doesnt open all the contents and examine them..  nor (afaik) do the telecoms industry monitor all calls just to make sure that nothing unlawful is discussed between parties.

Whilst some ISPs may filter out specific content - Im talking the childporn stuff I have no problem with that.
But monitoring anything and everything?

[guest]

I actually have some sympathy with the BPI's viewpoint regarding the Tiscali "agreement" 

As I understand this "scheme" ISPs don't have to monitor anything as the BPI will submit details of any infringement. Even with dynamic IP addresses it should be obvious whether the BPI are chancing their arm or not - "three strikes and you're out" actually seems quite fair really provided enough time is left between reports.

Assuming that they aren't chancing it then I'd say the situation is more like a nuisance phone caller - once you've told BT about it then you wouldn't expect to have to pay BT to investigate or to enforce their own terms & conditions and you'd expect BT to prevent that caller repeating the same actions time and again.

It IS Tiscali though so I may be letting bias affect me