Print

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

[kitz]

ok thanks rizla -
When explained like that then like you say it does seem fair enough.

[guest]

The Grauniad has an article about this in today's edition :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/piracy.digitalmusic

[oldfogy]

Holy Moly, I'm gonna be rich soon.

So prosecutions are not working, probably because of the 16 people prosecuted they had no money to pay the fine.
Now throw the ball in the court of the ISPs, so when you are reported to them (your ISP) by the powers that be, your ISP is now the bad guy for threatening or cutting you off and cancelling your contract of which they will then be losing revenue.

But imagine, finally, that a rigorous self-regulation procedure is in place, and that the internet populace knows about it. Does the BPI think its members' sales will grow? For once, Phillips hesitates. "That's really hard to answer. But it would send out the message that copyright is to be respected, that creative industries are to be respected and paid for," he says. "It would mean that the people who are paying for content wouldn't be subsidising those who don't. But I can't say to you now that it would make sales grow, or by how much."

Yes I know that piracy is illegal, but this is not about piracy this is about making the powers that be look as if they are doing something to keep making money for themselves "at the cost of the Music & Film Industries"

1. Just think of the fringe industries that will cease because of this cutback ?
2. Just think of how much money people will save per year by not having to buy equipment ?
3. Just think how much revenue ISPs will lose ?
4. Just think how many FREE time people will then have to get into trouble ?

DRUGS:
1. Illegal
2. Dangerous
3. Health hazard
4. Funded mainly from crime
5. Availability, world wide in every city and town.

Did the government stop them?
No, so they part legalised them.

And by the way to any movie mad people reading this, Rambo IV (John Rambo) is a first class movie, I know I watched it last night. But be warned, this movie is definitely not for the feint hearted. Blood, Gore, Guts, you name it, it's in it.

PS, as per usual, my fee for advertising of any movie or music can be donated to my local dogs home charity. 

[Floydoid]

Just a couple of points.

Firstly if the music industry got its act together and the big guns such as EMI, Sony, etc made more of their back catalogues available as reasonably priced downloads, then maybe that would discourage some of the piracy.  (For example I'm pretty sure that little if any of the Beatles output is legally available online.)

Another thing, if some of these more draconian methods are imposed by the industry / ISP's then file sharers will inevitably find a way around it, such as zipping files up and giving them obscure names.

We will just have to wait and see.

And heaven only knows when the movie industry will wake up and realise that almost as soon as a major release appears on video, it has been ripped and stuck on a torrent site.

[oldfogy]

Basically what it needs is for someone who is being prosecuted to be able to stand up and fight back, but this costs money, which the normal everyday person does not have.

Uploading media to the internet is not illegal (it's there for your storage)
Downloading material of which does not belong to you nor do you have permission to download it "is illegal"

So for a prosecution to take place the industry has to put up media to trap people into stealing it, this I believe is what is called ENTRAPMENT.

But this is an old argument of which will continue for some time to come.

[Accordion]

This is quite an interesting discussion and I've learned something from it.

I am in a minority because I don't really care? If I want music, I go out and buy CD's. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. The only exception is listening to some radio on line occasionally or listening to Accuradio on line  because they have a Celtic channel.

I confess to having ripped a few videos from YouTube m'lud.

[guest]

Uploading media to the internet is not illegal (it's there for your storage)
Downloading material of which does not belong to you nor do you have permission to download it "is illegal"

You have that the wrong way around

In England & Wales :

Downloading copyrighted material is not illegal unless it can be proven you knew before commencing the download that the entity making the material available did not have the copyright holders permission to distribute it or that you intended to use the material for commercial gain. Common sense really as you can't tell for example whether the BBC have the copyright holders permission to make material available for download or not.

As soon as you upload copyrighted material (e.g. on P2P apps) then you immediately break the law as you know that you do not have permission from the copyright holder to distribute the material. Your only possible defence could be that you were unaware how P2P works and hence didn't realise people were downloading from you.

That's why usenet (for now) is bulletproof and P2P isn't. The entity distributing the material is the one responsible for ensuring copyright is honoured rather than the recipient.

[oldfogy]

Basically what it needs is for someone who is being prosecuted to be able to stand up and fight back, but this costs money, which the normal everyday person does not have.

See what I mean.

[mr_chris]

Rizla's right, OF... if you use BitTorrent to download a movie / album / whatever, then it automatically starts sharing and 99% of the time as soon as you've got a few chunks, then someone else starts downloading from you, i.e. you start distributing the copyrighted material.

Given that you know you don't hold the necessary copyright to distribute this material, in part or in full, so therefore you are almost immediately breaking the law. The excuse of storing it on the Internet just would not wash (you're not exactly uploading it to a private online backup service, and there's no way anyone could convince a judge/jury that you were doing so, or that you didn't know the difference!)

P2P is dodgy, and I suppose it was only a matter of time before they found some way of prosecuting here in the UK.

Rizla, as for your comment about Usenet being bulletproof - you know the usenet providers don't hold the copyright for stuff hosted there. You'd probably get a bit further with an argument that you're not distributing, etc... you didn't know that the person who uploaded it didn't have permission to do so, etc... but I wouldn't like to put it to the test in court!

Of course it would be the usenet providers that would get done first, as they're actively and pretty much openly facilitating the distribution of copyright material, through a central repository. I reckon the usenet bubble hasn't got long left, before we see similar cases to the Great Napster Shutdown!

ps. would anyone have guessed that the Napster case started over 8 years ago, on 4th January 2000 - wow, that long ago?   Napster had been ordered to shut down by July 28th that same year! Doesn't time fly?!

[guest]

Rizla, as for your comment about Usenet being bulletproof - you know the usenet providers don't hold the copyright for stuff hosted there. You'd probably get a bit further with an argument that you're not distributing, etc... you didn't know that the person who uploaded it didn't have permission to do so, etc... but I wouldn't like to put it to the test in court!

Nor would I personally as it could be demonstrated that I do know the score, so to speak.

The route I would suggest people take with usenet if they were ever threatened is the financial route. The user pays the usenet service provider a monthly fee and ALL usenet service providers have a statement saying "no piracy, tell us about something copyrighted and we'll remove it" so the end user has a reasonable expectation that what is actually present on usenet is not pirated.

Of course anyone who knew the first thing about how usenet works would say thats a load of rubbish, and they'd be right but try proving it in court. Not going to happen in the immediate future and like you say it'll be the providers who go first so that's the bulletproof part (for now). I can't understand how the usenet server operators have kept going "unscathed" so far when they've always been the logical target but they have....

[Broadband1]

If you think about it P2P isn't illegal as the File host "Buys" the CD then rips it to his PC and Shares the file. It like me borrowing a CD to my mate as long as I paid for the CD its all good so theres a BIG flaw to that plan

[oldfogy]

I can't understand how the usenet server operators have kept going "unscathed" so far when they've always been the logical target but they have....

Maybe because they are not so well known about and therefor don't come up in internet conversations very much, unlike some site, therefor keeping out of the headlines and the limelight which after all is what draws the attention to the powers that be.

If you think about it P2P isn't illegal as the File host "Buys" the CD then rips it to his PC and Shares the file. It like me borrowing a CD to my mate as long as I paid for the CD its all good so theres a BIG flaw to that plan

The small print usually printed around the edge of the disc usually states something like: "No Copying, Lending, without permission"

Basically you/we pay only to be able to listen or watch the contents of a disc and nothing else.

[Broadband1]

i have been P2Ping for god knows how long and police came round once asked me where I get my music i said P2p luckily Londons Police is fairly corrupt so maybe i see where BBC are coming from but then again you guys place a good arguement that buying CD's only Funds so called Celebrities aka Amy Whitehouse and Pete Dokety drug addiction and somehow when they take drugs police take no action but if say I just held a joint of marajuana I would be in prison quicker that Dwain Chambers could run 100meters  maybe its just how life goes Celebrities are immune to Arrest even Paris Hilton speeding ticket jail for 3days and my brother got 6months in prison for doing 25 in a 20 zone

[guest]

BBC :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7258437.stm

"Its intentions are outlined in a creative industries strategy paper called Creative Britain: New Talents for the New Economy."

Makes you want to :vomit: doesn't it? I can't help wondering what the dept of culture, media and sport is actually for? It certainly doesn't seem to act in the interests of the taxpayer anyway....

[kitz]

From the Telegraph

Virgin Media takes fight to illegal downloaders

Virgin Media looks set to become the first British internet company to crack down on customers who download music illegally.

Music trade body the BPI is working with Virgin on a pilot which could see dozens of customers sent warning letters.

The trial by the UK's largest residential broadband supplier will go live within months and disconnecting customers who ignore warnings, a sanction favoured by the record BPI, remains an option. The trial will also be open to film and television studios.

This would be the first time a British internet company has publicly moved to share responsibility for curbing piracy. Two years of negotiations between record labels and internet service providers (ISPs) have so far failed to produce an industry-wide agreement.

A spokesman for Virgin Media said: "We have been in discussions with rights holders organisations about how a voluntary scheme could work. We are taking this problem seriously and would favour a sensible voluntary solution."

The BPI has teams of technicians to trace illegal music downloading to individual accounts. It will hand these account numbers over to Virgin Media, which will match them to names and addresses.

Six million broadband users are estimated to download files illegally each year, costing record labels billions of pounds in lost CD sales. ISPs have so far resisted calls to control the traffic that passes over their networks, raising issues around customer privacy and the difficulty of accurately pinpointing file sharers.